Exit Toll

There are rumors of political matrimony. The advantage would be that McCain would have to run against the entire Democratic party rather than half of it. The disadvantage would surface later: Obama could only use Air Force Two when Bill wasn’t using it. Or, to skip being cynical, maybe we would see a change from the historical role of Vice President.

Who is this “Last” person, and did he or she use a Sharpie or an Eberhard to mark the big change in the campaign?

These things matter. Vandalism will not be tolerated.

What?….What five hour rule?

Oh, okay.

I don´t know Ann–after hearing the 800th martial metaphor today, I´m beginning to think that we should abandon the metaphorical part and just have a duel. Maybe just the first to draw blood?

Yo, Dale. Maybe I could stan’ in fo’ Obama in dat duel ya tawkin’ about. I been honin’ my quick draw on da Papal Firin’ Range lately. I’m makin’ some great progress, too, dat’s fa sure. Call me sometime. I’ve always t’ought ya are uh really swell gal.

Adam, seems to me it’s more the respective campaigns and their supporters that are the problem. I don’t see Clinton being particularly mean spirited … just horribly monotonous. (Yes, we get it. You were married to the president; undoubtedly that was a meaningful experience … though it’s not as if you were, y’ know, the actual president or anything. Still, for what it’s worth, she’s got the “experience” thing on her side. Okay, fine. Point made.)

But Clinton’s supporters are, at times, just a wee bit too prickly for my taste. I suppose most Clinton supporters would agree that I am not necessarily sexist just because I prefer Obama. I say most, ‘cuz I get the distinct impression some Clinton supporters equate a vote for Anyone Other Than Hillary with Misogyny Plain and Simple. But what chaps my ass, if you will, is how all Obama supporters are stereotyped as fuzzy, empty-headed idealists who Don’t Understand How the World Works.

Sorry, my Clinton supporting friends, but you don’t get to call me “naive,” or “lacking in substance.” I’m way to old for that; I’ve been around the proverbial block far too many times for that; and I’d gladly match my cynicism with anybody’s, anywhere, anytime.

Truth is, Sen. Clinton’s stump speeches are no more substantive than Sen. Obama’s. Sen. Clinton’s stump speeches, to which we’ve all been subjected, ad nauseam, for the past few weeks (y’ know, ‘cuz the media has a crush on Obama …) are nothing more than slogans and sound-bites. You know why? ‘Cuz she’s a politician on the campaign trail, just like Obama. That’s what a friggin’ stump speech sounds like. She’s no more substantive than he; and, truthfully, neither worries about the hard facts ‘n details ‘n such when they’re preaching to the choir.

So, I’m willing to listen to whatever the Clinton backers have to say … so long as it’s not a personal attack on me, just because I’m not in lock-step with the Senator from New York. Which I’m not.

Murray, INCOMING!!!. Seven weeks of television hell coming your way. As if TV weren’t bad enough already. You may want to take this opportunity to swear off the idiot box for the duration. BTW, how’s Tony’s campaign coming along?

Zee Man, through a quirk of fate my satellite system doesn’t get local channels and I need to use a high gain antenna and do a lot of playing around to get the network stations. So I haven’t seen a show on CBS or NBC in years (unless it’s in syndication on cable). I may well be spared. Harold may have a problem.
I’m glad that my vote for presidential nominee counts and it may bring either Hillary or Barack to the 9th district and could very well have Tony on stage with them.
That would be good.
7 weeks is long enough for them to get out of Philly and Pitts and head to the mountains of Alabama in between. We will see.
Tony’s campaign is doing fine. We are on the ballot and his fund raising is OK. We have a much better organization, many more people and we sort of know what we are doing this time. Conditions are worse so we have a much better shot.

This is insane! I can’t post on this site at all. I just posted a carefully thought out, civilly stated position on the election, and Fanny has sequestered it. Adam, can you Do Something about Fanny? She’s off her meds.

