Whence Jake007's animus towards Yau-man? What's to dislike about the guy? Man! -- some people.

I'm a diehard Democrat, but Hillary makes me nauseous. The poll-tested tears were just the last straw. There is no crying in baseball! I could pick another five or six reasons that she is just wrong (the dynasty issue, the sense of entitlement, the pandering, the familial baggage, the spectacularly wrong votes on Iraq, etc. etc.) Does anyone really think that political sequels can be anything but worse than the original? Unfortunately for her, there are many people who feel as I do, and who will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. When will Democrats wake up and realize that we have an amazing proclivity for nominating people who are destined to lose the general election?

Hillary's "change you can Xerox" quip was "a potent putdown"?!? Please tell us you aren't serious. That line was laughable, and it backfired, miserably. It came across as churlish and unfair, and played into the Hillary stereotype. The debate was basically a "tie" up until the end (in that they pretty much matched each other on substance and delivery), but a tie isn't good enough for Clinton -- she needed a knockout and didn't get one. And her one good moment at the end went over extremely well in the moment, but now looks a lot less honest and successful now that we know it was lifted from Edwards (not an egregious sin in my view, but neither was Obama's "plagarism" of his co-chairman Deval Patrick's lines): i.e. hypocritical. The upshot: Hillary's argument that Obama is an empty speech-ifier took a beating, she had a "zinger" that fell very flat, and her one shining moment now looks a little embarassing. Basically a tie, and in this kind of race, the overall benefit is either a wash or marginally goes to Obama.

...I don't think Mr. McClelland has to worry too much. After the Obama-Somalia photo flap today, Hillary is toast. Her campaign is quickly turning into a train wreck. Rather sad, actually.

Wilentz (or however you spell his name) is delusional. Obama couldn't have come up with a less polarizing campaign than the one he already has.

I can't believe anyone could take such an accusation seriously, and in fact, why are we even discussing this. Summary judgement: bullshit.

just yet, anyway. The campaign has become so poisonous that Hillary's people are just angry. Many of them will change their minds when they realize that a President McCain will appoint Supreme Court justices who plan to roll back Roe v Wade, along with other anathema.

But that said, there is no way in hell I am ever going to vote for Hillary after her sleazy Karl Rove-ian campaign of fear-mongering and smears the last week or so. That goes for this year or 2012: won't vote for her under any circumstances. I won't vote for McCain, but I may just vote for Nader -- someone I have loathed since Nov. 2000.

Empirical evidence that Rush Limbaugh won Texas for Hillary:

http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html

So wipe that smirk off your face, Hillary. You would have lost without Rush Limbaugh.

...which was the perception that those in the Hillary camp are valorizing identity politics over free choice or voting by conscience/rational preference, and making women feel guilty if they don't vote with their "sisters".

Lay off on the "Obama's 'typical white person' comment" stuff. To quote Tim Gunn, this worries me. First of all -- and as a white person -- it rings true; second, it smacks of false umbrage. If "white people" (read: independents and moderates) have a problem with Obama's statement in the fall (and I don't think most will), then they are being deeply hypocritical.

Seriously, drop it.

This being a Farhad Manjoo column, I'm going to take it at face value as factual, and not an early April Fool's joke. But....

HFS! Did this really happen? I know that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Americans, but this tops it all. And/or we're truly further down the road of a return to a Hobbesian state of anarchy than I feared.

I can only quote David Bowie: "On the whole, you know, this whole world is run by brutes for the common and the stupid. Frankly."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with Wilentz's arguments, but everybody should see it for what it is -- not so much scholarly erudition as being in the tank for the Clinton campaign.

Hack, hack. Pardon my cough.

...bathroom products?

Holy moly, who knew -- hydrogen sulfide. While I have exactly zero intention of offing myself, I would like to know exactly what kinds of bathroom products should NEVER COME INTO CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER!

Wow.

...do not include Michelle Malkin. I'm not accusing Joan of anything whatsoever; my point is just that even referencing MM as a legitimate (if extreme) point of view is wrong (and plays into their hands strategically). MM, Savage, et al are outside the boundaries of civilized debate, and we should not dignify such people with quoting them.

Party's over and you're the last one to go home. It's starting to provoke that holy-moly-she-really-is-Tracy-Flick laughter.

I cannot believe that you are an apologist for Hillary's RFK comments. I don't think her comment was malicious, but it was both in extremely poor taste and a window into the demented state of her continuing delusions. Seriously -- your defense of this is completely untenable and actually embarassing.