I will concede that the distaste for Hillary Clinton that many Obama supporters have developed is far more visceral than it should be. But I disagree about a few points in the article. First, the cognitive dissonance on message is far more significant than the author makes it out to be if Obama really expects to attract new voters. His post-partisan image, whether real or affected, really is what makes him appealing to a certain slice of the electorate. Pick her, and that is shot to hell.

Second, I think the article understates what I'll call the "second banana" problem. I some doubts that Hillary could adjust to being a supporting player, but it is possible. She did that in her husband's administration. However, there is no controlling Bill. The Lewinsky scandal should have taught us that, if nothing else. Hillary couldn't even harness him to good effect in her campaign. How on earth could President Obama keep him from running amok like a bull in a china shop.

However, the author is correct that those throwing cold water on the unity ticket have an obligation to pick someone more credible. Personally, the only person that I see that fits the bill (other than Al Gore, who I presume really won't take it) is John Edwards. Yes, I know he has said he's not interested. But he has made no "Sherman statement" and perhaps could be persuaded for the good of the party. Chuck Hegel has some appeal, but is too conservative on other issues. But I don't really see an establishment Democrat out there than can fit well enough with the core change message. Russ Feingold perhaps, but that's taking a real chance.

It's not going to happen for the same reason that a O'Bama-Hegel ticket is not going to happen. Mainstream Republicans would be furious to see a pro-choice, pro-union, pro-environmental candidate on their ticket.

You'll never find me having much good to say about Joe Lieberman, but he's not a closet Republican on most issues. Only on some. The reason that he is so annoying is 1) his "holier than thou" attitude; and 2) the fact that he put personal ambitions and aggrandizement ahead of party loyalty when he lost in the primary to Ned Lamont. But he were to be the Republican VP, the Republican rank and file would be having conniption fits and frothing at the mouth.

OK. I will call you naive, Joan. Not about the cat fight, but about Michelle Obama's approval rating. 48% positive to 42% negative shouldn't seem "bizarrely high" to you. Unfortunately, many Americans -- male and female -- still have problems with educated, confident, and powerful women. As Pelonious said, "Tis true, 'tis pity; and tis pity, tis true."

3pointshooter finally got to the point. The problem is that if he goes to college, he can dominate and will still probably be a high draft choice. If he goes to Europe, he faces a much higher level of competition night in and night out than in the U.S. college game. So if he doesn't really shine, his stock may drop and suddenly, he's yesterday's news and doesn't get drafted.

Personally, I think the NBA's one year in college rule is foolish. Players don't progress in college because the level of competition is too low, coaching isn't as good, and it's really a different game in any event (and an inferior game, I would argue). Why waste time when these kids could be really learning in the NBA. But if they truly have talent, they would be better off in Europe. But they had better be sure that they can cut it, because the European game is a lot more difficult than they think.

The research posits that listening and participating in a conversation is the problem, not using a phone. If that is true, wouldn't have the same conversation with the person in the passenger seat cause the same problem? I think my driving is just as good when visiting with my passenger as it is when driving in silence, though God knows there have been times that I wished there had been a law outlawing conversation with some passengers. Does this really comport with your experience?

I didn't watch because I think it's crazy to watch something when you can already find out who won. It spoils the experience. And deliberately keeping ones self in the dark seems foolish. When they go back to covering it like a real sports event, and not like trash sports that are edited and put on when convenient, I might watch again.

But not covering core track and field events is just as crazy. Why on earth wouldn't they cover these events? Just because the participants aren't scantily clad enough or because American's don't dominate? I suppose a poor excuse beats none, but that's a poor excuse indeed.

I thought that Switzer's speech was really quite good. I didn't know he was that talented. His charisma doesn't come out that much on interview programs. He looked like the real deal tonight. Real red meat material. Time to call him up to the big league and send him out on the road for the rest of the season to attack McSame.

About as classy as A-Rod announcing his free agency during Game 7 of the World Series.

Cut 'em off. Politics is too important these days to make exceptions. Tell them that the Republican party doesn't respect you and you don't respect those who support the Republican party. Period. End of discussion.