How about praising McCain for his "lifetime of experience" while demeaning Barack for "giving one speech in 2002"? Praise the Repub while whacking the Dem? Nice move Hill.

Many more where that came from ww: the 3am call, the "white folks vote for me", the "we'll all sing kumbaya" theme, etc etc. And besides just going negative on Barack, she has become a republican to boot: gonna "obliterate Iran".

Hillary will do anything to win. Anything. Which means you cannot trust anything she is saying now. The people see it and it shows in the polls.

... where all the concerns are. But none of it amounts to proof of anything, its just opinions echoing down Hilldog Canyon.

I also realize that Hillary's tactics don't sit well with Obama's supporters. I don't see the need to pile through them one by one for what would be the millionth time. There is exactly zero proof that I have seen that shows that Obama in GE, or Duh Party generally has suffered because of the way the primary race is being run, by either side. (quite the reverse if one considers votes cast, new registrations, and money raised important)

The rest is all opinion, which you're entitled to, of course. But people are coming away with a judgment about Obama supporters too, based on what they complain about, and what at times appears to be vicious, baseless attacks. (whore, warmonger, republican, etc)

I'm not saying anybody has to like the examples you cite above. But the conclusions that are drawn go way beyond the evidence into wild assertion land. And that could be seen damaging the GE scene as much or even more than anything Hillary has done. Its going to be harder for Obama to Unite® the party and draw in support from independents and fence sitters if his base, his core, is seen as ugly, misogynistic, and unnecessarily vindictive.

If Obama supporters truly think they have it in the bag, then Brian's post is the last thing he should be writing. Its the opposite of good political sense.

Dyslexic Obama supporters ... Untie!

to me (a former Clintonite who left when I felt Clinton was trying not just to defeat Obama, but to make him unelectable in November if he beat her) turned lukewarm but show up at the poll Obama supporter-(not a huffpo or TPM type). I think there are a lot of people like me, who are just saying, give Obama a chance.

Apparently though neither side is through with it - and neither Clinton nor Obama supporters realize how angry the other group is ,(especially how the Clinton supporters feel betrayed by their party) and will continue to be for some time.

Myself, I say the nomination isn't over till it's over.

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}

only thing worse than sore loser is a sore winner ;)

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Obama went down in the polls vs. McCain shortly after Hillary began the kitchen sink attacks. Especially after Wright broke, and then bittergate, which Hillary and the media manufactured. Since last week, when Hillary cooled it, Obama is back up. This effect hasn't been dramatic, and it looks reversible (mostly reversed), but it's right there in the Real Clear Politics poll average.

It seems strange to me that the rejoinder to the concerns over things that Hillary and her major surrogates, like Bill, have said is over what some people say on the Internet. Some obama supporter somewhere called Hillary a whore? Is there any statement so outrageous that you can't find someone on the Internet who has made it?

Warmonger I will defend. She voted to authorize war with Iran, as with Iraq based on a disputed factual premise whose support consists almost entirely of Bush assertions. This is *worse* than her Iraq vote, as she really should know better the second time. And then she threatens to nuke Iran into oblivion if they mess with Saudi Arabia. America has to commit itself to unthinkable atrocities in defense of a country that is deeply undemocratic, unstable, irresponsible in international affairs, and a major funder and ideological promulgator of Islamic terrorism. If that is not mongering war, what is?

It seems awfully hard to please the Clinton people. When Tina posted in one of the other threads, that the pro-Obama bloggers were calling for unity and an end to attacks on Hillary, Adrena called it hypocritical because of their previous attacks. And Tina seemed to agree. So if Obama supporters cannot continue to air their grievances because that would be "vindictive", but also cannot put them aside for the sake of unity because that is "hypocritical", what can they do that the Clinton people will accept?

is not responsible for bittergate, Obama put his own foot in his own mouth and paid the consequences. As far as unity goes, one must make an effort and not just assume after months of demonization of Hillary supporters that they will just forget about the nastiness of the season. I am talking of bloggers and posters here not Obama. mbento you seem to want to bring up every slight you feel Hillary has done. We have been there and back many times here and I don't feel the need to relive those discussions. Obama will be nominated, isn't that enough? Isn't it time to stop blaming Hillary for all evil in the world and move on? The campaigning will be all over in a couple weeks and the delegates will make their decision and life will go on.

