On one hand, I can see the appeal of an Obama/Clinton ticket. (Even though the idea doesn't appeal to me, except in comparison to McCain/Whomever.) On the other hand, I can't imagine Hillary wanting the VP slot. It's a pretty powerless position.

The current arrangement is a glaring exception, to be sure, but I sure as hell can't picture Obama playing Bush to Hillary's Cheney. Or vice versa.

(And what the heck would they do with Bill?)

I'm guessing that the real problem at least Republican leaders have with Soros is that they think of him as a class traitor.

What kevmornj said.

[With acknowledgment of bobr900 and bearpaw1's elaborations. bearpaw1, if you are uncomfortable with apparent cognitive insufficiency, might you agree to apparent intellectual insufficiency?]

I'd be comfortable with either of those, even if you leave off "apparent". Or maybe especially if you leave it off.

I just don't think there's any reason to imply that it's age-related.

... and we all know what a fine source of moral authority the Chinese government is.

I don't know nearly enough about how Soros accumulated his wealth to venture a meaningful opinion about what responsibility -- if any -- he bears for the events you refer to. But given that he hasn't invaded any countries on false premises, ordered attacks with little or no regard to civilian casualties, held people prisoner indefinitely without charge or access to legal representation, engaged in torture, etc, etc ... well, I'm thinking that the term "war criminal" might be more accurately applied elsewhere.

Of course, I admit that he has used his money to support extremist radical causes like freedom of speech and open government, so I can certainly understand why some folks might be a mite suspicious of him.

I don't know any billionaires well enough to love them. But then, I'm more of an independent pushed into strong alliance with Dems by the behavior of the Bush Admin and their apologists, so I can't properly speak for how Dems feel about billionaires.

As for myself, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Soros gained his billions by less-than-noble behavior, but I do admire the way he spends some of it.

Does anyone know what charities -- if any -- scum-sucking multi-billionaire Rupert Murdoch supports? (I mean, other than his famous Home for Addled and Rabid Wingnut Pundits, aka Fox News.)

Speaking as a man and as someone who actually enjoyed -- with a certain twisted fascination -- a couple of season's worth of S&TC, I find it a little depressing to think of this as an inspiration for more "films for women".

I forget who said it or the exact wording, but it seems like it'd be really nice once in a while to see a "mainstream" film where ...

(1) all the major characters are women (2) who spend at least some of the film talking (3) about a subject other than men.

I fully expect fuel prices in the US to "coincidentally" -- and temporarily -- drop before the presidential election.

... over McCain/Whomever. But that's faint praise.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around it. The dynamics between them seem off, I can't see Hillary playing VP to anybody, and what the heck would they do with Bill?

I'm pretty sure that the general election isn't decided by one candidate choosing which of the states to count the votes in and which to ignore. So I'm not sure why Obama should pay attention to that kind of creative counting while choosing a VP.

Then in the most revealing sentence of the evening she said, "And I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, to be no longer invisible."

Okay, a few people don't respect the folks who voted for her, that's obviously too true. But claiming that they've been "invisible" is ludicrous.

Or will they break it to him in January, when the movers arrive?

Dear California,

Welcome to the 21st century!

Love,

Massachusetts

Stewsburntmonkey is right. DOMA could -- and should, and eventually will -- be challenged on Constitutional grounds per "full faith and credit". So input from other states' attorneys-general isn't out of line as such.

(Which doesn't mean the justices have to pay any attention to them.)

Another simpler aspect of this is that Obama has been in the news literally continuously — that is not an overstatement - for 6 months, and McCain has been struggling to get a word in edgewise.

I think that worked in McCain's favor. He's got great name-recognition, but a lot of his positives are only because most people don't realize yet that the "maverick" has been sucking up to the neo-con wing of the Republican Party.

Once McCain starts getting more of the spotlight, his numbers are going to drop. (How much and how fast will depend a great deal on how hard the media tries to hang onto the "maverick" fiction.)

Interesting Mother Jones article about some of the (non-Clinton) possibilities:

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/06/obama-running-mate-vice-presidential-choices.html

There's no suggestion of illegality on Obama's part, even after this verdict, and at this point there's no reason to believe it'll seriously impact his candidacy. But a verdict like this, coming down just in time to make the evening news, is not the way anyone would want to kick off their general election campaign.

Translation: There's no real story here, but we will dutifully report on the story about the story. Even though there's no story.

What do you see happening?

More-or-less the same thing I see here -- some stories about the fact that there is a story about a non-story, with (at best) a grudging admission near the end of the story that there is no story.