No, it's not at all the same thing.

Women I wouldn't vote for: Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condi Rice, Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton (though I'll cover my eyes and pull her lever in November if I have to)

Women I would vote for: Claire McCaskill, Gov. Sibelius, and probably a dozen others if I could think of if I wasn't at work and supposed to be listening to a meeting right now.

Similarly, there are plenty of African Americans that I would (Obama) and wouldn't (J.C. Watts) vote for. So am I a sexist and a racist?

This poll is nothing but an attempt to backdoor their way into how much of people's support for Clinton or Obama is racially/gender motivated, if you ask me.

one of them has to get to 2025, unless Edwards' 26(?) delegates come into play, meaning they'd be at something like 2012-2012. Unlikely.

Oh, and since Spitzer resigned, it's actually 2024, not that that's anything but a nitpick.

There was an item on this poll posted in War Room, and I still wonder if the poll was not taken by the participants as Obama vs. Clinton, rather than generic man vs generic woman and white person vs black person.

But that doesn't matter. What matters is that I've found my new favorite Salon handle. Canuckistan Bob? Awesome.

I've been pondering the difference between Rev. Wright and the Falwell-Hagee-Robertson axis of evil for the better part of a week, and I think there are two differences.

First, this is Obama's personal minister. Other than some ceremonial spot on a Religious Values committee (or whatever) Wright doesn't speak for the campaign. Other than the sermons he in his own church, he doesn't give speeches of behalf of Obama the way the Big Three Right Wing Preacher Men (or B3RWPM) do for their guys. And sure, he advocates for Obama in his church (possibly in violation of FEC and IRS guidelines), but come on, Obama is going to win a straw poll 99-1 inside his own church anyway. In other words, Wright is not a political figure (though the things he says are very political), he's a religious figure as he pertains to Obama. We have no record of any of the B3RWPM (or NAMBLA) counting any Republican candidate among their membership. Plus, it's not like Obama has been trotting Wright out as a symbol of his faith, a faith that he has kept as personal as anyone in his position could.

Second, and most importantly, Obama has distanced himself from Wright's controversial remarks. When has McCain done that with Hagee? When has any Republican ever done that with one of the B3RWPM? Obama has, to use the already shark-jumped phrase of '08, "rejected AND denounced" these comments.

And while I wish he (Obama) had picked a different church 20 years ago, and while I wish he (Wright) had never said "God Damn America," I think there's enough of a difference between this and the McCain-Hagee thing that this truly doesn't affect my support.

I'm assuming from the headline that this is a post from January, or you left off the "...again"

Or maybe you meant to say "Clinton goes offensive?"

Regardless, more analysis-free posting of Clinton memos.

Are you kidding? This administration classifies the breakfast menu at the cafeteria in the White House, of course the contract will be buried.

And by the way, notice the difference between the Clinton and Obama incidents. Clinton: it was fully disclosed that it was during a training exercise, it was caught immediately and the trainee was admonished. Obama: happened three times, on significant dates, people were fired, and nobody is giving out any details.

So no, not really the same thing at all. Not that it proves ill intent, and I'm certainly not suggesting it was the Clinton campaign that had anything to do with it (neither is Obama, BTW), but these are not equal.

For once, I'm not going to wade through the pages of letters, because Joan, this pathetic "concern trolling" of yours just isn't worth it.

I realize that you are a pundit and not a journalist, but your opinions are tired and hollow and not even really your own.

I hate to say this, because I really still enjoy Salon, but you need to resign.

Something Clinton and Obama supporters can agree on. This video has not passed the not-making-us-puke threshold.

Glad to see you're back from your vacation and back in the basement of GOP headquarters spewing your disinformation like so much vomit on behalf of the dead-enders.

Say hi to WES for me.

From my reading of Obama's objection to the plan that had been floated by the legislature, the one intractable issue was the fact that people who had voted in the GOP primary would not be able to vote in the re-vote. Thousands of people cast votes in the GOP primary because they knew the Democratic primary wouldn't count for anything.

So by saying that Obama put up roadblocks, you really mean that it was Clinton who put up roadblocks because she wanted no part of a fair election.

In fact, I'd argue she wanted no part of a re-vote in either state. She'd prefer to preposterously have the original election stand (obviously), or to be able to whine about the issue and how unfair it was.

You watch. In the coming weeks, we'll find out that there was a deal on a re-vote that she killed because it wasn't as advantageous to her as it is to be able to cry foul.