I thought it was terrific.

1. No knockout by either side.

2. Not sure she had to. She marked him some, and I think he's going to keep bleeding. Both solidified their support, I'm sure, but I doubt either made new converts. But PA is hers to lose, not is to win....

3. But I give to Hillary on points. I would, though! But the reason, basically: I think she just can't wait to get government working again! That's what I want. I don't get that from Obama....

The journalists reaction was that Clinton successfully made the point that there's a lot about Obama we don't know. In fact, she's right.

I'm not sure her Bosnia answer was that great, and no doubt the OFB will go to town on it. But as she said, Whatever I am, I'm not stupid... Write it up in the book, then lie? Not likely. Gotta check the YouTube on that one...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Hillary: A+, Obama: B-... Which is what the focus group says...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Fattah: 5 day road tour, we're happy with the debate. This campaign will be decided on election day....

Hoeffel: Articulate and focused, clear plan on where she wants to take the country... She needs a strong victory. Lead down to 5, need double, this debate will help...

Nidia, with voters... Focus on issues, gas, economy, Iraq. Obama gets good response on change the culture, that's the job of next Pres. Respond pos to bringing group together.

Now UPenn poliSci students.... They all thought Hillary won (!!) Why?

Ken: Obama missed the mark on "small towns"

Jesses (once R now D): Leaning toward Obama, getting beyond "partisan bickering" [what a weasel, I think he's a ringer]

Stacy: Hillary did a great job pinning McCain to Bush and "just railed"

...: Honesty an issue, but did a great job....

Interesting!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

That's the way it works. Halperin gives it to Obama and since he's a journalist he can repeat that over and over until it becomes CW.

Also, how can Obama lose when he gets applause for sneezing--for sneezing!

Sheesh, whoever's been watching George S, I'm really sorry for them...

Why aren't they up on Atrios's deck?

The talking heads are just vapid, everything else much more interesting.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

If Hillary wins the nomination, the relevancy of the media and the Blog Boiz diminishes greatly. There are worse things in life than that happening, I suppose.

Because he was actually treated like a Democrat. All the silly shit, and yes Wright, Ayers, Auchi, are all silly shit, they will cause Obama to lose, b/c the media loves to give Democrats the silly shit.

It's like gymnastics(a sport I love!!) When a gymnast is going to a stunt on the vault, they begin with a starting score, based on difficulty.

Hillary's side of the debate(from what I've seen commented, I don't watch TV) let her play to her strengths, policy. Obama's side was a sample of what we'll see in the General, Wright, Ayers etc. So Clinton's starting score was 9.5, while Obama's was a 10.0.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Tomorrow's Headlines about the debate, via The Confluence

A sample

"“How Hillary Clinton Destroyed The Democratic Party By Purposefully Knowing More Stuff Than Barack Obama”"

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Gore kicked ass, but the media gave it to Bush because he didn't shit himself.

Strategery!

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

See Attytood.

So maybe Goring will be harder, now.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

but not watching when they announced the focus group results.

I thought they say that Clinton got 15%... and when I heard the "draw" number and "clear victory" stuff, I was soooooo happy! ;)

And if I'm an "average Democrat" and I'm watching this debate, I'm probably thinking -- "I don't like Hillary that much, but that other guy isn't ready."

That's the final takeaway from this... Obama just isn't ready.

to offering Obama the VP job if he wanted it.

That would have showed class.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

she dodged it, without denying it, then Steffi made her say yes, he could win.

What else could she say?

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

this whole premise is false and hurts Clinton--Obama should be the one to have to win PA to prove he's actually a winner, and can actually get the groups he doesn't get.

In some ways, I don't blame the press for the format issues. This quantity of debates is a new thing, and frankly I think that's all to the good that there are many of them. They are great events, people like them, but also the press doesn't know how to cover them. So they try format as if it were a sports event, and give the political reporters way too much power. What's needed is a Roone Arledge of political debates, but there isn't one. Yet.

