The Dish

Freud would have a field day with this.

Gallup has now compiled an index. The Dow of our discontent?

Much happier than many social conservatives would predict or believe.

So says Poulos.

Jonathan Chait explains why not supporting Clinton isn’t an attack on feminism:

Typical politicians only stay in a campaign if they have a realistic prospect of winning. A majority of pledged delegates are now in Obama’s camp, and with his total delegate lead nearly as large as the number of still-undecided superdelegates, Clinton’s chances are essentially nil. But like the Japanese military in World War II, Clinton die-hards have a culture of perseverance. They see surrender as worse than defeat and fighting as a worthy end that need not have any real prospect of victory. In Tuesday’s New York Times, a full-page ad from a group called WomenCount PAC announced, "Hillary’s voice is OUR voice, and she’s speaking for all of us."

It looks pretty crazy to those of us not old enough to fight in the second-wave feminist wars. If I spent years being disrespected and discriminated against in my household chores and my workplace, though, maybe I’d see it differently.

But Clinton’s candidacy, unlike those of so many other women, is not and could never be a triumph for feminism. It’s a triumph of nepotism and dynasticism.

“We are open to comprise.  We are willing to go more than half way.  We’re willing to work to make sure that we can achieve a compromise.  And I guess the question is: is Senator Clinton’s campaign willing to do the same?” – David Axelrod, to NPR’s All Things Considered, to be broadcast tonight.

The Clintons know no respect for rules or propriety or restraint in the pursuit of power. But Clinton’s latest speech in Florida should cause even veteran Clinton-hating jaws to drop some more:

Now, I know that Senator Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan, and that was his right. But his choice does not negate the votes of all those who turned out to cast their ballots, and we should not let our process rob them and all of you of your voices. To do so would undermine the very purpose of the nominating process. To ensure that as many Democrats as possible can cast their votes. To ensure that the party selects a nominee who truly represents the will of the voters and to ensure that the Democrats take back the White House to rebuild America.

Now, I’ve heard some say that counting Florida and Michigan would be changing the rules.

I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country – that whenever we can understand the clear intent of the voters, their votes should be counted. I remember very well back in 2000, there were those who argued that people’s votes should be discounted over technicalities. For the people of Florida who voted in this primary, the notion of discounting their votes sounds way too much of the same.

How do you respond to a sociopath like this? She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.

I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

(Photo: Chris Hondros/Getty.)

They will not go quietly:

"I say that not counting Florida and Michigan is changing a central governing rule of this country."

Then this:

"We’ve got to change the way we nominate presidents for a lot of reasons," she said. "I personally believe these caucuses are terribly unrepresentative … [And] I think that what’s happened with Florida and Michigan raises serious questions about the principles of our party."

And this:

In an intentional bit of symbolism, Clinton’s three campaign stops will be in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade counties – the three jurisdictions where Democrats allege voters were disenfranchised during the 2000 presidential election.

She will try – by systematic distortion, deception and distraction – to turn her defeat into an indictment of the nominee and the process which all agreed to in advance. This is about de-legitimizing Obama. When will Gore step in? Someone has to.

Frank Foer was impressed:

A couple of new—at least to me—rhetorical moves. There were the plays for Hillary’s voters: in addition to the obvious brown-nosing, he mentioned Seneca Falls in his climatic narration of social movements through history. He also began to turn towards November by invoking "sportsmen" and "churchgoers." These were done in passing—and when he talked about churchgoers, he didn’t muddy his play for Christians by mentioning shul and mosque-goers. It was the casual way that he dropped these references that is politically promising. I liked that he returned to his patriotism themes tonight in a more substantial way. The language of American Exceptionalism should coarse through his every speech, a wholesale theft of Reaganesque language, and he had lots of "last best hope" and "only in America" lines tonight.

I was more struck by some of the more hackneyed anti-Republican lines. It felt more stylistically partisan, and thereby less attractive to Obamacons like me.