I have no use for sexist men and even less for sexist women.  Today on GMA Mrs. Obama said she would have to think about supporting Senator Clinton should she win the nomination.  Nice!

So when I went to look at that video I found this one.  On this she blames Clinton for her husband's cheating and says she gives a bad family role model and is unqualified to be president.  Imagine any woman saying another shouldn't be president or get any job for that matter because her husband cheated on her.

Hey Michelle, I hear it's happened to you and I hope that's just gossip because if it isn't you are dooming all of us to another republican presidency. Cross the fold to see the video.

The New York Post just endorsed Barack Obama.  In blog talk that means that Obama is now in bed with Rupert Murdoch.  Did Murdoch feel that Obama is more likely to be "nice" to corporations?

I'll add more as news as it comes in.  I hope the elite bloggers will get to the bottom of this.  Surely we can't have all these bloggers supporting the Murdoch guy.  Will kos and Jerome etc... make a concerted effort to make Clinton the darling of the disgruntled keyboard commandos?  Let's hope so or the movement could be doomed.

Sorry Edwards fans, but Edwards came in third in IA.  Obama says so.  He got one less delegate than Clinton which makes him the third place guy in IA and in every single primary so far.

Of course beating Clinton by half a point and claiming "strong second" has always been spin on steroids.  Never the less now we know that Edwards placed third in IA, Obama says so and that is good enough for me since it seems to be good enough for the national media.

Here is Krugman's piece on the various stimulus packages of the candidates running for president.  I have made some edits to cut out talk of the republicans and also to allow for fair use.  

The conclusion is that Obama really is less progressive than the others when it comes to domestic policy.
My opinion is that a lot of people on line are fooling themselves.  Obama is the black Joe Lieberman but in a much more attractive package... and one who speaks without whining. That's my opinion, take it or leave it.  It's not going to change.

By Paul Krugman
Published: January 14, 2008

Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it's quite possible that we're already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we'll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.

Since this is an election year, the debate over how to stimulate the economy is inevitably tied up with politics. And here's a modest suggestion for political reporters. Instead of trying to divine the candidates' characters by scrutinizing their tone of voice and facial expressions, why not pay attention to what they say about economic policy?

In fact, recent statements by the candidates and their surrogates about the economy are quite revealing.

That sums it up for me.  He is officially the Nader of 2008.  I don't think this is a good idea, democrats are going to tie him to the Naderites.

This is too funny.  After all these years Bill Clinton even wins over one of his most persistent adversaries.  But on top of that he gets 100,000 dollars out of him for his global initiative charities.  

I had read somewhere, a few months ago, that Scaife was disgusted with Bush and said that things weren't so bad under Clinton after all.
See, even rich people like it better when the economy doesn't suck.  There is only so much tax cuts can do for you when your business is loosing money on the stock market I guess.
Make the jump if you would like to read the article....

The democratic caucus they are covering is in Des Moines at Theodore Roosevelt HS.
Biden, Richardson, DK and Dodd are not viable. There are some woman recruiting for Richardson, bless their hearts they are very polite at this caucus.  The Biden guy and the Dodd guy are both saying "go where you are most comfortable.

The top three are all viable and I don't see the station covering any of them recruiting new caucus goers.  

Someone of the top three is going to get 2 delegates from this caucus.

It looks like Obama got three,Edwards got two and Clinton got one delegate at this particular location.

It is pretty clear to me, and this is, of course, my opinion, that Obama is afraid to take any sort of stand that might help him in his ambition to get to the next higher elected office.  
In 2003/2004 I supported him in his senate race.  As a member of DFA, I did what I could to promote his candidacy.  
At the time there was a minor kerfluffle when it was discovered that he was a member of the DLC.  That of course was not going to play well with his main primary and earliest support, DFA.  So he claimed that he was put on the list without his permission. I did not believe him. And since then he has proven to be a rather DLC type of guy, his support of Lieberman, his lecture to dkos about playing nice with republicans and reaching out to compromise with people you disagree with, have convinced me more than ever that he was indeed a minor member of the DLC.  
In fact I couldn't care less about membership in the DLC, lots of good people belonged to the organization at some point.  It is the bullshit and political calculation that bothers me.

So here is another instance of Obama not standing for anything but his own ambition.  While in the IL senate he skipped way to many votes or voted present whenever the legislation was something that could come back to bite him in the ass while trying to get elected to some higher position.
Come over and read what the NYTimes has to say on the issue.