Crossposted at Ich Bin Ein Oberliner.

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of reading, thinking, and writing about the Democratic primary. I'm sitting outside, having my morning coffee (and, yes, I know it's about 3 o'clock...), and thanking my stars that one way or another, this thing is going to be over soon. But, if I could say a few last words.

There are plenty of good things about long primaries. I like the increased coverage. I like the organization and fund raising. I like the fleshing out of policy proposals. I like that states (and territories) that don't normally get attention are getting their two cents in about this process. I like primaries. They're good for the party, good for the candidates, and good for the health of our civic fabric.

Crossposted at Ich Bin Ein Oberliner.

Senator Clinton's buzzword in her losing battle to convince super-delegates to support her campaign has been electability. Mostly, she--and her supporters--rely on a supposed demographic strength (for example, "hardworking Americans, white Americans" etc.) and polling data to show just how strong she would be in the general election versus Senator Obama. Here's my argument: Senator Clinton is probably less electable than Senator Obama.

Today Senator Clinton made a statement in relations to previous primaries. She said that other campaigns in the past went well into the month of June and she gave examples such as the 1992 and the 1968 campaign. She said that RFK was still campaigning in June and his campaign was still going when he was assassinated.

Our supporters went online and screamed bloody murder. Some of our supporters started running like chickens without heads, yelling and screaming that Senator Clinton is staying in the campaign because Senator Obama might be assassinated, which would allow her to get the nomination.

In a nutshell, our supporters are saying that Senator Clinton wants and wishes Senator Obama to be assassinated (check the posts and comments here and on other blogs).

Let me say this in the most direct way possible and as straight as i can: this is the most dishonest faked outrage i have seen since i got involved in politics in mid-1980s. It is just plain disgusting that we behaved like that. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We brought nothing but shame to the campaign of Senator Obama today.

So this has been bothering me.  Huffington and Moulitas.  Both run blogs that have declared open war on Senator Clinton.
Arianna was a right wing mouth piece during the Clinton years, was married to a conservative, a man who was a republican appointee of Reagan's and eventually a congressman.  She had a blog during to 90s, a rallying place for Clinton haters wanting to get Bill Clinton out of office.  Her ex was a multimillionaire and this is where she got her money. She admitted to being friends with Newt Gingrich.   So we have a Reagan lover, a multimillionarie who hated the Clintons as a part of her everyday life and NOW, suddenly she a populist progressive who is shilling for Obama to defeat Hillary.  She is a hero of the new left while a true liberal like Senator Clinton has been demonized because at 15 she was a republican (nevermind that overwhelming young kids identify with the party of the parents). I don't get it.

dkos is owned  by his own admission as former young Reagan lover.
Maybe he was a kid like Hillary. Yet her young teen years as a "Goldwater Girl" gets her demonized but his young years are OK?  Hmmmmmmmmmmm....now he hates the Clintons, and has created a blog that helps destroy her, a blog  where using the "racism" attack against the Clintons is acceptable. Yet he once supported Reagan, a man who went to Philadelphia, Mississippi, and used coded racist words to win his presidency.

Suddenly, people like me, an old white woman like Hillary, (we are within a year of each other age-wise) are painted as racists by the like of dkos and Huffington; she because of spin, me because I support her over Obama.  We (old liberals like Hillary and our peers) were working for civil rights way back when; working for women's rights way back, protesting Reagans' policies in the 80s while they were supporting Reagan; while Hillary was opening clinics for poor women and children in Arkansas, Arrianna was supporting Reagan's hate policies in Central America and the middle east.
While Moulitas supported Bush I's war, I was angry as hell at the  results of the Reagan economy that was destroying the middle class.  

Reagan's trickle down of the 80s was taking a toll on us as the Bush I administration started.  Some of us had been screaming for a decade about the destruction of unions under Reagan.  But we were drowned out by the yuppies screaming for more, more, more money for themselves.  Bill Clinton came in and restored the economy.  Hillary tried to get the American people to pay attention to the health care crisis but was drowned out by Arianna's friends in Congress.  She took the blame.  She was demonized by the right.

But NOW, Arianna and all the former yuppies (many of them now regulars at dkos I am guessing), are spewing lies and hatred toward Hillary.  Her blog has been pushing Hillary hate all along. dkos was a late comer to the game but it is clear.  The so called "former" Independents and Libertarians and former Reagan lovers now have a common cause: their hatred of the Clintons.  They are aligned with people like Matthews etc who became millionaires thanks to right wing billionaire icons like Jack Welch, former CEO of GE.  

Hillary has been successfully demonized by the right wing republicans.  And yet on the Net, new dems, newcomers to political work, demonize Senator Clinton by calling her a republican get away with it.  During the years when too many bought Reagan's "morning in America" hook, line and sinker, Hillary was working for liberal causes.  
Hillary worked with people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangle, Barbara Jordan, Marian Edleman to improve things for women and minorites but somehow SHE, according to former right wingers like Arianna, is a neocon, war mongering racist.
Now it's a racial slur to compare Obama to an African American hero like Jesse Jackson but then again the Reagan yuppies HATED Jackson and Sharpton and STILL DO. Why? Because Jesse made them uncomfortable.  There was none of this "unity with the right wing" who was encouraging the status quo of an unfair justice system that STILL punishes African Americans unfairly.

