"But if Matthews wanted to have a real discussion of the history here ... then he should have had guests qualified to be valuable participants." By this logic, none of the usual participants on Matthews' or any similar program would be on the air pontificating mindlessly, uselessly about Obama, the economy, Iran, you name it. And, for that matter, neither would Matthews.

I appreciate that the letter you reprint is in response to comments from others on Dee Davis' piece, yet implicit in the reprint--"But I loved this letter so much"--is the belief/argument that Obama shares these letter writers' views (thus an "explanation" for why he lost W. VA by such a large margin). It is unjust to imply that Obama doesn't seek ways to address the issues of greatest concern to the people of Appalachia and the rest of working America. His website (never mind his speeches) is filled with progressive remedies for what ails the working classes (of which I am one). So the question remains why the voters of Appalachia aren't casting their vote for him. I'm hard pressed to believe it's due to the nuanced differences between Clinton and Obama. Frankly, I don't understand why you seek to undercut his candidacy.

Ah, this might be what FoxNews was looking for. Karl Rove is a "cheerleader," not that more cumbersome "unofficial adviser" title that seems to bother them so much.

Lieberman writes: "Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign." If that means--and it does--that Obama rejects unilateral military pre-emption, that he rejects trade agreements written by multi-nationals and their lobbying familiars then, by all means, let's hope to God the man "has not been willing to stand up" to those who reject this twisted status quo. Here's hoping Lieberman becomes the R-VP candidate. I cannot think of a better man to sweep away once and for all this disgrace-of-a-party.

Joan, I read your December post regarding Axelrod's comments about Bhutto's assassination. The question then as now was over a candidate's judgement, which Sen. Clinton made a core issue--her experience--from the outset. Surely, an examination of the ramifications of a candidate's judgement via political, legislative decisions/votes is not beyond the pale. This is why candidates campaign; to tell us who they are, where they stand, what decisions they've made and why, and then to defend all the above.

Al Qaeda was deemed responsible for Bhutto's assassination; al Qaeda regrouped in Pakistan and was left to its own devices for several years; the US political establishment (of which Sen. Clinton is a leading member) spent the vast majority of its time, energy and rhetoric on Iraq at the expense of al Qaeda which, in due course, regrouped: all of this is, in general terms, broadly accepted.

Axelrod did not say Clinton murdered Bhutto. He said, "[Clinton] was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaida, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend." That, to me, is a defensible statement--the policy decision to re-direct attention from Southeast Asia to Iraq strengthened a group which, as a result of its being strengthened, assassinated a political leader (we reason similarly that George Bush's policies have resulted in the birth of an al Qaeda branch in Iraq which in turn has led to countless deaths--and we deduce Bush bears responsibility for those deaths).

Defensible to me, though for you the Axelrod statement was a "knee-capper." Yet we both read it the same way. Surely, then, you can understand why people drew the conclusion that Sen. Clinton was hinting darkly at the unspeakable. You say "Clinton, and the journalists who interviewed her, said her reference was to RFK's June campaign, not to his heartbreaking murder." Even though we all know it ended in murder. She chose, from a galaxy of earlier primary examples she could have cited, to invoke a primary that resulted in assassination. That, too, is a political judgement born of her experience. It doesn't take "a special kind of paranoia or venal political opportunism" to see it so.

I am a supporter of Obama and have defended comments by Axelrod on these pages. Nevertheless, a lobbyist is a lobbyist: by virtue of their existence they undermine the non-lobbyist-represented citizens of this country. "Making ads" is part and parcel of the lobbying effort that is destroying this nation like a virus gone amok.

Axelrod may see no distinction but I do. As for the "active volunteer," or "unpaid" staffer, please. McCain's mouthpieces say the same about Charlie Black and others (and here I'm thinking of Phil Gramm). While working for "Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison and other clients," Axelrod says that the difference between he and guys like (presumably) Black is that "lobbyists ... go behind closed doors and try to influence lawmakers sometimes with implied promises of support for their campaign." Lobbying is what it is. It seeks to manipulate and distort while lining the pockets of the manipulators and distorters. We need no more of that.