The big one being, RFK was running against another Democrat, Prez Johnson, and also trying to get enough votes to get to the Demo convention. He was in this process when he was shot and killed. That's what she was referencing. That's it, that's all. Look it up

I don't need to look it up. RFK and LBJ did not face one another in a single primary. LBJ withdrew from consideration for the nomination on March 31. Bobby had entered the race after the March 12 New Hampshire primary but wasn't even on the ballot for the next primary, in Wisconsin, where McCarthy won. Essentially all the contested primaries (and there were only a few of them) were between McCarthy and Kennedy. Hillary would have been more accurate to have reference McCarthy not dropping out than Kennedy.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's nice to know someone other than me actually looked up what happened in 1968. NO ONE had wrapped up the nomination when the primary season ended because the primary season had little to do with the selection of delegates. Hubert Humphrey did not contest any of the primaries, yet won the nomination. And he didn't do it by taking any of RFK's delegates (who mostly voted for McGovern and McCarthy and a host of other candidates). Thus, in June 1968, there was no presumptive nominee, no likely nominee, no real knowledge by anyone who the nominee was going to be. It would make as much sense to argue about what Abraham Lincoln was doing in June 1860. It was that much of a different world.

was one of the few produced as a result of the Clinton Administration that anyone read. Why? Because he criticized his boss. Dog bites man story: not news.

There's nothing to look at here, folks.

I thought for once Joan was going to write on some topic of interest, instead of just shilling for Hillary under the guise of feminism. I even went past the first reference to the 1000+ letters, hoping for some more commentary on McClelland. But no, it just got worse.

Apparently Joan reads people who agree with her the way a drunk uses a lamppost, for support not illumination.

Stop trying to use reason on the unreasoning about the unreasonable. Obama was being magnaminous when he didn't have to be, in a reasonable attempt to put an end to the argument over this crap. The response of the Clinton campaign was entirely consistent with how they have conducted themselves throughout.

Democratic party math, of course, is to math as Democratic party economics is to economics. At our Washington state caucus (and I believe Hillary has argued that she should somehow get delegates based on the votes of our entirely non-binding primary that everyone ignored), the people in our precinct initially voted so that Obama would get five of six delegates, undecided one and Hillary none. We were told by the powers that be that the party discouraged having undecided delegates, so we should try to persuade the undecided people to make up their minds. We caucused for an hour. At the end of the hour, the 11 undecideds voted 10 to Obama and one to Hillary. The result was that, under Democratic party math, Hillary got the one delegate that would have otherwise gone to undecided. In other words, we spent an hour getting undecideds to break for Obama and the result benefited Clinton.

Any Hillary supporter who believes that some kind of pure proportional numbers in Florida must necessarily mean that Hillary didn't win a major victory with this compromise(see libertyson's excellent post), you come back and explain how "democracy" required the result in my precinct.

The article Joan references is a fascinating and dispassionate discussion on an important topic. Who would have guessed that all of Hillary's seasoned and very expensive political operatives would be so completely outstrategized by a relative upstart.

For the sake of the country, I hope and pray President Obama can bring similarly skillful people into important positions in the government.

I heard something on the news yesterday about how more and more heterosexual couples were living together without marriage. Funny how this couple has fought so hard for a right that most straight people not only take for granted, but increasingly don't even take advantage of.

Personally, I think my marriage is more meaningful when it is an institution that people who love like these two do can participate in as fully as my wife and I do.

The terms of the Sonics lease were clear to anyone buying the team, both when Howard Schultz's group bought it and when Clay Bennett's group bought it. Any rational pricing of the team would have included whatever cost there would be to complying with the lease, since expressly assuming the lease was a condition to each sale. So in essence, what Bennett is saying is that he shouldn't have to comply with the contract he willingly entered into because he has to suffer losses he should have taken into account in pricing his purchase.

Of course he didn't take the losses into account because he figured he would either milk Seattle for a new arena for free or get out of the lease and move to OKC.

It's a little like buying coach and hoping for a first class upgrade and then complaining when there are no seats in first class that your ticket cost too much.

They don't sell all the corn that is produced each year. What's left is called "carryover." When you look at carryover, as well as demand that can be satisfied by other commodities, the arguments start to make a whole lot more sense. But why let any facts get in the way of a snarky comment?