As poorly as he puts it, as sadly hyperbolic and spittle-flying strange as he is, Matthews has a point. Of course he hates Hillary Clinton, but that doesn't make him wrong.

From Day One (there's that phrase again) of this campaign season, it's been hers to lose, and she's lost it. Remember, everyone said "if she wins Iowa AND New Hampshipre, it's over." In other words, the question has always been framed "what does she need to win?" Meanwhile, the other guy (some Muslim black guy from Illinois, I don't know his name) actually DID keep winning, and raising more money than her and getting more votes than her, and kicking her a$$ with their ground game. And still, it was "what does Hillary need to do to win? Win Wisconsin, and she'll be fine!" well, no. "Win Ohio AND Texas, and she can still win." This time she actually did win Ohio (and the part of Texas that got reported on election night), but to her amazement, the other guy didn't throw up his hands and give in. "Win, uh, Pennsylvania and the superdelegates will flock to her." And we know how this will turn out; the polls will show her lead go from 51-35 (or whatever) to 48-39 to 47-45, then on April 18th or so, Zogby will call it 48-47 for Obama, then she'll win 52-48 and proclaim glorious, glorious victory, even though she'll net 6 delegates, which the next day will be offset by 3 superdelegates switching from her to him. And yet the media narrative will be "what does she need to do to win? Well, North Carolina has black people, so it doesn't count, so as long as she wins Indiana, she can win!"

So all that longwindedness is to say "enough about what the former frontrunner can do to win"...because she almost certainly can't. This is like one of the announcers in the NCAA tournament saying "they need a steal and a quick 3 here" when they're down 12 points with a minute left. Sure, that'd cut into the lead and give them some momentum, but in the long run, it ain't gonna help.

Please, superdelegates, I'm begging now. On April 23rd, unless she wins 85-15 in PA, just step in and end this thing.

I'm in middle-ish management, and am one of only two males in my 12 person department. Our group is, in fact, the group that has been mandated to be the last one working at night by our boss. Only two of the women have children, and both of them have built-in child care (i.e. family in their homes or nearby who provide full time child care). The two males both have children, along with spouses who are professional women themselves.

The two guys are the ones who always need to leave early, or skip the department dinner because day care is day care and we can't leave our kids there past 5:30 or whatever. We're seen a little as slackers who need to get our priorities straight (my answer: they are, believe me, they are) because our boss (the one with free in-home care) can't imagine why we can't just have our spouses do it (of course, the other thing she misses: she's the one scheduling these events and late meetings, which get scheduled around her anyway).

I don't mean to come off as a whiner here...I'm happy with my priorities as they are, and I mostly like my work and my workplace. And I know my company isn't a bastion of gender equity; the middle managers are 70% women but the executive level is 95% male. But it's folly for Broadsheet or the Boston Globe to assume that woman="family friendly" or even "woman with children"="family friendly." And while deeply flawed for its finger-pointing, I think a lot of women's expectation of feminism was that they would "transform the workplace." How many times did women say "if women ran the (department, company, country, world), things sure would be different." Well, maybe, but maybe not so much.

...but I would think that one of the ways you'd want to "go after special interests" was by being open and transparent about your earmakrs.

I know Sen. Obama has done so, but to my knowledge she has not. I know she joined the pledge to freeze them or put a moratorium on them or whatever both Obama and McCain have also said, but I do not know that she has released hers, though if someone can say definitively that she has, good.

If that's not the case, though, and she hasn't released them, well, then this ad seems like just so many empty words.

Finally! Salon is finally breaking its long-standing editorial tradition of slanting its coverage 80%-20% toward Clinton.

By running this article, Salon is obviously trying to expose the weaknesses in the general that Clinton has already shown. By doing so, they can disabuse them of the notion that "if we could just get past Obama, no matter how bloodied we'd be...we'd coast in the general." But now, they'll see it won't be that easy and graciously bow out of the race.

So on behalf of those who support Obama, I'd like to thank Salon for finally bringing this about.

What's that? They did one for Obama just like this last week? And by publishing this one now, they're giving her campaign a level of legitimacy that is completely undeserved?

Never mind.