In an update, the blog quoted a clarification from Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt: "Barack Obama said specifically that he didn't believe his grandmother harbored any racial animosity but that her fears were understandable and typical of those often shared by her generation."

Contrast that with Obama and his recent travails.  He says he is disturbed by Wrights comments.  He had to be concerned about and know about the direct and personal insults his preacher gave to both Clintons, even in the unlikely case that he didn't know about the awards for Farrakhan, trips to Libya, vague statements that blacks should stop being afraid to mention Israel, US of KKK A, etc.  There is no evidence that Obama did anything about this.  He didn't leave the church (which would have been an odd first reaction anyway), but he also does not seem to have approached Rev. Wright about the matter, he doesn't seem to have given a speech in the church about why words matter and how we can better communicate our grievances (or even one similar to his speech the other day).  He has never written about the fact that this language troubled him, has never brought black and white ministers together to discuss race issues, has never attempted to shield his family from words he says he considers hateful.

Hillary's words now and all accounts of her actions surrounding NAFTA (and everything else, really) are very consistent and tell the story of someone who felt strongly about an issue and let everyone know, but was mature enough to recognize that she lost without having to slash and burn everything around her.

Singer's right.

It's amateur hour.

Seriously though, the annoying thing is that many members of the media will still say things like, "he doesn't attack, it's hard for him to respond to attacks because he's above that" even after recent actions.  Because he's "different" and "transcendent".  Despite evidence to the contrary.

Just like McCain is still a "straight talker" after shifting his positions on a million issues and being caught in outright lies like the Iran/Al Qeada thing.  

Is that cynical or what. Jeez. Well, that's what it seems like.

But more to the point, I agree that superdelegates should be free to take into account "all" of the variables present before them, including but not limited to the way their constituencies voted, the popular vote and the ultimate impact on the party of chosing one candiate over the other.  

"We believe that this is a really important issue as super-delegates decide who will be electable in the fall," Plouffe said. "The American people are not going to elect someone who isn't seen as honest and trustworthy."

When Richardson was watching the Super Bowl with Bill, Bill looked deflated--as if Richardson had told him whom he would endorse and it wasn't going to be Hillary.....

First of all, it won't happen because the Great Lakes will scream bloody murder.
Second of all, it won't happen because Canada will scream bloody murder.
Third of all, it won't happen because by the time any water got to the destination, it would be too expensive to use for anything but bottled water.  Logistically it would be difficult.
Economically, it wouldn't be feasible.

I started asking myself that in December, when 2 of my favorite sites began to be riddled with half-truths and outright lies.  I'd been so positive that these sites were "self-correcting" -- that the users would not put up with misinformation.