Good analysis of a long-standing problem. Too bad most of it's in the letters column.

Is it any coincidence that this pattern started in the early 70s, when some Americans had begun to think for themselves on matters of race, war, economics and lifestyle, and push for change? That "a college degree becoming the new high school diploma" coincided with the catastrophic rise in college tuition? That massive layoffs of people over forty making reasonable salaries and their replacement by twenty-somethings making ten to twenty thousand dollars less coincided with the seizing of power (we know "election" isn't the right word) by the present administration?

To answer a question asked by one writer: yes, this does affect people in their fifties and sixties, some of whom, at least, worked hard to mold a world free of race, class and jingoism, a world that makes possible the election of a Barack Obama, who seems not to reallize it. Classism came roaring back with the Reagan reactionaries. So, yes, some of us do deserve better.

It was always like that. A disgrace to the genius of black culture. Compare its best to anything by Gil Scott Heron and the Last Poets, its chief inspirations. And that's the 70s, not a great decade for anybody's art. Go farther back, say to the second Miles Davis Quintet, John Coltrane or Ornette Coleman, and you'll really feel sad. Want decent rhymes? There are generations of great black writers and poets. For great songwriting, check out the R&B movement of the 40s.

You're just growing up. Go hang out with Rebecca Traister. She's having the same problems.

is the lead column in the Washington Post by the founder of Emily's List, who says Clinton should stay in it to the bloody end because she, the founder, was made to play six-on-a-side girls' basketball as a child. I can understand holding a grudge, but to involve the whole country....

From the beginning, Obama's strength has been that he comes into a state as a relative unknown with low poll figures; then, as people get to know him, he steadily improves. On election day, he's at or near the top. It's this performance, along with his disdain for going publicly negative on other Democrats (though private can be a different story) that makes him the most electable candidate. Both in polls and public statements, Hillary has gone the other way.

The Republican party has no dialogue on race; they ceased long ago to be about anything other than white fundamentalist Protestantism, Friedmanesque economics and neocon foreign policy. God, guns and exceptionalism is their Kuche, Kirche, Kinder. And why are they attractive? Because they're such individuals! Conservative Catholics may go along with their abortion stance and Jews their absolutist policy on Israel, but they know they're really not part of the club. Look at the maneuvering room that leaves.

The major problem with Clinton, Obama and the Democratic leadership is their willingness to embrace whatever issue they think will win a vote for the two seconds they're in the room, then on to something else at the next stop and never mind the contradictions. So we saw Obama last fall coopting the economic issue from Edwards, the real populist, and habeas corpus and rights of the individual from Chris Dodd, then apparently forgetting both after knocking them out of the race.

Clinton's sudden concern for blue collar problems is laughable concerning the country-club campaign she ran before the demise of Mark Penn; that, her ties to the DLC and the record of her husband's administration accounts for her less-than-trustworthy evaluation in the polls.

Brazile, though, hit it right: there is something new afoot. It was there in '04, too, before being coopted by Kerry, who was the candidate of the Clintons and the DLC. Without the DLC, it won handily in '06. This is the national test, and if the actions of those who would rather lose than lose control don't split the Party, we still have a chance to remake this country.

This from a working class, partially college, rest hard-knocks-educated white male from the Midwest.

It's cheaper than therapy.

He/she has a habit of answering questions nobody's asked.

I've lived on the other side of the river from both West Virginia and Kentucky, and there are a lot of great people and some great culture in each. They're socially conservative but economically populist, and, with exceptions (who are now Republicans), no more racist than the coasts. They may still go for Clinton in the primary, but if courted properly both states are in play for the election.

With this posting, How the World Works takes over from the War Room, probably for good (unless Walsh brings Grieve or Benen back) the honor of Salon's Best Read. Unfortunately, the competition is shrinking every month.

Glenn Greenwald, please take note. Unless you count Conason and Keillor's weekly contributions, the competition is all yours.

If Anarchasis were a verb (or an object, as in "to commit..."), what would its meaning be? And would that be a good thing, or not?

I think we can all agree on the meaning of "to Cloot."