-Samantha Power Resigned
-Hillary is no more ready to be President than Obama, seriously..
-If the Clintons thought she could become President without the fact that her husband got a BJ in the Oval Office being brought up by the media, they are crazy.
-All politicians bend the truth in ads to make their point, even you did it by saying "First we had Samantha Power calling Hillary a monster...Neither was fired and neither was repudiated." THAT IS A DISTORTION!
-Hillary and Obama are almost identical on gay issues.
-"Present votes" are a very common tool in the Illinois Legislature, get over it.
-Obama and a slum lord? Anyone remember Whitewater? She has her own shady land deals...

I will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but I honestly think Obama is the better candidate.

The problem with the rhetoric in your blog is that you have skewed the facts to meet the needs of your posting.

Obama himself admitted that it isn't okay to call Clinton a monster, and stated that name calling isn't the type of politics he wants to be involved in. Thus, the resignation of Power's was readily accepted. As for Obama not being ready, why would she want him as her VP then? Her logic doesn't make sense, and when called on it, her story changed and thus he had to pass a test for the VP, you know, the one that doesn't exist, and only Clinton can pass.

Has Obama brought up any of the marital issues that Clinton had during her time before, during or after being first lady?

If the fliers were actually false, don't you think that Hillary, the attorney, would file a libel lawsuit to end the mailings' issuance? As for anyone claiming that that Ad hurt Obama, it hurt Hillary too, the polls showed that the majority of viewers thought McCain would be the better person to pick up the phone. Good job Hillary, good job!!!

Again has Obama commented on the Republican crossover vote? And do you realize that Limbaugh is pushing for the crossover vote because Hillary Clinton is seen as the weaker candidate and easier to beat by a Republican? As for the pastor of his church/anti-gay friends, go talk to your Catholic friends who still go to mass, and how they can justify their beliefs with the hatred of the church...

The issue with Clinton's record in the White House is that she is only taking credit for the positive things that happened, and claiming the release of documents that would actually show her record is in someone else's hands. Yes, her husband's, whom said he didn't want those records released. Also, her health campaign while she was first lady failed, how does this benefit anyone? As for the present votes, what about the 823 bills he sponsored while in the state senate...

Obama has limited dealings with Rezko, and has been completely open about those dealings. However, where is Clinton on Hsu, still not talking about him? Better yet, why won't she release her tax records for years between her husband leaving the White House and now? Or the funding documents for the Clinton library? And do you really think those friends are just Bill's, no more favors are going to be necessary if the Clintons get back into the White House?

The issue with the divisive statement is that Republicans aren't really talking about it, it is the Democrats that are scared about how divisive Hillary is for the party. If any other candidate was in her current situation, where she cannot regain the delegate count without superdelegates or changing DNC rules to allow previously disallowed states back in, they would be forced out of the race already by the DNC leaders.

it doesn't matter what you say, Jerame, or how many facts you pile up, the obama supporters don't want to hear it. they think their guy is above it all.

god bless 'em.

of course, I don't believe in god anymore than I believe Obama is some stellar example of purity.

The only guaranteed result of this election is we will all end up disillusioned in the end.

and hello, Matt? OBAMA CAN'T WIN EITHER. HE DOES NOT HAVE THE DELEGATES.

please stop saying that useless, ridiculous line. it goes both ways.

Josh and Matt, you both prove my point most deliciously. You make excuses for why it's OK in Obamaland for Obama to get a pass, but Hillary can't. Your responses completely made my point for me all over again.

Josh says

-If the Clintons thought she could become President without the fact that her husband got a BJ in the Oval Office being brought up by the media, they are crazy.

But the argument all along is that Obama is the great savior and his campaign doesn't need to stoop to bringing up petty sexual escapades of the past. Further, as a Democrat, I thought we agreed long ago that a blowjob was no reason for impeachment and no ones business. Why is it being brought up by fellow Democrats? Is that any different than Hillary "giving the Republicans ammunition" against Obama? It's hypocritical and delusional to say otherwise.

Josh also says:

-Obama and a slum lord? Anyone remember Whitewater? She has her own shady land deals...

So, since Hillary had alleged shady land deals it's OK for Obama to do so? Again, I thought he was different. Why do I keep making that mistake? Oh, because the Obamamatons keep saying he is different.

And Matt, well, you just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you didn't really read my post so much as find things you didn't like to attack on.

So let me reiterate. Why does Obama get a pass but Hillary is scum? Why is it that when she does it she's a monster, but when he does it it was just an honest mistake or a mischaracterization?

But it seems the Obamamatons will keep on spewing their programmed rhetoric until they realize the messiah wears no clothes.

There is a double standard! Oh, wait, I'm not an Obama supporter, so I guess I don't count for anything. :(

Actually, it's more like a triple standard, a quadruple standard, a million times over standard. The media hate her, they've always hated a Clinton and they're run by a bunch of misogynist men who think that women are stupid. Hillary the Inevitable is getting the brunt of that.

I can see how some Obama supporters (let's not go crazy and say "all") worship him. I think that the equivalent from the Clinton camp would probably be some of her supporters' perpetual victimhood.

It is annoying how some candidate supporters can't see any fault in their candidate but tons in the other. Like how Clinton can claim that she helped pass the FMLA and Obama can't claim that he helped pass his states' LGBT non-discrim act, etc.

But either way, I do think that some of the items you mention are either factually incorrect or stated in a way that's rather misleading. And I haven't heard a lot of them from Obama supporters, and I maintain a diary on DKos. But maybe that's just another set of them.

And Samantha Powers "resigned," *cough* *cough*, to say flatly that she wasn't "fired" is rather misleading.

Sara's right, Jerame, though I commend you for trying. The explanation for what you see re Mr. Teflon and the Obamoonies rests in a couple of definitions from Merriam Webster:

"sac•ri•lege
2 : gross irreverence toward a hallowed person,

her•e•sy
a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma"

So it's probably a waste of time to add that
Obama promised in January that he would PERSONALLY respond, that, “If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it.” I guess calling Sen. Clinton a “monster” doesn’t qualify.

