Samantha Power, as the article notes, "immediately" attempted to retract her words. She did not go on TV and radio to defend her words, as did Geraldine Ferraro. Notably, Power does not defend her words today, while Ferraro is far from contrite and continues to insist she was the victim. Bill Clinton has yet to apologize for his obvious suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America as much as Hillary or John McCain.

Additionally, the Obama campaign has not resorted to recirculating slurs and attacks from the right-wing press, while the Clinton campaign does exactly that, thus enabling the very people who have persecuted the Clintons for years.

To anyone not already blinded by bias or prejudice, there is a clear, compelling, and obvious difference between the tenor and tactics of the official campaigns as well as that of their followers, workers, loyalists, and stooges. Clinton is even willing to suck up to people who have slurred her name, persectued her family, and created in this country a climate of obnoxious rhetoric.

I suppose some people admire a person who will say anything or do anything to win.

Not me.

If he's the nominee, Obama will face enough trouble in the general election campaign because of his race.

We can thank the Clinton campaign for fueling that fire (and we'll likely see them fanning the flames, even if Obama wins the nomination).

And we must say a special thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, and of course the ever-ambitious Hillary Clinton, all of whom were willing to play on the racial insecurities and fears of voters.

I doubt the McCain crew would ever be able (or willing, given McCain's insistence on propriety) to pull of such a show and still face the people in the morning.

Many of the letters here operate under the presumption that Waters was somehow involved in the arson. Yet there is no evidence of that, other than the testimony of two witnesses of questionable credibility, whose testimony was derived in a fashion that compels suspicion of the investigation itself (and thus any evidence submitted by the prosecution).

You see, people are quick to judge, quick to convict, and quick to condemn. The letter-writers above see themselves as "concerned citizens," and ape that the sentence was perhaps harsh. They miss the one simple fact: there is no credible evidence which places Waters at the scene of the crime. There is considerable reasonable doubt as to her complicity and involvement.

That is the standard in this case, people: reasonable doubt. Not preponderance of evidence (of which there is none). Not guilt by association (of which there is some). There is a great deal of reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. In their presentation of the case before the court, the prosecutors did not overcome reasonable doubt. But they did managed to activate the unreasonable qualities of the people on the jury - their ignorance and fear.

It is possible, even probably, that an innocent person has been unreasonably convicted of a crime. It is perhaps unquestionable that, even if she did serve as lookout, the sentence is (and will be) unreasonably harsh. As the letters here indicate, even those who sympathize have her convicted in their minds. That she associated with "elves" is enough for many Americans to either judge and convict, or merely shrug their shoulders and suggest Waters got what she deserves.

I am not surprised (not one iota) by the unreasonable outcome of this case. The judge was American, the lawyers were American and the jury was American. Locked into this system of fear, denial and ignorance we the people and out elected representatives have created, there is little likelihood one can expect reason from a jury of Americans. One cannot even expect it from a legion of ostensible "liberal" and reasonable letter-writers, who are as quick to judge on scanty evidence, quick to react from prejudice and fear, as those who sat in actual judgment of Waters.

There is not a preponderance of reason among the American people. But there is a good deal of fear, denial, and ignorance. In such a climate, there can be no true justice.

These are the lacunae and formulae which drive the minds of Hillary Clinton and her robotic followers. When utilizing these items for analysis, please exercise caution. The insertion of contradictory programming can cause a permanent fatal error in most Clintonites.

Basic Programming Formulae for Clintonite Model 2.0:

"Helping Hillary" = "Helping the Party"

Eg: 'My 35 years of leadership experience trumps the democratic process.'

"Not Helping Hillary" = "Hurting the Party"

Eg: 'Because you won't give me those votes I promised not to campaign for, the party will be hurt'

"Hurting Obama" = "Helping Hillary"

Eg: 'He would not be my pastor.'

"Helping McCain" = "Hurting Obama" = "Helping Hillary"

Eg: 'Wouldn't it be great to have two candidates who love America.'

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

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.