"Logical consistency is something that needs to be taught, and re-taught, and inconsistencies explicitly pointed out when they're observed, otherwise most people appear not to notice."

I'm not necessarily sure this is true Zandru. Many people have long thought we're moving into a more complex, multi-tasking world. This is one of the problems with all the nominees. They're not able to hold 2 diametrically opposed ideas in their head at once, or really understand the importance of differentiation and nuance.

The prime example of this is Obama's advocacy of precise, aimed surgical strikes at high-value terrorists inside Pakistan. Both Clinton and McCain went crazy over his support of this idea, decrying it as "bombing" Pakistan. Ten days later the CIA did precisely what Obama had suggested and there were no negative ramifications. Clinton, McCain and even Bush, after their harsh criticism of Obama over a tactic that ultimately worked, seemed stunned silent. Why? The importance of nuance.

We're moving into a twenty-first century and one of the problems I believe many people are having with older candidates is they just instinctively feel that some of these candidates no longer have the mental dexterity (not intelligence but dexterity) to deal with an increasingly more complicated world.

This is also the problem with Giuliani, Clinton, Romney and others' campaigns. You can no longer set up a firewall. You can longer make one major achievement and rest as past presidents (be they Reagan, Bill Clinton or whoever). And you certainly cannot afford bad days as Clinton, Giuliani and Romney appear to repeatedly have. No offense but this is an old, archane way of operating.

The next president will have to be prepared to deal with the war in Iraq one day and a new, explosive genocide in some region of Africa the next. They will have to juggle both domestic and international troubles, all the while somehow restoring America's place in the world. It might be necessary to surgically strike in Iraq on Tuesday and then withdraw another 1,000 troops on Wednesday.

To me the closest parallel is still 1960 and the Kennedy/Nixon dynamic. No one is denying that one candidate is more experienced in international matters and foreign relations, and the other is dangerously less so. What we're saying is the world now WORKS the way one candidate sees it and not the other. Only John F. Kennedy, with his unique temperment, ability to listen to many views, and coalesce varying opinions into a consensus around him, could have negotiated his way through the Cuban Missle Crisis. Any other president would ultimately have had to take out the missle sites, or leave them alone. We're walking on a tightrope and what we need is a gymnist not a fighter, no matter how skilled he or she might be.

They're basically even in Texas and she's winning Ohio (so far.) Seems like it's breaking Obama's way but it's too early to call it yet. The young people really need to get out in Texas and Ohio to help him win. Barack knows it, he said it himself today it's not over yet.

Someone FINALLY did the story on Mark Penn and it's even worse than I thought. His ties to Charlie Black and McCain's campaign are just the beginning. Just to mention a few other clients/subsidiaries of Penn's firm: Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, Chevron Texaco, Johnnie Walker and BOTOX. Quite an assorted list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/mark-penn-ties-drag-clint_n_89243.html

Way to go Huffington Post! Apparently the Washington Post did a story on this earlier this year too. There's real journalism.

This show is breaking my heart again. Great job by the Salon staff and kudos to Joan for calling early on that it would be the Michael/Dukie/Bug family that would ultimately break our heart.

Thought the most interesting part with the downfall of Marlo was the parallel to the downfall of Stringer Bell. Both men were, in the end, isolated from what was going on in the street and this became their downfall. Both overestimated their own intelligence and underestimated the intelligence of those chasing them. And both were somewhat betrayed by those closest to them (Avon and Chris.) Marlow seemed to know this when he grew so angry for Chris for not telling him what was going on in the street. Michael appears to be the next closest thing to a young Marlo. There's still time, and like everyone's said, sure there will be more twists.

When I dared to suggest that racism might run deeper than sexism in this country I almost got shouted off the messageboards. Looks like some of us weren't so wrong after all. When I said the reason people didn't realize it was because Obama was running a post-racial campaign and Hillary was not running a post-gender campaign it got even worse.

But forget all that. Can we finally do one thing? Stop calling the Obama supporters the immature, spoiled baby brats of the party? From the looks of this poll it appears to be just the opposite.

Both Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were decried for their lack of experience and both turned out to be great presidents.

As a matter of fact Lincoln and Obama have almost the exact same amount of experience to the point where it is downright scary. Both served served two terms in the Illinois state senate and both were elected to Congress for one term. (I'm not arguing that he's Abraham Lincoln, don't worry, just pointing out that experience isn't necessarily as crucial to the job as people might think it is.)

Time Magazine's cover story this week is entitled "How Much Does Experience Matter?" Not surprisingly there answer was not much at all. Here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html

Somehow I know this isn't going to make a difference to people, but honestly the research shows it just doesn't matter that much. What matters is who's best for the job.