...to see if any sexism/racism eminated from the campaigns. I think many would agree that several racist comments and innuendo have emerged from the Clinton campaign including comments about Jesse Jackson, Obama's fantasy, Martin Luther King's limited influence, hard working white people. I can't really think of any sexism to come out of the Obama camp. The worst comment was Powers' "monster" comment which, while tactless, was not sexist.

I don't think there's been too much sexism in the press and Clinton's been given more of a fair shake than she deserves. But while Ferraro is looking into this she should look at the most disturbing aspect: the Clinton campaign (Ferraro included) has been actively stoking the concerns of the racists in the electorate and courting their votes. Obama has done nothing to court the sexist vote. This tells us a lot about the candidates. It also tells us something pretty promising about the country...Clinton's racist strategy has failed.

The logic that Obama is being anointed by party leaders is absurd. Party leadership was clearly behind Clinton at the start of the campaign. She had a huge lead in funds, name recognition and superdelegate (party leader) support. Over the course of the campaign the story has changed, not as a result some arbitrary decision of leadership, but as a result of leadership's response to the campaign. Obama's strategy, approach, personality, platform, etc. have attracted huge support from voters and donors. Any shift in the stance of party leaders has been in response to this broad shift. As leaders line up on Obama's side, they are reflecting the will of the people over their original plan which was to anoint Clinton.

The Michigan (and Florida for that matter) compromise is a disaster however you want to slice it. You can make countless arguments as to how delegates should be allocated and what weighting they should get at the convention. The problem is all of the options, other than not seating the delegates as prescribed by the Party's original and agreed-to policy, include speculation and a leaps of faith.

Obama's camp should not have gone in looking for compromise. He should have gone in stating that he designed his campaign to be as successful as possible within the rules that were clear at the start. While he was trying to appear fair and conciliatory, any compromise, including the one agreed to this weekend, merely opens the door for criticism and opens the door that much wider for Clinton.

These delegates should not be seated and the Party should smooth things over in the voters in these states by clearly explaining the rules, the violation and providing the names of the Party leaders who decided to break the rules at the expense of their constituents' votes. This way, the voters will take out their anger on their own leaders who rolled the dice with their votes and not the Party's nominee in November.

...it's that Hollywood has another demographic that they can expect, in response to the right marketing and buzz, to reliably trek to the theaters regardless of the crap on the screen. Bravo.

In sequel upon sequel Rocky continues to reappear, however unwelcome, becoming first a caricature, then an annoyance, until finally becoming irrelevant. What can we expect from Hillary Clinton?

I was very disappointed in Obama's support for this bill. Ethanol subsidies make little sense at any time (even from a purely environmental standpoint) and make even less given the curent pressures on global food prices. The Farm Bill is chock full of huge expenditures on similarly questionable policies. In my mind I've justified Obama's support for this terrible piece of legislation as the only way he could get the support of the many superdelegates who stand to benefit from the excessive spending built into the Bill. Now that he has their support, I would like to see him change course on this one.

It will be harder for Obama to say that he stand for change in Washington when he voted for a bill that represents business as usual in Washington. It's going to be even harder when McCain, rightly, opposed the Farm Bill.

The consumer plays a role here and it isn't a small one. Costs for the airlines are rising. They need to raise prices and their expectation is that consumers will cut back on their travel. As a result they are cutting their fleets, schedules and payrolls. If, somehow, consumers choose to travel just as much and are willing to pay higher prices, you can be sure that American, United, Continental, etc. will find the planes and people to serve them.

I understand that we need to go on living our lives and that there's nothing wrong with looking to maintain some of the conveniences and luxuries of modern living, but wake up people. These decisions are all about tinkering around the edges of the problem and thinking we can feel good about it.

Sure, I guess it's better to chose the lesser of two evils but we cannot expect to consume our way to a better planet. Lots of ordinary people like you and me need to start buying, using, traveling, eating, wasting less if we want to make a real impact here. Pablo Paster's suggestion that we stay home for vacation is the only "environmental" option here. Go ahead and pick the transportation you think is best for the environment and try to cover your tracks with some carbon credits but you're just fooling yourself. We shouldn't be allowed to feel good for killing the planet 5% slower than the next guy. It's time to get real.

...but if I were writing a piece for Salon I probably would have spent the 110 minutes to watch it before referencing it twice in a post. I found this post interesting enough but this is just lazy blogging. I'm sure Salon would reimburse the $9.99 iTunes purchase price.

...shouldn't the eventual running mate have a say in picking their chief of staff?