How'd Donna Brazile wash up on the beach of all sudden? I thought she was doing a pretty good job of trying to stay out of it (more or less). Did she go out and say the wrong thing?

Watch Obama's current speeches. Look at his message on Huffington Post (and on his web site). Look at how he has approached Clinton to persuade her to mutually tone down the negative campaigning. Obama is very much on-message.

Wow, how convienient is that. He comes out stating that his preacher of 20 years has been making "appalling statements" but only when "he wasn't in attendence". So what he's basically saying is all the crap that's gonna come out in the next few weeks should not be used by the Clinton campaign. Funny how he also just remembered that Tony Rezko may have actually raised more money for him than he previously thought. The only person staying on message is Michelle...The message she learned from Pastor Wright...

You're assuming 1) they're really not REpublicans 2) that it's not the same person signing on with multiple sigs (at least "three" of them are, I'm sure) [...]

I find this pretty over the top. I'd like to know your fave five (or fave three) as the case may be.

And some of my best friends know Republicans, so I'm puzzled as to this point. I don't think any of the recent posters are in drag, not even Cynthera45 (WES is always in drag, though)

Hey Mr. Payne, I like your posts as well.

case in point. Will you be joining all the uber lefties in leaving the U.S. when Obama loses in the General election. Gawd I wish Kos and Moveon would get a fund together for this...You could buy an island and call it Obamanation. President - Donna Brazille, VP - Alec Baldwin.

wontgetfooled: "Most Senators voted for the authorization to use force genuinely hoping that the President would use that authority wisely and judiciously."

What you are saying here amounts to, "It wasn't just Hillary -- other people made the same mistake too." Sure, this is true. Doesn't make it much better though. It also ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton was a respected New York senator in a position to influence the votes of other senators, who knew full well that Clinton was planning a future presidential run and would definitely want to be in line with her.

wontgetfooledagain: "The fact that he did not is Bush's responsibility."

No, wrong. It is Congress's responsibility to make sure that the U.S. only goes to war for sound reasons and as a last resort. It has ALWAYS been Congress's responsibility. Sluffing off the responsibility on the president and saying that you trusted him to be smarter is total garbage. Millions of lives hung in the balance.

wontgetfooledagain: "Yet Crafty Barack speaks as if all of the atrocities, deaths and outrageous spending in this war were the responsibility of the junior Senator from New York – Hillary Clinton."

This argument is not just made by Obama. People have been pissed off at the Democrats for their vote on this matter long before Obama came on the scene. The Democratic vote on the Iraq War drove people away from the party. Why do you think so many Independents are voting for Obama? Because they are people who would be Democrats if the Democrats had shown any spine over the past 8 years.

wontgetfooledagain: "Barack Obama was packaged as a different kind of candidate at the outset and that is when many supporters fell in love with him. He was supposed to be a unifier; his campaign was supposed to be about hope and change. Sadly it has turned into an outlet for all the hate he could muster against Hillary Clinton."

Bull. Go listen to any of his current speeches. Obama still has a convincing message of unification. Obama is still very much on-message. He has only adapted to be better at deflecting and counter-punching his opponents' attacks. Which is a good thing, not a bad thing. But go read Obama's response to recent controversies that is posted on his website and on Huffington Post. Watch his recent stump speeches. Notice his approach is still very even-handed and conciliatory. Obama is still the same Obama who people got excited about at the start of the campaign. It's just the fight itself that has become rougher. Did you read the story from just the last day or so about Obama approaching Clinton to try to reach an agreement that neither of them would go too negative for the rest of the campaign? Sounds like Obama is trying to stay on-message to me.

wontgetfooledagain: "Crafty Barack is using every loophole he can find in Pennsylvania to win delegates. That is perfectly legal under the current system."

Thank you for admitting that Obama's campaigning is perfectly legal. Indeed, it is. So what is your complaint?

wontgetfooledagain: "He has tried a similar strategy of attracting people who are more committed to the Republican Party in crossover states."

Obama is attracting people who are disillusioned with the Republican Party. You might have noticed that this is an enormous group of people.

wontgetfooled: "He has likewise benefited from the undemocratic functions of the caucus states."

Undemocratic how? They have been part of the Democratic party process for decades. If you have a problem with them, why did it take your own candidate not doing well in them for you to complain? There is a history to the caucus process that goes back a long time. If they are outdated then at some time in the future they should be updated. But complaining about them now, just because your own candidate isn't winning in them, doesn't help your cause much.

wontgetfooled: "He knows how to stretch the rules for his own benefit."

You just said his tactics were "perfectly legal." Now you're saying he is "stretch[ing] the rules," which implies something else entirely. There's no stretching going on. Obama is playing by the rules.

wontgetfooledagain: "The primary problem that I have with his tactics is his campaign's use of false innuendo against the Clintons in order to promote huge African-American turnout in states where it gave him the victory."

Most of the African-American turnout has to do with African-American people simply wanting to see an African-American win. Just like a lot of women turnout for Clinton has to do with wanting to see a woman win the presidency. Some people -- mostly supporters or possibly surrogates -- have made charges of both sexism and racism, on both sides. It's hard to quantify who has done it more.

wontgetfooled: "I now ask: after all of the slick and divisive campaigning, where is the uniter, where is the message of hope, where is the message of a different (and presumably better) type of politics?"

Watch Obama's current speeches. Look at his message on Huffington Post (and on his web site). Look at how he has approached Clinton to persuade her to mutually tone down the negative campaigning. Obama is very much on-message.

wontegetfooled: "If you can find it in the machinations of the Obama campaign you are a supersleuth, or maybe you just have an overactive imagination."

Or maybe I'm paying attention.

wontgetfooled: "I am not one who says Obama will lose to McCain. I honestly do not know."

That's good and I appreciate that you're not playing Nostradamus as some have been, or ignoring the polls that show an Obama advantage.

wontgetfooled: "What I believe is that empty rhetoric and destructive, manipulative politics do not suggest effective leadership."

So how do you square your belief here with the methods of the Clinton campaign over the past few weeks?