But alas, here on the NET, the right wing sanctimony has been adopted by the neo left.  Unfair blogging is acceptable.  Arianna's blog UNFAIRLY gives voice to the Obamaloving, Hillaryhating left.  The numbers of "Hillary is a liar, Hillary is a racist, Hillary is evil" blogs on Huffington is overwhelming. And anything anti Hillary is printed in BOLD RED LETTERS.

So how does a former right winger who was by marriage in the Reagan administration, and how does a blogger who admitted to being a Reagan lover,  get to be the icons of the left?
How do long time democrats who have consistently worked for liberal causes get demonized and trashed by the left.

I am still scratching my head. I am frustrated, disappointed and stunned.  I will, and have said from the beginning, vote for whomever the dem nominee is.  I am a yellow dog democrat and could never ever vote for a party that has pushed and encouraged  plutocracy; could never vote a party that has a "me, me, me" mentality; a party that still elects racists to office. And yet, I have been pushed out of my party. I have read bloggers (even here) announcing the unimportance of older voters, women voters, white women voters (obviously because we are pro Hillary). And that hurts.  Suddenly people who loved and worked for Ronald Reagan are heroes; and people, like Hillary, who worked against the right wing machine since the 1970s are demonized. I don't get it.

I call myself a liberal. I have never been ashamed to use the word liberal, even in the 80s when the word was mocked, dissed and twisted by the right. Maybe I am not a "progressive" because I do not identify with people like Arianna, or Markos, or Matthews, or Randi Rhodes (whom I believe is the antithesis of liberal).  Maybe I will never get it.  I do not know how people who have worked decades for civil rights, equal rights, and the betterment of society can be demonized by people who supported the right wing ever. When a consistent liberal journalist, one of the few, Paul Krugman, is demonized for criticizing Senator Obama, I don't get it.

My guess is this: some/many maybe of the bloggers now shilling for Senator Obama are probably former Reaganites who "saw the light".  I believe this to be true because many seem to embody the same kind of paternalistic hero worship that dominated the Reagan right.  Anything against him is demonized; he has that Teflon thing going with his followers; and he "inspires" hope which to me is no different than the "inspiration and adulation" given to Reagan. Hope does not feed the poor; never did; I did not get it then; I don't get it now.

She shan't receive my support in any future contest, be it this presidential run (should she secure the nomination) or any other.

We can all pretend to be mere participants in this "civil" discourse, and claim that whoever the nominee might be we will support him or her. Not I.

Being a reasonable fellow (mostly), I won't write off Senator Clinton without giving her an in back into this relationship. It's fairly simple, apologize and repent, or lose my support:

The winner of tomorrow's primary in Pennsylvania will be determined by the margin. As James Carville would say, "It's the margin stupid."  If Senator Obama (disclaimer: I am a supporter of Senator Obama) loses by less than 5 points, he could make the case that Senator Clinton has no chance whatsoever to catch up to him (in terms of pledged delegates and/or popular vote), and that all the recent controversies, from Rev. Wright to his alleged association with William Ayers, have not had a lasting impact on his candidacy.

However, if Senator Clinton wins by 10 points or more, not only she would live to fight another day, but there would be serious concerns among several democrats, myself included, about the ability of Senator Obama to win in the fall.

Let me first say that I am a supporter of Senator Obama. I voted for him and I will in November if he wins the primaries. However, I will also vote for Senator Clinton if she clinches the nomination and I will do so happily.

However, these primaries have been closer than most of us have expected. The difference between the two candidates is small: about a hundred pledged delegates, a few dozen of super-delegates and a little more than two or three hundred-thousand in popular vote. To me, no candidate has won clearly, categorically, and overwhelmingly to claim that he or she has a popular mandate from the base of the Democratic Party (polls don't mean a thing when you have clear results from the primaries).

Both candidates have weaknesses and strengths and the weaknesses of one are complemented by the strengths of the other. Each candidate by him/herself will have a hard time winning in the general elections. Thus, a combined ticket of both candidates--the order does not matter to me right now--is the way to go. Bear with me for a second and let me explain my rational. If you care about winning the White House like I do and your bottom line is victory, you will agree with me. However, if you care more about some childish skirmishes that took place during this campaign and your feelings got hurt and bruised by what one candidate said/did or did not say/do, you have no business being, following and/or participating in electoral politics. The bottom line to me--and must be to every democrat out there--is to see a Democratic President sworn in January 2009. The rest is news junk and fodder for stupid talking-heads to fill the 24-hours cable news cycle of nonsense to distract us from our ultimate objective.

Obama donors/supporters should demand for an apology from ABC.  I believe that as the most important person funding of this campaign (more than $75 so far), I have the right to ostracize ABC from future debate moderation.

I'll immediately communicate to the Obama campaign not to ever accept any ABC moderated debate again, until ABC offer an official and public apology for yesterday's mess.