For those of you who think Clinton's crying in NH shifted the primary outcome I have to say you are selling us short. After all that we have seen and been through with these candidates most of the voters in NH would not be so affected.

Think of it this way, would YOU be more or less likely to vote for Clinton or any other candidate simply because they well up at an event? I think the answer would be no as it is with us in NH.

The issue is that the mainstream media are trying to oversimplify everything, which includes why they got it wrong here. The reasons behind Clinton's win are far more complicated than a simple tear.

Why did so many Democrats turn out to support Lieberman last time around? What an annoying person he has turned out to be.

If you haven't read this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&ex=1359781200&en=dc32a822488c8617&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin)in todays NY Times you all should do so. It cuts past the hype and raises a serious question as to his experience and ability to get anything done.

The fact of the matter is that analysis of the 2000 election showed a number of causes for Gore's close defeat, but one of them certainly was Nader.

If he cares so much about his issues as opposed to himself he should support a candidate and get out and work for them doing the grassroots organizing he is so famous for. If he has a constituency, then put it to use, but stay out of the race because we can't stand even four more years of Republican insanity.

Obama is a good man. Clinton is a good woman.

So why is Salon so invested in tearing one down and building the other up?

The homepage today was a lesson in contrast. One story on Clinton is mostly negative and talks only about DNC intra party issues while the story on Obama is a fawning love letter.

Can we have a discussion on issues please?!

It's tough in a primary where there is no wrong choice in who to vote for.

However, I have to say that we have seen how HRC is able to handle constant, unceasing and unyielding criticism the likes of which Obama will not experience unless he wins the nomination. Think about it, there are two anti-Hillary groups battling over the acronym "C.U.N.T." and constant media negativity--including from Salon and the War Room. Obama hasn't even tasted how tough things will get for him once his shine wears off.

I say this liking both candidates very much, but the truth is that for HRC this campaign has been about battling hostility coming from the right and many in the media while Obama has been given a pass. The Republicans won't give him a pass, though, if he wins the nomination and when their nominee runs they will play on fear and Obama's complete lack of experience. I hope that in that case he will ask HRC et al how they handled it and seek their advice.

By every objective measure Reagan was a fairlure. And when you consider that he sold weapons to Iran only months after they played a role murdering 250 American Marines and after they had declared war on the US he was something of a traitor as well.

And he was dangerous--he ignored the AIDS epidemic and opened numerous asylums unleashing a new wave of homelessness, to name a couple of issues.

On the other hand, Bill Clinton by every objective measure was one of the most successful presidents this country has ever had. The economy strengthened, the Internet was enabled under his administration with (yes) Al Gore playing an important role, health care and coverage moved forward (though obviously as much as he or we would have liked), his crime package worked and went beyond partisan divisions of lock 'em all up or all people need is understanding, foreign policy was actually a successful set of initiatives that largely worked, not an ad hoc set of threats and disallusionment, and on and on.

And yet, Clinton gets a blow job, the Dems misplace their spine, and a bunch of duplicitous Republicans act like unrestrained hoods, and now we have all of this fetishizing about Reagan. Go figure.

Huckabee may be a religious extremist or even a self dilusional huckster a la Elmer Gantry, but he is also a sure loser in a general election. Democrats and others need to identify why he would be wrong and bad for this country and the world, but don't say it too loudly and maybe the Republicans will actually nominate him.

Somebody, please tell me why Salon and so many other media outlets are wasting so much space and time publishing articles that say sure there is cause to impeach Bush, but - gasp - not the political will.

Really?

Please put a little bit more time and work in and find some way to push the issue or discuss it that doesn't repeat over and over the above. Enough already.