My daughter's only six, so what I tell her right now is that there are two really great people running for President, and that it's wonderful we get to choose who we want to vote for. It's all very 'go go democracy' at this point.

Four years from now she'll be ten, and depending on who's running for president we'll talk a lot more about how candidates are packaged and how the media treats them. Sexism hasn't just been applied to Hillary Cinton this election cycle, after all-- remember the "Breck Girl" quips about Edwards?

When she asks me about Hillary Clinton's run I'll be honest. I'll say the media was sexist and disgusting at times, and I'll probably end up teaching her more than she ever needs or wants to know about Chris Matthews. But I'll also talk about the things about Hillary Clinton I didn't like about her candidacy-- claiming Bill Clinton's policy achievements while running away from NAFTA, the craziness around her tax returns ("I'll see if I can get to that?" Do you really think we'll believe you have neither an accountant nor a campaign staff?), etc. And I'll also talk about the things I found inspiring about Barack Obama.

No woman has gotten this far before. I think it's important to send the message to our daughters that we can keep right on going. It's incredibly defeatist to think that our only chance to elect a woman will be this single candidacy, after all!

If I wanted a "lady" I'd write Kerry into the ballot.

Proof positive that sexism isn't just a trait to be found among Obama voters.

To meltthough who writes that Obama is not going to commit to public finacing of the general election until McCain has. Well, McCain has. He signed the same pledge as Obama did.

That's interesting, as McCain's formally announced he's going to forgo public financing. Well, if the FEC will let him. See, there's something called the "Internet," where you can look all this up, if you'd like.

Anon @ 10:45-- it seems like people (not just you) really want Obama to get more emotional about something-- Farrakhan is only the latest I've seen. Not only is that not really what I've seen as his style, I think it's dangerous for a black politician in this country to come off as 'angry'-- as Hillary Clinton has been labeled 'shrill,' so he could be labeled 'angry' with a negative connotation that would never be labeled at a white male politician. (Also note that people generally don't ask white politicians about the white fringe.)

(Of course, your issue may be as simple as really, really hating Farrakhan.)

The reality is still that John McCain's an anti-choice, warmongering right-winger. Clinton has frustrated me (to the point of yelling at the tv or radio) at times, and I'm tremendously unhappy of her repeating Bush 2.0 lines, but make no mistake: Sitting out in November or voting for McCain would be far, far worse.

Though I've used Anonymous before (generally when not wanting to reveal too much personal info in Since You Asked), I think on balance this is completely the right choice.

innocuous actions by the Clinton campaign, such as Bill Clinton's comments about Jesse Jackson in South Carolina,

Because no one, no one, has ever won South Carolina and lost the nomination except Jesse Jackson. Right? How insulting-- to Obama, to the electorate, and to his readers.

Melthough, nicely put, and maybe I'll see you at the polls. Green Mountain State represent!

The problem is that for Wilentz's conclusion to be true, you have to believe two things:

1) Obama's campaign is so disciplined that every statement by supporters and hangers-on are representative of the campaign. They are attentive to every nuance and potential nuance of every statement.

2) Clinton's campaign is so undisciplined that every statement by supporters and hangers-on are not representative of the campaign, and that a brilliant political strategist like Bill Clinton could just 'slip' and not realize that the Jesse Jackson comment might be taken as playing the race card.

If both these statements are true, it boggles the mind. And it does nothing to make me think Hillary Clinton will be an effective general election candidate-- or President.

Thank you. Nicely put.

(And to everyone: as fierce as the debate has been it's been far more pleasant with no more anonymous flamers, eh?)

After the first Clinton/Obama debate I heard (to be fair, mostly from Hillary supporters) the contention that Obama was following Clinton's lead on a lot of points-- she was coming off more as the thinker and experienced type, and he was just nodding along. She's so wonky-- and I mean this as a compliment-- that going first showed off some of her policy knowledge and strength. She picked a terrible point at which to bring up media bias, and a poor way to do it. (She could've said, "well, as I've had the first question for the entirety of this debate so far, why don't we ask Senator Obama his opinion?" That would have emphasized her 'listening'-- what I've always thought was one of her great strengths as a campaigner, made her look mature and experienced, and played subtly off the media bias.)

1. SalonFan, thanks for your hard work. Thanks to all the campaign workers who read Salon, actually. You're what makes democracy work! I'm thinking about volunteering for the Obama phone bank myself.

2. About Obama and Lieberman: IIRC, Obama endorsed Lieberman in the primary and Lamott in the general. This is pretty much SOP among members of congress-- support your colleague and your party.