Linda-english: "When I look at the attacks on Clinton, it is clear that the critics don't recognize that all the candidates agree on the issues and the question is who can get it done."

Wow. Just wow. "All the candidates agree on the issues"? I suppose that's true, as long as one ignores little issues like the occupation of Iraq, civil rights, health care, economic policies and corporatism, and so on.

"The critics also either are too young to know the lies told by the Republican smear machine about both Clintons and passed on by a corrupt MSM or have forgotten or are Republicans pretending to be Democrats."

I'm -- just barely, I admit -- old enough to remember *Nixon*. And far from being a "Republican pretending to be a Democrat", I think of Clinton as yet another DNC-brand Republican-Lites, just like her husband was.

Aycharaych: "Not exactly an "endorsement" but it certainly smacks of approval."

Only to someone who's totally unaware of who Karl Rove is and how he operates. Or someone who pretends to be.

If Tim Russert were an actual journalist, or even simply a reasonably honest pundit, that quote from Cathie Martin about "Meet The Press" being Cheney's "best format" to "control the message" would be dead embarrassing. The fact that he didn't either vehemently protest the characterization or resign in shame is pretty much all one needs to know about his attitude towards his job.

As far as Richard Cohen's quote, that should also be embarrassing, if only for the things it implies about his sex life.

And that Romney quote? I prefer Patrick Henry:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

"Electability" is the worst kind of self-fulfilling prophecy crap, harnessed by the powerful to keep their favorites front-and-center and dissuade anybody who might threaten their control.

I have a radical proposal -- people should vote for the candidate they think would do the best job as president. I know, I know, it's totally unrealistic, "unserious", pie-in-the-sky sort of thinking. But hell, people have been playing along with the "electability" game for decades -- or to be more precise, they've been played by it for decades. How's that been working out for us?

P.S. to Anonymouse re "manliness": Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that you get your concept of manliness from Larry Craig?

Semiodd: "Just ask Romney (who is being beaten by a squirrel eating baptist preacher)."

You say "squirrel eating" like it's a bad thing. A good home-cooked meal of squirrel stew on a cold night is hard to beat.

Anonymous, it'd be nice if it was that simple. It isn't.

Many financial agreements are essentially designed to be complicated enough to be difficult to understand without help. And then the "help" that most people are given is too often intentionally deceptive ... just not *quite* deceptive enough to be illegal. Or often when it is deceptive enough to be illegal, nobody is enforcing the regulations, because the targets are only "stupid" poor people.

I never took "judicial activism" criticism by wingers seriously, but after Bush v. Gore it became downright ludicrous. How could any winger criticize "judicial activism" with a straight face after cheering that decision?

There's a big difference between pointing out that Obama happens to be black (duh) and claiming that he's "the black candidate". The folks here who don't understand the difference between those things clearly don't understand this issue.

It's worth noting that anyone who buys into the "Obama won big in South Carolina because he's black" meme, is using thinking not really much different from the thinking of certain winger pundits who dismiss any candidate who wins with significant support from blacks (or latinos or women or ...).

"Oh, if it hadn't been for the [X] vote, s/he wouldn't have won." As if those votes somehow aren't as real as the votes of white men. Sometimes I wonder what prevents them from suggesting that some votes should only count 3/5s of a real vote ... to pick a fraction not entirely at random.

Glenn I feel you totally missed the boat on this one.I live in Philadelphia and the sad fact of the matter is blacks will vote for a black candidate over a white one just because of the color of there skin.That should not be ignored, and that is a sad statement of the black electorate. You should vote for the best person not because of there race or gender but because of there ideas.I'v seen it happen here in Philly with Wilson Goode. -- cmkplumber

It is, I don't doubt, a sad fact that some blacks will vote for a black candidate over a white one on the basis of their skin color, just as it's a sad fact that some white candidates will vote for a white candidate over a black candidate on the basis of their skin color. Leaving out that very important qualifying word is exactly the sort of thing that changes something from a factual statement into a prejudicial statement.

I agree with the other writers on this being fake outrage. -- sienalake1

I don't agree. I'm outraged about the fake outrage about the "fake outrage".