Now the monster they have created has come back to bite them.

No, I already know what he thinks. It came from his Republican friend Hillary Clinton, so he’s all for it.

“I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive,” Hillary Clinton said. “We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.”

God, she has no sense of how she sounds. Barack may be new to foreign policy, which is concerning. But can you imagine Hillary and her tin ear trying to negotiate with foreign leaders? That is terrifying.

No need to be so nervous. What is wrong with a “long fight”? In 2004, Democrats had a short fight, with John Kerry eliminating John Edwards swiftly. Clearly both Rodham Clinton and Obama are superior candidates to Kerry.

So what, if there are more Patterson and Ferraro articles and remarks? The back-and-forth of controversial comments is a symptom of the unquestioned phenomenon of an involved electorate. Lack of controversy would signify apathy and irrelevance. These controversies represent fringe points of view from both campaigns, not their central talking points, so are unlikely to result in a “hardened” convention in Denver.

Your observation about the candidates’ contrasting bases of support is accurate. But so what? A strong two-way race means that if one candidate has strengths in one area, the other, by definition, has to have complementary rather than similar strengths. It would be impossible for them both to be strong in caucus states, or both strong with superdelegates.

Similarly, your observation that he is black and she is female is accurate, but so what? Patterson and Ferraro may have been inflammatory in their comments yet there is no dispute about the underlying truth that she is stronger among white voters, especially women, and he is stronger among African-Americans. No one can deny that racial and gender solidarity clearly play a significant role in this contest.

Many members of those groups are going to perceive subtle messages — intentional or subliminal or imaginary — from the campaigns to reinforce them in their demographic, rather than ideological, decision. Is there evidence that either campaign has exploited racism, rather than solidarity, to get out the vote? No. Has either used sexism, as opposed to gender affirmation, to get out the vote? No. So this is no big deal.

You call it a “nasty endgame.” I call it a closely-fought contest. Surely all of us small-d democrats would prefer that our political leaders be selected after a thoroughgoing contest rather than a superficial one. Onwards to Pennsylvania!

Obama will go into the convention with more decided delegates and criticism that he won most of them in caucus states. Also, he is a black.

Hillary will go into the convention with more superdelegates, and criticism that she is not the popular candidate but the more politically connected candidate. Also, she is a woman.

So, what should the Dems do to avoid a nasty endgame? Who should compromise and why?

You claim this “political debate into victimization”. You close by saying:

In this, the age of offense, let me say, I’m offended.

You then respond to Ferraro individually, with no mention of the Clinton campaign.

Urban Dictionary defines lame:

To be old, Stale, outdated, just a plain blob of moronic clay

I admire your work a great deal, Jeff, but in this thread (and your ongoing free ride given to the Clinton campaign and their strong management skills & experience), you are clearly lame

lost her point with the first terrible misstep, all the worse because she repeated it

is just terribly lame.

When the Olbermann Special Comment this evening (3/11) is posted, please watch & try commenting on.

When you need a high-powered microscope, like the kind Orlando Patterson used, to detect “racism,” you render the term “racist” effectively meaningless as a rhetorical weapon for effecting real (positive) social and political change.

This kind of “discourse” is a disaster for the Democrats.

Bull. How about the many, many subtle sexist remarks made by Obama, his wife and his campaign? Obama refers to Hillary having “tea parties” in the White House and during foreign travel, Michelle talks about people who can’t control their own home not being fit to run the country, it goes on….

Prescott is right…the constant calling racism has been genius. Now people cannot even mention race without being called a Klansman.

Not addressing race at all becomes the MOST insideously racist tactic of all.

PS I have a feeling Obama won’t look as glowing a candidate when the nomination is his, but who knows. Which will make the Democratic Party once again look inward and wonder how it could have nominated such a weak candidate.

As an Obama supporter, I’m saddened to see this happen. Hillary may be many things that some people don’t like, but she’s not running a racist campaign. Obama needs to go back to inspiring people instead of trying to paint Hillary negatively, Show real difference in perspective and approach, not color.

Or it was James Riady warning Sen. Clinton to check an anonymous donation because he might have forgotten to remove the day pack.

This year, that base is going to shatter over the ugly words of people like Patterson, Ferraro, and former president Clinton–the SC comments and more recently the “dream team” stuff.

I think these sentiments have been present for decades, but everyone kept quiet about it in order to build campaigns and voter support.

With McCain as the nominee, a liberal Republican with a temper, I think this Dems are in big trouble.

Too bad. I kind of like Obama, but after the Clintons get done savaging him, he’ll be toast as the nominee. Likewise, Hillary will be loathed by black voters who will stay home in November.