The only quibble I have with this post is its seeming ingenuousness, the “gee, what-could-they-possibly-have-been-thinking,” “what-did-they-really-mean-by-that” quality. The answer could hardly be any more simple and straightforward: the Baby-Mama slur is simply today’s centerpiece of the Perpetual Republican Nigger Hunt, just as The Jeremiah Wright smear was yesterday’s predecessor. Quite simply, the motives and tactics of Fox are without the slightest ambiguity whatever, and the only objective to which it's worth devoting more than a fleeting moment’s consideration is the question of how to most effectively use this incident to marginalize and politically eradicate such racist filth as Fox News, Michelle Malkin, Rush Limbo, and all their fellow floaters in the toilet of Republican ignorance and fanaticism.

Additionally, I have to concur that it’s really time – really, really time – that we move past any rehashing or further mention of the Clinton campaign. The way I see it, the predominant attitude among Obama supporters was not one of skepticism about the media’s viciously hostile and sexist treatment of Clinton, but one that questioned "How the hell Obama was responsible for that treatment," and "What the hell was he supposed to do about it?"

Ahhh, it’s always a pleasure to welcome a new greasy turd floating up from the cesspool of Republican talk radio.

“I don't know what's worse, the moronic remark, or the fact that we have media watchdog groups monitoring what folks are saying.”

Great point!! Because it’s really scary that people are keeping tabs on the content of rightwing propaganda disseminated over the public airwaves by nice, patriotic “folks” like Clear Channel and Rupert Murdoch. Strangely enough, though, there’s nothing whatever scary about secret government agencies reading the mail, tracking the internet use, and listening to the phone conversations of ordinary citizens, because we all know that no one but the terrorists has anything to hide from Republican Big Brother.

”there were, other, similar moments when Clinton supporters cheered the idea that Democrats must win back the White House. And Obama's promise to help Clinton collect money pay off her campaign's debt got a standing ovation, Murray says.”

Christ, that is just so goddamn inspirational it leaves me practically breathless! To learn that Obama plans to sit down with his brain trust and work out detailed plans for retiring Hillary’s campaign debt, well, that is really what it’s all about, isn’t it? After all, keeping the Republicans out of the White House would be nice, but is there any campaign issue more vital, more compelling, more emotionally resonant than making sure the Clintons' net assets don’t dip below the $100 million threshold this year?

Still, I can’t help but wonder if a superficial update in War Room really give the issue the sustained, concentrated attention it clearly deserves? I mean, can’t we get a brand new, separate column wholly dedicated to the tender sensibilities of Hillary’s supporters, one that provides a truly comprehensive daily analysis of their courageous efforts to transcend the psychological trauma of Hillary’s tragic and untimely electoral demise?

Just a crazy, fleeting thought, though: I wonder if there might be another approach. Specifically, what would happen if Salon decided to treat the matters of Hillary’s money, and her supporters’ feelings, and even the efforts of the DLC rats from her staff trying to weasel their way into the Obama campaign as the indescribably trivial non-issues they really are? If, for example, if Koppelman and other Salon writers focused on the concerns of Hillary’s supporters with the same frequency as they do, say, those of Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and all the other losers of the Democratic nomination.

If nothing else, at least it might serve to disabuse geniuses like jebldmm – for whom the principal deficiency of the Obama campaign is being too mean to John McCain – of the notion that anyone still gives a shit what they think, what they care about, or what they intend to do. We don’t. What they believe simply doesn’t matter anymore, and nothing they do will have any appreciable impact on the outcome of the election.

The idea that congressional Democrats are going to even consider health care, energy, or "entitlement reform" policies that are increasingly hard to distinguish from those of George W. Bush is laughable.

And why the hell not, exactly? If they follow the governing strategy the DLC has used to castrate the Democratic Party for well over a decade, that's precisely what they'll do. After all, in response to insoluble gridlock, the Republicans will simply blame the Democrats for a refusal to "compromise" and a lack of "bipartisanship," and we can never have that, now can we? Why should the party's stance on health care or energy be any less flexible - i.e., any more principled - than it is with respect to such trivialities as civil liberties, the Constitution, or the war? Nope; the policy of the DLC - whose members are busy trying to weasel their way into control of the Obama campaign since Her Royal Highness was deposed - will dictate, as it always does, that the Democratic Party denigrate, marginalize, and spit the face of its own supporters, while kissing Republican ass in its eternal and inspiring quest to claim the holy "center."

"Obama has a much better command of the language than Bush," says Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large for the Oxford English Dictionary.

Yes, undoubtedly. Just as, for example, the typical doctoral candidate in particle physics at MIT has a better grasp of sophisticated mathematical concepts than a grunting baboon at the Bronx Zoo.