I think Rachel will agree with this:
1. Hillary does not want the VP spot. Just like John Edwards doesn't.
2. Hillary is in this to win. Not to be exit nicely.
3. Hillary is too old to run in 4 years. She's not thinking that way either.
4. Women want to be addressed as her main supporters.

If you follow the America Cup of sailing, then you may remember when they kept changing the rules for Dennis Connor to win against the America 3 (cubed) team, the women's team. Just one more race, just one more race. It's just like Rachel said, they keep changing the rules so that the boys can win.

Rachel you are way too smart to posit such a naive question. The Clinton's OWN the DLC. You don't think the Clinton machine can hold off this deluge while she tries as many tricks as she can to reshape the Media and public perception of her into a possible winner? Look at the committee that will be meeting May 31st. Headed by none other than Clinton super-loyalist, (as well as the one who set up the delegate system that Hillary is fighting)....Harold Ickes.

I agree with you that Clinton is not done yet and not done trying to damage Obama. She made public again today her claim that he has prevented the votes in Michigan and Florida from being counted. Her letter to Obama claims it isn't good enough to seat them at convention with a compromise...So what then? She just gets them ALL?. ( I read Obama's legal Pdf.to Michigan. They laid out conditions that made certain he wouldn't be counted out; and were willing to work it out.) Those conditions were not met and it was the legislature in Michigan who decided on no re-vote.

Her last chance is to create a PERCEPTION that there are viable metrics which give HER the votes from Florida and Michigan AND that the popular vote is the ONLY one that really counts now. Which by the way, DISENFRANCHISES ALL OF US VOTERS WHO ARE IN CAUCUS STATES--apparently THAT vote loss doesn't bother her as she goes about pleading for every "precious vote".

I have tried up til now to stay away from coming down on Clinton. But I am just getting sick of her hypocritical concern about counting every vote. Early on in campaign when she assumed she would be nominee, she claimed Michigan "didn't matter". And NOW their every vote matters sooo much. Also her campaign is claiming she never agreed to take her name off ballot in Michigan even though there IS a statement signed by her that says just that. Howard Dean verified this in an interview.

I defended the Clintons mightily all through the '90's. I feel betrayed by how they are conducting this do-whatever-it-takes campaign.

I just heard the interview with Mr. Hansen, regarding McCain's "Maverick" label, and I felt I had to write. Mr. Hansen's analysis was FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED! McCain got his label from bucking the Republican party on politically-sensitive (i.e lots of media coverage) issues - to ignore those votes in the analysis makes Mr. Hansen's approach flawed from the start. Secondly, on the analysis put forth by Mr. Hansen, McCain voted with the Republican party 51 of 70 times on critical issues (I believe those were the numbers). Is that statistically different than the other members of the party? You imply that it is not, but I would like to see/hear the proof. If I had the data, I could tell you (If you haven't figured it out, I am a statistician by trade.).
Finally, I caution you, Ms. Maddow: you refer to McCain's "Maverick" label and the press' inaction in challenging it as "frustrating." That is a personal emotion applied to a non-personal relationship, and thus demeans your credibility. Please be more professional in your apporach to national issues that are not personal in nature.

I really was having a bit of a difficult time trying to follow Rachel's argument about what Hillary's primary intention is in this campaign. I'm not daft, just a little confused.

Does Rachel think that Hillary is in this to win it at any cost, and she doesn't care what she does to Obama in the process? If that is the case, why would the superdelegates allow this to happen, as this nomination is clearly in their hands now.

My own feeling, is that they want her to go out on a positive note, to try and save face, as she is likely to win fairly big in W. VA (does this state ever go Dem. though in the general?), and perhaps Kentucky.

I am listening if someone would like to take the time to explain Rachel's POV.

Thanks.

If the Hillary talk on the airwaves and the misogynist bamboo stake-lined pits and poor spelling on this blog are getting you down, try listening to Ramsey Lewis. Smart, funny, sexy, virtuoso, with fascinating citations throughout his music. I just downloaded the thirteen albums available online (apart from the Christmas album--ewww) and they're working very well for me on my current insane work project. When will there be an audiobook of Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon," by the way? Listening to the audiobook version of his "Quicksilver" novel just makes me nervous. As in, we have so many problems in the world today, but lo! (low!) the 17th-century issues were even more troubling. Plus it's abridged. It's possibly the influence of too much talk radio, because I do love *reading* those novels.

Cheers,
A New Economy pieceworker, doing the 21st-century equivalent of basting shirts here in Seattle

... EXCEPT for that easy listening smoove jazz album from 1992. Ouch, Ramsey! Maybe I'll appreciate it more ten years from now, the way I appreciate Barry White today. One of the coolest aspects of R.L. is his fearlessness, though.

My favorite Ramsey Lewis album isn't available online yet: "Come On, Baby."

..."my" congressdude, has just thrown his superdelegatude to Obama. A local union, whose president is also an OR super-D, has endorsed the skinny, jug-eared kid as well. And apparently some super-D from Joisey has done the same thing.

Personally, I could care less which corporatist gets the nod; of the Big Three, Obama's probably the best, but that's like saying the gutter is better than the septic tank or the outhouse. Nevertheless, I thought it was newsworthy. Here's the link.

http://www.kval.com/news/18803064.html

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not by the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists"--Abbie Hoffman

Face it, fans, Rachel doesn't care about you. She cares about her bank account. That means that for all intents and purposes, she has crossed over to the Republican party. Ignore the people as long as the checks clear. Sad, very, very sad.

Rachel has been such a joy on so many levels to listen to. She has given her loyal listners so much to think about, laugh about, identify with etc...over the years on the Radio. She doesn't, however, belong to us. She is a wonderful voice of sanity and truth in the midst of so much chaos and if that voice can reach a larger audience perhaps we will all benefit. If I were seeking to leave my current gig to expand myself personally and professionally, I would hope that those who appreciated and benefiteed from my work would acknowledge the loss and at the same time... support and honor my growth. Rachel has a lot to offer and her path is hers not ours. We are fortunate to have her out there doing what she is doing. I for one opt to cut her some slack and wish her all the best in what might be a confusing, exhausting, all around hugely challenging transition in her career.

Sorry, but as long as Rachel is getting paid by the same corporation that helped enable the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a corporation that STILL enables propaganda to be used on the American public, she is part of the problem. She has been purchased. Lock, stock, and backbone Her opinion is now suspect. Her ties to MSNBC have reduced her credibility tremendously. Those ties have also reduced her listenership. She now pimps for ratings. And to allow that MSNBC propaganda on Air America is the end of Air America. I had high hopes for both Rachel and AA. Both have now shown that they can be purchased by war profiteer GE to further the carnage. Shameful.

... and we are open to differing opinions. We do like to debate and discuss, and even argue every so often.

However,

we take exception to purposely inappropriate, insulting, and intentionally hurtful comments. Such posts are not welcome here.

And if you continue this mode of behavior, you're liable to get a dressing-down from Rachel's mom. Yep, she reads the blog and comments from time to time. Don't make her have to do this on Mother's Day weekend.

RE: earlier note from SAB on pewter (in now-closed thread)

Lead in our drinking cups.

Uranium in our plates (Fiesta Ware, 1930s to '40s, made in West Virginia)

http://periodictable.com/Items/092.6/index.html

And you thought all Southern eccentricity* was caused by inbreeding.

*euphemism for lunacy