Civil War At The NY Times?

[MannyGoldstein]

The past few days' op-eds have been interesting at the NY Times - looks like the op-eds are becoming a better-written version of DU.

From Frank Rich (my fave) yesterday:
"a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come"
"The Clinton campaign might be an imploding Potemkin village itself were it not for the fungible profits from Bill Clinton’s murky post-presidency business deals."
"The campaign’s other most potent form of currency remains its thick deck of race cards."

From Paul Krugman today:
"I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again."

"And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network."

And from William Kristol today:
"And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed — the fall of the house of Clinton."

[Frances]

1. I will support Obama to the best of my ability in the general

election.

But I will not attack Bill or Hillary Clinton. They fought the good fight when the majority of Americans were buying the Reagan propaganda.

I think Obama will probably be our nominee. Obama cannot defeat McCain without getting the votes of most of Hillary's base: older people, women, and blue-collar workers. The youth vote, the African American vote, and the highly educated, highly paid vote is not enough to win the general election.

[pampango]

2. Damn MSM with multiple points of view! I want them to be monolithic.

:)

[TexasObserver]

3. Kristol is his Daily Standard - wrong. Krugman is a Hillary toadie.

[chimpymustgo]

6. How dare you slander Paul Krugman like that! Just because he doesn't like Obama's health

care plan.

That's disgusting - and says SO much more about you, than it does about a renowned thinker - and voice for good that is Krugman.

[11 Bravo]

7. Hell, anyone who fails to kneel, genuflect, and pucker up for the sainted Obama ass ..

is clearly a hack ... racist ... fool ... (pick your own pejorative).

[Proud2BAmurkin]

4. The Republicans and broadway critics against the progressive economist

I know whose side I'm on

[Tatiana]

5. I said the exact same thing!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4533427&mesg_id=4533427

[ericgtr]

8. It's like this everywhere

I have my own little message board (compared to this monster anyway) and the political section is nothing but Hillary vs Obama supporters, just as hateful as it is here or anywhere else. We have a divided party this time around, I hope it doesn't hurt us in the long run.

Edit: typo

[Beacool]

9. I fear what will happen to the party if they're not both on the ticket.

The country as a whole may not be ready for a black man or a woman, but together they would be formidable. At least it would serve to unite the party. The top of the ticket should be whoever of the two wins the popular vote and most pledged delegates. Otherwise, I predict a bitter, divided convention and a good chance that we may have to say "president McCain".