The one question that should be asked over and over is simply: IF Mr. Ivins acted completely alone, who were the 4 'separate' govt sources that leaked to ABCNews that the anthrax definitely came from Iraq, and since according to the FBI they were completely wrong, weren't they obstructing justice? Get to the bottom of that and I'm sure you'll have an even more interesting story.

Do you think the govt was behind the anthrax attacks in order to promote war against iraq, or do you think they just opportunistically took advantage of the anthrax attacks to promote war in iraq by lying about it?

Either way its baffling that ABCNews would stand up for their sources since they were so obviously lied to... unless there is some kind of collusion going on.

If Obama picks a VP that can attack McCain, won't that show up Obama? Obama needs to be the one to rebut and refute McCain, including someway of pointing out McCain uses his POW status as a crutch AND a shield. If Obama wants to take votes from McCain, he has to be the one to verbally best him.

1. He doesn't need to announce now. We don't need to know now. Its the media hype that is making people think his announcement is overdue or for that matter, relevant.

2. IF his campaign has the capacity for critical thought, given that 2 of the short-list people have already divulged that they are not the pick despite what I assume to be exhortations from the Obama campaign to NOT discuss it with the media, its reasonable to assume that the hubbub around Delaware is a feint. I mean seriously if the the MSM can be completely duped by Bush & Co. repeatedly for the last 7+ years, it shouldn't be tough to keep a veep pick a secret.

Talk about Hillary more. It totally doesn't make you look irrationally bitter.

Seriously, all other arguments aside, isn't the way she completely mismanaged her campaign indicative enough she wasn't right for the job? Let it go. For your own dignity's sake, don't talk about Hillary during Obama's inauguration ceremony.

"...because among many grievances he has about the campaign Obama waged against his wife"

Funny, I remember Hillary campaigning heavily and negatively against Obama, but don't really recall Obama campaigning against Hillary nearly as much. Obama campaigned against Bush, McCain and more importantly FOR himself.

This kind of willful, misrepresentation of the Dem primary is truly indicative of how the Clinton's see things, and why they should be TIGHTLY controlled til this is over.

"...It is the black names that disproportionately stand out: Tayshaun, Deron, Rau'shee, Raynell, Deontay, Taraje, Jozy, Kerron, Hyleas, Chaunte, Bershawn, Lashawn, Sanya, Trevell, Sheena, Ogonna, Dremiel."

They only stand out IF you have a preconceived notion that 'regular' names should sound like Michael or John.

Stupid stupid article.

I think you've drunk the Hillary Kool-Aid. Most of the stuff you point to was Obama responding to Clinton attacks. It was the Clinton team that used the 'kitchen sink' metaphor initially, describing their own attack plan against Obama.

And Hillary WAS being deceitful. Bottom line: The Obama campaign was FAR more respectful to Hillary than she was to his. Obama for the most part campaigned FOR himself and against bush/repubs.

Granted the media and Obama supporters may have piled on Hillary but it was always in response to lying or shameful behavior by the Clintons.

Seriously by any reasonable standard the Clintons were far more negative against Obama than he was of her.

"Duh. Read the article in the current Atlantic Monthly about the demise of the HRC campaign. Two words -- Mark Penn."

Yes... but no. Mark Penn did screw up a lot, but all the calls were Hillary's to support or gainsay. In fact you could make the very cogent argument that Hillary's mismanagement of her own campaign, DESPITE running on a platform of experience and qualification, to her own loss is enough to dismiss the idea that she'd have been a better president than Obama.

If Hillary should give this woman-hating woman a call and give her a little straight talk on what a McCain presidency would mean for women?

You've claimed your problem with Obama is he campaigned against Hillary negatively and several people here have asked you to provide examples of the Obama campaign campaigning negatively against her and you've not responded. Do you have anything? And do you have enough that would tip the balance against all the truly negative campaigning she did against Obama?

I think the point is that its not that she was removed because she refused to sign a loyalty oath but that she refused to honor the oath she already signed as a pledged delegate. In other words they didn't remove her because she wouldn't promise to do as they asked, but rather she wouldn't do what she promised she would. Big difference.

You keep posting about what Obama did to Clinton but you never cite examples. Can you point to what the Obama campaign did to Clinton that was so terrible? And more importantly can you point to enough examples that would outweigh Clinton's own negative campaign against Obama?

Don't ads like this from McCain make it obvious to angry Hill supporters that he's deliberately manipulating them for his own benefit? He'd be better off (imo) not touching this issue and just reaping the benefits. By showing off that he is counting on angry Hill supporter's anger to benefit him, he risks them waking up to their own stupidity.

I'm now an informed voter.