Seems Hillary stretched the truth on how dangerous her Bosnia trip was, and there's video to prove it:

Remember what the Republicans did to John Kerry over his battlefield exploits? What do you think they will do with this if Hillary is the nominee? I can hear the jokes now.

When are the main media outlets going to call this race?

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

Mitt Romney loves it, too:

"that was the best ad that the McCain campaign could have ever hoped for, because listening to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talking about experience in a national security crisis is like listening to two Chihuahuas arguing about which is the biggest dog. When it comes to national security, John McCain is the big dog, and they are each the Chihuahua."

Hey Hillary, John McCain is looking for a VP. Maybe you should apply, since you've spent so much time helping his campaign.

I've heard Hillary Clinton claim many times that she help create the children's health program known as SCHIP. But it turns out, the claims aren't true:

... the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children's health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

I was just listening to an NPR interview Hillary Clinton gave today, and suffered through hearing her tortured explanation for why it would be fair to count the primary results in Michigan when Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. It was like nails on a chalkboard. It was seriously stupid. I can't believe that she could actually lower herself to the level of a little kid who can't admit she is wrong. It makes me feel sorry for her that she could be so to try to spin this as logical.

One of the worst things about the Bush presidency, which many conservatives will agree with liberals, was his management style. He surrounded himself with old friends and insiders, valuing loyalty above competence. And it's been a disaster.

Hillary Clinton seems to come from that same school:

Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign’s woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

While the jury is still out on Barack Obama's management competency, his quick handling of the Samantha Power "monster" incident shows that he's not afraid to pull the trigger on close advisers when the situation calls for it.

Because Hillary is making such a big deal about that Obama speech in 2002 being his only "experience" in foreign policy, maybe people should read it. Frankly, Obama showed far batter judgment on Iraq than Clinton did at the time. She was busy voting for the authorization to invade, so she wouldn't look weak when she ran for president.

Without further ado, here it is:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Gee, Obama predicted almost exactly what happened when we invaded. If he could see that, why didn't Clinton?

Just listened to Clinton mouthpiece Lanny Davis say "every national poll, certainly in the last several months, show Senator Clinton beating John McCain at about the same margin as Senator Obama."

Really? What planet is Lanny Davis living on? Anderson Cooper just came back and said CNN had just done a poll that doesn't say that. Davis counters that "the Gallup poll and Pew Research poll and about dozen polls show very little difference" between the two.

Mind to name those polls? Gee, let's take a look. Obama beats McCain by 12 (CBS/NYT), 11 (ABC/WaPo), 10 (AP/Ipsos), 9 (Cook) and 7 (Pew). The best polls for Clinton (Pew and AP) show her only winning by five.

It's one thing to spin, to put the best face on a situation, but "every national poll" doesn't cut it. Two polls, Gallup and Pew, have them close, but even Pew has Obama doing better than Clinton.

One thing those counting the delegates haven't been paying much attention to is Michigan and Florida. Yes, Hillary is behind in the delegates, which is why she is trying hard to get those delegates seated.

Here's how I see it. The DNC can't sit back and not have any delegates from those states. Yes, they broke the rules and had early primaries. But politically, they have to have their say.

I think the results from Florida should stand. First off, it was the Republicans who set the primary date in that state, so it's hard to hold that against Florida Democrats. Second, all the candidates names were on the ballot, even though none of them officially campaigned there. Yes, this gave a huge advantage to Hillary, but Obama did get 33 percent of the vote. They may get a do-over, but if they don't, I think the results stand.

Not so with Michigan. Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and neither were most of the other major candidates. Even then, uncommitted got 40 percent of the vote, meaning that 40 percent of the people showed up in a snowstorm to vote against Hillary. There is absolutely no way she can claim these delegates. It doesn't come close to representing the will of the people of Michigan.

So a do-over in both states would be best, or at least in Michigan.

It would seem from the exit polling that Clinton hitting Obama for one of his campaign advisers telling the Canadians that all that NAFTA stuff was just talk actually swayed a lot of votes her way.

But now we learn it was the Clinton campaign that was speaking with forked tongue:

Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing.

So, Ohio, maybe you'd like a do-over?

Pretty ballsy for the Clinton campaign to attack on that point that they were the guilty party.