Lanny Davis, Unhinged

[Isaac]

If there is a silver lining to this endless primary battle, it has been the public decomposition of Clinton apparatchik Lanny Davis. Davis, you may remember, was a big Bill Clinton defender during impeachment; he now spends his time blogging and spinning for Senator Clinton's campaign. If you missed his classic CNN breakdown, it's here.

Now, via Andrew, I see that Lanny has published what even for him must count as a pathetic attack on Obama. Portentously titled "Four Things the Obama Camp Couldn't Resist Doing to Anger Clinton Supporters," the post is even more unhinged than we have come to expect. Here's #1:

Couldn't resist waiting one day after Sen. Clinton won West Virginia by 41 points to announce John Edwards endorsement.

Eh? This decision was somehow nefarious? Moving on:

Couldn't resist waiting to win majority of all delegates to announce Jim Johnson as VP search committee head -- the first candidate in my memory ever to do so while his chief opponent is still fighting for nomination -- and winning in last primary in crucial border state by 36 points (Kentucky). What's the rush? Obama wouldn't confirm or deny the that Mr. Johnson has been appointed to head the VP search effort. That makes many Clinton supporters feel uneasy about Senator Obama.

I'm not even sure what Davis' point is here, but it does at least put on display the more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger style that he likes to alternate with his generally angry disposition. Finally:

Couldn't resist listing Bill Richardson as under consideration for Veep - the one Red Flag name that infuriates even moderate Clinton supporters the most -- not because he chose to endorse Sen. Obama, but the way he did it, i.e., his inability to avoid making negative comments about Sen. Clinton while doing so -- another person who sometimes can't resist the temptation of not being gracious when he should be, a great disappointment to many of his former close friends from the Clinton camp and which will not be forgotten.

Sic. Anyway, farewell Lanny: We hardly knew ye.

Comments

Couldn't resist waiting to win majority of all delegates to announce Jim Johnson as VP search committee head -- the first candidate in my memory ever to do so while his chief opponent is still fighting for nomination....

Um, per Clinton, this thing is going to go all the way to the convention. Obama should wait until the second or third ballot to come up with a VP list? This sort of planning aheadatudiness might explain the quality of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by daveNYC | May 27, 2008 9:40 PM

Lanny Davis was also a rabid and delusional supporter of Joe Lieberman during the Lieberman-Lamont contest, so there's nothing new here.

And you left out his other recent inanity, a twisted (and arithmetically challenged) argument for a Michigan "compromise" in which Clinton would get her own delegates plus half the uncommitted delegates -- even though those voting "uncommitted" were clearly voting against Clinton.

Posted by KCinDC | May 27, 2008 9:41 PM

You guys should be ashamed. Lanny Davis, in addition to being one of the country's finest intellects, is a true American patriot. He and Senator Clinton have been unfairly maligned.

Posted by Tim K | May 27, 2008 9:44 PM

Ha. I needed a laugh. Thanks. My favorite part- "I am happy, not bitter. I am committed, not angry." (Twitch, twitch).

Posted by Morg | May 27, 2008 9:50 PM

Re: his other recent inanity
Be sure to read Pablano's evisceration
Adventures in Lannyland

Posted by bjd | May 27, 2008 9:51 PM

What is this about no-one in memory talking about vice presidents before nomination. How about Reagan in 1976. Reagan had won the popular vote, but lost the nomination to Nixon in 1968, and lost the popular vote, but promised to nominate Richard Schweiker in an effort to show his ticket would be stronger than Ford's, although Ford got the nomination.

Posted by shane | May 27, 2008 9:52 PM

I read it on HuffPo. My G-d, how embarrassing. I cringed when I read it. Didn't somebody vet it before it got posted? There was another post on there from another Hillary supporter that was equally cringe worthy. I'm starting to become concerned. First Ferraro, now Davis, who next?

Somebody in the Democratic leadership has got to be responsible and tell Hillary she needs to stop her campaign. At the rate this is spiralling downward, the party will never be united in November. But it has to be somebody who has the sensitivity to be firm but kind. I'm even starting to think that people are letting her hang out to dry out of spite, waiting for some kind of implosion, because clearly she needs some guidance from a responsible party at this point, and her husband isn't providing that service and neither are Ickes, McAuliffe, nor Wolf.

