You say: "Any so-called lefty like Krugman who agrees with David Brooks is problematic."

You're dead wrong here. What's problematic is the inability of the far left to see that there might be, no, must be, common ground in order for a two-party democracy to work. This is something Paul Krugman - who is indeed a lefty, albeit a levelheaded one - recognizes. And you're for which candidate now? The guy who was going to end divisiveness? Hmmmm.

You say: "Bill 3.0 and a familiar face are more likely the root of her success."

Afraid you forgot these: great and quick intelligence, warmth (for those willing to see it), courage, tremendous tenacity, longtime dedication to public life, inside knowledge of Washington and political machinery in general, and a demonstrable ability to work across the aisle.

This is worth reading, no matter what one may think of the source. It looks like Obama's relationship with Ayers was/is far closer and more involved than he admitted in answer to George Stephanopoulos's question during the last debate. This story could well mean big trouble for Obama, if only because he has (once again) lied:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/

Why is it, guys, that when anyone brings up a demonstrable - and major - negative about Obama, the response from his supporters is invariably (and I mean invariably) "Well, look what Clinton did"?

Further, you, malthus, characterize Bill Clinton as a 'misoynistic sleazebag' in service of Another Lewinsky Reminder and accuse me of a 'Rovian smearjob' (sic)? And no, I'm not saying Obama is 'not forward enough with the truth'. I'm saying he's a liar, pure and simple. During the debate, he spoke of Ayers as just some guy who happened to live not far from him. Turns out this is very far from the truth, but I begin to believe that we're supposed to believe truth is beneath Obama and rightfully so.

Lastly, sugarman, if Obama's ties with Ayers (not to mention Rezko, the Daley machine, Wright, et al) mean nothing in regard to his character and suitability to be president, what, precisely, does?

p.s. Are y'all aware that Obama's original political mentor - Alice Palmer from Chicago's South Side, is now campaigning for Hillary?

I deeply believe that from the very first, the Axelrod primary playbook had "destroy Hillary Clinton" at the very top of the daily to-do list. And the one gambit I simply cannot forgive is the smearing of the Clintons with the race mongering brush, beginning in SC. As NYShooter put it some days ago, this constitutes a blood sin. And Obama was complicit.

So now, you tell me, how can I possibly vote for this man?

Your post contains so many fallacious and specious arguments/statements, I wouldn't even know where to start. And so I won't.

"Straight out of the Rovian playbook", to an Obama supporter, means citing anything unflattering to your candidate. Truth doesn't enter into it. See also: "hatred for Obama." Got it.

Oh, what the hey, it's Sunday morning, so I'll indulge in a little foolishness here. Re paid political hackdom: it's odd that this charge almost invariably issues from Obama fans eager, nay, wild to invalidate Clinton supporters. All I've gotta say is that there's clearly an inverse ratio when it comes to how much time I spend typing away on the 'Net and my rather pitiful bank balance. Guess ole John McC pulled a fast one on me. Dang.

Some of the posts on this thread - from both male and female - are nothing less than disgusting in their contempt for Joan, for Hillary, and by implication, for all women. Violence towards women is a rotten thing and it's as old as, well, man. There's only meaning when it comes to taking a woman into a room, never to have her emerge again. She's dead. Get it? Whether beaten, shot, strangled, poisoned, stabbed, she's dead.

I know about male on female violence because I've experienced it way too many times in my life, starting in childhood. Finally, at some point in my thirties I swore that I would shoot the next SOB who laid a hand on me. And I meant it. I still do.

The Keith Olbermanns of this world need to experience real and serious penalties when they commit violence against women, whether physical or verbal. Because it's the only way they can be contained.

A lot of us have come to believe that Obama is perhaps the worst, most flawed candidate the Democrats have ever put forth. His rise should never have happened, but thanks to the media slugfest with Hillary as target - and Obama as untouchable, along with the Democrat leadership's insane lobbying for Obama, here we are in deadlock land. We now have one clearly inadequate, slightly in the lead candidate manifesting a death grip on 'the numbers', while the other, clearly more viable candidate pushes on, hobbled by her own party. Wunnerful, just wunnerful.

Thanks for your extremely well written explication of Indiana's various voter populations. Here, you're doing the sort of work which should appear in MSM, but practically never does. I suppose it's human nature, but all states seem to get stuck with a stereotype suggested by some salient feature, real or imagined, and this becomes the whole picture. A huge mistake, as any Texan, nouveau or otherwise, well knows.

Do the names Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, and Biden mean nothing to you? How about the legions of leftwing voters, certainly in evidence here on salon, who have sent forth utterly hateful, rabidly destructive messages about Hillary Clinton for months on end now?

However, here he actually speaks the truth, unvarnished. Pretty sad when it takes an arch conservative to point out just how rotten the liberal media have been when it comes to coverage of Hillary Clinton's candidacy.