Rachel was being stupid and obnoxious, defiantly defending Obama's transparent reversal on his Iraqi policy as "no change at all." She was parsing, parsing, parsing. Leaving Morning Joe to laughingly ask her at one point if she was seeking what the Clintonian meaning of the word "is" is. She embarrassed herself, constantly reacting with nothing more than the Clinton cackle over and over again, which is what people like her do when they have nothing. And nothing is exactly what she had. Morning Joe called her on it, shutting her up like a slapped ass. It was painful to watch her bring that upon herself. But it was indeed Rachel's behavior that prompted Joe's response. The others on the panel were already watching her cackle in utter horror. If you disgaree, and I'm sure you do, I'll post the transcript when it's available in a few days.

BTW, is Rachel a lesbian (not that there's anything wrong with that)? I'm just curious. Guess it's that boyish haircut or the obvious Adam's apple. Seriously, does anyone know?

So far, Obama has jettisoned his position on a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, campaign finance reform, telecom accountability (FISA), NAFTA renegotiation, gun control, late-term abortion, Jeremiah Wright and his own grandmother.

He’s looking more like an ordinary politician each day. And it's only July. Sorry, folks, but this is change I can’t believe in.

My God, Joan, will you please give it a rest already? Obama can not and will not select Hillary as his veep. There are plenty of good reasons why, but the best one of all is the fact that she comes with Bill -- and that is one gigantic steamer trunk full of baggage. However, if you want to continue to delude yourself, you and the rest of the pumas can always hope for a mutiny on the convention floor.

David Brooks wrote -- "This ability to stand apart accounts for his {Obama's} fantastic powers of observation, and his skills as a writer and thinker. It means that people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves reflected in Obama’s eyes. But it does make him hard to place."

I find it hard to disagree with Mr. Brooks on this point. Obama has been very, very busy lately making sure "people on almost all sides of any issue can see parts of themselves" reflected in the candidate himself. This has all been part of Obama's maddening and rather transparent dash to the middle.

So far, he has jettisoned his original positions on off-shore drilling, a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, campaign finance reform, telecom accountability (fisa), NAFTA renegotiation, social security taxation tiers, an undivided Jerusalem, merit pay for teachers, Jeremiah Wright and his own grandmother.

And oddly enough, his base isn't screaming bloody murder. At least, not yet.

The fact remains, when you try to be all things to all people, you quickly become a very ordinary politician. And in the end, this may very well be Obama's Achilles’ heel.

My God, I couldn't agree more. What an awful choice Wesley Clark would make. And he proved that not too long ago on "Face the Nation."

Joan wrote an article about that Sunday morning performance, calling host Bob Schieffer a "baiter" because he said to Clark, "I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean -- " Wesley quickly interrupted with, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." Schieffer then replied, "Really?" And Clark confirmed, "Really, Bob, it's true: Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down are not, by themselves, qualifications to be president."

Naturally, the Obama campaign "rejected" Clark's comments the very next day and that was the end of Wesley Clark's hopes of ever being a serious VP contender. I'm sure you've noticed that he's left the scene completely since then.

While I didn't necessarily disagree with Clark's every word, I found his judgment incredibly bad. His words doomed him the minute they left his mouth. I also found it ridiculous that Joan would bother defending him. So I responded to her article with this:

"Oh, so poor Wesley was lured into his answer by devious old Bob. The world according to Joan. Could it possibly be that Clark is a rather dim light, who really isn't quipped to be speaking out on shows like Face the Nation? Attacking McCain's experience is a non-starter. Attacking McCain's experience as it relates to his military record is a political suicide. What about that don't you and Wesley Clark don't understand, Joan?"

On the bright side, I knew sooner or later we'd agree on something, Carol. Nice to see you've pared things back a bit.