Let's delve into the imaginary scenario of a Clinton vs. McCain matchup in the fall for a second here. I remember reading somewhere in the past few days, a blogger who noted that there are some giant elephants in the room. No one seems to be mentioning them. But I have no qualms about the fact that the GOP will mention them in the fall should they be matched up against Clinton. They will most certainly rehash every single scandal of the Clinton era, and no doubt some new ones. Here's the narrative of the GOP: John McCain, American hero, is bringing honesty and integrity back to politics. He is "driven by an ancient sense of honor" (David Brooks), unable to bend his principles for political gain. He has fought for ethics reform in Washington, has never feared to speak out when he disagrees with his party, (the whole maverick thing) and is in general, a man of character and strength. And then here comes the swift boat: Whitewater, Pardongate, Monica, impeachment, "sex addiction" etc, etc, etc. Followed by, "Is this what you want in Washington?" Most notably, this will probably all be done separately from the McCain campaign, allowing him to continue to appear as a man above the fray. To top that all off, Bill Clinton has a 17 million dollar fraud suit brought against him by former donor Peter F. Paul coming up, in which much will be said about his donations to Senator Clinton's 2000 campaign. A hearing on April 25th should set the date for the trial, and it should be just in time for the general campaign. I'm sure that will provide fodder for the mudslinging. I see no general election campaign with Clinton in which the GOP will not bring these things up. It's literally an arsenal of mud, just waiting to be slung. If you honestly believe that she can fight her way through all that, and still win, then fine, I respect your vote. But you must at least consider the notion, rather than pretend/believe that these are things that won't come up. As she says, ever so frequently, the Republican "attack machine" holds back nothing. For full disclosure's sake, as I am sure is quite obvious by now: I am an Obama supporter. I have carefully read both Senator's positions, listened to speeches from both of them, watched all the debates, reviewed their legislative records, and read parts of both of their books. I have also considered their electability in making my decision. I won't lie, the grand rhetoric people have taken to mocking is what made me sit up and take notice at first. After 7 years of listening to Bush speak, it is no wonder that many others have too. And we get called naive for it. I ask you, is it not naive to avoid the reality of the situation, to recognize that the re-hashing of the Clinton era is inevitable? (And which she has essentially brought on herself with the constant touting of 35 years of experience?) And to honestly believe that will not sway any voters? I think that Hillary supporters who blindly believe this will have no impact on the election are far more naive than I.

Apparently, if Florida does a do-over, it can cost upwards of 20 million dollars.  
Can someone explain to me why in the world it has to cost so much??

Several Ohio counties have extended voting times, keeping the polls open until as late as 9:30 p.m.  Looks like Cuyahoga County, Franklin and Sandusky Counties, at this point.
Absentee ballots are going to take even longer.

It's everywhere today: Hillary has a numbers problem.  She's going to have lots of trouble catching up to Obama in delegates with that pesky proportional allocation the unfair Democrats instituted.
In other words: It's the math, stupid.
And here's some more math for you.  This by no means covers every proposal by each of the candidates, but it's interesting nonetheless.  Newsweek's Periscope column this week reports on how each of the candidates "want to spend your money" on their three biggest issues.
Here's their totals:Barack Obama: $375 billion (health care, education, energy)Hillary Clinton: $546 billion (health care, education, energy)John McCain: $578.5 billion (Iraq war, border security, and energy)

Check it out here:http://www.newsweek.com/id/117861

The smartest thing the Clinton campaign has done thus far is accusing the mainstream media of demonstrating a clear bias against her.
The media now spends its' time debating whether or not they were biased, bringing in "experts" to offer their opinions on the topic.

They are officially paralyzed by accusation, and are now most certainly not doing their job.  The Project for Excellence in Journalism just put out a new study, and it shows that the Clinton strategy has worked.  You can read it here: http://www.journalism.org/node/10004.  

There are simply too many questions left unanswered to start with this right now.  It's as if the media is completely incapable of multi-tasking. (Well, before we were criticizing Clinton, so now I guess it's Obama's turn.) Yes, they should scrutinize Obama.  And Clinton.  And McCain.  And they could probably do it all at once if they would just stop offering us opinion on top of analysis with a side of conjecture.  

Ok, to be fair, I like a little analysis.  I like having those more experienced than I offer insight.  But what's increasingly apparent is that the thing the media is most biased against is FACT.  Just give us the facts already!  Is there any investigation left in reporting?  Online, yes there is.  But not everyone is online, reading the absurd amount of blogs and news sites that I have become chained to since primary season began.  And I fear that too many people will simply be left uniformed because the media is too busy trying to figure out if they all had "a crush on Obama."

Please stop.  It's a Jedi mind-trick.  You're all so caught up in yourselves, and in the meanwhile,  you're doing a great disservice to Americans.  Please restore the honor to journalism.  Get the story.  

Let's hear fact (not analysis!!) about Vicki Iseman, Tony Rezko, Ron Burkle, and Marc and Denise Rich.  We want to know why Clinton hasn't released her tax returns, First Lady schedules, or "Hillarycare" documents. (After all, they are the only way we can really examine some of that "35" years of experience.)  We want to see someone, anyone, on prime time news delve into the legislative records of every single one of the candidates.  We want to know which bills they passed, which they authored, which they initially co-sponsored, and which they tried but failed to pass.  

We want to know about the Weather Underground, the F.A.L.N., the AACL, Charles Keating, Norman Hsu, Peter F. Paul, Nadhmi Auchi, Rick Renzi, Heather Podesta, John Green, Oleg Deripaska, and Tom Loeffler.  (Let's just hang it all out to dry now!) We'd like to know the background on the 26 lobbyists advising/raising funds for McCain and the 11 lobbyists doing the same for Clinton.  (Numbers according to Public Citizen, also reports Obama has no lobbyists on his team.)

We want the truth.  And yes, we can handle it.

I stumbled across this quotation today.  It's from Hermann Goering, a leading member of the Nazi party who was second in command of the Third Reich, designated successor to Hitler.  
“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” 
~ Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief