I would like to call your attention to the sexist and misogynistic implications of the phrase "throw the kitchen sink." It first appeared in a horribly viscious editorial by Maureen Dowd in the New York Times in which she attacked Clinton. Since then, the phrase has taken off like fire, and I see it all over the blogosphere, whether the writers recognize who came up with it or not. This is a terrible metaphor, not the least for its mere contradictions. Clinton does not spend much time in the kitchen. Perhaps those who direct this phrase at her would be more comfortable if she did? Isn't that the place all women should be banished, according to this logic! I say good-bye to all that.

Hi Zee, thanks for writing. Just want to draw your attention to the fact that it is a Clinton aide who first used the term "kitchen sink" in an interview with the New York Times.

Get real. "Everything but the kitchen sink" is an idiom that has been in the language for generations. I don't see anything sexist in using it. Stop looking for discrimination in evrything you see or hear.

If Obama is faltering, it is certainly not from any lack of cash outlay. I view it as a step up for democracy that voters can see through the Glitzkrieg.

"see through the Glitzkrieg"

What exactly is that?

"Pollster.com averages all polls, making it a better source for numbers than any individual poll"

Come on JS, what a crock of BS - the AVERAGE POLL ERROR in SC was over 16% - so averaging polls is NOT a better source, it is an average source.

What has happened to you brain?

If averages are in fact an accurate or even a good source I have a simple test.

Put one foot in boiling water and the other on a piece of dry ice - on average . . . .

You use to impress me now I am beginning to feel like you don't give a darn.

Average polls is a cop-out. Do a little research and make a choice, base your choice on which poll has been more correct or better data sets, something other than pretending the best source is the average of many potentially poor sources.

Say there is a landslide for McCain, or one or the other dem's.

Will you even consider yourself wrong or that you just "reported" the average and stand by that as a good source?

I think it would be better to actually do some reporting instead of the crud you have been peddling.

Averaging polls as bona fide is just lazy, so what gives?

Hillary's obvious goal was to put Obama's credibility in question and raising a steady stream of doubts about his past and / or character may well have produced the desired effect on those Democrats that know little about his work and are willing to ignore her insistence on waging as dirty a campaign as she can.

("Digging up dirt" on Obama, be it invented, nit picking or unrepresentative, impresses me not - I wouldn't mind knowing more about her own platform but this kind of vicious, negative politics is exactly what we don't need more of in the White House).

In any case, Hillary may be a wolverine but Obama is a giraffe, which can run with glass of water on it's head without spilling a drop. He's unflappable.

She may have succeeded in casting some doubt but will come out on the short end if others decide to drag the Clinton's own dirty linen into the open. There's little she can do beyond prolonging the selection process another few weeks.

A woman will be sworn in as President some day, but it will be someone whose achievements resulted from her own efforts.

the varnish had to wear thin eventually. audacity of hope? how about the reality of politics. clinton's 'attacks' have been mild compared to what obama would have been facing in the general election. i don't believe he's seasoned enough to have stood up to it. he would have been quite flappable when facing the republican hate machine. all clinton has been doing is pointing out obama's unsavory tactics and calling him on it. puh-leeze. unfortunately, he would have made a great running mate, but not much chance of that now.

I mean by "glitzkrieg" a "blitzkrieg" of "glittery" campaign advertising. I live in France and I experienced it in the French elections, but I also see it in the American campaign on internet. In more objective terms, the amount of money being spent by Obama was huge as compared to the Clinton campaign.

"the amount of money being spent by Obama was huge as compared to the Clinton campaign."

Do you have a source for that?

I think you are mistaken?

The money spent is very close. openseecrets.org has them within 10 million on a hundred.

$113 versus $105 so 8 million difference - that is not huge by any measure.

Facts are facts, eh?

So maybe glitzkrieg makes no sense for a reason?

Most of that money is spent on the ground here in America, very little on the internet so I wonder what you are "seeing" from France?

Add the fact that many Clintoistas have been comparing BHO to Hitler because he has good oratory skills and you can see where "glitzkrieg" could be taken as an implied insult of that nature.

If that is the impression you want to give - glitzkrieg is a great word with all of the Hitler implications.

You might try a less invective word, unless you are making the Hitler implication.

I doubt glitzkrieg is a sincere adjective, certainly not objective nor respectful here nor in France.

You should be careful with such words although I doubt the implication is accidental.

I think that the barrage effect of the Obama campaign is absolutely evident in the language his supporters assume. If you dose up rhetoric and dose down content, followers will adhere to something less logical and adopt -- as in your statement-- deformations of candidates' names. I've seen "Shrillary" "Hilldebeast" and everytime I see one of Obama's supporters use these deformations, I'm a little bit further away from supporting him, should he become the official democratic candidate. I may well vote for the first time in my life for a 3rd party
in November.
I'm not interested in Hitler. I'm interested in campaign techniques that are respectful of democracy and the respect is visible -- or not -- every time a supporter posts a statement. To name a recent example, the woman who said that Hillary Clinton was a "monster". What is it about the Obama campaign that inspires its supporters to this kind of language? Something is disfunctioning, somewhere supporters are losing their equilibrium in the barrage that they're getting hit with.

11 days ago, with endorsements from Nunn and Reich, while also picking up a couple more super-delegates, it looked like Obama was on his way to wrapping things up. Dems had tired of the destructive stalemate, and were starting to fall into line.

Fast forward to today, after Reverend Wright fueled Obie’s Lost Weekend, and Howard Dean is parsing his language, clearly opening the door for a super-delegate override should Obama stay narrowly ahead in the popular vote.

The speed at which things turn in this tachyon like information society of ours, where news seemingly arrives before it’s even sent, can work both ways, and the public’s ultra-short attention span may find something new to grab hold of that’s to Barack’s benefit.