The problem with this article as a humor piece is that the author's "grumpy" reactions to his children have a distinctly unpleasant edge to them. No, it is not necessary to applaud every poop. But his answer to his son about the Walmart lady's sticker failure is just plain hurtful.

He conflates common sense (not especially interested in cherry-spitting) with abdication of parental responsibility (acco mpanying the mother and kid to the doctor). Sorry, that latter thing goes with the territory. I think his contempt for the doctor as someone his older children used to bully says a lot.

And why does he need to convince his wife to be more like him? Why can't she just be allowed to enjoy all these stupid little childish things that he now finds so unutterably boring.

Sorry, it was just not very funny.

I am also nervous about the idea of an Obama nomination (post by lemecdutex) because of the Republican talking points, and the lack of experience in national politics and with the Republican smear machine). As time goes on, I have actually become somewhat cynical about Obama. The idea that he is a man who always stands on principle is overblown.

All you need to know about Obama and his "principled" stand against the war in Iraq is that he endorsed and campaigned for Joe Lieberman against the anti-war candidate Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary.

He is a politician just like the rest of them, and people who think he is some kind of transcendent political saint will be disappointed in the end.

In answer to your query about the Obama Campaign talking points, see the Huffingtonpost article here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

the text of the memo is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/read-obama-campaign-memo-_n_81220.html

Looking at two of the items set forth in the memo, you will see that the MLK and "fairy story" quotes were distorted and misleading. It is clear that the Obama campaign is actively seeking to provoke racial tension and is not above using misinformation to do this. This is directly contrary to his ostensible campaign message of unity and inclusion.

He can bash Hillary all he wants on the issues, but this kind of provocation will destroy the Democratic party and hand the election to the Republicans.

Actually, jebldmm is right.

It was Obama's CAMPAIGN that put out the talking points memo listing statements taken out of context and twisted to seem "racist". Obama admitted at the debate "truce" that his people may have been "overzealous". The time to say something about this was when it happened, not weeks later after the lies had time to take root.

He is directly responsible for the race baiting and it was calculated and deliberate. He offered his "truce" after he got what he wanted. The media pretty much gives him a pass.

I have never really liked Obama and never believed his rhetoric about "inclusion" and "hope." He has also put a wedge between the baby boomers and young people, quite deliberately. You can see this in the comments by some young people telling the geezers to get out of the way. One thing people might think about is why many of Obama's supporters are so nasty. This is the new direction he is supposed to be leading us into?

Like many people, I am liking Obama less and less.

I didn't say he wasn't qualified. I said he wasn't honest or trustworthy. He is not the uniter he pretends to be.

for doing some actual journalistic reporting of the facts in Nevada.

I don't know which is more dispiriting, the bitterness that has exploded between the Obama and Clinton supporters, or the complete abandonment of any standards of journalism by the press in reporting on these campaigns.

Obama’s real problem is the land deal. There was a house and a lot adjoining which were put up for sale by the same seller to be sold together. Obama could not afford both. So his long time friend and patron Rezko (through Rezko’s wife) bought the lot for full price, while Obama bought the house for $300,000 off the asking price. The purchase was coordinated (and both sales closed on the same day); if Rezko did not buy, Obama would not have been able to buy. Moreover, it would seem that Obama got the full benefit of the negotiated reduction in price.

What Obama did here was to put himself in a position where he certainly appeared to be (if not in fact was) beholden to a known influence peddler.

By the way, this is not ancient history. It happened only two years ago!

That was an egregious lapse in judgement, at minimum. Even he admitted it was “boneheaded”.

So the question for the Democrats is whether this who you want running against the Republicans. If you think Hillary’s attacks are bad, what do you think they will do with this?

Obama knows the Rezkos personally. He has a long-standing relationship with them.

The land transaction was a personal favor to Obama so he could buy the house. These are the plain facts, and it doesn't matter which newspaper reported them. Whether or not you think Obama actually would be influenced, this transaction certainly creates that appearance. And the Republicans will seize on this.

Obama got 80% of the black vote, but 75% of non-blacks voted for one of the other candidates. CNN