So your defense of those four terrible votes that Hillary made is not a defense at all, but instead a claim that Obama made some bad votes, too?

Good strategy there. That'll really fire everyone up to vote for Hillary!

Come on. Defend your candidate. Iraq, Iran, the PATRIOT Act, the bankruptcy bill. One vote after another from Senator Clinton, D-NY. And all of them WITH George W. Bush and the Republicans, and AGAINST the Democrats and the interests of the people of the United States of America.

She's so brilliant and wonderful and experienced, right? That's what she and all her supporters keep telling us. So explain those votes!

Yeah, we know, you hate Obama. He eats babies. He's an intellectual lightweight who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time. He sucks. WE GET IT!

But explain to us why we should vote for someone who on so many crucial votes has sided with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Joe Lieberman. WHY?

Alzheimers is not a foreign policy.

Why is it that every single time it turns out that Hillary lied or made some indefensible vote (such as the Iraq authorization, the PATRIOT Act, the bankrupcty bill, or the Iran "terrorist" vote) Hillary supporters ALWAYS come back with an attack on Obama?

Why is that the only way they ever try to defend their candidate? I'd really like to know. As a life-long Democrat, it bothers the hell out of me that I've been in the same party with people who are perfectly happy to mindlessly throw feces at their enemy rather than respond substantively. I thought Democrats were supposed to be the smart and honorable ones!

I'm rather puzzled to hear so many people demanding that "every vote must count" in the primaries lately.

I've been voting in the primaries for more than twenty years, and this is the FIRST time that my vote could have actually made a difference. Of course it didn't make a difference; my first, second, and third candidates dropped out before the primary came, and my fourth pick didn't win. But at least in theory my vote COULD have mattered, and I got some calls from the campaigns of both candidates.

For every primary BEFORE this one, though, the candidate had already been picked long before I got to vote. My vote was an exercise in utter futility.

So why is it suddenly not okay for Florida and Michigan to undergo the vote-irrelevancy that so many of us late-primary voter have always faced?

The primary system is fucked. Something needs to be done about it.

That said, I thought it was a pretty funny cartoon. And I will admit that these constantly changing rationales by the Clinton campaign have become more than a little annoying. Do they think the voters are too stupid to notice the constant switcheroos?

I wonder if Tom Tomorrow reads comments here?

xxysyndrome, you left out two more votes:

Her vote for the bankruptcy bill, which was surely one of the most devastatingly anti-working-class bills that the credit card industry ever wrote for itself. I wonder how much the credit card industry has contributed to Senator Clinton's campaigns?

And then there's her vote for the Iran "terrorist" bill. Which proved definitively that Hillary either didn't learn from her Iraq authorization vote "mistake", or else that she just feels she has to vote for any bill that might provide Bush/Cheney with a rationale for war.

And where did they have this conversation? Why, in Bosnia, under withering sniper fire! How could anyone doubt Hillary's word?

So now Hillary's claiming to be Rocky. And last week she was claiming that she was Rambo, in Bosnia. What's she going to be next week? Judge Dredd?

So what's the solution?

All I can think of is sending all the political journalist-whores to the wall, but we liberals are too squeamish to pull the trigger. Maybe we'll have to wait until things get so absolutely awful that the public ends up rioting in the streets...but somehow I fear that the first people that the public would shoot would be we effete intellectuals who protested but failed to stop all this.

Afterwords they might hunt down Rove, Broder, Kristol et alia - and that would be a sight worth seeing. But those of us who committed the crime of being right but insufficiently evil and manipulative for all these years would be in no position to appreciate it.

The Lord of the Rings movies sucked - as movie adaptations of the books, that is. They may have been fine fantasy movies, but Jackson took far too many liberties with the originals, abusing the language, the characters, and many essential themes. So who cares about The Hobbit?

Jeeze...I still can't believe how often Jackson "improved" on Tolkien's writing by substituting his own prose instead. What a jackass!

When I reached this article, my first thought was "That was it?!?"

My second thought was to be reminded of something from Isaac Asimov's science-fiction classic Foundation. In it (*SPOILERS*), an Imperial diplomat visits the beleaguered Foundation. A canny local politicians secretly records everything that the diplomat says, and has the recording put through semantic analysis to determine the exact meaning of what the diplomat had promised.

And when all the meaningless buzzwords and qualifications were cancelled out, it turned out that the diplomat had said...nothing at all.

Which pretty much describes this article, I'm sorry to say.