First of all, anyone who sincerely believes Obama lied, rather than just mispoke, about which concetration camp his great uncle liberated is an idiot. Seriously, what would be gained by lying about it? "OMG his uncle helped liberate Buchenwald not Auschwitz? Well that tears it, I only vote for people who are related to people who liberated Auschwitz."

Compare this to the other candidates' lie/mispeaking:

McCain "confused" Al Qaeda in Iraq with the Mahdi Army and tried to tie them to Iran. Maybe he mispoke the multiple times he said it until Sen Quisling (I - Conn) corrected him. That said, it sure is convienent that his mistake tries to connect the group behind the 9-11 attacks to one of the smaller insurgent groups in Iraq and then tries to connect that group to Iran, a nation he wants to bomb. Maybe it just happened that his mistake tries to play "Two Degrees of Bin Laden".

Clinton "misremembered" being shot at in Bosnia, multiple times, sticking by her misremebering until video and Sinbad disputed it. It is just luck that if unchallenged that mistake would have been used to try to draw a distinction between her national security credentials and Obama's.

Seriously, anyone remotely considering voting for John McCain over this, after the last 8 years of Republican rule, needs to grow up.

Is Obama's mistake worth vets returning from Afghanistan not getting the physical and mental health care they need to adjust back to civilian live? It is worth keeping the dream of an Ivy League education out of reach for academically, but not financially, capable soldiers who sacrifice years of their life for this country? Is it worth having homeless Vietnam veterarns spend their remaining years being cold, hungry, hurting, and feeling invisible?

What ever Clinton supporters feel about how their candidate was treated, you can't unring the bell. Obama is going to be the nominee. Anyone who supported Clinton for more than just her gender has interests more in line with Obama's than McCain's. Is revenge really acceptable if it means four more years of Neocon foreign policy and robber baron domestic policy? I'll tell you right now, as much a I think HRC played it dirty, as much as I hate her vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her vote for a similar measure against Iran, as much as I am tired of the DLC agenda, I would vote for Clinton if she were the nominee. After the last eight years of Bush it isn't even a question.

The is almost no scenario where I wouldn't vote for Clinton over McCain. She could hit a baby. She could slap me in the face. She could slap me in the face with a baby and I would still vote for her.

What I won't do is give in to people threatening to vote for McCain if she isn't the nominee. People that borderline brain dead don't get to hold the party hostage.

When the youth turn out for the 2004 and 2008 primaries is a known?

I guess because it is easier to support a hypothesis based on what _might_ happen then what has when what has happened doesn't support the hypothesis.

The youth vote for the primaries this year has by no means failed to show up. There is no reason to believe that they will suddenly fail to vote in November. Unless you believe youth are more willing to sit in high school gyms in February for two hours of caucusing then they are willing to mail in their absentee ballots.

People keep pointing to McGovern as a reason to be wary of relying on the youth vote, but McGovern won in a way more similar to how Hilary expected to win. He won a winner take all contest in the California primary which gave him the nom.

As for Hillary's "three state polls from this week" argument, it would be a solid argument if the general election was held on May 28th and not the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November and if other states besides Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida didn't have electoral votes.

Frankly, Hillary's "I'm a winner" statements would have a lot more force if she was, you know, winning.

Are the supers really supposed to say "Sure you failed to get more pledged delegates despite having every possible advantage at the outset, sure you burned through millions of primary contributions to the point where you had to loan yourself money in the first month of a six month primary season, sure your campaign was bungled by staffers hired out of loyalty rather than competence, but we have full faith that you will turn it all around in the General election."

Is he also worried about "Beatniks", "Flappers" and "Whippersnappers"? Is he scandalized by the Charleston and Benny Goodman's orchestra? Concerned about the resurgence of the Know-Nothing and Whig parties?

It is 2008, worrying about Socialists is like worring about Transendentalists or claiming that a candidate wants to go from the Gold to the Silver standard.

Assuming Obama maintains a 150 pledged delegate advantage through the last three contests, he will have won pledged delegates by a 4.6% Margin.

Even if you used Clinton's popular vote tally where Michigan and Florida's unsanctioned contests were counted, but not Washington, Nevada, Maine, and Iowa's sanctioned contests, and where Obama has 0 votes in Michigan; Clinton's popular vote margin of victory is .45%. In other words, what you can an insignificant pledged vote lead is ten times larger than popular vote lead Clinton would have if using a popular vote methodology that no one who isn't already supporting Clinton would use.

It is also a larger margin of victory than Clinton's wins in Indiana, Texas (primary), New Mexico, or New Hampshire.