What?

First, I didn't say it b.c. weeping just had, but I thought your post to AKA was excellent, laying out the problem clearly and convincingly.

But I think "These are tough tactics" cedes the frame. I would add to your argument that her tactics stem from weakness and are not tough but small. They become effective (that is, tough to deal with) only with media amplification and repetition.

Note that I'm NOT saying HRC doesn't have genuine toughness. She has stuck with what must have been at times an unusually excruciating marriage, for example. Some people will say that was opportunistic. I don't know if that's true or not, but whatever the motive, it had to be tough to do.

I think AKA read your use of "IF" to imply that you had evidence that God was a boy. But you were simply letting me know that this issue of God's gender isn't officially settled yet, right?

Jeez, it is not easy proving all this stuff about God, Hillary and Barack. It takes a lot of thinking and feeling and wishing and hoping. I need a break. somebody send me an email at

itotallycommameanit at yahoo

if there is any good evidence that the media find which proves Barack is as ready on day one, is equally electable or is definitely not just a dreamy worker who expect results to just emerge from the clouds of his dreams. Send me an email if the media can prove otherwise...

Oh, puh-leeze. I assure you there's more "sniper fire" ahead. More delusion. More gaffes. If not from her own mouth, then from her hound dog of a husband. Come to think about it, Bill is just about due for another bout of "foot-in-mouth" disease, isn't he?

I do hope you are kidding. The bible does not even prove god exists, let alone prove the gender of the debatable deity.

I know; I recently posted about how eager some folks are to open up the latest Hillary trash they've been storing over the last 7 years, just waiting to play it at the perfect time...

But for those who really take the "vetted" theory to the extreme, they would "know" that nothing's going to really affect her too much.

I agree in one sense: I really do think that Hillary has solidified her enemies and supporters in a way Barack has not. I'll admit that I'm not certain that something won't happen that might start people unreasonably hating on Barack in the same way that began to against Hillary a long time ago. But it is a rather brilliant play on words to reframe Hillary's years of having established her reputation as being "vetted"...

Yep. But I'd say that the Bible is about as good at proving all of its certainties as Obamaites adn Clintonites are at proving theirs. The only difference is that the bible asks you to have faith in inner concepts and mental pictures, whereas Obamites and Clintonites can point to actual (and highly selected) events to prove their cases, like:

Day One Readiness

The Transformation of Politics

More years near White House = More Experience

Good Judement can be independent of DC lifestyle

Wright Proves Bad Things about Him

Bosnia Proves Bad Things about Her

Gas Tax Proves He/She is more in Touch.

I am always interested when somebody points to the data that has swayed them, but it really is biblical to me when folks get angry that others don't see how obvious the truth is...

You're really humorous and sharp

You tickle the funny bone

And lighten the heart

Girl, you ain't no more 'o the same

Cos girl, what you got, you got game.

My first post was in response to your God and gender comment. I couldn't quite understand the intense anger about a quip. The God is a woman thing is, in fact, something some feminists make a point of saying. Do you literally believe God has a gender? Do you literally expect me to argue that God is a man?

But after having read the two longer posts I understand that it was just a continuation of your violently angry mood.

I can't think of a single word I have written to you or about you that was anything other than straightforward, pleasant, and respectful of the fact that you and I are voting differently in this election.

The specific post of mine that prompted your reply was written to explain why I draw different conclusions about Clinton than you do, and that is, after all, the point of this forum. We come in order to disagree.

So you can't be surprised that anything I write to you will be in some way or another in opposition to what you think.

You can't imagine how surprised I am by the tone of your two replies. What is wrong with you that you would react in such an unhinged manner to someone making a point which has been made by so many people on Salon and elsewhere?

I do not like your candidate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what I think of you.

I thought what she did has more to do with stupidity than fortitude. If she loses because of what she chose to do, (And I mean the entire campaign.) would it be another example of "fortitude?"

This was my attempt to immediatly mirror your rhyming structure. Don't read anything into it but a reflection of the fun I had reading yours...Unfortunately I had to resort to surealism a bit....But I bet you really do have clean socks!

You're super luminous and smart

You trickle a runny nose

and ride on my carts

Boy, you ain't no reason for shame

Cos Boy, see your socks, well your socks be claane.

IF Clinton loses it won't be ok to infer from her loss either that she ran a poor campaign. But IF you insist on detailing the ways she ran a poor campaign it won't be ok to infer from that that she might have not been a better president than Obama.

In sum: The only reason Clinton might lose is that too many people are literally in an Obama Trance in which they believe he will heal the world in his first 100 days. The only positive thing we can say about Obama in response to his possible victory is that he is very talented with words and is- unfortunately- fortunate to be a black man and not a wealthy white former first Lady.

p.s. I am only using the words "fortunate" and "unfortunate" in the highly narrow context of humans who are running for President of this particular country.