I’m starting to really want this nominating contest to end already.

Next Tuesday probably won’t be decisive. Obama might win Texas and Clinton might win Ohio. If Clinton wins both, the race continues. Even if Obama wins both (and they split Rhode Island and Vermont), Clinton has said she’s looking to Pennsylvania on April 22.

April 22! That’s seven weeks from now. Fifty-four days from today. How much time is that, you ask? Well, 54 days ago was January 5, right between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Think of how long ago that was and how much has happened since then and then realize that that’s the amount of time between now and the Pennsylvania primary. I don’t know if I can bear our party’s tearing itself apart for two more months.

Mike voiced similar thoughts eons two months ago, and I disagreed with him then. Now I’m starting to see his point. I guess it’s a subjective question of how much more of this I can personally take.

It’s ironic. Everyone complained that by front-loading the primaries, the nominating race was going to be over too soon and we were going to have to suffer through a nine-month general election campaign. Instead, the race is taking forever.

The 2004 nomination battle started later and ended earlier than this one. On January 19, 2004, John Kerry won the Iowa caucuses. On March 2, 2004, Super Tuesday, Kerry crushed his last remaining rival, John Edwards, who then decided to drop out. Time elapsed: 43 days.

This year, the Iowa caucuses were on January 3. It’s 56 days later and we’re still in the thick of it.

The day after Super Tuesday 2004, the New York Times wrote:

With yesterday’s balloting, 29 states and the District of Columbia have now passed judgment on the Democratic field. And the party’s leaders appear to have accomplished precisely what they were looking for in setting up this calendar: A near-consensus candidate, chosen early and with minimal bloodshed.

How nice.

On the other hand, after we nominated Kerry we got buyer’s remorse. At least this year we’ve been able to vet the candidates more. It’s good that Obama didn’t cruise to the nomination after Iowa. Whichever candidate ultimately wins the nomination will have been tested and vetted and will have learned greatly from the experience. Ultimately, this fight will make our nominee a better candidate.

Eh, who am I kidding. I have no idea what it all means. It’s just agita-inducing.

The shorter Russert/Obama:

Russert: Senator Obama, you’re black. Louis Farrakhan is black. Please repeat after me: All the blacks hate all the Jews.

Obama: No, Tim.

Russert: Please?

Obama: No, Tim.

Russert: Don’t you agree that this will be much better television if I put the words “Judaism” and “gutter religion” in the same sentence?

Obama: Hard to say, Tim.

Russert: Louis Farrakhan, Moammar Qaddafi and your pastor walk into a bar. Doesn’t that prove that you hate all the Jews?

Obama: Actually Tim, I like Jewish people.

Clinton: I just think it’s very important to add that I like them more.

[via TPM]

[6/13/08 update: Tim Russert passed away today. I was mad at him 3 1/2 months ago when I wrote this entry, and the title of this post is overly harsh. See my tribute to him.]

Tim Russert disgusted me with his Farrakhan crap in last night’s debate. He’s so obsessed with playing “gotcha,” creating controversy, trying to trip candidates up.

First he asks Obama about Louis Farrakhan.

MR. RUSSERT: … On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: “Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago.” Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

Okay. Asked and answered. Next topic, right?

Wrong. Because even though Obama has answered the question, Russert seems not to care. Because getting Obama’s answer isn’t the point. Tim’s question is apparently the point. He wants to create “a story.”

MR. RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism “gutter religion.”

“Some voters.” Did you talk to any? “May have” a problem. May? Has Russert talked to actual voters who have raised this concern? Or is he just trying to be controversial? I actually yelled “fuck you” at the TV at this point.

But Obama cuts him off.

OBAMA: Tim, I think — I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That’s why I have consistently denounced it.

This is not something new. This is something that — I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I’ve been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.

Good. We’re done, right?

Sigh:

RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, “Audacity of Hope,” you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan “epitomizes greatness.”

He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, “your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.”

What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?

Who said Obama had to “assure Jewish-Americans” of anything? He has nothing to assure us of. And why is it “assure Jewish-Americans” instead of “assure all Americans”? Are Jews the only people who care about anti-Semitism? Are blacks the only people who care about racial discrimination? No, but for Russert, it’s all about pie charts and voter sub-groups.

And what does Israel have to do with any of this? Since when are all Jews of one opinion about Israel? (Or about anything?) Israelis themselves are divided over the direction of their country, as the citizens of any good democracy would be. Why wouldn’t American Jews be divided as well?

What was the point of Tim’s question? Does he have any evidence that Obama is anti-Semitic? No. So shut the fuck up.

I think I see Russert’s deal. For him, it’s all just a game. He doesn’t care about the substance of the candidates’ responses. He cares only about how they respond. He’s not interested in whether candidates can fix the nation’s problems; he only wants to know whether they’re good at playing the game. The game that he himself is a part of.

Josh Marshall says, “As a Jew and perhaps more importantly simply as a sentient being I found it disgusting.”

I agree.

Here’s the video.