Kudos for the update, Joan.

I'm sure the few Clinton supporters who gloated over the original report will just as graciously amend their statements ...

The Clinton campaign launched it late last Wednesday. Given that this has been a known issue for months, it's interesting -- and rather telling -- that they didn't bother until now.

Thanks to the actions of the MI and FL state Dem parties, people are going to be "disenfranchised" however this works out. If the delegates aren't seated, the people who participated in a mock primary will be "disenfranchised". If the delegates are seated, then the people who didn't participate in a mock primary will be "disenfranchised".

(Oh, and online petitions are worthless for getting an honest count. Might as well just totally make up a number for the count of signatories.)

Politically Lost wrote: "Our response to 9-11 taken in its entirety is completely illogical. The laundry list of things that we did wrong in contravention of our most basic ideals and laws are breathtaking in their breadth and scope.

I fully understand that fear was a major factor in the willingness of many Americans to go along with but, it doesn't (in my mind) explain why we have wounded ourselves so badly in response to 9-11.

I've wondered the same thing myself. I think there are probably many factors, but to my mind there's one major one. After 9/11, the focus of the Administration, most Republican leaders/officials, far too many Democratic leaders/officials, and various corporate-media opinion shapers was on taking advantage of the shock and fear for their own relatively short-term political and/or financial benefit.

It's much easier to make a buck and/or a vote by playing to the shock and anger than there is in trying heal it. To be generous, most of them were probably also shocked and frightened, and in this culture it's much safer (in the short run) to lash out -- and encourage other people to lash out -- than it is to stop and think.

Note that I am not saying that a total, all-out healing-crystals-and-incense approach would have been better. I'm saying that good leaders who had our long-term interests in mind would've counseled careful consideration of actual vulnerabilities, measured actions to address them, ... and an honest discussion about the question "Why do they hate us?"

I don't "blame America" for 9/11, any more than I'd blame a rich person for getting mugged. I might, however, point out that flashing your money roll and pushing people around in a poor neighborhood is probably not very smart behavior.

... have never seemed to understand the whole concept of avoiding "the appearance of impropriety". (Heck, avoiding actual impropriety has been beyond some of them.)

It must frustrate the heck out of them that they have to stretch so far to get the guilt-by-association thing to work on Obama.

I can just imagine their meetings with their oppo staff: "What are we paying you for?! There must be something nastier we can use!"

... could characterize Obama as a charismatic demagogue preacher and -- while I might have been less amused than I was at today's strip -- I wouldn't swear off Opus forever-after.

But maybe I just don't take comic strips seriously enough.

AnaHadWolves wrotes: "Consulting with my closest friends, some 40-strong, over the last two weeks, I find a remarkable consistency: should Barack Obama be the Democratic candidate, only one of my group will consider voting for him. The other 39 will either not vote at all or will vote for McCain."

Well, it's very nice that you hang out with so many McCain supporters -- and even nicer that one of them will consider voting for Obama when he wins -- but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Democratic primary.

Rambling Rose 22 wrote: 'The Obama-rama Carnival Show has had all the benefits in this campaign: the money, the darling of the media, the non-stop rantings and ravings of the lunatic cable TV talking heads - AND STILL THEY CANNOT WIN THIS NOMINATION!"

Um, that would be all the money sources, media mouthpieces, and talking heads that were talking about Hillary as the "presumptive Democratic nominee" as recently as last fall, right?

But somehow it's Obama who hasn't been able to "close the deal"? Okaaaaaay.

The primary was Hillary's to lose ... and she did.

At Economist's View, Thoma says he is bothered by the implications of libertarian paternalism -- "the subtle manipulation to get me to do things someone else thinks I should be doing." Which raises a great existential dilemma: Is it better to be told to do something directly, or to be given the illusion that you are the master of your destiny?

People who think that they're immune to most or all of the current plethora of manipulations tend to be the easiest people to manipulate. (Actually, they come in second to the people who are so focused on government manipulations that they're oblivious to corporate manipulations.)

Does that mean that someone has broken the bad news to Bush about next January 20th? That must've been a hard conversation.

"No sir, you won't be able to stay. I'm sorry, sir, not even if your friend John wins. Yes sir, you can still ride your bike at the Brush Ranch. No sir, there probably won't be very many of your reporter pals around. Yes sir, that means you won't have to clear any more brush."