Stumbled across this jaw-dropping passage in the Journal yesterday in their story on Bam's New Hampshire town hall:

Outside, the gathering verged on a street brawl. The opposing forces lined up like screaming armies on either side of the street, about 1,000 people a side. Diane Campbell of Kingston, N.H., held a sign with Mr. Obama's face superimposed on a Nazi storm trooper, a sign, she said, that was made by her chronically ill mother.

Her mother's hereditary autoimmune disease is treated with expensive transfusions of gamma globulin, paid for by Medicare. Her sister, Louise, was born with no arms and one leg, and is also covered by Medicare, the government-run, health-insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

"Adolf Hitler was for exterminating the weak, not just the Jews and stuff, and socialism -- that's what's going to happen."

At first, the most shocking thing was the out-and-out irony of this woman, whose family very directly and necessarily depends on government-run healthcare, vehemently opposing such a thing. We needn't get into what kind of medical support these people would get in a world without Medicare, the kind of world Diane Campbell presumably believes we'd be better off in without any rationale for that choice beyond what we all here on the various Tubes.

And that's what's really so striking, in light of her final statement, about Hitler, "Jews and stuff, and socialism." Not only is this a batty thing to say, with little to do with the politics or economics of healthcare reform, but it also reinforces the paucity of real debate on these issues. In a matter of days, vis-a-vis the same issues, Obama has swung from Stalin to Hitler with seemingly little thought or reason for what that even means.

Maybe it's obvious or foolish to say, but there is a real debate to be had, as I found elsewhere in the Journal, and on the Op-Ed page no less. There, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, lays out a market-driven alternative to a government-run system akin to his own company's health benefits program, which has gotten good press at least for doing things differently. While I and others may not entirely agree with the merits of Mackey's proposals, it least it's furthering the debate.

Earlier, I wondered whether the Clinton schedules really mattered, at least from a policy standpoint. Sure they may prove or disprove, to some slight degree, any experience gained by Hillary while in officio. The more likely result, it seems, is for silly stories to crop up, like the under-her-nose meme.

But Ben Smith deployed the records in a very interesting way when he presented the Clinton-Wright picture:

Hillary Clinton, according to her recently-released schedule for the day, was present at the gathering.

Now I find this to be horribly clever, but again it raises the question of whether or not Hillary's presence really matters, especially given the reason for the breakfast, namely apologizing to the nation's clergy for the Starr report. Or does it stand to reason that Clinton can't have it both ways.

That is the question that has been oft-asked of the latest Spitzer-Paterson scandalette and it probably applies to this AP missive:

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the White House on at least seven days when her husband had sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky, according to the first lady's calendars released Wednesday. A look at her schedule on days when Lewinsky said she had sexual encounters with Bill Clinton.

Could this be the first in a long line of (silly) revelations to come out of the Clinton schedules? It's good they're out, but also perhaps a little bit unfair, especially once the other shoe drops. Maybe someone should file a FOIA request for Barack's records from his time in the Illinois State Senate?

After all, she made a misogynist remark, right?

Now that the Democratic race is back on, the attacks from both sides will no doubt intensify. Some have argued that Clinton is still in the race thanks in part to her salvo going into Tuesday's voting/caucasing, particularly those hollow points of experience and preparation.

In the interest of stretching this metaphor into absurdity, the Obama campaign just flipped out its Derringer and fired back, when it broke the record for fundraising in a single month, something that kinda happened last month and has been going on for some time. In fact, Obama seemed to first catch on as a serious contender through his fantastic fundraising efforts.

Who cares, besides the fact that this money could see him through to the end or serve as an argument for his popular grassroots support? In some ways, it demonstrates a certain level of experience, or at least managerial capability, which might be kind of nice after eight years of, well, you know. After all, wasn't this Romney's platform?

Whether and how Obama's money puts him over the top remains to be seen, but it still says more about him and his abilities as a leader than he has been given credit for so far--after all, the whole damned operation is run from a ping pong table.

This, along with his supposed ground advantage suggest that Obama will continue to surround himself with smart, capable lieutenants who will no doubt fill him in on any experiential gaps he might actually possess, the sort of Cabinet we saw with Clinton 1.0, and Bush 2.0 not so much. That Hillary (still) falls short in this department should be cause for concern. Because it's not just your aim, but also how many bullets you have and who will help shoot them.

Today alone I have stumbled upon two rather absurd, or at least amusing, metaphors for Barack and Hillary. I know I've seen more, especially of the Kennedy/Nixon rerfrain, but none come to mind at the moment. I invite you all to please contribute your own examples. Let's build a taxonomy or some such.

Yesterday, Adam Nagourney offered one of the funnier passages to appear in the front pages of the Times in recent memory:

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were relying on surrogates to help carry their message ahead of the contests this week. Their identities offered a hint at the kind of voters both candidates were going after.

For Mrs. Clinton, it was Richard A. Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader from Missouri. Mr. Gephardt, a longtime opponent of trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement, was campaigning in the blue-collar Mahoning Valley in Ohio.

Mr. Obama has Arcade Fire, the popular indie-rock group who announced that the leading members would perform for him on Sunday at Stuart’s Opera House in Nelsonville. The city is not far from Ohio University and many of the younger voters that Mr. Obama seeks. (Aides to Mrs. Clinton, distressed that a band with many fans at the Clinton headquarters would join the line of supporters heading into the Obama camp, pointed out that the band was Canadian; in fact, while its members live there now, they grew up in Texas.)

There is so much material there, it could make for an entire Conan monologue. (The band is probably over Leno and Letterman's heads.) More importantly, though, this not only speaks to the sort of support each candidate enjoys--establishment versus indie--but also their current positions, with Clinton's own staff, sarcastically or not, on the verge of lining up with the hipper candidate. (This is a development Nagourney is apparently following very closely.)