I was able to watch most of the broadcast, and just thought I'd share some thoughts.

- I would hope that most of us are able to understand that the small subset of HRC supporters who acted inappropriately today are no reflection on the candidate herself.

- I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I've got to hand it to her that even as her candidate bleeds political capital by the day (and actual capital), she was not only able to get a significant number of delegates that were not supposed to have counted, but that she has convinced many people that she was wronged in the process.

- I get the impression that Ickes is right that the DNC can't assign the delegates the way they did (although it strikes me as a rather fair result.) If the race tightens at all, I expect to see a lawsuit.

- I really fear that Clinton has in the last month, intentionally or not, made Obama be viewed as the enemy by a large number of her supporters. I'm skeptical that can be overcome by November. If Clinton continues to go with her "us against the DNC" theme, we're going to be in trouble.

- It was encouraging to see the ethnic diversity and high proportion of women on the committee. It's nice to see the Dem's looking like the party of inclusion we claim to be.

Alright, there's my 2 cents.

Someone who said I'm less qualified than John McCain to be Commander in Chief.

Someone who claims I condescend to, and am out of touch with, white middle-class voters.

Someone who tells Democratic voters in two key swing states that I'm trying to disenfranchise them.

Someone hailing from a state that is already a lock to vote Democratic in November.

Someone who will mobilize the Republican base.

Someone who will be a lightening rod for controversy and attack ads.

Someone whose fundraising was so unsuccessful that she had to loan herself $11 million to avoid bankruptcy.

Yes, Hillary, you sure have earned a spot on the ticket.

Prior to George W. Bush's presidency, I was open to voting for a Republican presidential candidate. In fact had John McCain been the nominee in 2000, I very well may have voted for him over Al Gore. But as I've been telling friends for the past couple years, Bush's presidency, and Republican politics in general have since been so disgusting that I could never under any circumstances bring myself to vote Republican in November. Admittedly, this is partly an emotional, rather than a rational response to the last 8 years. Also, however, I think that any vote for a Republican in 2008 represents an implicit approval of their party's recent indefensible behavior.

That being said, I have been proven wrong. Last night Hillary Clinton achieved that same visceral reaction in me during her "victory" speech in Indiana - on a night when in became even more apparent she could not win the Democratic nomination by any fair means. That speech was the first time I can recall Clinton herself explicitly announcing that she will seek to have the Michigan and Florida delegates seated and their votes counted.

Had Clinton been calling for this prior to the primaries in those states - prior to Obama and Edwards taking their names off the ballet in Michigan as Clinton herself should have, prior to Clinton running a pseudo-campaign in Florida while her opponents respected their pledge not to do so - then I would have no problem with her position. Frankly, I am uncomfortable with the idea that the DNC would disenfranchise millions of voters because of their party leader's decision to move up their primaries.

But of course, Clinton was not complaining before the Michigan and Florida primaries. Instead, she accepted the DNC boycott (even stating unequivocally the Michigan primary wouldn't "count for anything") while at the same time taking steps - unethical steps in my view - to ensure that she would win those primaries by huge margins with no competition from her rivals. So, if she didn't need the states later on, Clinton could have ignored those "wins" while plausibly claiming to have followed party rules. On the other hand, if she found herself trailing, as she does now, Clinton would have a huge number of Michigan and Florida delegates to potentially put her over the top.

Make no mistake about it, Clinton's call to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates has nothing to do with fairness. If it did, she would have made the call prior to their primaries. And there is nothing fair about awarding her delegates from a state where voters chose between Clinton and Undecided, or where no one (except her) campaigned and which everyone agreed would not count toward the nomination. She is simply trying to steal the nomination because it has become obvious she can't win any other way. Although Clinton's strategy may be legal, I don't see much moral difference between it and the various untoward voting tactics employed by Republicans in the last two elections. It is also completely selfish, as she is putting her own narrow interest ahead of the huge majority of Democratic voters who chose another candidate, as well as the interests of the party, which would be irreparably harmed if it were to put forth a candidate chosen through such underhanded methods.

