The varacity of your story aside, I'll just assume you're not making it up like some others are intimating.

I'm not sure to make of what to think of your apparent 4 Obama supporters. Other than to say that you have some Passive racist friends.

But as far as your Clinton friends-

"The 4 Clinton supporters pointed to specific policies they liked, mostly the health care proposals and some of the economic proposals."

Next time you see any of them ask them how they feel that in seven years in the Senate Hillary Clinton has done little or nothing whatsoever to actually do anything about either of these issues.

Damn, over 250 posts in less than a day. Is this some kind of a record?

Look, many people have pointed out that Obama's record on foreign policy is not large either, which is true, as far as actual on record actvities. He does show very clear judgment on issues of foreign policy, though, I think you'd have to admit.

The thing is he's not out there claiming he was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland- Clinton is. And it seems that the claims are exaggerated at best. Same with the other points from the memo. She really wants to claim a USO tour with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow as part of her foreign policy credentials? Seriously?

She appears to be padding her resume with these issues that she really has little to go on. I notice that she's said little or anything about any foreign policy experience since getting to the senate, which is also pretty thin. And hey, it's her claim on experience that makes this criticism relevant and effective. She's the one who opened the door.

And as a side note here: I'm am heartened to see some of the Clinton supporters rightly dismayed by Ferraro's comments. They are pretty ugly, no matter how she wants to pretend they're taken out of context. Samantha Power resigned over less. The fact that Clinton hasn't fired this dinosaur bothers me a lot. Although I cynically think Clinton sent her out there to say it, as part and parcel with the race baiting pattern I've been seeing from the Clinton campaign.

I like Dash's idea, or at least I like it about as much as any other idea I have heard. But none of the ideas have been all that good. This is all just an ugly mess, and there probably isn't any good way out of it.

In Michigan, there has to be a redo of some form. No other option seems reasonable. What form is not as relevant, but there can be no way a vote where only one main candidate was on the ballot can count. Otherwise is plainly absurd. Although, that being said, even if they do manage a redo, they should still have their delegate count cut in half as their penalty.

Florida seems even worse than Michigan. Everyone was still on the ballot, but how many people didn't vote because it was pointless is a real issue. And everyone seems to be weighing in on it to make the whole thing even more ridiculous.

The only way I can see to get out of this fruitfully is if Edwards at some point endorses Obama, then his votes could arguably go to him in Florida. That would make it 50% to Clinton, 47% to Obama, and we just leave that mess right there. Still not very good, but what else can you really do?

Of course, whatever else happens, Florida should have its delegates cut in half. If they are ever seated, then there has to be some kind of penalty left to both states for creating this mess.

Funny, I don't recall anyone in Obama campaign saying anything against the Florida vote. All I hear from them is that they are following the rules of the system set up before this campaign started. You can interpret that as being against it, but your logic is pretty weak on this point.

Basically they are staying out of this fight. Not saying much other than they will accept the decision of the DNC and abide by the rules of the primary system, and not expect or demand special treatment.

We've heard what that Long Island Bigot Ferraro thinks is the truth. Here's the real truth:

If Obama were a white man named Smith, with the same charisma, record, history, character, and integrity, this primary season would indeed have been already over.

Because Hillary Clinton would have been CRUSHED on Feb. 5th.

That's your fucking truth.

What a long posting. Do you really think that exhausting verbiage somehow covers your weak sophistry?

Please, don't bother. Just don't bother. For quite some time, your bias seems pretty clear from these cheap seats- you support Hillary Clinton, and while that is different from being against Barack Obama, it is depressingly disingenuine of you to try to pretend otherwise.

You can say whatever you think you can reasonably argue about Ferarro's "white man's burden" bigotry, how it's overblown, taken out of context, or how its on a par of Samanatha Power's comments, none of which I buy for a second, and that is your right. Hey, this your war room, you get the paycheck to run this place, and you can run it any way you like.

But please, don't insult me. Don't bother with trying to look unbiased. Just come out and say that you endorse Hillary Clinton, all right? I would have a lot more respect for you if you did that.

...Based on this answer, I like this guy.

I will more than happily take Obama's 'lack of experience' over Hillary Clinton's 'imaginary experience'.