*** Obama's campaign can't be making an issue about Hillary's "we're going to be fine" line -- because that is "silly season" -- Obama said that himself. ***

They're not trying to make something of it, you halfwit. Hillary was. The only thing Obama's camp has pointed out is her boundless hypocrisy for doing exactly what she cynically criticized him for.

But please, you guys keep talking about this crap while the clock runs out. Tick tock, tick tock.

Obama is wrong: something did change last night. The delegate math got dramatically worse for Clinton.

Because she actually lost the Texas caucus, and her Texas primary win was so narrow, Clinton picked up only between 4 and 10 net delegates last night, depending on whose numbers you believe.

Hillary has a lot of delegates to make up. On Monday there were 986 pledged delegates left to be elected. Today 370 of those opportunities are gone, leaving 616. And essentially no progress was made.

Tick tock, tick tock Hillary.

You can kill anyone you want in GTA4 -- as in fact you can in real life. Admittedly, the consequences in real life are more certain and devastating. But the game in no way requires you to kill hookers. It does not suggest or encourage you to kill hookers in any way. There is little reward or advantage in killing hookers. Killing hookers, while possible (again, you can kill anyone) is simply not part of the game,, regardless of what poorly-informed hysterics might tell you. If there were an instruction manual, killing hookers would not be in it.

You're given a lot of missions in GTA4, and they're mostly things like killing rival drug dealers. There are no kill-the-hooker missions. Nearly everyone you're asked to kill is male.

The only advantage to killing a hooker is that you get your money back, but that is very minor, and killing always carries a risk of arrest. Getting a refund in this way isn't a special feature for hookers, either. If people have money, you can kill them and take it. The other day I gave some money to a hobo, then stomped him to death and took it back.

These neocons are living proof that if you say absolutely anything with enough conviction quite a few people will buy it and you'll have a successful career.

I wonder how this moron squares the fact that the Constitution requires the congress to declare war with his "near dictatorial" outlook?

*** Since the US doesn't declare war anymore, regardless of how dire the conflict is, and it rarely starves the military of funding, regardless of how dire the conflict is, the legislature has almost no direct impact on foreign policy in the US any longer. ***

Which of course is utterly irrelevant, since the point he was making was about the Founding Fathers' intentions, not the situation as it evolved in the 20th/21st centuries.

Please try to remain remotely on topic.

The whole idea is idiotic. Everyone has known or at least assumed that Obama would be the nominee for a long time. That assumption would have been figured into market prices. Tuesday was a non-event. Friday was even more of a non-event.

*** Hillary Clinton is hardly the only one with a "difficult" personality, a "loose cannon" spouse, a fawning retinue of loyalists, or a habit of seeing the next president of the United States in the mirror each morning. ***

I can think of other VP candidates with each of those negatives. But I certainly can't think of anyone with all four, and I'd challenge anyone to name one.

I keep saying BOB FREAKING GRAHAM. He does not have a difficult personality, or a loose-canon spouse. He does not have a fawning retinue of loyalists, and he's given up on being President. He's a southern moderate from the most important state in presidential politics (Florida). He voted against invading Iraq.

So there -- I've met my "obligation to come up with a better idea" that can command broad support in the party. Am I allowed to be anti-Hillary now?