Or maybe she recognizes that both Florida and Michigan are potential swing states and she doesn't want to slap them in the face before asking for their votes in the general election.

Good God, is it really so hard to believe that Hillary might actually have the best interests of the Democratic party, and whoever their nominee ends up being, at heart?

Crappy, unhealthy food is inexpensive. Healthy food is more expensive.

Therefore, giving the people more money with which to buy food will actually increase their odds of combatting chronic obesity.

If he finds the discussion of race so unappealing, perhaps he shouldn't have gone about comparing himself to the great MLK for so long, or having his organizers pass out fliers and bumper stickers for him during MLK walks, or completely misinterpreting Clinton's statements about JFK and LBJ and allowing the public to assume she was actually belittling MLK. He drags along popular gospel singers on his campaign, even when they are rapidly homophobic and even "ex-gay," and makes up for it by bringing along the most lilly-white gay pastor that could ever annoy a black person.

Obama has been as divisive as any candidate. Now he is going to reap the rewards of that strategy.

For those of you who support and/or organize for Obama, I was talking to one of my friends the other day, who is a Democrat but undecided about candidates. He is student-teaching at a high school in St. Paul and participated in their MLK Day walk, and after having to turn down a dozen different Obama supporters trying to hand him literature and free stuff, he is completely disgusted with the campaign's attempt to use a day memorializing one of the civil rights movement's great leaders to try to garner votes for their candidate who regularly talks about how he is trying to distance himself from the "culture wars" of the 60s (perhaps few of you remember that the Civil Rights Movement was a big effing part of those so-called wars).

Score

MLK: 0

BHO: -1

You can think that I am a racist if you want. I don't care. But I would think that any self-respecting black person, anyone who was actually around for the Civil Rights Movement, would agree with me: A modern, ambitious politician with no real connection to the Civil Rights Movement, who attempts to distance himself at all costs from the negative impacts of the 60s "culture wars," who then turns around and invokes the image of MLK for his own gain is nothing more than a political rat trying to advance himself through the literal sacrifice of one of this country's greatest moral leaders (who himself never sought political office or power).

So yeah. My brand of 'liberalism' doesn't involve voting for a guy who makes nice with a vocally homophobic bigot, or who threatens nuclear war with Pakistan to look tough, or whose idea of an energy policy is really just playing nice with the earth-raping Republicans, or who is so out-of-touch with the poor in this nation that he has no economic platform to speak of. My brand of liberalism doesn't involve worshiping at the feet of a man who uses MLK's moral authority, or whose followers accuse his detractors of racism. My brand of liberalism doesn't involve creating a false image of hope and then going off and playing by the same dirty tactics as everyone else.

You and your indignant accusations of racism can kiss my qualifiedly liberal ass.

If you are so important and sought-after, surely you would not mind telling us your name and the upcoming date of your next NPR interview.

For those of us who haven't forgotten the actual objective of a presidential campaign, which is to elect a president, the real question remains: Will Obama's victory in SC actually translate to his ability to win SC in the general election?

And if not, why does anyone care about these primaries results?

And this is the guy all the rabid Obama supporters threaten to vote for if poor Obama doesn't get the nomination.

I quake for America...

Well, first of all, I'd like to point out the irony that the Obama supporters, who often mention that Clinton's potential election would basically anoint them a politically royal family in a supposedly democratic country, are so quick to embrace this endorsement from a member of America's true political "royalty." Obama supporters apparently hate such filial bonds of power when they stand in the way of their candidate, but love them when it gives their candidate a sense of "insider" legitimacy. Brilliant.

But second, it's also interesting to note that no one cares. Does anyone give a crap what the Kennedys say anymore? Any of them? I'd hate to go all LotR, but the Kennedys are a family long bereft of lordship. They do not have the power to make a king or queen out of any candidate.

Thirdly, people need to stop pretending they remember what JFK was like. JFK's platform was that of an anti-Soviet warhawk. John McCain, who promises 50 years in Iraq and countless wars, is a better comparison to JFK (at least politically) than pansy Obama. Unless you count Obama's assertion that he would gladly wage war with Pakistan.

Many of my great-grandparents and a few of my grandparents were Masons, and my mom was being groomed for the Order of the Eastern Star (she was a high-ranking Rainbow Girl in her day). So I could tell you just from knowing them that there is nothing exciting or diabolical about the Masons, and probably not about most secret societies.

Besides, I'm pretty sure there is already a book published that details all the secret practices of the Masons, written by a former member.

At least getting called a Clinton-basher is more innocuous than being accused of over or covert racism, as happens when you even suggest that Obama is not the Second Coming of Christ.