What are you saying, Dustin, that Bush isn't trying to combine North America into Amerexida? How can you ignore the evidence?

Oh, wait, you're on the other side! I bet you've already converted all your dollars and pesos and Canadian dollars to ameros! You've probably already started making your steak and cheese sandwiches with bacon and salsa! You're probably vying for the position of Supreme Amerexidan Overlord!

Dustin, I won't let you establish a global united government!

One fears, Dustin, that in your eagerness to throw more rocks at the Senator, you've gotten a little mixed up yourself. "DADT" is not a "mnemonic." It's an acronym. Much like GTFU.

But thanks for the link, where one can discover that there was more than met your eye:

"One voter asked how long it would take her to end the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law on gays in the military, and about other steps she would take to help gay and lesbian Americans. Mrs. Clinton apparently didn’t hear the question quite right; she replied by describing her opposition to No Child Left Behind, and then noted her opposition to “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” and support for “equality of rights and benefits” for gays.

It’s pretty clear that Mrs. Clinton is either feeling ill or on the edge of it; she has been losing her voice since Saturday, and she is steadily coughing on stage. We arrived in Saint Louis around 2 a.m. Sunday and she was on a couple of the Sunday morning shows, so she didn’t get very much sleep, either."

Whatever her condition, it's obvious the "Obama Free Press" is alive and, well, alive.

Michael, you're hilarious. I've been reading your comments for the past few weeks, mostly because I am, yes, an Obama supporter, and so frequent the Obama-related posts on Bilerico, which you FREQUENT, as well.

If your personality is as anal retentive as your commenting, I'm sorry for the people you interact with in the real vs. the virtual world.

In a recent comment, after someone asked you "who you worked for," you went on to tell us that you work for none of the candidates, that you're all about honest politicking, keeping the candidates, whoever they may be, in check.

So how come your anti-Obama stance always come off as pro-Hillary?

This post of mine was meant to be lighthearted, poking fun at Hillary, yes, but also at the ridiculousness of the campaign process, in general. It's all absurd.

I said nothing about Obama, nor did I imply that Obama would have said or done anything different than Hillary did in this situation. Just because I've voting for Obama on Tuesday doesn't mean I don't understand his and all the other candidates' fallacies. So there's no "Obama Free Press" here at all.

So, seriously, give your high horse a break; its back is sore for all the hard-driving you've been doing.

We all voice strong opinions here on Bilerico, but as Bil recently mentioned, attack-style commenters don't contribute much to the open climate that Bilerico attempts to create.

In my view, only a die hard supporter of any candidate would react as viscerally as you do to ANY negative light shed on him or her. So if what you really want is Hillary for President, then just come out and say so. At least then we'll understand your incessant need to berate anyone who expresses interest in any candidate other than her.

We all voice strong opinions here on Bilerico, but as Bil recently mentioned, attack-style commenters don't contribute much to the open climate that Bilerico attempts to create.

I completely support Dustin in this statement.

Play nice, Michael. You're getting a little heavy with the insult-laden defense of Hillary... Take a deep breath before you start typing and realize the person(s) on the other end are human too and remember you wouldn't talk to them in person like you are on here (or else you wouldn't be talking to anyone - they'd all walk away!).

And remember my fuse is a little short this week with the comment threads already...

With all due respect, having taken my own step back, can the "gift to see ourselves as others see us" go both ways?

The core issue of our apparent difference in perspective is only illustrated by the way the election has been represented. The actual issue, in my opinion, is the challenges and contradictions that can arise from a still mostly boundaryless blogoshere.

Of course, no one at Bilerico started the "Anybody But Hillary" aka "Hillary Is the Antichrist" movement anymore than it started the “Obama Because He Is Not Hillary” or the “Obama Is the Messiah” movement but it has, like many LGBT blogs that discuss politics, become an echo chamber for both with little objective substance to be found. These are manifestations of what I see as an unexamined contradiction between definitions of acceptable behavior between those who post and about those who are the subjects.

I can’t predict what, e.g., Rebecca might do in relation to Cong. Frank, but I highly doubt that Bil would “talk to Hillary in person” as he has about her here, e.g, call her “a real bitch” to her face. Is not even Hillary human, too?

I hasten to add that, given the opportunity, I WOULD call Ann Coulter a bitch to her face, and I’d just be getting started. I wouldn’t do it every place at every time; for instance, I loathe Nancy Reagan but even I, having watched my own mother melt from Alzheimers, felt some brief sympathy for her next to the coffin of the man whose suffering I felt none for because I saw even in that selfish woman with such wealth and privilege the fragile, teetering helplessness of my tiny mother in her last days.