As for suing about the race-card playing e-mail distributed by Obama’s South Carolina Press Secretary, Amaya Smith, and other smears, public figures, particularly political ones, are virtually powerless to legally fight slander/libel.

Black civil rights icon Congressman John Lewis, who fought side-by-side with Martin Luther King, Jr., may have understandably transferred his endorsement to Obama after learning that his opponent this summer for reelection was going to make an issue out of Lewis endorsing Sen. Clinton despite the majority of voters in his district voting for Obama, but I’ve not seen Lewis retract his January statement:

“I think there's been a deliberate, systematic attempt on the part of some people in the Obama camp to really fan the flame of race and really try to distort what Senator Clinton said.... And no right-thinking, informed American would ever believe that President Clinton or Mrs. Clinton would do anything to use the race card.

As for Norman Hsu: "Before becoming a major bundler for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, disgraced Democratic donor Norman Hsu helped host a 2005 California event for Barack Obama's political action committee and introduced the senator from Illinois to one of the biggest fundraisers for his presidential bid—Mark Gorenberg, who now sits on Obama's national finance committee. Federal Election Commission records show that Hsu gave $5,000 to Obama's Hopefund PAC in connection with the fundraiser and that people publicly identified with Hsu and his companies gave an additional $19,500 to the PAC in 2005 and 2006." - Washington Post

Whitewater??? Child, please! Several official investigations of everything from Whitewater to charges the Clintons had Vince Foster killed—including both houses of Congress and so-called “Independent Counsel” Ken Starr—found no evidence to indict the Clintons re Whitewater or anything else. Approximate cost of the witch hunt to taxpayers? $70 million dollars.

Even after the “BJ,” after failing to remove him from office through impeachment, President Clinton’s approval ratings during his last year were in the 60s.

Silly wabbits! All that money, all that time, all those investigators, all the stopping of the federal government functioning while they tried to drive him from office over that blow job—read accomplish through slander and scandal what they couldn’t at voter polls—could have been saved had the Repugs just used the 50 cent tactic that has worked so well for Obama—just smear your opponent as “racist” and suddenly the majority of black voters who previously wouldn’t give him the proverbial time of day were carrying him on their shoulders to the lead.

“Barack Obama would not be leading the Democratic presidential race without the enthusiasm and high turnout of black voters. They spearheaded his comeback win in South Carolina, where Obama trounced Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards with the backing of four out of every five black voters. They provided his margin of victory in many other states, and will play a key role in Tuesday's primary in Mississippi, where Clinton is the underdog.” - By Charles Babington, Associated Press, Sunday, March 9, 2008

Alex, I'm addressing Obama supporters and their willingness to overlook all the negative aspects of their candidate - I never said the candidate himself or his campaign hold these views.

I'm saying that when Hillary does something, it's spun as negative, spiteful, damaging, power-mongering, demonic, etc. But when anything negative about Obama gets mentioned, there are excuses, passes, and "no-big-deals" aplenty.

Everything I've mentioned above is accurate in that I gave an example of what Obama supporters have given his campaign a pass on while Hillary gets vilified for similar actions.

And Power may have *cough* *cough* resigned, but I really don't think she needed to. The fact that she felt she had to resign is evidence of the hypocrisy of this campaign if you ask me. It shows that they're more interested in keeping up the facade of propriety.

I use it as an illustration because since Power called Hillary a monster, I've seen no less than 6 blogs call her that on a regular basis. I'm sure there are more, but this is just out of the 80 or so blogs I read.

It's OK to demonize and resort to petty personal attacks if it is against Hillary, but one dare not say a negative thing about Obama for he can do no wrong.

Again, I am referring to the cognitive dissonance inherent in how Obama SUPPORTERS discuss this campaign.

Did someone say "cognitive dissonance" ?
- It's not OK for someone to resign for calling Hillary a monster, but it is OK for a Democrat to call the probable Democratic nominee "not ready to be CIC"?
-It's not OK to bring the distracting psychodrama of the Clinton years as a possible problem (now as it was then) , but it is OK to mock a person offering hope and possibility (and by extension those of us who are indeed interested in a something better and are inspired by his "high flying rhetoric")

-It's not OK to distribute a flyer which correctly states a candidates stated position on a key trade deal (i.e. Clinton's NAFTA) , but it is OK for a leading Democrat to scare people ala Bush'04 .
Hope versus fear? count in for 1 hope vote.

-It's not ok to have an anti-gay clergyman speak at a stop with you (I think "befriending" is a bit more than a stretch). Which is why he apologized and then , on national tv numerous times argued that we have to stop scapegoating gays and immigrants as well as going to AA churches and telling them to get over their homophobia. Do you really think that the Limbaugh Republicans voting for her are actually interested in helping the Democratic party? No, they know that she has run a bad campaign and will be easy to beat come Nov.

-It's not OK to be honest about the intricacies of the political process in a state legislature works (even if it confuses some), but it is OK to point out that having a well worn passport and the cell #'s for people around the world who haven't been in office in over 10 years is a supreme qualification to lead America as CIC. Bob Hope is the most qualified of all!

-It's not OK to have a made a mistake in getting involved with someone who is "shady" and explaining and apologizing for it (we need a leader like Hillary who has never had any "land deal mistakes" in her spotless past), but it is OK to have a spouse who gets a bunch of his money from shady foreign governments who do not have positive relations with the US.

-It is OK to push Republican talking points about how we will have another "national security election" and how strength equals militancy and aggressiveness and a willing to talk to enemies is a naive and foolhardy concept. It is OK to criticize your fellow Democrat as "inexperienced and" ummm... did you actually use the word "soft" as a negative? really? Geez!
Perhaps we should resurrect Patton and give him Bob Hope's passport and George Bush's willingness to start wars and act aggressively and belligerently to the entire world and mix that in with with Bill Clinton who did the most damage to our community (DOMA, DADT) since Reagan mix them all up , drop 'em in a fireproof pantsuit
and awaaaaay we go!

