Elitism, is NOT about belonging to the elite. ALL politicians belong to the elite, Obama included. So it's not about what class you belong to.

It's not about where you come from either. Saying that you come from humble origin but somehow made it through hard work etc... is REPUBLICAN talking points. It has a feel of, "it's your fault if you are poor", "you are not working hard enough". This is not a progressive message.

Elitism is about whether you care or not. Elitism is saying "the jobs are not coming back". The opposite is saying "I will fight to bring those jobs back" (whether you think it is possible is beyond the point, you have to try).
Democrats would be well served remembering that.

After all Lieberman did it, didn't he, and he wasn't running on the best platform.

I am not advocating for this to happen but looking at this in a dispassionate way, I believe her victory would be possible if not likely. As for party loyalty, this goes both ways, did you hear what she has been accused of lately? by her own camp? Of what use is a party that accuses you of calling for the assassination of someone?

She has to draw the line somewhere about such demonization and maybe the line should be drawn here.

BO's democratic party is exactly what is wrong about the democratic party, it is the party that looks after the college educated upper classes but doesn't mind promoting free trade and destroying the working class. It's not about change, it's about same old same old, why do you think the establishment and the MSM supports him.

In retrospect, I think that Ralf Nader was right all along.

Well I don't care, when we don't give the benefit of the doubt to someone of our own party, when we attribute the most evil thoughts to one of our prominent senator, then I don't care we don't deserve to win.

Did we attack or insinuate that Obama share his 20 years pastor's views? Did we insinuate that Obama actually believes that the US created AIDS? Hell No? Does he get the benefit of the doubt? Tons of it.

But wait; when the witch gets a slip of the tong she will have none of it, nada, zip. I for one am completely sick of it. At that point, I'll vote Obama only if he gives me at least 1000$ cash. And yes, I hold him responsible for his MSM backers, and he is not getting any benefit of the doubt from me on that, not any more.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24708462/.

It may be that my opinion is colored by bitterness, but I can't help but think that there is a pattern of wining in Obama's campaign and that he better cut that out because it gets us all into huge trouble.

The sad truth is that Michelle Obama is not off limit, and no amount of complaining will change that, on the contrary it will make thinks worse. Do you really want to watch pundits on tv debating whether MO is off limits or not?

The manufactured issue tactic just doesn't cut it, the more Obama dismisses something,  the more people want to talk about it. The sad truth is that candidates have little control over what is being asked of them and even less about the nature of the attacks they are subjected to. You would think that he would have learned that by now.

Well you can call me slow if you want and you may have a point here. Still for those interested here is what is happening: I call it the deadly triangle

1) The super delegates (Party Elders, Party Officials) want Clinton out. In fact it's more like they don't want to have to deal with MI and FL, if they manage to force Hillary to drop out, they can just sit those delegations and forget about all this mess. Also they want the racial polarization of the democratic electorate to stop yesterday (See fact #3). To do that, all they need from Obama is a good victory because they don't want to look like they are stealing the nomination from her. Only one problem, the electors are not cooperating, that's fact #2.

2) Buyer remorse:
Not everyone mind you, but a significant number. The fact of the matter is that Obama has lost his aura, let's face it had we known about Obama's weaknesses 6 months ago, he would not be where he is today. The fact that the democratic electorate has not united behind the "inevitable" nominee this late in the game is the exact definition of buyer remorse.

3)Identity Politic, how I curse you identity politic:
There was a time when Obama was not black enough, those were the good times for him, some argue that he was always black enough, they just didn't think he had a shot. That didn't last long, quickly the percentage of AA voting for Obama rose to incredible levels: 80%+. What was inevitable is the percentage of white voters voting Hillary has shown a slow but steady rise during the campaign. Now the democratic electorate is more racially polarized than ever, those trends can only amplify in the future. I am not throwing the R word here (and I wish people would abstain doing it), it would be ridiculous, you would have to say that everyone is racist. What is going on here is instinctive copycat behavior. If one of your neighbors starts stockpiling wood, but won't clearly explain why, then chances are that other people will end up stockpiling wood too.

Now this is what I am talking about, some real policy. At least it would be if any of the candidates had balls. There is one way the gas tax must go and it is up, way up, gas should be taxed 500% European style. That is what you do when you are dependant on a resource that you don't produce. Your job is to discourage wastes and promote savings and mass transit development. If the government redistributes all the money he gets fairly by I don't know buying people health care instead of jet-fighter to fight alien, it would be painless. Do I sound crazy? I mean it's not like it was never done before, it's being done right now!

That is what rich countries in control of their energy policy do, they subsidize energy efficient mass transit through direct investment. Forget hybrids, they only cut transport cost by 50%, it's meaningless. If you take the train or the bus you cut if by 95%+ and that's what the government should promote.

Mass transit is inconvenient? Absolutely! But it is especially so because we don't use it enough: low use means low frequency, low frequency means inconvenience, and inconvenience means low use.

What I want to try is to look at the situation from his perspective. One thing very important about him is that he is retired and as a result is in "legacy mode". Now I am asking you, when you have worked all your life to build your church and attain a certain degree of prominence in your community, do you want to be remembered as Obama's Crazy uncle and Divisive FORMER pastor. Do you want to be the guy that Obama had to overcome to become president? That sounds like an awfully bad deal to me.

Obama remained with him for 20 years in the church and never had a bad word about it, and suddenly when it becomes politically convenient, he is walking all over him (as much as you can after 20 years of attendance).

I may understand Obama for wanting to throw him out, but I also understand Rev Wright for resisting.

Apparently the DNC doesn't want to go to the convention, they want to have all super delegates make a decision in Mid-June sum-up the votes and close the contest fair and square.

In theory I would be inclined to say ok, but in this particular instance, what come to mind sounds more like "get the hell out of here".

To me it all comes down to fairness indeed, Dean's plan would be fine IF there had been revote in MI and FL, no delegate count argument hold water without it, at least in my book. And the hell with the rules, those are DNC primary rules, not the US constitution; they can be changed whenever we want.

But we all know that there won't be any revote, some people didn't want it to happen. And without the results of those two states, then the count becomes fuzzy, unclear and a fight in the credential committee is inevitable and frankly necessary.