It isn't just internet posters that called Hillary a whore, how about Randi Rhodes of progressive radio? When that happened the Obama supporters twisted themselves into pretzels to rationalize that it was okay. It wasn't okay, it was hypocritical after blasting the republican mouthpiecese for the same behavior in the last 8 yrs.

and she did too, even in the debate. If you campaign on it, you have helped make it an issue. And the comment itself was leaked, it was not something intended for public consumption, just as Hillary's describing we Democratic Activists as the enemy was not. And just as Sam Powers' monster remark was not.

It seems odd to me that you think discussion of what Hillary has said and done should be dropped as old news, but what various bloggers have said will have to be overcome over months with much effort. And what about strawman arguments? I haven't blamed Hillary for all the evil in the world. The things I've said about Hillary concern things she (or her close surrogates, but mostly she) has said and done. We're supposed to drop all that, but worry about what some bloggers said? As for Randi Rhodes, I missed that one. She should apologize.

is a public official running for the highest office and whether it was leaked or not it was a stupid thing to say and he paid for it. Just like Hillary has paid for her mistakes. The rules applies to both and no doubt if Hillary said those words he would have used them against her(I would expect it also). I don't think it should be dropped because it is old news, it should be dropped because it is no longer relevant. Obama's competition is no longer Hillary but the republicans.

And the primary thing I attacked Hillary for in the parent is not her slights - though I think they have been harmful - but her foreign policy as expressed in her public statements and her votes. If that is not a legitimate political difference, what is?

maybe the thing for me to do is just to let Hillary supporters come to terms with the situation. I don't understand the sense of grievance; I really don't. I think Obama supporters have much more to complain about. And I see a lot of weak arguments otherwise. But what I do understand is grief. Your candidate lost. Mine too, actually (Edwards, well, Feingold really, but he dropped out in the preliminary stages). We need to work together going forward.

to understand me and my 'grief'. That is belittling, presumptive and not appreciated. If you would like to discuss the coming Obama/McCain matchup I would be happy to participate but I don't see any purpose discussing my 'weak arguments' with you any further. cheers

you're quite right. we need to work together going forward. (to what end though. power for the sake of power is a dead end.) i would speak of kucinich, whom i favor, but the fairytale of the system is blown. if it weren't i would stick with my preference of leader whether he or she was running or not.

if I could, I would chisel an image of Kucinich out of wood and present it to you. Your admiration for him is evident in all your posts. Just saying! :)

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

that would be a profoundly kind and sweet gift, and not cause it would be of his visage, but because it would be handmade and purely sympathetic -like, just cause i like the guy. on my side, i can't say i do portraits well or i'd do one of hillary. all i can say is it would look much better than any similar attempt i'd do on kucinich! i love th guy but lordamighty he needs some eyebrows or somethin'. and i've seen him in person.

bless you, that was the sweetest thing to say.

and yano, that comment of mine barely touched on something i still wrestle with: my belief about leaders or potential leaders is that i just cannot easily say 'well, my preference didn't make it so i'll vote for the candidate otherwise most acceptable to me'. no, i'll stick with whom i believe can do and completely, even if they're not in official office. if they lay over and go mum just because they're not in office, then i was way mistaken to begin with... real power is to me well demonstrated by such as jimmy carter. he, dennnis, and pat leahy are about the only people i'd feel comfortable with in any position of authority. so, i seem to advocate personality politics, which i don't. something for me to address another time. with all that said, i thus exhort you to maintain your steadfastness to hillary come what may. i mean, keep on the lookout to see that she's about what she does and not just what office she does or doesn't hold and applaud and celebrate it.

thank you again...
x

Your guy gets slapped around a bit, mostly on points of his own making, and as you say he 'recovers'. As I said, there is no proof that Obama has been damaged. You appear to concur. Proof of the opposite is that Childers (D) was elected down in Mississippi in a very red district despite a full-on Wright ad campaign being waged against him. The Wright incident doesn't have any traction even in a deeply Red district.

"Hillary cooled it." Is Obama's fate in Hillary's hands rather than his own? I wouldn't trumpet that too loudly. It appears to me that Obama has a lot more to worry about than just Hillary.

If the kitchen sink strategy really bothered Obama, perhaps he can lobby the DNC to have Hillary email her talking points to him ahead of time.

Attila the Hillary also has a plan to leave Iraq, hardly a warmonger stance. A point which isn't hypothetical, btw. Besides, it was Israel not Saudi Arabia, although you're right in that Iran and the Saudi's historically are less than cordial. That friction drives the Saud's into our hands more than a little. OTOH, President Adinnerjacket made a historic visit to the Kingdom, last year I think it was. Its much more worrisome that Iran is being courted to join the The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a fact I feel certain Hillary is aware of in all its dangerous ramifications. Her knowledge of the situation would make children of you and me both, I'm sure. Your warmonger charge is an insulting swat at something you barely understand.