Gawd , I can't wait till she drops out and we can all get about the business of burying the fetid remains of the Republican party come November .
(and finally put an end to the DLC , New-Democrat, Lieberman style of politics championed by your candidate...it's just sooooo 90's).

Seriously, the idea that any GLBTQ people are even considering voting for another Clinton is beyond me ! How many times do we have to be thrown under the bus by these people before we stop giving them our money and votes? The anti-gay pastor thing was bad for Obama , but seriously now, that speech didn't stop me from being able to get married , or being able to serve openly in the military. There are degrees of damage here , Bill Clinton was horrible for our community and ran over us at the behest of Newt Gingrich (who?) , Barack was at an event with a bigot once time. Yeah, those are about equal in any unbiased mind. You vote for Clinton, you vote for more of the same. you vote for Barack, you "roll the dice" for something different. Clinton's politics in the mid-late 90's drove me away from the Democratic party (I became a proud Independent) Barack's politics have made me switch back to Dem. If his brand of poltics wins the day, I'll breath a sigh of relief and remain , proudly , a Democrat. If her brand of revisionism , divide and conquer, fearmongering, warmongering, and race-baiting win the day, I will once again become a proud Independent . You know, there's already a political party for center to center right politics based on fear, war, division, racism, hate, and outdated concepts of strength, it's called the Republican party .

Can't speak to what you wrote about Sen. Clinton and FMLA. Perhaps she exaggerated, even lied. I’m not familiar with it. But as for your asking, Alex, why "Obama can't claim that he helped pass his states' LGBT non-discrim act," please prove why he should be able to.

I have researched this extensively and while it is a fact that he was listed as a cosponsor of at least two previous LGBT rights bills [the first four years INTO his service in the Illinois Senate thus contradicting his oft-repeated claim that he was a fighter for LGBT rights from Day One], he was NOT of the one that passed, SB3186.

The spin response—which I got personally from the Advocate news editor who interviewed him when I challenged why they had not added the fact check disclaimer—is that the one that passed was almost identical to the ones he had cosponsored. That’s the equivalent of saying that basketball player “Bob Smith” may have no longer been on the team when it won the championship but because he had been on the team before he deserves credit for helping them win. Fortunately for basketball fans we're assuming "Sports Illustrated" has higher standards than "The Advocate." [At least it, we assume, was an honest "mistake" when the latter published gay movement icon Frank Kameny's obituary when he's very much still alive.]

As I’ve written before, neither Equality Illinois nor the gay “Windy City Times” made any mention of Obama at all in their coverage of the bill’s passage which, had he actually been an active player, would have been all the more strange given that, by that time, not only was he a familiar name to them locally, he had already become a national celebrity due to his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech.

Equality Illinois political director, Rick Garcia, said that, “We would not have a gay rights bill in the state of Illinois if not for Sen. [Carol] Ronen’s leadership. She made it happen.” Again, no mention of Obama.

Worse than his false claim of having been a “chief cosponsor” of the bill was his claim, as quoted [and not corrected] by “The Advocate,” that he “passed” the bill when the truth was he was no longer in the Illinois Senate when it was voted on. Perhaps he used his Messiah powers in absentia. [In fact, maybe it was dead Illinois voters that he resurrected Lazarus-like to win their primary.

Claiming credit for passing a bill when you were no longer in the legislative body voting is the equivalent of lying to take responsibility for the team you were once on winning the World Series AND your being “Most Valuable Player” when you weren't even in the stadium.

But then, according to the “New York Times,” he told crowds in Iowa that he had “passed” a bill in Illinois regulating the nuclear industry when that bill didn’t pass AT ALL.

Oh, Mary, er Marko, PLEASE! Only in your Messianic dreams did Obama "apologize" for McClurkingate. And, more neutrally, but it speaks to the non-reliability of your "facts"—Obama only appeared by video at the McClurkin God Delivered Me From Homosexuality Vote For Obama rally that Obama INVITED him to and PAID for.

Whatever else he SAYS, his ACTIONS demonstrate that Obama cares less about antigay bigots than he does anti-Semitic ones. He's denounced Farrakhan but not McClurkin—saying only that he disagrees with the latter.

And you're just as wrong about DOMA as you were about what events Obama attended when. It prevents NO ONE from getting married, let alone you. And you, as so many others willfully ill-informed, write as if DADT was President Clinton's idea or that gays had never been barred from military service before then. Neither are true.

Who appointed the first out gay US ambassador, out US Consul General, out federal judge, and out administration officials? President Clinton. Who reversed a fifty-year old Executive Order barring gay federal employees? Pres. Clinton. Who appointed pro-gay Supreme Court Justices? Pres. Clinton.

There ARE plenty of reasons to support Obama, but it drives me fucking nuts that so many MAKE UP reasons to do it while drowing their brains in Hillary Haterade.

I guess I reject your initial argument that they are being treated differently, or trying to hold the other to a higher standard. I think that they both:

-use questionable campaign attacks
-have been scrutinized equally by the press
-have shady things in their past
-etc. etc

They are politicians, and also people. I just think that the playing field has been pretty equal, and the Hillary supporters are just mad because they know they can't beat him now...

The way the Clinton campaign has handled the racist remarks by Geraldine Ferraro versus the quick resignation of Samantha Power from the Obama campaign for the far less incendiary "monster" remark tells us a great deal about the moral compass of each campaign.

Ferraro further escalted her remarks today :

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that? "

And Maggie Williams, the Clinton campaign chief, replied to Obama's very righful objection to Ferraro's remarks :

"[W]e reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people."

Blaming Obama for her own campaign's racist message.

Obama's campaign responded accordingly :

"With Senator Clinton's refusal to denounce or reject Ms. Ferraro, she has once again proven that her campaign gets to live by its own rules and its own double standard, and will only decry offensive comments when it's politically advantageous to Senator Clinton. Her refusal to take responsibility for her own supporter's remarks is exactly the kind of tactic that feeds the American people's cynicism about politics today and it's why Barack Obama's message of change has resonated so strongly in every corner of the country," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Hillary demanded Powers resignation and even used the "issue" as a fundraising ploy. Yet when it comes to racist remarks by her own surrogates
she tries to blame the injured party.