Tim K, did you READ the article? Go read. It is definitely, by any objective measure, pathetic at the very least.

Posted by cnnr | May 27, 2008 9:59 PM

Lanny Davis will have a good laugh about this when he is sitting in the White House with Hillary and Bill next year.

She has millions of devoted supporters who are more and more convinced that "they" are stealing the nomination from Hillary.

On the 31st the rules committee will give Hillary everything she is demanding, Florida as voted, and at least 102 of the Michigan delegates, or they will tie up the nominating process until the convention. (The protests are already being organized to start on the 31st.)

If they give her what she demands, it will scare the undecided superdelegates into inaction until the convention.

In the meantime, something will happen. Maybe it will be the Michelle Obama "whitey" video. But that will be enough to push her over the top along with Hillary's claim to the popular vote, some poll that shows her doing better than Obama against McCain, and the knowledge the the Clintons will hurt you if you don't give them what they want, while Obama will lose like a gentleman.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 27, 2008 10:05 PM

Lanny is a crock of s@#t! I read his book about "Gotcha Politics" where he talks in no uncertain terms about the ugliness of today's political culture. And now, he's doing exactly what he wrote so harshly about. He's an idiot! Lanny, Clintons, Repukes...GO HOME!

Obama 08

Posted by Janet | May 27, 2008 10:08 PM

I keep trying to figure out why I told an 80 year old fiery woman that I was a "Hillary fan" at the WA state caucus. I instantly figured out my mistake, as she assumed that I was going to vote for Hillary. I didn't really know how to break the news to her.

Is there no way to choose Obama over Hillary and somehow retain the respect of her supporters? Maybe not.

We need a virtual rubber room.

Posted by tomj | May 27, 2008 10:09 PM

To continue Mike's post to its logical conclusion
..... Shortly after her inauguration aliens will land and grant Hillary clairvoyant powers. Hillary will use said powers to achieve world peace and infinite wealth for everyone on earth. By 2013 Hillary will grant everyone eternal life before ascending to heaven leaving Bill to rule as President of Earth for eternity with Lanny at his side.

Posted by Jack H. | May 27, 2008 10:15 PM

"Is there no way to choose Obama over Hillary and somehow retain the respect of her supporters?"

Not as long as Hillary has the power of an ex-President to attract news coverage to make her case that the nomination was stolen from her and all of her "white hard working" supporters.

If Hillary has the stomach for it, she has a clear path to the White House. If not this year, then in 2012 after McCain has had a chance to make an even better case for a Democratic President.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 27, 2008 10:19 PM

I see KC beat me to the mathematical stylings of Lanny Davis, neutral observor to the RBC.

Lanny's leapt over so many sharks by now he may be appearing in Cirque du Soleil next winter.

Posted by Deborah | May 27, 2008 10:20 PM

All the reasons listed by Lanny are what makes a winning political strategy; wits, guts and perfect timing. Based on this alone Obama will win in Nov. Dems should shed emotions in this contest and opt for pragmatic approach to winning the WH.
Winning is hard but explaining why you didnt is harder.

Posted by Jezz | May 27, 2008 10:20 PM

All the reasons listed by Lanny are what makes a winning political strategy; wits, guts and perfect timing. Based on this alone Obama will win in Nov. Dems should shed emotions in this contest and opt for pragmatic approach to winning the WH.
As Lanny might know now, winning is hard but explaining why you didnt is harder.

Posted by Jezz | May 27, 2008 10:21 PM

The tell is the use of the phrase "the Clinton camp". It's not acceptable for there to be "camps". There is the Republican Party, and there is everybody else. To have "camps" -- a Clinton camp, an Obama camp, a Nader camp, a whomsoever camp -- is like squabbling over who gets to hold the hose when the house is on fire.

