I had to turn in before I saw either of your comments re: Obama and Clinton. So, I just read them this morning.

Honestly, I don't know who or what is best, either. However, I did think it very telling that three of RFK's children (and wouldn't we love an RFK in this fight?) prefer Hillary over Obama. And not based just on very recent news coverage, or the primary fights, but on their own history of working with her, the kind of thing we would never read about in the press. The three of them have spent most or all of their adult lives working at some form of political activism, but more behind the scenes than in front.

I almost have to take everything the press reports about the Clintons with a few tablespoons of salt, just because the coverage of them has been so tainted. The words of those who know her well, though, and have worked with her is something else. And I've read other accounts (some at HuffPo) about those who have seen Hillary in action, and have noted how engaged and prepared she was, etc., etc. I should listen to the press's analysis over those?

The same for Edwards. I've heard that he's planning to leave the race, but I've heard that before, and it was wrong then. That one really puzzles me, given their recent fund-raising effort, to which I contributed yesterday.

Ultimately, whoever wins the nomination will get my vote. I'm just not ready to jump on the Obama bandwagon yet.

Fwiw, I think a lot of this really is generational. I'm old enough (and older than Caroline) that JFK made a distinct impression on me, and I still remember exactly where I was when I learned about his death. When RFK was running for president, I was still in high school, and the voting age was still 21 (and seemed pretty far off), but his candidacy was pretty exciting. Obama doesn't remember any of that, and yet, virtually untested, he gets to run on that legacy. Reminds me too much of Bush's campaign, where the entire GOP just jumped on the bandwagon, completely ignoring his own personal record of non-achievement. (Granted, Obama is not without his own achievements, but his resume is relatively thin. A woman, as many have noted, would not be able to run for president on it.)

Finally, I'm still astonished that the Kennedy family is divided in this race. Who would ever have guessed that could be a possibility? And if that's the case, how can the rest of us not be?

WT & bebop-o...

For some strange reason I liked okra even as a child. Perhaps because my grandmother (maternal) had a way of preparing it that didn't seem slimy. It was always in tomatoes, and she added corn starch for some thickening. Somewhere in there lies her secret.

I haven't had any for awhile; maybe I should have some soon.

I've never seen it growing, either, but you both have me wanting to see a few plants.

A more realistic conservative movement, I’m sure, will take it’s place. Moreover, it is probably fair to have a small remnant of the Wingnut movement remain in place. However, it is best that the movement become small enough that we can drown it in a bathtub. [emphasis mine]

...my favorite part!

I knew exactly where that phrase came from, which is why I was so appreciative of your use of it.

Giuliani promised to give his all in campaigning for McCain ("as much as he wants -- or not," Giuliani said, prompting one of the few smiles McCain made during Giuliani's speech).

We need to be more compassionate and magnanimous...

Remember that we, after all, have had a pretty good field of candidates to choose from-- practically an embarrassment of riches-- and the winnowing process took quite some time. So, of course, a lot of us chose to be somewhat lazy and just see the process through, rather just than latching onto any old candidate right out of the gate.

The other team,however, has had a pretty miserable field of candidates right from the very beginning, and it's not much better, even now. Imagine how frustrating it must be now to lean Republican and dislike war, when in the old days that was not an uncommon perspective. But, no more, and unfortunately, that doesn't leave you much choice these days.

;~)

Russell Shaw at HuffPo writes an open "Letter to the South Carolina voters who let John Edwards down."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-shaw/letter-to-the-south-carol_b_84183.html

From the second half:

But no, you didn't want to break your Republicanism, and re-register with a party that actually is on your side. And once re-registered, vote for John Edwards.

No, because, well, "John Edwards is a liberal."

Meanwhile, you are totally free to value that which you do.

Your guns. Your hunting dog. Your preacher. Your bass boat. Your reverence for your Confederate ancestors now a century in the ground. And those conservative talk show hosts that ostensibly take your side, but go back to their mansions at the close of their broadcast day.

But I have to tell you this, small town South Carolina white male Republican voters.

When it comes to enacting policies that would ease the risk of foreclosure, predatory lending, etc. -- and get your town running again, your guns, your hunting dog, your preacher, your bass boat, your Mama, your long-dead Confederate ancestors, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and others aren't going to help you.

John Edwards could have.

But no, you are still so stubbornly stuck with the notion that the Republicans are more like you, and are manlier than Democrats, that you refused to cross over and give a son of your soil the votes he needed to continue in this race. [emphasis added]

John Edwards wanted to help you, and you let him down.

Shame on you.

I think it's one epitaph to the Edwards campaign.