Ya, it is hard to please any of us. Still, we all lie in a bed of our own making. If Obama truly wants to deserve the Presidency, the problem of bringing the Party together despite all the issues cannot be seen as onerous task, and his peeps shouldn't endeavor to make his job even harder. The ball is in his court. Time to cowboy up, as the saying goes.

While I may "barely understand" Hillary's foreign policy, I still evidently understand it better than you as I, at least, can correctly identify the countries to which she is referring. This is from the ABC transcript:

"
And secondly, we've got to deter other countries from feeling they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can't go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say, well, don't acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you're also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup.

And we will let the Iranians know, that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation. But so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under the security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions. And finally, we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us, and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.
"

... for the cite. That clarifies your reference. Your foreign policy awareness is impressive.

There is a difference between being damaged and partially recovering and not being damaged, though, as I said, it may be that the damage will not prove lasting (not the same as saying it didn't occur). And election results on other candidates don't prove anything; attempts to link all democrats to Wright are so ridiculous, they could hardly be expected to have traction. I do think the Wright card has been played out, though.

As for Obama's fate being in Hillary's hands, all candidates' "fates" depend in part on what their opponents and allies do. No one fights in a vacuum. If Mitt Romney attacks McCain as an economic incompetent, that's likely to have an effect, and Romney, not McCain, would be responsible to his party for that. Whether the "party comes together" will have to do with the choices made by Hillary supporters, who will be influenced by what Obama does, and probably more by what Hillary does, but not simply controlled by either. Do Hillary and her supporters bear no responsibility for what they do?

... damage in the GE. If its limited to just the Primary then complaints about damage is just so much whining and the point is hopelessly lost. A two or three day drop in polling during the news cycle doesn't amount to damage if it didn't cost him anything. Can't sue for damages without showing a loss of some sort.

Hillary and supporters are responsible for what they do, and apparently for what Obama does too.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

will remain unproven until the GE, so by that standard, nothing Hillary does can be considered objectionable now because the pudding wherein the proof resides will not be ready for several months. A standard of judgment that anything can meet is not a standard of judgment.

we know what the standard of judgment is ..... blame Clinton for everything.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

That's clearly not what I said. But evidently your standard is, any criterion that leads to a result unfavorable to Hillary is automatically unfair.

that's not my standard. However, the pudding wherein the prove resides has been prepared. Clinton is already being blamed (unjustly) for dividing the party and for being responsible if Obama loses to win the presidency in November.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

The polls clearly show this. A large percentage of Hillary voters say they will not vote for Obama. Is this because Obama doesn't have health mandates? I don't think so. Obama is certainly offering more than McCain on this score, and I don't think most voters understand the issue to that depth anyway. So why, then? Is it because Obama has attacked Hillary so unfairly that Hillary backers in their anger will elect McCain? Some seem to be arguing this, but I don't see the case for Obama actually having been rougher on Hillary than vice versa, and, if Hillary supporters have that perception, the question is why. Is it because Hillary has said Obama is not fit to be commander-in-chief? I don't know how that can be dismissed. There are other possibilities too, of course: would an Obama loss be because Obama is half-black? That certainly would not be Hillary's fault. Personally, I think most voters that racist are lost to the Democrats anyway, and the last Dem to carry the white vote was LBJ - even in 96, Clinton did not. But there seems to be a bit of an exception in Appalachia, and maybe among Latinos (by an exception, I mean people who would vote for a Democrat, but not for Obama, for racial reasons). If Obama loses, whether Hillary is to blame, or partially so, will have to be determined by the post-mortem. But it is easy to see how she could be a factor.

Do Hillary and her supporters bear no responsibility for what they do?

Are you blaming the Clinton supporters for the 'Hillary hate'? If not, what responsibility do the Obama supporters have for creating the division?

If Clinton throws her support behind Obama with all her might, it doesn't necessarily mean that her supporters will. Clinton is a classy lady and a true Democrat who will fight to unite the party. However, if you underestimate the anger of her supporters you do so at your own peril. Make no mistake about that! Obama will not be the next president of the U.S without the support of Clinton supporters. It's a bit like a chess game, isn't it? Remove the misogyny pawn (it's lost its usefulness) and replace it with the 'respect Hillary' pawn. It's a tough move if you consider the credibility factor. But please, don't blame the Clinton supporters. It's the Obama people who created this mess.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

There are Hiilary and Obama supporters who both feel the other campaigned unfairly or in ways that selfishly undermined the Party. I think the Obama supporters have much the stronger claim, and I was an Edwards supporter. But you evidently disagree. It's not clear to me what's the best way to go forward. The overarching task at this point is to save the country and world from four more years of Republican rule, and this will not happen if the Hillary supporters refuse to back Obama.