Could the difference be more clear ?

Homework reveals that DOMA was put in place to Unconstitutionally override the commerce clause of the US Constitution" Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Before DOMA , all legal marriages from one state were legal in all other states , after DOMA , no.
Without DOMA, when Mass legalized marriage, marriage would've been legal in all 50 states or at the least, Mass marriages would have automatically valid in all states. And more GLB people have been kicked out of the military since DADT than before. Look it up. I don't hate the Clintons, I just hate their ACTIONS . I think they have done significant damage to our community that will take years and many expensive court challenges to overcome. In this case, I'm with Melissa Etheridge and David Geffen . The Clintons are (and were) a huge disappointment. And I'm not in the mood for more of the same .

Neither [Power nor Thorne] was fired and neither was repudiated.

Um... dude? Power's resignation was the same as being fired... a staff person with immense personal credentials and value to the campaign recognized that she'd been put on the long-term disabled list in the sport we call politics, and she stepped aside as gracefully and quickly as she could.

If she had a 10 percent chance at standing strong and tight and close to Obama, and earning a position in his cabinet, yeah, Samantha Power lost. But, as Americans, will we benefit if Samantha is close to the powers that be?

Oh, YEAH!!!

She may have lost a personality- or politically-based race, but it's time for us to vote on substance.

"Clinton Disagrees With Ferraro on Obama

By PETER JACKSON
The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 11, 2008; 8:24 PM

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for saying that Barack Obama "would not be in this position" if he were white instead of black.

In a brief interview with The Associated Press, Clinton said she regretted Ferraro's remarks....In the AP interview, Clinton said, 'I do not agree with that', and later added, 'It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal'.

'We ought to keep this on the issues. There are differences between us' on approaches to issues such as health care and energy'."

Still waiting for Obama to keep the promise he made in January that, “If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it.”

I guess calling Sen. Clinton a “monster” doesn’t qualify. I guess Maxim Thorne's meltdown in which he mixed together hysterical charges of the Clintons lying, stealing from the White House, long ago disproved Whitewater charges, sex, and more sex, blah blah blah doesn't qualify as ungenerous or misleading or in some way unfair.

But then he promised he'd serve out his first full six-year Senate term before running for President, too.

Paging Obama's Integrity. Obama's Integrity, line 1.

I’m afraid somebody’s dog ate your “homework,” Marko. A few facts:

RE DOMA:

August 11, 2007, ABC News online: “Obama believes states should be under no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. He wants to fully repeal DOMA, however, because he views the statute as ‘ineffectual and redundant’, in the words of [Obama supporter and his former Harvard Constitutional aw professor Lawrence] Tribe. Obama believes a long-recognized public policy exception to the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause exempts a state from having to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state which runs counter to its own public policies. ‘Marriage is not something that states have ever been obliged to recognize if it’s been against their own public policy’, said Tribe, who has testified on the subject before Congress. ‘SAME-SEX COUPLES [FOR INSTANCE] IN MASSACHUSETTS ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED except that the repeal of DOMA is a way of telling that couple that their marriage in Massachusetts is not going to be made the subject of a symbolic and ineffectual slam by the federal government’.”

Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself at:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3468949&page=1

DADT DISCHARGES:

According to Allen Berube's classic book and documentary, "Coming Out Under Fire":

"Over 9000 were discharged for homosexuality during WWII, and a large number of cases went uncounted." SEE: http://www.tvguide.com/movies/coming/review/129983

The US was involved in the war for less than four years. 9000 divided by 4 = 2250 per year [+ the "large number of cases (that) went uncounted"].

Per the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which I trust you know was created solely to try to overturn DADT and counsel those affected by it until then, the highest number under DADT in any year through 2006 was 1273—only 148 more than half the average in WWII. The DADT numbers by year range from a low of 612 to that 1273. In only half of the previous 12 years of DADT, did they exceed 1000 per year. Adding the highest four years [1998-2001] together totals only 4273 versus the 9000+ in four years of WWII.

SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/dadt/record.html?section=145&record=3864

Further, “in the three years prior to 1966, the Navy [ALONE] discharged over 1,600 sailors each year for homosexuality.” Some 400 MORE than the HIGHEST year of DADT.

SEE: http://www.sldn.org/templates/press/record.html?section=5&record=423

“By the late 1980's the total number of men and women discharged as homosexuals or lesbians since the beginning of World War II approached 100,000.” SEE: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DC1338F931A35756C0A966958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Claims that the “percentages” of discharges are higher under DADT are distorted by the fact that the total number of service personnel in our downsized military is smaller than in those earlier years. In any case, DADT was forced upon Clinton by Congress after he tried to open the military completely to out gays. Even for HRC Executive Director Elizabeth Birch has said that they would have overridden any veto he attempted.

Obama has had three years in the US Senate to introduce bills to repeal both DOMA and DADT and he hasn’t. The same could be said of Sen. Clinton, certainly, but you’re the one pontificating about his moral superiority on the subjects.

Melissa Etheridge is a fabulous singer and courageous example for us in many ways but she's no political expert—or shall we talk about the time she wasted during the LOGO forum discussing New Mexico’s bark beetle infestation?

David Geffen is even less of a political expert who remained in the Hollywood closet long, long, long into his accumulation of an estimated $6 billion dollars; 11 years after the first known AIDS deaths. His large donations to various LGBT causes are admirable but his turn on the Clintons was as transparent as the picture windows of his Malibu mansion where it took him 22 years to keep his promise to let mere mortals walk along his beach...he was simply pissed that Pres. Clinton did not pardon Geffen's friend, Indian activist Leonard Peltier, convicted of killing two FBI agents in a 1977 shootout on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Sen. Bill Richardson criticized both the Obama campaign and Geffen himself for a slash and burn the Clintons article in the LA Times. Apparently, Obama has long since forgotten what he said at the time, "It's not clear to me why I would be apologizing for someone else's remarks." But then there are Rules for Obama and Rules for Sen. Clinton and the Obama campaign writes both.

