Yes, we want specific policy positions. We won’t have a functioning democracy in the United States until a large majority of voters are no longer swayed by manufactured images of candidates but instead pay close attention to the specifics of their record, views, commitments, sources of support, and policy proposals. Of course Andrew Sullivan doesn’t have a clue about this.

Get real, with Hillary on the ticket they won’t have to “manufacture” scandals, they’ll barely have to lift a finger to uncover real ones. You’re dreaming if you think Hsu is an aberration. It’s time Democrats faced the facts about Hillary’s less than stellar ethics, or you’re going to make it way, way too easy for the GOP to recover the White house.

I don’t think she would be on a ticket with someone who did not share her beliefs.

You can take all this to the bank, because I’m Canadian, and Canadians know more about the U.S. than anyone else, including Americans.

But this campaign has not brought out the best in the Clintons and Hillary is in charge. Planting friendly questioners? Cocaine whispers? Kindergarten? “Ready to Change” the day after Iowa? Bill claiming to having been against the war from the start? Hillary triangulating the war from the time of her Senate vote (most recently seen as she shifts from being against a pullout in general election mode and then realizing she has to backtrack to primary mode). Hillary’s 2nd term as first lady and Senate career are admirable. But the Clinton political style is not something to admire IMO and the country might just be ready to move on. I don’t think finding incessant political posturing to be a civic disappointment is due to being dependent on the Bozos on the Bus. I tried to get excited for Hillary when she was in the lead, I paid attention, and I just don’t like her. I’d vote for her in the general in a second and she’d be a competent if not good President, but I don’t like her.

The Clintons leaked like a sieve in the White House and having a number of unattributed inside the campaign gossip type pieces run in the evilbadscary MSM do add up and contribute to the perception. They haven’t exactly disavowed them all “war room” style, either. There is probably a reason for that.

Hey folks, Obama not hating Republicans (a group that is now being stereotyped and demonized by people who should know better) is both sincere and subversive. I can’t fathom why more netroots types get the subversive part. Sullivan’s Reagan analogy is apt. You want specific policy positions rattled off like a list? Bleah. He’s more liberal than Hillary, just as smart, and way more inspiring. A true liberal that conservatives can respect and people perceive as moderate is better than a moderate that everyone perceives as liberal. I’m sorry, but the politics of this just seem self-evident to me.

In this case possibly. What I am saying is that we are all Bozos on This Bus when it comes to trying to deconvolve the ground truth out of fifteen years of conservative demonization of the Clintons. And that most certainly goes for anyone in the political press corps. Does not mean she “deserves” any office or position of course, but I will just say that I find the net effect of reading the comments on HRC on this thread to be very, very depressing. I’ll join in the Obamagasm later. These folks are all politicians.

… and BTW, my personal preferences were/are Dodd -> Edwards -> Obama.

Moreover, I found that hint of “how dare you usurp me it’s my turn” coming forth from the Clinton camp to be sufficiently close to uppityville to be distasteful, and even if the politics worked, I can’t imagine Obama would reward that sort of arrogance.

Are you sure it came from the Clinton camp, or were we all influenced by braying jackasses like Chris Matthews to think that it was? I know, I know, pragmatics—in an election perception is reality. I’ll shut up now.