I could debate you over how the campaign has been fought. That might convince, but it might lead you to harden your position further since you will be fighting for it in debate. One thing I've noted in these threads is that Hillary supporters will reference their grievances, and when you bring up Obama grievances, the response is "c'mon, we've been over that stuff a million times". If the clinton grievances are still fit for discussion, so are the Obama grievances. But it may be best to put it all behind us.

On the other hand, I really do not see how the Hillary supporters view the situation fairly and come to the conclusion they do. So a debate could further my understanding. But my understanding is less important than unifying the party, and I'm not sure what's the best way to proceed on that.

Whether Hillary supporters back Obama will ultimately be in the hands of Hillary supporters; it cannot be anywhere else. I don't think Obama is responsible for much "Hillary hate", and I think Obama has been subject to much more hostile campaigning from Hillary than vice versa. For example, in the ABC debate, when the moderators asked questions hostile to Obama - Rev. Wright, bittergate, flag pins - Hillary piled on. When they brought up Tuzla, Obama defended her, even though she had already admitted to lying. When Tina said that debate was just Obama's taste of the treatment Hillary had gotten all along, I asked for a list of questions Hillary had gotten in the 25 previous debates combined that were both as hostile and as irrelevant as those posed to Obama there. I don't know of any, but I did not see every debate.

someone's position. Just ask them what they're talking about. If you don't know what I'm talking about now, you'll never know what I'm talking about 'cause you don't wanna know. I can talk to you till the cows come home and you'll ask me the same question: "What are you talking about?"

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

there was more to my comment than the subject? There is, for example, the specific point on the debate you could respond to. Or you could respond with any support for your position. "If you don't already agree with me, you never will, so there's no point in talking to you" is certainly a way to end a debate, but it doesn't sound like the argument of someone prepared to actually support their position.

The damage is done. You don't call a fellow democrat a whore, bitch, or monster one minute and a distinguished person the next minute. Obama has benefited mightily from sexism. How he can undo the damage I don't know. To me he's a jerk. I'll wait and see how he 'unjerks' himself. I remain hopeful. (Hint - if he chooses someone who respects Hillary as a VP, I might respect him. Respect begets respect!)

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

When did Obama call Hillary any of those things? Randi Rhodes made the whore comment, but Obama doesn't control what she says. Sam Power made the monster comment off-the-cuff, explicitly attempted to keep it from going further, and still paid with her position in the campaign. The only prominent source I know that called Hillary a "bitch" was Saturday Night Live in a sketch that was clearly supportive of her.

didn't say any of those things but the fact that he knew they were being said and then chose to perpetuate the sexist slant himself as evidenced in the video posted by his campaign after the ABC debate, makes him guilty of misogyny in my eyes. The video in question has been removed by his handlers.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

you can be a sweetie too :D

The guy just doesn't get it.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

To call Hillary a whore is as arbitrary as calling her a marshmellow. If the charge doesn't stick, then it's less offensive and reflects more on the silly person who levelled it. Calling Hillary a whore doesn't work - it would suggest she has slept with men, or that they'd want to sleep with her.

I don't know if you are just unaware, or what. But your remark is textbook sexist if not outright mysogyny. Right up there with Ken Rudin's Fatal Attraction quip.

In fact, you have a ton of company.

Misogyny I Won't Miss | Marie Cocco | WaPo

I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan “Bros before Hos.” The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet.

I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker

I won’t miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a “big [expletive] whore”…

I won’t miss [nice use of anaphora!] Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone.

I won’t miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie “Fatal Attraction.”

The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a “she-devil” (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she’s “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court” (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC).

But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it’s mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like “a scolding mother, talking down to a child” (Jack Cafferty on CNN).

When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: “White women are a problem, that’s — you know, we all live with that” (William Kristol of Fox News).

Most of all, I will not miss the silence.

I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven’t publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women’s basketball team.

StormBear's implication Hillary is a thief is of the same. You may find it arbitrary, or amusing as you said in another thread, but no one is out there calling BS on this crap. Not the DNC, not Barack, not the media ...

I find it unbelievable that you are totally blind to it.

ww, for all the above reason is why I will be re-registering as an independent and no longer take any calls from dem fund collectors. Stormbear strips are shitty.

