"Well, I do go a-churchin' every Sunday with a bunch of bitter folks who complain about how the government is evil and screws them over, and we yell an' whoop it up when the preacher rails against them Italians and Jews, an' then we ...

"Oops, wait a minute, that's not me, that's Barack Obama. "

... because Senator Clinton is a formidable candidate. There aren't many figures in American politics who could sustain 11 straight losses and hang into a race and raise $35 million.

It's not so much regretting as regretable! And he's just getting started being klassy:

...I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November.

Obviously, it's a little easier for me to say that, since, you know, I lead in delegates and states and popular vote. Senator Clinton may not feel that she can afford to be as constrained.

Before I rush off to cling not to my faith but my toilet bowl to barf forth most of my vital organs ...

Has anyone informed Mister P!ssy that leading isn't winning? Where I come from, we play (hard!)till it's game over.

1.  She is a woman.

2.  She would make a better President.

3.  She has more experience.

4.  She is a better speaker in substance.

5.  McCain is sounding more positive and Presidential every day.

6.  She can beat McCain.

7.  He can not beat McCain and he can not count on us women.

8.  She is not arrogant and condenscending.

9.  She is carrying our torch.

10. She is 'this' woman.

First of all, by constantly - and it is getting to be constantly - stating that "I wasn't born into a lot of money. I didn't have a trust fund. I wasn't born in the fame and fortune," he seems to be wanting to plant an implication that his early life was in dramatic contrast to Hillary's, but her background was certainly not one of money and trust funds, fame or fortune.

Second, it's been a hard-fought contest "partly" because Clinton is a formidable opponent?  What are the other parts?  And by saying there aren't many who could hang in after 11 straight losses, I think he thinks he's damning with faint praise, but I don't think he realizes what that really says about the race, and his inability to shut her down.

Third - did he make that comment about his efforts at restraint with a straight face?  Or was he grinning from ear-to-ear?  Because far from being restrained, he has been relentless, and he has had the full cooperation of the media in that endeavor.

Finally, that last paragraph really sent me over the edge - she's doing him a favor, preparing him for his race against McCain?  My, my - I guess that's an example of the grace and humility we've come to expect from the restrained and humble Senator Obama.  

1. Cling to their guns
   
2. Cling to their religion
   
3. Don't like people that don't look like them
   
4. Become xenophopic
   
5. Reject free trade

I've noticed the right is reframing this and characterizing Obama's comment about the regular people clinging to religion only because of bitterness and difficulties as marxist. As in, the opiate of the masses.

..I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November.

"Us" to run in November? What is he implying here?

And don't pull that food stamps, student loan crap on me.  I'm not buying it. Elitism is an attitude; there are billionaires who are not elitist and starving artists who are.

There aren't many figures in American politics who could sustain 11 straight losses

Then I read Obama's recapitulation of his life history (from Jeralyn's post) and I thought "Has Obama ever held a regular job?" say, even a part-time in high school or a seasonal job during college like retail? Or maybe working in a fish processing plant like Hillary?

Has McCain?

I'd really like to see an employment history on our three candidates dating back to their teenage years.

Yesterday, the online version of the LA Times led with a headline along the lines of Obama "Tanking" as a result of bitter comments. Amazing.  The WSJ editorial was biting and was repeated on the news channels last night (Obama's "inner Dukakis"). Ouch.

I mustered up some stomach medicine and tuned into MSNBC last night.  Matthews, Fineman, Mitchell - all extreme  sufferers of CDS - had a very hard defending BO.  I was shocked.

In other words, he doesn't accept the words offended some people, only that the way people interpreted them may have been offensive

1. It's Clinton's fault, she's misinterpreting my words purposely.
   
2. You're still stoopid because you can't figure that out either.
   
3. Nobody has been poor like me.
   
4. Clinton's being mean to me and I have a huge ego.

What bothers me about this latest thing is something else. It finally came to me yesterday:

Barack Obama thinks he's better than me.

Just listen to what he thinks about small-town Pennsylvanians. He thinks they're racially prejudiced (skeptical of a black man, having antipathy towards people not like them). He thinks they're xenophobic. He thinks they're excessively religious. He thinks their culture of guns is wrong. He thinks they're wrong about trade, which is odd, since he claims to share what he thinks are their opinions. Basically, he thinks he knows why they act the way they do, and he thinks their reasons for doing so are wrong. He certainly thinks he's better than them.

In there she writes about the "I'm sorry you mis-interpreted what I said" unapology. This one uses the apologia verbiage, but continues to put the onus of fault on the audience rather than the speaker.