What exactly does that mean? That this accusation is a piece of potential bullshit?

As long as we're talking "plagiarism," how about if we compare health care plans to Edwards'! Clinton's plan is pretty similar, which I count as a good thing, even if it does annoy me that Edwards put his out and the other two played catch-up afterwards. And, woefully, Obama's isn't as much like Edwards' as Clinton's is. So that's a "piece of potential plagiarism" I'd be interested to see in his platform, frankly.

Still, Clinton didn't show up for civil liberties yesterday (it was Potomac Primary day, so it's not as though she wasn't in the area...), and I'd like to know why. I'd also like to know why she thinks using the Republicans' candidate's advisor's innuendo about hints of hearsay of potential plagiarism is at all meaningful. If you've got a problem with Obama's plan, then spit it out!

Please crawl right back under the Republican rock. No one is fooled, dude. TIA!

But it leaves out the fact that the debates are not that useful, and that more people get to ask more questions, unscripted ones, at town meeting. I think this debate thing is a non-issue.

But I wish people would try to keep the anti-Hillary gloating to a low roar. Obama isn't gloating, is he? If he's your candidate, ask yourself why he isn't. And then, please, stop.

I will keep my comments about that to myself....

although there is a difference between MI and FL, and I don't think we should lump them together. He should concede the FL delegates, and the two of them should sit down with Dean to agree about how to do MI over.

Yeah, that's the worrisome part. If there's any grabbing, I don't think the Dems will have a base anymore.

That's what being a Republican is all about these days. Which way did you vote on telecom immunity again, Mr. Government Transparency? Smiling at the camera isn't the same as democratic governance.

I think an "ignore" feature would be more effective than banning people. It has taken me four years to learn to ignore trolls, and it's still an effort. Being able to actually "ban" them myself would be much easier.

And seriously. There are two trolls at Broadsheet who have been taking over the conversation for YEARS, and I've never heard a word about having them banned, even though there is certainly quite a grassroots movement in favor of it. Why now? Why here? I don't expect you to answer on this thread or anything, but if there's really going to be a conversation about banning people, I hope you'll take these questions into consideration. Thanks!

-Paula

Alex, I don't know how old you are, or whether you've ever lived paycheck to paycheck, but the stories are actually really nice. I am having trouble seeing things from your angle here. Though they may seem corny to you, these are stories about real people putting pennies they can't well afford into the donation jar. And you are clearly NOT Hillary's demographic, so whether it speaks to you or not is irrelevant. I'm not quite her demographic either, but I'm a mother, and I've been poor, and the family I left behind in Ohio still is. I thought this was a pretty brilliant way to point out that Hillary gets strong support from Regular Folks - her only real defense against the argument that she can't win the general election. Didn't do a damn thing to convince me to vote for her (especially since she didn't show up to defend my civil liberties today), but I can see beyond that - and the corniness - to the underlying marketing brilliance.

One or two people who actually have a national platform make stupid remarks on behalf of a bunch of people who don't agree with them, and people try to make it seem like a scandal. Apparently we didn't learn anything the first time....

Can you post a link to the votes? I found a list of the 12 Dem traitors, but I'm curious whether Obama and Clinton showed up for the vote, and whether they actually made any statements about it. Thanks for your good work. I hope to see you on the Supreme Court in my lifetime. :)

Himself, of course! He had the good health care plan AND the anti-lobbyist stance. Now I have to pick between them.

She said they need to address their pattern of behavior. And they do. Good for her.

Quoting random Obama supporters does not amount to an argument. I am pretty sure I could dig up plenty of Clinton supporters' nasty comments (MICKI comes to mind, and cythera, whom some people think is a Clinton supporter, but I don't really want to spend my afternoon scrolling through their posting history). I think we need to be careful about these little anecdotes - especially since paid concern trolls who are probably supporting NO Democrats come into open forums like these with regularity and try to do some free negative advertising against both Dem candidates. If they pose as Clinton supporters and say nasty things about Obama, or vice versa, they make both candidates look bad at once. I don't think anyone would argue that NO Obama supporter anywhere ever said a nasty thing about Clinton. I'm sure they have. I've read their posts myself. But some people need to check the planks in their own eyes. And since when do we let random "supporters" characterize a candidate anyway? There are psychopaths, trolls, and idiots of all political stripes. That kind of thinking means that the paid-concern-troll thing really could work, and I always thought it was a dumb idea - dumber than penis enlargement spam. Apparently, since both persist, they have more power than I thought.