http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K81aIAH6xo0

I think the Obama camp needs to factcheck claims made by Clinton that exaggerate or distort her foreign policy experience.

The case for invading Iraq was a matter of distortion and exaggeration. Even taking Clinton at her word, she fell for it.

Obama did not fall for the Iraq story, and has stated that. His campaign has also pointed out generally that Clinton has parlayed her foreign travel into crisis-handling experience.

What would help would be to find specific points (eg Clinton's Northern Ireland claims) where Clinton has outright lied about her resume.

That sort of response hardly even qualifies as negative. Do we want the person who answers the phone at 3AM to be a credulous believer in falsehoods, someone who has faked her own resume on foreign policy?

"A poll just revealed, that Americans favor giving the nomination to the candidate that has the most 'popular votes,' by 57%, and to the candidate that has the most delegates by 36%. It ain't over till it's over."

Somehow the idea of using a poll to prove the popularity of the popular vote makes me laugh.

Also, is this a poll of Democrats (who continue to prefer Obama in polls) or of all Americans (including Republicans who would prefer Clinton as an opponent).

Clinton will use the popular vote to argue for her nomination to superdelegates--IF she is ahead in it. If she isn't ahead, she'll argue it is irrelevant. Either way, as the Obama camp always remind us, the contest is about delegates. The popular total is just icing on Obama's cake.

Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. 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. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Oh yeah, because history shows that being black is such a great advantage in winning a major party's endorsement.

And wait a second, isn't Hillary a woman? And isn't she "in this position"? I thought the point of the Clinton campaign was that the candidates were virtually tied!

You know, Carville once said something like, Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh in the West, Philadelphia in the East, and Alabama in the middle. And by Alabama he wasn't talking about winning the black vote.

I would link the Ferraro statement with the Vice President weirdness. So, the Clintons are going to lose big in Mississippi because of veiled race-baiting? They'll portray Obama's victory as a black victory and present themselves as woe-is-me whites in Pennsylvania.

Maybe Obama should formally bring Samantha Power back on board.

The re-instatement would be an answer to Clinton's decision to keep Ferraro on her staff as her latest race-baiter.

Call Power's resignation a suspension and welcome her back. Note that Power's monster comment was small potatoes compared to Ferraro's repeated racist comments.

Clinton is trying to look tough by not firing Ferraro. Fine, Obama can show that he's not going to let Clinton axe his own advisors over minor indiscretions.

The reinstatement would let feminists know that he understands that few of them agree with Ferraro-Clinton bigoted discourse. He's not going to toss aside Power's expertise on human rights and genocide just to appease the thin-skinned personal vanity of Hillary Clinton.

Ferraro says it.

Clinton "disagrees."

Williams gives the statement.

The racist message gets out, but Clinton hides behind 1. a surrogate. 2. Female identity 3. African-American identity.

"We're going to get a post about this tomorrow, right Alex?"

Little lord Baltimore is right, here's a major campaign event. Everyone I know who follows the campaign can talk of little else. And Salon is ignoring it.

While this shit is going on in the campaign, we get a major story on...poo. The real kind.

I agree David, the coverage across the media is odd today. The NYTimes online is headlining that the Democrats are trying to define "winner" (Huh?) above the headline that he won Mississippi.

Almost all the MSM is ignoring Ferraro, after having gone bonkers over the Samantha Powers "monster" remark.

Maybe if I have a third cup of coffee it will all make sense.

In my little survey, the media is dealing with Ferraro in four basic paterns:

1. Ignoring her comments as much as possible.

2. Sympathy for Feraro for saying something stupid. And resaying something stupid. And re-resaying it. Emphasis on her past accomplishments.

3. Spinning Ferraro's race-baiting as somehow the result of sexism. Ferraro and Clinton are the real victims, doncha know.

4. Trying to equate the race-baiting to the "monster" comment. Which, if you think about it, was really an overblown flap-doodle about nothing.

I think treating Ferraro's comments as the equivalent of a Lindsey Lohan on a bender is the real sexism. Take the woman at her word. Hold her to the consequences. Why the double standard between her and a man saying something like that? Why the double standard between a second-waver like Ferarro and a third-waver like Power?

The house dems oppose a second primary, but who has the say? Wouldn't it ultimately be up to the state party? I don't see that legislature need be involved at all, particularly for a mail-in ballot. But, I'm not really clear on the lines of the state/party, and I suppose they vary from state to state.

Obama could argue that the delegates should be proportionate to the current national delegate count. 50/50 is actually a concession to Clinton.

Still, I think there should be a revote, even if it hurts Obama. I just think it's fairest to the voters. The money--$30 million seems the latest number for both, doesn't seem that much if the wealthy pay for it. Though, that stinks too.

I would like to see the vote on the same day as Pennsylvania. Get it together party poo-bahs.

Compares favorably to Craig, Clinton, anyone of these characters caught with their pants down.

He'll be back.