"I don't know which of the two of them would do better, but there seem to be more obama supporters who seem to be hysterically resistant to focusing on this question, (I know it isn't only them) and this suggests either gamesmanship or some sort of sincere emotionally based denial."

Most Obama supporters are like me, in my unscientific opinion. I am NOT convinced that he is the second coming or anything like that. I am reasonably convinced that he is a gifted speaker, and with good skills politically. I do not believe that he is perfect, nor will it be easy for him to win. I also believe that Hillary is a good person with good ideas.

I had enough of the Clintons in 1999, however. Once is enough

We Obama supporters have a nuanced view of him.

One thing that drives me seriously crazy is the failure of persons on both sides to argue fairly. I have good feelings about a poster who exhibits reservations or praise for a candidate based on reason.

What's unfair?

1) Accusing the other candidate of doing something that your candidate does just as much. Campaign contributor allegations are common in this violation of sense. Both campaigns get contributions from many sources, and campaigns are often in difficulty in vetting and certifying the money. These allegations must stop, and are certainly unfair.

2) Refusing to pay attention to well-known evidence. This is a Rove-Goebbels tactic. Using this approach, you raise an issue that has been long discredited. Regardless of other evidence, you simply continue to raise the issue, and pay no attention to the facts. This is also the "whack-a-mole" approach, in that you just continue to pop up the same idiotic argument, forcing your discussant to say the same stuff over and over.

If we could eliminate these two approaches from the discussion, things would be much more pleasant. #1 is especially problematic.

Some of you know that I have a point of view. I am not pushing that in this little comment. This comment is neutral. Persons of good faith will regard it as such.

has just been noted on Dianne Rehm.

Warren G. Harding was actually black. That means that Obama can say that he is not the first black to be elected president. Now, of course, using Warren G. Harding as a path breaker is a dubious and possibly fool-hardy strategy. But, the fact remains that Harding's grandfather was from the West Indies, and appears that Harding was 25 % black.

Maybe Obama can say that Harding was a failure because he was not black enough.

"What kind of boneheaded move was that, to make that your first order of business upon acceding to the Oval Office? Well, it was so boneheaded that we ended up with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of troops discharged for homosexuality versus the pre-DADT era, not to mention a four-year-long nightmare for me."

He got into office, and IMMEDIATELY proceeded to waste whatever political capital he had on this idiotic fight. He was goaded into it by gay activists. It was a stupid fight, and he lost, and that was that for the first term. Between the gays in the military and the incompetence of the health care reform, there was nothing accomplished in that first term, except losing the Congress to the Repukes.

That's why I oppose Hillary. We had 8 years of Clinton fun, which mostly involved him looking sheepish in the glare of headlines, me saying "Yes, I still support him!" and getting lots of Republican policies enacted. we didn't get any liberal SC justices, we lost Congress.

So, remind me again why the Clinton years were so good. Yes there was the economic expansion, and Bill get a little, but not much, credit for that.

"A great book on this topic is Virtual Equality by Urvashi Vaid, if you're ever interested."

I will follow up. Appreciate the tip.

The whole period was very sad in many ways. We were just watching Rent, which is an updating of La Boheme, substituting AIDS for TB and the East Village for the 14th Arrondisamont. Between Rent and Angels in America, the whole period of the early phase of the AIDS tsunami is movingly addressed.

I have long viewed Clinton as a tragicly flawed figure. A gifted speaker with no discipline whatsoever is my CHARITABLE interpretation. I hold no huge love for Bill, although his stature has risen in COMPARISON only.

Either Hillary or Barack can win this issue, but they must begin by stating clearly that Bush lied to get us into this war. Hillary need not defend her vote. She merely needs to say that Bush lied, and I was foolish enough to believe him, but, here is my solumb promise to the American People, I will never lie to you about something as serious as war. Similarly Barack.

This is not Hillary vs Barack. This is any democrat vs these warmongering asshole Repukeliscum.

She wants a pound of flesh for a simple little mistake?

Maybe I'm wrong. I have been thinking that Hillary is OK, it's just her asshole supporters who are nasty. Now, it appears that Hillary is just as nasty and unpleasant as her supporters.

Clinton is not on the floor for the FISA vote. Obama is.

If you are a democrat, remember that. Clinton's absense is a huge help to Bush and to the trashing of the BoR.

If you are a Clinton supporter, why is it that Hillary missed this vote, but Barack did not?

The FISA bill is being voted on, and Hillary is not on the floor to vote on this bill.

Obama is voting on the bill.

Where's Hillary?