Granted amongst the 300 there are those, many even, who wanted and were willing to do the right things at the right time. Yet they do claim membership to a party that should be able to operate as an organized group under its leadership when necessary, and given the timing (when the pres is lame, inconsequential in the MSM, and polling lower than any pres in history) of their show of intestinal fortitude its hard not to ascribe the primary motivating factor to political opportunism.

Bear in mind, I think anyone who doesn't support immediate criminal proceedings against the Executive branch is a traitor :)

Get Obama to agree to Honor or Redo. Especially since Fla House Dems have ruled out a redo, Obama would be in the position of Honoring the original vote.

I think however given the circumstances of the original vote, honoring it would be patently unfair to Obama, as well as to the voters who, accepting the circumstances at that time, did not vote.

Its relevant now because with HRC running for president there is a corresponding increase in discussions about what it means to be a feminist, specifically does being a feminist mean voting for HRC just because she is a woman, or does it mean being free to make up your own mind. So with all this talk about how far women have come its disconcerting to see women in this position who have been so publicly humiliated yet SEEM to be sublimating their own selfhood for the good of their presumably undeserving men.

Naturally this issue is even more meaningful considering HRC's past.

Love doesn't necessarily equate with staying with him. And keep in mind he didn't just cheat on her. If he did then it would be between the two of them. He cheated on her in a way that humiliated her nationally. If she loves him, its fair to wonder why she wouldn't say something along the lines of "I'll love you forever but self-respect demands I never let someone treat me as you did", no?

These political wives seem to as far as I know when the shit hits the fan chuck self-respect to assume a pose humiliated and spineless selflessness. If it happened sometimes that a political wife put her foot down about this, there wouldn't be a discussion, it would just be some people are like this and some are like that. The reason this is an issue is because people notice a trend and say, "Hey, whats the deal?"

I don't think it was overblown. That being said, there are two critical points to be made about it.

1. Regardless of whether you think Mrs. Ferraro's comment was right or wrong, the important factor is that the comment was devisive. and that is an important dynamic when you consider the premise the campaigns have been run on.

2. And for me this is the most curious part of it: What exact point, again regardless of whether you think she was right or wrong, do you think Mrs. Ferraro was trying to make with her comment? I'm assuming everything a person in her position says is designed to help the candidate. I mean, I think people know Obama is black. Try as I might I can't think of a politically sound reason for Mrs. Ferraro to have wanted to make that remark, and why the HRC campaign seemed happy to have her make it.

It just sounds like they live in a much more exciting world than I do.

Of those comments I think Mrs. Schiffren's last one about her confusion regarding what Muslims need is perhaps not only one of the most offensive things I've heard, but the dichotomy between sexual freedom and puritanical morality is perhaps the most honest though probably unintentional revelations from a conservative about what its like to be a conservative. Factor in her bizarre fixation on public gay sex and leash laws for dogs in another country, and one must wonder what it is she would like to outlaw, that she herself would like to be doing.

Re: Obama/Preacher thing. You do have a valid point in that its not the truth of the matter, its how it's perceived by the electorate, and the point is that HRC is damaging the her PARTY, damaging the chance we have at maybe undoing some of the damage repubs have done to the country by running a campaign not based on 'I'm the best candidate, and here's why' but on 'that candidate sucks'.

Come on, you know HRC and her campaign were ACTING like her nomination and indeed the presidency were forgone conclusions. Yes the Media ran with the story, but they didn't invent the story.

Yes, it is possible that the repubs will launch a dirtier campaign against Obama than HRC, though I doubt it. They'll be afraid of looking like OVERT racists if they get too dirty so they'll be more careful I think than with HRC with whom I think they'd be rabid. But doesn't matter. The argument that your enemies will treat you like shit so your friends should treat you like shit too doesn't hold here because HRC's shit-slinging could damage Obama in the GE because the shit slinging is additive AND it will be used by the repubs AS WELL as their own shit. AND dems chances of winning are increased the more energized they are when they head to the polls, and HRC's campaign style could demoralize some people. Its just not good sense. They should both be running against each other in a way that builds up Dem morale.

With Dems having large advantages in fund-raising, turn-out and poll numbers, whoever the Dem candidate will be favored over McCain, therefore the only impact one could have to CHANGE the GE dynamic would be to PUT McCain into office, not prevent. Statements like this, completely at odds with known reality are just like those from the Bush Admin and the HRC campaign.