The interior design of airplanes tries to pack Greyhound bus seating into an aluminum can. The seats are fat, tall, bulky. Why not move to a more comfortable webbed material (like an aeron chair) that reduces the total amount of material occupied by the chair, and which could conceivably fold up if not occupied. More interior space would help people move around and decrease the claustrophobic feeling that people want to relieve by trying to get the hell out of the plane by improving sight lines.

Also, the seatback screens should have options that show video of what is happening or some sort of countdown to disembarking. From Smith's point of view people are being pushy or whatever, but from the passenger's point of view they are completely in the dark in an arbitrary process. Smith even admits lying to passengers over the PA while they are crammed in like sardines. Make the passengers part of the process by keeping them informed.

The overhead bin luggage problems is entirely the fault of the airlines. Almost everyone goes for the bag size/weight that just meets the requirements, but the bins only barely accomodate those bags. Duh.

Finally, some people are large and simply must pay for two seats, or the airlines must provide large seats for them (and more aisle space). And I'm not talking obese, just hefty. There is a real safety and disembarking issues in denying this problem. I'd rather sit next to a baby than a 6 foot 280 lb adult any day.

I agree with the others here that you're cute and the lighting is nice. But, quite frankly, I prefer Dowd's wit and writing skill.

Dowd is onto something about Clinton and her core supporters, and I'm not sure you've rebutted her column. Clinton herself seems to say "I'm no fun, but it's not about fun."

I found her victory speech interesting for her use of the phrase "this one's for you" preceded by the "for any of you that" construction. "This one's for you" is a toast. The "for any of you" was of course both a brag on her resiliency, but also had a slight feeling of victim in it.

It's interesting that the victim motif follows through even when Clinton is victimizing others, most recently on her anti-Muslim baiting of Obama on religion. She was a victim of rumor, so she can victimize others with rumors, have another, this one's on me, this one's for you.

No, Clinton isn't any fun. It's not much fun to be close to her or like her, I'm sure.

Given Clinton's recent behavior I'd rather be mistaken for an Obamabot (whatever that is) than a Clinton enabler.

You can learn something about a candidate by who they choose to defend, and who they choose to pick on. Clinton has chosen to defend her own (quite privileged) daughter from the media and then used the media to pick on Muslims by using innuendo to say that Obama is one. That approach is very similar to the old days when a candidate could be brought down through innuendo that he had African blood.

I'd agree that she's better than this crap, but it's not so much fun, shoulder-pad feminism or not.

billcap: "...that Hillary is older and so Obama can wait more easily "his turn","

xrandadu: Her being older is meaningless and has nothing to do with recent history, in which VPs often are older (Johnson, Cheney, etc.). The whole idea of Obama "waiting his turn" makes more sense in grade-school recess than in politics where an entire country's future is at stake.

I agree with xrandadu. If Clinton's age (60) means she should have the Presidential spot before she gets too old, then it would follow that she should not run when she is 64 or 68. If McCain wins and serves four or eight years, should Clinton not run against him?

The idea that Obama should not take the Presidential nomination if the majority of Democrats and elected delegates choose him, under the rationale that he should give up his seat for the white candidate, is likely to cause a backlash from all but Clinton's most ardent supporters. Hush that fuss.

"Point of personal privilege: I'd ask Ross to invite some white feminist civil rights supporters who've been battered by the Clinton-Obama split to any post-nomination constituency healing session; 'black-brown' is not the full spectrum of the infighting"

Walsh is arguing that Blacks and Latinos should invite "battered" white feminists so that they, the white feminists, can heal?

Wow. Just wow.

"As for the offensive analogy to a black giving up their seat to a white, well, I can't actually write my response to that."

Just so we're clear: You find an analogy offensive. But somehow you don't think it offensive to argue that a black candidate who has legitimately won more contests, more delegates, and more of the popular vote should step aside in favor of a white candidate. You have an odd sense of outrage, but OK.

Tell us how the Democratic Party super delegates and Hillary Clinton's campaign is going to explain to black voters, voters they need to win the general, how they justify what will look to black voters like more discrimination.

And not just black voters, but other voters the party desperately needs to win the general, like voters under 45. The same people that Obama has been bringing out in droves. Telling them it's OK to discriminate against Obama because he is younger is a nonstarter.