At what point does Palin incorporate "Barack the President" into her list of people?

Eliot Spitzer -- the man who was going to save Albany, the man who preached ethical reforms, the man who took down Wall Street and busted two prostitution rings as Attorney General...brought down yesterday by his links to a prostitute.  My first reaction was disappointment.  Not because I am a huge Spitzer fan or even because I am a lifelong Democrat.  But rather because Spitzer was supposed to represent something so much better.  He was supposed to be different.  Then I remembered a quote from that greatest of all political novels --- as Robert Penn Warren put it (through the character of Willie Stark):

""There's always something- from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud, we are born in corruption and we die in corruption." 

Seems so true today.  The sad part about all of this is that someday in the future another man or woman will run for governor of New York with lofty credentials as a crime-fighting, reform-oriented, process-changing ethically-sound candidate.  But in life post-Spitzer, we will all take a second look.  Because all that Spitzer has done is made everyone just a little bit more cynical. 

First, Hillary Clinton suggests that the DNC seat the Florida and Michigan delegations and award her delegates based upon her "victories" in both states.  This, of course, despite the fact that Barack Obama was not the ballot in Michigan and did not campaign in Florida.  Obama's camp, as expected, is unabashedly against seating delegates from two races in which he did not campaign.  The bottom line is this: the rules were set in place before the elections took place...the DNC had already decided that no delegates would be awarded to either state.  Hillary's suggestion effectively changes the rules after the fact, based of course on her victory in both states.

Now, today, a seemingly minor issue in South Dakota rears its head.  South Dakota is contemplating allowing independents to vote in their June 3 elections.  Presumably, this would help Obama, as he has traditionally polled well amongst Independents.  So one would expect his camp to come out in favor of this move and one would expect Hillary to come out against.

Answer?
Obama spokesman Steve Hildebrand says, "We are not in a position to tell states how to run their elections, but if that is the desire of the South Dakota Democratic Party, Sen. Obama would support their efforts."

Isaac Baker, a Clinton spokesman, says "We believe the South Dakota Democratic primary should remain open to Democrats, as planned."

So now we follow the as-planned rules?  But in Florida and Michigan, we change the rules after-the-fact?  The issue of independents voting in South Dakota might be a minor one in the grand scheme of the presidential primary race.  But the fact of the matter is that the Hillary camp's point of view is clear --- whatever gets her more votes is where she will come out.  With Florida and Michigan, that means changing the rules.  With South Dakota, that means leaving them in place. 

I'm not claiming that Obama is a saint and that he isn't a "politician."  But if he had Hillary's senses on this one, he would have endorsed opening the South Dakota race to independents.  And he did not.  Point: Obama.