I am not attacking Obama here but don't think I agree with Planned Parenthood's strategy. Parental notification is one of ugliest of the antiabortion crowds issues. It seems to me to be an extremely important issue to actually take a stand on. "Present" is not a stand. That is all I am saying.

I guess you're entitled to disagree with PP's strategy, but I think that's a really bad choice. Basically the Planned Parenthood/Obama strategy provided cover to Democrats in conservative districts and moderate Republicans to make sure these bad bills didn't get passed.

NOW (and you, apparently) seem much more concerned with loud grandstanding and "taking a stand" than you are with assuring you get the legislative outcome you want. Would you have been happier if Obama had loudly denounced these bills at every opportunity, and then voted "Yes"? That's the logical extension of your line of though.

Hillary is our nominee. You have to win New York or California if you are serious. Not win a bunch of mickey mouse caususes in states where there are more deer than people.

Wow, talk about condescending. You're exactly the reason the Democratic Party keeps getting its ass handed to it. Who cares about all those bumpkins in flyover country, right? WRONG. Those states have electoral college votes and they're going to decide who wins the general election.

So far, Clinton has shown that she can win in places where any Democrat (yes, that means Obama)will obviously win. Clinton is running the Al Gore/John Kerry 50% + 1 vote campaign. Obama has the capacity to take the battle to the Republicans. He can win in the South, he can win in the Midwest (he's from Illinois), he can win in the west (Idaho! Where did that come from?).

If you arrorgant Clintonites cost us this general election, I will never forgive you.

His logo is unique and recognizable. Even to the point that his yard signs don't even say "Obama". They just say "Hope" with the O-logo, and then the website URL underneath.

The Obama campaign understands 1) The importance of the internet, and 2) the understated appeal of putting the message "Hope" before the man "Obama".

Obama's website even embraces the marketing genius of Farrakahn's "A million" . . ."A million man march"..."A million family" etc. Obama's take "A million people."

ZOMG!!! He used the word 'million'! Plagiarism!

These 33 million Americans aren't 'fluent' in anything except themselves and whatever interests them. And they learned that from the best -- the self-involved, self-important Baby Boomers who raised them.

Excuse me, but what exactly are they supposed to be interested in other than the things which interest them? I guess I just don't see why it's a bad thing to be absorbed by the things that interest you.

I often hear people make the argument that we need to allow later-term abortions because it might take poor women a while to scrape together enough money to pay for it. My question is, can't they just put in their credit card? Or get some kind of financing? I understand that poor people don't always have good (or any credit) but there are all sorts of stores that will allow you to buy anything from a car to a big screen on credit (even if the terms are sometimes less-than-favorable). Can we just provide financing plans for abortions, and then we don't have to have late-term abortions?

"We'll suffer your slings and arrows for the time being, but you better get the hell on the bus when the time comes."

Amen. All the Edwards-loving Kossaks managed to do it, you will too. But I swear, if bitter Hillery supporters manage to sabotage the Democratic party's chances in this election, I will never, ever forgive you. You will be dead to me.

Anyone else think that's a pretty odd title for a movie about men who seem to be anything BUT silent about their horrible crimes?

"A new book argues that the '60s counterculture achieved nothing of lasting importance. So why does the era continue to fascinate us?"

What 'us'? You mean why does it fascinate baby boomers? Because they're self-obsessed naval-gazers? Because back then they had ideals and believed in things? Because to not talk about the 60s might involve admitting that they aren't the single most original, creative, radical, wonderful group of people ever to live?

"Obama is ahead by far less than the margin of error in any decent poll."

See, that's the great thing about elections. They don't have margins of error (when carried out correctly - there will be some error from faulty machines or fraud). They're just a count. Ahead is ahead, behind is behind. If I had a bag on M&Ms, and I pulled out 5, checked what color they were, and then extrapolated from that result to the likely color-proportions of the bag as a whole, then it makes sense to talk about the statistical MoE associated with that sample. However, if I just dump out all the M&Ms, and sit there and count them, then I don't have a margin of error. Barring a miscount, I know exactly how many M&Ms of each color there are in the bag. And it doesn't matter if there's only one more red than blue M&M, the red ones are still winning.