We could compare their experience, if only Her Imperial Majesty would discuss that pesky Iraq decision that she so completely failed on. Oh wait, she won't admit that it was a failure....

Although she does now state that she thought by voting for the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," she was voting for increased inspections.

Which manages to call into question her judgement, her veracity and her reading ability simultaneously....

Well, I haven't yet heard Obama praising John McCain, unlike Her Imperial Majesty. But, of course, nobody ever argued that judgement was Her Imperial Majesty's strong suit.

Which would be a fundamental difference between the two, in my book. That, and the fact that Obama is the frontrunner in both delegates and popular votes...

The only person to benefit from this new round of internecine Democratic strife will be John "One Hundred Years of War" McCain.

Yes. Yes,I do.

The title of the bill was the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," not the Joint Resolution to Disarm, Further Inspect, Use More Diplomacy, or Otherwise Rattle Our Sabres Short of Force Against Iraq.

The wording of the bill authorized the President to use "any means necessary" against Iraq.

To attempt to backtrack later, after the quagmire really developed and the war became a political liability, and claim that somehow the vote was really for something other than what is clear and self-evident is the height of disingenousness.

To believe that everyone will just forget actual historical fact and go along with the new spin is the height of hubris.

She knew what she was doing when she did it. And she knew what she was doing when she made up this other story about what she thought she was really voting for.

To anyone? Of course a candidate-- any candidate-- should stay in the race as long as his or her cause remains viable. And by remain viable, I mean until the electorate has spoken and the numbers become clear.

Which should be AFTER today's votes are counted and the results of the Texas caucuses (cauci?) are deduced, IMO.

Is this a surprise to anyone?

She had a hand in creating the bloody quagmire, she was for it before she was against it, and when that little incongruity became politically embarrassing she made crap up about what she thought she was really voting for.

OF COURSE SHE'S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT IRAQ. WHEN HAS SHE EVER!?

So this confirms what I've thought all along-- That she is in fact Cheney in a pantsuit to a number of folks, besides myself.

Interesting too, that she actually touts this.

Her latest endorsement by Rush Limbaugh?

Hey, it'd be better than that phony "scandal" over the Canadian NAFTA memo. Might even garner her a few more votes.

And that's what Her Imperial campaign is all about, right?

As the saying goes, success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan.

I have no doubt that, should a miracle occur and Her Imperial majesty's campaign revive, that all these faceless names will be scrambling to claim that theirs was the pivotal role in the trunaround.

Do you want someone answering that phone whose best and brightest foreign policy maneuver of this century was to participate in authorizing the greatest foreign policy blunder in our nation's history?

Someone who thought it was a great idea at the time and who later-- when that vote was politically inconvenient-- attempted to obfuscate and minimize her role in the decision?

Thanks, but I'd rather have someone with the judgement and gravitas to get it right the first time answering the call...

Why anybody still takes this gibbering lunatic seriously is beyond me.

And I apologize to any lunatics, gibbering or otherwise, I may have offended by using the term.

To all that dough when she loses Texas and Ohio and concedes?

I was appalled by the sheer lack of professionalism on the part of the moderators. You could practically see them wringing their hands with glee at their own (imagined and illusory) cleverness as they popped "gotcha" questions at the candidates, one right after the next.

By the time they got around to the mutual masturbatory self-congratulation that apparently constituted MSNBC's post-game wrap up, I felt physically ill.

Walter Cronkite, where have you gone?

I never thought I would live to see a political campaign more ineffectual and lost than John Kerry's.

But I see that I was wrong.

What's next for Her Imperial Majesty now that posting funny pictures of her opponent and attempting to publish testimonials from her own staff haven't worked? Prank phone calls to Obama's house?

Who is running her campaign? A bunch of twelve year olds?

The man's got style. And the ability to remain unflappable in what has to be some of the most trying of circumstances.

Compared to Her Imperial Majesty's finger waving rant and childish attempt at mockery, it's easy to see who has the proper Presidential tone and presence. I know who I'd want in charge in a crisis and it ain't somebody who, with each new challenge to her once presumed inevitability, has come to look more and more shrill and ill-focused.

Look, by any stretch of the imagination I'm no supporter of Her Imperial Majesty. I find her to be disingenuous, her decisions on foreign policy to be downright reprehensible and believe she would lead our party straight into another unmitigated defeat at the polls were she to be the nominee.

That being said, she is still a candidate for the nomination with money in the bank, a viable platform and a large number of supporters (misguided though I may think them to be). Her overall position, though considerably reduced, is not untenable.

This is America. And we're not Republicans, to fall into lockstep whenever a leader designated from on high appears. Let her play out her string. God knows, whatever else may be said, she's game enough.