Obama was wrong on social security, McLurkin and to a certain extent health insurance, and should have been taking a stronger leadership role on FISA, torture, Iraq, Iran and the constitution. But I still support him because overall I find him to be the best candidate.... Does that make me a cultist, or simply someone who's weighed the pros and cons of each of the candidates and decided to pick Obama, right or wrong?

I agree completely with all of that. I also admit he gets some issues wrong, or at least not "right enough." Choosing and supporting a candidate must never be a fool's errand of expecting perfection. With the array of choices on the Democratic side that are all surprisingly progressive/liberal/whatever, we are being given a rare opportunity to select a candidate based on the finer details of the modern Democratic palette. Unfortunately, this same bunching of positions on issues also creates a compulsion to highlight trivial differences and personality contests. Nevertheless, I think that Democrats have much to be thankful for this election year.

...But I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination....

So will I, wholeheartedly. I would also eagerly vote for Edwards in the (unlikely) event he is nominated. This is precisely a large part of why I can't stand to see Bill Clinton's constant sniping of Obama. Admittedly, barely any of it is racial, but most of it is unfair or dishonest in other ways. There has to be a way for the Clinton campaign to run against Obama without resorting to outright distortions.

I also agree with Che Pasa that if there is a fault line between Obama and Hillary's overall support, it is primarily generational. This has been shown in poll after poll, much more than the racial or gender trends. Edwards is just sort of stuck between these two heavyweight narratives.

It's deliberate. The GOP is waiting and snickering and practically PITP with glee.

...

This is better for the GOP than a tax-payer funded candy-store for billionaires, better than an entire nation of airport restrooms and high-school paiges. Man, they are just on top of the world about now.

Ah yes, I'm sure they're all stroking their cats nefariously, or perhaps twisting their moustaches and adjusting their monacles with sinister sneers.

Because everything's coming up roses for them right now - not as if their two front-runners are having a petty and vindictive ongoing argument about the "surge" in Iraq; not as if their voter turnout is abysmal compared to Democrats, even in a heavily Republican state like South Carolina; not as if the polls show that Americans overwhelmingly crave a new direction, which is a reliable predictor of the presidency changing parties; not as if the public thinks Democrats can better lead the nation on nearly every single issue of the day; not as if both Clinton and Obama beat every other Republican candidate for president in most head-to-head polls; not as if each Republican candidate has a barely freshman College Republican-level skill in debating issues...

That's right, everything is playing right into the all-powerful GOP's plans, perfectly orchestrated by the all-seeing, all-knowing Flaming Eye of Karl Rove.

Hide. Just go and hide under a rock.

The accompanying claim that companies should never "second-guess" the "judgment of the President regarding what's legal" -- which I just heard from John Cornyn and Saxby Chambliss...

There needs to be a word that combines "sanctimonious" and "authoritarian," like one of those marvelous German compound words.

"Sanctoritarian."

How about "Santorumian"?

I also thought "authorimonious," but that almost sounds sweet.

It could also be spelled "authorimoanian" if one wanted to give extra emphasis to the whingeing aspect of these folks.

I'm serious, if there isn't one already, there needs to be a word, a single word, that captures that noxious blend of modern Republican authoritarianism, condescension, and mendacity to which we have grown so accustomed. It is so distinct a brew, like the chemical cocktail of lethal injection.

Really, the "claim that companies should never 'second-guess' the 'judgment of the President regarding what's legal' -- which [Glenn] heard from John Cornyn and Saxby Chambliss" on the Senate floor today -- comes from such a malodorous, festering well of criminal deception that we must put a word to that terrible void for fear that it could consume our very souls if left to lurk namelessly in our midst.

Like a witch's spell, the virulent strain must be imprisoned within a word, then shrunken and pinioned to a mere inch in the Devil's Dictionary of forsaken history.

"Panmalomania" is good, has a nice cadence and ring of psychosis to it.

Is there a way to add a teaspoon of fascism and perhaps a sprinkle of dishonesty to it?

I love words. Yum yum yum.

Glenn:

Reward lawbreaking with immunity? Fine. Give the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers? No problem. Abolish habeas corpus and legalize torture? Sure. Deprive a Senator of the Right to vote on an amendment before cloture? Unacceptable!

When the house collapses around us like a tower of toothpicks because a million termites were left to chew it to woodchips, Senate Democrats will proudly point out that they ensured the termites were only allowed to work their mischief three days a week, between the hours of 2 and 6.

It's in writing and everything.

David Gregory, the White House reporter President Bush once called "august," just said, paraphrasing very closely, that the President and Republicans are trying to extend FISA, the ability to get warrants and to wiretap.

Holy Hopscotchin' Jesus, do we have to go back and teach these reporters the alphabet?

Not Hardball, but Countdown.

Pulled up CSPAN on my computer and had to hit the bottle early when I found Rudy speechifying on his "big ideas", "big accomplishments"....he sure has him one "big" obsession with size.

A modern-day Napoleon, sans horse of accomplishment.

Such fun to watch him flail around in his big, fancy hat.