I've never been more ashamed of the "gotcha" and feigned outrage exhibited by the punditocracy and many, many blog commenters over HRC's SD Editorial Board meeting.  Anyone with an ounce of integrity and honesty would have to admit that she was referring to historical truths: that even a day is a lifetime in politics, and that anything can (and has) happened in past election primary seasons.  Yet even having to continually defend her rationale for staying in the race is absurd.  She just won two overwhelming victories in WV and Kentucky; she still continues to outpoint Obama in Head-to-Head vs. McCain in the GE; for all the talk that this is "over", she still runs fairly evenly with Obama in national Dem trackers (closer by the day, lately).  

I'm so sick of these nattering nabobs of negativisim (to quote that wonderful guy <snark>, Spiro Agnew) who chime in daily over what she should or shouldn't do.  Andrew Sullivan?  What a pathetic human being. Howard Fineman?  Please; why would anyone take YOU seriously?  The political chatter in this country is devolving rapidly.  It's really sunken deeper than I could have imagined, and I'm pretty used to the low class b.s. that masquerades as political opinion/commentary.

A total fraud (from Huff Post)

A former aide to President Bill Clinton, and current informal adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton, expressed outrage and shock on Friday after a videotape from 1992 surfaced allegedly showing him describing Indianans as "white n---rs."

Mickey Kantor, who served as campaign chairman during Clinton's 1992 run for the White House and says he has offered help and advice to Sen. Clinton, insisted that the tape was a fraud and that he was exploring legal steps against the individual who posted it online.

"I've never used that word in my entire life, ever, under any circumstance, ever," an angry Kantor told The Huffington Post, citing his and his parent's work fighting for civil rights. "I have listened to [the video] and so have you. You can't tell what it is I'm saying in that second sentence, you can't decipher that."

Indeed, a review of the original copy of the 1993 film The War Room, from which the excerpt was taken (around the 4:40 mark) is virtually inaudible. The sound suggests, if anything, that instead of saying "How would you like to be a worthless white n****r?" Kantor says, "How would you like to be in the White House right now?"

The cropped video, which spread through the Internet like wildfire on Friday morning, shows Kantor with fellow former Bill Clinton staffers James Carville and George Stephanopoulos discussing results from the general election. In the footage, Kantor approaches the two aides and says, "Look at Indiana -- wait, wait, look at Indiana. 42-40. It doesn't matter if we win, those people are shit." That much seems true. The rest can be viewed below:

Kantor, on Friday, insisted that the latter part of his statement never took place and that it made no sense for him to use such language.

"Indiana was not even on our radar screen," he said, "And I was talking about the polling and not the people... If you look at The War Room, this is not the way Carville or George interpreted my statement. This is frankly libelous."

Kantor said he was in the process of contacting "the best" libel lawyers to approach YouTube.com about the process of removing the video from its site. He suggested that The Huffington Post, too, should not print even his defense, as it would be an advancement of a non-story.

"I don't need to be defended," he wrote. "When you write it, what you are doing is extended the libel."

While Kantor said he had no idea who was behind the video or what intent he or she might have, he offered that political motives were at play.

"Many people are subject to this kind of being used in a way to try and stir people up," he said. "I can't say it more clearly, but I had never used that word... My parents would come from the grave and kill me if I used that word."

I'm reading the hubub about Senator Clinton's statements regarding moveon.org and Afghanistan.  Seems people are taking the position that moveon.org in no way whatsoever opposed military action there.  But, is that the case?  

A little googling found a column by no friend of liberals, Byron York.  However, York actually interviewed some principals involved about this issue, so he got details right from the source(s).  Here's a snippet:

The story began with a man who has received little attention in the controversy, a young film student named David Pickering. Visiting his parents' home in Brooklyn on September 11, 2001, Pickering immediately began to worry about the consequences of U.S. retaliation for the terrorist attacks. "It was this incredible moment in which all doors were opened and the world was seeming to come together," Pickering told me in an interview for my book, The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. "I had this feeling that it would be a shame if that were spoiled by a spirit of vengeance."

The next day, September 12, Pickering wrote a petition calling on President Bush to use "moderation and restraint" in responding to 9/11 and "to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction."

At the same time, Pariser (now MoveOn.org's Political Action Executive Director), who had graduated from college the year before and was working at a liberal nonprofit organization in Massachusetts, was writing a similar petition, which he put on a website he created called 9-11peace.org. Pariser noticed Pickering's work and e-mailed him to suggest that they merge their sites. Pickering agreed, and 9-11peace.org featured a petition which read:

We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . .

Meanwhile, across the country in Berkeley, California, MoveOn founders Wes Boyd and Joan Blades were writing an anti-war petition of their own. Entitled "Justice, not Terror," it read, in full: "Our leaders are under tremendous pressure to act in the aftermath of the terrible events of Sept. 11th. We the undersigned support justice, not escalating violence, which would only play into the terrorists' hands."

