Count me among the confused as to why Sen. Clinton hasn't helped define Sarah Palin more forcefully. And not just because Palin's a woman, or because McCain's gained among white women since choosing Palin - but instead because Palin has repeatedly cited Hillary Clinton's groundbreaking campaign explicitly, laying unauthorized claim to its legacy of 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling.

So this explanation from Clinton aide Howard Wolfson is almost insulting:

I have been asked repeatedly over the last several days to respond to the idea that Hillary Clinton will soon be dispatched by the Obama campaign to "take Palin on."

The questions are fair, but what undergirds them is an obsession in our popular culture with the "cat fight," an offensive term that describes the spectacle of two well known women fighting with one another.
...
Secondly, and most importantly, Democrats are running against John McCain, not Sarah Palin. Running against Gov. Palin instead of Senator McCain would be a mistake -- ultimately voters will make their assessments based on the strength and weaknesses of the top of the tickets.  If anything, Democrats should be talking about McCain-Bush, not McCain-Palin.  Every day we are focused on Palin is a day we are not amplifying the Obama campaign's message that Senator McCain simply represents four more years of President Bush.

Palin hijacks Clinton's historic campaign legacy by name, but if Clinton responds or comments forcefully in reply, it would immediately constitute a "catfight?" Talk about internalizing the stereotype.

Second, let's make something clear: Barack Obama is running against John McCain. Just because our campaign's principal shouldn't engage Palin doesn't mean our surrogates can't or shouldn't.

And of course Democrats should focus on McCain-Bush. But as McCain-Palin rallies continue to draw thousands and attract roadblock cable news coverage, it would be, let's say, naive to ignore her.

Wolfson says Clinton "is at her best staying positive and contrasting with her opponents on issues" and while "some might enjoy the spectacle...don't expect Hillary Clinton to play along."

Strange, I tend to remember Hillary Clinton at her best when she speaks truth to power, like when she unabashedly stood up to Bill O'Reilly in defense of true progressive economic policy.

Hillary is free to do whatever she wants. She's been gracious to Obama and his supporters and deserves thanks for campaigning on behalf of the Democratic ticket. But everyone, including her, deserves better than Wolfson's thick spin. We're not stupid.

There's more...

First I want to say that I'm happy to see Howard Wolfson coming forth with positive statements about our candidate, Barack Obama.  In an Op-Ed in tomorrow's Post, Wolfson finally awakens to the reality of Barack Obama.  That's not even my editorializing, it's the way he frames it.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/08/31/AR2008083101620. html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Most of us never heard him speak in person. At work 14 hours a day in the war room, we focused on his perceived faults and deficiencies. Our time was spent sharpening and advancing arguments. Skepticism was critical to our efforts. Insulated from Obamamania, I met few Obama supporters and distanced myself from the ones I knew. I lived this way for 18 months.

From the outside, our loss may have seemed inevitable for months, but inside the campaign we simply kept going. Each late victory brought false hope. We were finally doing too well to stop, but never well enough to win. We fought so long because we believed so strongly in our candidate; sustained by the passions of our supporters, we hoped that, as long as we kept moving, we could keep failure at bay.
ad_icon

Once we ran out of states and the campaign ended, we were like Rip Van Winkle. We awoke to a world transformed by political currents we had stood against. There was the neighbor in an Obama T-shirt getting the morning paper. Every parked car on the street bore an Obama bumper sticker. Had they been there along, or did they pop up overnight?
 

The better stuff after the bump.

There's more...

With friends like these...

Hillary's campaign spokesperson said on Fixed News today, "if Senator Clinton hadn't got teary-eyed in New Hampshire, I think Senator Obama would have won New Hampshire and he would have been the nominee in January."

This was in addition to earlier remarks, saying Edwards' candidacy prevented Hillary from winning Iowa.  

So there you have it: Hillary's entire campaign, her entire candidacy in New Hampshire, Nevada, Super Tuesday, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc., hinged on a couple of misty eyes.

When Hillary won New Hampshire, Howard attributed the victory to the strength of Hillary's town hall meetings and finding her voice, not to ephemeral voter sympathy stirred by a tender and vulnerable moment.

BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH - way to go Howard. Where you drinking when you said this?

Way to promote your Boss.

Ya know, I actually had respect for Howard, but this is a fireable offense.

D'oh!

Bury him, Hillary!

Bye, Howard!

There's more...

   Nothing like a little sour grapes to pour gas on a fire that was on it's way out. Hopefully I'm not the only one disgusted by the PUMA idiots who are increasing the humiliation of Elizabeth Edwards by keeping the news of tbe affair of her husband on the talk shows and the front pages for their own selfish, ass covering reasons.

   There's nothing like a good game of COVER YOUR ASS!! I don't think Wolfson is playing that (if this were Penn or Solis Doyle saying what he did, then I'd agree), but I think all the Clinton hero-worshippers; i.e. Alegre and her ilk and the other PUMA mental midgets are doing exactly that.

There's more...

Discussing the impact if John Edwards' behavior and lies had precluded Edwards' candidacy, former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said, "I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," told ABCNews.com.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5 553013&page=1

I am second to none in my support of BOTH Clintons, my critique of Edwards' risky ego-fueled narcissism, and my doubting hesitant support of Obama.

There's more...