She was also one 'o those posh lawyers.

My apologies.

Did ya know that?

"Without open campaigning for specific goals, without creating some kind of mandate for important national undertakings (war, a competent education system, health care), aren't we always at susceptible to failing in this way?"

Agreed, although in fairness, Clinton does state clearly specific goals. I think the problem is that they're too concrete. She offers boons rather than a vision and the sort of mushy, God-bless-America and the Middle class and apple pie vision she offers just rings hollow to me.

There's something unsustainable about it, when you look at where the world's heading. She's not calling on us to sacrifice or do anything, for that matter, but promises goodies.

As a friend of mine once remarked, "I'll bet Obama could get Americans to wear a sweater."

The larger point, of course, is that Americans need to accept some modicum of civic spiritedness, to say nothing of internationalism, if we're to create a sustainable world for posterity.

"So even with the risk that we do not know as much about Obama as we do about Clinton, and that he might turn out to be all hat and no cattle, it seems like a prudent risk to take."

Agreed. There are no guarantees in this life, but I too have concluded, thus far and after considerable deliberation, that it is a prudent risk to take.

Because what we're increasingly knowing about Clinton, is that she's anything but forthright. How could she build a mandate? Her mode of competition forecloses the possibility."

So it seems to me as well.

Obama is at least focused on building a mandate. Clinton is focused on combat.

As a matter of ethics, I'm inclined towards the former, but as a matter of pragmatism, too, I don't see how the latter is sustainable.

Live by the Fox News, die by Fox News, you know?

She's playing with a fire a can't imagine she's deft enough to harness or control over the long run, expedient as it may be in the short term.

Really?

We've skewed so far right as a nation that even entertaining the idea of, you know, sitting down with Hamas or, Gods forbid, an actual legitimate state like Iran to -- wait for it -- hash out our differences is seen as a flaw?..

Last I checked, a great many of my friends of all stripes were weary of any further military adventures in the Middle-East or Central-Asia.

So we throw Iran or Palestine or Syria a friggen bone? Anyone heard of catching more flies with honey? And what's the risk? Treat adversaries like humans and the next thing you know American children will be forced to attend madrasas? Maybe if we aren't seen as the all-powerful bully of the Middle East by those who, you know, actually have to live there, maybe this crazy idea of "spreading democracy" will have a better chance of gaining a real foothold.

Besides, the last real hostile thing Iran ever did to us was to say no to our illegally backed, illegally placed puppet ruler, the Shah. Maybe there are some legitimate gripes Iran and others in the region have a right to air.

Thanks for listening, I'm going to jump back into my bin Laden loving, America hating, kill-all-the-white-folks cave of dissent.

I don't what did you watch Joan...

I saw a pthetic display of sucking up....

"Who is the elitist"

Hillary clinton" Rich people God Bless us"

[O’Reilly said,] “I'm not middle class, I'm a rich guy.” Clinton responded (in an awkward moment), “Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue until the next generation.”

Watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9X_nnEJmHM

But spouse of the president just does not equate with experience.

Yes, Hillary does have balls. So do Dick Cheney and George Bush. She showed us all that she had balls when she voted for the Iraq war. Balls are important. They've always been important. That's why in a real lynching, that's one of the first things the posse goes after. The black man's balls. But is it possible for women to have a strength and courage that has nothing to do with this bullshit that leads to wars and castration? My mother had such strength and courage. She was the strongest, most caring person I ever knew. When a television caught on fire in our house, she called the fired department, sent us six children onto the front lawn, and five minutes later, came bursting out the door with the flaming TV wrapped up in sleeping bags and threw it at the feet of the firemen. A single parent, she did what she had to do. This wasn't, however, balls. I would never belittle my mother with that type of language or with trying to pin onto her some of the ugliest aspects of the male anatomy. Yeah, Hillary has balls. So did Margaret Thatcher. Mother Theresa didn't. I'm sick of people with balls. People with balls are always trying to get those of someone else - Saddam Hussein, Ho Chi Minh, Salvador Allende, etc., etc. I'd like to see what this country would be like if it were run by someone like my mother. Someone with steely eyed courage. Someone with unmatchable strength. Someone with true wisdom and judgment. Someone with saint-like caring (Still fallible, mind you. Very fallible. But that is her strength, isn't it?). And someone who couldn’t give a damn about (and would sometimes only offer a little derisive giggle about) the balls of others.

I agree that Clinton knows her gas tax holiday is economically unsound. She also knows it will never pass Congress and she can call for it while doing nothing since the election isn't until November. What she also knows, and Obama does not, is she has to match McCain pander for pander; and in this episode she one upped him.

I doubt Hillary would have called for a gas tax holiday if McCain had not called for it first. I am sure she understands that for all the intelligent economic talk and serious discussion, such a forte for Obama, the people who count when it comes to counting the votes are more swayed by simplistic solutions to complex problems, particularly those that offer them money. Remember, these are the same people who wouldn't vote for John Kerry because his tours of duty and multiple Purple Hearts were proof of what a cowardly effete New England snob he would be as president, where as the Connecticut born and raised draft dodging Yalie, Bush was a heroic, downhome, brush clearing Texas war hero. To win this election is going to require a talent for appealing to some serious amount of ignorance.

I think Clinton's gas plan is a sign she gets this and will not only match McCain pander for pander, but, as here, one up him. Sure any economist or semi-sentient being will see that passing the gas tax from the pump to the oil companies ledgers will not change the price of gas one iota, but to say "get the tax off the people and put it on the oil companies," well sure looks good and proletarian-like. McCain, on the other hand, can't go there. He can promise bribes (er tax relief) to the working class, but he can't promise to "stick it to the man" since "the man" is what is running his campaign.

As much as I like Obama, his high road approach may make the most sense it may sadly make him the least electable.