He says that it will be bad for the party if either candidate gets more delegates and then the superdelegates choose the other one. Then he states the obvious, which is not a contradiction of what he already said, and not parallel at all, because it's not a matter of opinion, but a fact: " how superdelegates want to vote their conscience, that's up to them."

Sounds pretty smooth, non-desperate, and above board to me. Sounds to me as though if he falls behind in the delegate count he will expect the superdelegates to act according to the principle he appealed to, and vote for his opponent. If he changes his mind at that time, then there will be a contradiction.

As I see it, we can learn from Europe's mistakes, restructure our democracy to hear and implement the will of the people, and be happy - or we can have our own fascist regime, lose a really big war or two, and be forced by outside governments to restructure our democracy and to hear and implement the will of the people, and eventually be happy. Apparently Santorum has a different idea about which one is more appealing.

"Sexism is far more problematic then race. Woman have to work ten times harder then their male counter-parts to achieve. "

I can spot a Republican in Democrats' clothing from miles away. Puh. Lease.

Men have to have sex changes to become like myself, as I am female. And a feminist. Your ridiculously simplistic formulation of the last 100 years of feminism alerts me to the fact that you are troll trying to stir race vs. gender shit in the liberal blogosphere, Why don't you go stir shit between fundie Christians and libertarians over at a right-wing blog instead?

The point is that it's worth reading to get an inside view of what "Old Boys' Network" actually means. (For those of us who aren't inside it, I mean.) It looks like a scene from a bad James Bond movie (was that redundant?).

"Hillary didn't vote on final passage of FISA

But then, neither did Obama."

Is just not true. Obama voted against, McCain voted for. Clinton was not present.

Here is the official vote tally from the Senate record.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00015#name

My horse, dog, or whatever other metaphor you want to use, left the race before Super Tuesday. The amendment vote on telecom immunity was important to me; the overall package, since that failed, less so.

Was it just yesterday that I was criticizing the idea of kicking certain people out? It's like a sewer in here today.

That was way funnier than the second Yes We Can parody. The two of them look like they just came down off Brokeback Mountain. I love the little heart that goes up when Bush kisses him. And the music is perfect. Beautifully done! Bravo!

I'm sure the Republicans know how to hire good ad firms too, but their Valentine effort is pathetic by comparison. Are those *supposed* to be retro 1980s jokes? Yikes.

chimpanzees are apes, like us. :)

Thanks for the tip (with a little coronoal ridge of your own...) on the great article - despite the fact that Slate is a major competitor. Nice of you to "plug" that for them.

OK, OK, I'll stop.

Gosh, that WAS almost like a debate! Kewl! Thanks for posting, for those of us without TVs.

I hope whoever is hosting the next two *actual* debates between the candidates will take Slackie's suggestion that we have one or two major topics and really get into the nitty gritty of each one. How about a foreign policy question (like, what is your Iraq plan, really?) and a domestic question (e.g., how will your health care plan help the middle class?). Hillary can show off her wonk skills, and Obama can rise to the challenge, if he has some too. Meanwhile, I will be looking forward to hearing speeches from both in Vermont soon. Because being president isn't all about policy details and isn't all about speeches; you have to be good at both. And, honestly, I think they are both good at each one. Their differences are quite exaggerated.

and the "detainee" knew about it, wouldn't he or she be able to hold out more easily, since the need for the torture would be ending at a prearranged time - when the ticking stopped? Just one more reason why that is a dumb "thought" experiment (more like an adrenaline experiment, if you ask me), no matter who uses it (including a Clinton).

I was just wondering where you'd been lately! Nice to see you back. I wonder where fetboy and Silenced have gone. :(

It's only organic if the stock has been free-ranging, has had consistent organic feed, and has received no hormone treatments (thus disqualifying certain luminaries in our midst).

I have been advocating for this for quite some time. But I still think cythera45 is a scourge, and should be banished. Likewise the resident troll at Broadsheet. Thanks for addressing this, Salon staff. We are all grateful.

for the sensible, articulate and knowledgeable post.

Various Obama supporters seem to be avoiding the fact that Obama claims to have passed legislation that did not, in fact pass. Meanwhile, others are rightfully pointing out the Clinton co-sponsored the same? or another? bill on the same topic. AKA Smith linked to a somewhat helpful NYT article yesterday, but I had trouble following it (maybe not enough caffeine in the system, or maybe just bad reporting). Now here is the tangential Penn twist. Broadsheet covered the attack about "present" votes a couple weeks ago, mostly putting the matter to rest for me. Could we get a feature on the real facts with the Exelon issue? - including graphs and timelines, if possible, please? Some of us need to vote soon and still haven't made up our minds....