I don't know boxing all that well, but Obama -- and here I'm not in tendentious mode, as you can see from the comments, I was too busy typing to work up the snark -- reminded me of a light heavyweight trying to move up to the heavyweight class, against a heavyweight who's both older and a lot more experienced than he is. So, while Obama's got a quick punch, there's little power behind it, and he was never anywhere near putting Hillary away, and she just kept moving and jabbing and slipping and cutting him. (She was also much better managing the clock, as she managed an exhange to get the last work before a break...) I think tomorrow Hillary's going to wake up fresh as a daisy, and Obama's going to wake up knowing he's been in a fight.

You can see he's bright, but he's meta. He has a process kinda in mind that will take the country... Somewhere, but we don't know where. Hillary, on the other hand, is overflowing with plans. She's trying to co-opt him on the Unity schtick, and he's trying to co-opt her on "economic insecurity." She does a better job than expected on the first ("empowering people" is good) and he doesn't do a very good job pivoting to the second, because that's never been his thing. It's also clear that's his response to the "clingto" fiasco (an exchange she clearly won. She didn't say "You said what you said, and you meant what you said," but she came pretty close.)

Yes, he's not ready. He's like the OFB when you engage them -- after two or three exchanges at the most, they revert to generalities or say "look at my website."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

but botched it. The whole "baking cookies - she learned the wrong lesson" had potential but he muffed it. Timing and delivery is everything.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

Again, Obama has real difficulty making a clean punch. Exact same thing as with closing the deal.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

to run the debates, and find someone like Bill Moyers to moderate. A fair format, no "gotcha" type questions, but no softballs either.

Let the media cover them, not run them.

The general election debates were better when the LWV ran them.
------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

all the associates and connections and stuff become even more important--and why him simply evading, lying or dismissing those questions as "political games" or whatever is not at all sufficient.

He dodges all those questions or lies about relationships and stuff, and either thinks that people really don't want to hear about this stuff or that he can change the subject--it's not working bec Wright keeps coming up over and over and his patriotism keeps being questioned over and over, etc.

She was more in command. Of course, they weren't gunning for her the way they were earlier, and they were for Obama tonight. Tag team kept him off balance. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose. Obama looked tentative.

If Obama hoped this would turn Pennsylvania around, it doesn't look like it did. Is he permanently damaged? I don't think so. But who knows.

I will come down on the moderators. I suppose I can forgive the BS about Ayers, etc., but what I can't forgive is Charley Gibson OVER and OVER insisting and INTERRUPTING that lowering capital gains taxes ALWAYS increases revenue. Neither candidate was prepared for this. It's loonytunes. One or both should have hit it out of the park, but I suppose since neither was prepared, both knew it was bullshit, but didn't have facts at the ready to make the point. Obama tried a little but couldn't. Hillary ignored it.

Gotta stop letting these asswipes run our debates.

when he compared Coburn to Ayers. The Freepers and fundies will go berserk.

Oooh, The line from Hillary about the GOP not running anyone killed.

Obama mentions the pardons of the WU, got a golf clap.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

And he kept harping on it, over and over and over. It was like somebody.... incentivized him, Stivo.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Charles Gibson is obsessed with the capital gains tax.

Mr. seven-million-dollars-a-year salary should not be asking questions about tax breaks for the rich.

again and again and again - he wants the Democrats to assure him that rich people (like the moderators!) can keep all their hard-earned money.

I don't like Charlie (or Georgie: but what-about-gun-control?!!! you said... you said...)

Were there questions about torture? I didn't watch the whole thing.

Were there?

I should say that when I say I thought the debate was great, which I do think, I mean I thought that the candidates were great.

The moderators? "Great" in the way that mud on a horse-track is really great. But those are the conditions you have the horse race in...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

those are appalling.

Hillary has won just about every debate, in both undecided focus groups and media elite critiques. This debate was no exception. That said, this isn't really how a candidate gains votes and, in turn, really "wins" the debate. I mean, how many voters who are undecided actually watched a substantial portion? I would guess not many.

What matters are the new narratives that emerge and play out in the media and eventually reach voters. So, what will they be? My guess:

1) Moderators suck: 50 minutes of debate before the first policy question. Rehashing the same tabloid stuff that the public has been saturated with.

2) Ayers/WU hits the mainstream. Its damaging to both HRC (WU pardons) and BHO. McCain wins on this story.

3) Obama weathers the onslaught of tough questions. Satisfactory for superdelegates? Probably.

