Can someone bring up an issue, any issue?  You know like something that effects real people?  So I can get the bad taste of political strategy conversations out of my mouth.

Opening:  "I'm not choosing sides in the battle between Obama and Clinton."

Um, KO, you made that evident weeks ago.  You are the national spokesman for Obama.

Basically you just called Hillary Clinton a racist.  You just called Hillary Clinton a liar.  

You don't make any comparisons to Obama.  Obama hasn't patently and vociferously denounced the phrase "She's a monster"  or the person who spouted the words.  Obama didn't force Powers out, she resigned of her own accord.  Why aren't you holding Obama's feet to the fire sparked by the words of his supporters?  Because Jesse Jackson Jr has a history of misogynistic and homophobic comments is Obama "awash in the mess" of JJ Jr's beliefs and statements?

Two-faced?  Double standard?  Hypocritical?  Sanctimonious bloviating?  Yes to all.  Go away Keith you besmirch the memory of the one you try to pay homage to, Edward R Murrow.  

one will lose.
one will win.

what is gained by engaging in the mocking, character assassinations and clever back biting that goes on here?

it reminds me of the recount in two thousand.  only this time its dem on dem.  sad if you ask me.

i will be pleased to support the clintons or the obamas.  i look up to both.  why does the party have to torn apart on the basis of what is projected upon one or the other?

I noted elsewhere, I think the Obama campaign changed its strategy recently to reclaim the narrative in the media in a particular way. At first, I thought that meant to target the few remaining undecided voters and states in the nomination process. However, the national tracking polls show that the race has completely calcified. There is nothing but movement within the statistical error range, with each candidate gaining 45% of the likely Democratic voters week-to=week. What if the Obama campaign came to the realization that unity is no longer an effective political strategy?

That would explain the heightened alienation of Clinton voters in the past week--they are not targeting us or independents at the moment. Greg Sargent suggests as much: "The Obama camp is now ratcheting up its public and private efforts to neutralize [Clinton's electability] argument, in hopes of persuading the super-dels to follow the winner of the pledged-del count." Enlarging that to a general strategy, the Obama campaign, with a six week hiatus until the next primary, appears to have abandoned the primary fight in order to marshal the superdelegates in the future.

This also means that the Obama campaign is willing to shoot the moon with its own constituency: there is nothing he can say or do that will alienate his 45%. So, the current gambits over Florida/Michigan and charges of racism against esteemed superdelegates in the Democratic Party are not directed at the party rank-and-file. If we accept BTD's positions on Obama's gambit over Michigan/Florida and the pillory of Ferraro, it seems possible (I won't say reasonable) to consider that the Obama campaign wants to intimidate superdelegates. The Obama campaign is working over superdelegates such that it is next to impossible for them to enforce party rules in a way that disadvantages his current delegate lead.

That said, the Obama-blogosphere and Keith Olbermann must also have superdelegates in mind. High-profile bloggers aside, Olbermann is not a stupid man, he must realize the potential to alienate 45% of his current viewers with a strong denunciation of the Clinton campaign on trumped-up charges of organized, coded racism. Yet, Olbermann, and MSNBC, like the blogs, are willing to risk that. If not for viewership, then, Olbermann's efforts must be for effect, and MSNBC then believes that Olbermann will have an effect on superdelegates' behavior.

Thank you, Susie Madrak, for this post.

It gives me the willies 'cause anybody remember when we head a Dem Congress and a Dem WH and the economy cratered?