1.  This is straight out of the Clinton campaign's talking points (those emails are hardly a secret);

2.  We bash the Village for its obsession on the trivial, and then we get blogs pushing this kind of nonsense;

3.  Of course the DC media types want to turn this into a petty squabble.  So, of course they're going to take an awkward situation and turn it into some giant symbolic moment.

I meant that feeling the awkwardness, I might have stepped back from being in the middle.

1. Obama saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Nominee, in whom I am well-pleased." (Matthew 3:13)

2. Obama fed 5000 screaming fans from a single bag of Cheetohs.

3. Obama cured a ham.

He is showing his true colors and I don't like it one bit. Hilary should keep putting pressure on him because PRESSURE REVEALS CHARACTER, and I'm not liking what I see from him.

Of course the implication is that he turned his back on Hillary. There is no reason for me to believe that is what happened. Notice that we do not see who Obama is facing. It is equally plausible that he is turning to shake hands of a supporter. Had the camera snapped a moment earlier Hillary's back could have been turned to Obama, and the caption Hillary gives cold shoulder to Obama.

Why is the photographer describing what we do not see with his or her mouth, rather than showing a series of pictures that tell more of the story. Why is he or she editing out the pictures of who Obama is facing.

I am not saying that Obama did not snub Hillary, what I am saying is that there is nothing here to make me believe that is so.

he media have many of you jumping through hoops. They teach you to say almost in a chant "Me Hate Hillary. Me Hate Bill". In the article about Hill dumping Bill, Carl Bernstein is used as though he has something relevant to say. He wrote a scathing book about Hillary and he is everywhere these days (even in this article)trying to promote his book via Hillary and Bill bashing. What a gossip hack--trying to make a buck off of character assassination. And Chris Matthews? You remember him? He's also a chief barking hound in all this. Okay, let's see what's going on. The media for some reason hate HILLARY and BILL. I can't figure it out unless they're trying to keep a Republican in the White House. So, in order to try to sink the two of them, the Media have taken a page from the Edward Bernays handbook. You remember Edward, don't you? He invented modern media propaganda methods in the 1920s and his biggest fan of whom he was quite proud was none other than Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda. Edward's recipe for doing someone in reads: How to turn a respected entity into a fearsome eneny: plant negatives about the person in all media outlets; once you have your public repeating those perjoratives, then begin issuing distortions, half-truths, overstatements and misquotes about your target. This is how you energize the puppies out there to do your hoop jumping. You have plugged into their unconscious fears, suspicions and innate love of negative gossip. You have at this point succeeded in turning the respected person into a "threat". Then over and over use the "threat" to justify an outright attack. Before you know it, you have the common person out there jumping up and down repeating your attacks. They become extremely energized with HATE and before you know it, they'll be just so many clones of you and what you have told them. Remember, it all started with them telling you Hillary is "cold, I don't trust her, she's self-serving, etc." Then you find yourself saying those very same things and sometimes you add your own charm and wit to embellish your hate, all the while bhelieving you are doing your own thinking. The media these days have via this method managed to make Hillary and Bill not just a THREAT but a DOUBLE THREAT in the eyes and ears of the great sea of the gullible out there. So LIKE GOOD PAVLOVIAN DOGS, YOU START JUMPING THRUGH HOOPS FOR YOUR MEDIA MASTERS. Unbelievable. A nation of sheep? You got it because you asked for it! Either reclaim your brains and cut out the hoop jumping or keep it up and see where it lands us as a country. Just read most of the comments at the end of this article and you'll see what I'm talking about. Oh, by the way, it also works in reverse. Take an unknown person, apply positives (magnificent speaker, a uniter, new face, change) and then you use positive quotes, positive images and positive half-truths and before you know it, the puppies out there are barking in unison. Thanks, Edward Bernays.

I am using Hillary Clinton's candidacy to critique Bill Clinton's presidency. I voted for him and her twice. She will win the nomination. Her lies about Obama are not even necessary.

I saw that and had a Saul of Tarsus moment about the Clinton's:

1. how often they disappointed me (Welfare Reform, Clinton's abominable behavior towards Monica Lewinsky, Hillary's Rush-To-War, prove she has Big Ones Vote to authorize the Moron-in-Chief, The W Himself, to get himself a war); and

2. how often I made excuses for them because "at least they win." They are better than most Republicans. After that, what are they?

And an endless carnival of policy "maneuverings" and retreats, and an endless carnival of lies about their personal lives (It turns out, that despite the dress, Clinton did not have sex with that woman, and Hillary lost her Billing Records, did not fir the Travel Office Staff, etc.) that we all, that I personally defended them against time and again because the Right Wing Noise Machine is evil.

The Right Wing Noise Machine is evil:  that doesn't make the Clinton's good.

If any Clinton person reads this post, they will accuse me of being an Obamanaut or being a sucker for tithe media's biased narrative. I am neither.

Yes,  I am sick of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Yes, I think that she will make McGovern seem like a popular presidential candidate. Her negatives are firmly established even among those of us who reluctantly voted for her.