Correction: "GOV. Bill Richardson criticized both...."

And Power may have *cough* *cough* resigned, but I really don't think she needed to. The fact that she felt she had to resign is evidence of the hypocrisy of this campaign if you ask me. It shows that they're more interested in keeping up the facade of propriety.

But didn't you say in the post that you thought she should have resigned?

And Maxim Thorpe did/will soon, according to Politico.

So like if they don't quit/resign/get fired/die, Obama's campaign is being hypocritical about its message. If they do quit/resign/get fired/die, then Obama's campaign is just interested in a facade of propriety. Where's this pass he's getting?

I know, it's his supporters we're talking about, but I haven't heard about half the things you mentioned from them, like:

it's not OK to have Republican crossover votes supporting you in the primary

Isn't Obama getting more centrists/crossovers? Honestly, I think that all partisan primaries should be closed, but whatevs, I haven't heard any Obama supporters make that claim. But as I said, we are probably just reading different sites (except us! Go Big Green!).

Perhaps the most damning of a long list of questionable behaviors by Hillary Clinton are her repeated statements indicating that she and John McCain are well qualified to be president while Obama is not. Essentially, Clinton has endorsed the qualifications and stature of the Republican nominee over those of the leading Democratic contender.

Gary Hart has termed this betrayal of her party by Clinton as "Breaking the Final Rule"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html

As reported in the Washington Post, Clinton said

"It is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate that we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," she said. "I believe that I have done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that, and you'll have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy"

( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603596_2.html )

“I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”

( http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14809.html )

The New Republic summarized the situation as follows:

"It's one thing for Hillary Clinton to attack Barack Obama, the overwhelmingly likely Democratic nominee, in terms virtually identical to those used by John McCain, his presumed general-election opponent. It's another thing for her to do this while explicitly praising McCain relative to Obama...
There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed.

( http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/03/04/the-mccain-clinton-ticket.aspx )

More than "ashamed", Clinton should be and is in my mind disqualified as a candidate for the DEMOCRATIC Party nomination in light of her disloyal and destructive words.

Clearly, Hillary will truly do and say ANYTHING to win - no matter what the costs to her party and to others.

No, Alex, I didn't say she should be fired. I said she wasn't and I said so much for that different style of politics. Point being that while she may have *cough* *cough* resigned, it's a bit silly and smacks of a fakeness that I think belies the whole reason I don't care for the Obama campaign. It's based on facades and high rhetoric.

I don't doubt he's capable. I don't doubt he'd be a good president - I've said this before. What I doubt is that he's the best candidate and what I know is bullshit is fake front of being above it all and a different kind of politician. He wasn't a different kind of politician until he got a case of big head after all the buzz around him over the 2004 convention.

But back to the point...

I really don't care if they quit/resign/get fired/die. I care that when Obama's folks do something stupid like this, his supporters overlook it and say it's just a mistake and his whole campaign isn't like that. Yet Hillary is a devious snake if anyone on her campaign or affiliated with her in any way does something stupid. It's hard to imagine the whole campaign isn't a facade when Obama's wife has even made personal mentions of Hillary's inability to "run her own house" and the even stupider remark that she's proud of her country for the "first time in her adult life."

And yes, we're reading different blogs or at least different comments. I will try to find the blog post I read that was saying Hillary really didn't win in TX because it was the republican crossovers that did it for her and Obama won the actual Dem vote. It was rather twisted. But I've ready plenty of comments to the effect that Hillary if pandering to Republicans/Republicans are voting for her just because they think McCain can beat her.

And yes, I've seen several people praise Obama for his crossover votes and yes he gets them, but when Hillary gets them it's because she's weak and they know they can beat her - when Obama gets them it's because he's strong and they think he's some kind of transformative power. At least in Obamaland.

Well Jerame you called it.

To see the obamafanatics come out of the woodwork and defend their messiah is certainly proof of the "groupthink" that is currently going on in the democratic primary.

For his next trick I guess he will walk across the potomac without a bridge, then turn water to wine, a few loaves of bread into many, the whole fish thing too.

Guess them christians do not have to wait for that second coming thing of theirs do they? Well at least according to Obama supporters.

Guess I am just getting more cynical in my old age, but when something looks too good to be true, it usually is.

I've had my chance to "vote" (or as close as we get to that in a caucus state), so I'm pretty much just sitting back now and watching it all.

Obama didn't get my "vote" for many of the reasons mentioned here by the few of us who haven't yet seen the light and been converted. When I hear an Obama speech, for instance, I still hear echos (but with better deliver) of George W. Bush speeches in 2000.

But I think I can understand why it's all so inspiring to so many to hear someone promise (as Bush also did in 2000) to change things completely in DC.

But since it looks likely that Obama will be the Democratic nominee, I've been trying to come around to it all.

And I must say that I'm impressed by what a deft and effective politician Obama is. Just the fact that he's been nearly unstoppable in caucus states points to that. What it takes to win in a caucus state is a strong and effective political organization. Obama has built those throughout the country.

And a major part of his effectiveness as a politician has come from separating himself in the public and press imagination from the nitty-gritty of politics. It was called "teflon" for an earlier president, and Obama has created some kind of shield around himself that is working in the same way.

Another part of his effectiveness as a politician came in building that highly effective cadre of adoring fans. They each seem nice enough, and even innocent individually, but they can get pretty nasty when put into any kind of group.

That nastiness of some Obamafanatics leads me to doubt that he'll be able to do much to really change the partisan tenor of Washington if he does manage to get elected. But the skill of Obama and his political organization at least makes me think (now) that he might actually be elected and have the chance to try.

"It's OK to call Hillary a monster, but it's not OK to say Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief.

It's OK to bring up Hillary's spouse's marital indiscretions from 10-15 years ago, but it's not OK to mock Obama for high flying rhetoric."

These are points of comparison?

Its OK to mock Obama supporters, but I assume it will not be OK to call out the lameness of the comparatives above.

C'mon, really now. I was first a Kucinich supporter, because he is the best for us and was the first to call for impeachment. Then I was an Edwards supporter because he is far from the DLC, but he dropped out so fast that didn't last long.

