Don

(and if you can answer that one, would you be able to explain the obsession with harmonicas? Oh, and I don't differentiate between hippie wannabes and bluegrass loyalists because the overlap too much)

but still get to vote and campaign accordingly? Just think, the moron demographic is by far our largest and Democrats continue to campaign as if people will pay attention and and use rationale and logic when making their choice instead of how they "feel" about a candidate.

Just imagine the debates cable news would be having if they actually had an intelligent electorate to talk to. FOX NEWS would be out of business and pundits would be discussing actual issues instead of perceived gaffes and talking points would resemble truth.

No wonder Republicans always want to cut funding for education. They'd be eliminating their base.

a grandpa older than all four Beatles, the microwave and even the ball-point pen as president and an evangelical from a state you get paid to live in who doesn't believe in science as VP? We're screwed. Better start leaning Hindi and Chinese.

To those still living in your information bubble where the US is uncontested in every way but terrorism. God save your soul and may your grandchildren forgive you.

community organizing? For instance, grassroots democracy? The Sunni Awakening? No wonder they can only think in bombs, they don't understand the fundamentals.

Vote McCain-Palin because he was a POW and she's from a small town and the media is picking on her.

That's really all I got out of it. Oh, and Obama is the anti-Christ and Biden is too inexperienced. Did anyone here any policy being addressed that was different than Bush's? Please point them out to me because I must have missed them.

to find any comments out there. I see a lot of gripes of parents being responsible for their children's mistakes (with the exception of Palin), That Clinton was whiner for implying sexism while Palin is a victim because her children are younger. (I wonder where the conservative mantra of women belonging at home went, it was there a couple years ago. Remember, Hillary was evil because she didn't want to stay home and bake cookies? Did you throw away old talking points?)

If you can't answer this question without mentioning Obama or whining about unfair media coverage, you lack independent thought and aren't worth listening to. Just leave a link to Fox News.

I've been reading comments by conservative bloggers all morning in defense of Palin's experience that even Alaskans questioned before electing her, that she is, indeed, has more executive experience than Biden and Obama put together. [i.e. her 1.5 years as a governor and couple years as the mayor of Wasilla (pop.8000) is more important than years of legeslative experience]. However, by that same definition of experience, they are saying that McCain himself, as a senator of 26 years, also lacks experience. So, are you saying Palin is more qualified than McCain to be president or are you just pulling experience comparisons out of your ***?

I'm from as small a town as they come (1200 people) from a state with less than a million people and I completely agree with him. I actually think he was being generous. Have these newscasters making a big deal out of it ever been to small towns like these? Are people in Pennsylvania just oversensitive or something? I read the quote several times looking for something to be offended by, but really, if you get excited about every little, insignificant comment, you need serious help. What is wrong with you people?

While suggesting the democratic nomination be decided by popular vote sounds noble, doesn't that suggest that there is a popular vote tally?

Caucus states allocate their delegates based on proportion supporters at each site and don't bother with a popular vote tally because it would be meaningless. (ie. if a district has 3 delegates and only 10 people show up to caucus and 7 choose Hillary, she would get 2 delegates. If 100 people showed up and she got 70, she would still get 2 delegates)

The Clinton campaign is obsessed about disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, yet they are actively advocating disregarding the results of twenty-some caucus states? So MI and FL are important, but who cares about Iowa, Nebraska, Washington, etc. who didn't keep popular vote tallies? Could someone please explain how that logic works?

Hillary is looking more like Tonya Harding every day.

While suggesting the democratic nomination be decided by popular vote sounds noble, doesn't that suggest that there is a popular vote tally?

Caucus states allocate their delegates based on proportion supporters at each site and don't bother with a popular vote tally because it would be meaningless. (ie. if a district has 3 delegates and only 10 people show up to caucus and 7 choose Hillary, she would get 2 delegates. If 100 people showed up and she got 70, she would still get 2 delegates)

The Clinton campaign is obsessed about disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, yet they are actively advocating disregarding the results of twenty-some caucus states? So MI and FL are important, but who cares about Iowa, Nebraska, Washington, etc. who didn't keep popular vote tallies? Could someone please explain how that logic works?

Hillary is looking more like Tonya Harding every day.

While suggesting the democratic nomination be decided by popular vote sounds noble, doesn't that suggest that there is a popular vote tally?

Caucus states allocate their delegates based on proportion supporters at each site and don't bother with a popular vote tally because it would be meaningless. (ie. if a district has 3 delegates and only 10 people show up to caucus and 7 choose Hillary, she would get 2 delegates. If 100 people showed up and she got 70, she would still get 2 delegates)

The Clinton campaign is obsessed about disenfranchising voters in Michigan and Florida, yet they are actively advocating disregarding the results of twenty-some caucus states? So MI and FL are important, but who cares about Iowa, Nebraska, Washington, etc. who didn't keep popular vote tallies? Could someone please explain how that logic works?

