People say these games should be pulled because they say despite that they are not intended for kids, kids nonetheless will get their hands on them. The question then is: Should I be deprived of adult entertainment because people won't or don't take responsibility for parenting their own children?

You know, HRC has been running on experience, yet as demonstrated by this phrase: "What if her electoral strategists had better understood the power of caucus states" You have to wonder, when will this experience manifest itself?

I remember right before Texas, Hillary made some comment about how she and her campaign were struggling to understand the Texas primary system. All I could think was,'I can't believe she didn't have this vital important information down tight.

Yes I guess regardless of how it turns out, people will be second guessing but for the life of me I don't understand how she can run on 'experience' when the new guy is beating her by running a smarter campaign.

jebldmm said "You can try to blame Clinton for Obama's weaknesses, but he sabotaged his own campaign by running before he had enough experience to truly be Presidential material."

But he's beating her.

This is what I don't understand about this argument that Obama is a weak candidate, made by HRC and her supporters. If Obama is a weak candidate, they HRC is a weaker candidate since he is beating her, and coming from behind to do so. If HRC for all her vaunted experience was unable to take care of Obama, how can she be expected to fare against McCain, against whom her 'experience' argument will be ridiculous.

First of all, Obama beats McCain in the latest polls*.

And I still don't understand your argument. Anything you say negative about Obama, as a candidate (not as a person or on policy. We're talking electability here) makes Hillary look bad because he is beating her. And you can't flip the argument as to why whomever hasn't put the other away because Obama IS beating Hillary, and has come from behind to disrupt her presumptive nominee status to do so. Yes, this is the PRIMARY, Hillary's ideological base, if she can't win the popular or delegate vote here how can it be argued she is a better candidate than Obama? Note, I'm not saying Hill couldn't beat McCain or McCain can't beat Obama, I'm just saying based on the current primary campaign, coming to the conclusion that Obama is a weak candidate makes no sense, or if it does make sense, then it makes more sense that Hillary is a weak candidate.

*http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

Also, again re: the argument that she represents experience, if she is so experienced why is this 'noob' beating her? Why was she unprepared for post-super-tuesday? Why was her campaign uninformed as to how the Texas primary/caucus system worked?

This leads me to two possible conclusions:

1. Experience is not worth nearly as much as people tend to think; or

2. She's not as experienced as she'd like us to believe.

Look if you like Hillary better than Obama, thats fine. But the arguments being put forward as to why she is better than Obama don't make any sense to me.

You know what, you're right, I don't believe the Clintons are racists. However I and I bet a whole lotta people do believe that the Clintons were willing to be dismissive and disrespectful to black people if they thought it would help win primaries. That is how I see Bill's and Hillary's respective remarks regarding the black vote, and the civil rights movement. Not racist at all, but a poorly executed opportunistic attempt to diminish Obama's victories at the expense of the black people who voted for him. They did the same thing dismissing the voters of every 'small' state or caucus Obama won as not really counting, but it didn't make the media much since there was no racial tinge to spice it up. But you see this means the Clintons have been offensive to a great many people during this primary season, not just black people.

"@TexKate

<< The question that no one asks is: what, exactly, did Hillary Clinton stand to gain by offering remarks which could have been interpreted as being offensive to black American voters? The answer, of course, is: absolutely nothing.>>

I have always wondered this muself. Her comments were ill-formed and importunate. In the context of much of what she and her operatives have said, they seem offensive to many AAs. Even if she didn't intend to do so, she clearly insulted many of us.

-- lordbyron080808"

As I just posted, I don't think the Clintons meant to be offensive to black people, they just meant to be dismissive of EVERYONE who voted for Obama. They made several comments about how small states and caucus states didn't count. I just think the MSM in their desire to spice it up picked up on the fact that black people happened to be a sub-group of the larger group of people the Clintons were dismissive too. However this analysis while it clears the Clintons of racism, still paints them as opportunistic assholes.