I'm confused. Wasn't I defending Hillary by saying she isn't a whore, and calling her accusers silly?

....well, I don't know quite what to tell you Nominay. I believe you didn't intend to be so insensitive, considering your reply. So misogyny doesn't appear to be the case.

Some things are very offensive even if untrue. In fact, often more offensive because they are untrue. In this case its even beside the point ...

I really don't know what else to tell you ...

I think anyone who would call her a whore is beneath even dignifying with a response of outrage. Only people who are trying to get attention would say that. As soon as someone says that their credibility is shot.

... been trackin' your bretheren:

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two, Twenty-Three, Twenty-Four, Twenty-Five, Twenty-Six, Twenty-Seven, Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Nine, Thirty, Thirty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Four, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Eight, Thirty-Nine, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, Forty-Eight, Forty-Nine, Fifty, Fifty-One, Fifty-Two, Fifty-Three, Fifty-Four, Fifty-Five, Fifty-Six, Fifty-Seven, Fifty-Eight, Fifty-Nine, Sixty, Sixty-One, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Sixty-Four, Sixty-Five, Sixty-Six, Sixty-Seven, Sixty-Eight, Sixty-Nine, Seventy, Seventy-One, Seventy-Two, Seventy-Three, Seventy-Four, Seventy-Five, Seventy-Six, Seventy-Seven, Seventy-Eight, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, Eighty-One, Eighty-Two, Eighty-Three, Eighty-Four, Eighty-Five, Eighty Six, Eighty-Seven, Eighty-Eight, Eighty-Nine.

"...cunning, baffling, powerful."

. . .that Hillary does not think Obama can win the election; not only that, it's obvious she believes this is her presidency. No one but a fool cannot see she has lost the nomination; she just won't concede out of foolish pride. Meanwhile, the Democratic party looks like a bunch of idiots who can't get their act together. McCain--not well liked by his own party--will laugh his way to the Presidency. Good work Democrats: All these years of waiting to ouster Bush and you give it up; behaving like school kids fighting over who's first in line for lunch. This is why I am non-partisan: both parties are full of whackos and koolaid drinkers. This is almost as bad as Bush getting re-elected. Hey, maybe we should just let him stay a third term; he's mellowing out and behaving semi-rationally. Bush may turn out to be OK. After all, neither party seems to have anything to offer that would be much better. Why not stick with who we know?

Why is everybody (among Democrats) suppose to agree on one candidate? I like competition. It's good for Democracy, and it's silly to think Obama can't recover from it. The one thing I like about this essay is the idea that this hurts Hillary Clinton more than anyone - not Obama, not the Democratic party, not America.

Healthy competition is what democracy is all about. Just remember McCain is part of the machine that made sure Bush was made President by hook or by crook. If the Democratic party (the only party in the US with any chance at all of challenging the incumbent party--such is our democracy) can't form a cohesive team, ready to trounce McCain the way we'd all like to see, then what purpose is the so-called competition? Believe me, Obama will have his work cut out for him, even with a supportive team behind him. He's farther left than a lot of the voters he's trying to convince to elect him, and that's not an easy hill to climb. Those same folks who Hillary has supporting her, with their guns and their religion, will be needed if Obama is to have any chance at all of winning. Will Obama be ready to throw down when the time comes? We'll see. You can bet your bottom dollar the republicans are ready to tear him a new one (you see, even though they may not like McCain, they realize he's all they have right now and are not ready to give up the White House). So he better get his game face on, and Hillary should think of something larger than herself if we are to remove the republican presence from the White House. I thought 2008 was supposed to be the end of an evil era, apparently it's not a done deal yet. If it's any consolation, McCain, at least, isn't really much of a conservative, if you ask members of his own party. Maybe he won't be all that bad. Yep, and Bush just got his Mensa membership card.

"What purpose is the so-called competition?" you ask. To not have a coronation, to have every state that holds a primary count or matter, and to make conventions what they should be and originally were - an exciting process where a nominee is decided on, as oppose to a disgusting, showboating affair of nothingness as it had become by 2004. Oh, and to not bore the shit out of us by having a nominee for an entire year, but rather, for a few months like it had been for about 200 years. Competition also either breeds better candidates, or brings out a candidates true, horrific colors. Obama has been grace under pressure while Clinton went gutterball. Like it or not, that's why one is about to capture the nomination and the other disgraced.

Its an election. All contestants have every right to stay in race until the end. All voters have the right to vote for whom they choose.

Patience. It will all be over in November.