She's now said that she wouldn't support a "do-over" yet she insists on getting those delegates. This should prove to everyone that this has nothing...zero...to do with fairness or disenfranchisement.

This is "I need it, so it must be fair."

Go away, Hillary, go away. You don't care about the party, but I do.

Please explain how this situation is different.

Actually, never mind, don't. Because everyone knows this is just exactly what it looks like.

But she should know, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Had she just released the stupid tax returns, anything scandalous on them would be old news by now, just as once Lazio released his returns, they were no big deal.

Dumb, Hillary, that was ust dumb. Another reason why this is the biggest train wreck of a campaign we've ever seen (taking Fred Thompson off the hook for that honor).

Fundraisers were specifically allowed under the agreement, and both candidates had them. Obama's "press conference" consisted of him walking over to a knot of reporters and answering questions for 5 minutes on his way out of one of those fundraisers. The DNC said that did not violate the rules.

See, there's that word again, rules. You need to know them, and you need to respect them, and you need to not turn into every conservative's stereotype of a whiny liberal when they appear to work against you.

Just once, I'd like the Clinton campaign to be completely honest and say "No, we don't accept the apology because the only time we have a good news cycle is when we can be selectively outraged."

I would at least appreciate that courtesy. If you're going to lie to me, don't lie to me like I'm Montel Williams.

I actually DON'T think that experience is the deciding factor, but Sen. Clinton certainly does. Therefore, when she makes the experience argument on behalf of McCain, she is saying "I believe the most important factor is X. Sen. McCain has more of X than Sen. Obama, so I believe he is a better choice for president."

Just because I don't value X as much as Sen. Clinton does doesn't change what she is saying.

Let's all just stop playing the "well, if they said it about Obama, you guys would be furious!" game, because it's a completely false comparison. Believe me, your guys have said it. And worse. And much worse. But you don't hear as much about it because unlike Clinton, Obama doesn't throw a hissy fit in front of the cameras when someone says something about him. He can actually be a grown up and accept an apology, because his entire campaign is not built on the politics of victimhood.

And a Clinton supporter (excuse me, I mean a supporter of MY GIRL! TEH HILLARY IZ AWESOME XOXOXO!!!!) calling Obama a hypocrite is beyond chutzpah. It's beyond irony. It's just fucking pathetic.

TO: Obama campaign staff

FR: Howard Wolfson

Oh pllllllleeeeeeeeeaaaasseee can you just say something bad about Hillary? Please? C'mon, call her a b*tch into an open microphone. Say her butt is looking fat these days.

Anything, please. We can't win this thing without a steady stream of slights (perceived or real) from people loosely connected with the Obama campaign. We really have no message left other than Perpetual Victimhood, so we're counting on you.

Now, I've got to go on with Wolf Blitzer so I can "accidentally" call Obama "Al Sharpton bin Laden"

Thanx,

Howie

So is Howard Wolfson out for the Ken Starr comparison?

If not, then this is sheer hypocrisy.

Just because there exists the possibility that LW is depressed doesn't mean that Cary's advice is invalid. Because it doesn't really matter. Being depressed does not automatically make one non-functional, and by becoming functional again, LW will be freed to work on whatever depression or other disorder may be causing the underlying problem.

What I'm trying to say is, don't fall back on a disorder as an excuse as to why you aren't functioning. If you have that disorder, deal with it, but treat both the symptoms AND the underlying cause. If Cary had said "it's depression...go see a therapist" or recommended medication, that may or may not have solved the immediate problem, that of the piles of work that are not yet done. And faced with a daunting task like that, it will be more difficult to get to a place where LW can do the real work on him/herself.

And to the person who recommended getting fired...don't do it. It's ALWAYS better, for your career (even if you plan on changing careers) and for your own self-esteem, to leave on your own terms, no matter what. I was laid off once and left a job (without another to take its place) once, and the difference is night and day. Even with being laid off (which is more sympathetic than beign fired), prospective employers gave me a much more critical eye than when I left of my own free will. Believe me, the unemployment compensation (which, at least in my state, is barely survivable, especially when one is used to a manager's salary) is not worth it.

It's not just name recognition among the top 2 candidates. What if Richardson had decided that the large Latino population might make FL a good firewall for him, and spent all his time and money there? Or if John Edwards had decided that his best chance to break through with the media was to hold rallies in front of closed down parts factories in MI?

Those things, along with a host of others, could have radically altered the race had it been a fair contest the first time. But rules are rules, and the Clinton campaign must not be allowed to selfishly change those rules for its own benefit, under the flimsy guise of concern for the voters.

No do-overs.