I can't speak for Obama, but when he made that point about the "battles of the 60s," what I thought was, "Thank God."

To me, as I was only in short pants at the time, the good things that came out of that period are not under the heading of "battles." Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and so on; I don't think of those in terms of "battles." I have no doubt that to get them through our moribund government required battles, but that's not what pictures came to me when Barack spoke about that.

No, what I was thinking were the riots in Chicago in 1968; the murders of Kennedy and MLK; the Black Panthers; the National Guard in Kent State; and so on. And especially the battle between the pro-war folks and the anti-war folks, which is still going on today among the Boomers--or at least the Boomer politicians (How much of the 2004 election was taken up by Bush's National Guard records and John Kerry's swift boating?).

So when Obama said:

I do think there's maybe a generational element to this, partly. In the sense that I didn't come of age in the battles of the sixties, I'm not as invested in them. So I think I talk differently about issues ... and values. And that's why I think we've been resonating with the American people ... What I'm saying is that I think the average Baby Boomer has moved beyond a lot of the arguments of the sixties, but our politicians haven't. It's all around culture wars ... or Vietnam.

I heard: "Do we need to keep fighting about the sexual revolution and Vietnam? I think it's time to go beyond that, and I feel I can better than Hillary Clinton, because she's a Boomer and was there, and I wasn't and so am not invested in that."

Maybe I'm alone on this, but that's what I got. Time to stop squabbling over Vietnam and short hair vs. long hair/smoking dope vs. reefer madness. Time to work on the problems we have now, which are bad enough without being filtered through old enmities that were about Vietnam.

Other people may have different interpretations, but as someone who is two years younger than Obama, I have to agree that I'm tired of listening to arguments about who shirked the draft in 1967, and who did or did not inhale.

Did he end his speech with a bungled rebel yell, like a certain Yankee physician did a few years back?

Sorry to be cynical and bitter, but isn't that how we got into this Bush/Cheney mess in the first place?

Farhad, how many people who work in the Valley actually live in the Valley? Lots of people who work in Santa Clara country commute to there from all over the Bay Area. The premise that "the Valley" can be treated as a voting block seems off to me.

Enough folks commute to Google that they have buses that go to Berkeley and Santa Cruz, for the love of Pete. "The Valley" works as a model for looking at businesses, but for voting? Probably not so much.

Actually, in my experience, hacky sack players tend more towards dope and pizza (preferably in that order) than veganism. I didn't exactly do a thorough study, but that's certainly the way it was in Santa Cruz.

And if Santa Cruz isn't a vegan haven, I don't know what the heck would be.

I am awash in irony, schadenfruede, and cynicism over this. Hoist by their own petard! Hung on their own rope! Unbelievable.

But I think you're wrong, bikerx; we should be rescued by France. How delicious that would be! (Yes, yes: pun intended.)

Does Mark Penn seriously believe that Hillary Clinton can go toe to toe with John McCain on who is the toughest? Does he really think this is a selling point in a country where 70% of the electorate wants us out of Iraq?

There are definitely ways to maximize Clinton's appeal (or minimize her negatives, if you prefer), but trying to out-tough John McCain is definitely not one of them. (And this guy is worth $5 million? No wonder she's short of cash-on-hand.)

I think Joan has it just right here; to fire Shuster would be just throwing him under the bus to help excuse MSNBC's ridiculous anti-Hillary slant. Reprimanded, having to apologize, and even having the network and Keith Olbermann apologize, yes. Firing? No; it's out of proportion. Especially Shuster, who's probably the least obnoxious one at the network.

As much as I enjoy Keith Olbermann's special comments, and sometimes watch Abram's show, MSNBC is really out of hand with their anti-Hillary stuff. I don't support Hillary (for a pragmatic reason: I think she can't possibly win), but the smirking, snide comments, and condescending tone that too many at MSNBC take when talking about her is just ridiculous.

Honestly, I'm surprised that no one has taken Olbermann himself to task more. The more I watch him, the more convinced I am that he's just simply misogynistic. Practically every day he has something snide to say about Lindsay Lohan or Brittney Spears or some other female celebrity. Not to mention his "dumb as a bag of rocks" comment, and his obvious Hillary-dislike. As much as I like Olbermann, even I--middle-aged white guy--find it to be far too much.

Just one (middle-aged white) guy's opinion.