At this point she will be blamed if Obama loses in 08 anyway, but, by 2012 if she has been doing something useful in senate, there may be redemption. A third party run will get her stripped of her democratic credentials so 2012 would be moot, except as a Naderish sort of perpetual candidate.

Thinking about it though. Some 3rd party candidates run to make a point; others run because they have been convinced that there really is a shot at it this particular year. I can really see the Clinton folks thinking that they are unique enough to make this happen. After all, they got all those primary votes, didn't they? Problem is, the republicans who voted for her out of mischief won't cover her in november and neither will the hard core party machine democrats who are still with her but would consider a 3rd party run traitorous.

On the other hand, if Obama wins this year, it will likely be a one term presidency anyway because he will be blamed for Iraq going sour in a big way (whether we stay or leave), the next terrorist attack in the US (which is likely be prepared for as we speak), the tanking of the economy (even though the problems come out of the neocon incubator). Sometimes I think it might be OK (not preferable...but OK) if big John takes the helm for what will likely be an exceptionally ugly 4 years and then the republican party can be truly buried for a generation.

As goes Fiddy, so goes the nation.

"Hillary supporters take offense to this

in 3...2...1..."

So I was thinking, well, a few will complain (predictable ones WES, cythera, billcap, etc.). I was surprised at how fast, how bitter, and how many comments were made. If he is gracious, he is arrogant. If he is firm, he's an asshole. If he talks, he's all words. If he doesn't talk, he's up to something. I think the only thing these hillary supporters (can't really call them democrats any more) would be satisfied with would be for him to disembowl himself on live TV.

She pays for presidential campaigns the same way Bush pays for a war? That can't be good.

And how much of that 20 million is raised from folks who already gave 2300 so that it can only be spent on the general election? I understand that has been a real problem for Clinton more than Obama. It doesn't sound like McCain has raised enough money yet for this to be an issue.

And if she doesn't become the candidate, what happens to all those millions reserved "for the general election"? Inquiring minds want to know. Really, I'd like to know.

3 am in D.C. is the middle of the day in China, you know, the guys currently holding the IOU's for our economy.

C'mon, now. Are you actually paid to defend, spin, and explain every little thing, every comment that doesn't unquestionably glorify your candidate? Yes, we all get it's a metaphor...but kind of a silly one after all. Especially after it's been parodied out the gazoo, you would think the campaign would come up with something new but, hey, sticking with what works has been the hallmark of the Clinton campaign.

We all are glad that she's chosen to attack McCain a bit. It makes her seem...presidential.

PS: By now I'm sure WES has made his obligatory remark about what a bad bowler Obama is, although it has nothing to do with the original post or, until now, any comment made to it.

But this caught my eye, "when she was 27 years old. I mean, come on, she was hardly an adult."

You have pretty low standards. I was finishing my Family Practice Training program. A West Point graduate would be a Captain in Iraq. Custer was a Major General. So just how old do you think someone should be before we consider them an adult and responsible for their actions? Should we raise the voting, drinking, and driving age to 28?

So this is cool with Clinton? I understand he's drawing down millions to run the Clinton campaign. You know, if I was being paid millions, I would focus on doing my best at the job at hand and make sure that there was no real or perceived conflict of interest. But that's just me.

WES, you forgot to mention Obama is a lousy bowler...like that matters...but you seem to insert some line to that effect in every Salon article whether it has to do with Obama or not. (This one was about Mark Penn, in case you didn't notice)

I grow weary of the constant complaints about this and my home state of Texas with it's "two vote" thing. Clinton and Obama operated under the same rules of engagement. Same primaries when there were primaries. Same caucuses when there were caucuses. Same DNC sancitions of Florida and Michigan. Same DNC approval of the states that did move up their dates. SAME RULES FOR BOTH! At the same time! If she's that good she should have done better.

Now you are complaining that mean Obama won't agree to things that are to his disadvantage that he doesn't have to agree to. News flash: he isn't stupid. Why do you hate America so much that you want us to elect (another) stupid president?

This battle will likely be fought on You-tube. Much like the Clinton sniper fire massacre, rev. wright's speeches, and Bomb-bomb-iran, reporting like this will be ridiculed on line and viewed by millions. Cable news outlets on slow days will pick up the clips to fill time or to discuss the "controversy" about posting such things on the web and eventually the truth will get out.

That being said, I thought "I'm f**king Obama" was pretty funny and I wasn't going to see that on MSNBC, even on Olberman.

No problem. If Lieberman can say Iraq is a big success, you can say he's from South Carolina...both statements equally true.