I've never seen so many busy looney birds all flocked together in just one day.

Joan's Clinton-blinders pull me back to comment at least one more time (and no, I'm not under the delusion she or anyone else really cares).

All we need to know about the Clinton's true intentions were revealed when Bill Clinton was asked, point blank, whether Barack Obama was qualified to be President. There is only one proper answer to this question, when put to a former Democratic President asked about his party's presumptive nominee. That answer is "yes." That is not the answer Bill Clinton gave, nor have I heard or read any statement from him which could be construed as a strong, unequivocally supportive statement for the Democratic party nominee. I am convinced that the Clintons are still hedging their bets, hoping for a miracle that either gives her the nomination or puts Hillary on the ticket. I agree with Joan on one thing. Bill Clinton has made Hillary as VP impossible. And I used to really, really like the guy, warts and all.

So, while the Bush administration is now putting unruly Gitmo prisoners in upright coffins to control them, a technique borrowed straight from Auschwitz, we're still hearing about the Clintons and their supporters' hurt feelings. Grow up. And that includes Bill Clinton.

A pox on all your houses.

This country deserves everything it's gotten and will get. The Republicans are long since evil scum anyway and the Democratic party has negated itself, and there are no other viable options.

I just wish I didn't have to be here when all finally falls to bits. This country deserves to be ashamed of itself.

And that's an incredible waste.

Clinton was the best Republican president this country has had in recent years, which certainly isn't saying much. I voted for him twice, the first time with hope, the second time with disgust and only because the alternative was unthinkable, but it was hard to do the second time after all the miserable decisions he made in his first term.

I agree that he has a place in the upcoming convention, simply because of his historical position in the party. I do not agree with Joan's contention that Hillary would be the best choice for VP -- for so many reasons.

America is broken. And not just a little bit. High gas prices, a faltering economy, and an unnecessary and immoral war are just the symptoms. At least since the industrial revolution, the differences between parties have been mostly superficial, with elections really determining nothing much more than which group of thugs gets to rape the country and divide the spoils amongst themselves for the next four years.

As a citizen who wants to see governance taken away from the ownership class elites and be operated for the welfare of the average citizen, what point is served by "my" (not so much) party seizing power if those who are elected have no concept of how incredibly far America has traveled down the wrong road.

Personally, I'd rather see the Republicans continue in power -- they rape and pillage so much more blatantly -- until they've driven us to a point where the people rise up and demand a whole new system, and where some one like Hillary Clinton, who is so much a part of the problem, doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected to even the lowliest public office.

I think the clearest example of the difference between Hillary and a progressive was expressed by John Edwards in the primary when he was talking about health care reform. When Hillary called a council of advisers to come to the White House to discuss health care reform, she gathered together the leaders of America's insurance industry. Edwards said that if he were gathering together people to plan reform, he'd get together representatives of the health care consumers who are most seriously affected by the unaffordability of health care, and the insurance companies wouldn't be allowed in the room!

And, yeah, Edwards' health care reform proposals sucked. But the difference in their attitudes about how to approach the problem sure demonstrates how much the Clintons are beholden to and a part of the ownership class. Hillary. Aargh!

My main point of contention with you is that you seem to feel that President Clinton didnt say or do anything to DESERVE getting "painted with the racist label". You cant say the stuff he did and not expect Black people to be offended by some of it. Do I think some of the stuff he said was blown out of proportion? Yeah. The "fairy tale" comment had nothing to do with Obama's race. But, particularly when you owe a great deal of your support to African-Americans, you should probably be more sensitive to them than he was throughout the process. Do I think this makes Bill Clinton a racist? No. Do I think it means he can whine about the damage to his relationship with the Black community that he largely brought about himself? No.

People who say Obama and his campaign "played the race card" are basically saying that we of African-Americann descent are too stupid to determine for ourselves whether or not something that is said is/is not racist; that we have to be manipulated into taking offense. That is a condescending perspective.

I'm not taking issue with your admiration for President Clinton, or your preference that Hillary would have been the nominee, if that's what you prefer, but all of this demonizing of Obama has to stop. If you see yourself as any sort of liberal or progressive, clearly Obama's stance on issues would be closer to what you consider to be "true" than McCain's. The more conservative Republicans seem to largely be able to get past the fact that their candidate of choice may not be the nominee. Why are Democrats so insistent on identity politics wars, and fighting to preserve the legacy of a dude who hasnt been President in almost a decade, that we're willing to throw away the Presidency just so we can salve our hurt feelings?

Geez, you'd have thought we learned in 2000...