Oh man; I woke up to a rumor this morning that Joan had written a really interesting blog on Hillary's

""Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."

Everybody said Joan had looked at how Hillary inspire trust in democrats because she basis her decisions in expert opinion. Everybody told me it was an open ended article in which Joan didn't act like Hillary was the best at utilizing sound advice, but Joan also didn't shy away from examining the implications of Hillary's quote. What struck me the most was how everybody was saying that Joan actually pointed out that she found Hillary's quote to be more snobbish than Barack's claim that working class people are deeply upset and angry about the lack of support they've recieved. Joan actually, supposedly, had written this morning about the very real possibility that Barack could be much more in touch with what it means to an average American lunch-bucket dem. Joan supposedly did not say that Obama was more in touch than Clinton, but simply that it wasn't hard to make the arguement in his direction.

I guess people were excited that Joan had not just accepted the narrative that Hillary is pandering for quick votes, but that Joan had looked at Hillary's refusal (to back up her belief that the gas tax relief will certainly not create more problems for working class) as potential indicators of a slighly more insidious tendency. Without moralizing or pretending this issue is about who has more Character, I was told Joan had speculated as to how this tendency in Hillary might express itself in other contexts. Supposedly she even related Hillary's refusal to go into the ideas behind economists fears to her saber ratttling tendencies and then was able to connect this with non-judgemental reasons Hillary's feet weren't put under the fire for saying she had forgotten that she did not experience the trauma in Bosnia that she temporarily "remembered" she had experienced. (p.s. I don't think the Bosnia comments tell us anything important about Hillary ((please, all these candidates have quotes that are rediculous)). It's only the thought of what would have happened if Obama had told us that he was shot at and then "remembered" that he had not been...I think if Obama had said that kind of thing, the media would have helped us learn significant things about his personality. In my opinon, there are good explainations for why that kind of thing doesn't harm Clinton anymore and it's not just due to her stupendous courage and her empathic connection to the working class.)

I jumped out of bed, got online and found that we were still noticing how courageous Hillary is for sticking to her guns about the gas tax and how well she did talking to O'Reilly. I thought it was a nice touch that Joan threw in the restrained compliments for Obama's conversation with Wallace. I'm glad she simply complimented Barack without getting into petty comparisons between his "solid performance" with Wallace and Hillary's intelligent and courageous dialog with Bill O'Reilly (sp). I give her props for that.

I think there are two scientific theories about the race card. One group has proven beyond a doubt that Obama was the first to play the race card. They can prove it. But the other group has now proven that Hillary, actually, was the first to scientifically play the race card.

Supposedly the former group has gained access to the memos that Bill Clinton referred to in which he said that we can read explicitly Barack's desire to systematically play the race card. The scientists with those memos will supposedly be releasing the information in the next issue of "Nature Magazine".

The science that proves that Hillary was, actually, he first to play the race card supposedly also has memos that show she has been planning to play the race card for a long, long time. It's sounds confusing, but the fact that it is all easily proven helps us rest assured that we will soon know who really played the race card first. You can probably even find out in a few minutes right here!

There must be something to what you are saying but the scientists are going to have a hey day "proving" it. First of all, I assume that your theory only can be applied to the general election, right? It seems clear that charisma is not sufficient in the primaries.

You'll get people who will say Bill Clinton wasn't more charismatic than Dole, but more manipulative. Dole was much more funny than Clinton, but humor isn't the sole ingredient for charisma, certainly...

jeez...I think you've found a surprisingly good metric. I'll put my thinking cap on and get back to you.

What's all this about Bill Clinton no longer asking people to vote for his wife????

Now I see: he's saying that he's asking for people to pray for Hillary because we have to get this country back to the right purpose.

Thanks,

I think there is a group in southern Cal who has proven that IF there is a God it is fairly simply to show that IT would be voting for Hillary. I here they even are using this gas tax issue to support their theory. They are not happy about Andrew's latest Salon article because they said it leaves out everything having to do with Hillary's electibility, her courage, her readiness for day one and her tough stance towards the evil axis...

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/05/05/hillary_clinton_oil_manipulation/