Olbermann seems more annoyed by her saying McCain is more qualified to be President than Obama. Though there are some who think tacit acceptance of racism by leaders who benefit from that racism contributes to overt discrimination and violence.

this will help clinton.

@2

Can we at least wait until he actually gets around to giving the Special Comment to predict what the outcome (if any) will be?

olbermann definitely gives off that latte-sipping vibe, IF you know what i mean [and that's a big IF. i'm not even sure what i mean]. whatever he has to say, team clinton will figure out a way to discredit him.

Well, a more interesting Mississippi exit poll shows that 15% of those voting for Clinton would be dissatisfied if she gets the nom, and 4% of those voting for Obama said they would be dissatisfied if he got the nom. WTF? Is this the GOP crossover factor?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/12/02257/1544/210/474723

so, no opinions allowed before then? i guess that's why there aren't many comments in this thread!

my opinion is that i cannot see any way in which this will not motivate clinton's base, and perhaps some on the fence, to support clinton.

I'm just waiting for someone to write a big fat article of all the people that the Clintons have had contact with have mysteriously died.

Note to Obama: dont have Hilz as for Vice President, you'll be dead within the year.

@6 There's another option. Dems sick of Clinton's race baiting will move closer to supporting McCain in the general if Clinton becomes the nominee. The last few days have made it very clear that the Clintons are putting their personal interests above the needs of the Dem party and the needs of the country. I didn't believe all the criticism against them in 2004 that they weren't doing enough to support Kerry/Edwards so H. Clinton would have a better shot at the nomination in 2008 but now I believe they really did put their personal interests ahead of the party interests in 2004 just like they are doing it again in 2008.

it might help mccain in the long run, maybe. whether it does or not, in the short run, it will benefit clinton. i do not think his speech will be a breaking point for either campaign.

Clinton clearly didn't read Gary Hart's opinion in The Huffington Post. He calls it spot on.

Say this somewhere else, was funny enough to share:

Brett Farve's wife to start for Green Bay Packers next season. "In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, State, company or corporation. She has never been a CEO or led anything larger than an office. She's had a "staff" when she was first lady and first lady of Arkansas.

cato -- there's a big difference: one is physical and one is mental. you can learn by observing either way. not only that, for your analogy to work, cindy would have to have played football at some point and level to justify the comparison.

i'd just like to point out that i beat kos to the ferraro/limbaugh comparison by over a day:

Rush got fired from ESPN for that comment, as well as he should have.

ESPN is more racially sensitive than the Clinton campaign.zing.

As a lifelong Packer fan (and relatively recent Obama convert), I think this is pretty funny.

BTW cato (institute), Deanna (that's her name) did play football with Brett. They were lifelong sweethearts and she used to catch his passes in HS. They make 'em tough down there in Mississippi...

@12 - even as an Obama supporter, I gotta say that's a bullshit line. Hillary has roughly the same experience with public office that Obama does.

The fact is that we had the choice of experienced politicians for the Democratic nom - e.g. Joe Biden - and said "no", opting for three (and now two) relative newbies.

There's an interesting thing on those Mississippi exit polls (which DailyKos quotes somewhat incorrectly, btw):

On "Is Clinton Honest and Trustworthy?" 49% said "Yes" and 50% said "No" -- but 23% of the people who said Clinton wasn't trustworthy or honest were still willing to hold their nose and vote for her.

What does that mean? And what does it say about Clinton's supporters? Are they perhaps just as coldy calculating and willingly hypocritical as she is?

On the other hand when asked "Is Obama Honest and Trustworthy?" 70% said "Yes" verses 29% "No" -- with only 8% of those saying not trustworthy also giving their vote to Obama.

Does this give credence to the charge that Obama supporters are more idealistic -- or at least more willing to vote in keeping with their ideals -- than the Clintonites are?

Discuss...

@15. wait, what are you saying is bs? something i said? i'm confused, as you seem to be agreeing with my sentiment.

Sorry, infrequent, I meant @11.

3xEQo7 Hi from Russia!