Go ahead and seat the delegates from both states. Especially if FL was a calculated monkey wrench by the GOP -- more infighting is just what they want. If the Democratic party factions are attacking each other over over "disenfranchising" or "rule-breaking," then the Repubs are getting just what they want.

Everyone on the Dem side should make it clear that they want the delegates seated -- but in a manner that's fair to both remaining candidates. No, I don't know how that's possible at this point. I do know that insisting that Hillary gets all of hers, and Obama gets none at all, is playing right into GOP hands. But... that hasn't stopped Hillary before (see also, endorsing McCain).

What's sad and funny about the reaction from the right is how quickly, upon becoming the "victims", they subscribe to the belief that the world's not fair and someone needs to fix that right away! As if every issue has two equally valid points of view...

When someone is obviously guilty, it's not bias to try to see justice done. When some stumbling drunk gets pulled over on the highway by the police on Cops, and belligerently insists that the cops are wrong and biased, sorry, but his point of view isn't equally valid. I doubt any of the administration's defenders on the right would say that it is, or that drunk drivers should get a pass because the cops are "biased" against them.

And yet, here they are, playing the same victim card (a term that, I believe, they invented). Well -- boo hoo. Wrong is wrong, and as Stephen Colbert says, the truth has a liberal bias.

If the right was able to pressure Gore into taking THAT position, then it wouldn't have taken much pressure to get him say "I believe in a Saddam free Iraq."

We could still be in Iraq right now with President Gore, but then Iraq would be a Democratic disaster instead of a Republican one.

Bush and his neocon cabal wanted to go into Iraq well before 9/11 -- they weren't responding to outside pressure, and they were the prime movers in that decision. To whom would Gore possibly have "caved" on Iraq? Bush?

One of the talking points of the anti-Obama crowd is that he uses "empty rhetoric" and vague terms that don't mean anything. Now you criticize him for not using something like "compassionate conservatism," which is empty rhetoric that turned out to mean its opposite?

Yeah. "Change" is too vague. Why can't he have something more deep and meaningful like "compassionate conservatism"? Are you keeping any of those straws you're grasping at?

Humor will always be more poulist, more lefty, more anti-establishment than society at large. It has always been that way, from Charles Dickens to Charlie Chaplin to the Three Stooges. Comedy doesn't work when the big guy wins; the little guy has to prevail, and mock the powers that be. The downtrodden win in comedy. But in real life, who the hell wants to be downtrodden? Not me!

You had me until the last two lines there.

One could say the same thing about a lot of adventure fiction. The underdog is the hero. Star Wars is the classic example that spawned a hundred imitators -- ragtag rebels against the Evil Empire.

That's why your last two lines sound a wrong note to me. Translate that to Star Wars and you get, "who the hell wants to be Luke Skywalker? Not me!" with an implicit "I'd rather be the Emperor!" Maybe that's the dividing line between your camp and the left...

...is hold a second primary in which Obama is the only name on the ticket, and average out the results with the first primary.

Would Clinton supporters have a fit? Of course they would. SO why are they insisting that it's OK the other way around?

Clinton's speech tonight is a perfect example of why I've gone from gamely supporting her bid for the Presidency to something close to loathing.

For the last seven or so years, the administration has appeared before the media and the country, and spewed talking points and spin that immediately made me yell back at the monitor because I KNOW THAT THEY ARE LYING TO ME! And in many, many cases, I've been frustrated because no one with any influence has been allowed to refute those lies.

I want the Republicans to lose big. If Hillary's fondest wet dreams come true, and something horrible happens to Obama in June (God forbid), I will still vote for her. But -- ugh! -- the way she's dissembled and twisted the facts over the delegates in Michigan and Florida... Every time one of her people claims that she "won the popular vote" because she won an election in which she was the only candidate on the ballot -- God, why doesn't she realize that she sounds JUST. LIKE. BUSH.!?!?

I'm so sick of that kind of manufacture-our-own-reality politics. I'm so goddamn tired of spin. To insist that Obama should get zero delegates from the contested states is, honestly, a sickening display of the kind of ambition that's ruined our country for the past seven years.

God help us all.

The fun part starts now. Helping McCain defeat Barack Dukakis and humiliate his vulgar racist obnoxious fan club.

And there you have it. "lolcait" is, and always was, working for the GOP on behalf of its anointed, whoever that might turn out to be.

You see any reason to pay any attention to it any more?