Actually, moral absolutism is used to justify evil - those citizens getting carpet bombed get carpet bombed because of the evil of two towers getting attacked by evil religious fanatics, and while the evil of those citizens getting carpet bombed is regrettable - that evil is done with a view of preventing further evil befalling us.

Which is of course, crap, but you see my point as to where moral absolutism leads. Once you can write someone off as being evil, you can justify anything as opposing evil. Even torture, which is an evil act, is justifiable in preventing further evil.

Which is why I for one don't deal in good an evil so much as right and wrong. Torture, whether it be water-boarding (Which is established as torture by international war crimes case history - no matter how many syllables people try to use to make it sound less like torture) or forcing someone to play Russian Roullette is wrong.

You can dodge around good and evil, but right and wrong don't take excuses, and one doesn't attempt to right wrongs with more wrongs.

However, if you leave evil as having no wriggle room, you are left with the definitions of evil - which leaves you with issues like "Should your wife be stoned to death for engaging in adultery?"

That is the power of declaring something evil - and why evil is always a situational concept (Where what is evil in one circumstance is good in another, such as the cliched argument about lying.)

If you apply the label "Evil" too tightly, you end up with far worse than people debating whether gay marriage should be allowed.

Now right and wrong? Those concepts are just absolute enough to allow someone to be wrong - but being wrong isn't a death sentence.

Conservatives have:

Lied America into a war.

Destroyed America's moral authority on human rights.

Destroyed America's economy.

Destroyed America's environment.

Destroyed America's network of alliances.

Destroyed America's ability to respond to disasters.

Destroyed, via negligence, one of America's largest ports.

Destroyed America's healthcare.

Destroyed America's surplus.

Destroyed America's credit rating.

Destroyed America's military readiness.

And you are insulting Michael Moore for being fat.

Yeah. Maybe when you conservatives do something other than fuck up, we will start taking you seriously again.

On every issue upon which Hillary has been "Strong" she has successfully undermined herself.

It wasn't Obama that managed to throw doubt on her foreign policy experience, it was her including details that just never happened. Bosnia. Sniper. Fire.

She undermined herself on healthcare - by including a mandate and then waving off questions on how it will be enforced as a problem to be solved once she is president. Can you say "Promises made to be broken"?

She has twice endorsed McCain over Obama, leaving serious doubts as to just whose side she is on. This will be used against her under "She can't even run in a primary without stabbing her own party in the back, how can you trust her to not stab you in the back as president." IE: She is untrustworthy, a negative meme about her that she has only managed to confirm up until now.

Should Obama win the primary it will be used in attack adds against him as "Even Hillary agrees, McCain is the better president."

So in effect a vote for Obama is not turning a blind eye to his weakenesses, it is paying attention to the weaknesses of both candidates. Obama isn't perfect, there are definite things wrong with him as a candidate but nor is Hillary and what is wrong with her, outweighs what is wrong with him in my honest opinion.

Was trying too hard to be a "One of us" with the blue collar Pennsylvania voters.

He should have gone with being himself and having fun with it. I don't think he lost votes over "Bittergate", the Wright scandal or any of that, but the long laundry list of attempts to mingle undercut his central message.

You can't try to be a straight talker and come off as pretending to be an everyman. You need to be who you are, because every facade cracks eventually.

The change we see in Obama is pushing away from that bullshit where the presidential nominee comes and pretends to like your brand of beer or your sports team, pretending to be your beer buddy- and in Pennsylvania he hurt that image.

He ran in PA as a politics as usual kind of guy, whereas his central message is distinctly not politics as usual. One can only hope that he learns from this mistake and manages to regain some of that lost momentum.

You mean like the way she endorsed McCain over Obama? Twice?

Yeah, really a better candidate for the Democrats to run with. I am sure McCain agrees.

When an Obama supporter wants to slam Hillary, he or she slams Hillary.

When a Clinton supporter wants to slam Obama, he or she slams Obama supporters.

Right up until the Obama supporters got sick of that shit and started fighting back. You don't like college aged people getting political and passionate about their politics?

Tough. Shit.

Hillary supporters have called Obama supporters naive, stupid, racist, sexist, loony left latte liberals for the last year. That some of Obama's supporters are jerks? Fine.

But don't pretend that this is one sided - and don't pretend you are an Obama supporter. Concern trolling is pretty damned transparent and doesn't fool anybody.

When an Obama staffer called Hillary a monster, she appologised and resigned.

When Ferraro accused Obama of being the affirmative action candidate? Where was the apology? You want jerks, try that one on for size.

And it wasn't like Hillary can claim she didn't know Ferraro held those sentiments - she used exactly the same line of attack against Jesse Jackson.