I had to check after I read your comment. You know, I think they are all posing--even the ones that appear to be talking. They are posing as talking.

About 10 years ago, I was stuck in Memphis airport where a sweet old lady tried to convince me for about one hour Hillary was a witch with an international coven.  Thanks for bringing back a humorous memory.

Don't get me wrong--I will vote for her if she's the nominee.  And happily.  She is brilliant, but she seems to have buried most of her liberal impulses after the abuse of the 90s. (She's often too careful and feels too much need to pose as conservative--I mean proposing a law to ban flag burning--pulease Hillary.) However, I understand the issue raised here about Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and I still do wish the first woman president would be someone different. That said, I hope the Hillary that so strongly supported the Children's Defense Fund is the one who emerges once in the White House. If she is the nominee, she'll win.

You're right--the only way he runs if he ascends through the departure of the current occupant. If I were Bushie, I'd hire a taster at any event attended by Dick.  Maybe it's letting these rumors fly to torment Bushie.

You are right.  If Edwards gains more traction, the MSM will do to him what they did to Dean.  They already have started with the whole silly haircut thing. The corporate media will not permit a true populist candidate--the people might really have a choice.

Are you testing a question for the next GOP primary?  I think Matthews could use it.

Thank you for this very interesting discussion.  I am a member of CWA (I'm a TX state employee and that is our not-very-effective union since hardly anyone joins it in state government), and I'm strongly for net neutrality.  I think I'll write to the union to make some of these arguments. One of the reasons unions are declining is that tunnel vision regarding jobs and pay enables corporations to portray unions as the enemy of the whole labor market in the television/radio media.  Issues such as net neutrality have to be supported because, in the long run, there will be no forum for expressing labor concerns without corporate manipulation and control of the messages--the very situation that has contributed to union decline. The internet has opened up such a democratization of the discourse in the U.S. It's disappointing that unions don't see it.

One of the sources of rumors regarding Richardson is Steve Clemons (see http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archive s/001884.php).  Is he a reliable person?  He got my attention when I read this.  I don't like "grabby" men.  Also, wasn't there something about him lying about playing pro baseball earlier in his career?  He seems okay in terms of resume, but you know what the GOP does with stupid stuff like this.

Wow.  Just reading that was cathartic.

Yeah, when Maureen is good, she is very, very good, but when she is bad (and it's way too often, especially in regard to other women), she really sucks.

I am a middle-aged woman and feminist, and I think HRC is a brilliant woman.  I think her true heart is in the right place (all her work on children's issues is genuine), but unfortunately she doesn't tend to lead with her heart.  She's bought into Bill's DLC triangulation (aka corporatist Dem) stuff, and I'm not comfortable with that. I think her position on Iraq is related to that and to appearing "strong" in some militaristic, masculine way. I'd also like the first woman president not to be the wife of a former president, and I agree with everyone above's feelings about Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.  It's just not right in a supposedly democratic republic.

So she's not my first choice of the current candidates.  I'm also liking Edwards for the approach he is taking so far.  I'm open to Obama if he stops lecturing Dems on religion and sticks to clarifying and articulating positions on more important stuff (like the growing economic inequality Webb addressed last night).  I know Richardson has great experience, and I'd like the ticket to have a black, Latino, or woman on it--finally.  And it dismays me that the first time we have some serious options for one, I'm actually preferring the white Southern guy. But I go by what they say, not who we think they are (we really don't know though we believe we do and are encouraged by the media to think we do).

All that said, I do agree that there is an element to the opposition to Clinton that is sexist.  Richardson is DLC, too though no one mentions it. And so is Vilsack, but no one cares, he's not a serious contender.  The real venom comes out against HRC; some on the blogs but worse on television.  The punditocracy really hates her and not for any good reason.  I've also twice had men I know personally try to convince me that women don't like her.  And that is not true.  They are projecting and justifying their own feelings, I'm afraid.

All this said, I think she will have a tough time, but she can still win and I will be enthusiastic if she's the nominee.  But I'll be more enthusiastic if the nominee is a strong populist with a message opposing the war.

We definitely are ready for the Al Franken decade. And thanks for this. As an old gal, I remember it well and could hear his voice as I read, "for me (pause) Al Franken." It's nice to get an unexpected laugh in these dark days of Bushcheney.