A thousand thank-yous for the link to the Daily Kos poster who very thoroughly and even-handedly compared Obama's and Clinton's work in the Senate last year.

Clearly they are both hard-working, competent, qualified legislators who share many of the same values. The person who did the research came to the conclusion, quite fairly it seems, that while both of them are geared toward problem-solving, Obama seems to have an edge in terms of thinking bigger & riskier, aiming for the root of problems rather than their symptoms, and gaining co-sponsors across the aisle.

Looked at in this sober, analytical way, it's just crazy to see how much hatred some Salon readers have built up for the nominee they don't support. Personally, I have never liked Clinton all that much and really can't get past her Iraq war authorization vote, and yet reading about her actual day-to-day work made me respect her a bit more. At the same time, reading about Obama's day-to-day work made me feel a bit more confident in my vote for him in the Maryland primaries, and happy that he'll likely end up the nominee.

What is mind-bogglingly sad is that such sober, rational, USEFUL information isn't out there in the world, isn't at least a tiny meme floating out there somewhere in the MSM and competing with all the trumped-up controversies and personality caricatures.

The media have failed us utterly, and all the hyperbolic sniping and name-calling back and forth between Obama and Clinton supporters on this website is a SYMPTOM of that failure.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

A detailed comparison of Obama's and Clinton's sponsored and co-sponsored bills last year. Fascinating and useful read.

LW, you are bewildered now only because you didn't go through this bewilderment back then. Your young motherhood and your weight gain kept you sheltered from an experience that lots of people have in their late teens and early 20s. (I remember being proud of the fact that, in 25 years of being in business, "my" bar had cashed the checks of only three people ever--and I was the third. If it'd bounced, they knew exactly where to find me.)

If a post-adolescent barfly is fundamentally healthy or at least has the capacity to grow up, he or she eventually figures out how pathetic it is to be a major player in the Drama of the Regulars. (My own moment of epiphany on this point took place when I was about 26, so I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.) As Cary and others advise, get out of it, or at least take a break. You may miss your friends for a short while but you will find others.

Perhaps what you haven't figured out is that your confidence and personality WILL carry over to other venues--unless, of course, you only feel "confident" when you've been downing some liquid courage. In that case, your problems are bigger than the burden of popularity.

I'm not a highly trained opera singer, but I'm a professional nonetheless, and I've also studied a bit about the mechanics of sound. I know first-hand that there are certain vocal sounds that instantly capture an audience and others that turn them off or at least allow them to tune out--and I've made both kinds in my life. In fact, on any given performance I'm apt to make some of both kinds.

There's nothing "shallow" about the fact that we humans are physical beings who respond better to certain timbres than others. Resonance is actually a profound experience (which is why it can be so deeply satisfying to sing unison or tight harmonies with a group of people with great intonation--your bodies are literally vibrating together as one unit).

That doesn't mean that we don't also have to step back from our gut-level responses to these candidates and consider things like policy proposals and voting records. It's our responsibility as voters to leaven the immediate emotional appeal (which is made up of a lot of factors, including height, as has been amply demonstrated) with factual matters such as policy proposals and voting records.

By the way, legend has it that Lauren Bacall's sexy deep voice was an invention, not the voice she was born with. Before the filming of...some film, I've forgotten which now...John Huston urged her to go into a canyon and scream at the top of her lungs in order to tire out her vocal chords. Some drinking may have also been involved. But apparently this was enough to "train" her voice and ear to achieve that more resonant and scratchy timbre.

As I read the review, I was thinking, "Yes, this is one reason I love the Wire: it has always portrayed the drug dealers as business people." Now I'll be fascinated to see the results of the author's interviews with actual dealers about what is, after all, just a TV show (even if it's the best one that's ever been made IMHO!).

But in any case, the overall point seems to be that people create economies out of whatever resources they have to get what they need. There is a rational basis to even the most depraved and violent human-made system, and the reviewer is correct in pointing out that this basic truth is often ignored by both conservatives and liberals.

A nice philosophical "companion piece" to this review is the somewhat surreal and fundamentally horrifying piece in the current Rolling Stone about Iraq. Apparently, one primary purpose and strategy of the Iraq "surge" has been to bribe (via arms, jobs, and cash) former Sunni and AQI insurgents to keep the peace in their mini-territories. If America shuts off the money faucet, all hell will break lose.

I pity our next president, whoever he or she is. They will not be able to extract our country easily from the corrupt and violent military-enforced economy (militaristic socialism?) that we've created over there. Welcome to The Projects, hon.