You've created quite a pattern youself- of attacking me: "absurd" and "ludicrous" peppered with obscenities all in one post!

You know, this post of Glenn's is about setting the tone or building the basis for what the debate in this campaign is going to be about

2 things. 1-You are definitely "setting a tone". 2-What this campaign "is going to be about" is whatever the GOP and the media decide it will be about. That much should be clear even to you. The point I was making in my first comment is that how Obama responds will determine if he wins or not. If he continues conceding to their every attack, he'll go down like Dukakis. If, on the other hand, he takes a page from Bill Clinton's '92 campaign and responds aggressively but truthfully without resorting to baseless attacks, he can maintain his "new kind of politics" brand and he WILL WIN.

If you should ever decide to stop pretending that you are speaking to an imbecile, as your "even to you" comment makes clear that you enjoy pretending as much, which I guess you think somehow buttresses your arguments, perhaps we'll talk.

-- Kitt

That's rich, coming from a person who called me and/or my opinions "absurd" and "ludicrous" in between your obscenities. So you will deign to speak to me if I stop "pretending" you're an imbecile?

My advice to you would be to ignore me completely.

in Iraq after being told by the corporate media for months, over and over, that indeed there WERE WMD in Iraq, I think a majority instinctively realized they had been propagandized into agreeing to a war of aggression. I truly do not think any effort to do the same with Iran will be met with the same lack of skepticism.

Some in the media are actually doing their jobs on this issue. From Chris Matthews smacking down the right-wing radio hack over the meaning of "appeasement" , to others regularly running the clip of McCain suggesting we have to negotiate with Hamas, the legs have been cut out from under this "controversy" and for once, the Republicans are coming out looking bad in the media on this one.

Obama was off in Noam Chomsky land. I might not have as many trepidations about him.

Clinton's comment was a legitimate issue, now apparently down the teevee memory hole. Unlike lapel pins, haircuts and "bitter" comments which garnered weeks and weeks of coverage, Hillary opened her mouth and allowed us a peek at a dark soul. She said it multiple times, it was in reference to why she was staying in the race (NO, "June" was not the point. NOTHING was settled in the Dem primary in June of '68 except the fact that RFK was dead)and it played on the fears of millions of Obama supporters. It also was suspicious that that very day the Clinton camp seemed to be threatening all sorts of mischief if she weren't on the ticket.

It is also significant that, as Clinton's supporters have been hinting for weeks, there is no other path to the nomination for Clinton unless there is a "catastophic" event that takes Obama out of the running.

No, I won't get over it.

Thank you, you said it much better than I and it bears repeating:

Clinton's slip of the tongue was not a random, meaningless statement, it was not trivial, it was not manufactured or superfluous, it was not irrelevant regarding her as a candidate or to the current presidential primary, which is not just in its late, but final stage.

-- casual_observer

The comment IS significant because "a catastrophic event" is her only path to the nomination and that is why I and millions of others refuse to "interpret" the words that came out of her own mouth charitably.

"believe her remark about Robert Kennedy's assassination was anything other than an unfortunate reference to another June primary battle?"

Because her only path to the nomination is if something "catastrophic" happens to Obama.

That, coupled with the fact that she has run a reprehensibly filthy campaign and I and millions and millions of others have no inclination whatsoever to charitably interpret anything she says.

She said it over and over until somebody noticed because if something DOES happen to Obama she's innoculated.

I wonder how she thinks she's going to win the general if she somehow manages to grab the nomination? 100% of Republicans loathe her guts, 99.9% of African Americans loathe her guts, vast majorities of college students loathe her guts, and after this comment, a significant portion of "hard working Americans, white Americans" loathe her guts, including my union member husband. She. Is. Toast.

Every quote you print is a Clinton talking point.

It is not democracy," complained Debbie Kubiak, 52, who traveled from Buffalo, N.Y. "It is worse than what they did back in 2000."

Err, no this is not like 2000. Clinton supporters on the RBC signed off on the rules and Clinton herself signed a pledge.

"Superdelegates? All of a sudden we are hearing about them. Who are these people?" asked Sharon Miley, a 66-year old woman who traveled by bus from South Bend Indiana. "I've been voting since I was 22. This is the first time I felt like my vote did not count," she said.

Why all of a sudden the problem with Superdelegates? Why doesn't this woman know who they are? What kind of Democrat is she?

"It is the whole system," added Phyllis Steele, who came along with her. "It is not democracy any more."

This is the Clinton spiel in a nutshell. Since they can't win by playing by the rules, the US is Zimbabwe.

sorry about the screwed up blockquotes.

Is that Obama is expected by Clinton and her shills to remain mute when she attacks him. Hypocritically, this doesn't apply when the shoe is on the other foot. Classic Bushonian tactics.

This is politics baby, not tiddlywinks.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.