This excerpt from a St. Petersberg Times article explains why Hillary's statement -- claiming that staying in the race till June was commonplace in 1968 -- is completely misleading (if not another one of Hillary's Bosnia-scale lies):

"The chronology of the 1968 race has some important distinctions from 2008. The 1968 race didn't start in earnest until the middle of March. One might even argue that it didn't begin until the very end of March, after the sitting president (Johnson) announced that he wouldn't seek re-election.

Compare that to this cycle, when the field of candidates was largely settled nearly a year before the first primary vote in January 2008. Clinton and Obama were declared candidates for their party's nomination in early 2007 with no national figure around to cloud the picture."

Also, the 1968 New Hampshire primary, the first significant vote of the year, was March 12. In 2008, New Hampshire had its primary on Jan. 8, and Iowa held its crucial election five days before that. If you calculate days between the New Hampshire primary and June 3 of each year, the distance was 81 days in 1968, but 141 days in 2008."

So Clinton is right that the 1968 contest was still going on in June of that year, and it was still competitive. But she ignores important facts that make her comparison between that election year and this one inaccurate. We are not evaluating the question of whether Clinton should drop out of the race, but we find her historical argument that there's nothing unusual about a Democratic primary still being contested in June to be technically accurate but completely misleading."

Parsing. Parsing. Parsing. Or is it lying, lying, lying? And Joan wonders why Clinton-hate is at an all time high? Puh-leeze.

You can read the entire article at:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/may/26/clintons-calendar-miscalculation/

Would you two pul-eeze stop putting Joan on your imaginary couch and simply respond instinctively. Yeeesh, it's like listening to Dr. Phil trying to second-guess someone's "true" intentions. Only worse. Much worse.

Carol has a history of playing Dr. Phil in analyzing Joan's thoughts -- which is always a tedious, overly-ponderous and exhaustingly boring mission, at the very least. I try to avoid Carol's mind-numbingly lengthy and predictably copious posts, but sometimes they get tangled up in other posts like yours. Write on.

An excert from the Washington Post today:

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

All that has changed, Hayden said in an interview with The Washington Post this week that coincided with the start of his third year at the helm of the CIA.

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Joan? Joan? Today's the day. Are you out there? Or all you under your bedsheets in the fetal position?

As Mike Barnacle said and I paraphrase:

Hillary is like your drunken aunt, who's opening another bottle of wine while all your other guests are headed home.

She will NOT be Obama's VP. To hitch the "Old Politics" of Hillary to the "New Politics" Obama claims to offer would fly in the face of everything he says he represents. Not to mention the fact that when it comes to baggage, the Clintons would be showing up with two steamer trunks apiece.

Are you trying to get away from us now that your girl lost?

Are you trying to hide from your everyday readers now that the Hildebeast has not only lost, but made a buffoon of herself by delivering a non-concession speech?

You are SO pathetic. What you've done to salon parallels what Hillary has done to the Democratic Party precisely. Kinda sad when you look back at it, doncha think?

Joan hasn't posted on her normal blogging site since June 1st. This article was floating on Salon's home page. Why? Is she about to shut down her normal blogging site after all the overwhelmingly negative responses to her transparent campaign for Hillary and not-so-transparent denigration of Obama? Is she moving to post bi-weekly or monthly like Paglia? Have we succeeded in taking her down, after pounding home the fact that she is a completely irresponsible editor? One can only hope.

PS: Joan, we are just three hours from Hillary's long overdue concession speech. Everyone get ready for a great big "Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead" singalong. Yippee!