Yesterday, Jake Tapper of ABC News reported on his blog a conversation with an anonymous Democratic Party official in which said official used an interesting metaphor:

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I've heard it put that way. 

Since then, everyone from Doug Mataconis to Andrew Sullivan to ABC's Good Morning America has talked about Hillary's Tonya Harding Option. But if this was really the first time Jake Tapper "heard it put that way," he hasn't been reading the other ABC News blogs. Tom at Corrente pointed out that this metaphor didn't originate with an anonymous DNC official, but with Sen. Obama himself, and he linked to this December 28 post on the ABC News blog, Political Radar:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller reports: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd in Vinton, Iowa Thursday that he's not going to pull a Tonya Harding on his rival candidates.

"Folks said there's no way Obama has a chance unless he goes and kneecaps the person ahead of us, does a Tonya Harding," Obama joked, referring to the female skating champion who conspired to harm a competitor during the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships.

"We decided that's not the kind of campaign we wanted to run," he said.

I suspect that Tom is correct, and Tapper's anonymous source is someone from the Obama campaign, not just a "Democratic Party official":

So, yes, this is the Obama people whining about the unfairness of it all. They really need to try a new frequency these days.

Be that as it may, would it surprise anyone if Clinton, Inc. really did kneecap Obama (either literally or figuratively)? If I were him, I sure wouldn't agree to meet someone in Fort Marcy Park.

Geraldine Ferraro, who's on Hillary Clinton's finance committee and works as hard as her health permits on the Clinton campaign, is the latest member of the Clinton machine to play the race card (emphasis added):

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very secondary place to Obama's campaign – to a kind of campaign that it would be hard for anyone to run against," she said. "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," she continued. "And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. …"

In case you've forgotten or are too young, Geraldine Ferraro was Walter Mondale's vice presidential running mate in 1984, and if she wasn't a woman, she would not have been in that position. 

OK, I couldn't resist that bit of snarkiness. But I suspect Ferraro is correct to this degree: I believe there are more Americans who might be inclined to use their vote to reject racism than to reject sexism.

I think she's wrong about a "woman (of any color)," though. I think far more Americans might be inclined to reject both racism and sexism than to embrace either.

Too bad for the Republicans that Condi Rice wasn't interested in higher office. 

When Democrats crossed party lines in the early Republican primaries to vote for John McCain, members of the media thought it was interesting, exciting, and an expression of democracy in action.

When Republicans listened to Rush Limbaugh and crossed party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton, the same people described it as "causing mischief" and perverting the democratic process. 

Personally, I think Hillary owes her resurgence more to Lorne Michaels than Rush Limbaugh. Two weeks in a row, Saturday Night Live opened with wickedly funny skits portraying the news media as "in the tank" for Obama. Not only did those skits influence voters, they apparently shamed members of the media into finally throwing Obama something other than softballs:

It took many months and the mockery of "Saturday Night Live" to make it happen, but the lumbering beast that is the press corps finally roused itself from its slumber Monday and greeted Barack Obama with a menacing growl.

The day before primaries in Ohio and Texas that could effectively seal the Democratic presidential nomination for him, a smiling Obama strode out to a news conference at a veterans facility here. But the grin was quickly replaced by the surprised look of a man bitten by his own dog.

I can't wait to see the next Saturday Night Live. 

"NAFTA-gate," the story about the Obama campaign reassuring the Canadian government that his anti-NAFTA campaign talk was just to fool the rubes, is still resonating (and may have hurt him in Ohio). I missed it initially, but apparently there are allegations that the Clinton campaign also contacted the Canadian government about Obama's promise to "opt out" of NAFTA, and questions continue to be asked.

But here's a question I don't think has been asked of either campaign: Did you contact the Mexican government about this issue?

Clearly, threats by leading U.S. presidential candidates to scrap NAFTA have caused concern in both Ottawa and Mexico City. At least one and possibly both Democratic campaigns thought the Canadians deserved some explanations, reassurances, or at least respect. There's no indication that either campaign thought to extend the same courtesy to the Mexicans. 

Interesting.