Sen Clinton claiming that she got out of a helicopter under sniper fire and had to duck her head and run, when it is clear from video evidence that this didn't happen is as bad as Sen Biden's relating Neil McKinnock's life experience as if they were his own--which caused him to have to drop out of the Presidential race in 1988 (?).

The media should demand that she give an explanation as to how she could have "misspoken" about what would have been a vivid, traumatic experience. She should not get away with having her spokesperson explain this away for her.

Since the false (as in, not true) account of the landing in Bosnia was (i) contained in her prepared remarks; and (ii) differed from the account of the same incident in her book, she really needs to acknowledge that she simply exaggerated (as in, made up) what happened, or else she will be compounding the problem by lying about the lie.

Should this cause people not to support her candidacy? I don't know, but I do believe that she owes the voters and the superdelegates an explanation, and the truth.

This thing has gone on so long that many of you have lost all sense of perspective. The name calling--of the candidates and of each other--just demeans them, you and the process. The facts are these:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differ almost not at all on the policy positions they say they stand for. Either would be infinitely better for the country than George W Bush or John McCain.

None of us can have much of an idea who would make a stronger candidate against McCain. We're all entitled to our opinions, but none of us can know, so to get all hot and bothered about it doesn't make much sense, in my opinion. For what it's worth, I will support either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama in the general election with my time, money and vote. I believe that either of them will beat McCain by about 54-46 in the general.

None of us can know what either Sen Clinton or Sen Obama will do if elected. We don't know what circumstances they will face nine months from now, what sort of majority they will have in Congress, etc. And campaign positions are a notoriously bad predicter of what a candidate will do when elected.

Pick your candidate and support him or her; but enough with the childish personal attacks.

Joan, let's stipulate that if Obama is the nominee the Republicans will come up with a photo of him in a daishiki giving a black power salute with Louis Farrakhan looking on.

And that if Clinton is the nominee they'll come up with a photo of her in the Oval Office looking on while Monica "does" Bill.

Ok, maybe not exactly those things, but things that the Republicans and some in the media will say are just as bad.

I say that if the voters elect McCain, even with all of that, after the tragedy of the past 7+ years, then God help us. I predict that the Democratic Party would (and should) split into a centrist and a progressive party and I hope but don't predict that civil disobedience would come back in a serious way.

I believe that people want change, but if they are going to vote based on lapel pins, a pastor's speeches and the rest, they will have no one to blame but themselves. And don't be fooled by Hillary's argument that she's been "vetted"; the fact is that no one remembers all the crap from 8-16 years ago (when some voters were 2), so all the old stuff will come out, plus new stuff that they're dreaming up now. (McCain isn't attacking her now, I believe, because his people view Obama as much more dangerous). The voters have to decide what's important, and if it's this stuff, we're doomed.

You can help, Joan. I truly don't care who you support, but there are some things you could do. Stop covering the horse race; we'll all see how the race comes out, you don't need to waste your intelligence and forum to speculate whether Obama's "stumble" will hurt him.

Don't speculate about what is important to voters unless you have data to support your assertion. Without evidence, there's no difference between saying, "I think the people care about . . ." and "I care about and think the people should care about. . . ."

There is plenty to right about these candidates that people really should care about. Who is likely to be in the Cabinet? What is in their past experience that offers clues about how effective they would be in dealing with Congress, or managing the Federal bureaucracy? What would their agenda for the first 100 days be?

To borrow a phrase from John Edwards, Joan, you're better than this. How about treating this election as though it were a matter of life and death (because it is) and each column was your last chance to illuminate the choice before the voters. How about that?

Sen Clinton doesn't want to be Vice President. She can do much more in the Senate. She should meet with Obama and they should come out with a carefully crafted statement makes it clear that she declined it before he could ask her.

Sen Obama wins if this election is about change. Sen Clinton does not represent change, both because she voted for the war and because of her husband. She is also the one person most energizes the evangelical right wing of the Republican Party.

Sen Obama should pick someone like Sen Jim Webb, a strong opponent of the war who can help Sen Obama by virtue of his military service.