The Obama staffers refused to look at the flier because they didn't want to be officially associated with whatever it said? That's not only irresponsible, but totally hypocritical. They wanted the mud to be slung, they just didn't want to get their hands dirty. That's pretty much been Obama's strategy from the beginning -- attacking quietly and with a smile, and getting a free pass because of it.

I've worked on political campaigns for years, and when a volunteer comes to a campaign staff and wants to distribute something independently, we ALWAYS read it. It's the only responsible thing to do. Usually it's something more explosive than the campaign would want to say, or it's otherwise inappropriate, and it gets nixed. (Volunteers can get quite passionate and no-holds-barred about things, and usually when they want to go off on their own with something, it's because they think the campaign isn't going far enough or is being too cautious.)

I also found it amusing that this volunteer totally forgot that Obama appeals to independents already (isn't that one of his big selling points?) and that he's, like, totally positive!! He can certainly be forgiven for forgetting these "facts," in light of the fact that independents abandoned Obama in New Hampshire, and Obama has been slamming Hillary since the first debates in 2007.

Obama is a one-term senator whose ego is in no way justified by his paper-thin resume. I felt the same way about John Edwards in 2004. I am not thrilled with Hillary, but the fact is, Obama and Hillary have voted the same way more than 90 percent of the time, and her healthcare plan and economic plan are more progressive and inclusive than his are. She is far from a perfect candidate, but she doesn't deserve to be smeared by dingdongs like that Reno volunteer -- or the cowardly campaign that refused to take responsibility for even reading what he was peddling to the people.

King's "deer in the headlights" fiancee, Dana Bash, is just as bad when she interviews Republicans, especially Bush.

I also love the "both sides criticize me, which proves I'm credible" argument. Once again, the same false equivalency that dominates their reporting comes into play. Being criticized by freepers because you didn't ask Hillary why, as a lesbian, she had an affair with Vince Foster before murdering him is not the same as being criticized on the substance of your reporting because you fail to ask any real questions of a candidate you practically admit to drooling over.

And even if he were right, and the rest of the interview were better, that wouldn't justify the verbal blow-job he gave McCain at the end.

...she'll be President.

Thompson is "moderate" on social issues? Which one, exactly? Here's his record:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

Thompson stayed in it long enough to split the evangelicals and throw South Carolina to McCain, who's no "moderate" either, despite the way Quinn & Co. fawn over him.

The Democratic majority isn't "new." It came about in the elections of 2006. Maybe it still feels "new" to her because it hasn't done anything yet -- like the "new" hire at a company who actually arrived a year ago but justifies his complete lack of productivity by saying he's still finding his way around.

The "new majority" smell wore off quite a while ago, Governor. And a different kind of stench -- that of complicity with and capitulation to the Republican minority -- has taken its place.

That includes financial responsibility. Our dachshund, whom we adopted from a shelter when he was three, ruptured a disc when he was five. We were given the option of putting him on steroids and hoping he'd get better (which would be essentially looking like we were doing something without actually doing something, since his rupture was really bad), putting him down (out of the question), or paying $6,000 for surgery. I was unemployed at the time, my husband was working as a college administrator, and we had the usual assortment of mortgage/family responsibilities. We pulled out our credit cards and went for the surgery.

Most people in this country blow money on a lot of things that have no value when compared with a life. (Check out the sales figures for $5,000 flat-screen TVs lately...) But then they still find a way to justify not spending money on their pets. Those who are truly needy should find a way to place the pet with an agency who can care for it. Those who can pay -- even if it's a struggle -- frankly, should do so. Animals are not disposable accessories; this is not a stained purse we're talking about.

P.S. This is about the third self-justifying article I've seen lately, written by someone who had their pet put down or contemplated it. (The most disgusting was Emily Yoffe's in Slate, who put her cat down because it was urinating where it wasn't supposed to. No effort to fix the problem, just dump the cat.) Is this something these people are proud of? Is this a new status symbol -- we are too evolved to care?