It's a pity Boren feels compelled to be so craven as to assure his district that he won't endorse Obama, but as Koppelman said his endorsement won't matter, in no small part of course because it's next to impossible for any democrat to carry Oklahoma, and it's pretty unlikely the Obama campaign will buy any airtime here.

I live in Texas about 30 minutes from the border, but we can pick up some OK TV and radio stations at night. Anyway, the same dynamic applies here.

So here's a thought- if you care about progressive politics in Oklahoma or Texas, make your vote that doesn't count a write in for the Green Party nominee-- not because it "feels good" or out of a desire to be nonconformist or eccentric, but to send a message to BOTH parties that you're tired of imperial wars,and to leave Iran alone.

You won't be reducing Obama's chances of getting either Texas or Oklahoma's electors, because sadly that chance is already nil.

"The case for an Obama-Clinton ticket, also known as, you got any better ideas?"

Yes, I do.

I believe the ideal running mate, if he'd do it, is Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. You may recall he was the only republican in the senate who voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.

If the GOP tried to accuse him of being disloyal, and they will, the fact that he stuck with them when he lost re-election would be thrown in their face. He would also reassure a lot of people who see themselves as wavering moderate republicans, effectively "giving them permission" to make the jump themselves.

And when the GOP attack him more obliquely, for being an effete New Englander, Kerry-style, and they will-- their bared-faced opportunism will be much more apparent-- after all, why did they tolerate his presence in their caucus for all those years if he was so terrible?

Obama-Chafee. That would be a real unity ticket.

I remember September of 2006, when when Hagel went on the Sunday morning talk shows to express his displeasure with the Military Commissions bill that was coming up for a vote in the congress.

I also remember his voting for it in October. He also voted for the war in 2002, and wireless wiretapping. For some reason he likes to bitch about the wrongness of what he votes for before he does it, and for some reason our more dim-witted liberals lap this up.

I wrote you that Lincoln Chafee, the sole republican senator who opposed the war resolution in 2002, would be a good VP choice in a previous comment thread-- this still stands.

Some people might quietly oppose Chafee because he voted against the war, and would be concerned that he might make democrats who supported the war look bad. I say they'd only look bad if they criticized him for his vote.

Far more importantly, he's endorsed Obama-- and his presence on the ticket would make his old party look bad.

Joan,

in reading your columns I find myself often frustrated and disagreeing with you about numerous matters, but I think you're absolutely correct about the Supreme Court decision, and Obama is either dim-witted on this particular issue, or pandering shamelessly.

I don't understand how it is that many people support the death penalty in an instance where it most likely means that rapists of children will feel they must murder their victims after their foul deeds.

In fact,I wonder if the any of the Americans who support it also think we're more civilized than Muslims who perform so-called honor killings of girls-- because it kind of sounds like they don't care if a little child lives or dies after being molested, just that the adults' thirst for vengeance should be fulfilled.