We don't know whether she read or heard the speech. This is Hillary Clinton we're talking about: truth and openness is not her game.

Ever her admirers will admit this: Hillary is a craft, cunning politician. She knows what to say and when to say it.

She claimed not to have read or heard the speech in order to avoid answering specific questions about the speech. Such as, "Is Senator Obama's dismissal/rejection of Reverend Wright enough?" Or "Do you agree with Senator Obama about X?"

Remember: this is Hillary Clinton, a politician, a lawyer, a proven liar, and a cold, calculating...

Well, you know the rest. Like I said, even her admirers admit to this. It is, they claim, her #1 advantage over Barack Obama. Sure, they dress it up in nice words like "experience" and "pragmatism." But they know as well as anyone: she'll say anything, do anything, vote anything, without regard to personal beliefs or consistency, as long as it is beneficial to her.

She's a Good American!

Joan Walsh is not a journalist. Joan Walsh is an editor. Her regular columns are editorials, opinion pieces. They are not "journalism;" they are not "reportage." They are simply the unfair, biased, prejudiced, barely-informed, malformed opinions of Joan Walsh, Typical Privileged White Woman.

While she may have some ethical obligation to facts or truth, which she may or may not oblige on occasion, she has no compulsions, ethical or otherwise, that would keep her opinions, her obvious bias, and her own prejudices from her columns. It is obvious from even a cursory reading of her work that she is incapable of unbiased judgment; she lacks the ability to consider any side of the argument other than her own. Her privilege has locked her into a myopic view of the universe, where she is incapable of seeing beyond her own self-imposed blind spots.

Seeing this obvious bias, why expect her to write a "fair" or "balanced" column when Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are concerned? Why expect "reason" where a writer is clearly determined to write unreasonably?

Obama supporters, take special note: you are expecting "fair play," and then wondering why it is absent, from the supporters of a campaign which is on record as having no regard for the rules, etiquette, or law.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters do not want an honest dialogue about race: if such a thing were to happen, it would completely expose their blatant pandering to latent racist impulses in white Americans. No, what Hillary and her supporters want is for Barack Obama and/or his supporters to say something about race, hopefully something they can pick apart, take out of context, and use to continue their pandering to racists.

Expecting "fairness" or "honesty" from Hillary Clinton and her supporters is like expecting a French poodle to play Chopin.

Hillary avoids sniper fire in Philadelphia!

Ducking under sniper fire in Bosnia was Hillary Clinton's "Mission Accomplished" moment. One of her greatest lies, baring not only her craven desire but also her need to build herself up for the job of President. It's just like George W's swaggering - a false effort to make himself appear more manly than the dry-drunk-ex-cheerleader draft-dodger that he is. Hillary's faux-macho posturing reveals that she herself knows she lacks what it takes to be President.

"Honor," to WES and Clinton supporters, would be to throw an old friend and spiritual adviser under the bus simply because of media hype. "Honor," to them, would be for the candidate with the lead in the polls and the primaries to step aside for the person who clearly (in their minds) deserves the nomination. Their candidate, who utilizes racism and lies to achieve status among fearful voters, is, to their minds, "honorable."

In the same manner that people are said to resemble their pets (and/or vice-versa), political zealots like WES and the hardcore Clinton crowd come to resemble their candidates: Barack Obama's supporters exhibit "hope" for America and "faith" in the Democratic process.

Clinton and her crowd, on the other hand, exhibit a twisted morality where breaking primary rules is "the right thing to do," where lies written into a prepared and vetted speech becomes "she misspoke," and where the leading candidate is the one who should step down.

Hillary Clinton is the George W. Bush of the Democratic Party. She twists her ethics to suit her desires. She waves away her own misdeeds while magnifying the mistakes of others. She lies and calls it an accident. She makes a mistake and blames others for it. While she is of course not nearly as big of an idiot as Bush (few are), she bears the same stunted morality, absence of personal responsibility, and lack of ethics which defines Bush both as a person and a President.

We've had eight years of Presidential "misspeaking," where "the right thing to do" involved breaking laws and ignoring the will of the people. We don't need another President like George W. Bush.

The one good thing about Koppelman's inability to face criticism of Hillary Clinton, as well his resistance to running "negative" stories about his clear favorite in the race, is that he is forced to dig into the news and come up with gems of stories like this, an important and hopeful note that would otherwise be lost amid the chorus of privileged whines coming from the Clinton crowd.

Guess I'm not the only one who looks at Hillary Clinton and sees George W. Bush in drag.