Commentator 1 obviously shills for Candidate X, because I am a supporter of Candidate Y, and Joe said something that portrays Candidate Y in an unfavorable light.

Commentator 2 obviously shills for Candidate Y, because I am a supporter of Candidate X and she said something that portrays Candidate X in an unfavorable light.

No candidate is perfect, and no candidate is pure evil (well, maybe Huckabee...KIDDING!)

The bias is there primarily when perceived. Remember, there are people out there who are far enough to the Right that Fox News looks like the liberal media.

I just can't wait for this primary season to end, before the Democrats hand the White House to the GOP.

This thing is all so convoluted, that we can't even agree on how convoluted it is.

This piece says that the nomination may be decided, or close to decided, in Florida, but I swear I read an Op Ed in the Chicago Tribune yesterday (probably Dennis Byrne or one of the syndicated guys) that a brokered convention was more than possible, it was likely.

So which is it? Is there math out there that says that the Florida primary will wrap this up for somebody? Don't we still have three different primary winners in 5 states? And two different winners on the same day, only 6 days ago?

I'm so confused, and my head hurts. I'll go back to reading about the Democrats, because at least with the "bickering" going on there, it's easier to lay it out in black and wh...uh, I mean in clearer terms.

...but that really did sound like something that he didn't really mean to say.

What indicts him, however, is the non-apology afterward of "I shouldn't say that" which tells me he didn't mean to say it, but wasn't going to back down from it, either.

So I'm not sure this is worth any kind of explosion of outrage. The man says enough lamentable, idiotic things, that something that is almost somewhat defensible like this should be left for the bigger fish. I mean, if the news of the day is that Bill Kristol is a misogynist, racist, a-hole, well, wake me when we get to traffic and weather.

Let's see...

1. The rules were established.

2. Someone ignored the rules and thus was denied a benefit

3. Said person demands benefit anyway, on grounds of "fairness"

Oh right, that wasn't the DNC and Mithcigan/Florida, that was me telling my 3 year old no Sesame Street unless he finished his vegetables.

To the people of Michigan and Florida...I'm sorry you were disenfranchised, but take it up with your state party leaders. The DNC called their bluff, and should stick to their guns.

So what that we are likely to go 0-7 in primaries and caucuses over the last week and replaced the campaign manager? Someone said something that, when taken with the narrow literal definition of the term, sounds really offensive about Chelsea! We're outraged! And we won't let this story die by accepting an apology until you've all stopped talking about the enormous advantage in donations and momentum that our opponent has!

I mean, come on, does anyone honestly believe that David Shuster, a real journalist who moonlights as a talking head, was implying that the Clinton campaign was asking Chelsea to trade sexual favors for money and then collecting a percentage of the proceeds? Really? Anyone? Because that would be offensive. This is just nonsense, and most likely a combination of the above-described diversionary tactic and a desire to slap around Chris Matthews, who is horrible to Sen. Clinton, but frankly is mostly an equal opportunity idiot.

I thought the same thing! And then I realized...

Huckabee himself is actually a caricature, so no additional artwork was needed.

Also, allow me to echo the thanks for not assuming superdelegates and delegates were the same thing like some organizations have done.

I'm a bowl of water, and I'm completely offended by your remark...

But I kind of thought Alex was short for "Alexis." I have no idea why I pictured you as a woman. No value judgement attached there, just odd. Then again, I'm a fairly infrequent reader...

...but frequent enough to know that all the "anonymous"es posting the talking point "weakest candidate since Dukakis" are just a bunch of trolls (or possibly just one troll) who toil away in the basement of the RNC, eating freedom fries and photoshopping Ann Coulter into their prom pictures.

I want to apologize to the trolls. It was beneath me to claim that you sat in the basement of the RNC eating freedom fries and photoshopping Ann Coulter into your prom pictures.

I'm sure you all have nice offices at the RNC, some of you prefer salad to freedom fries, and some of you are photoshopping Michelle Malkin in instead.

dkmoorhead regrets the error.