Oooh! I LOVE elite scientists!

You too can be a winner!

In the oppression sweepstakes!

Stay tuned to see if YOU'RE a winner!

There must be something to what you are saying but the scientists are going to have a hey day "proving" it. First of all, I assume that your theory only can be applied to the general election, right? It seems clear that charisma is not sufficient in the primaries.

You'll get people who will say Bill Clinton wasn't more charismatic than Dole, but more manipulative. Dole was much more funny than Clinton, but humor isn't the sole ingredient for charisma, certainly...

jeez...I think you've found a surprisingly good metric. I'll put my thinking cap on and get back to you.

Nothing that Bill O'Rielly asked of Hillary was any less biased than the Sean Hannity-supplied questions that she faced during her last debate on "Liberal" ABC.

Not to be rude, but the scientific approach is to ask, "Which one would I rather screw?"

No, that's not quite right. Ask, "Which one would my DOG rather screw?"

You write that Clinton is justifiably hurt by the accusation of racism. You write that you and many others like the way she is fighting. You write that she is the toughest politician you know and you admire her for it.

I don't think anybody could have connected Clinton to racism as convincingly as she has connected herself. Until very recently the idea that Clinton was racist would have been instantly rejected by her by enemies as well as by her friends. But she is willing to use the instrument that lies closest at hand, which you admire in the quality you call toughness, and the instrument that lies closest at the moment is race.

When asked about Wright, she does not need to answer "He wouldn't be my pastor." She could say "Wright isn't running for office. Let's talk about Obama and me." The difference between those answers is that one exploits white fears and suspicions, and the other seeks higher ground.

When she mentions Farrakhan, when she smiles her way through these questions and says "we'll have to let the voters decide" she is unmistakably soliciting the racist vote. She herself is not a racist in her private values and opinions, but her willingness to use the racism of others is putting racism to work on her behalf. If she is willing to employ racist tactics, it hardly matters at all that she isn't racist.

Let me cite an example that might frame this better for you. Clinton is heterosexual. She says she is and I believe her. Well, as far as I know. Her husband, however, is caught cheating once too often, and this time it could cost him everything. Scorched earth defense, and Dick Morris is suddenly much in demand on TV. "Well," he says [I am paraphrasing from memory, not quoting the transcript of the broadcast] "we've all heard that Hillary might, you know, not be a wife in the traditional way. And I'm not saying it's true, but if she really wasn't a wife in the way most people think of wives, maybe it's sort of understandable. I mean, if it were true."

Weren't you outraged when Morris did that? Didn't you loathe the little smirk that accompanied this implication? Do you know and do you care that in private Morris has nothing against the gay and lesbian community? Of course you don't. You think he grabbed the closest weapon at hand to deliver a really cheap shot at a person only indirectly associated with the scandalous behavior of someone else.

So when you see a person who is himself very good on the issues (of course I support gay rights) unhesitatingly tap into gay slurs and innuendo in service of some larger goal, you don't draw a precise distinction between what he thinks and what he does. You think he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants.

These are tough tactics. Toughness, a quality you say you admire in Clinton, is something that eventually destroys nearly everyone who possesses it. It chips away at them every time they direct it at someone else. Every time a Dick Morris takes a cheap shot at someone, he is cheapened just a little more himself.

When you write "She is the toughest politician I've ever seen" I don't disagree. But I wonder if toughness is an attribute you ought to value as highly as you do.

I can't speak for others, and I know there are people who've despised Clinton ever since she became a national figure. I always wrote those haters off as people who had an issue with women altogether. But I was one of the people who liked her. I also graduated from Wellesley, and there was a loose but nice sense of association through that shared experience.

Before I supported Obama I was generally although not passionately for Clinton. I didn't begin to actually loathe her until the smirking innuendos about race and religion became part of the game plan. The toughness of her - the absolutely unprincipled willingness to use any weapon she can reach - is the reason why.

Thank you, Healer, couldn't have said it better myself.

I've said this before and haven't really heard it refuted: the more charismatic Presidential candidate always wins.

How do we explain Nixon?

And, what about the fact that JFK was the last president who didn't come from the South or the West?

Thank you, Weeping

My dog would argue than Nixon was "sexier" than both Humphry and McGovern. Not as sexy as Kennedy or Johnson, but he didn't have to be, any more than Carter had to be sexier than Reagan to beat Ford.

It's always relative.

Well now I've heard everything.

Cheers.

Your dog doesn't have to say it, because Barbara Walters said it for him: "And yes, Richard Nixon is sexy."

Except, I would point out that being tough is not the same thing as being A tough.

Sorry. What is the distinction you are drawing? The lines I am referring to are from AKA, who wrote:

I admire her. She is the toughest politician I know.