But is that a contradiction that negates my basic premise, or can thinking men and women separate and apply the difference? I believe in the existence of Evil but I also believe that it requires an extremely high evidentiary standard.

Is there something to gain by trying to apply to the Net the concepts of “fairness” most newspapers traditionally aspire to, however often they fail [see “Iraq invasion”] and how many never try [see “Indianapolis Star” under previous owners]?

What do we gain, how does it contribute to our progress, to apply decency internally but not externally? [In Michael Caine’s voice]: “Hello, Luv. Nice frock. How’s your hubby? Glad you could make it to the stoning today. Now remember, no cutting in line, no stealing other peoples’ rocks, be polite to each other at all times but the one who draws our subject’s first blood takes home a prize!”

I know some are too irrational to believe me when I say I never started out “pro-Hillary” or “anti-Obama.” In fact, even now, I would say that I am less pro or anti the individuals than their positions but, damn, its people that are running. Bil has, as his right, explained his choice of Obama in almost entirely anti-Hillary terms. I have no problem with that, per se. There are people in my own life who I instinctively dislike and could give far fewer experiential examples to defend it than he did.

But is it hostile of me to resent that my well-researched if possibly poorly expressed documentation in relation to issues and actions of why I chose Hillary over Obama is reduced to accusations of simply being “pro Hillary” regardless?

Unless he ever runs for national office, which I doubt he will, or relocates to California and runs for office from here, I will never be in a position to vote for Barney Frank. While we have attended some of the same events, I have never spoken to him, let alone know him personally.

At the same time, I have agreed with him about some things and flamed him for others. Yet when, a few months ago, so much of what appeared on Bilerico amounted to “Barney Is the Antichrist” I was just as much disturbed by that counterproductive demonization festival as I have been about the unchecked rivers of Hillary Haterade.

If forced, I’d certainly choose the personality cult over premeditated polarization but it seems that in politics one cannot come without the other, and neither contribute to our progress.

Thanks for reading.

Michael B.~

You know, I was going to stay out of this one, but this is bothering me.

"DADT" is not a "mnemonic." It's an acronym. Much like GTFU.

That's a really mean comment to leave for Dustin. I know he's mature enough to handle it, but you were very close to getting moderated by me for that.

You may think that it's smart or cute to write mean comments in a back-handed, indirect way, but it's not. All it comes off as is a pissy Hillary supporter mad that anyone would question the Diva.

I can see your point, and honestly she's been on the road long enough that I think we should give her a break too. But that doesn't mean that insulting people is going to get them to change their opinions. Learn some tact or you're just going to turn people off to whatever you're saying.

Seriously, dude, exhibit that maturity you're implicitly crediting yourself with.

But is it hostile of me to resent that my well-researched if possibly poorly expressed documentation in relation to issues and actions of why I chose Hillary over Obama is reduced to accusations of simply being “pro Hillary” regardless?

Dude, it's totally the attitude, not the substance. You can say whatever you want, but when you get all pissy about it, people just assume that you're drinking the Hillary Kool-Aid.

Seriously, drop the attitude and you'll probably get along better with everyone around here.

The attitude is not only turning off people from this site, as it is not the only place he trolls. His comments are actually rather tame from what is seen commonly over at Citizen Chris, which is not as heavily moderated, so I guess Bil and Jerame's efforts have in some way had their intended effect.

"Michael, you're hilarious. I've been reading your comments for the past few weeks, mostly because I am, yes, an Obama supporter, and so frequent the Obama-related posts on Bilerico, which you FREQUENT, as well.

If your personality is as anal retentive as your commenting, I'm sorry for the people you interact with in the real vs. the virtual world."

Bravo, Dustin!

The idea of the North American Union has been around alot longer thab GW and no thats not on his agenda sorry you can try but cant blame GW for that one.If you hate this idea try the Pan American Union idea which has been around since the 1800's! For the what if folks a Canada USA Carribeian union would work more eaisly than the one with Mexico and no loss of the dollar the Amero idea just wont take off if this ever happened id bet money it would be the NA dollar.

Just a quick shout out to Michael. That last comment was eloquent and expressed your feelings really well. You also did it without the snide and hateful tone you've taken towards a lot of folks lately.

It's just that attitude I don't like. I like your points and your arguments - I enjoy arguing with you just like Sue, Bill and the rest. Just show some respect, please, like you did in that well written comment. :)