I suspect Clinton is in until the convention.

Mostly Obama needs to stay the course. But, I think he should more heavily contrast Clinton's empty rhetoric with her unwillingness to take responsibility for her decisions. The responsibility angle would be an extension of saying "it is important to be right from day one." Irresponsibility is the unifying theme of Clinton's campaign and public life, on issue after issue she somehow wasn't there or her vote somehow didn't mean what it meant. Clinton has handed Obama an opening and a lot of content to build on.

A similar good and accurate word to describe Clinton would be "careless." Clinton's vote for the Iraq War, even if she is taken at her word that it was for geopolitical gamesmanship, was coldly careless with the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi men, women, and children. The original Patriot Act was a careless abridgment of civil liberties. There is in Clinton a certain what-me-worry obliviousness that makes her dangerous to common folk in the same manner as George W. Bush. Clinton has garnered sympathy (and criticism) as the enabler to her husband's addictions. But the public is picking up on her own self-absorption and tendency to see herself as a victim, and as a victim justified in acting out in anyway that pleases her, no matter the consequences.

Obama has to make it clear that age is not synonymous with maturity, responsibility, or careful decision-making. Running for the presidency can't simply be an extended self-help program for the candidate, no matter how dramatic her story. It has to be about helping voters with their lives.

Despite the New York Times editorial, the press has dropped the issue, at least for now. (So much for the press being unfair to Clinton.) Also, she brought in enough donations that she is conceivably financing her current campaign without more loans from the Clinton family fortune. Clinton's book deal and other sources of income seem legit (other than the cattle trading which was crookeder than the Arkansas River). It's Bill foreign income for speeches (ie. bribes) that was the problem, but he's cloaked in stealth mode these days so people aren't making the connection.

I think the Clintons have successfully silenced the money issue until the Republicans raise it in the general. The unintended benefit for us is that we rarely have to listen to old blowhard Bill anymore.

These piggies, along with other transgenic creatures, are also an experiment in social conditioning.

We get many "noble" causes--pigs that pollute less, pigs that grow human organs. Then we get a few weird outliers--glow-in-the-dark kittens that we are allowed to reject.

There will be many excuses to apply "rational" thought to radically altering our global evolutionary and domestic breeding inheritance to better serve the human market. The people making these value decisions will be scientists, which is to say, corporations.

Sexist comments directed toward Clinton (or Chelsea) are dwarfed by the death, violence, and deprivation suffered by Iraqis, and particularly Iraqi women and children.

I think it's time both candidates speak to this issue of American (ir)responsibility.

Ask a buffalo. If you can find one.

I am more worried about biotech foods that are healthful for people than those that cause illness or death. Healthful foods will be more attractive to consumers, and the power of the market will swing behind them if they contain more value for the buck.

Profitable genetic alteration will need to more genetic alteration, which means more of the biome will become subject to human needs, and more environmental resources subject to human consumption.

I would rather see humans decrease their total consumption of environmental resources.

The real issue isn't ending the FDA's oversight per se. The larger problem is that there is no voice, no organization, no system at the table that represents any value other than markets and profit. We will live in world that is increasingly artificial and "owned." The problem has never been that chimeras will be defective, just the opposite, the problem is that they will outcompete wild and selectively bred domestics. We will have an increasingly less diverse biosphere.

Let's just hope that these pigs really are frankenfoods, and make us sick. I fear that they are not.

No one will tell Clinton she can't win, and she is certainly the favorite at brokered convention. But the superdelegates also cannot tell the delegate frontrunner to give up. The remaining schedule will likely be a draw.

The fight now is for the status of Florida and Michigan.

President McCain.

"Visiting New Orleans (my first trip since Katrina, I'm sad to say) should keep the right issues at the forefront as I think about how the Democrats move forward."

As if Salon could not have covered the "right issues" in the context of the campaign for the past year. Instead, Salon gave us repeated articles on Obama's racial makeup.

The Democrats are not "moving forward." Clinton's wins are a blow to the party's chances in the fall. Walsh may be correct that the "the Nevada and South Carolina races were arguably nastier," but is that all we expect of the Clintons and Salon, to be better behaved than they were following South Carolina? And is it really progress that Clinton herself is now baiting Obama on religion instead of Bill baiting him on race?

I'm not sure resurrecting the Florida and Michigan primaries will resurrect the Clinton's legitimacy.

But I do believe the fix is in.

Clinton's bigotry has attracted the most attention, but Obama's gracious response deserves more attention. It would have been easy for him to simply state that he was a Christian and leave Clinton's slur against Muslims intact. The Clinton camp have already slurred him with exteremist Muslim leader Farakahn, and so it was in Obama's interest to simply distance himself from Muslims.

But he didn't. He noted that Clinton was not just attacking him, but Muslims.