Posted by Frank Wilhoit | May 27, 2008 10:30 PM

Too many of Hillary's voters in both West Virginia and Kentucky won't vote for a Democrat in the fall no matter whom the Dems nominate. Hillary's vote in other states, too, such as Texas, to a significant extent has comprised remnants of the old George Wallace constituency, which freak at the idea of any African American in the White House, and Republicans crossing over to vote for her in Demo primaries in hopes the GOP won't have to face Obama in the fall.
In fact the last time any Democrat received the "white male" vote in a presidential election was 1964. Bill Clinton won twice without them. Jimmy Carter, once. And, if Barack Obama is the nominee he can win without them, too, if need be.
Sterling Greenwood
Aspen Free Press

Posted by Sterling Greenwood | May 27, 2008 10:30 PM

"To continue Mike's post to its logical conclusion . . ."

Hey, my wife and I are maxed out Obama supporters.

So I am hoping that I am wrong.

That we are even having this conversation is why I am worried.

But you must admit that a country composed of people that they elected G.W., not once, but twice is likely to fall for an even better pair of "operators" in Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Obama would need to have a clear lead in every conceivable category, delegates, popular vote, big states, swing states, etc., in order to shut down the Clintons.

Posted by Mike Furlan | May 27, 2008 10:33 PM

Lanny Davis is out of line with these comments. Its what a tired and bitter supporter of a candidate he admires and wants desperately to win feels when that candidate is losing, though barely. It's how I felt in 2000 with the other Gore supporters watching the results come in from states like Missouri and Arkansas and finally - Florida!
Still, he has a point. If Obama wants to win the general election, he better make nice with Hillary Clinton supporters. He needs these people. Not only are they good LOYAL Democrats who love this country, but unlike some of the lefty former Naderites ("you guys are racists") and the Andrew Sullivan crowd ("Yeah I voted for Bush but now I'm for Obama") us Clinton fans will actually stick with Obama when the going gets tough. These other fair-weather jack-asses will abandon Obama the second the wind changes direction. But IF Obama wants our votes, he's going to have to romance us, whisper sweet nothings in our ears and above all, drop these Obama-tards calling Hillary Clinton a psycho/liying bitch/barbarian slut/cow/Glen Close in Fatal Attraction/closet dyke - have I missed anything?

Posted by Nathan | May 27, 2008 10:41 PM

When I first read it, I seriously thought it was satire. Really. Because how could one of the Democratic big-whigs in the party actually publish this nonsense? Letterman's team couldn't have come up with better. I'm embarrassed for him.

(And wow, did Richardson piss them off!)

Posted by evie | May 27, 2008 10:43 PM

Mike Furlan said:

If Hillary has the stomach for it, she has a clear path to the White House. If not this year, then in 2012 after McCain has had a chance to make an even better case for a Democratic President.

I dunno. If McCain wins this one, I think it'll show we're in thrall to (bang!) the Bart (ow!) Simpson (bang!) voter bloc (ow!) for a few more years. No matter how many times they slam the door on their fingers, they'll assume they just didn't slam it hard enough.

Posted by cmholm | May 27, 2008 10:44 PM

The biggest thing Obama did to outrage Clinton supporters was beat her in a fair election with a better message and stronger support. Everything else is just so much bullshit.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 27, 2008 10:45 PM

Mike Furlan:
Are you seriously a maxed out Obama supporter? If you are, why contribute if you don't think he can win? Or were you laying on the serious snark?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 27, 2008 11:07 PM

Lanny is sick and sweet at the same time; like cherry cough medicine.

He is not only a two bit petty lawyer thug, but he comes across as a stupid prissy butt plug.

Perhaps as a Clinton Mafioso his real job is to suck Bill off and be so stupid and prissy thuggish to make James Carvell (the Nazi brown shirt spewer of vile "Judas” epithets) look not so reeking gross in comparison.

The Clintons suck almost as bad as Lieberman. Speaking of which, it is only a matter of time before all those Catholics in Conn and elsewhere force Joe out of the Senate, even to the point of direct appeals to the Israeli government and US supporters. He is unacceptable and has crossed the line too many times.

Posted by OMG | May 27, 2008 11:11 PM

"Needs more 'trust-fund scumbags'"

-- Petey

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 27, 2008 11:27 PM

The latest meme is now from Lanny Davis and Krugman that IF the Clintons continue to disrespect Obama, change the goalposts, etc., that it becomes HIS fault if the party stays divided. She says she'll support Obama when the general election starts. Well, it already started. If she wants to play out the string, no problems, but threatening a convention fight gives the lie to the notion that she wants to support him in the general. Which is, of course, Obama's fault, and proof of his naivete, failure of the new politics, etc.

