If it were Clinton being accused of plagiarism then all the Obama people would be yelling that this is just another example of the Clinton's depravity and Salon and every other liberal blogger would join in.

Instead, it is the other way around and this is being cited as Clinton depravity.

The funny thing is that on the issues Clinton is more liberal than Obama. It was the same thing in 2004 when Dean came along. He was the darling and loved by the left even though he was the most conservative candidate in the race.

Clinton has taken a very soft stand againts Obama, but some Obama supporters believe she should have just given up upon his anouncement that he was entering the race. They also argue that because she has actually campaigned against him -- imagine doing that in a contested primary -- that she is the same as the GOP and just another freak show.

Are you people crazy!

Obama hasn't yet been tested and both Clintons have done more fore liberals and the Democratic party than any two people in a very, very long time.

Why the villification? Why the assaults on the Clintons? Why the over the top negativity just because she is doing what she needs to do, which is run an aggressive campaign?

Toughen up you people because it's going to get a lot worse for either Obama or Clinton. And frankly either one would make a very good president and we should all be proud of them and how hard they are working and that they believe so strongly in fixing all that is wrong with America.

And if Clinton can come back then she has proved she has what it takes. If not, then she has given Obama a bit of a test that will only help him against McCain and the real freak show.

Again: If this had been Clinton on the hook people would be up in arms about how she will say and do anything to get elected.

But its Obama and it all seems understandable.

If all of the media analysts--including the War Room--were examined for the same kind of consistency when evaluating the race and what is or is not important they would fail more miserably than any of the candidates.

If you want to really be sickened by the state of the media today go to http://www.newsweek.com/id/118076/page/1 where you can see what Holly Bailey wrote about the trip.

What a bunch of rediculous people. As a journalist and writer I am sickened by what passes for journalism these days. All of these people should be fired.

If Obama is tough enough to go againts the GOP here is his first test. Clinton's attacks are all fair game in an election (assuming her staffers didn't release the photo, if they did than that crosses a very big line) because it is more than fair to contrast her experience with Obama's inexperience.

Now we will get to see if Obama can pass this test as he has passed previous ones. How he handles these criticisms will tell a lot about his campaigns ability to hit back.

Why do the strongest Obama ideologues always resort to saying that anyone who may support Clinton is nothing but a GOP, Karl Rove loving, so and so. I don't get it. Clinton has nothing to do with the GOP and the GOP hates her to her core. So why the personal insult of saying that a Clinton supporter is essentially an evil person. It's cruel and doesn't make any sense and does exactly what we shouldn't be doing, which is dividing ourselves.

Clinton and Obama stand for the same things. They are mirror images. The difference is that one promises "change" and the other "experience."

I am a political writer and have interviewed presidents Bush and Clinton and MacCain and many other political leaders down to local dog catcher and I agree with what UberBlond says. We get used to these discussions and see how these quotes are made and then taken (this is not to imply that I am defendinf Ferarro because I'm not. It was a stupid and senseless thing for her to say). We also understand what happens behind all the hype and commercials and large town hall meetings and so on because we see the candidates and their advidors when they are just being people--taking phone calls, saying hello to friends, relaxing and so on. And we see behind the strategy first hand.

It is our job to then take that knowledge and relate it to the public. Unfortunately, as many of the posts here indicate, many in the media have failed to do their jobs properly (beyond merely making acceptable mistakes) and therefore the trust we may have once had from the public has been diminished if not completely disapeared.

And we also have to contend with Oberman and O'Reilly who inflame passions on either extreme through the deft use of rhetoric and selective presentation of facts.

The end result of all of this is we have two very good Democratic candidates who both have done a lot for Democrats and most importantly for this country and will continue to do more good. And yet, there are hundreds and thousands of posts over the last few weeks that are mean, hyperbolic, personal, wrong in their facts and assumptions, naive in their understanding of politics, policy and campaigns, and cruel.

Those people who have contributed to this diminishment of discussion and debate should be ashamed.