I have mail again. However, I do not have anything anyone has sent me in the past 2 hours because it is backed up. Kinda making it hard to make any progress here. And I have a meeting I need this info for.

Okay, I have a serious question because I just don't get this Obama-hatred from portions of the Clinton camp. I understand that Clinton was horribly mistreated by the media. I saw some of the misogynistic statements that were made without any sense that they were wrong.

But, what did Obama do that gets the Clinton camp up in arms to the point that they'd rather vote for McCain (or not vote at all)? IMO, they both said some tough things about the other in order to win the nomination, but I don't recall seeing anything that was above normal politicing.

Cheerios:

My lunch is almost over, so if I scoot, it's not because I don't want to hear the answers. I'll catch up after school.

This might be a little under-the-radar:

Banning Private Science Research

More on the radicalism of the GOP's platform on embryonic stem cell research. The party is now formally committed not just to forbidding government from funding research, but also to banning private funding for such research. I'm unaware of any previous commitments to banning private scientific research because it violates Christianist doctrine. But this assault on scientific inquiry is of a piece with the logic of Christianism. Why isn't McCain asked about this? Why is this not a major story? Not as vital as whether a campaign set is Greek or Roman or just, well, columns for large TV screens?

At this point, I think Clinton supporters who will support McCain (or sit it out or vote Green) are a really tiny percent of Clinton supporters. The media is making more out of it than it is, the way they will give equal time to global warming "skeptics". And there are a lot of Republicans out there who started supporting Hillary once they were sure she would lose to stir exactly this up - encouraged by Rush Limbaugh. That said some of it does exist and is real. And quite frankly any Clinton supporter who is going for McCain at this point has been conned.

IMO, they both said some tough things about the other in order to win the nomination, but I don't recall seeing anything that was above normal politicing.

They think that the Democtratic party railroaded Obama's nomination, with Florida and (IIRC) Michigan primaries not being counted as one of the biggest sticking points. Never mind that the Clintons agreed to that before they realized they actually had competition.

I am having Hot Pockets for lunch. Has anyone ever had the Crisping Sleeve (TM) actually crisp anything? All it does on mine is hold in the steam and make it soggy.

Oh, those first world problems.

edited because I'm not actually trying to Lolcat my lunch

Physics LOLCat: [link]

From [link]

"Firstly, as PUMAs we are united in our belief that Obama is an usurper who used less than stellar / transparent / fair play methods as a way of clinching the nomination of the Democratic Party. We believe that if a free and fair primary election proccess was held, Hillary Clinton would have emerged as the party nominee. While all this might be water under the bridge, and Obama is now the nominee, his ascenscion to that distinction is not one we can or shall support. An illegality can never bring forth a legality. Breaking into someone’s home and stealing their belongings still makes you a thief, Obama stole my vote, and 18 million votes that came with it. That is personal, and cannot be undone."

Okay, then. I haven't yet found out what the less than stellar methods were, by looking at the site.

I've just discovered the NYTimes "Going Down the Road" series - where they send their reporters out on routes covered in the state guidebooks written by people in the Federal Writers' Project of the WPA.

So far, they've been to Vermont, Wyoming, Washington and Louisiana. They say that Iowa is next up and it looks like California and Florida will be coming up soon.

It's very enjoyable.