I thought that Seblius pisses off Clintonites more than Richardson, because it says "women are expendable." Which implies Sebelius would only be chosen because she's a woman and not a popular two term Governor. Who's sexist now?

Posted by David B. | May 27, 2008 11:33 PM

Lanny Davis may be a stooge but at least he has original content. Isaac is merely a stooge.

Who effing cares about Lanny Davis?

Posted by Decided | May 28, 2008 12:12 AM

What a bunch of charmers!

Delusional! Delusional! Delusional!

The public isn't dumb and will not elect a racist campaigner like Obama!

Posted by nobama | May 28, 2008 12:25 AM

What kind of madness is this???

Davis obviously supports HRC staying in the race; somehow he thinks this primary is still a real competition.

So if it is, shouldn’t Obama still do what he needs to do to win? Why would he not try to step on HRC’s big WV win by rolling out his Edwards endorsement? Is it not simply good, smart politics? Is he supposed to let Hillary have a few free hits or something?

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 12:32 AM

You know who's a certified nut job?

Marty Peretz.

Why that kook hasn't been committed is beyond me.

Posted by Petey Beinhart | May 28, 2008 12:35 AM

“You guys should be ashamed. Lanny Davis, in addition to being one of the country's finest intellects, is a true American patriot. He and Senator Clinton have been unfairly maligned.”

Oh, this is just bad comedy!

If this really is the same Tim K, I demand the return of all those seconds of my life that I wasted replying to your posts.

And without saying the “C” word, why don’t you let actual holders of American passports decide who is and isn’t a true American patriot.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 12:39 AM

If these are the worse things Obama has done to Clinton supporters, he's been downright nice to them. It's like a child complaining that his parents bought his birthday presents on sale. If you are really upset by the things on his list, you are just looking for things to be mad about.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 12:42 AM

"So if it is, shouldn’t Obama still do what he needs to do to win? Why would he not try to step on HRC’s big WV win by rolling out his Edwards endorsement? Is it not simply good, smart politics? Is he supposed to let Hillary have a few free hits or something?

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 12:32 AM"

The best part is that early in the contest, Clinton was saying she was in it to win and knew how to win. When Obama shows that he knows how to play the game and is tough enough, somehow he's just pissing off Clinton supporters.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 12:48 AM

Re: Nathan

"But IF Obama wants our votes, he's going to have to romance us, whisper sweet nothings in our ears"

Why? Are you that spoiled? The fact that he agrees with Clinton on 99% of the issues isn't enough?

"and above all, drop these Obama-tards calling Hillary Clinton a psycho/liying bitch/barbarian slut/cow/Glen Close in Fatal Attraction/closet dyke - have I missed anything?"

He's supposed to drop anonymous internet commenters? Unless you're referring to someone on his campaign? In which case, I'd love to see the quote of he or she calling Clinton a closet dyke.

FYI: He immediately dropped the campaign member who called her a monster.

Posted by 55 | May 28, 2008 12:51 AM

I would have thought that a shrewd and experienced operative like Davis would understand that it is standard operating procedure in politics that when your opponent has a good day, you do something the next day to try to reverse the momentum. Hence such things as the Edwards endorsement following the Clinton West Virginia victory.

The Clintons apparently want to reserve for themselves the right to continue running a competitive race, but when Obama competes back, they sob about how he is rubbing salt in their wounds and hurting their feelings. While the Clintons battle tooth and nail to seat Florida and Michigan, and daily advance electability arguments aimed at disparaging Obama's candidacy and pulling out a fourth quarter miracle superdelegate win, they suggest that Obama should behave as if he has already won, and stop being so mean by competing.

Actually, it's all a fraud, and Davis is not unhinged. This is just another on-message, calculated appeal to buck up Clinton supporters, and intimidate wavering superdelegates with more of the recent emotional blackmail. The message of late is one of victimization, persecution and unfair attacks, and Hillary, Bill and Lanny are all going with it in unison.

It was reported today that the Obama campaign has banked a large group of superdelegates that are going to come out en masse next week, the day after the last primary. I suspect Davis is just trying desperately to forestall that move by suggesting bizarrely that it would somehow be dirty pool, and another one of those mean, hurtful, nasty things the Obama campaign "couldn't avoid doing".

