So many things about the democratic race and the "spin" that the press is reporting (and thereby promoting) are troubling to me.

First, those who argue that what HRC is doing is "good" for democrats because the republicans will do worse are full of it. I cannot think of any context in which intra-party warfare is good for the party's chances of winning in November. While we expect the republicans to attack and are automatically skeptical of those attacks, it is different when one democratic candidate attacks the other. Just a couple of weeks ago, a large majority of dems would have been happy with either candidate. That was a GOOD thing. HRC is doing everything she can to change that. But all that is happening is that the respective candidates' supporters are getting more and more polarized. You can see in those "new and disturbing" numbers that suggest that if Obama is the nominee, many democrats will vote for McCain. Following yesterday's results, I would look to those numbers to shift in the other direction as Obama supporters' anger at HRC bubbles to the surface.

Second, my growingly cynical view of HRC is that she knows she cannot get the nomination. But rather than leave the fray in a graceful way that strengthens the party, I believe her new objective is the damage Obama sufficiently WITHIN the party in the hopes that he will lose to McCain. That way, she can run again in 2012 as the "I told you so" candidate.

Third, it surprises me how effective her "press conspiracy" accusation has been to people in the press. I saw few articles that pointed out the "canard" represented by her Red Phone ad. I have seen no refutation of the silly "If he can't win the big blue states, how can we win in November" angle. HRC always had the establishment in her pocket. That helped her a lot in those traditionally blue states, but it hardly means that if she is not the nominee, NY, MA and CA will suddenly become red states. Does anybody actually believe that?

What is perhaps most ironic about all this is that women are so behind HRC, despite the fact that in terms of management style, Obama's approach is so much more classically feminine. Again, ironically, though she is a woman, it is hard to see how HRC's un-self-reflective narcissism is going to bring about much change in Washington, or change the way Americans are viewed in the world. is that not obvious?

IRS Threatens Church's Tax Status Over Obama's Hartford, Speech; Perez Asks Congress to Investigate IRS

<link>

Hartford Mayor Eddie A. Perez asked Congress today to investigate the IRS' threat to strip the United Church of Christ of its tax-exempt status over Barack Obama's speech to a church convention in Hartford in 2007.

"If the IRS is successful, every church synagogue and mosque that invites an elected official to speak on issues such as the war in Iraq, abortion, the environment, labor and other issues of social justice could fear loss of their non-profit status," Perez said.

He is asking U.S. Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joseph Lieberman and U.S. Rep. John B. Larson to intervene.

What is wrong with you people? This is a public forum, is this really how you treat people? How is this tolerant or demonstrating on any level, a genuine sense of good will toward others. I appreciate how you feel about Hillary and Obama. However, you blame them for the voters choosing them in various elections. Your attitude presumes that the people who voted for either candidate aren't intelligent enough to make a decision that is correct for them. It's insulting and it reflects an arrogance that isn't going to help anyone in November. The bottom line is that there are millions of people who feel strongly about both Hillary and Obama. Assuming that either candidate can drop out of the race and leave everyone happy is naive and a bit absurd. Just as one person would be unhappy if Obama dropped out, so would a Hillary supporter if she left the race. Blaming candidates for voters feeling excited about them is ridiculous. You really need to get a perspective and at least try to filter out some of your emotional feelings about who will become the nomination. If you really care about the issues that you claim to care about so deeply, then you should act accordingly. Hillary and Obama share the same political positions on just about every single issue. The idea that they are so different as to warrant all the hateful and destructive dialogue that is circulating on the internet is insane. This is why the democrats will lose in November. Don't blame the candidates, it's the voters who will destroy themselves. We are all responsible for how we act and if we would rather trash the opportunity of the deomcrats to retake the White House, then sobeit. However, don't blame this on Hillary or Obama because your attitude is the problem. There are many of us who are loyal democrats and as such, who see both candidates as being able to be successful in November for different reasons. There are many of us who'd like to see a Hillary/Obama ticket primarily for the purpose of securing the White House for the next sixteen years. More specifically, I believe that in eight years, Hillary will be less "marketable" than Obama in that she will be 70, while Obama will be in his 50's. Thus, I feel that since we have two extremely popular candidates, in order to derive as much benefit as possible from them and ensure that we hold the White House as long as possible, I would like to see a Hillary/Obama ticket in 2008. There is no ego here, as a single, college educated adoptive Mother, I just want to be able to have a job that allows me to take care of my family, continue to put two of my sons through college and have healthcare expenses that aren't $500 per month. I want to raise my children knowing that they aren't inheriting an environment, economy, debt and foreign relations policy that will make their lives painful. If that means that I support this candidate or that candidate, then fine whatever it takes to have the democrats back in the White House. At some point, someone has to see the insanity in assuming that either side of this basically 50/50 split of people is going to be happy with the departure of either candidate. This is something that all of you have in common, you all love your candidate more than what they stand for collectively...and what that is, is a change from the way things have been done for the past eight years. I just hope that at some point soon, democrats will wake up, get a perspective and realize that in all their zealous passion, they are killing the dream. If you cannot unify as a party (and that means the voters, not the candidates, as we are all responsible for our own actions), then how can you expect to win the White House in November. The result of all the fighting is another four years of the same thing we've had for the past eight years. If that's what you want, then keep acting the way you're acting. If you want something different, then advocate for it. Start holding your peers accountable and eventually, we might salvage the mess that we, the people, have created for ourselves.

