she said barack will one day (in the fall) have to explain his relationship with Ayers, because he hasn't as yet (this is true, he only said the crime occurred when he was eight). i'm not a fan of Walsh, i am a fan of obama, but in this case she's right. i once saw ayers, on C-SPAN, and he gave me the creeps. he was unctuously good - like he was channeling gandhi. a saintly leftie. but he smelled evil, like a perfumed rat. well later i checked him and his wife out on the net(wonderful thing, wiki) and i found out that my suspicions if not correct at least had a strong basis.
he has to disavow this dog. i see why he would keep wright, who has a good character, but he owes this Lefty McVeigh nothing.

"Chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco"- Pat Buchannan

That Pat is so silly, Chablis is sold in boxes, in places like Butler County PA.

Despite my exhaustion caused by repeatedly deleting and then digging this blog out of the trash I just can't let go of my frustration with Joan not seeing or admitting to her own Clinton bias. So, I did a little research on Salon and found out that Joan wrote exactly ONE totally benign, pandering article about Hillary's LIE about her Bosnia trip, while this article about Obama, hyperbolically entitled "Bittergate" (a misnomer in my mind, because adding "gate" to a word should imply a scandal or corruption, as Watergate was, not just a controversial statement) is Joan's second vitriolic attack on Obama on these statements alone. The comparison is striking and she should see it and admit it.

I would love to see Joan not only address in detail the psychological motivation that would lead to Clinton making and repeating such a ridiculous story, followed by a deeply thoughtful thesis on racist comments in this campaign. I might be impressed if she had the courage and integrity to do so.

That Pat is so silly, Chablis is sold in boxes, in places like Butler County PA.

You are thinking Gallo. Pat is thinking:

Chablis Blanchot Raveneau 2004 (750ML)
"Fairly strong wood spice and vanilla presently mark the nose, framing the otherwise pretty white flower and floral aromas though there is plenty of mid-palate density to the rich, round, intense and powerful medium full flavors that despite the richness retain a fine sense of finishing detail. There is good minerality, buckets of dry extract and fine balance with almost painful intensity and superb finishing persistence...94." Burghound 10/06.
Bottle Price: $225.00 Case Price:.................. $2,565.00

Source: www.zachys.com

Thank you Fester, can you recommend a good Boucheron or some other soft-pate delight from the affinage to compliment the chalbis? Where can I fly in ripe, juicy heirloom pears to accompany the cheese?

offends my faux elitist sense of terrior. I would always choose Sancerre with Boucheron, or pair the Chablis with an Abbaye de Cîteaux. Any cretinous hedge fund manager can fly in off season fruit, and even the plebes can buy pears from Argentina right now from Whole Foods. What's elitist is to fly oneself there!

"Bittergate" is important because it has pointed out a serious flaw in Sen Obama's ability to handle criticism of any kind.His candidacy has been singularly marked by the media's lack of questioning.I think he feels that he does not have to respond to questions he finds uncomfortable.His arrogance and sense of entitlement have indeed shown through this past week, and it does not bode well for his candidacy in November.As you point out, the Republicans will throw the whole house at him, not just the kitchen sink, and he can't just pout and think it beneath him to respond.(I think John Kerry's campaign was a perfect example of that failure!)There is no doubt in my mind that this is a significant lack in this candidate and that Democrats need to keep it in mind as they nominate their standard bearer.He will not win a general election,Sen Clinton will, because she can handle the Republicans.She has in the past and she will in November.

Really? That's so strange. I've never heard of such a thing. Or even thought it possible. BTW, I didn't say I didn't respect you. I think you've written some good posts. I just feel like you go overboard to try to show Joan "respect." In my world, you have to earn respect. And Joan certainly hasn't earned mine. Furthermore, I think you've already witnessed how much respect she's managed to lose here at Salon in the last few months -- with her transparent attempts to manipulate us toward the Hildabeast and her not-so-subtle put downs of Obama. Let it all hang out, Carol. Don't hold back.

"I have no doubt that Obama would be a better president for working-class Americans than John McCain. But they're the ones who will have to decide that for themselves."

Does everyone have this bias that the working class can't decide whats best for themselves ? And how exactly can one be so sure that a man with so clear a disdain for the working class that he derides their issues as being more birthed in economic bitterness than in sincerity would be better for 'them'.

Yes - the working class get to vote too. Sorry about that - democracy's a bitch.

I find it massively more helpful to hear why, specifically, you've lost respect for Joan than to read your best guesses about my moral weaknesses. I think that is because I have no reason to doubt you when you share your feelings/reactions/thoughts to and about Joan.

I believe you've read quite a few of my posts because you have clearly picked up on a seething sort of frustration that I often hold in responding to Joan's posts. It might sound crazy, virtue001, but I don't think that particular reaction has to do with Joan and it definitely isn't the type of thing that causes me to lose respect for somebody. I find it mostlyto be a rather immature reaction, one that I can very easily rationalize into some type of rightious justification for "attack". But that is just me.

In the context of these comments to Joan's thoughts, there is so much respect to be lost for the way people choose to treat each other, that if I was going to play the projection game fully it would take a while to get to Joan. That is not elevating her up above most people here. I think she, like many of the rest of us here, is basically not making this personal by attacking and accusing each other. That doesn't mean her conclusions or her premises are correct or that she isn't engaging in some intentional obscurism. But I get a headache just pretending I can or should figure her out based on her blogs. I'd rather try (it might be crazy) to locate those areas of conversation where she (or whoever I'm talking to hear) is willing to speak reasonably about her ideas. For as much as I disagree with her about her fundamental reasoning (so far) that we are learning something significant by the supposed fact that Obama's worst supporters are are more in number and significantly worse in kind than Hillary's worst supporters. I don't see any evidence for that at all, yet Joan uses that notion to inform and justify many of her recent blogs.