Barack Obama in the Audacity of Hope says something which throws some light on the reaction I'm seeing here to Hillary's RFK assassination reference:

What's troubling is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our politics—the ease with which we are distracted by the petty and trivial.

I know maybe people here don't regard her statement as petty or trivial. I read Kossacks who see it as a death threat. To them it's a sign of her venality, her rapacious, her madness.

But it's not. I didn't vote for her on Super Tuesday and I have, like most of us here, been disgusted with her divisive and dishonest campaign. She's recklessly ambitious and she has put her career aims above everything. I don't like her.

Warning: this diary (like many) will be a little fact-starved but strong on speculation.

I believe that momentum will continue to grow to hold meaningful and fair primaries in the states of Florida and Michigan. The reasons are well known. Both states matter too much in the Fall to risk the possibility that sullen disenfranchised voters would take out their pique on the Democratic nominee. Moreover, voters in every state want to participate in this epic contest between Clinton and Obama. They should. What's going on is too significant to leave out voters from any state, let alone two big states.

And the point of barring delegates from the DNC-banned primaries was to show that states can't override the party's rules on scheduling the elections. It wasn't to punish the voters. The DNC has made its point. Early primaries will not count.

So the question becomes, how to organize meaningful and fair elections now and who's going to pay for them. The last point seems to have become overriding. A new Florida primary might cost $24 million; a Michigan one $10 million. Neither state governor wants taxpayers to pick up the bill.

A few days ago I thought the Obama had the nomination sewed up, but I'm starting to see how Hillary can win. Let me be clear that I'd prefer Obama, but I don't think what Hillary is doing is irrational or pro-Republican, as a lot of kossacks are saying. It's tough, it's nasty, it's doing whatever it takes: it's war.

It's not that Hillary is bloodying up Obama to weaken him for McCain, so she can run again in 2012. It's that she's bloodying up Obama for Hillary, to make him look weak and unelectable, to strengthen her case both to the remaining voters and the super delegates.

This is what I see as a possible winning strategy:

Scott McClellan's bombshell accusation that came out today that the president was in on the Plame leak coverup has penetrated the deepest reaches of Bush's mind - a short trip, I know, but still. How do I know?

On ABC tonight Bush tells Charlie Gibson (speaking of Hillary):

I think she's a very formidable candidate, and one of the interesting things that she brings is that she has been under pressure. She understands the klieg lights.

Klieg lights? Klieg lights? Didn't I come across that phrase today somewhere? I must have been reading something. Wait! I know! It's in Scotty's book!

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

There was one problem. It was not true.

I got a copy of this early this morning. Don't ask me how.

Dear Senator Craig,

We appreciate that a senator of your standing has contacted our firm for guidance on how to best manage the fallout from the airport incident. We agree with you that if you are to salvage your reputation and career you must act aggressively and do it now. Here are our thoughts on how to take control of the situation:

This important document continues after the fold.

OK, this is nuts.

I called Diane Watson's office in Washington this morning. Watson represents the 33rd Congressional District in Los Angeles. I've voted for her ever since the borders of the CD changed and she became my Congressperson.

I asked the woman who picked up the phone, who identified herself as "Kelsey," whether the Representative has taken a position on HR 333, the Kucinich bill to impeach Cheney. Kelsey said she was not allowed to give out that information. I asked why not. Kelsey said no one was allowed to be quoted on Watson's positions. I said does that mean you can't even tell me yes or no, that I can't find out her position on any legislation? Yes, she said.

I said that didn't make sense, she's a public official, I have a right to know where she stands. We're in Kafka crazy land by now. Kelsey repeated that she wasn't allowed to give out that information. I said I would write a diary here. That really impressed her. Same response, not allowed to give out that information. To be sure, I asked again: Are you saying that only the Congresswoman is allowed to say what her positions are and that otherwise it's a secret? Yes.

What??!!??