Joan, thank you for listening to us and checking out Edwards. Good question, too -- I look forward to hearing how he answers it.

I like the idea of a scrappy Democratic President as long as he knows how to get some results. Edwards understands the Senate -- he's been there -- and he understands how to negotiate. Face it, not every one of those lucrative victories of his as a lawyer happened in the courtroom. The guy knows how to negotiate. I would like to hear more about how he will use those skills in the Oval Office.

I am terribly disappointed in the results that Pelosi & Co have been able to get since the last election. I don't entirely understand it, but what I know, coming out of it, is that I want to elect a Democrat who knows how to fight for Democratic ideals. I am not convinced that Obama knows how to do that, although I believe that his ideals and mine are on much the same page. I know Hillary knows how to fight, and how to compromise, and how things get done -- but I don't trust her to do the things I want done. As far as I'm concerned, she's currently part of the problem.

So yes, we need the next page on how Edwards would scrap as President. But so far, he's still my guy.

Seems to me that one of the "messages" from New Hampshire and South Carolina is that Americans (or at least Democrats) are fed up with mud-slinging, sexism, and racism, no matter who does it.

I have admired both Clintons for a long, long time. Bill's statements made me sad and angry. I do not want to vote for four years of THAT. If she's the nominee, then I'll hold my nose and vote for her, and maybe eventually I'll forget South Carolina, but it sure takes all the joy out of voting for the first woman with a real shot at the presidency.

OK, Salon --

I've got a challenge for you. A good and decent candidate with an important message didn't get the coverage his message deserved. I repeat: the coverage his MESSAGE deserved.

You and the rest of the press are failing us, and failing us badly. For some of the media, it's the relentless celebrity chasing and pretty-white-girl-lost stories and the occasional man-bites-dog event. For Salon, it's weird little features about the angst of being privileged in America.

We need coverage of the candidates who are less well funded; what do they have to say? It's too late for that this cycle, but I challenge you to do better next time: you can make sure that all of them get a decent hearing in your magazine, if no where else. To my mind, that is your job in a democracy: getting the info, and getting it out to us. I'll read it. I think you might be surprised how many others will read it too.

Where does their money to run come from? (Now there is something I'd like to know about both Clinton and Obama!) Who are they going to owe when and if they are in office?

You've done much better than most on reporting the wrongdoing of those in power, I'll grant you that. But in this election we needed coverage of all the candidates and all the issues -- and instead, we're getting far too much sports reporting. Who's ahead? Who's behind? Who CARES, at this point??? I care much less about voting for the eventual "winner" than I do about voting for the best candidate. I bet I'm not your only reader who will say that.

It's been a little better in the last few weeks. Keep improving. Democracy cannot function without a rambunctious, curious, inconvenient bunch of journalists asking LOTS of questions and reporting on the answers they did or did not get.

My partner and I have chosen to get married in a religious ceremony, but not to register as domestic partners here in California. Our reason? The RDP thing is NOT the equivalent of marriage. If we register, we get to file the nightmare tax returns that another letter writer mentioned (one set for the state, jointly, and another set for the feds, individually). We get "marriage taxed" by the state, but we still don't get a lot of the rights of married people.

Add to that that my partner is a retired federal employee. Thirty plus years in the U.S. Navy and in federal law enforcement, and I'm ineligible for her health insurance and any other benefits a REAL spouse would receive.

Why would we pay extra taxes, when we get fewer rights? Forget that!

We've married in the eyes of our religious community. We're together until death do us part. But I will not cooperate in the government's marginalizing of our lives, and I sure as heck will not pay taxes for "rights" I am denied.

It's a relief to hear someone say it.

I was an Edwards supporter, and it was all about his policies. He couldn't get anyone to pay attention, and he's gone.

For a while, I wavered between Clinton and Obama. Then I began listening to the way people talked about Clinton, and the more I heard, the madder I got. It's called sexism, folks, and there's a lot of it out there.

I'm not crazy about Hillary, but at this point, I'm voting for her because I'm really mad at the folks who are insisting that they want a guy for president. And no, that isn't a great reason, but neither is wanting a guy because he's a guy.

If Obama gets the nom, then I'll vote for Obama. I've never suffered under the delusion that McCain would be good for the country.

But thanks for telling the truth.