Oh brother; can you imagine the kinds unpredictable consequences if Clinton convinced enough superdels to go for her? I'm not even moralizing that issue, just trying to imagine the practical consequences to the party. Ironically, that might actually shift a significant degree of Clinton supporters over to Obama (or 657 other things) But, hey, I'm not saying it won't happen. We might soon discover that oral sex actually does curb teen's tendancies to go on to full sex. But I doubt it.

Look, your question to Joan is good, but I think she would consider it fairly irrelevant. She would probably wait to se IF Clinton aggressively made such a push and THEN Joan might critique her. It would be interesting to see because I wonder if it would cause her to retroactively have a little bit more understanding for some of the legitimate frustration people voice around here. But, at this point, Joan's basic stance is that Clinton is helping Obama and, yes, has the legal right to run. No doubt about that. And I do want to see those who are saying she has no right. I already posted about my theory as to what it means when people start using the phrase "have the right to..."

But my question for you: what makes you think Clinton is planning to run up to the convention? I just don't see that at all. June 6th is the day. I think she is justifying her actions these days by knowing that she is going to shockingly insist her supporters see how HUGE a mistake they would make to not enthusiastically love on Obama. I'm not kidding. This isn't "Carol sarcasm". I mean it. I predict that on June 6th mouths are going to drop!

having nothing to do with teen oral sex.

brilliant. I had never thought about it like that before, but you are right: we need to understand MORE colors better. Until we have more colors that we understand, how can we possibly expect to understand why this was such a close primary. Plus, the value of having more colors (and better brain scans) is that we can then implicitly blame, at the very least, those who are of other shades. People think from my posts that I am against all that arrogant (and worried) blaming that is going on. No. I just think we need to figure out racism and sexism before we can adequetly blame the right people. For those of us too sophisticated (elite) to explicitly blame different shades, we can always figure it all out in order to worry more...

My worst fear is that Obama won't be perfect enough to reach out and change enough minds! If he only knew about all those colors you shared...Do you have his cell number?

I almost start crying everytime I realize that we really don't know how teen oral sex relates to Obama's chances of convincing Clinton voters that they made a mistake. almost.

Thanks for a very fun post, doloresflower!

I know: it's like when some Clinton supporters act like her support from poorer people reflects something inherent to her but then don't apply that same logic to his massive support from poorer people. And some of his supporters get caught in the same impossibility.

I don't think you'll get a satisfactory answer as to why each side has people getting caught up in odd ways of figuring things...

What do you think of the latest rumors that Clinton has developed an almost obsessed crush on Obama and her aides are having to thwart her attempt to get secret notes to him?

Also, is Clinton being honest about what a fabulous president Obama would make? Can we trust her when she says that she hopes her supporters will vote for him. I've thought she is being honest, but now I'm wondering if she is lying...

Look, I'm fine if we simply say that there are certain skill sets that require training and basic levels of intelligence. I'm not willing to say that choosing the president requires a very specialized type of knowledge.

I always get a huge kick out of how people paint Noam Chomsky as an example of an elitist, yet his entire social argument is that "the people" by and large know exactly what needs to be happening. It takes some specialized intelligence to moniter and document all the mechaniations through which collections of power try to manipulate and control "the people", but that has nothing to do with the basic and reasonable intelligence that most of us have. People might not agree with Chomsky's basic notion of how power functions in this country, but a quick glance at the record shows that he believes in the people more than almost any mainstream politician I can think of...

I can think of three uneducated women in Missouri who I would unhesitatingly put on the supreme court and trust that they would be able to work their way through each and every decision as well as Scalia or Robertson. And, barring prejudice against their lack of education, I have no doubt that the average democrat would be able to assess them as highly qualified. And I don't dismiss how wondeful it is that Scalia has command of all sorts of concepts to justify his decisions. I get that. I just would trust any of these women over him in figuring out what is fair.