Finally, it came down to supporting Hillary Clinton, the poster girl for the destructive-to-the-Party nastiness called the DLC, or supporting the only Democrat left who is a newcomer to the race for the Presidency, Barack Obama.

Obama is very vulnerable to the smears of the GOPhers, but Clinton's enemies have had her number since her husband was in office. She's done well in NY, but not with the blue collar crowd (I live in CA, but my family is in NY). She is the more vulnerable because of her history.

Barack is not a saint or the second coming or messianic. These are the talking points of GOPhers, not Democrats. Any Democrat who repeats that nonsense is using the words of the Republican Party against a probable nominee for the Presidency. Totally counter-intuitive, completely bitter-sounding, very stupid.

Political supporters of both Hillary and Barack are frenzied right now. This article is an extreme example of how supporters of the DLC/New Democrats/Right-Wing Democrats like Hillary are hurting -- not Barack, obviously -- but the Democratic Party and especially gay people.

It is so very, very (did I say very?) wrong and counterproductive to say untrue, inaccurate, and insulting to all gay people things like this: "Obama supporters apparently have the same penchant for cognitive dissonance as their evangelical Christian counterparts."

I know what cognitive dissonance is, I know what the author was trying to say. But, only eight months before the elections, to in any way compare Democratic supporters of a very viable Democratic Presidential candidate (regardless of what you think of him, both candidates are/will be guilty of political gaffes and blunders) to the pukes known as evangelical Christians, to call Barack supporters counterparts to the murderously blind politically religous nutcases who have collaborated with war criminals and U.S. fascists is contemptible. Simply disgusting.

So Obama's supporters are overly enthusiastic? Is that possible? Politics is metaphorically a bloody sport. Clinton will be going up against those religious zombies if she wins the nomination, so will Obama. Who can blame Obama's supporters, really? The scent of hope is in the air again, finally! This time it is not Hope, AK. Big deal.

This article leaves me feeling attacked by a rabid Clinton fan just for being a person who has already decided to vote for Obama in November as I already did in the CA primary which Clinton won (no, I am not very active in my support for Obama, he seems to be doing fine without me), and leaves me feeling like I have to attack back equally hard, though I've tried to stay civil and hope I've succeeded.

Given what has been happening with evangelical Christian Sally Kern, for example, it is no joke or light-hearted statement to compare EITHER Democratic candidate to them, especially if it's only to make negative points about the person who is not your choice for President.

Pitifully insulting and enraging. I'm sure you can do better, and I hope you turn your skills toward a better version of active support for Barack Obama when/if he wins the nomination of our Party.

In response to UsQueersdotcom and the others who keep saying that attacking Obama is hurting the party.

So tell me...Why aren't you equally as pissed off when personal attacks on Hillary are thrown out there? Why is it that if Obama is attacked, it's hurting the party, divisive, etc. But when Hillary is attacked, it's true, she's evil and it'll be best for the party to finally be done with the Clintons?

That is the argument thrown out over and over. Saying bad things about Obama hurts the party. But I have rarely seen an Obama supporter come along and say that the nasty things about Hillary hurt the party.

Could it be that the rationale is that they believe HE's going to win and she isn't? Therefore saying anything negative about Obama is hurting the eventual nominee?

If so, you're still putting the cart before the horse. Hillary hasn't conceded and neither of them are even close to being able to capture 2025 delegates.

So, nasty things about EITHER candidate should hurt the party equally. I mean, come on. If we all knew that the Clintons were so nasty, racist, and underhanded, why did we support them for 8 years? Doesn't THAT say a lot about our party too?

You see, I could go on and on about this continued double standard, but every comment so far has just reaffirmed my initial position - that there is a double standard in play between the two.

I think it's absolutely wonderful that so many people fell right into it and immediately started defending Obama - just like I said they would.

Could I do better? Yes. But did I do enough to prove my point? Absolutely. Just like the porn post a few weeks ago, the reactions to my post were as predictable as they come.

I will support Obama if he is the nominee. I've praised him many times and will continue to praise him (when it is warranted) because I think he's a worthy politician. I do not believe he's the best candidate now and the near hero worship of many of his supporters sickens me when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

There is clear cognitive dissonance when you can say with a straight face that saying negative things about Obama hurts the party but you do not hold the same opinion if it is Hillary getting smacked around. I have no other obvious cases of cognitive dissonance to compare this to other than evangelical Christians. And I have met a number of Obama supporters whom I can't think of in any other way.

My worst criticism was of the author for his backhanded gay-bashing through his comparison of any Democrats who support Obama on THIS board, and criticism of the DLC, with whom Hillary Clinton proudly aligns herself, as did Bill Clinton, the co-creator of that GOPher wolf in Democratic clothing (the DLC, not Hillary, try to follow along).

I remain astonished and disgusted at the ease with which you again compare the mostly gay people on this blog who happen to support Obama with the killer klown types of evangelistic Christians like Sally Kern.

Like Kern, you also refuse to see your insult for what it is, you arrogantly repeat it, and now you've haughtily claimed victory and staked out your position here as her vicious mouthpiece (see, I'm talking about you, not Hillary, not Obama).

You decided to toss out what you call bait, just for the fun of it, to chum the waters and stir up supporters of Obama to come to his defense, just so you could point your finger and say, "Aha! I knew I could drag you into this! I knew you would unflinchingly support Obama if I attacked you, his supporters, for being too supportive!"

"Hillary Clinton, the poster girl for the destructive-to-the-Party nastiness called the DLC" is the only time I mentioned what is to me her biggest fault, and I did not so much attack her, as specify that my disgust is with the DLC. THAT is what is destructive to the Party, THAT is what is nasty. THAT is why Hillary is not the candidate we should support now. THAT is why there are so many people who smell a chance to be free of the GOPher mentality which also taints the DLC. It is not our fault that Hillary chooses to be that kind of Democrat. It is not our fault that Barack chooses to be the kind of Democrat we have not seen viable for a long time. There are many of us who are sick and tired of the Republican plan for the U.S. and the world, whether that plan is supported by the GOPhers or by DLC Democrats.