As they staked out their own anti-war position, Blades and Boyd were also following the progress of 9-11peace.org. In a September 2004 interview for The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, I asked Blades how she had come to know Pariser. "It was after 9/11," she told me. "He put out a message similar in results to the one we had, basically an e-mail petition asking for restraint. It went viral on an international scale. . . . Eli's petition grew to half a million in half a week. Peter [Schurman, the executive director of MoveOn] contacted him because he figured he probably needed some help. We did provide him with some assistance, and we started working together on other issues and eventually merged." In the end, their shared opposition to U.S.-military retaliation for the September 11 attacks brought Pariser and MoveOn together. (For his part, David Pickering moved to Paris to attend film school.)

So, there seems to be a bit of parsing going on by both sides on this issue.  But if York's account is to be believed (and I haven't read any of these people say "I never said that to him!"), I'd say reasonable people would have to come to the conclusion that in the least, main players associated with moveon.org did support the "no military action" in Afghanistan position.  Make your own call, but these people talked to York, so they'll have to account for their statements.

Note: This is as far as my history takes this, as I haven't spent a huge amount of time on it.   If there are further developments specifically regarding moveon.org's support or lack thereof of the Afghan theater, feel free to append.  
But this diary is not about "Hillary is no Democrat", or any such nonsense.  It's only about trying to ascertain what actually occurred during the period in question.  

Anyone who's read my posts knows that I am an unabashed supporter of Senator Clinton.  I still think she could best handle the presidency, and could do better in a GE vs. McCain.  I do believe that Obama continues to be a wounded candidate in many respects.  Try as he might to change the story, the damage with the Wright controversy will be lasting, particularly among many who viewed his candidacy with trepidation to begin with; many of whom he needs to win.  

But given that it now seems clear that there will be no satisfactory resolution to the Michigan/Florida situation, I don't see how she can expect to overcome him in the popular vote, which would really be her only true chance of convincing superdelegates.  This "anonymous" leak about 10 percent chance of winning will quickly become the narrative, and losing Governor Richardson's endorsement --while not all that important given future primaries-- is icing on the cake.  

Jeff Greenfield moderated a panel discussion at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y Sunday night that dealt with the anti-Clinton media bias that has been prevalent in this election cycle.  Joe Klein, Jonathan Alter, and Rich Lowry were on the panel.

Klein actually named the names of the prominent newsies who have taken a very anti-Clinton stand: Russert, Chris Matthews, and Maureen Dowd.  Alter actually got loudly booed when he tried to deny any bias vs. HRC.  Here's the Conde Nast Portfolio article written by Jeff Bercovici:

She might not win the presidency, but Hillary Clinton has succeeded at one thing: getting us all to think about whether the press prefers Barack Obama over her.

Last night, three of the most prominent political commentators -- Time columnist Joe Klein, Newsweek scribe Jonathan Alter and National Review editor Rich Lowry -- tackled that issue in a discussion at Manhattan's 92nd Street Y moderated by Jeff Greenfield.

Klein, who's also a CNN regular, was most unequivocal in spotting bias.

"I do believe there's something weird a few of our colleagues have [against Clinton]," he said. "They tend to be Roman Catholics, actually. People like Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd. They've had it in for Bill and Hillary Clinton since Monica Lewinsky. They feel that the Clintons are trying to put one over on us all the time."

Lowry dismissed favorable treatment of Obama as "a classic bandwagon effect -- whoever's winning is a genius." But then he reversed course somewhat: "The glee we saw on the airwaves prior to New Hampshire about what everyone considered the imminent demise of Hillary Clinton was obvious." And analyzing last week's debate, he said, "I thought it was obvious that Tim Russert and Brian Williams were harder on Hillary Clinton."

Alter, for his part, actually drew loud boos for denying widespread media bias against Clinton. One male audience member seated near the back of the room even cried out "Bullshit!" (It should be noted that Alter is affiliated with NBC News, home to Williams, Russert and Matthews.)

Alter did say he thought Clinton was sometimes treated unfairly because she is a woman, but hedged even on that, saying, "It's hard to disaggregate her Clinton-ness from her gender."

This is the column posted by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius today, March 2.  And this is exactly why I can't buy into the "hope" or "hype", whichever you prefer, because the evidence just doesn't support it.  

Obama: A Thin Record For a Bridge Builder

By David Ignatius
Sunday, March 2, 2008; B07

Hillary Clinton has been trying to make a point about Barack Obama that deserves one last careful look before Tuesday's probably decisive Democratic primaries: If Obama truly intends to unite America across party lines and break the Washington logjam, then why has he shown so little interest or aptitude for the hard work of bipartisan government?

This is the real "Where's the beef?" about Obama, and it still doesn't have a good answer. He gives a great speech, and he promises that he can heal the terrible partisan divisions that have enfeebled American politics over the past decade. This is a message of hope that the country clearly wants to hear.

