You're not a history buff, are you? Kennedy's 1980 campaign against Carter was widely detested within democratic circles at the time, and many rightly were calling on him to quit and later blamed him for Carter's loss that fall. That's what people are afraid of now. More recently, remember that guy Huckabee? When people lose all chance of winning, they are urged to withdraw. When they don't, history shows it tends to be damaging to the eventual nominee.

are clearly the numbers of good, hard-working, White Americans. Maybe the votes of 'others' should be weighted in some way to reflect that, like maybe be counted as half-a-vote. Clinton should get right on the rules committee about that.

whether Salon under Walsh has become a anti-Obama-all-the-time newssource, or that all their information comes from the right-wing-noise-machine, check out this HuffPo piece on frequent Salon contributor and Walsh friend Sidney Blumenthal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

BTW: I strongly recommend leaving Salon to find any useful news about this election.

Do you ever get tired of being the worst writer at your own magazine? Is having your own magazine the only way you can get your thoughts published? Just wondering. You might consider letting some of the good writers go (cough - Glenn - cough cough), as they really make you look bad in comparison.

I'm mostly a pesco-vegetarian (also know as "not a vegetarian"). I think it would be a better world if no one ate meat. However, strategically, a small minority of non-meat eaters will not change practices within the meat/fishing industry. What will change them is if those who eat meat/fish make purchasing choices that reward certain practices over others. Grocery stores are now full of organic products for that reason.

If the supers were going to make a decision that had nothing to do with the delegate count, they would have already made it (as most have). They're chance to 'cut a deal' diminishes every day, as the chances of a Clinton win diminishes, mathematically. The only reason not to cash in the value of their vote now, when it is worth the most, is that they really are waiting to see who has the most delegates, which is an honorable thing to do.

"After all the primaries and caucuses are complete, Clinton will trail Obama in pledged delegates, and will need superdelegates to make up the difference."

AND: it would take at least 2/3 of the remaining superdelegates to make up the difference. Meanwhile, the vast majority of remaining supers are just waiting to see who comes out on top with the pledged delegates (most have said as much). SO: If it is mathematically impossible for her to have more pledged delegates, and a large majority of remaining supers are going to go for whoever has more pledged delegates ...

This isn't rocket science, folks.

start racial relations with that boy."

Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/

You can set the margins of victory on all the remaining races and see how the delegate count ends up. Even if you give Clinton a 10-point victory in each remaining race, and even if you go ahead and include a 10-point victory in Florida and Michigan and throw those in, SHE STILL LOSES. Get it? It's called 'math,' and it's biased against Clinton (and oh yeah, and Obama is now 20 points up on Clinton in national polls). Almost every journalist other than Walsh gets this, and understands the primary to be effectively over and the race to now be about Obama vs. McCain, and directs their attentions accordingly (see Steve Benen and Greenwald here on Salon). At this point, attacking Obama means nothing politically other than helping McCain. That's fine if you are a McCain supporter, but if you aren't, well, other unflattering words come to mind.

Please read this thread and see what Ms. Walsh is doing to the magazine. She's essentially using it for the sole purpose of promoting her own future career in other MSM (TV, most likely). It's destroying the legacy of Salon for her own selfish interests - something I would think the CEO should be interested in.

I encourage others to seek out the far better discussions of this election that exist in every progressive corner of the web except Salon:

www.progressive.org

www.thenation.com

www.huffingtonpost.com

www.dailykos.com

www.slate.com

etc., etc., etc.

No other progressive journalist seems to agree with what Walsh is claiming about that debate, or about the race generally. The only people who agree with her are paid Clinton supporters (hint hint) or members of the right-wing noise machine (hint hint).

...did not wage a vicious, negative campaign against his competitors for the republican nomination. It's not the kind of candidate he is. Yes, the right-wing-noise-machine will do it's best, but I do not think McCain will go as relentlessly negative as Clinton has.

I would guess about 1/4 to 1/3 of Clinton supporters are saying they'd vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee, and ditto for the Obama supporters. I don't think that will last. I think ultimately only a tiny minority of supporters will never get over their loss, and either stay at home or go for McCain. Once the nomination is settled, and ill feelings fade, I think people will rally around whoever the nominee is, and McCain will be back down 15 points.

I used to read Salon almost religiously, using it as my primary online source for news and commentary. But now, thanks to her piloting Salon into the death spiral that is Clinton's presidential campaign, I've wandered off to spend most of my news-gathering time in a wider range of other places (Slate, The Nation, Huffpo, The Progressive, even CNN). Thanks for teaching me that there are more and better places to spend my time!