Indeed, it is highly disturbing that we have not acknowledged the beacon of light that are the Clintons. All hail the one-term Senator's overwhelming experience, ignore her triangulating and flip flopping record, her inability to admit mistakes even when those involve disastrous wars and body counts into the 7 digits, and pay no attention to the eye-watering corruption past, (Wal-Mart, 100K on cattle futures, etc.), present, (Ron Burkle, Frank Giustra, infoUSA, etc.) and future, (more special interest money than any candidate in either party), behind the curtain.

Or how I stopped worrying, rejected the cult of a new face and learned to love the Clintons. Short of that there's always electric shock therapy or lobotomy by rusty spoon.

The Clintons motto should be, 'Chuztpa We Can Be Overwhelmed By'.

or posters whose entire (short) history at Salon entail a list of anti-Obama rants. This is stomach turning.

As regards the New York Times article on Obama- linked to by one of these working by the hour types- it's a terrible hit piece. The death spiral there continues.

Synopsis: they insinuate that Obama gutted legislation that he introduced to regulate nuclear power plants to cow tow to industry, but provide zero evidence for this insinuation. None. Zip. By contrast, there's plenty of reason to believe his explanation- the Senate (and entire legislature and Presidency) was Republican controlled at the time, and you'll be hard pressed to find ANY such legislation passed in the entire time Dubya's been in office. Hard pressed because it hasn't happened, and yet the Times puts it out there that maybe Obama's working for the Nuclear lobby. On the front page. This is our paper of record? Well, I guess if you have a justice department as an extension of a political party, it shouldn't be overwhelmingly surprising to have a paper as an extension of a candidate who will come to dominate a party. We are literally turning into a banana republic (with an economic picture headed in that direction as well).

Oh, and what happened to the 'gutted' legislation- the Republicans killed it anyway. So Obama got it through committee gutted, but even that version was not acceptable to the Republican leadership.

I just don't know where to start, except to say, we will deserve what we get if these low down dirty tricks actually work in this Primary. Who am I kidding- we didn't get where we got because we have taken our integrity too seriously. Silly to believe that this would change now. But hey, false hopes and all that. *sigh*

was something else she said. She recounted a conversation with one of her children who told her, 'if you think it will change one person's mind, do it'. All I could think of was Ali G's line, "Respect!".

I watched the event, and I'll have to say that I hope someday that Michelle Obama gets into politics. I was pretty blown away by her. She's as inspirational with a speech as her husband, if not more.

is a shrill partisan that cannot countenance blasphemous disagreement with His received wisdom. His stuff all reads like, "As I said 30 years ago, or last week, or when everyone else was saying such and such was going to happen, and I disagreed.... Sure enough, I was right". Ever the conquering (overcompensating) hero.

Meanwhile, I remember a reading about one of his prognostications that he seemed to have plum forgotten about. Back when he was working in the Regan administration in 1982, he issued a dire warning to the policy making apparatus that inflation was about to soar back into the high double digits.... right before the most profound period of disinflation in a generation.

If there's one thing this election has underscored for me, is the extent to which Paul Krugman has jumped the shark, if ever he was worth listening to. If you want to glean something from a Times columnist, unfortunately the only one left worth reading is Frank Rich. Ahhhhh Frank Rich.... eases the pain.

about Professor Krugman, if anyone is concerned that I've no specific complaints, take his rabid column today. In it, aside from various language which is unsubstantiated, he highlights a cost of the two Health Care Plans, Hillary's and Obama's. The cost is expressed in terms of cost to the Federal Government, which is far less important than the social cost (costs, public and private, and those that are being referenced when people say, "The United States spends more money per person on Health Care than any other country in the world"). But yet the good Professor doesn't even mention the distinction or give a throw-away caveat. All the better to fuel his latest hit piece. The guy has no integrity to speak of.

Well, I suppose this is marginally better than some of the other hit jobs that you've commissioned. But it does surprise me that any Obama supporter would be willing to speak to you at all, given how wantonly you parrot smears of that campaign and candidate, and the striking contrast of the double standards applied. Thanks for sharing- Rupert Murdoch would be proud.

I will feel sorry for her and many of her supporters. Their hearts are in this thing, it is deeply important to many of them, and I don't celebrate dispair. I will make a special exemption to that rule for Joan Walsh, who will have sold her journalistic standards and the journalistic standards of this publication down a river, all for naught. That's called poetic justice, and as with any justice, it feels good.