I haven't posted before, but I find myself unable to sit back and listen to such strange and divisive distortions.

First, to the Obama supporters, look, it's a little bizarre to hear you point to Clinton supporters as divisive and tell them to "chill out" when my read of the various blogs is that Obama supporters are unwilling to accept any defeat of their candidate without accusations of fraud or calls to sit out the election if their candidate doesn't win. I'm not going to hyperlink a bunch of blogs as evidence; I'm simply going to state this as my perception. To hear such supporters now turn and say, "Hey, Hillary people, chill out," is more than a tad weird.

For the record, I am a Hillary supporter who would happily support Obama in the general election. I rarely hear the same from Obama supporters about Hillary. Forgive me, but there seems to be an almost messianic quality to his supporters' fervor that more than gives me pause. He's a great candidate, but he doesn't walk on water. He makes mistakes, just as Hillary does. How about tempering the zeal for him with a bit more distance and realism?

Look, we need a Democrat in the White House in 2008-- whether it's Hillary, Obama or Edwards. Their positions are fairly similar, so to argue that a Hillary victory would be the equivalent of some sort of "dark day" is disingenuous at best and uninformed at worst.

The arguments were nasty from both parties, but I believe that the spat was initiated by Obama, not Clinton, so your characterization about him "hitting back" in the debate would probably more appropriately be applied to Hillary's response. Perhaps you meant "hitting back" from attacks he's received lately from the Clinton campaign or "machine," as you not very impartially call it (though both sides have been attacking each other with equal fervor, from my point of view). The whole tone of this piece makes it seems as if a helpless Obama were just being pummeled till he bravely fought back. Your comment that Clinton mentioning Rezko was a "cherry atop the ice cream sundae" is a perfect example of that. What debate were you watching?

He came out swinging. She hit back. If you think certain candidates intentionally incorrectly characterize things, take a look at your own writing.

The tone of this article was blatantly slanted. Her Rezko comment was a response to his about her Wal-Mart connection. She made that remark AFTER his attack. Moreover, as for whether anyone other than political pros got the "reference to Rezko," I think the point was pretty clear when she mentioned he was a "slumlord." People are brighter than many of you pundits think. I would bet that most people caught what she meant. And I would bet that most can tell a slanted opinion piece when they read one-- as is the case with your article.