For Clinton supporters: I am the person she was talking about when she said that Obama supporters were stirring up trouble against her. I am (according to her remarks) a race-baiter for supporting a black man for president, and for finding her remarks and those of her husband, in poor taste to put it as mildly as I can, over the past week.

I am white, so why am I as a white voter who once voted for the clinton's twice using the race card against the Clintons? Well first of all I snuck in and held a gun to her head, forcing her to make the remarks she did about MLK. Although I'm a girl, and have blond hair, I was still able to scare Mrs. Clinton enough into reading a cue card where she made remarks that have been criticized by black and by white independent voters as much or more than those of Obama supporters as dubious, and poorly timed at best.

Where's the beef? Where is the proof of this conspiracy against Clinton? What about the other remarks (taken altogether) by Clinton and by her husband that have suggested that they have been bringing up race? My confession, of course. I, as a white, life-long Democrat and feminist blond-haired girl forced Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to make every remark that they have made, and further, I forced each of the "independent" commentaries, black and white "against" the Clinton's to be made. To make them look bad.

And yes, I orchestrated this out of pure malice for the progressive agenda. Please! Does anyone care about logic and/or the facts of this debate? I can't believe that Clinton not only wants a pass on her "tin-eared" remarks, she wants the sympathy vote for the fact that some voters may be using these remarks against her (and it's all Obama's fault of course.)

Does anyone else read the unfortunate assumption in Clinton's allegations: that to have a problem with the way Clinton phrased herself that you must be "against" her? You must be shilling for the other side?

Clinton needs to have more of a sense of fair play. And if she's made a mistake, it doesn't matter how cleverly she avoids the issue in an interview, sooner or later, when she makes a mistake, some of us would like to hear her admit it. I don't care whether you're a man, woman, child, black, white, Asian, lesbian, gay, etc: it's Presidential to take responsibility for what you've done and to do so publicly.

Enough said.

I think you're right on that. I wish Salon would cover more of the not-present issue though.

Have you read this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

I don't know if I read it as cowardly to vote not present in the Illinois Senate, because this is commonly done there. For a bill to pass it requires "yes" votes. As for seeking cover, yes I think he was because the right wing in Illinois had a plan of attack to un-elect officials based on their pro abortion rights stance, and he was a prime target. Political expediency? Yes. Was it damaging to women's right to vote? From what I have found, No. He has never used this option when it meant costing a woman her right to vote, as demonstrated when he voted against the bill supporting the "rights" of a partially aborted fetus. The right wing will go after him in a general election for this if he wins the nomination. But notice that they will be attacking him for his pro-choice stance, not for not protecting a woman's right to choose (as Clinton has accused him).

I don't think Obama is Teflon coated. I think the not present voting in the national Senate needs to be better examined, because I have read conflicting reports. I welcome debate on this. I don't automatically assume that it is cowardly, since he has been active in the Senate in putting forth more progressive and passing legislation than either of his opponents. Have you read about his Senate Career on Wikipedia? Seriously, have you?

I think all of the candidates were pushed into the go into Pakistan without permission assertions, and yes, these assertions bother me.

I think they are all bowing to pragmatism and what the country supposedly wants in a leader. But if one is cowardly, they all are cowardly. I found Clinton's husband's position on war to be too hawkish for me (although I supported him twice in the 1990's), and I suppose I expect the same from her if she is elected.

Also, how do you explain Clinton's anti-flag burning amendment? I find this more troubling as a piece of legislation than any of Obama's record so far, in pandering needlessly to the Republicans.

But I'm not trying to push criticism of Clinton as an endorsement of Obama--do you see more examples of inconsistencies on his record? I don't see any glaring inconsistencies in his support of women's rights or of his anti-Iraq war position. I don't agree that his not-present votes were automatically cowardly. But I welcome more debate if I'm missing something.

Although I'd like to think that he wouldn't deny a woman her right to vote, either.