Actually, that line's been in plenty of the MSM's talking points all day today. I think that's what wanderingheel was on about.

As regards Obama and the race card, you haven't a leg to stand on. I could go through this routine again, but it shouldn't be necessary when you consider who benefits from it. And it is clear that white support for Obama has gone down significantly since the topic became race, and entirely predictable outcome. Sure, black support has come up for Obama, but that was preordained being the only black man to ever win a Presidential primary, let alone a meaningful one, in a state with nearly no blacks in the electorate. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton has compared Obama's campaign to Jesse Jackson- does the guy have to don a white hood before you awknowledge racial overtones?

Meanwhile, Clinton is playing the gender card often ("Ginger Roberts had to do all the moves that Fred Astair did, but backwards and in heels!"), because it helps her in the Democratic primary. In the general, however, the gender card will decidedly work against her, just as the race card works against Obama now, and you will see how carefully the Clinton campaign avoids it by contrast, if she is indeed the nominee. Note as well that when it is played by the Republicans, they will do exactly what Clinton is doing now, and blame it on Clinton who 'thinks we should change the rules for her because she is a woman'. Stay tuned.

I never understood why Clinton supporters exhibit such willful blindness in support of their candidate.

That's a pretty low blow, and entirely inaccurate. Obama's plan would indeed have covered his mother, and it will cover everyone who wants and can afford insurance as well as Clinton's plan would. Neither plan gets to 100% coverage, though it is debatable whose gets closer. 100% coverage is only possible under single payer national health insurance. Both plans increase coverage by regulations aimed at reducing cost and setting new rules on insurance provision, (inclusive of things like portability, which was applicable to Obama's late mother), public subsidies and, ultimately, penalties on individuals. Both plans have these fyi. A 'mandate' simply means the penalties apply the moment someone for whatever reason declines to buy insurance. Under Obama's plan the penalty only comes into effect if one tries to buy insurance only after becoming ill, i.e. tries to game the system, (and he has defended this by pointing to uninsured poor in MA, a state plan with mandates, that cannot afford health insurance and are being forced to pay fines under the mandate provision for the privelage).

So, in addition to being cruel, you are incorrect.

Sounds like McCain getting the endorsement of the NYT which immediately got turned into Robocalls for Romney. If anyone thinks the Post is above playing reverse psychology on the Democratic electorate, they don't live in New York. Shows that conservatives are afraid of Obama.

Believe you? Why, are you a conservative? Mark Penn, is that you?

Anyway, don't be too offended if I don't take your word on faith: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjU2ZjQ3MGNiZjNmZjYxOGQ3M2Y4NmY2NDVhMDk0Mjg=

A bigger boat indeed. And then there are those red state Democrat endorsements and pesky polls that consistently have Obama doing better against potential Republican candidates. Why is it that Clinton supporters don't seem to understand that facts are not subject to the will of their opinion?

In any case, what in your esteemed opinion was so hyperbolic? Do you, for example, think maybe Bill Clinton had an eye on the general election when he spoke so fondly of McCain before Florida? And if you allow for that, do you really think the journalistic standards at the Post substantially rule out such chicanery? Are you really a nave or do you just play one on Salon when you're not shilling for Hillary elsewhere?

No doubt the Republicans want Obama to win because they fear Hillary. Never mind the polls consistentl showing her running the worst of the formerly three now two candidates, or the entirely lopsided way with which Red State Democrats have endorsed Obama, (come to think of it, have any of these endorsed Clinton? One?), or this article by a Republican in a Red-Meat Republican publication, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjU2ZjQ3MGNiZjNmZjYxOGQ3M2Y4NmY2NDVhMDk0Mjg=, she'll surely win come November. You're steel trap mind's analysis of the issues trumps all that.

Take the arguments she'll be able to employ against McCain on Iraq, where she voted for it, (twice, when you consider the Levin amendment), and as recently as 2005 said it's all good, then spoke out against the Surge, only to give it a standing ovation following Bush's salute on Monday night's State of the Union, (Obama didn't even stir). Add to that that she voted for war mongering on Iran, and it's going to play really well with the public. A distinct choice between someone who makes decisions on matters of war in accordance to how it gels with her political ambitions, and another that at least sticks to bad decisions made.

Hey, but at least she's 'vetted', err... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html

Obama can run on the Boston Globe's or SF Chronicle's endorsement. To say nothing of Teddy Kennedy's or myriad other notables. If any Democrat lets something the New York Post does dictate their decision on who they'd like to represent their party, well, it's only a matter of time before Darwinian forces catch up with them.

Ronald W. Burkle? To Frank Giustra? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?em&ex=1201928400&en=2f3b14d2114e7d12&ei=5087%0A

Jim McDougal? Mark Rich? etc. etc. etc. etc.

Rezko is a slightly larger scandal than we've seen from the Clintons just this year with Hsu. Surely you jest.