"A candidate who loses the majority of whites, the majority of Hispanics, and the majority of asians is gonna lose CA, NY, and NJ."

Sure. This makes sense only if you think that the people who voted for HRC are suddenly going to turn around and vote Republican. Or simply stay home.

To which I respond, "Huh?" The only way this is going to happen is if HRC supporters are either racists or so far right that they can't conceive of supporting a "liberal" (so HRC is markedly less liberal than BHO? Reeeely?). In other words, these folks aren't really Democrats--they're Reagan Republicans (i.e., "gullible morons"; there are no "Reagan Democrats")who find comfort in HRC.

And if that's the case, then why on earth should anybody even slightly left-of-center want to support HRC?

See, the argument just falls apart on any kind of close examination. Either Democrats will vote for a Democrat in the fall, or they aren't Democrats.

"The country doesn't elect effete, liberal, intellectuals who dsn't understand working-class people President of the United States."

If you really think this, then you're not a Democrat. Good Democrats don't use terms like "effete" (by definition, isn't HRC more effete than BHO?). They actually like intellectuals (i.e., "people who like to think"). But hey, if you feel this way, go vote for McCain. You're welcome to him, his endless war, and his continued destruction of the economy. If that's what you want, you'll get it under Bush III. We're just afraid we'll get it under Clinton II also.

"But it was tacked on to the end of a blog post that I had written carefully, to be fair to both sides of this split-almost-perfectly-down-the-middle Democratic race, and I didn't want to risk being shrill. I want to be one of the people who, at the end of this race, facilitates Democrats coming together. I like and admire both Clinton and Obama. I strive for balance in our coverage and in my personal blog posts."

Let's see: written carefully, wrong, fair to both sides, wrong, shrill, well, that ship sailed a long time ago, facilitates Democrats coming together--then you might stop saying that asking Obama about flag pins is just kewl--strive for balance--that's part of what's wrong with your coverage, and, like so many journalists, you'll never get it.

How many times can you be wrong in such a short passage?

C'mon, Joan--you're an HRC partisan, you hate and despise Obama, you get shrill about a "threat" of violence, then get all cozy with Clinton cronies like GS and their bullshit questions--I mean, really, how dumb do you think we are?

And--when will you cut off comments on this post, like you did with others? When it gets uncomfortably hot?

If HRC's people would just come out and admit it, we'd have a lot more respect for you.

I think there's only one real response to what we've been seeing in Salon lately.

I'm cancelling my subscription. How about you? Haven't they insulted your intelligence enough--not with their support of HRC, but with the fact that, like Fox News, they claim they're "fair and balanced?"

I'm assuming, Alex, in order to get Ms. Walsh's "fair and balanced" approach, your very next article is going to be on HRC's participation in the fundamentalist "Family."

Right? Right. Of course!

I just wanted to personally thank you for this stunning story about HRC and the Family. I mean, willing participation in a very cult-like far-right-wing religious fundamentalist group? What could be more shocking than that?

Oh, sorry, you're talking about some guy's former pastor. My bad!

Well, I think we can all thank the Supreme Being that at least Salon! hasn't succumbed to the Wright inanity!

By the way, "Ms." Walsh, when you use superfluous quotation "marks," as in "Obama 'outraged' by Wright," don't you "realize" that you undercut your entire "post?"

Oh. You do "realize" that, don't "you?"

That "pass" stuff that you want to make a big deal about--don't you watch political ads? This is standard language. We've all heard it a thousand times.

So--either you have been completely clueless in the past--or you're digging frantically, trying to find one more thing to smear BHO with.

Huh. Which is it? Stupid, or corrupt?

Oh wait. This is Joan Walsh's Salon, isn't it?

Why didn't you use the BoTox Brush for Hillary? Cuz she's using it now, that's fershure.

"I think it's a little easy to assume that something she says would actually have that much affect"

Y'know, I don't think you meant what you wrote here, but nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly.

HRC can heal the racial divide easily.

1) Quit the race.

2) Apologize to BHO for race-baiting.Apologize to the American people for race-baiting, lying, and running a campaign that has made Republicans look ethical.

3) Throw her support unqualifiedly behind BHO.

See! Now wasn't that easy?

Can't the folks from Lesbos be called Lesbosians?

And brightstar, that argument about ditch diggers and brain surgeons made perfect sense. Perhaps, too, we can see about curtailing the First Amendment rights of ditch diggers vis a vis brain surgeons, cuz, like, they're ditch diggers, y'know?

There's no such thing as gay rights. There's only human rights. So, finally, it all comes down to whom you consider human, y'know?

"Rome was keeping the people from God like Nebuchadnezzer was keeping the Jews from Babylon."

The Jews didn't want to go *to* Babylon; they were *in* Babylon, being kept from going home, to Judah.