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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

If one holds a job for a period of time then merely by grace of occupying the position one can be said to be "experienced" in that area. But it takes closer examination to determine whether that "experience" translates to expertise.

One such "experienced" candidate has been wrong on Iraq, wrong on Iran, wrong on the Patriot Act, wrong on bankruptcy law, wrong on special interest monies and has been part and parcel of the spineless, ineffectual eunuchs who have heretofore been unable to stand up to the worst President in the history of the Republic on, well, any issue of note.

Such "experience" however has allowed for an artful mendacity in response to questions about the vote for war in Iraq. I don't believe that such "experience" deserves to be rewarded any further than it already has.

Such "experience" has driven our fair Republic and our once strong, vigorous party, to the sorry, shabby state in which we find it today. Enough is enough.

Yammering and finger-pointing at a non-scandal involving your opponent beats having to explain why one was such a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq until the time came to run for President and then all of a sudden one's vote for war morphed itself into a vote for more inspections.

Better the mote in your neighbor's eye than the beam in one's own.

MSNBC reports that co-chair of the Clinton campaign, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, also received monies from Mr. Rezko.

Let the calumny and condemnation begin, because clearly this is a horrible scandal that-- like the current nonsensical brouhaha-- should be reacted to with much fervor and over-the-top indignation.

LW is probably one of those who will want her grandchildren to address her by her first name rather than call her grandma.

Personally, this LW made me realize just how much I actually appreciate the appellation "dad" and how much I'm looking forward (although not too soon, hopefully) to the new one, "Grandpa."

Clinton does get the Ann Coulter stamp of approval.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

If you want to vote for her in spite of her dubious record of support for US involvement in this quagmire, more power to you.

But the record should be clear as to what you are voting for--An enthusiastic cheerleader for this ongoing nightmare until time came to run for the Presidency. Then suddenly, she wasn't voting for war (and speaking vehemently in it's support), she was really voting for inspections. Well bullshite is bullshite, whether you want to call it roses or not. And hypocrisy is still hypocrisy.

The fact that it was popular at the time is wholly immaterial. At one point in time, it was popular to segregate the races. Did that justify the position?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

"If you are looking at substance rather than if there is an R or a D after his name, manifestly, if he's [McCain] our candidate, than Hillary is going to be our girl, because she's more conservative than he is," Coulter said. "I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism."

Wow. Another Uniter not Divider...