Botton line: meh. I don't think the presidential race changes much at all after this debate.

Last points that I can't help but to bring up here.

- Obama Clinton twice referred to her website for policy details.

- Obama Clinton was the only person to use the word "crisis" in the Social Security part of the debate.

Any takers on how long it will take for that line to emerge? I give it 24 hours.

Here's what the voters think, as summarized from my live blogging:

Cross-posted elsewhere... It doesn't matter what the OFB thinks. What matters is what the voters think:

I watched the Philly TV station (I was live-blogging this, so I hope I get it right, and it all went by fast):

1. UPenn PoliSci students were interviewed. Before the debate, they were either for Obama, or neutral. After the debate, they were strongly pro-Hillary. So at least all college students aren't pro-Obama, by definition.

2. The station polled Undecideds after the debate, and they broke strongly for Hillary, 55 - 45.

3. They also had a focus group wired up to see how they reacted during the debate. For that group, 50% thought Clinton won, and only 27% thought Obama won, with the rest undecided.

So, while the talking heads think it was a draw or at most a TKO for Hillary, the voters seem to think differently. For all I know, this is an under the radar NH moment. And this election, nobody knows anything.

Yeah, I heard the magical gotcha keywords from Hillary on "look at my website" and I thought it was funny how Hillary stole Obama's clothes on that. Of course, since Hillary not only has a website, but has mastered the policy detail, her case is quite different from Obama (and the OFB), who say "look at my website" exactly because they don't want to master the detail, in te case of the OFB because they are trained to focus on conversion details; and in the case of Obama because he wants to stay meta. Hope, alas, is not a plan...

NOTE I didn't hear "crisis" on SS, though I might have missed it, typing frantically. In any case, I have endlessly explained that the issue is not one of finding magical gotcha keywords in a sentence. You can look it up. For pity's sake. Freepers do that, because that passes for analytical skill in freeperdom.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

to me, far and away the best Clinton moment was her "cling to" response.

You get the crowd with the "grandfather in Scranton" stuff...they know where its going, but they're still paying attention. Obama used his grandmother to get him out of the Wright mess, so nobody can touch Clinton for bringing up her dad.

And the whole "people don't go to church because they are frustrated with the government" line. Perfect. Totally wiped every attempt of Obama to change the subject right off the map. Its a perfect summation about what is wrong with the premise of the Obama campaign -- that its all about process.

And she covers guns, and covers god, and leaves this huge whole where coverign "bigotry" should be, because she doesn't have to say it -- that Obama equated their lifestyle (gun) and their faith (god) with being a racist.

Thanks to Paul.

Obama's great, but he's just not ready.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It was a lace factory in Scranton. [And, again, only in this country. Just like Obama's story, if it comes to that. Another elegant, classy way of not saying what doesn't need to be said instead of bloviating on. [Gad, I seem to be gushing. Time to go to sleep... It's just so nice to win, and know you won, and at least have students and focus groups and undecided voters agree....]

Yes, she dealt with that "cling to" nonsense in a thorough-going manner -- a right to the solar plexus. It was a pleasure to see.

Now, if they can leverage it...

Now, if there isn't some kind of weird spin in the next news cycle.... Beating up on Bambi...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

as an observation of Corrente-specific irony. Nothing more. Anyway, HRC's website referrals were most likely to promote fundraising.

The context of "crisis" was in reference to 1983. But if you squint hard enough, it might have been phrased in a way that implied a new crisis looms now. Personally I don't think that's what she meant.

that Hillary won big:

Botton line: meh. I don’t think the presidential race changes much at all after this debate.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

---I thought I heard Obama say, in response to George S., that he disowned Rev. Wright.

Did I really hear that?

BTW, this is kind of funny:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvUNFmB7]l8

From Talk Left:

"Barack Obama released his tax return today. He earned $4.2 million.

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Their salaried income was $260,735, which include his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center."

Community and corporate affairs? Doesn't that mean Lobbyist, in regular joe speak?

If BHO gets elected, how will Mrs. Obama recuse herself from lobbying duties, in the White House?

---got the above link wrong-will check it

should have been larger than past ones, no?

It was a lace factory in Scranton.

well, I personally loved that detail, but because my grandmother worked in a lace factory in camden starting when she was a girl.

