...that none of the votes in our primary would count towards delegate allocation.

That decision has me and a lot of other people really pissed off, but I voted anyway, just in case some idiots came to their senses. (Not likely.)

I say seat the Michigan and Florida delegates. The people who made the decision to cast their ballot should be heard.

Write-in was an option on the ballot -- I didn't elaborate and point out that it wasn't an option for Edwards or Obama because of the stooopid shenanigans of the Demo Party poohbahs.

Democratic primary voters had the following options to choose from: Clinton, Christopher J. Dodd (who dropped from the race Jan. 3), Mike Gravel, Dennis J. Kucinich, "uncommitted" or write-in.

Write-in votes are only counted for registered write-in candidates. None of the well-known Presidential candidates was registered for write-ins.

The Michigan Democratic Party is encouraged Obama and Edwards supporters to vote "uncommitted," which means Clinton could have lost the race despite being the only top-tier candidate on the ballot. If a sufficient number of Edwards and Obama supporters had used the "uncommitted option," it would have been a potentially devastating PR problem for Hillary.

Maureen Dowd and Howard Fineman both do that mind-reading thing -- just two examples. They are specialists. The Great Pretenders, dispensing "reports" on the buried emotions, concealed thoughts, and inner feelings of individuals, small groups, large gatherings, with the intention of planting doubt in the mind of the reader/viewer.

NAFTA was an expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988. NAFTA is a treaty under international law, though under United States law, it is a congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty.

Both candidates showed leadership in discussing NAFTA with the Canadians, if indeed, that's what went on. What's the big deal?

...so why doesn't Hillary make herself darker and Barack lighter in in her next ad?

Sheesh! I can't believe that this non-issue is making the rounds.

...sez: You might not like it, but Clinton's support does comes from women and uneducated Democrats. It is a verifiable fact.

Oh boy! What a low-down nasty comment!

For starters, the Democratic Party has been using the slogan: WHEN WOMEN VOTE, DEMOCRATS WIN for years -- effectively, I might add.

"Uneducated" Democrats? I don't think so. Some of Hillary's supporters may not be "college-educated," but that does not make them "uneducated." Shame on you, Happy!

I friend of mine, who is an early retiree from his tenured college professorship at a major university, told me he got disgusted and retired early because "too many students want a degree, not an education."

You think political figures should have deletion powers over their own comments?

Good question. I'm reminded of when Ken Herman, reporting in the Austin American-Statesman back in March, 1999, when Governor GWB was ramping up his intentions to become POTUS, quoted Bush as using the word "vulcanize" (when Bush meant balkanize) regarding quotas having a negative effect on society.

A few days later, at the behest of Bush's office, the Statesman reversed itself, issued a "correction" and said that Bush had been misquoted.

It was then, I knew for certain, that in the new media era we are in deep doo-doo.

As Bush would say, "I think we all agree, the past is over."

It's all quite amusing, these stories about infighting within a campaign. Sure, it's great to have a highly disciplined, tight team running the campaign, claim the punditocracy. But, there's a flip side to that tight team where the infighting stays "within " -- nothing much in the way of ideas or change gets in either.

Take Obama's campaign, for instance, which is touted as running smoothly, laid back, and on message -- however, some observers see his campaign as resembling the Bush "bubble" presidency, in which a select few control the message to the extent that the candidate is controlled (stuck) inside a wall of insular insiders.

I, for one, don't relish a "laid back" presidency.

My question is, why are you journalists so gleeful about slashing at HRC and so hesitant to find anything troubling about Obama?

White guilt?

Oops...that's not PC....

Setting aside the "crime" for the moment, it is interesting that the Democrats were poised to re-take the NY State Legislature for the first time in four decades...

NY State Senate, not NY State Legislature...

Reform politicians who hold themselves up as moral exemplars run the risk of not living up to their own self-proclaimed ethical standards.

The NYT Op/Ed piece that a poster mentioned above, written by Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard, ended with: It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.

"it is possible"....."what I saw in the ad is different"...."watched it again and again"....."we may have come".....

So, Professor Patterson, a surrogate for Obama, admits, in essence, that he has no idea what the ad's *subliminal* message is, but he'll be glad to conflate it into something RACIST to continue Obama's meme.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!