The question was asked repeatedly of Richardson on how she reacted to the phone call. Then we get into this spat from Carville and the Judas crap. Then we get into someone's blog post, etc, etc, etc. None of this has anything to do about the issues at hand. When was the last time anyone seriously talked about John McCain? No, no, no everyone. The important thing is what a campaign supporter said about Hillary or Obama!

Seriously? Who the hell gives a damn? Why the hell does any of this matter? I think Edwards pretty much summed up this exact sentiment at the South Carolina debate.

I really wish this whole thing would end because it makes democrats look pretty pathetic to average Americans.

R

O

F

L

"There's a question of whether burning property is really the equivalent of flying a plane into a building and killing humans."

No, there isn't a question. Burning property seeks to influence government or civilians to act differently than they would otherwise act. It's an attack on innocent people (their property) as per the government.

It fits perfectly within the definition of terrorism by the US state department. You don't need to kill anyone. That little section about "broad" language is also misleading because terrorism has been defined that way for some time. I'm not sure what the problem is other than a relatively attractive 30 something mother who has been "wrongly convicted".

This is a pretty poor story with a somewhat misleading title.

Basically, lets see what the end vote is in delegates, popular vote, and states won.

*THEN* we can have this debate. I can see how McCain is going to get a free run till then but with the dem fight always in the news, they will get free publicity. McCain is hardly talked about on most news circuits.

We keep going through all these hypothetical scenarios for no reason. There is simply one fact that we all need to realize - Hillary Clinton is not dropping out of the race. As long as she's in, there is nothing anyone can do. After all the voting has been done though, then we can sit around and crunch the numbers and start saying things like....ok, you don't have a delegate lead, you don't have the popular vote, MI and FL are being handled this way, etc. But all this stuff now is pretty much all meaningless. Lets just wait till the last state has voted then go from there.

Although I guess media has to talk about something though huh? Spitzer only took up a week of news. :p

One quote in a debate from Hillary that I actually liked was when she talked about how interest groups are important because they represent real people. She mentioned that yes, she did accept money and talk to people in the health care industry such as a nurses union, etc. (I am unsure of the exact quote)

This is part of how politics works. While people believe that these contributions have some huge contribution, there has been studies that show this isn't as true as people want to believe. Most people give money to candidates that they believe will win and they want to help them do so. This is so they will have a candidate that they believe will vote and pass policies that are in line with their interests, not to be at their every whim. To suggest that a politician goes back through his or her list and looks for who donated to their campaign before they vote isn't really accurate. Of course there are exceptions but this argument is largely a political argument.

One way that people are represented in government through interest groups. It's a simple fact. Where the problem comes in is when people begin to define what is a "good" group and what a "bad" group is. Who is really evil and who is good? Oil companies? Environmental groups? Health care workers? Trade unions? Agriculture? That line seems to be open to interpretation depending on whatever political side you are on and who "supports" you will always be a critique of any political candidate regardless of party.

"It is a bedrock American principle: we are all equal in the voting booth, when my campaign is behind"

Simple as that.