As an Obama supporter, I think Clinton should drop out because she might win. :)

More seriously, to repeat the 'sparring partner' metaphor I posted about elsewhere, there comes a point when your sparring partner isn't helping you get ready for the big show, but is actually hitting you so hard and low that you are irreparably damaged. I'm worried we're getting to that point in the democratic primary. Clinton is doing it to Obama now (and I do think she's made the decision that many of her supporters have made, that if she can't be president it sure as hell won't be Obama, and is actively feeding McCain future negative ad fodder). If by chance she were to re-take the lead after the 4th, it wouldn't shock me to see the Obama campaign do the same to her, unfortunately, because that seems to be where the demcratic party is at the moment.

Despite Alex K.'s scolding in past weeks to cool off our heated/rude posting, it's increasingly clear that Salon loves it. Alex's conern-troll act, Walsh's fence-sitting posturing, over-the-top shit-kicking like this piece and Kamiya's today all seem designed to ignite these page-clicking comment wars. They want us fighting/yelling/angry/obsessed because it generates ad revenue. We're being used and manipulated.

Way to do eveything possible to play down the importance of this endorsement.

are my mother, wife, sisters, daughter, women-friends (feminists all) voting for Obama? Are they all stupid? Stupid women that Mr. McClelland would like to correct?

Certainly, the American right has lurched much farther to the right than Buckley could ever have dreamed. But he started it all. His was the brilliant idea to wed blue-blood economic conservatism with cultural warriors - southern racists and religious anti-secularists.

I've always been mystified that when we calculate the inflation rate we take out the two things we spend most of our money on and whose costs have been soaring: oil and food. It used to be because they were 'volatile' - rising and dropping sharply. But they're only going up now, and for the forseeable future.

And Ivins couldn't stand Hillary Clinton. Maybe now that Ivins has passed, Clinton will claim her support as well.

Reality is so totally biased.

The media was very biased against Gore and against Kerry (so it's not necessarily a gender issue). They generally liked Clinton-the-first, and Bush-the-second. There's a little pattern here with who becomes president. PEOPLE are biased - have likes and dislikes. The fact that the media seem to like Obama is a reason I support him now - it's an indication of how they will treat him in the fall, which is closely linked to his ability to win in November.

So they're positioning to call that a good day.

We've missed you and your witty ways for the past few months. For those who don't know him/her, check out past letters for a laugh.

Not really - just messin' with ya.

Clinton certainly is 'stronger' in certain areas than Obama: she's a few years older, been in the senate a few more years, has a bit more experience in international politics. The problem for me is that McCain blows all those strenghts out of the water. He's older than Clinton, been in the senate much longer, with much more international political experience. Why should democrats put up a candidate whose only strength ( a narrowly conceived type of 'experience') is a weakness when compared with McCain? Obama's strengths (great at organizing, a vision for collaboarative change, the ablitily to communicate liberalism in universal language) are unmatched by either Clinton or McCain. You win elections when you've defined the terms of debate to your advantage; Clinton is setting up the terms to her great disadvantage if she were ever to have the chance to go up against McCain

How many Clinton campaign officials new she had done the deed when they were beating up Obama for it? This should still be a big story for Pennsylvania, but once the mud starts to stick to Clinton, the story will probably die. Despite the fact that such truth-impaired negative campaigning was the engine behind her Ohio victory, it'll be old news.

Obviously, it would be nice if he didn't have to. However, the last week showed that relentless negative campaigning on Clinton's part is working for her (can anyone remember anything she has said in the past month that wasn't an open or covert attack on Obama?). Simply responding to her attacks (as with the NAFTA stuff, showing them to be pure bunk) isn't working for him.

It seems to be received knowledge now that "Clinton won Texas," yet caucuses there are only 41% counted and Obama is way ahead, likely to earn enough delegates to get more out of Texas than Clinton. Why is it taking so damn long for results from that caucus? Are the ballots being carried to the capitol by steer?

Yawn.

As the old saying goes, if she's surrounding herself with people like Wolfson and Penn now, what will her administration look like? (answer: it will be deeply, deeply creepy).

Clinton's old "May" demand was for that year's returns (that had been turned in one month previous). What's being demanded of Clinton now is *2000 - 2006* returns (not 2007). So these are at least nearly a year old, far older than what Clinton had demanded of Lazio.

What you and the Clintons are doing to Obama now is equivalent to the worst of what the right-wing did to the Clintons in the 90s, which you so vigorously critiqued. Your hypocrisy reeks. Reeks.

Only losing by 23% is like a win for Clinton! You see, because she loses by so much more in other states......

What's that thing that's like momentum, but kinda different? Oh yeah, it's called 'inertia.'