I used to come here for awesome political analysis. It really went south after Bowers and Stoller left. Thats not necessarily a potshot at the people who are left (I think Jon and Todd do some great work) but this is just sad.
I find it deeply ironic that you expect me to "get over it" with regards to friends dying in the war, the gov't embrace of torture, and the massive corruption of the past decade, yet at the SAME TIME, you should be allowed to pout about how mean people are on the internet and decide not to vote because of your perception of someone's character.
It also helps that the media has flipped around and has decided to push process stories about Obama a bit more now. Not saying Clinton deserved getting all of it, but there's been a pretty decisive shift since Hillary first complained about it.
Due respect Todd, but its not like Hillary doesn't have off-message problems from people inside her camp. So deep inside her camp, they actually are married to her. And thats not counting other mistatements by Ferraro, Rendell, etc. etc.
If the difference is "saying something dumb directly about the candidate they support", thats a slightly different story. I'd argue the major difference is that Obama has such comparatively stronger message discipline within ranks compared to Hillary who has been so all over the place with message that everyone knows about the internal civil. Because of that, any off-message comment is enhanced for Obama. Particularly so when its on a favorite issue of the media like Wright.
What's the point of your argument? And Jerome's a "shill" or, as I would say, biased supporter, of Hillary. So are you it appears. Saying ANYONE has an unbiased argument on electability is just plain silly. The fact that both sides (see how I admit that) easily manipulate hard numbers, its ridiculous to even try to argue about how is being "honest" in the electability argument.