Do you also see Clinton as having run a "sleath campaign" of trying to turn every attack into a sexist one? Frankly, many of the comments and digs at her ARE inherently sexist. Just as "shuck and jive," and, to a lesser extent, its "just speeches" variation are. (I didn't think the cocaine thing was, but that's arguable.) My question is: why keep letting that matter? Once you realize you are not going to change it or even raise awareness about it among the people who have never been discriminated against in the way you are being discrimated against, why not just let it go and get back to your message? Show us who you are instead of telling us and complaining about the fact that no one is listening? I believe that's what Obama did, and what Clinton failed to do. She has allowed her campaign to be in constant defense mode - the very same beleagured attitude that lost both Gore and Kerry the election. And, finally, watching it in comparison to the way Obama has dealt with McCain's little proto-attacks, I have finally become quite clear that I won't vote for her on Tuesday. I wish the Democrats would field more progressive candidates, but I'm happy to settle for Obama first. I think he will beat McCain easily. Clinton has a very good chance against McCain as well, but her constant defensiveness makes me nervous.

I think both sides were too sensitive to racist and sexist attacks a few months ago. The difference is that Obama's campaign mostly corrected that, while Clinton's only got worse and worse - primarily because she wasn't being listened to and so kept talking about it more and more loudly. The Obama campaign, more wisely, dropped the subject until the recent turban photo (which I think they reponded to with too much anger, as Obama did to the Farrakhan question last night).

I do sympathize with her campaign, because I believe it is much, much easier to get in sexist digs than it is to get in racist ones, and come off still looking reasonable or even innocent. But I think the repeated attempts to make a case about systemic sexism - even though I have agreed with many of the arguments! - have hurt Clinton rather than helped her. Also, I do not think the sexist digs have come primarily from the Obama campaign itself. I feel that she has been fighting the media, which is practically hopeless, instead of staying on message.

Even though I would love to see her as president, watching how she deals with attacks compared with Obama has led me to feel more excited about Obama than I do about her - which means he is more likely to get my vote next Tuesday in Vermont (yes, we're voting too!). She keeps talking about what a great fighter she is, and she is absolutely right. But I don't think she has chosen her battles very well.

This latest opinion from one of her supporters illustrates the case. The campaign has consistently tried to appeal for a redress of grievances instead of just moving on and getting back to its own message. I think Obama's campaign did the latter more successfully, starting in late January/early February, and he has been the frontrunner ever since. You can argue all sorts of reasons why that is. Or you can get back to the business of spreading your message. And Clinton's meta-campaign has done a great deal of the former, to the detriment of actually campaigning. It makes me sad, but I hope many female candidates will throw their hats into the ring in the next four, eight, sixteen, and sixty-four years. Every year! Wouldn't that be great? I hope they do. Thanks, Hillary, for being the first. It is really hard to take that heat, and I admire her for it. She is still one of my heroes.

I thought Pluto was gone, and now it's back, and they've added a NEW one! I'm so confused.

BTW, the better taxonomy mnemonic is Kings Play Chess On Fine-Grained Sand.

I am surprised that in all the debate commentary I have not seen people mention Obama's answer on public financing, which was almost as bad as the Farrakhan answer. While he spoke with more confidence and less anger on that issue, it was still a sidestep, and he let Russert get away with the "Gotcha! You won't keep your promise, then!" line. Of course, no Democrat wants him promising to have a publicly financed election if McCain is going to not promise it and/or promise it but cheat, so I don't really have a problem with the substance of the answer, but I think he needs to polish it. With the Farrakhan answer, he let his anger about being asked cloud his response, and he is going to have to work on that too, because this issue is not going anywhere. He is going to be accused of being racist, which obviously pisses him off, but he shouldn't let that show. I was uncomfortable watching him squirm when being asked to, basically, choose between blacks and Jews. And Clinton, by looking magnanimous for a minute and then instead trying to use her lever to point out that he botched the response, actually failed to let it fall flat, and the uncomfortable attention returned to her. That was a tactical error. She should have let the image of him squirming stay in everyone's mind a little longer - even though her point was accurate. He didn't reject the Nation of Islam and all of its works. He denounced anti-Semitic statements, which is different. But I could already figure that out for myself.