PastaJoe

Yes they have, but not by Clinton.

If would be better if they also declared straight marriages to be unconstitutional and changed their status to "friends with benefits".

It does sound silly when you generalize it as you do, instead of looking at the specific consistant proposals to reduce the tax burden on the middle class and increase it on the wealthiest who did and will still do quite well with a higher tax rate. And of course short term relief doesn't mean you don't also pursue long term solutions.

If it's Obama, McCain wins 293-245. If it's Clinton, Clinton wins 292-246. The difference is winning the key swing states like Ohio, Penn., and Michigan.

I'm sorry, I missed the part where Obama has enough superdelegates to win the nomination. You'd think that would be headline news. She got more votes in Texas, and more in Michigan where she also didn't campaign but was smart enough to stay on the ballot. And God forbid a politician would actually give voters what they want; universal healthcare, short term relief from fuel prices, and smart foreign policy. Let's vote for the guy who doesn't offer solutions, but panders to the poets. If Edwards could attract the voters that Obama can't and Clinton has he would still be in the race. Obama has just raised the stakes by playing the Edwards card to distract the media from his crushing defeat in WV, and now if he loses in Kentucky by another wide margin, he will really look like a weak general election candidate, and Edwards will look just as bad. Where's Elizabeth Edwards, why hasn't she endorsed Obama? Perhaps her saying Clinton had a better healthcare plan offers a clue, but she doesn't want to state publicly who she favors as long as her husband has a chance at a job appointment.

Misogyny I Won't Miss By Marie Cocco Thursday, May 15, 2008; Page A15 As the Democratic nomination contest slouches toward a close, it's time to take stock of what I will not miss. I will not miss seeing advertisements for T-shirts that bear the slogan "Bros before Hos." The shirts depict Barack Obama (the Bro) and Hillary Clinton (the Ho) and are widely sold on the Internet. I will not miss walking past airport concessions selling the Hillary Nutcracker, a device in which a pantsuit-clad Clinton doll opens her legs to reveal stainless-steel thighs that, well, bust nuts. I won't miss television and newspaper stories that make light of the novelty item. I won't miss episodes like the one in which liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes called Clinton a "big [expletive] whore" and said the same about former vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. Rhodes was appearing at an event sponsored by a San Francisco radio station, before an audience of appreciative Obama supporters -- one of whom had promoted the evening on the presumptive Democratic nominee's official campaign Web site. I won't miss Citizens United Not Timid (no acronym, please), an anti-Clinton group founded by Republican guru Roger Stone. Political discourse will at last be free of jokes like this one, told last week by magician Penn Jillette on MSNBC: "Obama did great in February, and that's because that was Black History Month. And now Hillary's doing much better 'cause it's White B word Month, right?" Co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski rebuked Jillette. I won't miss political commentators (including National Public Radio political editor Ken Rudin and Andrew Sullivan, the columnist and blogger) who compare Clinton to the Glenn Close character in the movie "Fatal Attraction." In the iconic 1987 film, Close played an independent New York woman who has an affair with a married man played by Michael Douglas. When the liaison ends, the jilted woman becomes a deranged, knife-wielding stalker who terrorizes the man's blissful suburban family. Message: Psychopathic home-wrecker, begone. The airwaves will at last be free of comments that liken Clinton to a "she-devil" (Chris Matthews on MSNBC, who helpfully supplied an on-screen mock-up of Clinton sprouting horns). Or those who offer that she's "looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court" (Mike Barnicle, also on MSNBC). But perhaps it is not wives who are so very problematic. Maybe it's mothers. Because, after all, Clinton is more like "a scolding mother, talking down to a child" (Jack Cafferty on CNN). When all other images fail, there is one other I will not miss. That is, the down-to-the-basics, simplest one: "White women are a problem, that's -- you know, we all live with that" (William Kristol of Fox News). I won't miss reading another treatise by a man or woman, of the left or right, who says that sexism has had not even a teeny-weeny bit of influence on the course of the Democratic campaign. To hint that sexism might possibly have had a minimal role is to play that risible "gender card." Most of all, I will not miss the silence. I will not miss the deafening, depressing silence of Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean or other leading Democrats, who to my knowledge (with the exception of Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland) haven't publicly uttered a word of outrage at the unrelenting, sex-based hate that has been hurled at a former first lady and two-term senator from New York. Among those holding their tongues are hundreds of Democrats for whom Clinton has campaigned and raised millions of dollars. Don Imus endured more public ire from the political class when he insulted the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Would the silence prevail if Obama's likeness were put on a tap-dancing doll that was sold at airports? Would the media figures who dole out precious face time to these politicians be such pals if they'd compared Obama with a character in a blaxploitation film? And how would crude references to Obama's sex organs play? There are many reasons Clinton is losing the nomination contest, some having to do with her strategic mistakes, others with the groundswell for "change." But for all Clinton's political blemishes, the darker stain that has been exposed is the hatred of women that is accepted as a part of our culture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

My guess is that Sayid gets them off the island on the boat or steals the helicopter, but then Locke/Ben move the island per instructions, and nobody can find it using the same coordinates again, thus the reason nobody else gets off.