Hey, I once saw the Rolling Stones’ Ron Wood walking down Michigan Avenue in Chicago … Okay, it was, like, July 1978, but still …

I grew up in LA, and worked a year in Beverly Hills. Never once saw a celebrity. Well, I actually I met quite a few.

OT, we have our offer on the house in, and are expecting a counter-offer any minute. Wish us luck.

Dale, was it Juan Valdez, the new one with the giant hand? Or was it that paczki-eating guy who’s been known to hang out with him?

Murray, do you think Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will realize what a good idea it is to kiss up to the bloggers of Pennsylvania? “Senator Obama, Senator Clinton got us all ice cream and promised us ponies. Then she bought us a round of shots. How do you propose to counter that?” And do you think Tony will be able to get something out of their inevitable visits?

Pope Benny, I’m thinking that if Hillary Clinton becomes President, her husband may very well be appointed the next ambassador to Vatican City. There are very, very few young, nubile women over there, right?

Hey, Seattle D … so long as ya didn’t run into that Rick Neuheisel fella, it’s all good by me.

And remember folks. It’s not John McCain. It’s John Sidney McCain.

John Sidney McCain III.

You can bank on that!

…but I would have gone up to Mo and messed with him. Sorry, I must have hit the wrong key, I guess.

Dammit Fanny, I’ll try this again:

Posted while coop was posting. Apparently Dale was NOT talking about John Leguizamo.

Damn you Google results.

Mo, we’re gonna see if we can raise your results with a Googlebomb. What phrase do you want to pull up your website?

Let’s try this again:

I’m getting really tired of hearing all the pundits state that “older, educated white women” are “Hillary’s votes.” I am an older educated white woman, and I support BHO, and I resent talking heads telling me what I’m supposed to think.

I actually believe this effect gave Hillary the Nevada election: the SEIU officially endorsed BHO, and the SEIU members all showed up in their casino uniforms and voted for Hillary, I think out of sheer cussedness and refusal to be told what to think. (My sister lives in Nevada and I get some insight into local attitudes from her.)

I also don’t think my support of BHO makes me a misogynist. She’s a perfectly competent (if not inspiring) candidate and if BHO weren’t running I would back her happily. I just like him better. This nation desperately needs someone to tell us that there’s hope. We’ve been ruled by fear for seven years; it’s time for hope. HRC is an executive; BHO is a leader.

I would love to see an Obama/Clinton ticket, except that HRC thinks it should be a Clinton/Obama ticket; they’re going to have to work that one out, but it would be unbeatable. Except - what would the people do, who refuse to vote Dem if Hillary takes the nomination (the stupidest response imaginable), if Obama agrees to sit in the second seat? But then - he’s got the lead in delegates, why should he sit in the second seat?

Acronym Jim–shall we let old art supplies into the race? Caswell&Massey for Obama!

Russell– One dream ticket scenario is both current candidiates on the same ticket. I’d work for it; i’d vote for it.
My 2000-election-closure-lovin’ /2008-winnin’ dream ticket is Al Gore dropping from the ceiling instead of balloons at the convention. Gore-Obama– and offer Hillary anything she wants in the cabinet or just let her stay an important Senator and help her efforts towards Majority Leader. It’s not just me; there’s Gore fantasy stuff on Huffpo.
Ann–Thanks for the folklore/folksong info. I’ve heard that song all my life, plus it’s an important detail in a Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce Sherlock movie, and I’ve never heard of the deeper interpretation of it. Nigel Bruce isn’t usually from the darkside.
Adam–I am so sorry that I did not add a comment as an immediate response to your great photo–Awwwwhhhhh to the cute, happy anticpating couple.

Argh…

As a Obama supporter, seeing headlines like “Obama advisor calls Hillary a monster” is just sickening. Folks, we all need to get along. BOTH candidates are good candidates. We’re lucky. Both would make good presidents. In fact, in a vacuum I think Hillary might make a better president. She is more experienced in policy, I think she’s probably a little smarter, and I believe that female leadership does bring something new to the table. However, we DON’T live in a vacuum.

