Obama's finally bringing up the Keating Five. I've been wondering what the hell he was waiting for.

Ralph Stanley cuts radio ad for Obama.

A look at just how last Friday played out for the Clinton campaign.

Clinton's current plan for winning the nomination: Obama getting assassinated. Clinton's spokesperson found it "outrageous" that anyone would be upset that Clinton invoked assassination in a purely political discussion, but later Clinton issued a non-apology apology, regretful "if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive." She also explained that the assassination reference came up because, with Ted's illness, the Kennedys were in her mind. Which means she was apparently thinking about Ted Kennedy's brain tumor in March, when she first referenced the assassination.

I should be happy, as Clinton's national political ambitions are completely dead, but I'm just disgusted. Keith Olbermann laid it all out on his program tonight; when I find a video of it, I'll add it here.

UPDATE: Here's the Olbermann video:

The New York Times looks at gender issues and Hillary Clinton. The first thing that jumped out at me was the photo of a "young Clinton supporter" of about the age of five, holding a sign that read, "I plan to be the 2nd woman president." Not to pick on a little girl, but assuming a parent or guardian largely responsible for the text, I'll go ahead and say, what the hell? She's a toddler, which of course means she won't be eligigble for the presidency for fourty years or so. There is a pretty good chance I'll be dead before she is eligible for the presidency. So is this what the Clinton campaign stands for? One woman president, then we let the men get back to work for a few decades? For Clinton herself, yes, probably. She's shown no interest in the long-term best interests of her party or her country, why should she have any nobler asperations for her gender? But I would hope the country as a whole could aim higher. A Clinton supporter in the article describes Obama as patronizing, but what's more patronizing than suggesting that, once Clinton's elected, we can go back to the status quo for a few decades?

That said, I will concede the first paragraph of the Times artile is patronizing: "With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit." You know, with the possible exception of "cheerful," I think it's an absolute certainty that's how the next President will dress, even if McCain wins. Unless McCain decides to start wearing bermuda shorts around the Oval Office, he'll probably elect to don a pantsuit, as he and virtually every male politican always had and always will. The fixation on Clinton's wardrobe is unfortunate. But I also doubt it had a bearing on her defeat.

Hateful bigot Geraldine Ferarro shot off her nasty, racist mouth, describing Obama as "terribly sexist," without explaining why. I guess because Obama supporters took umbrage to her speaking the bold truth about the advantages the black man has in our society, living the "fairy tale" life, as Bill Clinton put it. And a group called "Clinton Supporters Count, Too," is forming to campaign against Obama in November. Of course Clinton supporters count, too. They each count for one vote. And unless Obama's supporters don't count, that means Clinton's campaign is doomed. Edwards supporters count, too; does that mean we should just let Edwards be the president, as to not hurt their feelings? Let everyone be president, don't want to not count someone.

Which goes back to the charge of being patronizing. Clinton's supporters are begging to be patronized, demanding it. Suggest Clinton should drop out, considering she lost the election? How dare you! She can run for as long as she want. But if you say that she can still run, you're being patronizing. Yes, Clinton has the right to run for as long as she wants. Ron Paul is still running, and people aren't calling for him to drop out. And that's because he doesn't demand constant validation. Anyone can run for president, and no one can force you to drop out. That doesn't mean you should, or that people have to pretend that you can win. Clinton supporters seem to be buying into a Special Olympics version of politics, where we have to be nice and supportive and everyone's a winner. Which is fine, and in fact a wonderful and beautiful thing, for the Special Olympics. But it's just not how politics work.

So here's my main suggestion for those Clinton supporters who feel patronized: Stop demaning validation. Yes, she can run. Anyone can run, it goes without saying. When people call for her to drop out, there saying what they think she should do. They have every right to speak their mind, too, and that, too should go without speaking. So Clinton, run if you want, but stop fanning your supporter's outrage whenever anyone suggests you can't win or shouldn't be running. And be more sparing when you cry sexism in how the Clinton campaign was treated. Yes, there were elements of sexist to be found, and she wasn't always treated fairly, I'll concede that. But when one of sixteen female Senators is running against the only African-American Senator (only the third black senator since Reconstruction), blaming every setback to sexism while belittling Obama's achievements is both counter-productive and shameful (that's why your reputation is now in the toilet, Geraldine Ferarro).

