The ever-knowledgeable Thom Hartmann has proposed the resurrection of a familiar market remedy to our current economic ills that:

--has served us well in the past, and is currently employed by healthy economies abroad

--pays for itself and then some after only a few years

--puts the responsibility for the cost on Wall Street, where it belongs

--brings revenue back to the taxpayers

--reduces the toxic speculation that helped create this problem, and encourages healthy investment

--is simple, and can stand alone

Best yet, we already know it works, because we used it for decades to generate revenue, and it was successfully adopted by the UK, France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Greece, Australia, France, China, Chile, Malaysia, India, Austria, and Belgium.

It's called a Securities Turnover Excise Tax. That is, if we were to implement, say, a .25 percent STET (tax) on every stock, swap, derivative, or other trade today, it would generate around $150 billion in revenue its first year. Wall Street would be funding its own bailout. As it damn well should.

However we choose to make sense of and respond to Hillary's statements, we need to understand a few things.

A gaffe is something said once. A gaffe comes out in opposition to what was intended. A gaffe runs contrary to a person's general stance and record. Thus, a gaffe is easily apologized for, and with an apology, a gaffe warrants forgiveness.

This, however, was NOT the first time Hillary Clinton has invoked the specter of assassination by using that word to reference RFK in comparison to the current primary. That makes her comment not a gaffe, but a strategy. And she has not apologized for the offense to Obama, who was the target (however inadvertent) of her statement. Hillary seems not even to apprehend the horror to Obama, his family, or his supporters in invoking "assassination" to argue for why she continues to fight on the campaign trail.

These factors need to be kept in mind.

John Aravosis points us to an article by E.R. Malcolm that essentially argues that Hillary should be encouraged to remain in the race because, well, she's a woman.

Of course Hillary should stay in the race if she wishes. But why "because she's a woman"? This argument rings especially ironic given the fairly widespread sentiment articulated by Ferraro that Obama's victories testify not to his exceptional merits, but to a sudden national epidemic of reverse-racism.

Ironic too is "gritty-fighter" Clinton's posture of whiner, of victim who deserves of all manner of rule-adjusting and special consideration, in spite of her wealth, universal recognition and early establishment blessings.

Clinton apparently feels entitled to the nomination due to her connections and inside-working in the party--it's really not that she feels like a delicate waif manhandled by the black male and the patriarchy behind him. However, this is the perception card she and her supporters repeatedly trot out in the bid for a re-negotiation of election parameters and counting methods.

Women should be judged by a different standard? Women can't compete by established rules, they should be allowed to change the rules as they go along? How much more degrading to young women can a candidate's message be?

No, the election isn't over. A huge upset could still take place. Michigan and Florida could be rammed through, and the SuperD's could swing for Clinton.

But this isn't the most likely scenario. Nor is it a very likely scenario. And most of us know this.

(also at the G.O.S.)

Clinton just had an decisive 9-point win in PA after a gruesome six weeks. She's re-invigorated, and her followers are electrified. 10 million dollars streamed in from 500K new sources overnight, and the campaign is "fired up."

Unfortunately, Hillary's debts were up to 15.3 million dollars three weeks ago (counting the 5 million she loaned her campaign), and this latest influx of money has not been near enough to pull her out of the red.

If Hillary is indeed a viable candidate, how can her campaign still be in so much financial distress?

Poor money management is certainly one answer, and an important consideration, given that she wants to be at the helm of our economy.

But another factor points to a disturbing aspect of Clinton's candidacy, and one that hasn't been discussed nearly enough.

Clinton's core of support is extremely soft.

As someone who spent a decade and a half idolozing Hillary Rodham Clinton, and fiercely defending her from ridiculous and vicious right-wing smears, I've been reeling from a series of consecutive heartbreaks these past months. I've been devastated as she has crawled into bed with slime like Mark Penn, virtually campaigned for McCain, then assumed the very same empty, nasty, divisive right wing attack strategies so long and so unfairly leveled against herself and her husband.

Early in the campaign, Hillary's centrist and DLC tacking pushed me toward Edwards, but I was more than ready to stump for her in the general. But by now, I've been casting about for ways not to hate this woman with that special, thousand-white-hot-sun heat that only the faithful who've been jilted and betrayed can feel.

And I think I've found it.

In a 2006 op-ed to that haunt of uppity, anti-white, tree-hugging  liberals--The Wall Street Journal--this Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, former Navy Secretary under Reagan, former Vietnam veteran, whose son has served in the current war in Iraq, has the gall to suggest that "working Americans" have--dare I say it--"clung" to emotional issues like "God and guns" in the face of economic distress.

The nerve!

...and if you'd emerge from your multimillion dollar lifestyle, and your "experience"-filled, corporation-shielding, lobbyist-choked DC bubble once in awhile, you'd feel the chill.