I'm no fan--to put it mildly--of Our Glorious Leader, but this statement is actually true:

Just because someone doesn't use big words or make sense a lot of the time doesn't mean that that someone isn't smart and kind and doesn't have our best interests at heart.

There are a number of neurological issues that would make it difficult for anyone--brilliant, average, or otherwise--to express themselves verbally or in writing. James Earl Jones stutters when he is not acting (i.e., using words pre-written for him). Sufferers of dysnomia may have the vocabulary, but can't retrieve the words. The number of smart, successful dyslexics is absurdly long. Etc. These disorders are not connected with smartness, kindness, or having people's interests at heart.

I know folks like to make fun of Bush's language skills, or lack of them, but as the father of a couple of special needs kids, I view it as very possible that Bush has genuine neurological issues that give him problems. (These problems are often enhanced in a permanent way by drugs like cocaine, and alcohol abuse.)

None of which excuses him from being a complete incompetent, of course.

I can't speak for others, but I am not an "Obama guy," I don't hate Senator Clinton, and I think every Democratic candidate other than Mike Gravel would make a better president than the current Clown Parade fighting over the Republican nomination. And I think John Edwards would be a tougher candidate to beat than either Senators Clinton or Obama, honestly.

No, what confuses me is that, back as recently as July, Conason seemed to like Obama just fine; now he's done two pretty negative articles on him in two weeks. What the heck is up with that? I don't understand it. One would have been understandable; two? Something's going on there.

I don't think Obama's perfect, and I'm glad Conason points out this sort of thing, but his recent focus on Obama's negative aspects strikes me as just plain odd. I just wish I knew what was going on, so I could evaluate future columns in that context. That's all.

Other than Lowell Feld, who hedged, two of the three women support Sen. Clinton with a third refusing to say, and the men all support men (with none supporting Sen. Clinton).

If I were a cynic, I would say it appears to be boiling down to, "I like 'em all, and all things being equal, I'm sticking to my own gender." (Someone snide could add, "And that explains Dan Savage's "endorsement.") I wish we could have heard from four or five more women, just to see how it played out. But even so: fascinating.

Here in Austin, Texas, on the Colorado river (no, not that one; t'other one), we have water. And a good life in the Sun Belt, without subzero temperatures for days on end.

You don't want to ship your water south? That's okay. We can stop allowing oil to be shipped and trans-shipped from Houston up the Missouri-Pacific. How do you reckon on living out those cold winters without that oil? Chop down all the trees in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota? Or what about all those goods flowing through our ports and up our railways and carried by our trucks? The cheap winter clothing from Taiwan, and chemical hand-warmers from Hong Kong? Mighty cold up there, I hear.

And so we should live in Detroit? The place where there were riots with the local sports team won a championship? The place where the downtown ain't doing so well, and jobs are fleeing? I would be safer than here in Austin? And I would work where, exactly?

I just want to add that someone from Michigan, like Hugh McDiarmid, needs to be careful about getting high and mighty when talking about "subsidizing" anything. Every state receives all the lagniappe from Washington they can lay their hands on, and I nisdoubt Michigan is at the back of the pack in that regard, what with the auto industry and all.

My point here is not that we've gone too far in migrating from point A to point B, as we probably have; rather, I just want to remind people of glass houses, stones, and the embarrassing mix they can make.

So to speak.

Look: I'm not a big Hillary fan. I will vote for her in the election if she's nominated, but I would prefer Edwards or Obama, mostly because I don't believe for a moment she can win. (Her advisors can spout polls until the end of time, but I firmly believe that she's hated by just too many people to win.)

But I'll tell you, when I watched the film clip, it just seemed like she was genuinely choked up (and not crying). That's all. And even I--no Hillary fan--was disgusted by the wall-to-wall coverage trying to spin it as the signs of an impending collapse. When Mitt cried, it was barely mentioned.

I don't like thinking that so much of her coverage is driven by sexism because while I don't like her that much, and don't want her to win, I think it's insanely unfair that if she raises her voice she's being "shrill," if she is being even and calm she's being "cold," and if she's being genuinely emotional she's "crying and demonstrating her unfitness to lead." That's just asinine. And it's hard to imagine that it won't create a backlash, which would also be asinine.

I agree with Glenn Greenwald: all this focus on non-issues just distort the process beyond recognition. This is what gets you a President Bush. I hope to God we can do better than that this time.