That comment from yesterday is from a Clinton campaign e-mail, apparently.

http://www.politico.com/playbook/

Regardless, this is a really boring conversation. Bye!

You don't think it's a little unrealistic to expect Obama to restrain people from being dicks on the internet?

I quickly skimmed through the comments and am wondering why no one has made any issue out of John Hagee. I sort of feel like the person who drives by an accident and can't resist looking at the carnage because I have a morbid curiosity to listen to his clips even though I find them extremely disturbing.

I haven't listened to either Hillary's or Savage's clips.

Oh, I'm in no way suggesting that. I am surprised that there's not restraint on a personal level. As I see it, it's a little analogous to admiring and backing MLK, and not following his example.

And it's been like a giant echo chamber around here. And if one deigns to tax anyone with a contrary point of view, people get all ridiculously personal.

I disagree, to an extent. I mean, yes, if you come in supporting a candidate who is unsupportive at best to alternative expressions of sexuality or gender roles (like McCain) or who is actively courting the support of pastors who condemn such activity or, you know, claim the Holocaust as the will of God (like, you know, McCain), then you're going to get spanked. Think about where you are.

As far as your victim act, people go after you because you make unsubstantiated claims, bitch about being called on it, and then play the victim some more. And really. FTR is an asshole. It's what he's here for. I don't have a problem with this, since I'm also frequently an asshole, and I feel like he's a principled asshole. However, you also missed the most amusing part of his dig at you, which sort of defused the animosity.

Personally, I think tempers are high because she's dragging on a mathematically impossible race by constantly trying to manipulate her supporters' understanding of the realities of this contest, as well as constantly moving the goalposts ever since she lost the caucuses she thought she'd win, sealing up the nomination. It's hard to handle someone who constantly distorts, or, well lies about the nature of the race (like the fact that many of the June dem primary contests she mentioned were the result of a schedule that started months later than it did this year, and that her husband had in fact secured the dem nom in March). If you want to have reasonable political discourse, representing hilary clinton is not the way to get there right now.

It's true.

Possibly because the 'disturbed factor' of Hagee's comments are unanimously agreed upon. I checked out all the clips. Hagee takes the prize for most broadly offensive. Interpretations of biblical prophecy provide a bottomless well of racist commentary, for those so inclined to take a stab at it - and profit from it, of course.

I don't think it's particularly surprising. I admire and support the efforts of a lot of people without necessarily wanting to emulate them personally.

I think so. Clinton mentioned California as being the turning point for her husband, and I voted months ago.

I don't take anything around here personally. And I'm certainly no victim.

Yeah. Skeletor = heightened discourse. Really.

Ok. Let's not say victim. Let's say martyr.

I think she was trying to make a thin case that "it ain't over til it's over." The primary schedules have changed a lot over the years. June was correct for Cali in '92. As for RFK, I haven't researched whether he was in the lead at the time of his assassination - I might assume he was, as that might have been the catalyst for his murder. Hillary's inference that people should reconsider voting for a potential target is pure desperation.

if you massage the chest and throat a little first, you can usually get the air to come all the way out the mouth.

tell him to massage the chest and throat next time.

Clinton seems to have traveled so far off the reservation these days that I find it impossible to get offended by her comments, I think confused, possibly befuddled is a better answer. I doubt Oama's murder is part of anyone's campaign strategy, really, and I don't think Clinton was saying that she's staying in on the hopes that Obama will be killed and then won't we all feel stupid for telling her to get out of the race. If you take her at face value, that she was just making the point that sometimes primaries run long(which is wrong on so many levels, anyway, given the way the primary season has changed and she's more or less lying about when her husband had the nomination) and choose to do it by making a casual reference to an assassination. And then she tries to justify it by saying that it's only because the Kennedys have been on her mind lately? That's why she's casual about one of them losing their life to an assassin's bullet? Really?

Like I said, confused, befuddled, not offended.

I know, it sucks when someone actually steps up and challenges your viewpoints, and doesn't take crap from you, as opposed to the usual batch of high-fives you get around here. It's complete anarchy. No one should have to tolerate that.