But can he do it? The record is mixed, but it's fair to say that Obama has not shown much willingness to take risks or make enemies to try to restore a working center in Washington. Clinton, for all her reputation as a divisive figure, has a much stronger record of bipartisan achievement. And the likely Republican nominee, John McCain, has a better record still.

Obama's argument is that he can mobilize a new coalition that will embrace his proclamation that "yes, we can" break out of the straitjacket. But for voters to feel confident that he can achieve this transformation should he become president, they would need evidence that he has fought and won similar battles. The record here, to put it mildly, is thin.

What I hear from politicians who have worked with Obama, both in Illinois state politics and here in Washington, gives me pause. They describe someone with an extraordinary ability to work across racial lines but not someone who has earned any profiles in courage for standing up to special interests or divisive party activists. Indeed, the trait people remember best about Obama, in addition to his intellect, is his ambition.

Obama worked on some bipartisan issues, such as a state version of the earned-income tax credit, after he was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. But he also gained a reputation for skipping tough votes. The most famous example was a key gun control vote that he missed in December 1999 because he was vacationing in Hawaii. The Chicago Tribune blasted him and several other vote-skippers as "gutless." One Chicago pol says that "the myth developed that when there was a tough vote, he was gone."

Obama's brash self-confidence led him into his only big political blunder. Prodded by the Daley machine, he challenged Bobby Rush, an incumbent Democratic congressman and former Black Panther, in 2000. Rush pounded Obama by more than 2 to 1 in the primary. "He was blinded by his ambition," Rush told the New York Times last year.

Obama has been running for president almost since he arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2005, so his Senate colleagues say it's hard to evaluate his record. But what stands out in his brief Senate career is his liberal voting record, not a history of fighting across party lines to get legislation passed. He wasn't part of the 2005 Gang of 14 bipartisan coalition that sought to break the logjam on judicial nominations, but neither were Clinton or other prominent Democrats. He did support the bipartisan effort to get an immigration bill last year, winning a plaudit from McCain. But he didn't work closely with the White House, as did Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The Obama campaign sent me an eight-page summary of his "bipartisan accomplishments," and it includes some encouraging examples of working across the aisle on issues such as nuclear proliferation, energy, veterans affairs, budget earmarks and ethics reforms. So the cupboard isn't bare. It's just that, unlike McCain, Obama bears no obvious political scars for fighting bipartisan battles that were unpopular with his party's base.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

Voting for a candidate is always an act of faith -- a belief that the politician will win a mandate that allows him to transcend his own past limitations and those of his party. Ronald Reagan taught the country something about the ability of a world-class communicator to create such a new political space that defies the previous categories.

No one who has watched Obama's sweep toward the nomination would say it's impossible that he can be the great uniter. I just wish we had more evidence.

Here is ABSOLUTE PROOF that this so-called Clinton "leak" of this Obama Somali dress photo is bogus.  Follow the timeline.

Time:  Saturday night, February 23, 7:25pm Pacific.  Some right-wing poster at freerepublic.com posts a scanned photo --taken from the National Examiner supermarket tabloid of February 4, 2008-- of Obama in the Somali clothing.  

Freerepublic.com post Saturday Night February 23.

Later freerepublic posts specifically state that someone has to "get this to Drudge".  

As regards Drudge, who in their right mind would think that someone from the Clinton campaign would say "Hey Drudge, post this photo of Obama and please state that it was leaked by a Clinton Campaign Staffer!".  Patently absurd.

This case is closed, and the Obama campaign now has to make it clear that it's the right-wing that's trying to damage him, NOT Senator Clinton's campaign, with this photograph.  If they don't, it's tantamount to perpetuating a lie.  

Yeah, I know...Now the mantra will be "I bet it was a Clinton staffer who posted it on freerepublic!".  Please...don't bother with that crap.  Enough is enough.  

Gallup Daily Tracking February 19:  Obama 46 Clinton 45

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104437/Gallup -Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx?versi on=print

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton has rebounded among Democrats in the Gallup Poll Daily tracking average for Feb. 16-18. She is now at 45% to Barack Obama's 46%.

Clinton was seven percentage points behind Obama in the Feb. 15-17 average. In Monday night's interviewing, Clinton's percentage of the vote of national voters was higher than Obama's, but there has been fluidity in the nightly tracking numbers over the past several days as Democrats nationally process the intense, often heated, nature of the campaign. Monday's news coverage of the Democratic campaign was replete with a focus on the Clinton campaign's charges that Obama had plagiarized material from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and other negative attacks on Obama by the Clinton campaign. It is unclear which, if any, of these factors could be responsible for changes in the candidates' standing.

The outcome of Tuesday's voting in Wisconsin will be the next major event to have the potential to affect the standing of the candidates.