Mr.Keillor writes "the woman sitting next to me got up to go see to her child, and then stopped and came back and got her purse out of the stroller and took it with her."

And he thinks it was because she didn't trust him.

Not necessarily. In a public setting like a park, a woman never knows who will come running by, or skating by, or whatever and snatch up that unattended purse and flee with it. She'd be foolish to assume the people around her would be able to stop this from happening - the whole point is that it would be fast. Faster than most people over the age of 20 could react.

Best to just carry the thing with her.

And - about that ludicrously tall, middle-aged man who brought the cute little girl - what? Is he going to abandon the child to run off with some woman's purse? Seriously?

billiejoe writes "Gossip columns for years have reported Myers' inflated ego and poor treatment of underlings."

I have to admit that I don't read the gossip columns. However, Myers came across pretty well on NPR's "Fresh Air" a few days ago. Here's the link:

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91620730

Thanks for this enlightening and amusing article on a depressing process. The Search for A VP drama has been unfolding every 4 or 8 years, and gets more viewership than it deserves. The Constitutional definition of the veep is "spare." Oh, and s/he presides over the Senate. And, upon rare occasions, actually gets to vote. That's it.

What I'd be interested in hearing is the candidates' selections for:

• Attorney General
• Secretary of State
• Secretary of War (about time we go back to the more accurate title, IMHO)
• EPA director
• DCI, National Security Advisor, and whatever the security tsar is called this week. That job that Condoleeza Rice failed so spectacularly at.

You know, the jobs with real meat to them. I think a candidate with a cabinet would offer more to the voters than just one man (isn't it always?) with a "trust me" sign attached.

kjsmithjd speculates 'Could it be that "government of the people, by the people, for the people" will "perish from the earth"?'

No - these days, there are plenty of democracies, even if the USA isn't among them anymore.

You might as well forget the "SKY-DIVE!!" right now. For the next 20-odd years, you will be careful. And obtain life insurance. Plus health insurance. Maybe disability insurance. If you already have these, maybe you'll up your coverage. What? You'll go off and indulge yourself in a seriously life-threatening discretionary activity at the risk of leaving your beloved bereaved and destitute, with a baby to take care of, for the next few decades? Are you serious, man?

You're right - your independent life is over. You'll probably like your new life, but it will be different.

If you haven't noticed any slurs or abuse of Senator Clinton, you're just not paying attention, as damnthatxanadu has noted. Maybe these are things you just aren't able to see, in the way that many guys are unable to see dirt, or clutter.

No matter. I note that you didn't address the primary thrust of my posting, which was What's wrong with a candidate who fights on until the very end?

Perhaps, like Barry Goldwater, you prefer a candidate who'd "rather be right than President"?

Wait for it: the onslaught of "what's the stupid b!!!! doing, still running!?!" and "what a dumb c!!! - she's just trying to sabotage Barak Obama!" responses.

Personally, when the polls close on November 4th, I'd like the Democratic candidate to be someone who will fight on, until every last vote is counted. I'd like to have a candidate that won't listen to the condescending voices of the punditocracy or the Republican spin doctors or the Republican operatives, and just "get over it." I'd like someone who won't hesitate to work the refs by screaming foul, or insulting their mamas, or whatever it took until the votes were all fairly counted.

On the other hand, I'm disappointed that media crybabies convinced Senator Obama to throw his beloved minister of 30 years off the train. I'm amazed that the blathering heads of cable TV talked him into quitting his church. And I'm concerned what Senator Obama will do on Election Night when, after a long day of Democratic voters waiting several hours at the polls, or the voting technology breaking down entirely in Democratic precincts, or tales of massive disenfranchisement surfacing in the Democratic parts of state after state, Fox News calls it for McCain.

Will Obama go along with it and concede? Suppose they call him names? Question his judgement? Accuse him of having an ego? Will he, yet again, back down?

So, just what do you all find so offensive about a candidate who won't back down until all the primary and caucus results are in? Senator Clinton is not that far behind Senator Obama. Of equal significance, he hasn't won a clear majority of delegates yet.

Why should Clinton drop out?

Some insist that the long competition has "destroyed" the Democratic Party, without much clear evidence, other than huge numbers of trollish rants on the 'Net. Others point to increasing turnout, massive registration of Democratic voters, record-breaking fund raising by Democratic candidate, and conclude that the long primary season is exciting the public, bringing more people into the Democratic Party.

They can't both be right.

Once the convention has annoited a candidate, and it'll probably be Senator Obama, all he needs to do is reassure the Clinton voters that he's on their side. Do you seriously think he isn't? Do you think he's unpersuasive? Do you think he won't bother; his own Obama-nauts are the only supporters he wants or needs?

Then, what's the problem?