Too much media time is spent on this stuff and not the issues. If this is what it will be like from March to November, screw it all.</blokquote>

Issues? what are those?

Visualize the world of beverages, at one end of the spectrum you have unsanitary sewer water and at the other end you have $50,000 Chateau Margot bottles, with a wide range of choices in between. You could choose to drink a nice soda, a cold beer, a decent glass of wine , a nice scotch or just some wholesome tap water. There is a wide range of choices, something for every taste.

Now convert our political system to world of Beverages, and watch your choice get reduced: Pepsi, Pepsi Light and Jolt. Not much of a choice, and now you have to spend a fortune to convince people that there is a noticeable difference between Pepsi & Pepsi Light.

Too much media time is spent on this stuff and not the issues. If this is what it will be like from March to November, screw it all.</blokquote>

Issues? what are those?

Visualize the world of beverages, at one end of the spectrum you have unsanitary sewer water and at the other end you have $50,000 Chateau Margot bottles, with a wide range of choices in between. You could choose to drink a nice soda, a cold beer, a decent glass of wine , a nice scotch or just some wholesome tap water. There is a wide range of choices, something for every taste.

Now convert our political system to world of Beverages, and watch your choice get reduced: Pepsi, Pepsi Light and Jolt. Not much of a choice, and now you have to spend a fortune to convince people that there is a noticeable difference between Pepsi & Pepsi Light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SDHxaYhqAo

If Hillary Clinton isn't a monster herself, her campaign has certainly become monstrous, especially when you compare it to Obama's efforts. The difference is stark.

If Hillary Clinton isn't a monster herself, her campaign has certainly become monstrous, especially when you compare it to Obama's efforts. The difference is stark.

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

Perhaps we can fashion an alternative to “monster” and I would be glad to consider it, but I stand by my post.

Hillary Clinton is nobody's fool but her own. She could have made it very clear from the outset — or at least after the Shaheen outburst early on in New Hampshire about whether Obama may also have dealt drugs — that she would not abide grossly polarizing statements and especially statements that factored in her opponent's race.

She not only has not done that, she has allowed her surrogates to repeatedly run wild and then, as I note, offer a pious apology after the mud has had a chance to stick.

I would urge people who support Clinton — especially those bloggers here and elsewhere who have an audience and support her — to go before the cameras and declare that her campaign is about who is best qualified to lead America out of the Bush quagmire and why and once and for all distance herself from the muck and mire.

My prediction: Pigs will fly before she will do such a thing because she cannot now turn back or push away from from the web of sleaze and desperation of she and her campaign's own making.

Remember that Ferraro quit. She was not fired.

It's bloody tragic.

Let me reiterate that using Samantha Power's wordplay was indeed strong, but there is no doubt that Clinton is inviting its use because of her own reprehensible low-road behavior.

Perhaps we can fashion an alternative to “monster” and I would be glad to consider it, but I stand by my post.

Hillary Clinton is nobody's fool but her own. She could have made it very clear from the outset — or at least after the Shaheen outburst early on in New Hampshire about whether Obama may also have dealt drugs — that she would not abide grossly polarizing statements and especially statements that factored in her opponent's race.

She not only has not done that, she has allowed her surrogates to repeatedly run wild and then, as I note, offer a pious apology after the mud has had a chance to stick.

I would urge people who support Clinton — especially those bloggers here and elsewhere who have an audience and support her — to go before the cameras and declare that her campaign is about who is best qualified to lead America out of the Bush quagmire and why and once and for all distance herself from the muck and mire.

My prediction: Pigs will fly before she will do such a thing because she cannot now turn back or push away from from the web of sleaze and desperation of she and her campaign's own making.

Remember that Ferraro quit. She was not fired.

It's bloody tragic.

Let me reiterate that using Samantha Power's wordplay was indeed strong, but there is no doubt that Clinton is inviting its use because of her own reprehensible low-road behavior.

My last post to you, and on this site:

As you will note, my previous post contained specific links, and dealt in detail with Obama's use of the “I told you so” gambit, which is, in my view, the lowest point in this campaign.

Validating the term “monster” in the main article, after the person who used the term resigned, is way, way over the top.

That is the reason I will not visit this blog again, or post here. That is the reason why the site owner should reconsider the title.

Use of the terms “feminazi” and “niggerizing” is about as offensive as a person can get. It isn't civil conversation. I don't care to read it. The tone of the site is set from the top, however. If the site owner sees fit to print articles validating the use of the term “monster,” then they should expect the tone of the comments to go downhill from there. This site lacks discretion, even by internet standards. I say that as a sincere comment, with the hope that they will one day improve. Also, I imagine that you aren't permitted to post on many sites anymore, and a heightening of the tone of the dialogue here will give you just one less venue for your hate.

As to whether I'm “shrill” – Obama supporters would decide I'm shrill no matter what I do. Hillary supporters are always “shrill.” It's a default adjective applied the instant we open our mouths.

My last post to you, and on this site:

As you will note, my previous post contained specific links, and dealt in detail with Obama's use of the “I told you so” gambit, which is, in my view, the lowest point in this campaign.

Validating the term “monster” in the main article, after the person who used the term resigned, is way, way over the top.

That is the reason I will not visit this blog again, or post here. That is the reason why the site owner should reconsider the title.

Use of the terms “feminazi” and “niggerizing” is about as offensive as a person can get. It isn't civil conversation. I don't care to read it. The tone of the site is set from the top, however. If the site owner sees fit to print articles validating the use of the term “monster,” then they should expect the tone of the comments to go downhill from there. This site lacks discretion, even by internet standards. I say that as a sincere comment, with the hope that they will one day improve. Also, I imagine that you aren't permitted to post on many sites anymore, and a heightening of the tone of the dialogue here will give you just one less venue for your hate.

As to whether I'm “shrill” – Obama supporters would decide I'm shrill no matter what I do. Hillary supporters are always “shrill.” It's a default adjective applied the instant we open our mouths.

Compare this post with the one linked above. Only 2 comments there, and it will quickly be smothered by posts like this.

BTW- I've also told Mark that other bloggers could learn from the civil tone and content of his posts.

Compare this post with the one linked above. Only 2 comments there, and it will quickly be smothered by posts like this.

BTW- I've also told Mark that other bloggers could learn from the civil tone and content of his posts.

Which I have not done, if you read my post. I did not call any blogger a Feminazi- I said that Shaun's post will rile those sorts, as well as the pro-Hillary crowd.

In looking at the post, I see the confusion may have been caused by a lack of a comma between Feminazis and Hill Shillers, but I did clarify that in a later post, so it is disingenuous to continue the meme that I was attacking any blogger.

I WAS, however, chiding Shaun for this post. If you consider that an attack, so be it, but to say I attacked anyone is simply and demonstrably false.

Which I have not done, if you read my post. I did not call any blogger a Feminazi- I said that Shaun's post will rile those sorts, as well as the pro-Hillary crowd.

In looking at the post, I see the confusion may have been caused by a lack of a comma between Feminazis and Hill Shillers, but I did clarify that in a later post, so it is disingenuous to continue the meme that I was attacking any blogger.

I WAS, however, chiding Shaun for this post. If you consider that an attack, so be it, but to say I attacked anyone is simply and demonstrably false.