Tip to all you Clinton supporters out there: If you're going to make an argument about what someone's dead father must be thinking, up in heaven, about her campaign, make sure the guy's father is dead:

UPDATE: Colbert has some comments on this; he points out it wasn't a slip of the tongue:

Bob Barr running for president.

Clinton, Obama, John Edwards all on The Colbert Report Thursday night. Hillary's bit just wasn't funny; Obama at least seemed to engage Colbert a bit. But it was John Edwards who stole the show; it's a shame that politicians can only be likable when they're out of the running.

Could Al Gore be the next Democratic presidential candidate? If the Democratic leadership is as stupid as they seem, possibly. Seems an ideal way to piss off Obama and Clinton supporters, while subverting the democratic will. Of course, this idea is coming out of Florida, which seems unclear on how this whole "voting" thing works. Of course, it's always someone else's fault, they say (Nader, Buchanan, Howard Dean), but it always just happens to happen in Florida.

Geraldine Ferraro revealed as a hateful bigot. The surprises of this campaign just keep coming. I mean, Jesus Christ: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position?" "I will not be discriminated against because I'm white?" These are things that a klansman says, not a trailblazing woman's right pioneer.

Anyway, I'd been meaning to say something about my growing disgust with the primary, and my decision that I will not vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination, and this bizarre turn is as good a time as any. I voted for Obama, but came slowly to his side. I thought I would support whoever got the nomination. I never considered voting for Clinton in the primary, because she voted for the war. But so did Kerry, and I voted for him in the '04 general election. Of course, that was an "anyone but Bush" vote, but it set a precedent that would benefit Clinton, that I could vote for someone despite their vote at that one pivotal moment.

But as the primaries went on, and it became obvious that Clinton would have a hard time winning the popular vote, or the elected delegate count, I decided that, if Clinton won the nomination in an anti-democratic matter, I would vote for McCain, for the sake of the long-term health of the Democratic Party (it would be so nice if, for just one election cycle, the Democrats could get their shit together; how come we can only retake Congress when Republicans take bribes or try to bone a page). But as it was all but impossible for Clinton to take the nomination by any way other than superdelegate shenanigans, I wondered if I needed to qualify the statement at all, or if I could simply say, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton? And as her campaign got dirtier and sleazier, it became easier and easier to accept that statement, and I make it now: I will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Ever. For anything.

In a way, it's an easy decision. I feel very strongly about the death penalty, and would be a single-issue voter on that issue alone, if there were actual candidates advancing my position. The problem is, when there are, they're generally long-shots (Kucinich), or empty protests (Nader), which tend to make opposition to the death penalty a fringe issue, at a time when the public is finally turning against the institution. So I've accepted the political reality that I will vote for candidates that support the death penalty, within reason. In fact, the only notable vote I made on the basis of the death penalty was my decision to vote against Bill Clinton's reelection, when I cast my very first vote, ever. Clinton signed off on the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, whom Clinton deemed fit for execution, and capable of understanding what was happening to him, a judgment belied by Rector's decision, eating his final meal, to save his pie for "later." Clinton had no qualms killing a man, in our name, to prevent himself from being "Willie Horton-ed" going into the New Hampshire primary. I could not in good conscious vote for this man.

And now his wife is running, who lobbied hard as first lady for her husband's crime bill, which expanded the death penalty. Combine that with her willingness to say and do anything to win (Bill Clinton cabinet member Robert Reich has expressed shock that she would actually suggest that her Republican rival is more qualified to be President than the current Democratic front-runner), and I can't help but think that the Democratic Party, and democracy itself, is better off with Hillary Clinton as far removed as possible. Obama is now the rightful Democratic nominee, and Clinton's dirty campaigning shows her to be as concerned with the health of the Democratic Party as Joe Lieberman is. Go away, Hillary.

Two points, in fairness to Hillary: First, Barack Obama is for the death penalty. Again, I have come to terms with the notion of voting for death penalty proponents, as long as, unlike Bill Clinton, they're not untowardly bloodthirsty about it. And second, the Democrat primary rules are fucked up, and that's not Clinton's fault. Doesn't let her off the hook for exploiting them to keep her doomed campaign alive, but still, something needs to be changed. That Democrats deploy both superdelegates and proportional representation in the primary process is beyond absurd; proportional representation heightens the democratic nature of candidate selection, while superdelegates stand against the popular will. You pick one or the other. By using both, the Democratic Party guarantees, once there's a close primary, all hell breaks loose. Which is another reason not to vote for Clinton: If she's President, no way in hell is she letting them change that process on her watch.