Before all is said and done, the political damage to Hillary Clinton is probably going to be pretty severe... especially if Obama ends up losing to McCain in November.

Going negative on Obama is one thing, but attacking other Democrats like Richardson who didn't endorse her... that crosses a line in party politics.  We are at a point now where Hillary may have burned too many bridges in her race to the White House.  Respected political figures, Democratic constituencies (African Americans, the netroots), and whole states of Democratic voters have been insulted and attacked by the Clinton campaign and it is very possible that some of these people will want payback.

There are plenty of connected, wealthy Democrats in New York who might see an opportunity to "Lamont" Hillary Clinton for her sins against the Democratic Party.

So... any ideas on challengers?

In an op-ed today in the New York Times, Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN) called for a "superdelegate primary" to be held in June in which all the party's superdelegates would publicly convene and decide the Party's nominee for president.

Here's what Bredesen suggests...

Look, I know that the Obama campaign wants to keep its hands clean on the nomination process, but for God's sake, Hillary's campaign is - minute by minute - starting to tear the Democratic Party apart.

Only one thing is going to stop the internal strife and end the primary contest: a massive outpouring of support for Obama by the remaining Superdelegates who have not committed to a candidate yet.  A surge in Obama support by Supers will put legitimate pressure on Clinton to bow out now, while she might still save face and salvage her political career.

It's almost inconceivable to me that anyone - even the most virulent Hillary Clinton supporters - actually believes that she'd stand a snowball's chance in hell against John Sidney McBush in the general election.

But they do believe it.  The blue-hair set and their feminist progeny have convinced themselves, in a near-Republican manner, to ignore reality and truly believe that Hillary can actually win.

She can't, of course.  Hillary's super-high negatives are only getting higher as she continues to level baseless charges, slurs, and innuendo at Senator Obama.

So today there's been a lot of talk about Howard Dean's comments about avoiding a floor fight at the Democratic Convention.

All of this seems a bit of a moot point, though, if the nominee is decided well before that.  And there's good reason to believe that it will.  Why?  Well, most of the pundits are doing the money math.  They believe that Hillary's empty bank account and Obama's overflowing one pretty much gives the big 'mo to the Big O.  And they could be right.  But there's another factor that hasn't been talked about much.  The fight for superdelegates and more specifically, the implications of the presidential race on the down-ballot races.

There is clearly momentum, even in the mainstream press, to investigate Blackwater.  The American people, I think, are uncomfortable about outsourcing our military to out-of-control Rambo wannabees who make thousands of dollars more than "our boys" and it seems like there would be broad public support to get the mercs out of Iraq.

Even with Bill Clinton set to be the keynote speaker, NONE of the presidential candidates have accepted an invitation to speak at the national convention of the Democratic Leadership Council, which will be in Nashville this Sunday.

DLC Chairman Harold Ford Jr. (Loser-TN) said in May that he "believed that many of the presidential candidates would attend".

Read more about the story here.

Although early signs pointed to this during the 2006 elections, we are now seeing the official beginning of the end of the DLC's influence in Democratic Party politics.  And it's about time!

Just when you thought it was safe to see the 9/11 conspiracy die down, there’s a new doozy being floated out there.  I first heard it at one of those liberal confabs that goes on all the time by a guy at the conference who I've run into before at other political events and, I thought, should know better.

Anyway, this new conspiracy theory – what I will call the "Martial Law Conspiracy" - goes something like this:

The reason that Pelosi and Reid took impeachment off the table in the wake of the 2006 elections is because Bush met with them privately and threatened that if there were impeachment proceedings that he would disband Congress and declare martial law.  Thus, the Democrats are now too afraid to pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush.

Americans generally like the term "flat tax".  Despite it being regressive at its base level, it nonetheless sounds fair to most people - even though they don't know what it means.

Which is why the new Democratic majority in Congress should be reframing the term "flat tax" to make it be a Democratic program that benefits working middle class American taxpayers.  Some of what this diarist says about a possible John Edwards platform goes a way towards doing just that.

