long before they turned on her.

With all her selling out and defending of the status quo--from her vote on the IWR, to her refusal to apologize for it, to her silence and inaction in the face of SEVEN YEARS of Bush crimes, to her refusal to vote against Telecom immunity today--IT HAS BEEN HILLARY CLINTON TURNING ON THE RANK-AND-FILE ACTIVISTS OF HER PARTY ALL ALONG.

Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.

I remember listening to Bill Clinton radio press conferences every week.  Perhaps the man didn't represent exactly the way you think things should always be for everyone, but he knew what was going on in the world and was involved in an intelligent manner which did not put our country in grave risk.  He answered all questions, usually with an astonishing grasp of the situation under discussion and usually with a fairly clear idea of what could best be done.  Just because he wasn't a radical and he didn't do things the progressive way, that does not justify throwing out everything he did well.  It is really amazing to see how many people here seem to see little difference between the administrations of Bill Clinton and W.  Just amazing.

Politics is the art of the possible.  It's not like me to be on this side of this discussion, but around here these days, I sure as hell wish people would take that saying more into account.

How many read the diary tonight that the military is looking to execute six prisoners at Guantanamo?  The magnitude of this behavior by our country makes your critique of Hillary seem trivial to me.  She would be an infinitely better president than W or McCain.

So I appreciate the efforts of people who have worked to create the possibility that our next president will neither torture in our name nor show disdain for the constitution and our tradition of government.  Getting corporations completely out of government is probably about 30th on my list these days.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but anytime he got asked a question he would spit out the exact same thing out of what was apparently a dozen or so canned talking "populist" talking points. Pop a coin in the slot, and rail about "the endangered middle class." Another coin, and he'd rail about something else. He was, gently put, not a very good messenger for his message. I found him artificial. He didn't come across well, and I think his record in this election bears me out.

Was Hillary working for a liberal agenda when she was at Rose Law Firm for many years? No. In fact, most of her legal career was spent working for corporate clients. From Wikipedia, with attribution: "was considered a "rainmaker" at the firm for bringing in clients, partly due to the prestige she lent the firm and to her corporate board connections." This does not make her a bad person, and she has done some good work, particularly in education.

Barack, on the other hand, is a Constitutional Law scholar. First African-American at Harvard to be president of the Harvard Law Review. He also did significant community work at the street level after returning to Chicago. This is all common knowledge.

As an associate attorney with Miner, Barnhill & Galland from 1993 to 1996, he represented community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases. He was a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

Substantial enough for you? I don't think the facts bear you out here. They're a lot more complicated than a lot of the Hillary camp likes to admit.

Hillary obviously does have some track record in liberal causes, but she does not have a monopoly in that department, particularly in this primary, and it isn't enough for me to vote for her. Not in the primary, at least.

I'm also sick of her husband. I don't trust him, and I don't want him anywhere near the White House. In the end, he may get his way anyhow. In the end, we may just be stuck with them.

I certainly hope that doesn't happen.

I thought it was pretty obvious that she wants to force us all to marry our same-sex pets and force mandatory abortions on everyone.

And then she would tax all of your money and give it to welfare queens.

...which is one reason why a lot of people in her own party want no part of the Clintons. Frankly, we would all have been a lot better off if the press had not been a captive organ of the Republicans (who ironically whine about "media bias" at every turn while this is going on). That being said, Bill did some things while in office that showed a stunning lack of judgment, which were not Republican fabrications.

I note also that Obama pointing out Hillary's negatives is a legitimate campaign tactic and is simply pointing out the truth. At this point, complaining about him doing so is pointless. If Hillary's so tough, why doesn't she deal with it directly? Instead, she does the same thing her husband did - stonewall. Sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts.

I want to win this time. The DLC tactic of focusing on swing states instead of a 50-state strategy has failed repeatedly. Clinton hasn't learned a thing over the last number of years. She's an inherently divisive candidate.

All of which does not mean I wouldn't vote for her if she got the nom. But I can quite easily contain my enthusiasm if she did.