The internet porn industry should partially finance NASA to thank them for enabling their business to flourish.

Not hot, she seems like the athletic type chick who would rather run 5 miles than fool around. Alot of prep time to get her primed. Somewhat adrogenous.

Obama's going to drop out next Tuesday after another defeat, this time in Kentucky? It would be pretty embarrassing if Obama loses by double digits even after getting the Edwards endorsement. It makes sense that he would want to get out to avoid the additional embarrassment of losing in Puerto Rico which would once again show his weakness with Hispanics.

The difference of course is that I'm willing to state that I'm for Clinton, instead of playing the charade the media is of acting like they aren't supporting Obama while repeatedly giving him positive spin and making excuses for his mistakes in judgement. I can't vote for McCain because he's wrong on policies. The Democrats are right on policies, so I'll have to vote for whoever the nominee is, even if he's not the best choice.

She never said she agreed that Florida and Michigan shouldn't count. The quote that people like Olbermann keep misinterpreting is that she said that those states wouldn't count, which was a correct statement of fact, but not an endorsement of the rule. But the media infer that it means she agreed, when she didn't. Doesn't Obama say "words matter". I can say the Patriots won't face futher punishment for cheating, but that doesn't mean I think they shouldn't.

The Democrat primary/caucus process doesn't represent the will of the majority, as I explained. If it did then the person with the most votes would get all the delegates for that state. The current process reminds me of the Communist saying, "all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others".

While she has a huge lead in Kentucky and Puerto Rico. She isn't going anywhere until Obama has at least 2209 committed delegates.

The aliens were eaten by the dinosaurs, that's how humans were able to live at the same time as them, the dinosaurs had something else to eat. Unless the supernova is sending some deadly radiation or astroids our way that justifies why the Mayan calender ends in 2012, it seems like this conference was overhyped.

The point is that they accuse Clinton of making race an issue, but they are the ones who are constantly talking about it. While some blacks may not vote for Clinton, they won't vote for McCain either. But as you said there are more Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama but will vote for McCain, so the net total difference in lost/crossover votes favors Clinton.

He had a tv ad (I saw it replayed on MSNBC) where he said he never met Obama and was not endorsed by Obama.

I have repeatedly said the Democrat nomination process is seriously flawed and doesn't reflect the true will of the majority. The caucus process has time constraints that prevent many working people from participating. The rules such as in Texas that give more delegates to certain districts than others of similar voter size because that district voted Democrat in the past unfairly gives more weight to some votes than others. Allowing non-Democrats to vote distorts the will of people who stood up and registered as Democrat. You shouldn't have a say in a club you're not willing to join. The Democrats should have a primary process that mirrors the general election where the person with the most popular votes in a state gets all that state's delegates.

I'd say it doesn't bode well for Obama if candidates have to publicly disavow being connected to or endorsed by him, as Childers did.

Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews are two of the most obvious pro-Obama people in the media. They are constantly talking him up while talking her down. The look of disappointment on their faces last night was laughable. Terry McAliffe challenged Matthews about how the media keeps saying Clinton should quit and that it's over, and he denied saying anything like it, while every night he's talking about how there's no way she can win the nomination and what's her motivation if she can't win. And it's the media that keeps bringing up the race issue, and then they blame it on Clinton when she talks about an AP story that said what Matthews is attributing to her. On all the networks, they repeatedly show the statistics of how many blacks and whites are voting for each, and about how the blacks will revolt if Clinton gets the nomination. But they're not talking about race.

Can't claim credit for that (I suspect it's some handout for kids, maybe at a zoo, not the implied reference). In other news, Mayor Ray Nagin of N.O. has endorsed Obama. I guess he wants a chocolate White House.

That's the kind of attitude that will cause an elitist candidate to lose the swing states. There's alot more of those folk then there are black voters.

"According to the police report, the female witness told police she yelled at the younger Hardy to stop fighting when he pulled out a black gun. The woman said Hardy then left." When did they start making ethnic-specific firearms? Can it only be used on blacks, or are only blacks allowed to buy it? Maybe he's trying to send a message to the coaching staff that there's a limit to what he'll put up with from authority figures.

Social Security is such a 3rd-rail political issue that the only way it ever gets resolved is through a bipartisan commission that then can propose changes without it being politicized.

Check out The L Word for the weekly girl on girl action.