The Clinton movement's last, most desperate angle is emotional blackmail: "If you make us mad, we won't vote for Obama." Perhaps they hope that since every superdelegate declaration makes the Clinton group sad and mad, they can push some of these declarations off indefinitely by suggesting these declaration are offending the poor, persecuted Clinton's, and superdelegates must walk on eggshells around them. Personally, I decline to treat Clinton and her supporters like babies. It's a big bluff. Clinton's supporters are stubborn and loyal, but the vast majority of them aren't stupid.

It's really impressive how willing the Clintons are to throw away every last shred of dignity and gravity as their campaign comes to an end. They are now apparently willing to portray themselves and their supporters as high strung, prickly ninnies and tantrum throwers, who need to be emotionally managed and indulged lest they do something rash. And Davis, himself, deserves points for his loyalty. It is not every supporter that would be willing to portray himself in public as a bawling mama's boy, all for the sake of the team.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 28, 2008 12:58 AM

How about Reagan in 1976. Reagan had won the popular vote, but lost the nomination to Nixon in 1968, and lost the popular vote,

In 1968, Reagan was a favorite sun candidate who got nearly all of his votes in the California primary, where he was unopposed. Reagan got over 1.5 million of his nearly 1.7 million primary votes in the California primary.
Nixon defeated Reagan by wide margins in Nebraska, Oregon, and Wisconsin, the only three states where both were on the ballot. Nixon got the rest of his (also nearly 1.7 million) primary votes either in more or less uncontested primaries (Indiana, New Hampshire, South Dakota) or in primaries where all the candidates were write-ins (Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).

The only other major primary was in Ohio, where the favorite son governor Jim Rhodes won unopposed. 1968 was different from the modern primary system.

Posted by John | May 28, 2008 1:01 AM

"Would you buy a used car from Barack Obama? Not if you lived in Florida or Michigan.

Posted by nobama | May 28, 2008 1:07 AM

I am so unbelievably disgusted by a Lanny Davis that I sincerely hope his entire family is killed. This is digusting. And I'm a former Clinton and Davis fan.

Posted by Stevie | May 28, 2008 1:46 AM

It has been quite surreal watching Clinton and so many of her supporters descend into what can only be understood as a prolonged temper tantrum. Lanny Davis is certainly among the worst but not by much. Terry McCauliffe actually seems to have lost his mind at some point. Will these people somehow be able to regain their dignity after all of this?

If not for all that I have already witnessed this political season, I would simply never have believed a mentally stable adult wrote that ridiculous article attributed to Davis. What exactly does he call himself doing in that piece? Is that silly, whiny nonsense supposed to be somehow helpful to Clinton or the Democratic party? How exactly?

Posted by brent | May 28, 2008 1:46 AM

Wow Stevie. Maybe you want to slow down and relax a little. I agree its a pretty awful article but I think its pretty far from deserving the death penalty. Easy there chief.

Posted by brent | May 28, 2008 1:50 AM

Nathan, I'm sure Obama would LOVE to court Hillary's supporters. It seems Hillary wants to keep him from having that opportunity. BTW, your grievance is with Chris Matthews and his ilk, as well as blog commenters Obama has no control over, not Obama.

Once upon a time democratic voters were looking at the field of candidates and were giddy about what a strong field they had. Any of these candidates would make terrific presidents, we all said. Then the game clock started running, people took sides and if you joined the game late you'd think some generations-old blood feud was being played out. In reality we still have great candiates, both of whom would make great presidents ... the only thing that's changed is that the game clock is just about expired and the losing candidate is playing an incredibly dangerous game of brinksmanship.

I really don't think it's fair to paint Obama as a malefactor in this situation. Give him a chance. If the democratic electorate rallies around him, as they should, the party will be tremendously successful this year.

Posted by Steve V | May 28, 2008 1:54 AM

"BTW, your grievance is with Chris Matthews and his ilk, as well as blog commenters Obama has no control over, not Obama."

Also, a whole lot of Obama supporters have a lot of anger directed towards Chris Matthews for his misogyny, not only against Clinton, but also against every single woman who goes on his show.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 2:14 AM

"Also, a whole lot of Obama supporters have a lot of anger directed towards Chris Matthews for his misogyny, not only against Clinton, but also against every single woman who goes on his show."