I'm sick to see your glee at creating so much divisive, emotional negativity in our community with this useless, destructive piece (once again, as I said before, it is you who are being destructive, not Hillary, and not just because you chose to play provocateur using Obama in particular, it could as easily have been the other way around), clearly for just your personal amusement.

Yes, I do believe that Obama will win the nomination. Yes, I believe he will sustain his sweep through the convention and defeat McCain easily.

Yes, I will vote for Clinton if she gets nominated. Yes, I will be very disappointed if the DLC prevails once again, because yes, the DLC is a nasty, destructive-to-the-Party clot in the Democratic Party's bloodstream. They have cost us so many seats in Congress through their wishy-washy pandering on issues, and their lack of backbone, AS A GROUP of politicians. We are done with them, their time is over, just as the time of the GOPhers has come to an end. There will be a Democratic sweep in November, and we need, must, should nominate the candidate who is most likely to be the most progressive, and that ain't Hillary, honey.

Look, I am co-owner of the site and I am the author. And I am by no means restricting my piece to anyone on this blog. I'm talking about Obama supporters writ large. Talk about inflammatory rhetoric. To insinuate that I am gay-bashing is way beyond the line. If there are Obama supporters who read this blog and believe that anything bad said about Obama hurts the party but anything bad said about Hillary helps the party, I find that kinda wacky regardless of sexual orientation.

I invite anyone - gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, straight or otherwise - to convince me that trashing Hillary and having Democrats bring up Bill's affairs or call Hillary a monster helps the party. Please. I cannot grasp this logic.

There is little glee on my part. I think you've perfectly proven my point and I'm glad to be right in my original assumptions, but I don't consider it gleeful to think the worst and have it come true.

I did not "chum the waters" as you put it, but express exasperation at the ridiculousness of a good chunk of Obama supporters online and even in the MSM. It's a very legitimate debate, whether you like how I addressed it or not is your opinion, but the debate and the point are quite valid in these VERY silly times.

I'm not angry that Hillary is behind - quite honestly, I think she deserves the kick in the ass she got for being so sure she had it locked up she didn't have a plan after Super Tuesday. That doesn't detract from the fact that I think the rhetoric from the Obama supporters is absurdly divisive and destructive too.

Yes, I support Hillary and think she's the better candidate. We all know she has flaws. We all know Obama has flaws too. So does everyone because we're all human. However, regardless of what you feel about her politics, calling her a monster, bringing up her husband's affairs, or bringing up would-be Republican scandals like Whitewater is no different than bringing up connections to Rezko, questioning experience, or calling them out for misleading mailers.

I say Obama is not living up to his rhetoric, but his supporters refuse to see it. Hillary isn't claiming to be a different kind of politician, but Obama is. He has people defending him in that, yet he sure doesn't seem that different to me. Misleading tactics, hanging out with money men, playing politics with votes, it doesn't say he's different or that he represents change any more than Hillary would.

And I don't see too many Obama supporters owning up to their candidates flaws and many create a rather false reality with regard to the differences between the two.

That's why it has gotten to this level, BTW - there are few substantive differences between them in terms of policy positions (though health care is my #1 reason for supporting Hillary) so everyone resorts to who's got better hair, who can't keep whose snake in their pants and so forth.

There is a double standard. There has been since day one, but it kicked in full force after Iowa. The glee that was present on the blogs and in the MSM was unbelievably disgusting, misogynistic tripe. Obama had a perfect storm of circumstance, cunning, and the stupidity of Clinton's team on top of being a handsome, charming, and mesmerizing personality. I just wish he would have waited to run. I definitely wanted to see more of Obama, I just don't think 2008 is the year he should have chosen to run.

I was agnostic for a long time on which of the two I preferred. I always hoped for Hillary, but when Obama announced, I waited to announce my support until I was sure of my decision. I was definitely influenced in that decision by the disgusting behaving of the MSM and the blogs after Hillary lost Iowa. The unrestrained glee with which they dogged her was vile.

If there were substantive issues being discussed here, I'd probably not be so flip. But let's get real - how much of this crap is going to have any effect on whether or not they can be an effective president? Does a connection to Rezko matter any more than a connection to any of the Clinton's friends? Not unless there is a real crime involved - otherwise it's just what you expect out of politicians - they're where the money is.

It's ridiculous the things that are being said and the point of my post was to call light to that in a different way than others have. I think I did that effectively if not to your liking.

I stand by what I said - I think it takes some special logic (ie cognitive dissonance) to hold the views I've heard/read from a swath of Obama supporters. Not just here, but across the internet.

Maybe you have sane, rational reasons for supporting Obama, GREAT! I applaud you. There are sane, rational reasons to support him. This post wasn't meant for you other than as a warning not to let your support TURN INTO hero worship nonsense like is going on elsewhere.

"However, regardless of what you feel about her politics, calling her a monster, bringing up her husband's affairs, or bringing up would-be Republican scandals like Whitewater is no different than bringing up connections to Rezko, questioning experience, or calling them out for misleading mailers."

I agree 100%.

And, FWIW, I think you should have written that in the first place. I love the way you write, when you turn on all four burners, whatever that means. And you could tell I enjoyed using the word glee. It's a fun word to use, isn't it? Makes me feel gleeful. Just this aside, you write way better than I ever have, but then we both knew that already. You have my favorite kind of writing: fact dense, concise is too sharp that's why I didn't use it, solid with facts, clear opinions, personal interaction, man, you are THERE! OOOooooAaaaaaaahhhh!!! Ahem. Excuse me. I don't get out much. I should have read more of your other columns before commenting but you grabbed me with this one. I don't even really know your regular tone here or your favorite angles, but I'm a bilerico subscriber so I'll be running across you again.

Sincere congratulations: "I am co-owner of the site and I am the author." Your project is humongous, I read a lot of it now that it is growing so useful and since I subscribed when I found it a few weeks ago, but I don't talk to it much. Thanks for the site.

