Hillary Clinton does not stand by her previous statements regarding Michigan and Florida. Hillary Clinton is not a woman of her word. She cannot be trusted to remain consistent in the future with what she has said today. Her devoted followers seem to admire this aspect of her character. I suppose, based on the example of the last 8 years (not to mention the inconsistency of the previous administration, in which she took a large role), it makes her "Presidential."

John McCain's best assets are Hillary Clinton and her supporters. The attack-hungry Clintonites, all of them as addicted to negative campaigning as they are blinded by narcissism, may as well rent a limo and drive McCain to the White House.

One would think Joe Conason above this sort of thing. It's the sort of low-life scuzzball tactic we've come to expect out of Walter Shapiro and Joan Walsh. Conason in the past at least pretended to non-partisan behaviors. But a paycheck is a paycheck, after all.

Joe, we hardly knew ye...

Glenn, you have astutely observed, described and criticized the process of governmental and corporate collusion which is driving America inevitably toward becoming a "police state." What you are now observing is the slow but deliberate turn of the social mechanism toward that same goal.

Americans on both sides of the political aisle are moralists. While Republicans may accuse Democrats of "moral relativism," the same Mosaic law informs the morals and ethics of both groups. During the Clinton scandal, those who did not favor the prosecution of the President were quick to point out they considered his actions "immoral." Adultery is, after all, condemned in the Ten Commandments.

You can observe this same sea change wherever a free nation has turned to totalitarianism. First the collusion of governmental bureacracy and corporate interests, which leads to military extravagances such as war, invasion, occupation, etc. Then the "crackdown" at home, involving the dismantling or co-opting of the press and media. By way of this media, the bureaucracy broadcasts its propaganda, inspiring the choir that is already in agreement and building a "soft middle" that prefers to avoid conflict. In this manner, contrary opinions are stifled and eventually eliminated.

Then the moral fires are ignited. Citizens are indignant, then intolerant, of moral excesses. Witness the Democratic backlash against San Francisco's mayor: outraged moralists who accuse the mayor of "damaging" the party because he committed the unacceptable sin of "adultery" (or because he chose his personal morals - belief in gay marriage - over the political interests of the party). Democrats angry with Spitzer over his position in the immigration debate have likewise accused him of damaging the party. His moral transgressions add fuel to the fire of their indignation. He will resign and be punished for this, in lieu of being punished for his true crime - daring to think apart from the crowd.

As Mill notes, the tyranny of society is more powerful than the government. The governmental-corporate bureaucracy has done its job well in laying the groundwork. It is the people of America who will now drive the car into the abyss of tyranny.

How long can War Room ignore the Ferraro thing?

Long enough to treat us to a meaningless analysis of the insignificant right-wing loonie Michelle Malkin.

How long before the War Room will get around to similar critical analysis of Ferraro's remarks, her response and continuation of sentiment, the Clinton campaign's weak response, Hillary Clinton's non-response, Ferraro's backflip on whether she will resign, and finally, the strong and dignified response of Barack Obama?

How about a comparison of the Clinton campaign's continued use of "race cards" or "race baiting" to the historic use of same by GOP candidates? How the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have been speaking in the same "code" used by Republicans when they campaign in the South?

How much longer before it's flashed out of the news cycle and the weak editor of War Room can use that as his excuse not to face the obvious racism if his apparent favored candidate?

The clock is ticking...

Hillary Clinton does not want to abide by the rules. She agreed to abide by the rules when she thought she would be the sure winner. Now that her entitlement is threatened, she has decided the rules are no longer relevant.

Ask yourself: is this the kind of person you want as the chief executor of the nation's laws? Someone who not only has no regard for the rule of law, but who also cannot be trusted to keep her word?

We've had eight years of George Bush and his own arrogant belief he is above obeying the rules.

We don't need another four years of George Bush in drag.

Now just wait another day or so and the whole embarrassing fiasco of the Clinton campaign's continued use of race-baiting and code-speak will slip out of the news cycle, once more, without your analysis.

Geraldine Ferraro: disgusting racist.

Hillary Clinton: disgusting, dishonest apologist for a racist. Likely a racist herself.

Hillary Clinton's advisers: tone deaf, racist, sore losers.

Salon's War Room: ignorant, arrogant enablers of racist candidate.

'Nuff said.

Geraldine Ferraro wouldn't be in the position she's in today if she was a prostitute. (A sex prostitute, that is.)

This is getting tiresome, Salon.

Angry Bees:

Your friend exhibited what we humans know as "compassion."

And you're right: you don't understand it.

x/o

Obama offers unrestrained hope, suggests unity, and expresses courage.

Clinton offers cynical pragmatism, orchestrates division, and cultivates fear.

People see what they want and flock to the appropriate candidate.