Aside from Clinton, it's just the young, straight women really. He's actually rather respectful of older women like Andrea Mitchell and Joan Walsh and Rachael Maddow, who is openly gay.

But Erin Burnett, Norah O’Donnell, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and especially Maria Bartalomo seem to send Matthews back into the 1950’s, or something. This is sad because he’s so very sensitive in terms of racial issues and gay and lesbian issues.

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 2:38 AM

Who will be Obama's Lanny Davis?
I nominate Donna Brazile.

Posted by moving on | May 28, 2008 5:26 AM

Tim K: "He and Senator Clinton have been unfairly maligned."

Oh, fuck off...

Nobody could "unfairly malign" Clinton unless they said she ate babies for breakfast - without the milk.

The woman is like the "Iron Hag" in the "Vampire: The Masquerade" novels - six-inch nails and teeth.

"and above all, drop these Obama-tards calling Hillary Clinton a psycho/liying bitch/barbarian slut/cow/Glen Close in Fatal Attraction/closet dyke - have I missed anything?"

You forgot the six-inch nails and teeth...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 5:37 AM

Mike Furlan is right. Clinton is going to sabotage Obama all the way out of the race, and if that fails, all the way out of winning the election. And if that fails, she will undermine him for the next four years until she convinces the Dems that he's a liability compared to her.

And that's whether she gets the VP nod or not.

She's got sixteen million people she can wave at the DNC, even though most of them probably are ashamed they voted for her by now. She's got enough total fake-Democrat Republican whack-jobs like EWard and Tim K to stump the Net with.

Her only problem might be financing this mess, but apparently there are some assholes in California willing to ante up even more money for her campaign.

What will happen is the billionaire Zionists that would have and were supporting her campaign will continue to support her campaign because they want to see Obama lose and McCain win, if they can't have Hillary. They don't trust Obama that much to be super-gung-ho for Israel. Not over Hillary or McCain. So they will support Hillary's efforts to undermine Obama.

She has nothing whatever to lose by doing this - except of course that by 2012 people will treat her like Ralph Nader. Or maybe not.

I'm telling you, the Democrats have lost this election already.

And today I read in Asia Times that a former US ambassador is telling people Bush will launch air strikes on Iran by August. Allegedly Dianne Feinstein and Richard Lugar were already briefed on the plans. Supposedly they're threatening to write an op-ed for the New York papers denouncing the plan, but I can't see Feinstein having the "balls" to go up against Bush and Cheney. She's as corrupt as they are.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 5:50 AM

RS Hack did you enjoy being a bitch during your stint in the pokey?

Posted by have a go at Hack for 1/2 a pack | May 28, 2008 6:08 AM

Is Professor Sean Wilentz, outlining in a recent, sober HuffPost article the warning flags about Obama's support base, also "unhinged"?

Posted by bob h | May 28, 2008 6:54 AM

Is Professor Sean Wilentz, outlining in a recent, sober HuffPost article the warning flags about Obama's support base, also "unhinged"?

It doesn't matter. Please stop licking all these wounds, picking at all these scabs and obsessing over the Clinton woulda, coulda, shouldas. The race is over and Obama is going to be the nominee. Democrats now need to be telling the country, in unison, how dreadful John McCain is and why they absolutely must vote for Barack Obama. Yet right now Obama has to deal with one message from the Republicans about why Obama shouldn't win, and another message from some Democrats about why Obama won't or can't win. This negativity is hurting our candidate, and has to stop.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 28, 2008 7:55 AM

Between the about 40 superdelegates that had been committed to Hillary that have gotten together to switch one at a time, the Pelosi group of 8 supers that have pledged to back the pledged delegate winner and so on, Obama is pretty much poised to win this contest under the exact superdelegate scenario that Clinton months ago said was legitimate. At this point he lose all of the remaining contests and still win it.

Posted by Reality Man | May 28, 2008 8:21 AM

Am I the only one who read Tim K's comment, giggled, and assumed it was an imitator?

