You have mentioned Obama's "initial" reaction, and I have seen others saying that Obama acknowledged that he made a mistake, and admiring his ability to do so. Have you seen or read this acknowledgment? I haven't seen or read either reaction, so just wondering.

Personally, I don't think the ideas in the speech were so very original that Obama needs to be faulted for not acknowledging them. I also don't think it was necessarily fair that Biden was ousted by Dukakis for something similar, so using that as a precedent doesn't sway me; Biden cited his source many times when giving that speech, and Dukakis "caught" him not citing the source only once - which would explain Biden's initial reaction that this was really not a big deal. However, I do think it was a dumb thing for Obama and Patrick to do, and, like you, I would like to hear that from Obama. The worst thing for me is that the similarity of this to the unfair goring of Gore in 1999 leaves just as bad a taste in my mouth about Clinton as it does about Obama. Voter cynicism is the perpetual, predictable result of negative campaigning, and I wish Democrats would leave that to their rivals.

i.e., "If your candidate were doing it, you would applaud it!"?

If you have examples of someone's candidate actually having DONE the thing and the specific supporter you have in mind having applauded it, then please provide the quote. Otherwise, it's just a dumb thing to say, in every. single. case.

Please don't jump so quickly to "lazy." A lot of people are working too hard at several jobs to read Salon. A lot of people don't even have Internet access. A lot of people see negative campaign lies and are reminded that they have no actual power. A lot of people, conversely, think that people wouldn't say things if they weren't true, and there have been studies about the fact that people continue to believe lies long after they have been debunked, for that reason. None of that is the same as "lazy."

the more it reminds me of the flap about Gore being a liar. He said he invented the Internet! (He didn't.) He said his father sang him that union song as a lullaby! (There was a grain of truth on that one, but the line was clearly intended as a joke.) He said he was in Texas with the wrong FEMA guy! And we all still remember John Kerry saying, "Who among us does not love NASCAR" or whatever it was he said. (Except that he did not actually say it; Maureen Dowd did.) Meanwhile, Bush was getting away with lying because he told much, much bigger lies - not just getting the details of little throwaway lines wrong. The Clinton campaign is getting these pages out of the Republicans' filthy playbook, and it makes me sick. I hope they realize what a bad idea it is, and stop.

I was taught in college that I couldn't use the same paper for two classes, or quote even myself without a citation; that was considered plagiarism. So even with Deval's permission, using exact wording from a speech is still a questionable practice.

On the other hand, I agree with Deval that there is a certain "transcendence" to the truth in the speech - and it sounded familiar to me as I watched the Deval clip, even though I had never heard him or Obama speak before. Personally, I would classify it more as a riff than a rip-off. A dumb thing to do, yes. But calling it plagiarism is a stretch. Kind of like trying somebody for perjury because he didn't own up to fellatio when asked if he'd had "sexual relations".... It disapoints me to see the Clintons pulling the same old Republican tricks out of their ... um, hats.

but I still don't see clear evidence that Politico's story about stealing pledged delegates is actually true. Why is everyone assuming it is? Seems like everyone just believes it because they want to - even though Politico's reputation has never exactly been ... clean.

The Clinton campaign denied the charge outright, and unless Politico has a memo or e-mail instead of just a behind-the-scenes whisper, I see no reason to get all bent out of shape over a rumor about what tactics a campaign is considering regarding a purely hypothetical future scenario. Jeesh, people. This is the sort of on-background "journalism" that has kept the Bush propaganda machine churning for years. We should not be supporting it now. It's always wrong, no matter whose side you're on.

Tornadoes and tsetse flies are unlikely; many parts of the state have just gone from zone 3 to zone 4! We are zone 5 and holding, for now. The most likely outcome of climate change in the immediate future is that the maple crop and the skiing will become less reliable. Having a tourist economy based on the climate is risky, it turns out. And there is already plenty of poverty to go around; it is not paradise. But neighbors take care of each other, drivers are courteous, swimming holes are populated with casually nude bathers, and billboards are illegal. So, since moving to Europe or even Canada isn't practical, this will have to do. We love it here.