Did everyone's grandparents work in lace factories? How damn much lace did they need back then?

--NYT op-ed -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinio...

"... This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

..."

What does the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned members of the Weather Underground have anything to do with Hillary Clinton? I know the OFB likes to act like they are really some two headed beasts out of Greek mythology, really, just b/c Bill Clinton did something, doesn't mean she should get tarred with it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

it's just the exact same mudslinging distractions that are the "old kind of politics" he pretends not to do.

is the standard right-wing defense to everything.

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

is that HRC hasn't made an adequate distinction between her and her husband's accomplishments. She wants to own all the good and none of the bad from Bill's administration. She runs on the economically prosperous '90s, says "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush" and claims CiC experience. But when it comes to NAFTA, DOMA, DADT...etc, its her husband, not her. And with regard to pardons, we have no idea what her role was. This is an area where she has not been vetted.

Now, Hillary chose to extend the debate on Ayers and WU. She extrapolated Steph's question to include the board membership. I don't think its out of line at all for Obama to build a glass house around her stone throwing by bringing up the pardons. Not while her White House experience is a centerpiece of her campaign.

Its "let's get some perspective". Sitting on a charity board with a former WU member is not equal to pardoning two convicted WU members.

BTW - Obama tried to pass it off by saying Ayers was an English Professor and they lived in the same neighborhood and their kids went to the same schools.

Ayers' kids are grown now, Obama's are in K-6

------------------------------------------------
"If I was Vice-President, you know what I'd do?

Vote for me!" - Joe Walsh (channeling Dick Cheney)

your opponent and it's something you want out there as an equivalent and/or distraction to help yourself and to change the subject.

he did it last night with the "baking cookies" thing and with the pardons thing.

and said he was 8 years old--when they've known each other for ages and he's held fundraisers for him. Pointing out they served on that board together is pointing out his lie--something he loves to do to her all the time.

He lied the same way about Rezko, and still lies about Wright.

Carl Bernstein, frequent detractor of Hillary and her ankles, acknowledges that she was strongly opposed to NAFTA.

As unremittingly evil as the Clinton presidency was, I think we'll have to give her a pass on that one.

Because it's an Obama talking point!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

It is perfectly valid for Clinton to claim that her unique perspective of the Clinton administration will be a strength. She was there, on the ground when decisions and policies were implemented. And now, eight years after the conclusion of the Clinton admin, she is in a unique position to assess what worked, and what didn't.

Which is totally seperate and unrelated to Bill Clinton's choice of pardons. Plus, Clinton chose to pardon them at the end of his administration, when it wouldn't be a political liablity for him anymore, while Obama chose to associate with Ayers, knowing it would be a liability later. And who's supposed to have great judgement?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Reviewing the transcript, I don't see where Obama said Ayers kids went to the same school as his kids.

Fact is, the Obama-Ayers relationship isn't anything more than what would be expected from two prominent, politically active democrats from the South Side Chicago. So I'm curious why you accuse Obama of "passing it off". What do you suggest is the Ayers problem? If the problem is just that Hannity & Co will talk about it non-stop, then what makes you think they wouldn't bring up the pardons if HRC was the nominee? Obama can't prevent them from talking about it - he can just explain that there's no reason Ayers makes Obama a worse president. So he explains that his WU association is less toxic than HRC's WU association. And its fair game if HRC insists on making it an issue.

Obama's personal association with a former WU member reflects less on him than Hillary's husband's pardons of former WU members reflects on her?

Can't say I know much about those pardonees. Have they been complaining that they didn't bomb enough of America?

a board with WU members--who are still proudly unrepentant that they didn't bomb enough govt buildings.

That's political poison, just like God Damn America.

In order...

Amber: What was the lie? I provided the transcript. Please quote it for me.

VL: HRC did some lobbying for NAFTA, whether she agreed with it or not. Whatever. I'll take her at her word on her views now. My point was that she tries to own the good and disown the bad. Its a tight rope walk that isn't convincing to me.

Lambert: I come here for honest discussion, not to be painted with a broad brush. Thanks, though.

Aeryl:

It is perfectly valid for Clinton to claim that her unique perspective of the Clinton administration will be a strength. She was there, on the ground when decisions and policies were implemented. And now, eight years after the conclusion of the Clinton admin, she is in a unique position to assess what worked, and what didn’t.

