If you read certain pro-Clinton sites over the last couple of days, you would think that Barack Obama is not only personally dedicated to to "disenfranchising" all the poor voters from Florida and Michigan, but is actually seeking to have the states removed from the union all together.

I understand Clinton supporters are disappointed, the rage being directed at the Obama campaign seems a little misplaced.  I think a quick review of the facts is in order here so perhaps we can all calm down.

There has been much written over the past several months about what the proper role of the Superdelegates is: Should they should vote with their precinct/district/state?  Should they exercise their independent judgment as to who they feel is most likely to win in the fall?  For what it's worth from a technical, party standpoint I think the Supers should exercise their own judgment, should not be bound by local primary/caucus results, but would need an exceedingly good reason to overturn the results of the primary process no matter how close (and the way the rules are set up, a prolonged two-person race will ALWAYS be very close).  However I would like to submit a different consideration beyond the party: That you do what is best for the country.

I came across this ad on Andrew Sullivan's site and I have to say I didn't think anything else Clinton could do at this point could shock me, I didn't think there was another line she could cross, but I was wrong:

I'm not sure if there are any Clinton Supporters left here after the highly publicized strike, but as I thought about the issue after the heated debate last week it occurred to me that I don't really understand what Clinton's supporters are thinking at this point.  I don't mean that critically, I just am having a hard time understanding the thinking of those that want Clinton to continue her campaign.

Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, have written a couple of fairly harsh diaries about the campaign.  So I am not unbiased.  I had a lot of respect for Sen. Clinton at the beginning of the race but have become quite turned off by the way she has run her campaign.  But I am asking the following questions earnestly and I will try not to make them too loaded.  I am not writing this with the intent of snark, I really want to understand mindset of Clinton supporters at this point.

A lot of people may not like the title of this diary, but this is where the Clinton campaign has driven me.  Why?  One word: The Dishonesty.

Listening to Clinton today on NPR cooly and calmly spout the absolute nonsense that the vote in Michigan was fair turned my stomach.  I expect Bush to tell me that up is down and black is white.  I expect the GOP to sow fear and division as an election strategy.  I expect my party to do better.  I know politics is a rough and tumble game and harbor no illusions of the brutality that is to come in the general, but we need to move beyond the lying and divisiveness, and Clinton, clearly, either cannot or will not do that.

So it's now desperation time.

With Obama's big win in Wisconsin the cheesehead firewall has been breached.  I have always thought that WI was actually must-win for Clinton and getting blown out there does not bode well for her in TX and OH.  She may yet win one or both of those states, although I doubt it, but it nomination is now out of her hands, the only think that could save it is some Obama mistake or other outside event.

The question now becomes, how much damage is she willing to do the frontrunner and presumed nominee and, by extension, the Democratic Party.

Let's find out:

I am sure I will get some hatin' from the Clinton crowd, but enough is enough.  I started this campaign season undecided, felling I would be vey happy with Clinton or Obama (or Edwards) as the dem nominee.  I ultimately decided on Obama for a multitude of reasons (the Kyl-Lieberman act being what pushed me over the edge), but I still had a lot of respect for Clinton.  That is no longer the case, as this race has gone on my respect for Sen. Clinton has slowly been eroded as I have watched her campaign repeatedly put her ambition ahead of the good of the party or the country.  And today her campaign has stated quite clearly that they are willing to wage a scorched earth campaign to try to win and if it tears the party apart, so be it.

More:

There are probably two schools of thought in terms of responses to this diary title:

1. We should never declare defeat! I must troll rate you now.

2. The Dems have already surrendered on everything there is, what is there left to declare?

My point here is that the Democrats need to seriously re-think their strategy on the war in Iraq, and they need to do it BEFORE the "Petreus report" comes in September.  And part of that strategy needs to be accepting that Bush is going to do what he wants with troop levels as long as he is president and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it and we should stop trying.  Why? Here's Why: It's all about 2008 now.  Hear me out below the fold.

So I am watching this on-line chat with Richard Cohen where he tried to defend his free Scooter Libby column (and I say watching because he has yet to respond to any of the numerous polite questions I have posed) and I am simply astonished at the level of wankery ocurring right in front of my eyes, so I though I would share some of the choice nuggets with you all (although reading the whole thing is good entertainment):

This will be a short diary, but I don't want the people here to miss this, although I suspect we will see this spread far and wide about the blogosphere quite soon.  Pachacutec at FDL is liveblogging the Libby sentencing hearing and got this nugget from Judge Walton when the defense referred to the brief on behalf of Libby files by Bork, Dershowitz and the rest:

We all rightfully applauded Nancy Pelosi's excellent leadership as she managed to get the Iraq supplemental spending bill passed including a binding timeline for the withdrawal of American troops.  Bush's rush to condemn this as "political theater" demonstrates how nervous the White House is about this.  Although they have issued what seem to be iron-clad veto threats, I think the reason they are so afraid is that if the Senate manages to pass similar legislation (and I think it is possible, the GOP can't fillibuster this), Bush will be forced to sign this bill.  Here is why:

I think Kos should strongly consider not front paging any more polls between now and election day.  Kos mentioned that the Missouri race will be won on the ground.  All these races will be won on thr ground, and we should be acting as if we a are 10 points down in every one!  We need to stay motivated and all the polls can do at this point is demoralize us or give us a false sense of confidence.

I am not a professional pollster, but my thought on why we don't need any more polls, for what they're worth, are below.

According to The Moderate Voice, apparently the GOP has more invested in Lieberman than we thought:

The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.

More:

This is absolutley must see video from the HuffPo, showing both the true sides of pathetic hack Tweetybird Matthews and Tom Delay.

It appears to be off-the-air Hardball footage in which Tweety is talking to Delay about some focus groups Luntz did, reveling in the fact that all the Democrats did poorly, including Hillary Clinton, to which Delay responds:

"There's nothing worse than a woman know-it-all"

Watch the video

I read a letter to the editor yesterday in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that I felt was quite profound and elegant and deserved a wider audience.  In Minnesota the Republicans are trying to get a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage on the November ballot.  The DFL (that's Democrat-Farm-Labor, it is what the dems are called in MN) is currently blocking a vote on the issue in the Senate.  Along comes Katherine Kersten, a particularly ignorant and odious conservative columnist, with a column entitled "Why are DFLers scared of voting on same-sex union?"  The column is a waste of time so I wouldn't bother to read it, but I have reprinted a letter to the editor written in response below:

So I open my browser, the home page is set to CNN.  I am greeted by a picture of the Bushes with Musharraf and some other standing like they are at attention.  No big deal, but I decide to read the caption:

U.S. President George W. Bush gains reassurances from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that Pakistan is doing everything it can to help in the so-called war on terror -- and that both sides will remain in close coordination in the hunt for al Qaeda terrorists.

So called?
More:

Reuters:

WASHINGTON, Feb 23 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would accept a slight delay in permitting Dubai Ports World to acquire a British company that operates six key U.S. ports, senior White House adviser Karl Rove told Fox News.

It looks like Rove has realized this is a big loser for Bush, and thus has begun to step back.  We will have to see what happens though, they are still going to want this deal to go through and the wingnuts will not be happy.

CNN has a story about a new gallup poll showing Americans are concerned about Iran's development of nukes.  But buried in the last paragraph is this little nuggett:

The respondents' concerns were echoed in President Bush's overall approval rating, which dropped to 39 percent, down from 42 percent in a poll taken February 6-9.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said they disapproved of the way the president is handling his job.

So can we stop talking about his poll numbers "creeping up" now?
A little more: