Who's the worst?

This month has been absolutely terrible for our computers and blogging. My computer was visited by some evil creature from outer space and has been in the hands of the Geek Squad ever since. Out of desperation we bought a new laptop but it has its own problems, not the least of which is a wandering cursor. The server came back on for a couple of days but now it is out again. We are beginning to get desperate and may have to look for a different server. Such is life with computers.
The media cannot get enough of the heated exchanges between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama during the debate last night. It was quite a show and I find it difficult to figure out who was really the worst. Obama, I think, started it when he came out complaining about the Clinton’s misleading statements about his positions. He would have been far better off to have ignored them. But I think he asked for it when he said while he had been fighting the good fight Hillary had been a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal Mart. While it is true she was on the board of Wal Mart for a time I don’t think Obama scored any points by bringing it up. Unfortunately, it gave Hillary the opportunity to accuse him of defending a slumlord in the Chicago inner city. I have no idea if this is true but it probably has at least a small grain of truth in it somewhere. She would, I believe, have been better advised not to say it. John Edwards who spent most of the time just observing the two of them involved in this useless bickering tried to stay above the fray but couldn’t resist accusing them both of taking corporate money. What I thought was most interesting at this point was that Hillary pointed out that he, Edwards, was getting money from the big lawyer’s groups. His argument, which I think everyone missed or at least ignored was interesting. He claimed that was different because, if I understood him, the lawyers only gave him money so he (and they, presumably) could do good work for the public. I strongly suspect that just as in the case of other corporate giving (for which he continually insists they expect something in return) the lawyers are also going to expect something. I guess because of his somewhat marginal position in the debate no one paid any attention to this and there was no follow-up of any kind. There are no innocents in this political business.
The Brafia must be eating this up. What could be better from their point of view than having the Democrats splitting and arguing about how dishonest each other is. The Brafia, along with their cronies in the MSM, have maneuvered us into a situation which is win-win for them. We are allowed to pick between a woman (there are doubts that a woman can win), and an African-American (there are doubts that a black man can win), who are being pitted against each other and doing perhaps irreparable damage to the Democratic party. Thus there is a better chance that a Brafia might actually win. But failing that they will have Hillary Clinton of the DLC, an arm of the Brafia established in the Democratic party. The worst outcome they can expect would be Obama but, he too, is basically just another politician with ties to big business. This is one of the oldest gambler’s tricks in the business where the odds are all in your favor. Any candidate that might have mounted a real challenge to the status quo has been ignored, ridiculed, and left out of the equation. Clever, this criminal conspiracy that runs our country.

LKBIQ:
My poetic friend, Barbara H. (the only person I know older than I am), slipped and fell the other day. She sent us the fruits of her latest poetic inspiriation:
Ice, ice,
is seldom
Nice.
I am thinking of her work as a new genre. I call it mini-haiku. It is a refined combination of the true master, Matsuo Basho, and our own Ogden Nash.