Chris Matthews, of all MSM/TM (traditional media), seems to have finally awakened to the fact that elections matter; clearly the media have been asleep since the 2000 election. I'd started to believe that Matthews was coming around, after S. Carolina. I was only sure he'd finally gotten it once he said this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zia9cQpbkU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zia9cQpbkU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Confession: after stating that I was done watching Morning Joe (and I AM), I relapsed, today.  I watched the segment with David Shuster as he talked about his disbelief that Bill Clinton would bring up the Bosnia incident again, and his utter confusion at why Clinton done it. Had he done it to excuse Hillary's lie?  I don't think so, but more on that later.  In order to 'defend' Hillary? Possibly, but in order to do so, Bill had to tell another set of lies. 

1 -She said it only once. No.  She told the Bosnia lie MULTIPLE TIMES.

2 - It was late at night. Sorry, it was never late at night.  Maybe he's thinking of the speech writing sessions?  The incident was told from a PREPARED speech.

3 - Consider her age  Lots of people forget things  and tire easily as they age - not a direct quote, but close.  (Uh, seriously Bill?) Can you image how the 'hill raisers' would be screaming MISOGYNY had anyone else said that? The assertion is ridiculous, even if you remove the issue of age. She forgot about being shot at, with her child present?

If I was Chelsea, that alone would pull me off the campaign trail.  You can forget my birthday, you can't forget whether or not I was a victim of sniper fire.

If you follow the media, today, you'll see that there were other lies told.  Lies?  You think it's too harsh to use the term?  How else would you characterize them when every point they've made has been debunked almost DAILY, and they continue to tell them?  It's a clear indication that the Clintons don't respect the voters or their supporters and don't expect them to have read, or seen, any news other than the news they chew and regurgitate for them.

There've been a number of articles theorizing whether Bill Clinton is trying to intentionally tank his wife's candidacy, so I won't bring them all up here.  You have to wonder whether this latest slip with Bosnia was raised, again, with the sole intent of hurting Hillary.  The age issue, in particular, has me intrigued and makes me think there's some 'There' there.  Was that Bill Clinton's subtle suggestion that 'youth' matters?  He was, after all, just slightly younger than Obama when he took ffice.  Does he identify more with Obama's campaign: disciplined, youthful and on task, more than his wife's?

This campaign is beginning to make me feel as if I'm in a live action version of "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?". Hillary and Bill have unconsciously cast themselves as Martha and George.  Obama and Pelosi are the unwitting and naive Nick and Honey, unintentionally complicit, frightened, not sure how to get out of the mess, but too intrigued by the train wreck dynamic between the spouses to run away on their own. The only thing missing is a little booze, and not for Martha, for ME, because that's what it takes to get through a Clinton press conference, event, or comments by her surrogates  these days.

I'm probably not the only one who thinks that Chelsea stating that her mother would make a better President, and Bill left agreeing, triggered the revisiting of Bosnia - which was thought to be a dying issue for Hillary.  But now we're back to square one.

The Clinton campaign/marriage isn't a comedy to me.  It's cost this nation, especially our military sons and daughters, too much. It's cost the Democratic party credibility with the voting public for eight long years, so much so that the public sadly viewed someone like George Bush as a better alternative.  Bush would, after all, 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' (another load of bull). Are the Clintons alone responsible, of course not, but their past actions are significantly tied to the misfortunes of the Democratic Party for some time, now.

For me, both the Clinton campaign and marriage, play more like a tragedy.

Obama, and the Democratic Party, have simply become a "third partner" in the marriage. 

Hillary allowed Bill Clinton, long before the road to the White House, destroy any credibility she had as a strong, trustworthy, progressive woman, in my book.  Strength is not shown by tolerating emotionally abusive behavior.  That's a better definition of inaction than strength. Stockholm set in, in my opinion, when she began aiding and abetting him by covering his bad behavior (and again, I refer you to Andrew Young's description of her 'defense committee' before the 1992 run for office). 

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/breSVtVYSmo&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/breSVtVYSmo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

The first time, rising above a husband's infidelity is a matter of strength.  Every time after that is complicity and self abasement.  If it only happened in the Clinton marriage, it would be their private business.  CLEARLY, Sen. Clinton sees more benefit in being in the marriage than out of it.

The problem for me is that they've begun treating Sen. Obama and the DNC are the third party in this marriage. Obama and the DNC are theirs to do with as they will. The nasty letter from Hillary's donors   read as a letter from a divorce attorney, attempting to intimidate a spouse into dropping a claim for support.  They've decided that they can drag the party and the other Democratic candidate through this 'love/hate' drama and that all should feel honored to be a part of it.

Having already cost the party the House and Senate (for the first time in fifty years for the Senate) wasn't enough.  To have denied the use of additional funds for the 1996 congressional races wasn't enough. That  Bill Clinton began an affair with Monica Lewinsky before those races, on the people's time, on the people's property, in one of the most 'sacred' political spaces - the oval office - when his wife was 'home', wasn't enough.  Knowing that the only thing left to lose, professionally, was the White House, wasn't enough.  That this primary can't be won by Clinton, without overturning the will of the people, isn't enough.  For Bill and Hillary, enough is never enough.

I see as much 'strength' in her staying in this race as I do with all of her other BAD choices she's made.  At some point she has to realize that there are better choices to be made.

What Obama gets from the Clinton camp is the same treatment Hillary gets from Bill.  Obama makes great gains in the polls, the party looks as if it will finally coalesce around a nominee, and out comes the Wright issue from Clintonistas.  Which was, mysteriously, followed up with Obama being asked about the Wright matter on the campaign trail (by a Hillary supporter).

The Clintons have tolerated/loved/adored/abided by/aided and abetted one another for more than three decades.  Whatever they've done to one another is their business - whatever part of it hasn't played out in public.  I, however, object to them treating this party, and this campaign as if it's an 'anything goes' moment in history. It is not. I object to them treating Obama and this party as if we are theirs to dispose of as they please.  Not so. I would like to believe that she's hanging on because she believes she can win.  I do not. 

I think it's time for the DNC, and the voters, to tell the Clintons to take their psychodrama back to upstate New York, play it out in private, and to leave the rest of us in peace.  Divorce is painful, Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, but sometimes its necessary to save the family.