Of course in today's age of endless streams of information we will find plenty of articles that are about how hard it will be for Clinton to win. I think it misses the point to simply show that, indeed, we can find such articles.

To me the important point is that the media doesn't really pursue the story of why Hilary's "heroic" effort to pull off the improbable is covered as if it is a selfless effort in democracy. Maybe. But imagine if Barak was in her position if improbabily and speaking as if he was only doing this for the sake of America...

Hi Joan,

It seems clear that we can- at this point- read the "data" in almost any way we wish. And I agree with you that it is important to remember that it is simply not a fact that, so far, the general election is being harmed.

But just to say: Is there any doubt that, at this point, if Hilary did pull out (or Barak dropped out; but why?)is there much reason to fear that her dropping out would hurt Barak's chances?

But more importantly:

Why do we connect a nice bump in democratic voter registration with the flat hope that this will translate into the general election? Isn't it more useful to focus our attention on that rather small demographic of folks who really could vote either way in the general and ask how are they affected by Hilary and Barak engaging in an increasingly negative exchange? To me it seems clear that the outcome of the general election is much more a function of this small group than anything we might say about increased registration.

In my opinion this primary is no cutting away votes from that bizzare and rather small demographic that determines the outcome of the general election. Thanks.

My hunch is that Joan is actually not rooting for Hillary. In fact, I think she might be a very good example of a phenomena that is fairly complext and, I think, pernicious (sp).

I think she is bending over backwards (and then some) to constantly show us that she is objectively looking at this situation. Unfortunately, I think in her desire to prove she isn't one-sidedly supporting Barak, she overcompensates towards Hilary. In posts like the one she just put up, the logic doesn't lead up to her conclusions very well.

However, I would be shocked if Joan reported on Barak the same way she is reporting on Hillary IF Barak was in Hillary's position. BUT BUT BUT

I don't think that is because she is against Barak. We may never know, but my hunch is that Joan's vote is for Mr. Obama.

It's not spin!!!! I mean it.

If you look closely at Joan's articles over the last three months or so, I can make a case that when she speaks with substance and when her arguements hold up, she is mostly making the point for Barak. She does create many posts like the one today (which is not explicity "for" Hilary by any strech), but notice their structure:

they have the scent of "bending over backwards" to make sure we see how "carefully" she is considering things. The only problem is that it's very hard to see how she reaches the conclusion.

I see why so many people here are concluding that Joan wants Hiliary to win, but I think it is misreading her tendencies. And i think it is more instructive for all of us to ask why somebody like Joan would ignore important issues that are related to the media coverage of this election. But I'm betting she's voting for Barak.

First I'd need to know if you are serious in asking:

"Why should we trust your opinions if you can't spell the frontrunner's name correctly?"

Because you could have just as easily asked about me. But you might be joking and when somebody comes out of the gate as you did, I like to think they have my type of humor.

It's no big deal but I have a lot of problems with my brain and fingers. I'm dyslexic and I have swollen hands; it's not a good combination when you are trying to rattle off posts online (at work). I'm well awaer of the credibility I lose by making simple spelling errors. But you might not be really all that mad at me. And you probably know uneducated people who have very intelligent opinions concerning politics. But just in case you really are asking:

I think you should only agree with me to the dergee that you find aspects of what I mihgt have to say credible (the ideas not the spelling!)...