By taking advantage of the public's affinity for the term "flat tax" and their simultaneous lack of understanding about how it actually benefits them, I think now is the time to reframe it and create a popular new program - like Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare Reform - that is directly linked to the Democratic Party and its values that help working people.

In the ashes of Harold Ford Jr.'s narrow loss on Tuesday, it is important for Kossacks - especially those from outside of Tennessee - to understand the real reason why Ford was unable to win a seat to the U.S. Senate.

The reason?  Ford lost his left flank.

More on the flip--

Since the GOP's K-Street Project and its chief sponsors (DeLay and $antorum) are now gone, it's time for the Democratic Party to cut ties to the big K-Street lobbying firms.

Make no mistake - the lobbyists will come groveling to the Dems tomorrow to demand a seat at the table.  The response should be: "WE DON'T NEED YOU!  WE HAVE OUR OWN LOBBYISTS - THE GRASSROOTS!"

First, a disclosure.

I have not been a fan of Harold Ford Jr.  The fact that he has consistently voted with conservatives on issues related to Iraq, CAFTA, torture, and countless other pieces of criminal legislation while serving as the Congressman for one of the most liberal - and poor - districts in the South does not rank him high in my book.  Indeed, until tonight, I was fully content to keep kicking the crap out of Junior to anyone who would listen.

Until tonight.

Can someone please answer this question:

Is there a LEGAL reason why the DNC (or the RNC, for that matter) does not run ads on national cable and broadcast TV stations?

I'm not talking about ads for candidates, I'm talking about ads that brand the Democratic Party, running in prime-time on national television shows.

Before we all wonder what an ad like that might look like, do any Kossacks from the legal profession or broadcast industry know the answer to this?

So if the Cons are running around now saying that the Democrats are "siding with the terrorists", are "weak on security", and all the other lies that we know they're going to run on up to November, then why aren't Democrats responding with a major underreported story that

Bush withdrew American forces from Saudi Arabia in 2003?!

Let's remember that one of the key demands made by Bin Laden was for America to withdraw from the Saudi kingdom.

So to me, it seems quite simple--

Bush and the Republicans are terrorist appeasers by giving in to Bin Laden's demands and retreating from Saudi Arabia after 9/11!

In fact, according to the Council On Foreign Relations, "Middle East analysts note that a U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia would hand bin Laden a victory".

Is there some kind of rule in the Democratic Campaign Playbook that when you're handed a weapon by your opponent that you set it down and ignore it?

From the folks at Democracy for Tennessee, the statewide DFA coalition (www.DemocracyForTennessee.com):

Democracy is on the rise in Tennessee as progressive candidates up and down the ballot scored major victories on Thursday in an election that had Phil Bredesen and Harold Ford Jr. receive the Democratic Party nominations for Governor and U.S. Senate.  Thanks to the hard work and determination of the grassroots, candidates endorsed by Democracy for Tennessee and supported by local DFA chapters won all across the Volunteer State, demonstrating the new people-powered network that DFT has been organizing for the last year and a half.

So we hear a lot of complaining about the Christian Right these days.  How they're trying to force their radical agenda on the rest of us.  How they're manipulating churchgoers to vote against their own economic interests.  How they're pushing fear, racism, homophobia, and perpetual war in the name of "values" and "patriotism".  And how they are growing bolder in endorsing candidates from the pulpit in direct violation of IRS and election rules.

So what to do about it?

Monitor them and expose them.

Can someone please explain to me why the Kerry campaign has yet to really hit hard on the Bush clan's connection to the Saudi royal family?

Aside from the Carlyle connections and the military escort of the Bin Laden family out of the country, Kerry and the Dems could close the deal with the American people with one fact that occurred last year and had never really been picked up by the U.S. press,

that Bush withdrew American forces from Saudi Arabia in 2003.

Let's remember that one of the key demands made by Bin Laden was for America to withdraw from the Saudi kingdom.  So to me, it seems quite simple--

Bush has appeased Al-Qaeda by giving in to their demands and pulling troops out of Saudi Arabia.  Do we really want four more years of a man who caves to terrorists' demands?

In fact, according to the Council On Foreign Relations, "Middle East analysts note that a U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia would hand bin Laden a victory".

Game over.  Discuss.