And with everything facing our country right now and the hard choices and steps that are going to need to be made and the divided and acrimonious and polarized citizenship and government we’ve created, I believe that what’s most important right now is not the “perfectest” policy, but good policy that has a prayer of actually happening.

Through both fault and (mostly) no fault of her own, Hillary is polarizing and divisive. And I foresee too many members of congress, other governmental entitites, and citizens opposing her ideas just because it’s her suggesting them. And that sucks and it’s not fair, but I think it’s reality. Whereas I do believe that if anyone has a chance to bring the country together a little and maybe change our direction a little, it’s Obama. And that to me is more important than experience or having the better health care plan. (again, it doesn’t matter if it’s better if you can’t make it happen).

That all being said, if Hillary is the nominee that’s still a good thing. I’ll be excited (though worried for the above stated reasons…) And it’s for damn sure better than McCain, who terrifies me. (I no longer recognize the McCain of 2000).

I think someone in a previous post (i can’t find it to quote it) mentioned that the problem is not so much the candidates themselves, than that when we support a candidate we invest ourselves in it and our ego/identity because somewhat entangled in their success. It’s human nature to say the other is BAD because otherwise maybe we weren’t right to say that ours is GOOD. But that’s SOOOO dangerous.

I know I’m preachign to the choir here, and boy that got long, but I had to get this off my chest. I’m terrified of the acrimony and vitriol that I hear from supporters of both candidates.

Becca

Though I do happen to also believe that the Clinton campaign does tend to use “dirtier” techniques than Obama’s does and as Obama got momentum the tactics have gotten worse. (It’s bad when your own campaign is quoted as saying they’re going to throw “the kitchen sink” at the other guy). Mostly I think that’s a carry over from previous races and presidencies, where those were the rules of Karl Rove’s game. Clinton is used to it and has had it used against her and Bill for years so sees nothing wrong with using it herself. It still bothers me a lot though. (And yes, Obama’s campaign twists Hillary’s positions too….I don’t like that either. That’s the politics that make so many of us sick and disgusted)

Becca and Brian, I tend to agree on the matter of the Florida and Michigan delegates. I think the party as an institution made a big mistake “penalizing” those states for having the audacity to move their primaries up so their citizens would have a say in the nomination process.

Of course, the irony of a Florida re-do (or, as my kids like to say, “do-over”) is almost too rich to comprehend. But way back in 2000 we used to like to say that things like “fairness” and “democracy” were more important than, um, artificial dates and deadlines.

‘Course, the Supreme Court disabused us of that silly notion.

Still, for old time’s sake, let’s pretend that votes matter …

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1719899,00.html

relevant to previous post…not sure if it’s a fair or unfair conclusion

Ann, my only additional comment regarding Florida and Michigan is this: I’m not sure that the state Democratic parties are to blame; I think it was the state legislatures that set the primary dates. At least, I think that’s the case in Florida because, if I’m not mistaken, they held both parties’ primaries on the same day. I believe Michigan had separate Democratic and Republican primaries.

In any event, it seems like there’s blame on both sides — that is, on the part of the national Party and on the part of the local parties and/or state governments. But I agree that if those delegates are to be seated, there’d have to be do-overs in each state.

Now if only everybody’d listen to me, we could sort this thing out!

Ann, of course they are not governments, and of course there is no legal obligation for the party to do a do over. I also agree that it would be wrong to count the delegates from the previous vote. I’m not talking about rights here. I’m talking about prudence. There could have some other form of sanction. Now the DNC is faced with the ire of the population of two very populous, states in the general election. Do you not think that a large minority of these people in these potentially critical states will be angry enough and be on the fence enough during the general election that the democrats might lose the states over it? I certainly see that as a strong possibility. You already have two state party systems that apparently have an upper-echelon consensus that the National party has no right to autocratically dictate to them. How many of the general electorate feel that way as well? I don’t know, but I think it would be quite prudent to expend some money and get this redone.

