Maybe if they get upset enough about the merely suggestive nature of their precious primary votes, they will realize the same problem we have with the general.

Nah, that'd take something much more extreme. Like for instance, a general election where (1) the candidate who lost the popular vote won the election through (2) a Supreme Court decision split along partisan lines about (3) a very questionable electoral process.

Oh, wait ...

WES Demostrates the Ethos of a Clintonite

Oh please. I'm no fan of Clinton, but WES demonstrates squat about Clintonites or anyone other than WES.

Huh? When did Obama accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist?

What's that got to do with anything? Attacks like that are how Obama gets "vetted". Veracity is irrelevant.

(Oh, and BTW, any response he makes to attacks are -- by definition -- "playing the race card".)

Obama can't and won't win a general election

Read it and weep. If the superdelegates do their jobs, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee:

Wow! That's nearly as big as the lead Kerry had in 2004 this far out, and remember how easily he won?

(Let me guess -- you're one of the folks who dismisses any of the projections that have shown Obama beating McCain while Clinton loses to him. Projections of the general at this point are mildly entertaining but worth neither tears nor cheers, no matter who's "ahead" in them.)

COULD WE ALL REMEMBER THAT? In-fighting sucks!

I sometimes wonder how much of the "in-fighting" here and elsewhere is written by people who are neither Clinton supporters nor Obama supporters. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's true of most of the really nasty stuff.

It's true that the rules allow superdelegates to vote as they wish. But I'm sure most of them recognize the huge downside -- for the Dems and for the country -- if they look as though they're overturning the will of the solid majority of primary voters.

"Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it," said Obama.

It's unfortunate -- though understandable, I suppose -- that Obama referred to "our free market". We don't have a free market and most people wouldn't want an actual, real-life free market ... and most of the people who are most fervent about the lip-service they pay to the term would probably starve if they had to live in one.

He's right, though, that there does need to be fundamental, long-term change. This shows a better understanding of the current situation than Hillary's band-aids and McCain's unwillingness to risk alienating the true base of the current Republican Party.

And if Obama did immediately head to meet with folks from Credit-Suisse, one has to decide whether he was being disingenuous in the speech -- or brave enough to say those things before going to talk to people who might not have liked hearing them. Now, it's fairly clear what Clinton supporters will decide about that. But it's worth noting that -- unlike Clinton or McCain -- Obama at least said the right things.

I figure someone who at least says the right thing is one step better than someone who doesn't even do that.

Senator McCain's foreign policy differs dramatically from Bush's. It doesn't matter how similar they look. McCain is a maverick, therefore his policies are -- by definition -- dramatically different.

Term limits, I say, for columnists! The NYT would serve its readers and the world better by allowing for more, fresher, and less venal points of view.

That's a very ... charming idea. But would it serve their owners and advertisers better?

(Sorry, I seem to have poured cynicism on my cornflakes this morning instead of milk.)

I'm curious to see your sources for your implication that earth-friendly businesses need a significantly longer payback time.

I'm particularly interested to see if those sources include all start-up and early operational costs for traditional businesses, or just the costs to the investors. Making an investment look like it pays off quickly is much easier to do as long as many costs -- such as environmental damage and resulting rising health costs, etc -- can be "externalized" onto the locals and their families and neighbors.

... it'll be a Prius (or something very much like it). I had the pleasure of renting one for a couple of weeks, back when they were still relatively new and not as common. Great car.

OK... but why can't the President just pardon anyone who uses torture to save the day?

I'd go beyond that. (And this is a point that I've made before that I rarely see elsewhere ... and never by any pundits, "serious" or otherwise.)

Let's presume that in authority is convinced that (1) it's a real-life "ticking time-bomb" scenario, (2) a particular suspect knows where the bomb is and or how to defuse it, and (3) torture is the only way to get the information in time. If that official is so certain of this, then they should be willing to break the law and deal with the consequences, up to and including a trial by jury.

If the situation isn't dire enough to break the law and deal with the consequences, it isn't dire enough to warrant torturing someone.

JimPharo wrote:

Was it really Walter Cronkite's insightful analysis that made him the most trusteed man in America, or was it his lush baritone and just-right Serious-Person demeanor?

Some of both, I suspect.

I went to see "Chicago 10" last weekend, and there was a short clip of Mr. Cronkite reporting from the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He called the situation in Chicago "a police state, there's really no other way to describe it". (I may not remember it exactly, but that was definitely the gist of it.)

Can you picture a reporter or anchor-droid saying something like that now? Obermann, maybe, but they've got him safely tucked away in the TV-land equivalent of his own little ghetto.