"I am by no means restricting my piece to anyone on this blog." Gently now. What are you people, some kind of caffeine buzzing hyperactive mutations of the vanished honeybees? Are gigabytes your new pollen? How do you do all of this? And with, well, I'm making an assumption here, such a small crew and budget? (Too late to take back the fundraising softball.) Don't look at me, I'm broke. Always.

Now in time, it seems there is a much noisier, more P.R.-driven, new total immersion multimedia rah-rah show, plus the different ones the candidates' have to drag around the nation while campaigning. But its not like the Superbowl where they play the same game as they do every Sunday, football.

Campaigning for president seems to have turned into a warm-up for assuming the office, instead of just the whistle stop and speechifying. Now campaigning and governing are even more different things than they have always been, as you are well aware and George W. ("The Wuss" - his daddy used up "The Wimp") showed the best example of before 2000.

I don't/can't pay attention to all those buzzing little bumblebees, I guess I wait till they get back to the hive. Probably the drone bee in me.

There's no way I or any one person here could know as much information as you and your team do of course, about what is happening nearly minute-by-minute from resources around the world, especially with your added important value of trained and experienced filtering to dump the litter, b.s., tainted source, nobody cares and old bits of information while panning for the golden nuggets.

I'm really hoping Barack Obama gets the nomination because I think either candidate is competent for the only job you probably won't be fired from no matter what, the best job in the world and the hardest job in the world, IMO. The Wuss is and always has been incompetent.

I look for their ability to strategize and execute intricate, complicated plans like a presidential campaign, and Barack seems to be doing a better job of it. For whatever reason. So far, no blood has been spilled like in some other countries during election periods, and we are where we are because this is where we are. Oooh, deep crap!

The U.S.A. also needs the positive emotional changes which should naturally accompany a big, timely, voter-driven national change of direction. I believe that a certain amount of charisma, charm, and star quality is useful in negotiations nationally and internationally, and Barack has a lot of those. The entire world will need time and help to adjust to the abrupt, positive change of direction due to a progressive liberal, Democratic change in regime in my favorite country.

A bit of Beatlemania would be very useful right now. Barack has much more of "it" than Hillary does, IMO, and I believe we absolutely need the person with the most energy. I'm not just assuming younger has more energy, but Barack appears to move through life faster than Hillary does.

With Barack, I can see ahead that more of the changes I want to see happen will happen, faster. I see that he is eager to negotiate solutions instead of prolong irritations, which signals to me that citizens will have a higher level of input.

Including getting healthcare with less to no insurance company involvement because Medicare is expanded greatly; the important and neglected job of repairing the military back up to its nominal status, including the National Guard and Reserves; and faster Iraqi pull-back till pull-out if it's working. IMO, it's time to give Iraq a chance to experience real independence and see what happens. Slaughters are happening now, Iraqi to Iraqi and Coalition to Iraqi. Later deaths, which will happen to some degree no matter when we leave, will be Iraqi to Iraqi, and Americans will no longer be killing Iraqis or be killed by Iraqis, unless welcomed NATO troops are on the ground in Iraq.

If Hillary is the nominee and becomes President - from what I've seen and heard directly from her throughout all these years - fewer of the changes I want will happen, more slowly, and she'll want to be more involved in Iraq's government and financing. She's more apt to keep alive Iraqi opportunities for American wealthy people to become more wealthy. I believe she'll have much shorter coattails, because the level of passion surrounding her campaign is lower, and we'll win fewer new seats in Congress, filled with less progressive Democratic candidates.

What I see, hear and read from their mouths and actions directly affects my decision about who to choose. I really believe that if you can't successfully manage a campaign as warm-up to your first day in office, which begins immediately with the transition period, then you don't have enough of the right innate intellectual skills and physical stamina needed for the job that needs to be done right now. I'm watching her be squeezed out by the combination of many different factors, while already ahead Barack continues his up-to-date campaign: earlier into every state, with greater numbers of workers, on top of a realistically adequate bank account.

I make time for what candidates say and do, and not too much time at all for what people say about the candidates. Endorsements matter to me too. It's better now that we have access to so many verbatim sources, more TV debates, hours of audio from speeches and video of everything online, talk radio appearances; drives a person crazy, but helps a lot.

That's it. Somewhere in that mess is what I was trying to say. Except that I probably haven't experienced the denial part of Obamamania as much as you have. That would explain a lot.

Now I'm wondering. Except for my drifty writing about the subject today (the meds are kicking in), do I fit the category of a person with Barackomania or whatever they're calling it now? Don't let the length be a new factor, I always talk to much once I get going.

Today is a luxury for me, thanks for entertaining my long-winded ramblings. I don't get out much. I said that.

Thanks - I appreciate the compliments. I probably should have written that in the first place, but I was reacting to an email thread I had just read and it was just chock full of really brilliant people spewing all kinds of this crap.

A local blogger here in Indiana, who used to be a respected columnist in the Indianapolis Star, has literally turned into an Obama groupie going to every event within driving distance and swooning over him like a school girl (and she's in her 60s I think now.) She even resorted to calling Hillary a monster.

I've been guilty of getting caught up in the silliness myself, but I'm like others in wishing we could get back substantive discussions and talking about why the Republicans are so bad for our country.

It's been both fun and frustrating to have such a contested and roller-coaster like primary campaign. What I want to know is which one of these are going to get us more of what we need. I think they will both get us moving in the right direction, but I think we can differ on who will do that best.

Someday we'll have to write up a typical day in the "how we do it" category. Having contributors from coast to coast and in other countries helps.

But there is definitely a lot of work. It's totally worth it though.

Personally, I don't see what all the fuss is about. They are just words, and everyone has a right to say what they want. Sometimes what you say comes back to bite you in the ass, sometimes it doesn't.
I kind of resent the fact that Obama is being judged by many people not on what he says and does, but what his associates say or do. While I acknowledge that who you are is influenced by those you associate with, we are debating whether Obama is fit to be president, not his minister, not Samantha Power.
That being said, I don't like any of the candidates, and frankly I'm relieved that I can't vote.