I’m with Dale - becca and brian just about wrapped up my whole feeling about this campaign and about Hillary. I was hoping for a while we’d get a Democratic nominee without any negative campaigning but that was obviously too much to ask - as if the Republicans weren’t capable of finding their own ammunition.

And Chris Harlan, the whole Michigan and Florida mess is just SO stupid I can’t believe they’re doing it - except of course it’s the Democrats. As Will Rogers said, I don’t belong to any organized political party - I’m a Democrat…

Sorry, people. I (almost) hate to do this, but you leave me know choice. I posted this over at Jesus’ General’s place, but it’s equally appropriate here.

I think this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail sums up my feelings about the Democratic nomination process:

Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some… farcical aquatic ceremony!

Indeed.

I be a Floridian, so I’m in the middle of this one. The problems with counting Florida and Michigan are multiple. First of all, there was no primary election in Michigan, because all of the candidates except Hillary abided by the national party’s request that they not participate in a non-sanctioned primary. Hillary is also the only candidate who campaigned in Florida, although all the candidates were on the ballot.

Unless there is an actual primary election in Florida and Michigan, this amounts to simply picking up extra delegates for Hillary, just as counting the military absentee ballots in Florida in 2000 which did not conform to then-in-place Florida election law, a decision made at the last minute with Jello Brain Joe Lieberman’s blessing, was nothing more than a method of gaining extra votes for Bush in a razor-thin election.

And then we had the spectacle of the Supreme Court running roughshod over Florida electoral law and appointing Bush president. So my question is, Are we or are we not going to have electoral laws and primary election rules which can be trusted? Laws and rules designed to disenfranchise voters we have historically changed, although those clever Republicans have now come up with a picture id requirement to effectively disenfranchise a portion of older black voters in the South. But I guess we have to adjust to that one because it is a rule that seems to be legitmate to the majority of voters.

So we either hold another primary in Florida and Michigan, preferably on the same day as the Pennsylvania primary, or we hold caucuses in Florida and Michigan if gearing up for a full-fledged primary within party primary guidelines and both candidates free to campaign without first supporting, then defying, the rules in place at the time of the first primaries in Florida and Michigan.

But for the party to just change from not sanctioning the primaries in Florida and Michigan to counting the votes of those delegates at the convention is less legitimate than standing by the rules under which those primaries were discounted.

Popular opinion, I gather, is that if they are not counted, it is an electoral injustice. How is fishing for delegates under these circumstances any less of an injustice, especially in Michigan? The only problem I see with a later election in Florida is that it will produce a different result than what would have occurred on Super Tuesday, when we were supposed to have our primary, but the Florida Republican Party was enjoying the mischief of a changed date too much. Obama will likely get more votes than when it was a full slate, and when Florida voters were unaware that Obama polls significantly better against McCain than does Hillary. I know my Edwards vote will now go for Obama, if given the choice, as will the votes of several of my fellow Florida Democrats.

Glad to see that Pennsylvania is trending Obama. Hope Hillary doesn’t find a way to help produce a McCain win. Lieberman is, of course, free to endorse whomever he pleases. He is also free to kiss my ass.

OK, now I’ll go back and read other folks comments.

Hey David, I don’t know the makeup of your legislature. To what degree were Republicans knowingly creating this conflict when they set the primary dates?

One state, two state, red state, blue state!

The current nominees characterized as Pushmepullyou. Semipartisanship and polarization, advocating very similar policies with nearly identical goals, but at odds about implementation, all wrapped up in one neat, adorable, yet stubborn package.

One more reason to push for the dream ticket regardless of who gets the nomination. These two working in tandem (or as a pushmepullyou unit) would be extremely formidable, seeing as how they would presumably cover more conceivable obstacles to achieving their, and our policy goals.