Yes, yes, yes. This meta-argument works. If only this was how HRC framed it from the start. Instead, she undoes her real experience by touting specifics and botching her accounts of CHIP, Northern Ireland etc...

VL: Again, what is the nature of the relationship with Ayers that is troubling?

You're the expert on how Bill's pardon of WUers is Hillary's sin. Don't ask me to clarify your talking point about how her hand is worse than Obama's.

... but I'm in a generous mood, today! For obvious reasons.

Why doesn't Obama show some true leadership, quit now and unify the party?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. "

This is not true--they associated for years on a regular basis, and this is not about 40 years ago but more recently, and about the fundraisers he didn't mention and the board they both sat on. Ayers is not just a neighbor, but someone who actively helped Obama get into the State Senate and who had professional dealings with.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0... -- "...Also: Obama has a "fact check" on this that is in the slightly odd position of not actually clarifying their relationship, but instead has a range of denials, including the line, which Axelrod and Obama have since contradicted, that there's no "evidence of any relationship.") ..." ("fact"check-- http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factche... )

and it wasn't a pardon from Bill, but commutation.

VL: I didn't say Bill's commutation is HRC's sin. I said, if the Ayers issue is merely "the Republicans will hit you with it, so I'm gonna make you answer now" then its completely fair and in bounds for Obama to turn that argument around and say fine, how do you defend yourself in light of Bill's commutation?

Neither Bill's commutation, nor Obama's board membership reflect on how the candidates will preside over the presidency, absent any evidence of actual unethical motive/behavior. I am happy to say that I don't have any evidence of HRC wrongdoing on the WU communtations. What is the evidence of wrongdoing vis a vis Ayers?

Fundraiser (singular, please, until shown otherwise): As a new candidate for office, Obama was brought to Ayers' (a poliical player in South Chicago) house. Have presidents never before been introduced to shady figures?

Board: So they worked together at The Woods Fund. This is relevent how?

Friendship: No evidence a relationship exists beyond their respective roles as local professors/activists. What is the issue?

Amber: That's not a lie. You might not like the answer; you might wish he disclosed more detail. But he made no false statment.

"So he explains that his WU association is less toxic than HRC’s WU association."

You didn't say "he argues/speculates/posits," you said that he explains, i.e., what Obama says is valid, and there is toxicity to Hillary's WU "connection."

I'm not sure how that jibes with your later claim that you aren't saying that WU reflects badly on Hillary.

"Explains" was the wrong word. Suggests, implies, whatever...

There are two types of relevency to this "issue".

Succeptable to rightwing attacks vs. Actual, legitimate concern of presidential qualification

The former has a very low burden of proof. Wingers don't use discression or intellectual honesty in forming attacks. Both Obama's "relationship" and Clinton's husband's commutations easily meet the burden of proof for succeptability to RW attacks. I.e. "toxic".

The latter is reserved for honest, open evaluation and therefore has a much higher burden of proof in order to say "___'s WU connection is of legitimate concern when evaluating ___'s qualifications for POTUS." IMO, neither Obama nor Clinton have a problem here.

As to whether these things matter...

Well, I know it's uncool in some circles, but I personally am offended when people make political hay by speaking dismissively of the 9/11 victims and any other victims of terrorism*.

The victims in the twin towers were Hillary's constituents. So, when she hears that people in Obama's orbit call their deaths legitimate payback ("America's chickens are coming home to roost") or are published on 9/11** with an unapologetic statement about domestic terrorism, I expect she is quite horrified, just as I was when Bill Maher argued that we should build a "Why They Hate Us" pavilion at Ground Zero, in honor of the murderers.

Of course, Hillary is a robot-zombie-machine-bitch whose only goal is destroying the party, so she doesn't have real feelings. But perhaps her evil overlords programmed her to have a little outrage about those things.

___

* I'm not too quick to be offended by black humor (a term that is unrelated to race, BTW), but when people speak thoughtlessly of the victims in what they consider to be bona fide arguments, then I find the offensiveness, y'know, offensive.

** Unfortunate timing, yes. But an "unfortunate" sentiment, as well.