Sorry, but that's all I read of your wordy post.

Obama doesn't even have to reply to win the nomination. But, your point is well taken for his supporters: They should hit Clinton hard and short with questions on her profiteering from trade deals and the war years.

Let's play with the trope that Walsh and Dowd have started, that blames powerful men for everything wrong with the Clinton campaign.

Who is Clinton's daddy? Who funds her attacks on Obama?

Bill, obviously. But he's just the conduit. The, um, pimp if you will. (Hey the Clintons can't get me fired if I don't have a job.)

Who is Hillary's daddy?

Is it the Prince of Dubai?

Is it Hong Kong businessmen?

Is it Ron Birkle?

Is it "rich Democratic donors"?

Who will Clinton answer to, when it comes time to kill health care reform, ax welfare again, or ram an anti-labor trade agreement through congress?

By rejecting "bitter" and inserting "resilient," Clinton has made a major misstep.

People ARE bitter. People ARE angry. And by God, they they have a right to be!

Worse for Clinton, by lauding the idea that people are going to pull themselves out of this themselves, she is speaking against HER OWN MESSAGE of the entire campaign.

Just to score a fleeting point against her opponent, Clinton has untethered her policy wonk message from her thematic rhetoric.

One again, it's liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.

Remember how ditching Penn was a "sign" the campaign would be fronting more reasonable policy?

Instead, Clinton is on two wheels headed for the right ditch. This Joe McCarthy stuff is not so much wrong, as ineffective. Give the woman a bottle of vodka, but keep her off the campaign road.

The timing of this extremism also puts the lie to the idea, put forward by Walsh and Dowd and other female pundits, that men are to blame for the Clinton's wacky campaign messages.

Looks like the Obama story peaked about 3AM last night. What's welling up in its place is Clinton's hypocrisy.

Which candidate profited from foreign speech deals? How much of that money has been lent to the campaign? Who exactly is the elitist?

The rhythm is working better for Obama than Clinton, with nine days to the vote.

The Clintons should have played this one as a stiletto, not a pick axe. The irony, of course, is that they themselves are claiming that rural voters are too stupid to understand Obama's words.

The underlying narrative in PA remains reasonably positive for Obama despite this latest iteration of race-baiting from the Clintons. And, of course, the "debate" narrowly focused on this particular issue is an elite media affair. The discussion among real, truly intelligent people considers the Clintons anti-working class actions as well as Obama's truthful words.

So sue me.

1. The President is insulated, not at that meetings, wasn't there.

2. The President takes "full responsibility."

The result is that no one is held accountable.

Who expected the sort of quasi-legalistic, systemic approach the administration took toward torture? So much paper trail? It's like the obsessive record-keeping of Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but the lack of dark rooms is almost more frightening than the cabinet level meetings. It means that the complicity spread far and wide, through the administration to include Rice and Powell and I assume Armitage, into Congress to include many Democrats on key committees and beyond. The torture and spy ethic reached far into the military complex, but also into law enforcement. And of course journalists who looked the other way.

Then again, all that paper is an opportunity to set things right. We may never know every nasty, anti-American, anti-Constitutional detail of this administration, but their self-righteous hubris is now entrapping them. Memos. Videos of torture. Minutes of meetings. Good god.

My own belief is that this openness resulted from bigotry. Just as slavery was openly defended when blacks were seen as less than human, Bush pushed the idea that we faced an enemy that not covered by legal process or principles of human rights.

There will be a long reckoning.

Yeah, Ozzie was coughing up foamy seawater. At least his drowning was voluntary, though. Actually, I thought it was a pretty good ad AGAINST waterboarding, the contestants who got out early looked rather horrified at the three last guys trying not to drown, even though they could free themselves.

The storyline seemed to work pretty well, without a lot of contrived false leads in editing. The jealousy looks from Amanda (whether in context or not) were pretty sweet.

Lots of pretty flesh to look at this season. I still wish Survivor would get off the tropical Island, keep the vote-off format, but actually have the contestants DO something.

Why not some real content on track and field and the run up to the summer Olympics (besides the torch).

I would have liked to believe that the Bush's torture planing would have been secrets and whispers in Cheney's office. What the hell, Colin Powell?

That's true. Favre was basically asked the equivalent of "would you rush into a burning building to save the babies."

It's not going to happen. The Packers have a possibly good-to-great qb and they will use their draft pick to pick up another qb. By the middle of next season Favre will be fat on beer and deep-fried Southern cooking.

Maybe she'll give some courage to Pelosi.

Pelosi seems determined lately to rewrite her history as a Republican stooge. Perhaps Representatives like Speiers can help by making the Speaker look "moderate."

Clinton, RIce, Pelosi--if the past years have proven anything, it's that our female leaders can be as gutless and wrong as the men. Time to challenge the cult of torture and war.