I didn't read the whole article (have to get up early), but this is some pretty good writing. It has been a tedious primary season, but served some good purposes. Obama becam a better campaigner, McCain settled into his natural state of irrelevancy, and the short rise to prominence of Hillary Clinton is now at a much-deserved end. Ditto for Bill.

I have an Obama bumper sticker on the inside of the rear window of my car. I think I'll alternate it with the Ralph Nader sticker I have from past campaigns. I like Obama, and I believe he will be our next president, but he has a pretty bland platform for rescuing the country from the madness of the past eight years.

He at least says that it's not about him. He must know that the problems of climate change, depleting resources, weather disturbances, limits to growth of economic output, and global guerilla attacks (I don't like the term "terrorism") are greater than he can solve by himself, and may be beyond solution.

I kind of take the approach of "On the Beach." We are headed for disaster. We can make as much sense and do as much good as we can in the time we have left, and beyond that just hope for the best. Writing like this article and others in Salon are good examples of this approach, if unintended.

This is all so much ado about next-to-nothing. Obama is the nominee, and will almost certainly win no matter who he picks for a running-mate.

There are several women who would be good vice-presidential picks. Kathleen Sebelius, governor of Kansas, would be a good pick, as would Arizona governor Janet Napolitano. Claire McCaskill, senator from Missouri, has an outstanding record in the few years she has been in office. Choosing one of these women would completely remove any residual mojo from Hillary Clinton.

I don't feel comfortable with the prospect of a VP waiting in the wings, having a keen interest in the presidency for herself. The Clintons are sleazy, they represent the Democratic Leadership Council, and the country is tired of them. Good riddance.

No purpose is served by continually rehashing this meaningless issue, except to generate buzz, and its derivative advertising dollars. This is a conversation worthy of Fox News (and ABC, NBC, and CBS). What next? Is Obama really a Muslim? And what about that middle name?

I believe it is a good thing to have Newt Gingrich around. His life history is revealing of the emptiness of not just our standard political dialogue, but the people who engage in it, by and large.

Gingrich picked "conservative" "Republicanism" as a career choice, not out of any actual belief. He saw it as a way of advancing quickly, and he was right.

An unattractive man - some would say funny looking - he wooed and married one of his high school teachers, who also was unattractive. When she was hospitalized with cancer, he came in and told her he was divorcing her.

Newt's entire political career has been one of opportunism and headline grabbing. During the 90s, when "leftists" were winge-ing and bemoaning the evil threat of Newt Gingrich, even making up songs about him, I felt no such dread. He will overplay his hand, I mused, and in one of the rare times my predictions came true, he very soon did.

Glenn Greenwald has again provided great insight and analysis, but it's more for finishing-off road kill than quashing a rising threat. Newt Gingrich, with his annoying voice, funny looks, and tired panoply of fake and demogogic non-issues, is a caricature of not just himself, but of a time that, looking back on it, was one of the weirdest in human history. (A good run-on sentence rejuvenates the soul.)That "conservative" "Republicanism" gained any footing at all in "American" society is a testament to human weakness and stupidity.

As we move to a new era, where survival of the human species will be our main concern, we might wonder if a hate-filled, regressive, and corrupt movement will again achieve prominence. It's not likely, but when men seek identity, anthing can happen.

Where is Salon getting all these writers, with all their silly speculations about who Obama will choose? I've been hearing rumors he's going to pick Michael Savage. That way the ticket will be truly balanced.

How about Jose Canseco? O.J. Simpson? Donald Trump? Tiger Woods? Barbra Streisand? Jack Nicholson? I could go on and on. Where's my money?

Seriously, is Salon that hard up for buzz that it has to trudge out all these obnoxious speculations about Obama's VP choice? The planet is heating up. We are involved in two occupations that are bleeding our treasury dry and destroying our reputation around the world. Our economy is on the verge of collapse, and we have a sociopath as our head of state. But wait, wait!!! Ron Paul is on the short list for vice president!!! Spare me.