Back in 1992, you often heard Bill and Hillary Clinton talk about a two-for-one deal: the two were and are political partners. After the failure of the 1993 health care reform, Hillary retreated from that role considerably, but her extensive claims about her experience are based on her role in her husband's administration (which was substantial in the first year, but much more first-lady-like after that).

So what Hillary is really running for is a third term for the Clintons, with a staff that is heavy with people from her husband's administration. This has its positives and its negatives, but it's ludicrous to pretend that it is sexist to deny the Clintons a third term.

And yes, there have been many misogynist attacks on Hillary Clinton, but if anything these have helped and not harmed her (I think that the misogynist pile-on was the only reason she came back and won New Hampshire).

Obama has proven himself far more adept at repelling attacks than Dukakis was. Unlike Dukakis, he hasn't run a technocratic campaign with competence and experience as the main sell; that would be Hillary Clinton's campaign. Unlike Dukakis, the man is capable of giving an exciting speech and inspiring passion.

There's no question that Obama will have a tough fight on his hands, between the media's worship of John McCain and closet racism. But there really isn't a dilemma here: only Clintonites don't see that, barring a meteorite or other bolt from the blue, the only issue for the Democrats is when they will get together behind the nominee, who isn't going to be Hillary Clinton.

This is what Hillary Clinton will be shown saying on "Good Morning America" tomorrow.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

And yes, she said that in response to a hypothetical, she wasn't saying she'd attack unprovoked, but this kind of needlessly bellicose talk is the main reason why I have opposed Hillary Clinton all along. She's a war hawk. Maybe she's compensating for sexist beliefs that a woman won't be tough enough.

The proper response to questions like the one she was asked is to point out that Israel itself is estimated to have 200 nuclear weapons, more than enough to totally obliterate Iran. The Iranians are despots, they oppress their people, but they are not suicidal (even if they encourage suicide attacks from people who have nothing to lose). This kind of talk tends to motivate them to get a nuclear weapon as a deterrent, so maniacial neocons who want to go kill them some Iranians think twice about it.

Given two war hawks and one reasonable adult, I'll take the reasonable adult, thank you very much.

My mother would never gratuitously threaten a massive attack on Iran. Repeatedly (during the debate, last night on MSNBC, this morning on Good Morning America).

Get it through your heads, Salon writers: there are other reasons than sexism or psychological scars or mother issues to oppose Hillary Clinton.

First off, the man did not get 10 days in jail: the sentence was suspended. He got a 40 Euro fine (about $60), which is about a quarter of what you get in California for running a red light.

The victim was a 55-year-old woman, not the usual target for Italian gropers. And the claim was:

"The first time, the man sat next to the woman but she felt he had moved too close for comfort. The next day, the man sat in front of the same woman and according to her complaint, stared at her for the whole journey."

Assuming (as the court did) that this complaint is correct, it seems to me that this kind of harrassment could be actionable regardless of the genders of the starer or the staree, especially when physical fear is involved (picture a big, beefy guy doing this to a smaller, older man, for example). To stare at a person for a solid hour, in a situation where it's hard to get away, is obnoxious and threatening.

... and at that point, enough superdelegates will endorse that the nominee will become clear (if not before).

It won't go to the convention, precisely because of the points the article makes. The party leaders know that it will be a disaster.

At this point, 87% of the pledged delegates have been chosen, and Obama leads, 53% to 47%. That isn't a blowout, but it's enough to call the race, especially given that two of the largest remaining contests (NC and OR are states where Obama is substantially in the lead).

Olbermann was correct to apologize for his thoughtless remark. But you're still talking as if Hillary Clinton has an equal chance to win. Barring some unexpected crisis, it simply isn't going to happen, so I don't see the point of the kitchen-sink campaign.

If she were to focus her campaign on progressive issues, like health care, for example, instead of trying to dredge up Drudge-worthy crap like Bill Ayers and tag-teaming with McCain with attacks against Obama from the right, her campaign would be doing a service to us all.

And I wish she's top her bellicose anti-Iran rhetoric. She's going to help Bush give us a third war if she's not careful.

... but it appears that surrogates for her campaign are behind robocalls in North Carolina aimed at tricking African-Americans into thinking that they aren't registered.

An organization called Women's Voices Women Vote, whose board is filled with Clinon allies, has confessed and apologized for the "confusion".

To quote from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/30/11055/6499/141/506343 :

N.C. residents have reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be "Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet" is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back to be registered to vote. No other information is provided.

Note the deadline for registering has passed, and registered voters are getting these calls.

The organization has used similar tactics in many other states.