If you had been 13 years old when RFK was assassinated, as I was, you'd realize it's perfectly natural to date events of that time period by that milemark. I remember every detail of his assassination, what I was doing when I heard he had been shot, what I did all day while his life was in the balance, where I was when I heard he had died. Furthermore, it was all inextricably tied up in the primary battle. His last public words were "And now it's on to Illinois, and let's win there!" If I were to speak of the latter stage of the '68 Democratic primary campaign, damn straight I would use the RFK assassination as a reference.
But you're lying. You might think that you left yourself some plausible deniability by cleverly changing "she" to "He" in your claim that Clinton lied about Michigan and Florida not counting--"He totally lied about MI/FL not counting - see, he even signed a pledge"--but nobody would believe you if you tried to deny accusing Clinton of lying.
Falsely accusing Clinton of lying, that is.
No, you did it on purpose, and you've been in enough of these discussions that I know you can't really think that Clinton signed any pledge for Michigan or Florida not to count. Even the wildest, most pro-Obama interpretation of the words of the pledge wouldn't encompass that meaning.
I don't think message had anything to do with it at all. If you've been around the political block a time or two, you'll recognize that a message of "hope" and "change" is about as generic as it gets. You see it every election.
Clinton certainly got beat up in late February, and that's when the race was won (assuming Obama wins). I'm not at all familiar with how each campaign internally ran and planned their caucus organization. I do know that a huge amount of volunteer energy was basically bestowed upon Obama via MoveOn, Daily Kos, Act Blue, etc. I have no way of quantifying that and no way of knowing what the various campaigns did to make or not make things like that happen. I certainly am not prepared to proclaim that Obama's caucus victories were gifts of the organized netroots, but neither am I prepared to proclaim that they were not.
From my perspective, though, the biggest differences in this race were money and free media. They both flowed in a mighty river to Obama with virtually no effort on his part and little to no effort from his campaign.
Pretty much the only thing I really associate with Obama's campaign staff is the dirtiest and most personally negative primary campaign I've ever seen run by a major Democratic campaign, and that's with no contest whatsoever. I'm not sure if that had anything to do with his success or not; my preference is to ascribe all the success to the money and the media hype (two related phenomena) and decline to conclude that negative character attacks are a winning formula in Democratic primaries.
Truly, any scholarly point of view is the last point of view that would regard Obama's campaign being well-run as a "fact." Sure, professors try to extrapolate techniques from successful campaigns, since there is an insufficient amount of categorizable data from which to form many conclusions, but nothing in the meat-and-potatoes portion of academe, i.e., the refereed journals, will assume such a "fact."
Analysts ALWAYS say the winner ran a better campaign. It is NOT always true.
In my humble opinion, this race has been handed to Obama on a silver platter. He has done virtually nothing to deserve it. He had almost nothing to do with the vast amounts of money flowing into his coffers. Clinton has done at least 10X and I would venture to say 20X as many fund-raisers.
His campaign has made the fundamental error of declining to "brand" or "define" him; since he has never been famous previously and has no great accomplishments to fall back on, this makes him extremely vulnerable to being identified as "that guy who gives the good speeches that goes to that anti-American church." Contrast to Bill Clinton in '92, who went to great efforts to publicize his biography and "brand" himself as "the man from hope."
However, I take exception with this statement: "the fact remains this competition was planned and executed better by Senator Obama"
That is most assuredly NOT a "fact." It's possibly true; in my opinion it's not true; but neither you nor I has anything other than an opinion with regard to its truth. There are manifold reasons why one candidate might win and another candidate lose and "plann[ing] and execut[ing] better" is only one of them.
I certainly never use those types of offensive terms (except when speaking privately to someone I know would not be offended by them), but . . .
Without attributing this to any individual, a facet of the Obama phenomenon is that there certainly appears to be some groupthink running rampant. And another facet seems to be that there are a large number of people who hold the junior Senator from Illinois in a fair bit higher regard than seems to be realistically deserved - one could even say an exaltedlevel of regard. Even the most heinous of political errors, such as the bitter small-towners clinging to their religion statement, which is without a doubt the worst gaffe committed by a major Presidential candidate since Gerald Ford denied that Eastern Europe was dominated by the Soviet Union, was not just widely excused, but widely praised as some kind of deep truth marking its speaker as a "new" kind of politician.
I think, based on polling figures and extrapolations from same, that I speak for a sizeable chunk of the Democratic Party. And I think there is a sizeable chunk of the Obama-supporting crowd that just doesn't get it that we are serious, invested, and not hunting for a bandwagon to jump on. And if Tim Russert's decree that it is over is indeed coming to pass, that makes it a worse time to fuck with us, not a better time. We're feeling kinda raw.
So being treated politely and respectfully is important to me right now. There's no chance that I will ever vote for John McCain, but there is a very significant chance that I will permanently end my 36-year association with the Democratic Party. I have never felt represented by the Democrats, but I have always felt that they were people I could live with. Now I am very much wondering if that is true.
I know they're still not as bad as the Republicans, so they will always or almost always get my votes. But in the past they've gotten a lot more than that from me. A lot. Whether that will happen in the future is very much up for grabs.
Getting ridiculed makes that less likely in two ways: (1) It's personal, it hurts, and it makes me bitter and drives me further away, and (2) it makes me feel more strongly that the new Democratic Party is not a group I wish to be associated with. Making fun of those you have just defeated is not an admirable character trait in my book. My friends don't do shit like that.
That's your opinion. Personally, when I see a sophomoric insult like "droning concern troll" applied to a prominent Democratic blogosphere voice of long-standing and wonder what possible productive effect that kind of name-calling could have. It's all too easy to see it's destructive effect.