So thank you, Hillary Clinton, for showing me that I'm more open-minded than I had thought. If by some miracle you get the Democratic nomination, I will actually have to give McCain some serious consideration. In any event, I won't be voting for you.

... that according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, adding a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf is not an "escalation," but just a "reminder" to Iran?

... that the definition of escalation is an increase in intensity or magnitude?

... that adding a second aircraft carrier also involves adding a destroyer squadron, as well as attack submarines and ships armed with cruise missiles that can reach Iran?

... that this quite obviously represents an escalation of military force in the Persian Gulf?

... that a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf will mean that we have more aircraft carriers off the coast of Iran than any other country in the world has in its entire navy, with the exception of Great Britain?

... that were our intention simply deterrence, one would think a single carrier battle group, with its compliment of cruise missiles and aircraft, all capable of reaching Tehran, would be sufficient?

... that thanks to the "surge" strategy, we currently have at least 250,000 troops and mercenaries just across the border from Iran?

... that being at war with Iran in November means we can look forward to John McCain in the White House in January?

... that Canada is looking better every day?

President Bush at his joint press conference with Mexico's President (who was wearing a Mexican flag pin because he supports the troops), and Canada's Prime Minister:

" One of the things -- people ask, well, does it make sense for Mexico, Canada and the United States to meet? Absolutely, it makes sense. We're neighbors."

OK, so no one, seriously no one, has ever suggested that it doesn't make sense for the leaders of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. to meet with each other. And assuming someone ever did (and trust me, no one has), what would the person nearest to him say in response? "Dude, we're fucking neighbors. Of course our leaders are going to meet, dumbass."

Other fun quotes from that speech:

"New Orleans is one of America's really top cities."

There's that Yale education.

On why Congress needs to pass a free trade agreement with Columbia:

"It makes no sense to me to say that Colombia goods can come into our country duty-free, yet our goods can't go into Colombia duty-free. And yet that's the case."

Yeah, so Columbia's the one who puts duties on American products, not our Congress.

"People say, well, are you really committed to global -- to reducing global warming? Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I gave a speech in the Rose Garden the other day that made it abundantly clear the United States is for an effective climate agreement that includes binding commitments from all major developed and developing economies. I will continue to work toward that end."

Oh right, I remember that. its the exact same thing you said to justify not signing the Kyoto protocol or taking any measures to stop global warming for the last 7 years.



Hillary Clinton after her win in the Pennsylvania primary, which insured that she will still lose the Democratic nomination, but will be able to raise enough money in the meantime to pay off some of the debt she's been racking up while ensuring Obama loses a close presidential race marred by accusations of vote tampering and racist Republican propaganda (well founded accusations, by the way):

"Some counted me out and said to drop out. But the American people don't quit. And they deserve a president who doesn't quit, either."

So which of the other two candidates is the quitter? Oh, right, neither of them. So your statement makes no goddamn sense. I mean, whoever gets elected, in any election, for any office, at any time - didn't quit. That's how it works. Except for that dead guy who got elected to Congress. He sort of quit, but it wasn't his fault. Because he died.

Maybe this is a good time to mention that electing someone based on her "experience," when that experience consists entirely of being married to someone who held high office, then being elected to the Senate based on her husband's fame, is one of the most chauvinistic things I can think of. How about a Laura Bush/Lurleen Wallace ticket in 2012? (Except for Lurleen being dead for 40 years.)

I'm all for having a female president, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that electing Hillary Clinton would be a huge step forward for women. Electing the wife of a popular official after his term has expired has been going on in the most backward states in the country for almost a hundred years. How about women getting together sometime (you're well over half the electorate by the way), and putting forth a legitimate self-defined female candidate? Barbara Boxer? Madelein Albright? The parts of Nancy Pelosi that haven't yet been poisoned by Botox? Having one of them in office would actually make some difference. Electing Hillary Clinton puts us where Wyoming and Texas were in 1925.