Of course, there is always the possiblity that they would put their talents to purposes counterproductive to the overall good of the republic.

“One more reason to push for the dream ticket regardless of who gets the nomination. These two working in tandem (or as a pushmepullyou unit) would be extremely formidable, seeing as how they would presumably cover more conceivable obstacles to achieving their, and our policy goals.”

That was my first impulse, too, but after giving it some serious thought, I don’t see how that could possibly work.

“Of course, there is always the possiblity that they would put their talents to purposes counterproductive to the overall good of the republic.”

That’s exactly what’s happening now, and more so from the Clinton camp than the Obama camp. From what I’ve read of Clinton’s last few public remarks, she’s done nothing but give the John Sidney McCain II campaign ammunition for the general election.

Just once, I wish I could vote for the best candidate. But they already dropped out–they were ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by the press–sometimes all three.

I’m getting too old and too tired for this. If I wake up Wednesday morning, November 5th, and find that John Sidney “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain III is President-elect, I think I will go stark raving mad. I cannot take another 4 years of this. The nominee has to be Obama, and Clinton cannot be his running mate.

one man’s opinion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?em&ex=12051252 00&en=0cd11ff0bdb74c39&ei=5087%0A

Well, becca (and brian), it feels weird to agree with David Brooks, but he’s right about this one: Obama’s representation of a new era is what gave him those multiple wins before Ohio. Clinton has now brought up the idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket at least twice, and she knows that delegate count is a likely impasse breaker, so she’s fighting for every vote. The party elders (which include Hillary and Bill) should also weigh which candidate would have the better effect on all the downticket races, the importance of which cannot be overstated. We know that, unfair as it may be, there’s a substantial segment of anti-Clinton people out there in the Great Middle, whereas Obama, who hasn’t been on the stage for 35 years like Clinton, just doesn’t present this problem. Fewer voters are likely to vote for Republicans just to “offset” Clinton.

So. Delegate majority plus brighter prospects for the party. If Clinton could get behind that and support Obama for President, it would be an unsurpassed act of political heroism, and evidence that we might really be on the threshold of a new era.

Chris,
Florida state government is solidly Republican, so much so that they created a new position, the chief financial officer, in the belief that government should be structured like a corporation, and on the assumption that Republicans would win all of the top of the ticket state races. Well, they did win the governorship and attorney general race, as well as the other cabinet races, EXCEPT the new chief financial officer post, which is second in power only to the governor. A Democrat, a woman, Alex Sink, won that office. Also, Democrats have begun to win seats previously owned by Republicans, including some special elections. We are still a Republican state, and I guess will vote for Smilin’ John McCain, but some interesting breezes are starting to blow.

gregory,

Don’t be too sure. It looks really ugly at the moment, and Hillary is committing some strange electioneering sins, but after some seriously angry agonizing, especially because I’ve been following, and rooting for, the Good Hillary (e.g. the one who is a patron saint for the Children’s Defense Fund) from the first time I learned who she was and what causes she championed, I came to the conclusion that the rougher Hillary plays, the better. Two reasons: Obama needs to be able to handle anything and everything she throws at him, because McCain will do everything Bush did to win, and then some; and if Hillary is the nominee, the more cunning, ruthless, and able to crush opponents she is seen to be, the more Americans will be willing to accept her as commander-in-chief.

I still agree that Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton is our best ticket. And if it’s Clinton/Obama, Obama should be able to do what Gore did in 2000, but with two key differences: that there not be a turncoat on the ‘16 ticket, and that Democrats finally figure out how to keep elections from being stolen.

