Hillary is/was up by 20 points, that's why the chuckleheads were saying "she's inevitable." They also say that Britney all the time is a news story.

Of course, Dean was up by a lot too. I wonder, too, if they keep saying that just to make some Salon and HuffPost readers angry, or if they're just stupid. But if you think that the New York Times is "pro-Hillary," then you're totally nuts and you haven't been reading that editorial page. Let's see: Dowd, anti-Hillary. Gail Collins, anti-Hillary. For the other female op-eds, the common factor seems to be, how much do they hate Hillary. It's like Democrats appearing on FOX: Colmes clones.

And where did the Hillary campaign complain about men ganging up? That's what a few observers have said.

The news is brain-dead. They're the ones who cover the election like a horse race, and you can bet the majority of them won't bet on Hillary.

The thing that people don't seem to understand anymore is that polls are scientific. As long as you have a random sample and the right questions properly asked, their results are highly predictive. The internet has once again given people the illusion that the thousands who enter their presidential preference on Democratic Underground means anything but that the majority of people who go there aren't Hillary supporters. The self-selection error.

According to the Literary Digest "poll" of more than a million people in 1936, it was Alf Landon in a landslide! Same thing.

Go ahead. Go after Hillary on principles, on policy, whatever you want. But when I hear people on the left sounding like the idiotic Clinton-haters of the '90s, then my opinion of you falls very low indeed. Some knuckle-dragger that went on about Vince Foster and Mena and Clinton having people killed just didn't know any better. Twisted fools like Jeff Gerth should have known better. And especially, people on the left, the intellectuals, are supposed to be better than this. But reading this stuff here and at the HuffPost, I really wonder.

I am painfully sick of the stupid things said about Senator Clinton in progressive circles. Vote for Nader, idiots. I am painfully sick of progressives saying idiotic things like, "If she's nominated, I won't vote for her." Say hello to President Giuliani, bozos! There ought to be some understanding of what happened to the Clintons, and it was the same thing that happened to Gore, and to Dean, and to Kerry; and if we don't watch it, it will happen again. Don't like the fact that she takes a little from the right and a lot from the left, but not too much? Fine. Convince 50% of Democratic voters to vote for someone else, but remain a party. I can't believe how stupid the progressives are, how precious, and how uselessly idealistic. Example: our campaigns are an invitation to corruption. It's impossible to raise a half a billion dollars and NOT have some dirty money in there. Hillary's got some donors who aren't kosher. You know what? Gonsalez's DOJ is investigating those pesky Chinese, says the AP. Gee, right on schedule. But some progressives are so thick-headed that they actually applaud that. Really? Let's look in Edwards's pantry. Gee, I'll find some bad actor. Or deep ethical questions.

I love you guys, but you're just such dorks. Learn to win as a party. Remember, it was Obama's FUNDRAISERS, and the brave seers of truth at MSNBC that started the Hillary-hunting. I'm counting the days before they find out that Hillary avoided Nam by getting in the Illinois National Guard. Just wait.

That's why the Republicans pick us off whenever they want. We start shooting each other in the foot, and we don't know how to stick together.

I am ashamed of my fellow progressives. If you haven't noticed, this whole "Hillary lies" meme is being pushed by MSNBC and the press. I just got through listening to MSNBC, and the Republican woman was repeating just what some of you are saying. Remember Gore? The guy you like so much... now? He was stolen away from you by the same kind of press campaign. And by progressive idiots like Nader.

Take a look at Iraq. Except for Richardson, all the big Dems have roughly the same position on it. They'll take the troops out, but they'll keep some troops for the Embassy, and maybe for operations against al Qaeda (if the tribal leaders haven't cleaned up al Qaeda in Iraq by then), and maybe some border operations. They differ in degree and precise numbers, which, I can guarantee, will in all cases change when they begin being president. They may find Iran ready to deal on this or that, which will decrease the numbers. They may find that Iraq's government actually does improve when they realize we're leaving. Or not. There is no essential difference in the front-runners. Kucinich is different, as is Richardson. The rest are just jockeying for position, people.

Put any of the front-runners in that vise, aided and abetted by the bigass media, and they'll come out with something that can look inconsistent too.

And meanwhile, progressives, you're not guarding the henhouse. The Republicans are lying and cheating and stealing, and you don't say a word, because you're so concerned about how Hillary is exactly like Bush. (Gee, Nader said Gore=Bush. Think he was right?)

Calm down, have a refreshing beverage, and get together with your progressive brethren and figure out how to screw the GOP.