...to me, the transcript reads more "hothead" than it looks in the clip.

Here's what Xrandadu posted under the previous War Room item ("The return of Rudy's master strategy?")

"Speaking of John McCain, what is going on here?

Just saw this video:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/59014.html

Whoa! What's wrong with him? Bad medication? He's really crazy!

-- Xrandadu Hutman Friday, March 7, 2008 01:27 PM"

FWIW, my response was

Xran

I enjoy and nearly always agree with your posts - loved the "Sorry I don't speak Klingon or Esperanto.." line - and I hate to give McCain a break, but I don't see how you get "he's really crazy" out of that clip. He didn't even make his squinty Popeye face. Sure, he's a little put out and he'd obviously like the reporter to shut up, but the video is kind of a letdown after reading the transcript (in the next War Room item).

I'm not saying he ISN'T really crazy, just that it's not evident in those couple of minutes.

Damn, I hate to split hairs (or in the spirit of your 2:15 message, "split hares") but I just don't think McW's reaction was necessarily bizarre either - but in the spirit of compromise, I'll accept bizarre. Maybe even bazaar.

Xman,

The ones that "LITERALLY make my head explode!" are "could of" and "would of". It's really bad when a reporter uses them while relating an interview - for some strange reason it's usually a coach being quoted.

As to "literally", I remember an old "Arlo and Janis" comic strip in which Arlo's young son Gene was describing a soccer(?) game. Gene says that some kid on the other team was about to score but Gene's team stopped him "...and we literally killed him!"

Arlo: "Do you know what "literally" means?"

Gene: "No."

Arlo: "Good."

With all due respect, your "logic" here has Mr Spock's father spinning in his grave, or wherever you put dead Vulcans.

"...Take her vote on Iraq for example. Anybody with a memory knows that in the context of when that vote took place, it would have made no difference to vote against it, and could only result in political disaster if it turned out Iraq did have WMD."

So you're admitting that she made a political decision. As to the context, there were plenty of reasons to have serious doubts about the case the Bushies were trying to make about WMD. I remember that even after Colin Powell's oh-so-convincing presentation at the UN, plenty of legit and semi-legit websites - none of the MSM as I recall - were soon pointing out flaws in nearly everything he said. And has been pointed out here, Clinton didn't even bother to read the NIE before giving Dubya the OK to start a pre-emptive war (or are you going to go back to the argument that her vote wasn't for war?) At any rate, there were at least a handful of Senators who, despite the "context" and the probability of making a difference, had the guts to risk "political disaster" by voting against the war resolution.

"Had he been in the senate he would have voted for it, for the same reason that most everyone else in the senate did."

I'm glad you're here to tell us what Obama would have done, regardless of what he said at the time.

"The other criticisms of Clinton are equally insubstantial at best and petty at worst."

Again, I'd say that skipping the NIE report is neither - same as voting to label Iran's army a terrorist organization, and pushing to have the current Michigan delegation seated.

"But you all know what the unofficial, but very true, Obama campaign slogan is: DON'T THINK! JUST VOTE FOR OBAMAAAA."

Sometimes I have to wonder if you and a few others are actually Obama fans using double(triple?)-reverse psychology to parody Clinton supporters.

As an Obama voter I admit I'm biased, but the amount of blind Obama worship I've seen in these letters pales in comparison with the accusations of such, and insults thrown at anyone who dares question Her Royal Clinton, by some of her followers. Assuming you're not joking, it's really disturbing to see the vitriol directed at fellow "progressives" (or at least, non-right-wingers).

For the most part, when Obama's side criticizes - even if we go overboard and/or make sexist remarks - at least it's directed at Clinton herself. There are very few anti-Obama posts that don't also make all sorts of disparaging remarks about his supporters, as if we're all a bunch of sexist idiots who blindly march in lockstep behind our empty suit Pied Piper.

Damn, I didn't realize who you meant by "Gerry Ferry" until I read the article. And here I've been thinking about using my 1984 vote for her as VP to ward off Clinton fans' accusations that I'm a sexist because I support Obama and not Her Royal Certitude. (Sure, it was for VP and not Pres and it wasn't very likely she'd move up - but there was at least a small possibility that Mondale could croak and she'd have to step in, and that didn't bother me at all.)

But anyway, yet another pot/kettle remark from Camp Clinton. If Ferraro wasn't a woman, would Mondale have picked her? She wouldn't be where she is today, either.

Come to think of it, where is she today?

I guess Hillary's floating the VP Obama trial balloon (so "you can vote for both") just before the Mississippi primary had absolutely nothing to do with race.

How about starting a thread about Ferraro's comments?

Here's the (AP) story on Salon:

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/03/11/D8VBD52G0_clinton_ferraro/index.html