I have to say, in response to Chris Harlan’s comment, I’ve heard nothing that one could remotely call “hate speech” coming from the Obama camp. “Billary” as hate speech? You’ve got to be friggin’ kidding me. Isn’t Sen. Clinton the one who harps incessantly on her “experience” … most of which comes from her having been married to Bill when he was president? Isn’t one of her strong points exactly that - that her closest advisor is, y’ know, the former president of the United States? Seems to me that’s a good thing … especially when you consider most of us voted for Bill, twice, and would gladly have voted for him again had we had the chance.

And you can be sure that if she is the party’s nominee, that’ll be one of the reasons I’ll get behind her. That, and the fact that she’s about a thousand times better than John Sidney McCain III and his band of John Hagee acolytes.

Perhaps we travel in different circles, but from what I’ve seen, the negativity on the Clinton side far outweighs anything that’s coming from Obama’s side. Yes, one idiot advisor called Hillary Clinton a “monster.” What a world-class jerk you’d have to be to call a fellow Democrat a monster … we all agree that that was waaaay over the line. And she lost her job over it, which is fine by me, but it seems to me that pretty much ends it, right there.

So, I’d love to see some concrete evidence of that so-called “hate speech” coming from the Obama camp … ‘cuz believe me, I’ve been looking plenty hard, and I just don’t see it.

The funny thing is, Hedera, I’ll be perfectly happy if she is the first female president of the United States … and yes, I mean this time around. If she wins the nomination and wins in November, she’ll do a fine job … she is, after all, competent, and that’s the one thing that’s been in short supply since Jan. 2001.

But, of course, even if she doesn’t get the nomination this time around, it’s not like she’ll never have another chance to run for president. The same is true for Obama. It’s conceivable that both of them will someday be president.

And, if each of them gets a chance to run as the party’s nominee, whether it’s this time ’round, or in four or eight years, we’d all better be prepared get behind them when the time comes …

Dave von Ebbers wrote: I have to say, in response to Chris Harlan’s comment, I’ve heard nothing that one could remotely call “hate speech” coming from the Obama camp. “Billary” as hate speech?

Do you never go to sites like the Daily KOS? Look how people are responding on those pages. You’d think some of them were talking about Stalin or Hitler. They talk about her like she is not even human, like she is a monster. Now I know that no one on Obama’s actual staff would call her a monster, but some of the followers are going crazy. She and her staff are routinely accused of some pretty outlandish things. I only know this because I’m a video editor and got caught up in deciphering that absurd skin-darkening issue for people. When I looked at facts behind the video and looked at how people were reacting, I was shocked at the degree of rage aimed at her. As to Billary, it is a cute joke. When you read it over and over with all the bile attached to it, it sounds more like this: #$@%@. I’d expect that from ditto heads. Do Clinton supporters have any derisive names for Obama? I’ve never heard them.

Yes, re W, what Dale said.

On a better subject: my daughter and I are working our way through I Love Lucy. We’re in Season 2. Its a real gas to see how much fun my nine year old daughter gets out of it.
Adam, the second half of Season two has some great baby tips.

Well, I have to admit you do have a point there, Ann. On the other hand, Dave is a supporter, but not a member of “the Obama camp”.

Acronym Jim, I always thought Tommy Chong was completely baked on Colombian.

Ann, Chris … I’m not sure that comments on blog posts really qualify as “hate speech” coming from the Obama campaign. And most of the criticism of Hillary Clinton is based on her voting record. She voted to give George W. Bush authority to go to war with Iraq, then later said she did so only to give the weapons inspectors an opportunity to do their job. That’s (a) an non sequitur; and (b) disingenuous, given that the weapons inspectors had already gone back in. So, she’s well deserving of any criticism she gets over that vote. And, she voted in favor of the Kyl-Lieberman nonsense, declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a “terrorist” organization, the purpose of which was to lay the groundwork for another ill advised, unjustified war. (Let’s not forget that Captain Incompetence still has time to start that one.) Finally, she voted against banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Yeah, some Obama supporters are furious at her for votes like that, because her reasoning, to be blunt, seems crass and political rather than genuine. It’s too bad that emotion sometimes gets the better of us, but those votes — and her attempt at explaining them away — are legitimate bases for criticism. Not legitimate bases for calling her names or exaggerating; but certainly legitimate bases for criticism.

