I understand what American is trying to do but I don't like the policy - at all. What would make sense is a basic fee for your seat and then an additional fee tied to the total weight of the passenger, carryon and checked luggage.

Clinton supports a plan (Gas Tax Holiday) that might have been part of her 'moving quickly to the Left' but there is a behavioral result as well. This plan would NUDGE Americans to drive more this summer, increasing our dependency on foreign oil and hurting our environment while putting even greater pressure on gas prices. None of these behaviors or results are consistent with anything someone on the Left should support.

I'm happy that there is a candidate thinking about how Americans might behave in the future as a result of a potential policy. I'll take this over Clinton's 'how many votes will I get for supporting this?' approach any day of the week.

It's amazing that throughout this campaign, Obama has been cast as a man of rhetorical skills with limited substance. In fact, his rhetoric is so powerful precisely because there is so much evidence of the thought behind it.

Geller is an unpledged superdelegate who is missing out on all the goodies that his peers in other states are being promised from Obama & Clinton in exchange for their support.

How can these superdelegates remain undecided? Aren't they supposed to be party "leaders?" What kind of leadership is being displayed by a group of people that can't make a decision after a year and a half of this campaign? The answer is that they're holding out to see what favors they can get out of the eventual nominee. They are looking out for themselves and killing the party and, unfortunately the country if Obama or Clinton become president. Thanks to this absurd system and Clinton's reluctance to drop out, the Democratic nominee will end up owing more favors than any President in history. Why aren't the papers covering this angle? It's huge and it will be bad for America if left unexamined.

...he better not go for any late night walks in the park. For his safety, I hope he knows better.

Maybe some Obama supporters are ready to leave the rural vote behind but I don't think that's his message at all. His speech on race (that now seems so far in the past) was all about acknowledging that racism exists, understanding where it comes from and figuring out what needs to happen to counter it. I can't think of a healthier approach and I think this is in tune with Little Blue Dot's letter in that it recognizes that a family may have some ugly characters but that they are who they are for a reason and we need to incorporate them rather than tune them out and turn them off.

In a vacuum, I think Obama would resonate in rural America as well as anywhere else. His problem is that Clinton is still around and she's fanning these flames. Her approach is all about acknowledging that racism exists, understanding which demographics are racist and figuring out what she needs to do to get their votes. It's drastically different because it's not about family or healing but about anger and divisiveness.

At what cost is Obama accumulating the support of these superdelegates? Byrd is one of the worst abusers (if not the worst) of Congress' budgetary powers. He is famous for the pork $ he has sent West Virginia's way and the number of taxpayer funded projects bearing his name should embarrass him (http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings) I hope that Obama has obtained and accepted his support with no strings attached.

The press has been silent on the backroom dealings that must be going on as Obama and Clinton vie for the remaining superdelegates. While I have been an Obama supporter I am increasingly concerned with how many favors the eventual Democratic nominee will owe. Obama was supposed to represent a new type of politics but I'm afraid that, because of the ridiculous nomination process created by the Democrats, President Obama will owe more favors than any president in history. I hope his message, goals and relative independence are not compromised.

I'm tired of the repeated examination of the role of gender in this race. Enough is enough. Hillary's gender brought her quite a bit of (loyal, unwavering) support and a relatively limited number attacks (the 'iron my shirt' and other ugly incidents were quite rare and did not represent widespread sentiments). The legacy of this campaign is that Hillary did well when the narrative of the primary race shifted to (a) gender and (b) her support among racists. She did poorly when the narrative shifted to just about everything else: fundraising, hope/inspiration, gas tax holiday, immigration, the war in Iraq, etc. A better argument could be made that she got as far as she did because of her gender, not in spite of it and I believe there is a quote to this effect in the NYT article.

And, yes, you can hate a politician for reasons other than gender. I would say that Nixon, W., and Bill Clinton were/are hated by significant portions of the electorate even though they were/are men.