At all these Clinton-bots touting her vast, scary experience.

She was wrong on Iraq. Worse, now she's making crap up to try and explain away that pesky vote for war. She was wrong on Iran. She was wrong on bankruptcy. She's wrong on special interest monies-- but that's understandable considering she's getting huge sums from big insurance, big pharma, big oil, and defense contractors (defense contractors, fer the luvva Christ! Because she's so eager to get troops out of Iraq? If you think so, despite her past history of rhetoric to the contrary, you have to tell us what you've been smoking. It sure sounds like some good shit!). She was wrong on the Patriot Act. Twice.

THAT'S experience? Please. As a Democrat, she looks like a heckuva Republican.

But I'm just SURE there are reasonable explanations. If not, there's always watery eyed moments to fall back on...

Compared to the tears I'll be weeping if I have to cast a vote for Her Imperial Majesty should she prove able to fool the gullible, the misguided or the uninformed and become my party's nominee.

Is there any tempest in any teapot that isn't going to be blown completely out of proportion in this contest? Hillary had more weepy-eyes this morning and partisans are still battling over their meaning and effect.

Now this nonsense.

Don't these people have platforms? Aren't there enough serious ISSUES facing our country? Sheesh, American kids are still spilling their blood on foreign sands and you want to concern yourselves with this TRIVIA?!

You demean their sacrifice and you demean yourselves debating this. You might as well be debating the color of her panties.

Grow the fuck up, people.

The choice is too serious and the stakes are too high.

I so needed something vapid and nonsensical to read while watching the hands of my clock inexorably move me one more minute closer to death.

to the stories I've heard that Her Imperial Majesty is running short of funds? I've seen no corroboration, but I have read it now several places.

It would explain her asking for a debate a week, which I found an odd request from the erstwhile frontrunner.

Agent for change.

And if you believe that one, you'll believe she really was voting for more inspections and not for an invasion of Iraq.

My question is, having taken huge sums from all those anti-establishment outfits like the petroleum industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the insurance industry, how exactly is she planning on changing, well, anything?

the Obama campaign is telling me that since the polls closed, they've collected another 4.6 mil in donations.

Hmm. I wonder which lobbies Her Imperial Majesty will tap to match that.

That's a truly amazing figure.

Well, I did my part and chipped in another fifty bucks on Wednesday morning.

No wonder she's trying to get a debate a week. Some of her staff is working without pay this month. She'll obviously be needing all the free publicity she can get.

In a totally non-partisan way, I mean.

I actually like that idea. I agree that these debates have degenerated into a circus of paid media mouthpieces trying vainly to appear Murrow-esque and "gotcha" moments from all sides. How much better to give each candidate an opportunity to fully discuss their platforms and take common sense questions from the general public!

Of course, because it makes so much sense, it'll never happen.

That if the mere use of a vulgarity is so offensive to the public welfare as to constitute a crime, what about all those idiots who drive down the freeway at night with their brights on?

Can we just shoot them on sight?

Arrggh! You're right!

If only hand grenades were legal! Damn those NRA pansies!

I must've missed that "surrender to terror" plank on the Democratic platform.

Maybe it's right next to that "declare war on Christmas" plank.

Apparently to write silly letters about articles they apparently didn't bother reading.

How narrow-minded. It's clearly about choice and free will, not mindlessly voting for one or the other because of gender or skin color or [fill in the blank].

But let's pillory her for making the "wrong" choice (as though there is a right and wrong one). That's SOOOOO much more enlightened and feminist.

Where exactly Mr. Krugman draws his information, but here on Salon I've seen Clinton supporters that were nothing short of rabid.

I've always made it clear that my differences with Her Imperial Majesty were policy based, not based on gender, familial lines or other irrelevancies. Okay, well what I perceived as her initial her attitude of entitlement didn't help matters, but fundamentally I don't trust her judgment or veracity and I don't think she's electable.

I have not hesitated to point these concerns out on any number of occasions. Nor will I refrain from doing so in the future so as not to offend Mr. Krugman's (and, by extension, any other thin-skinned supporter of Her Imperial Majesty) delicate sensibilities.

By the way, Mr. Krugman, it IS a two-way street. Where are the opinions bemoaning the antics of the other side? The idea that they are as pure as Caesar's wife would be laughable were it not simply disingenuous. Rather, such a patently ridiculous notion is simply an indicator of an innate, puzzling and irrational bias-- much like that you claim to have found in Obama's supporters...

lingers on this memo.

Okay, she "departed" from the role of campaign manager to step down to the role of friend and "trusted advisor."

In political speak, that's pretty much the equivalent of being handed a gun with one bullet and told to "do the right thing."