=====Geoff Randall said:

Obama has a bad week based on some news cycles about his pastor. While the issues raised aren't necessarily substantive, Obama gives a major and courageous speach addressing the issue and racism in general.

Clinton has a bad week based on some news cycles about her inflated, and un-true claims about a trip to Bosnia. Once again, the issues aren't necessariy substantive. Clinton's response:

- deny she lied, claim she "misspoke", debate the meaning of "is"

- mention Obama's previous bad week in an attempt to deflect attention

- launch mature "I know you are but what am I" attack against Obama.

=======

Geoff, you've beautifully encapsulated why I have done a 180 on Clinton vs. Obama. I voted for Hillary in the California primaries on Super Tuesday, believing her to be the best candidate. This is no longer the case. You can really measure the performance and character of someone by how they do under fire, and Hillary has, so far, come way short of Obama's taking a bad situation and using it as an opportunity to create something positive.

Obama really should be given credit for at least trying to elevate the discourse in an atmosphere of poisonous politics that has become more and more toxic and divisive in the past 20 years, peaking under the fetid reign of Rove and Bush. Hillary can't get out of the muck, and I really doubt she'll be able to get things done in a divided Congress. I think Obama will be able to bring ideas and champion sorely needed policies, build bridges, and translate the energy and grass roots activism in his campaign now into a renewal of people really participating in government. I really am starting to feel hope again.

Would I vote for Hillary still, after all this? Well, I would vote AGAINST McCain, for the Democratic candidate, if that was the case, holding my nose. Fortunately, I will be able to vote FOR Obama. I just hope Hillary gives up her destructive crusade soon. Very soon.

Makes "Hillary 4 U and Me" sound like Rihanna.

I don't think either an oil economy or an Islamic state alone is to blame. It may be useful to think of these factors as "genetic pre-conditions" to the cancer of women's oppression.

The oil economy puts intense pressure on the dynamic between rich and poor, where possession and land rights are everything and meritocracy withers. If other equalizing forces are at play: a strong democracy, history, government safeguards (Norway) you have a society that weathers the pressure of those influences fine.

Islamic fundamentalism puts intense pressure to strictly adhere to a prescribed social structure, by its nature oppressive to women. But while it oppresses women, it gives an angry outlet to the disempowered, poor males who are otherwise unfulfilled by a society populated only by intense wealth or intense poverty.

Thus does the oil-rich, Islamic state have the "perfect storm" to oppress women -- one factor feeding and spiraling off the other. The oil economy allows no one to rise due to their own efforts, they are trapped; frustrated, the religion allows the males to compensate for their powerlessness by making war and granting permission to dominate and lord over half of the population. Imagine the satisfaction of knowing that no matter how poor you are, you are still better than even the richest woman. Or even the richest infidel.

While not a panacea, it would certainly be a blow to the self-feeding cancer in these oppressive states to get off the oil teat as swiftly as possible. Installing solar panels and wind turbines seems a lot easier and more beneficial than trying to dominate or convert the Middle East.

1. It's absolutely true.

2. McCain will find it almost impossible to fight. The "red meat" Republicans LOVE that he == Bush on the war, the economy, and healthcare. So if he refutes it, the "base" will sit on their hands at election time. If he lets it go, the meme will prosper and flower.

I challenge your American Graffiti with Heavenly Creatures, THX1138 with Pan's Labyrinth, and Star Wars, certainly, with the LOTR trilogy.

China, seriously... Wright has to know that he is doing Obama no favors at this point. I have a bone to pick with Salon's coverage, too, but the simple fact is that the Reverend is trashing Obama's chances right now... probably for his own career and fortune. And that is a damn shame -- Obama has the potential to be Kennedy or Lincoln-great.

...or we'll be eating 4 more years of toxic Bush-lite, warmed over.

Do you want that? Well, do you? Okay then. Now shake hands and... Missy, you get that sour puss off your face, I mean it... and you, mister, get that tongue back into your mouth NOW... okay. Now say, "I'm sorry." Yes, both of you.

That's better. Much much better.

Onward. There's been enough foolishness.

While Clark is a great choice to campaign with Obama, lure Hillary voters, etc., and could step into The Job if necessary, we need to be thinking about this VP as our candidate in 2016(when Clark will be getting on 72 years of age).

Concern noted, but he's remarkably fit and would be in a whole lot better condition to run than McCain is now.

Start a petition? Obama/Clark 08! Yes they (and we) can!

Clinton simply does not fill out the ticket. We need someone militarily credible to counter the perception that McCain represents war smarts. Hillary simply does not do this. She merely voted for the war, and has no special expertise on such matters. But General Wesley Clark does. And, having been in the Clinton administration, led the most solid and sustained and *successful* Allied effort since WWII, the liberation of Kosovo, he's got all the ingredients to round out and "gravitize" Obama's presidential run.