And how many of those things were said by Obama?

I think that McCain is doing himself a disservice jumping on these comment so early. I was talking to the wife earlier and it just occurred to me what the unintended effect of the Wright "scandal" will be: NO MORE MUSLIM TALK! See, there's his CRISTIAN minister on the news. That's right folks, Obama's CHRISTIAN. If Obama deals with this correctly, it will be out of the news cycle in a week, with a month to go before Penn...

Truly, what Wright has said is no more offensive to me than Repubs calling climate change a conspiracy or various crap spewed by any of McCain's cadre of white preachers and televangelists who endorsed him. And what has more truth to it: That we were attacked on 9/11 because of the gays (as one of McCain's ministers did) or because we unapologetically kill more people around the world with our military involvement than 100s of 9/11s, mostly in the name of money and power?

I was thinking the same thing this morning when I heard the quotes. Nothing new, for the most part, and nothing wrong, for the most part. I hear the same thing from Air America hosts daily (I'm looking at you, Randi) except that's its not yelled in a baritone and no one screams "Amen" back...

Obviously, this an attempt to denigrate Obama to the Alabama in between Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania that Carville spoke of. I'm sure Obama will have to reject AND denounce the Reverend at the next debate.

As a side note, in reference to the AIDS comment made by Wright - there has always been a strong "Conspiracy Theory" side to the black experience in America, but it is well-earned. Long ago people scoffed at "Things that cannot be true" like Jim Crow or Tuskegee, until it became as obvious as the nose on your face. I'd be suspicious, too.

..as long as we can paste Dubya's head onto McCain's body...

"b) the rules are fine when they benefit Obama (caucus vs. primary) but somehow unethical when they possibly benefit Clinton (superdelegates making decisions)"

Perhaps the word "unethical" is the problem here. I haven't seen anyone argue that its unethical, per se. I would argue that its a bad idea to punish/drive away the core of Obama's base (black voters) who have been, more than any of those so-called "important" blue-collar voters, consistently Democratic. And whom without, no Democrat has a chance in the GE.

Blue collars are fickle and, historically, tend to go for Republicans more than Dems. Same thing goes for the 55+ set.

Obama vs. McCain

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png

Clinton vs. McCain

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png

They both win, but guess who has to win Florida to get the presidency?

SurveyUSA current poll shows Clinton up by 19% in Penn. By Clinton rules, if Obama gets it to 10-5% by election day, isn't that really a Obama win?

Take CA and NY out of Wes' equation since they haven't gone Republican in 20 years, and aren't going to start now...

Sports can't bankrupt my country on a bogus war, it can't spy on me illegally, and it can't torture people in my name...

"I seriously doubt that FL and MI voters had any say in the making of these 'rules'."

As a wise (Hillary supporting) Senator said recently: "Elections have consequences.."

Wes - buddy, this stuff is amusing on Kaufmann's board because its about sports: not so much when you're messin' with my country. Plus: Aren't you the biggest Hillary Nerd this side of ShawnMW and Rockavalier?

KateTex - My mom got her 62-year-old butt motivated enough to caucus in Wyoming for Obama. So, based purely on my personal experience (which counts for ass), you're full of crap. Everybody knows that the +55 set are the most reliable voters in the electorate (which is why we Dems try to scare them with SocSec talk) and don't have anything to do all day (being retired) so I'm not sure why you think caucusing is unfair to them.

I would also add to this list

•The constant "moving of the goalposts" regarding the threshold of victory - the moving has been so bad recently that Clinton actually suggested that pledged delegates don't necessarily have to vote for whom they've been assigned (technically true, but since the candidates pick who these delegates will be, they're pretty sedentary).

@Opus: That's what the Bill Clinton jab "Well, Jesse Jackson won South Carolina.." was all about. The talking point has always been: "Well of course he won -insert state here- primary - the electorate was -insert number here-% African American.

Its the political equivalent of saying "Well, of course Hillary won California, the electorate is 51% female". Its the worst kind of lumping and suggests that without a certain demographic (who are marginalized in the process), X candidate would be sunk..