Try to imagine Lanny writing the same memo about Chris Dodd--how terrible it was for Obama to announce an endorsement rather than standing back and applauding Chris's victory lap, how unfeeling to note campaign milestones when Chris was still in the race, etc. It's more "poor, poor Hillary," stuff that Thatcher and Meir would never have tolerated from a surrogate.

I've decided the party's strategy is to let Clinton drive off her own supporters. The last few weeks a number have admitted it's over; when she goes on about the DNC being like those who opposed abolition, like those who fought against suffrage, like Mugabe, or about how RFK's assassination always puts her in mind of the Democratic primary calendar, these people are done defending her. I don't expect her to bow out, but I do expect the party to move onwards, leaving her and Lanny behind. It won't come to a floor fight.

Posted by Deborah | May 28, 2008 8:33 AM

With Krugman and Wilentz on faculty, we've got to start reassessing Princeton's academics. (Oh, and A-M Slaughter, too!)

Posted by David B. | May 28, 2008 8:37 AM

Is Professor Sean Wilentz, outlining in a recent, sober HuffPost article the warning flags about Obama's support base, also "unhinged"?

Wilentz's article is filled with all sorts of demonstrable inaccuracies and poor assumptions about what wil happen in November. In general, the idea of trying to define Obama's appeal within this sort of narrow window is just a bit intellectually sloppy. But that sort of thing is pretty commonplace and its the only tenable sort of argument Clinton has left. But what Davis writes above goes far beyond making a poor argument to the point of caricature.

I'll ask again. What exactly is the point of this piece? Who is it supposed to be helping exactly and how?

Posted by brent | May 28, 2008 8:48 AM

Regarding Pr. Wilentz: Unless one is discussing some topic of truly technical or scientific expertise -- and history is not one of them -- one does not present a name and challenge someone to respond. One presents the particular argument which does or does not seem convincing.

Arguments by biography don't work. In this sort of debate, what matters are the arguments themselves, not the identities of those offering them.

Posted by El Cid | May 28, 2008 9:50 AM

Is Professor Sean Wilentz, outlining in a recent, sober HuffPost article the warning flags about Obama's support base, also "unhinged"?

Wilentz is totally in the tank for Bill and Hillary. He's a friend of theirs, and is not objective at all. He wrote that ridiculous piece about how Hillary would be winning if the Dems used a "winner-take-all" system. Guess what: they don't.

Look, she's lost. The rules are what they are. Obama will have enough delegates to win this thing, presumably after June 3. The DNC, including Harold Ickes, voted to punish Florida and Michigan if they held their primaries early. The Clintons need to acknowledge reality and move on. The most important thing is defeating McCain in November.

Posted by Dave | May 28, 2008 10:00 AM

He sounds (and even kinda looks a little) like Jinx going on about the beauty and power of the great Glorificus.

Let's just hope Obama doesn't have to leap into a hell dimension to defeat her.

Posted by Steve M. | May 28, 2008 1:44 PM

"He sounds (and even kinda looks a little) like Jinx going on about the beauty and power of the great Glorificus.

Let's just hope Obama doesn't have to leap into a hell dimension to defeat her."

Mad props to you sir for using Buffyverse references!!!

Posted by Raindog | May 28, 2008 2:08 PM

"RS Hack did you enjoy being a bitch during your stint in the pokey?"

Didn't get the chance - unlike you who is Hillary's bitch.

A bitch's bitch - that's really bad.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 28, 2008 5:49 PM

Wilentz is a ziocon-lite. Of course, he'd be for Dementia Rodham Clinton. These "leftists" are the pullulating maggots of progressive change. Joe Lieberman considers Wilentz a friend as does Alfalfa Wolfowitz.

R.S., isn't it funny how some of these silly-ass beetweeds have so puerile and anxious a notion of what being in the bucket is like? Robert Downey, Jr. got spun-fucked like a motherfucker in there and the same thing would happen to little Jon Stewart if he wound up behind bars. So long as you're not some pampered silly willie - you're good to go.

Posted by Trevor | May 28, 2008 6:19 PM

Can we make a thread where Richard Steven Hack, Trevor, SLC, Chris Ford, Steve Sailer and Don Williams can bounce around in their padded cell and thus leave the rest of us in peace?

Posted by Reality Man | May 29, 2008 7:31 AM