Sorry for the all-caps title, but the hyperbole coming out of both camps justifies it.  Let me first say that the rank political opportunism displayed by both campaigns is disappointing (saying this as a Clinton-turned-Obama supporter, as of early May).  As a  first operating principle, I believe that the merits of individual arguments should be considered absent one's opinion of its advocates.    

As a young doctor who specializes in cancer treatment, I realize that, for many people, the types and prognoses of brain tumors are, upon first glance, quite overwhelming.  My thoughts and prayers go out to Sen. Kennedy.  His career has been historic; his legislative contributions immense; and his concern for progressive values will continue to inspire generations of young Democrats.  

I can obviously understand the arguments marshaled in favor of an incrementalist strategy on the gay marriage front.  It is undoubtedly the duty of Democratic strategists and consultants everywhere to warn their clients of the electoral mayhem that would ensue should their favorite son/daughter endorse something as controversial as gay marriage.  

As the primary winds down, with our nominee now decided, I think it is critical that we recognize that a sizable minority of our party chose a candidate other than Sen. Obama.  With this recognition comes the necessity for a significant amount of outreach in order to assure unity going forward.

I have, for the last few months, been an ardent defender of both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  From my perspective, they have run a largely positive campaign and have been the victims of a permissive media environment, established long ago, in which unfair attacks on the Clintons are commonplace, no matter how deranged; it has been both a political and personal shock to see the reputations of two progressive lions maligned by fellow Democrats in a way of which I thought only Republicans were capable.  However, recognizing the difficulty inherent in Hillary's challenge and after promising myself that, if she didn't keep it close in NC, I would abandon my support, I gave my first donation to Obama's campaign on Wednesday morning.  I wanted to lay out what I see as the primary virtue of Obama's candidacy.    

Unreal.  I'm sitting here watching my own original copy of the brilliant documentary, "The War Room."  It's paused at the point when Steph, Carville, and Kantor are pouring over the Exit Polling Numbers.  And, as is obvious to anyone (since this documentary has been viewed millions of times and won the fucking Academy Award), Kantor said NOTHING even remotely like the doctored tape portrays.

Listen.  I'm a die-hard Clinton supporter.  An unapologetic advocate of both Bill and Hillary.  For me, the decision as to who to support made by an erstwhile DNC Chairman is of little consequence.  I believe both of our candidates will win the General Election.  My support of Hillary rests on her diplomatic and health care policies.  But what I find absolutely stunning is the RANK hypocrisy that exists on this board.

I want to make a good faith attempt to explain why I think it is that gay men, in disproportionate numbers, per the exits from Feb 5th in CA and NY, tend to support Hillary Clinton.  

An almost open secret for the past few weeks has been confirmed by the NYTimes.  Elizabeth Edwards clearly prefers Hillary Clinton:

Let the cries of concern troll begin, but let me first assure you that I will be wholeheartedly supporting (financially and time-wise) Sen. Obama should he end up with the nomination and that, last night, I was prepared to jump ship to Sen. Obama should he have closed the gap to something under 5%.  

I can't tell you how incredibly disappointed I was to discover that the Rachel Maddow "take down" of Scarborough was front paged.

I'm not going to pretend to have any credibility on the Obama/Clinton cage match; my sympathies for Hillary are evident by past diaries.  So with my prejudices out in the open,

I gotta say, the more I dwell on the substance of the speech, the more I think that these fawning commentators have mistaken politically expedient candor and canniness for bold, courageous insight.

Let's get this straight.  We've had a rash of diaries that have set up straw-men spin in order to make the Clinton campaign look lame in its explanations for its defeats.  Now.  I will easily concede Senator Obama his victories.  They were won on the backs of superior organization and spending and that clearly counts for a great deal.  This is, after all, a delegate contest and has been since the beginning.

The screed that the NYTimes publishes weekly in the form of Frank Rich's consistently exaggerated, poorly-rendered, and essentially libelous columns needs to stop.  This man has a truly troubling habit of undermining leading Democratic candidates, of peddling in the worst types of rumor, and of engaging in the most vile form of character assassination.  On Al Gore:

The greatest exaggeration, the most insulting insinuation so far in this election season is that the Obama campaign somehow represents a movement.  There are important distinctions between what we're seeing and what a true movement represents that need to be made.  

An honest reckoning on Hillary's vote is what we had tonight.  Her explanations were unvarnished, without political artifice.  I recognize that the common rubric that we use to analyze all of HRC's decisions focuses almost exclusively on political expediency.  However, I think it is past time that we conclude that her decision to vote to authorize the President to use force in Iraq was made essentially on the merits as she saw them.