Hillary is looking more like Tonya Harding every day.

You hear all the racial and gender disparities on TV all the time, but they hardly ever talk about the education level. "Blue-collar worker" is a simply a nice word for "no college degree." People with a college degree or higher have overwhelmingly supported Obama in EVERY primary and caucus so far. It's safe to assume that smart people are more likely to go to college than dumb people, so, am I missing something or doesn't this scream out an obvious conclusion??

Although it was Clinton's commercial, most people responded that they'd like McCain answering the phone at 3am. There is no way she could beat McCain on the experience question. That's almost laughable. She can't play the change and hope candidate because she's spent the entire primary criticizing Obama on it. She certainly won't be able to base her campaign on being the first woman candidate.

Really, how does she plan to win?? Gore and Kerry won the big states, too; look where it got them. Even when you consider Florida and Michigan having new primaries, Clinton can only win with superdelegates willing to commit political suicide and go against the voters. I'm really beginning to think that Hillary is campaigning for McCain now. The aruguments she's using against Obama are the same ones McCain will use against her. She's screwing the Democrat's chances in November. (not just for the President, down ticket Democrats too)

they're also bright blue and almost always vote democrat anyway. Do Clinton supporters honestly think these same democrats are going to suddenly vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee or that blue-collar workers in Ohio will begin to see the benefits of outsourcing and vote republican? Really, who buy's that ****? Democrats vote democrat and republicans vote republican; they've already been accounted for. It's purple states and independents that matter.

For a candidate to only be able to attract diehard democratic voters is hardly an accomplishment. Even Gravel or Nader could do that if he was the democratic nominee.

There is a very good chance that she won't be the nominee. Actually, with Obama likely to have more pledged delegates and super-delegates implying they'll follow the populous makes it unlikely she'll be the nominee. Still, her campaign seems satisfied on jumping on any possible thing to ruin Obama's chances of winning. She even hesitated on a question of Obama's religion. Slash and burn tactics might be good for the general election, but she's screwing the democrats over for November. I, for one, would rather vote for McCain than her after this.

The longer this primary goes on, the better McCain looks to both sides. I've heard Clinton supporters say they'd rather vote for McCain than Obama. She's ruining it for the democrats. The republicans already hate her for being a Clinton, Independents do for being divisive, and now half the democrats do. Congratulations; I hope the Republicans send her a nice fruit basket and roses.

I had never bothered to make a Myspace or Facebook page because, frankly, I had sh!t to do. Well, peer pressure's a *****, and now I feel out of the loop. I don't want to bother making two pages, but I still want to be able to keep former classmates updated on my life without sending boring yearly mass emails. Which do you suggest and why?

If she were to concede after those contests then there would be no need for a brokered convention; Obama would naturally receive the rest of the pledged delegates.

The field after these couple of states, with the exception of Pennsylvania, doesn't look good for Hillary, and the remaining superdelegates seem to be leaning toward voting with their states to avoid contraversy. Realistically, if Obama wins Texas and Ohio he'll win the nomination. Do you think Clinton should or will quit if it comes to that?

I'm not supporting one over the other; I'm just being realistic. Do you think she'll quit for the sake of the party? After all, McCain's basically half-democrat anyway and I wouldn't have any qualms voting for him. (His recently-found conservatism would fade once elected)

My order of preference (don't know about other's in the NW)

Obama, McCain, Clinton (Hillary's healthcare plan scares me. Besides, it would need an overwhelming democratic congress to pass)

MLK Day and the Super Bowl?

On Martin Luther King Day, I couldn't help but notice that something was missing. There was no parades, no car sales, no parties or even an excuse to buy gifts. For MLK Day to be appreciated as an American holiday, it must be commercialized somehow.

Low and behold, only two weeks later, the US has it's biggest unofficial holiday of the year, The Super Bowl. Why don't we find a way to combine these and make MLK Day the Day after the Super Bowl. It just so happens that many of the best players in the NFL are African-American anyway and February is, after all, black history month. We could have the MLK Super Bowl Weekend.

We could kill two birds with one stone. MLK Day would be commercialized and fit in with the rest of our holidays and Super Bowl Sunday's holiday status would finally become official.

What do you think?

On Martin Luther King Day, I couldn't help but notice that something was missing. There was no parades, no car sales, no parties or even an excuse to buy gifts. For MLK Day to be appreciated as an American holiday, it must be commercialized somehow.

Low and behold, only two weeks later, the US has it's biggest unofficial holiday of the year, The Super Bowl. Why don't we find a way to combine these. It just so happens that many of the best players in the NFL are African-American anyway and February is, after all, black history month.

We could kill two birds with one stone. MLK Day would be commercialized and fit in with the rest of our holidays and Super Bowl Sunday's holiday status would finally become official.

What do you think? And, how could we combine the names?