Its so nice to see the campaign won't be an invigorating clash of ideas after all.

Frankly, Edwards, Obama and Clinton don't differ much in their ideas. Example: Obama's weekend appearance on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: A year ago, you were asked about Hillary Clinton. And this the exchange. “Where do you find yourself having the biggest differences with Hillary Clinton, politically?” Obama: “You know, I think very highly of Hillary. The more I get to know her, the more I admire her. I think she’s the most disciplined—one of the most disciplined people I’ve ever met. She’s one of the toughest. She’s got an extraordinary intelligence.” “She is—she’s somebody who’s in this stuff for the right reasons. She’s passionate about moving the country forward on issues like healthcare and children. So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate.” Do you still hold to that? There aren’t any differences?

.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that I, as I said earlier, I have admiration for Senator Clinton. I think she’s a fine public servant. The reason I’m running is because I think we’re in a unique moment in American history right now. The nation’s at war; our planet is in peril. We’ve got a series of decisions that we’re going to have to make. And I believe that I can more effectively than any other candidate in this race bring the country together, overcome some of the same old arguments that we’ve been having since the 1990s. I think I can reach out to Republicans and independents more effectively than any other candidate that...http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/

Perhaps these are just the sort of words an "inexperienced" candidate says about the establishment frontrunner, but they could just be taken at face value. There's a pretty decent Democratic field out there, and they're all addressing (more or less) healthcare reform, energy independence and ending the war. It's more about who you think can actually get things done and who has the force of personality to make it happen.

Aside to another scott: referring to a group as "the boys" and calling someone "boy" are so very much not the same thing.

Watch out--the big vagina is trying to take over the world!!!

Awesome. You rock.

Are we sure the supporter was referring to Hillary Clinton? There are plenty of "little bitches" running for the Republican nomination.

But really, McCain could have handled it better, but this was a particularly awkward situation for a man like McCain. The question was asked by an older woman. In his eyes (this is a man who's very close to his own 95 year-old mother), to scold this woman at all would have been, ungentlemanly and disrespectful. I think had a younger man asked the question, McCain's response would have been different.

As for comparisons with his mother's comment: McCain already knows his mother's thoughts on Mormons. Her comment was likely not especially shocking for him. The supporter in the crowd was unexpected.

And for the laughter from the crowd, come on: everyone knows it's funny when little old ladies swear.

It's pretty clever, as t-shirt slogans go.

Of course, the wearer didn't survive Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade certainly didn't mandate abortion. T-shirt Girl survived her mother. Maybe a "thank you, mom, for not aborting me" tee would be more appropriate.

Pro-life doesn't mean abstinent. Although "threat of baby" can be a mood-killer for some men, others find the idea of spreading their seed a turn-on. And abstinent doesn't necessarily mean "abstinent." Might just mean the girl is prepared to do other "fun stuff" aside from vaginal intercourse. So cheer up, Anonymous 11:06 AM! There's hope for those pro-life girls yet.

252 U.S. teen-aged soldiers have died in Iraq.

icasualties.org

"More to the point, I don't understand how his attachment to his fetal daughter has anything to do with the fetuses in other people's uteruses."

Well said.

"cherry-picked in an inappropriate way"

Hmm. As opposed to cherry-picked in an appropriate way? Cherry-picking that helps Republicans is good and appropriate. Cherry-picking that hurts Republicans is bad and inappropriate.

Okay. Got it.

his true character is one of nasty boorishness

For what it's worth, I don't this is McCain's true character.

McCain hates campaigning. He doesn't campaign well. And campaigning seems to bring out the worst in him. I'd like to think the real John McCain is "Mr. Straight-Talk Express" of 2000. But that's not the McCain he thinks can survive the Republican primary (and he's probably right). So Campaigning McCain panders and waffles, which goes against the very characteristics that made so many Democrats and Moderates like him to begin with.

What does it say about the Republican Party (and the nominating and campaigning process in general), that the inevitable candidate seems to be a waffler stripped of all soul?

The ad is geared towards Middle America and suburban households. It's the New York City people like to see when they visit. I'm not going to beat Rudy up for it, though (there are lots of other reasons to bash Rudy Giuliani).

Still, I couldn't shake a certain wigged-out feeling watching the ad. That NYC just seemed so... inauthentic. So I went to census.gov and looked up NYC's population statistics:

• Foreign-born: 37%
• Speak a language other than English at home: 48%
• Renter-occupied housing units: 66%
• White: 44%
• Black: 25%
• Asian: 12%
• A Hispanic population of 2.3 million

And that's just not the New York I saw in that ad. This was a "white-washed" New York.

However, kudos to Rudy for showing more about what he "can do." He didn't even mention 9/11 once (although it's hinted at indirectly in that he talks about how he's been "tested.")