If 15% of my money came from someone shady, I expect that I would already be in the pokey.

I figure it more at 65% shady, though. I don't even trust the Canadians.

I am interested to see the list of charities. I recall that Bill once itemized the underwear he gave to Goodwill. Back then he deducted $2 for briefs. Post Presidency, I imagine they might fetch many times that. Especially that thong.

Hey, how did that thing get in there?

I was worried, seriously. Thought she was walking off a short pier with the Carpenters blasting "Top of the World" on her ipod.

I love this bit:

"The good news is that the vast majority of voters think the country is ready for either a woman or an African-American. But I was sad to see lower support for a woman -- though after this campaign, I wasn't surprised."

Get that? She is sad to see that a lower support for a woman than a black. In other words, she would be happy to see higher support for a woman than a black.

I'd be happier if both were 100%. It's not a contest, except for Walsh.

Love the Star Wars theme, though!

I think the poll is flawed because of the political context. You simply cannot ignore that the female candidate on people's minds has been Hillary Clinton, and Clinton alone. A better female candidate in the background would have upped the people's perceptions about our country's readiness for a woman. And they are out there, btw, working their way up, particularly through the governorships.

Look at what she said, lemecdutex: "But I was sad to see lower support for a woman."

Lower than what? Lower than the figure that said we were ready for an African-American. That is the ONLY interpretation that makes sense.

But the poll was not a contest, right? Obviously many people felt we are ready for EITHER a woman or a black. Some probably felt that we are ready for NEITHER a woman or a black. These percentages could theoretically both be 100% Or both 0%.

Walsh is obviously expressing her opinion that it is worse that that we are less ready for a woman than a black. That is -ism of some sort. Not exactly racism, since some women are black. Not exactly sexism, ditto. We can call it Joanism.

It asked whether AMERICA was ready. That's an important distinction that Walsh glosses over.

For example, the poll found that 78% of whites felt that America was ready for a black president. But, fewer blacks felt America was ready for a black president: 69%.

You might interpret the discrepancy by noting that blacks, asked this question, feel that America is more racist than whites feel it is.

Also, I want to point out that the poll's director stated:

"We're not asking this question in a vacuum. In many cases, respondents must have had Obama in mind when giving their answer, even though he is not mentioned anywhere in the questionnaire," Holland said.

Even the pollsters did not think the current race did not matter in the results.

Anybody else notice that Walsh used race to knock the War Room post on Clinton's massive income off the featured lineup? Clinton's taxes have quickly been consigned to yesterdayville.

Salon always gives Clinton a free ride, and uses race-baiting to do it.

I like reading numbers with so many digits.

Here's a number: $20,264,719. Line 20 total income. Could you imagine writing that on your 1040?

Hee hee. At least they rounded the pennies.

"Bill could buy a small struggling third world country and install Hillary as its head of state."

He did! It's called the Cayman Islands.

Once again the supercowards are sitting back, refusing to endorse Obama.

If there is anything the reveals the inherent crookedness and selfishness of the Clintons, it's the news of their role as corporate whores to international business. The unregulated globalism that passed with the Clintons blessing in the nineties profited them greatly. At the same time they destroyed health care reform and gutted welfare for the middle class and poor.

We are not entering a great recession after years of declining wages.

Set aside Burkle. Set aside the Cayman Islands.

How can the superdelegates, even in their most Machiavellian machinations, think that nominating this pair of robber barons, so beholden to international corporate elites, can be good for the party or the country?

Where are the superdelegates? Smoking cigars in their gilded halls?

80,000 JOBS LOST

CLINTONS MADE 109 MILLION

And Walsh says: Let's change the topic to race and gender.

Why does Salon hate the working class?

80,000 JOBS LOST

CLINTONS MADE 109 MILLION

Sorry, there is no way around it. That's how the people who paid off the Clintons made their money.

Their money belongs to American workers. Let's take it back.

Blacks and women are dying in Iraq.

And also whites, men, people of every background and description.

While Walsh and Clinton seek to divide us, war and recession unite us in a common misery.

"The Clintons are Rich!!!!" will undoubtedly soon be at the top of this heap within a matter of a day or two.

I sure as hell hope so. Maybe not a big deal to Greenwald, or Salon, or its elite readership, but the way the Clinton's earned their money stinks. It can be totally legal (or at least not illegal) and still stink. They set up American workers for a fall in countless ways, and the wealth they were given (not earned) as a result is fair game.

Just for once, Glenn, let us poor folks take a shot at the arrogant wealthy who really don't give a crap about us. And that definitely includes the Clintons.

Obama has a legitimate shot at Pennsylvania now, no doubt.

I'm not sure that the details of the returns matter, or whether people will need to see the 2007 returns to make up their minds.

The bottom line is shocking and incriminating in its callousness.

I'm holding a cake sale for Obama.