Keisha, way to cut and past the same response over and over and over....

Zebra, have you completely forgotten what it was like for HRC near the beginning of the race? At one point every democratic candidate was on the Clinton bashing bandwagon, including Obama. Debates, interviews, it was all about why Clinton shouldn't get the nom and little about why each of them should. Did you complain about that, or are you just calling foul now that the tables are turned?

I don't like the business of dirty politics just as much as you, but don't try to act like Obama's hands are clean. They both are guilty of it and one shouldn't be critisized more than the other.

What is " obvious " is that you have some psychological issues with " HRC ". You are fully able to call McCain and Obama by their given names, however Clinton is " HRC ".

You need to get a grip.

Same old thing.

Hillary - and her tens of millions of supporters - aren't going away. You don't like that. So, you not only decide that it's bad for the party (a legitimate point), but that she is in some sort of conspiracy to throw the race to McCain, etc.

Neither Clinton nor Obama can win on pledged delegates alone. It is very probable that Obama will have at least a slight lead in pledged delegates. Under the rules, that isn't sufficient to win. That means that the party needs to deal with superdelegates and possibly Florida and Michigan. That isn't Clinton or Obama's fault. Period.

You may have a legitimate opinion about how the superdelegates should act. I haven't formed one.

None of what you say is "obvious." It isn't obvious that Clinton is an unreflective narcissist. It isn't obvious, ironic, or anything but silly and pointless to observe that Obama is "more classically feminine" in management style. The Pew organization has documented press bias again Clinton. You may disagree, but people who believe she suffered bias aren't fools just because you disagree.

If the party suffers, it won't be because of HRC. It will be because of bitter people like yourself.

I call her HRC because if I call her Clinton, then to some it's not clear whether I'm talking about Hillary or Bill. If I call her Hillary, then some say I'm being "sexist" because I call the others by their last names. HRC seems to most neutral. And yes, at this point, her abusiveness is definitely taking its toll on me and I have issues with her.

I don't agree with your analysis. There is a qualitative difference between the politics of personal destruction that Hillary Clinton is engaging in and the criticisms that were leveled against her by opponents.

As examples, I have no problem with her arguinng that her health plan covers more Americans than his would. Whether it's true or not, she believes it and that's legitimate.

I do have a problem with her "Shame on you Barack Obama" indignance over his flyers--particularly given that her own campaign started sending far more misleading flyers as early as Iowa and the Obama campaign never really complained.

I don't have a problem with her believing that her is the better candidate to make change happen because she's been around Washington longer. I do have a problem with her insinuating (e.g., as she did on the Daily Show) that if he were president, he wouldn't even show up to answer the "red phone."

The only thing he has said that can be interpreted as a "personal attack" is to cite the poll numbers that indicate that she starts the race with negatives at 49%. That was not a figure he made up and when he cited it, he was careful to note that it wasn't entirely her fault.

It's true he has called her "more of the same." Like her criticism of his healthcare plan, it's a legitimate distinction as to his perception of their approaches to politics. She herself calls herself a fighter; he has been described as a conciliator. I think it's clear that we've lacked in conciliators in our government in the last 7 years (think of Dubya saying stuff like "I'll listen to any democrat who is on board with my ideas."

But honestly what is the "bashing" to which you are referring?

About all the typos in my previous post. My 11 month old daugther has been sick for 4 weeks and I'm exhausted.

Anyway, I wanted to add: While many are saying that Obama "needs" to go negative against Hillary Clinton (full name included to appease those who think I should not call her HRC), I can honestly tell you that I hope he does not engage in the same politics of personal destruction that she has engaged in and that I would prefer that he lose the nomination than that he take that route. Even though it appears this worked for her last night, it goes against the kind of process change that inspires my support for Obama and just wouldn't make sense to me. So I would rather that he lose than try to cheapen her character the way she has done to him. He has not done this to her during this race and I am proud of that.