What's the matter, can't this "Kennedyesque" figure take a little criticism from someone who is a bit wiser, if not as charismatic?

ANYONE who gains as much power in such a short while as Obama, is dangerous.

This man scares me!

I would give more credence to all of the anti-Obama rhetoric if 1) Clinton had not just replaced her previous campaign manager for being insufficiently negative and 2) She were not now in the process of trying to draw attention away from the campaign's strategy toward superdelegates.

From my perspective, Senator Clinton is seriously underestimating the outrage that will be generated within the Democratic Party if she tries to mitigate popular election results with an elite group of political appointees.

Democrats who expended a lot of energy in 2000 arguing that popular votes, not supreme court appointees, should decide the outcome of an election will be hard pressed to support George W. Bush's strategy within their own party. Sure, superdelegates have existed for a whilke but as many party leadersa have made clear, they are ment to serve as an emergency brake, not as a way to overturn popular elections. Apparently, the Clintons and the Bushes are drawn to exactly the same brand of 'winner take all' politics. Both families have apparently been corrupted by their powerlust to the point of seeing institutions as loopholes for achieving their own objectives.

But America does not need Politbureau politics and hijacking democracy is bad form no matter who does it. Unless Clinton supporters are willing to argue that Bill Clinton asking Bill Richardson to support Hillary because "isn't two Cabinet posts enough?" represents superdelegates 'voting their conscience.'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/on_deadline_clinton

If superdelegates decide on the basis of personal connections to overturn popular electioral decisions it will be time for Democrats to reevaluate how democratic their party really is.

I honestly would love for any intellectually honest Democrat in the Clinton camp to tell me how this is different from what we fought against in 2000?

I've always thought that Monica was victimized by Linda Tripp, and not so much by Bill Clinton. As you say, Bill Clinton was highly inappropriate (as I've stated before: it's never a good idea for a "boss" to sleep with "subordinates", even though he wasn't Lewinskis' boss in a technical sense). But, Lewinski herself has stated that she sought out a "relationship" with Bill. She was never harassed, coerced or forced to do anything she didn't want to do.

Except by Linda Tripp. Ms Tripp secretly taped conversations with Lewinski, directed Lewinski to take certain actions ("You really should save that blue dress, honey, and not get it cleaned), manipulated Lewinksi, and, of course, betrayed her for personal and political gain. All the while calling herself Lewinski's "friend."

Bill screwed Monica Lewinski. Linda Tripp screwed her over.

When racism and sexism are reduced to the most cryptic hunts for hurt it demeans and belittles both very-real causes.

Maybe the English language needs about a million more words to avoid any connections whatsoever with anything else. We need a new language. That will settle it.

Oh God. Brightstar is now posting anonymously.

My, my! we've come full circle. Nice little stereotype Obama has going there.

What is getting Hillary down? Well, she is post menopausal. Of course, if she were younger, we could infer from Obama's statement that she was suffering from symptons of her period. That's why women could never be trusted with any major decisions - they're so damned HORMONAL!

Now, where is Michelle Obama when we need her. Never mind about Obama's stinky feet! Why doesn't she do something about his stupid, mysoginist mind? All I want to see now is Kate Michaelson trying to defend this.

Barack has spent plenty of time criticizing and attacking Hillary. Just because he is more underhanded about it, doesn't make it any more "hopeful" (or evidence of "change" or "unity"). Just more hypocritical.

of both Hillary and Obama would only be slightly more tolerant of either candidate if they were actively campaigning for the other one, instead of fighting for the highest office in our country.

There seem to be a few that would still try and demonize them.

Over at Firedoglake they have an amusing sum up of the election that is pretty darn funny and accurate. Too bad it's a little sad.

http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/18/campaign-2008/

Here are a few excerpts...

4. No matter what is said, it clearly implies that your candidate is a racist and/or sexist, probably both.

5. Your candidate is too black, or not black enough -- or too manly, or too womanly -- all at the same time.

6. Your candidate's supporters are clearly worse than my candidate's supporters. It sure seems like they start most of the baseless criticism -- as opposed to my candidate's supporters' worthy concerns.

7. Your candidate is like McGovern.

8. And also like Nixon.

continued...

From the analysis of Senator Obama's words that I have been reading, when the words are prepared in advance for him -- he is eloquent. When he has to come up with them on his own off the cuff, he stumbles. Hence his hesitancy to be interviewed by the press and his reluctance to engage in debates.

This latest sexist gaff is a great example. First off -- suggesting Senator Clinton is weak due to emotions as all women are because we (gasp) have hormonally caused cycles is sexist. Period.

If it was unintentionally sexist, you still must ask what that says about the man who said it. Is his sexism so ingrained that he cannot see the problem with calling women emotional? Back off from that nuclear button, ma'am -- you're just too emotional to be in charge!

But back to Senator Obama's problem with words. Turns out scripted or unscripted, Senator Obama is a plagiarist and of far more than Dolores Huerta's "Si, Si Puede" and Senator Clinton's Green Color Job initiative and economic plans.

Even more egregious, his speech writers have lifted whole paragraphs from other politician's speeches.

Seriously.

Watch this YouTube and see it for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

Even the main stream media is starting to pick up on this con:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/obama-echoes-de.html

Words matter -- especially when they aren't yours.

Senator Obama's sexism is as shown in this Salon quote of the day is real and his theft of other's intellectual property is real as well.

Tomorrow is early voting in Texas and I will be hitting it for the woman. A woman in the White House will be a seismic change from 200+ years of male leadership and I am voting for change.