So let me ask you Clinton supporters: How do you rationalize those votes? And it’s not enough to say that Obama would have voted for the AUMF … because we’ll never know what he would have done had he been in that situation. We do know, however, that he voted against Kyl-Lieberman and he voted in favor of the cluster bomb ban … so, he’s got that goin’ for him. (Which is nice …)

Anyway, all that stuff is fair game - just like it’s fair game to question Obama’s health care plan; or whether his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq is really that. And it’s fair game to question whether he has adequate experience to be president … even though one could have asked the same question of, um, Abraham Lincoln.

But from what I’ve seen — and believe me, I’ve been on the receiving end of this — anytime you mention Sen. Clinton’s shortcomings (and those are shortcomings, folks), the response is to attack Obama and his supporters for being empty headed idealists. That’s taking a page out of Karl Rove’s playbook, kids. And it’s not nice.

I’ve tried mighty hard to be nice about this, but given the venom I’ve received (not here, of course), I have to say this. In my view, Hillary Clinton created her own problems. For all her talk about experience, she hasn’t shown much leadership in the U.S. Senate. She’s voted the wrong way on some critical issues, and she deserves whatever grief she gets for that. And, as far as the campaign goes, she’s been on the attack since early in the election — long before Obama and his supporters began to respond in kind. It may sound like a 2 year old thing to say, but she did, in fact, start it. She and her supporters should take some responsibility for that. She went negative first, okay … so, she’s hardly in a position to complain when Obama’s folks push back.

You can feel free to criticize Obama and his camp when the go over the line. I agree, by the way, that the accusation of “darkening” Obama’s image was nonsense. In fact, for what it’s worth, the whole idea of accusing Hillary and Bill Clinton of being racist is deeply offensive to me. But it’s just not credible to suggest that the Obama campaign initiated the negative attacks or that the Obama campaign has been more negative.

Hillary Clinton has made mistakes as a senator, and she hasn’t had the ability to own up to those mistakes. That she gets criticized for making those mistakes and for refusing to accept responsibility for her mistakes isn’t “hate speech,” folks. It’s fair game.

Finally, Ann, I agree with your last point. I would not accuse Clinton of “lying, cheating or stealing to get the nomination.” But it is true, and I think you have to concede this, that her campaign plays hardball. And that, I don’t like. If the same is true of Obama, then he deserves precisely the same criticism.

C’mon, dee. You’re not chopped liver.

Chris, no problem. And I didn’t mean to come across as attacking Clinton, only to highlight some of my reservations in a race between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.

That said, I’ll have no reservations voting for her over John McCain.

Seems to me, we’re all more or less on the same side and we’ve got to get out of the habit of beating each other up because we see slight variations and nuances between the two. So, I’ll take my own advice and leave it at that!

Now wait a minute, Dave, I absolutely hate Escher.

Tommy Chong’s columbian is still here? I must clean out the fridge.

But I intend to do it in a half-baked way….

Just to clarify….Tommy Chong’s colombian coffee..light roast rather than full roast…three decades old…ergot…erm…ergo..half-baked……..Oooh look at the shiny Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Regarding Samantha Powers:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com.php5-6.websitetestlink.com/archives/2 008/03/victim_of_prima/#more

Isn´t is possible that Samantha Powers was comparing Hillary to a good monster–like Grover, or Elmo? (Sigh, I really admire her work as a historian.)

Dale,
I apologize for misleading you on the spelling of her name. I realized after I’d posted the comment that I had probably misspelled Power. I think it was because the last thing I read had the possessive, and my kind of tired brain led me astray. I went back an checked, and sure enough… And my apologies to Samantha Power. She really is a terrific thinker, writer, and panel discussion participant.