"In a high-minded alternate universe, the news media might briefly note the Carville and McPeak comments before returning to in-depth analyses of the economic theories undergirding the Obama and Clinton responses to the subprime mortgage crisis. "

I agree with the spirit of this passage and of Shapiro's piece in general, however, I'd argue that Carville's "Judas" consequence is substantive.

As I see it, the fact that Carville (and more to the point, presumably the Clinton camp in general) is thinking in terms of betrayal is deeply significant because it reveals an ethos of cronyism.

Or at least suggests it.

This is actually a political issue inasmuch as this election rests on how business is done by the respective candidates.

As I see it, Carville's remark is significant because it suggests that the Clinton camp is not very different from the current administration in its valuing on loyalty and the presumption that Richardson owes anything to the Clintons.

It's a fair line of investigation, at any rate.

A real investigative journalist would write a piece on whether this remark reflects how the Clintons do business or not.

If not, fine, no story, move on.

But if so, it's a serious issue, especially considering that Clinton herself attacks Bush for cronyism.

If it turns out her "administration" or her "people" are cronies as well, or expected to be, then Clinton needs to argue that it's not cronyism per se that's the problem, but only incompetence.

I think this is a fair line of investigation.

"He will make some mistakes and admit them in the future (unlike W)."

And Clinton, for that matter. She may not be quite so extreme as Bush, to be sure, but she demonstrates the very same siege mentality he does on this count.

Literally, perhaps, as Ms. Walsh previously made reference to being on the go.

Look, I don't want to pile on Ms. Walsh here, because she's a human being and it's almost become sport to stick pins in her.

But I do want to offer some constructive criticism: Ms. Walsh, here's an example of an issue that's better left unaddressed if you're not prepared to give it the thought it deserves.

What's the point of this piece?

You offer your opinion on what you believe Obama meant, but you utterly fail to analyze anything.

After Barack Obama delivered a long, nuanced, provocative and thoughtful discourse on race, this is all you have to say on the matter?

Shouldn't you, as the editor here, be aiming high, lighting the path as to what a serious discussion on race looks like? On how to dig deeply and really develop ideas on the matter?

I feel as if you have something to say that you're holding back. You've made reference before to you experience working to close the racial divide (I believe that was your phrasing), so I presume you must have more expertise on the topic than you share with us here.

Could you please offer us a little more to chew on if you're going to even bring up an issue like this?

What are we meant to take away from such an undeveloped piece about a particularly freighted issue?

"For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change."

For Christ's sake, Joan, rise above!

Whether you believe this man is qualified to be president or not, whether you want him to be president or not, do yourself and your readers a service and listen to what the man is saying.

I will ask you point blank: do you consider this admonition instructive, or not?

If not, then by all means, continue down your little path.

But if so, I'd urge you to consider what sort of obligation this message might place upon you, as a journalist, and as one who asserts she's interested in bridging the racial divide.

Show, Joan, don't tell.

You're implicated in this project, as we all are, but you especially, due to your platform.

Journalism is a sacred trust, Joan.

Remember?

I think your analysis is spot-on.

"What makes him great is that he sees the interconnectedness of those that are usually divided by the political wedges, and proposes his solutions as wins for all.

The total superiority of that approach to that of the usual "win-lose" mindset so prevalent today is exactly what we need to address our huge national problems. And Obama is whom we need."

Bingo.

If you would address my remarks directly and explicitly, we might actually be able to have a dialogue.

Are you up for that?