Iokannan in the Well:

Does anyone catch how contradictory that is? How do you have a "debate" when only one side is allowed?

You're allowed to debate the best tactics for winning (troop numbers, bombing strategies, etc.), just not whether we should be fighting the war.

...

Responsible debate is: "We should fight the war using X Tactic or Y Tactic."

Irresponsible debate is: "We should't be fighting this war."

Now, now, Glenn, it's not quite that bad. I'm sure we're also allowed to debate whether we should be fighting the war as long as we don't do it anywhere the bad guys can hear us. Or anywhere The Troops (tm) can hear, either, of course.

(They're the biggest, baddest, most highly-trained fighting force in the world, but everyone knows how vulnerable they are to someone suggesting that they might not be fighting for a totally and unquestionably honorable cause. They might swoon at just the wrong moment.)

So we're allowed a serious debate ... as long as no-one hears it.

Wow, that show is still on? Who knew?

All this, of course, will only add fuel to the speculation that Barack Obama's campaign may help the Clinton camp retire its debt, something that's not uncommon at the end of a primary run.

― Alex Koppelman

Really? Examples, please, preferably from presidential campaigns.

Alex Koppelman: "As I've observed here before, this is largely a solution in search of a problem."

It's not a solution in search of a problem. The problem for Republican politicians in places like this is that too many people would like to vote for Democrats. This is part of their solution to that problem.

It's not even in search of a good pretense to cover for the real reason. The pretense of "voter fraud" works just fine for their purposes. In the context of our current media environment, there's no need to even try to justify their pretense with anything.

So if the Democratic Party decides to count votes that they earlier decided -- with Clinton's agreement -- to not count, Clinton might (if she's very lucky) come out ahead in a metric that doesn't officially mean anything.

This is their path to victory? Some people really take this seriously?

Facts have a well-known liberal bias, therefore looking for facts is clearly partisan behavior.

Has there ever been another country besides Israel to which American politicians are required to vow absolute allegiance?

Well, until relatively recently there was Ireland, but that was specific to Boston politicians.

This guy isn't a superdelegate, he's a pledged delegate. As far as I know, the rules do not say he can't "break his pledge", but -- as an Obama supporter -- I wish he wouldn't.

Surprise!

C'mon, 'fess up -- sometimes it's nice to be wrong about assuming the worst, isn't it? Sometimes people -- sometimes even us Obama supporters -- don't have double-standards.

"In other news, a man was bitten by a dog, a bear shit in the woods, and the Pope went to Mass."

Hillary Clinton saw her husband forced to repeatedly apologize for his sexual fling, repeatedly be denounced for "not" apologizing, and have to do it again and again, with increasing levels of debasement, to no avail. When it came time for Senator Clinton to "apologize" for voting in favor of Bush's AUMF, she refused to play the game.

Are you seriously comparing apologizing for a stupid personal decision that resulted in public embarrassment to apologizing for appaulingly bad judgment that helped enable a president to start a pre-emptive war and a years-long occupation? A war and an occupation that has resulted in thousands of troop deaths, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars of debt?

Refusing to apologize for that is "refusing to play the game"?

A major reason that she's always been down near the bottom of my list of nominees is that she wasn't strong enough to apologize for her poor judgment on the AUMF. If she can't apologize for a whopper like that, how can I trust her to even privately acknowledge smaller mistakes?

... but I still wouldn't turn my back on Carville in a crowded elevator.

I don't think this is true at all, just as I'm quite willing to believe that (mirabile dictu) Dick Cheney believes he's been good for America.

I'd be willing to believe that Bush simply assumes that he's been good for America, but Cheney? It'd be tough to convince me that he'd think the question worth considering. It'd be like wondering if he was good for sales of medium-bristle toothbrushes.

I suppose it's deliciously ironic to take such a swipe at Jimmy C, but he's going to be a valuable ally this fall, so let's not pile on.

My distrust of Carville predates this election season, but point taken.

As a show of party unity, if I find myself sharing an elevator with Carville, I'll turn my back on him. Oops, that doesn't sound right ... oh, never mind, you know what I mean.

Targetting only pundit-approved "in play" states and ignoring everyone else. That strategy has worked so darn well for Democrats.

They need to ask the question of all 50 governors. (Minus those who aren't citizens by birth, I guess.)

Can I abide by the "spirit" of the laws against robbery, as long as I only rob places owned by Muslims? And would that be any Muslims, or only Muslims who don't dress correctly and/or are in the wrong place at the wrong time?