You say: "Firstly, I think Helen Thomas' analysis falls short of citing an "incredible bias" as you stated."

Thomas says:

"There is no question that the pundits and the news media have been harder on Clinton, perhaps because she has been longer in the public eye and there is more to pick on...You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that the major newspaper columnists are giving Obama a free ride, while trashing Clinton."

That sounds like a pretty major case of bias to me.

You say: " Further, she doesn't attach the bias to Hillary's gender but to likeability. In fact, she doesn't mention the fact that Clinton is a female at all. Did you intend to site her essay to support the notion that women have it tougher? It appears to me that her article confirms to what many posters say here--it's not Clinton's gender, it's her personality. Did I misread the column?"

Thomas says: "Likeability undoubtedly goes a long way with them, and he has mesmerized the media."

No, I didn't have gender in mind when I posted the link, and Thomas doesn't say Clinton isn't likeable, unless I'm missing something here. But isn't it possible that the media have chosen to see Obama as "likeable", by way of snubbing Clinton? Hadn't thought of this before, but the likeability quotient may indeed have something to do with Clinton's gender. After all, Obama got away with saying to her directly, "You're likeable enough, Hillary." Can you possibly see him getting away with that with, say, Edwards or McCain? Afraid not.

What's more, many of us who support Clinton aren't all that fond of Obama as a personality, completely apart from the fact that he's Hillary's opponent. I never did warm up to him and have been pretty baffled about the whole charm deal. Also, I don't begin to understand why, even if this is how others see Obama, this has anything to do with his qualifications for the presidency. I mean, poor awkward Gore would likely never rate high on anyone's charm scale, but many of us voted for him because we believed he had the integrity, intelligence, and chops to be a solid president.

(BTW, I didn't catch on to MSM at first myself, not to mention OT. Wow, three acronyms in one sentence - my old English teachers would've been horrified.)

Now there's an idea I could really get behind, PointBlank. Thanks for the Sunday morning chuckle.

You say: "First, it's canonization, you twit."

Yes, I believe I know that full well. How did you miss the obvious? I was responding to another poster who mistakenly used the double 'n' in his post, something which made me chuckle.

You also say: "But let's go with your malapropism. Blow him away. Shoot the coon. sounds about right for you folks. Quicker than lynching, don't take no rope or no tree."

How in the hell did you manage to interpret what was a simple play on words into a racial statement, with connotations of lynching??? Your response is waaaaay out of line and only serves to confirm widespread observations re the hysteria displayed by far too many Obama's followers.

You know, now and then you can be very human. But most of the time, you post horribly twisted, scathing attacks on Clinton (excusez-moi, "Klinton") and her supporters, attacks which are gratuitously ugly and often entirely slanderous. You have to know that this sort of bile is what is turning Clinton supporters, more and more, away from the idea of ever voting for Obama. You say you will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. This rings rather hollow, as attacks such as yours are merely furthering the left's cannibalization of Clinton, thus severely weakening her chances in a general election. It isn't the Clinton camp which is dooming the Democrats come November, that much is clear.

The 'cannonization' pun referenced the old circus trick of shooting someone out of a cannon - not placing someone in front of one. Something tells me you were quite aware of this, but chose instead to interpret my humor as something racist and deadly, so as to once again demonize a member of, as you would put it, the Klinton Kamp. This tactic on the part of Obamaites is getting very, very tiresome.

As time goes on, more and more questionable aspects of Obama's candidacy are coming to light. The Rezko trial is underway and the latest reports are that Obama is far, far more implicated in Dirty Politics Chicago Style than has been heretofore disclosed. Perhaps the Clinton campaign is banking on such disclosures continuing to come forth. Not that the MSM will be any rush to publicize the latter, but the Internet is already buzzing with reports from the Rezko trial which put Obama in an extremely unflattering light. And perhaps Clinton is hoping for a miracle: unbiased coverage of both Democratic candidates, the lack of which has not exactly gone unnoticed by the American public.

At any rate, the Democrats are in the unenviable position of being saddled with a deeply flawed, slightly frontrunning candidate who almost certainly cannot win the general election, assuming he wins the nomination. Yes, Groundhog Day is here, folks, and Punxatawney Phil likely won't re-emerge until McCain wins in November. Congratulations on another self-imposed Democratic train wreck.