Q: A poll shows that many view Clinton as "untrustworthy." The Bosnia incident, which happened before the poll was taken, only reinforces this impression. What possible defense is there for Clinton "misspeaking" so badly, and then "misspeaking" about why, how, and how often she misspoke?

Answer from WES, Sobe, cythere: Obama is a racist snob who is going to lose!

Nice. If I supported Clinton, I'd be embarrassed to be associated with you.

52 percent of Hillary voters said they either would not vote in the general or vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee...

And instead of arguing with those people and trying to pull the party together, here you are attempting to add to that percentage.

If 52 percent of the Hillary voters you claim to represent are that self-destructive, your time would be better spent convincing them that it's in the country's best interest for all Democrats to vote for whichever one wins the nomination.

Why don't you work on that? They're "your team" after all. Aren't they?

War Room under Steve was starting to take up far too much reading time every day. Under Alex, it seemed like the articles were a lot less frequent and rarely engaged my attention. Now, I guess I'll get more work done -- unless I start reading Steve's blog...

I can't see how you can reconcile these statements:

And suddenly, hey! She's talking to me! She told me she'd do away with FAFSA, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid! Everyone hates FAFSA!

and

Sure, Clinton's "solve every problem" shtick can seem like pandering -- trust me, she is not going to get rid of FAFSA! -- but it can also seem reassuring.

Does this, from any angle, not say, "I don't care if she lies, as long as I feel reassured"?

In what sense is this different from voting for Bush because he's the guy who you'd most want to have a beer with?

What good is a "campaign jackhammer of details" if it's full of half-truths and pandering?

This is a total non-issue. I'm an Obama supporter and I don't think it deserves any attention at all. Sorry to disappoint the Republican agitators here who are trying to paint us as hysterical cultists.

Lots of people saying "rules are rules" on this, but I don't think I've ever seen the rules for how superdelegates are supposed to decide, or whether or not they can change after pledging.

Can someone please supply a link to these rules or an explanation of them?

I'd also like to see this answered:

Every once in a while, someone asserts that the superdelegates are bound by "the rules" to vote according to the people they "represent" (although they're not all representatives, so what that means, I'm not sure).

But I had the impression that they were supposed to act as tiebreakers, to prevent a deadlock at the convention. If the normal delegate count is a tie, and the superdelegates all voted robotically according to how "their people" voted, wouldn't it still be a tie?

People complaining about the superdelegates having too much power are ignoring the fact that they only have this power when things are as close as they are now.

If a baseball game is very, very close in the ninth inning, it's because the teams are playing equally well. The guy who strikes out and "loses the game" doesn't deserve the entire blame, but he often gets it. However, he wouldn't have been in that deciding position if his team had all played just a bit better, or that guy in the third inning hadn't struck out.

That may be a bit off the point here, but it's been bothering me.

Regular delegates, you say? Not superdelegates?

Oh.

Never miiind.

For the first time in my 40 years of voting will I vote for a Republican for President

Really? You mean that?

Really?

You didn't vote for Bush either time, but you're going to vote for McCain?

That's baffling. What possible reason would you have for doing that?

I am very disappointed in this decision. I have been a very strong supporter of John Edwards for many, many years but cannot support him anymore. At one time many months ago, I liked Obama, but after researching him for many months, I found that he is not the person I would want for president. I was born and raised in Illinois and I know how Chicago politics work. I do not want Chicago to be running this country from within its windy city and it will be should Obama be elected. All anyone has to do is look at the mess the state of Illinois is in due to the Governor who is from Chicago and he is only one example. Therefore, I am pulling ALL support for Senator Edwards now and on all of his future endeavors. I am leaving the Democratic party after nearly 40 years. I've been a Democrat all of my adult life, but feel I must leave the party because I cannot and will not vote for Obama in November and I can no longer be a supporter of John Edwards.

Ha! You're pulling your support of Edwards because he endorsed Obama who is from the same city as the governor of Illinois?

That's not all you're pulling. Your logic is so tortured, it gives John McCain a hard-on. Put a little more effort into your trolling next time!

MCCAIN: Oh I thin -- Again, I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map ...

Far better, of course, so declare such a policy by singing it to the tune of a Beach Boys song.