I disagree that the coffee tastes "burnt..." that's an oversimplification. Depending on which variety is being brewed that day, I taste different flavors, but "burnt" isn't one of them. It's stronger and somewhat more acidic, but not burnt.

As for the pastries, I know they used to source from local bakeries, and my unfounded opinion is that they still do to a certain extent. But if there's any business that is less reliable than a local coffee shop, it's a local bakery. And Starbucks is too big of a company to rely on the "hey, we're just a bunch of crazy kids" defense when they don't have enough product because the person who ran the bakery they got all their pastries from decided to go back to art school on short notice. That having been said, the cookies are still pretty good.

People's comments about destroying local cafes are simply uninformed and ridiculous. The small town I grew up in never had a coffee shop until 'bucks moved in 4 or 5 years ago. Now there are 4 of them; one of the other chains (maybe Caribou? I don't remember) and two independents.

And for god's sake, if you want a large, order a large. That whole attitude from Starbucks employees about the size nomenclature happened back in the 90s, but I haven't heard that in years. But what I can tell you that at pretty much any place that sells drinks by size, the name is not as straight forward (ever had a Biggie-size drink at Wendy's? If you order a large at McDonald's, will you get the large, or the limited-time-only 42 oz Extra Large?)

And if they really do treat their employees poorly, why are they always on the list of 100 Best Companies to work for from Fortune?

Of course they have flaws, as every for-profit (and for that matter, not-for-profit) organization has. But what they have done is become a model for businesses that want to be good corporate citizens and serve a higher end product that actually raises people's expectation of quality for a certain category of product.

Ok, sorry, I have to return the soap box by 4, so that's it...

We're supposed to take as "facts" the things that Wilentz asserts in his article, when his "facts" are just interpretations, just as the allgations of playing racial politics are themselves interpretations of people's actions. The fact that Prof. Wilentz has a different interpretation is noted.

And it's noted, as others have so eloquently pointed out, as horseshit.

Oh, and @"factcheck2," please stop posting about your stupid article in the Springfield Shopper (or whatever hack site it is) that accuses Obama of being managed by Karl Rove, or whatever it says, because some speechwriter is the brother of someone at Fox. It's poorly written, it's poorly sourced (and that's being generous), and it contains no actual information, just speculation and innuendo. If I want paranoid conspiracy-theorist rants, I'll ask the homeless guy outside the Starbucks. Go away, please.

and John Stewart's "Gaydolf Titler" joke (which, by the way, he used on the Daily Show like 6 months ago), I hope we're going to get past this issue eventually. But I wouldn't count on it. There is still a certain segment of the population, though hopefully a tiny little fraction, that still thinks the "he's secretly a Muslim who will hand over the government to bin Laden" nonsense is true, and will think that no matter what. These are the same people who thought that, since we were at war in 2004, the election should be cancelled, but still...they're out there, and their views make Rush, O'Reilly and Co. look like Al Franken's

Anyway, nice article.

I'm pretty sure (based on having read about it but not recently, so I can't link or cite where) that whether or not Clinton withdraws, all the money spent between now and the convention is "primary" money. The Federal funding and rules around general election money only kick in once the candidate becomes the party's formal nominee, which Obama wouldn't be until the convention, even if Clinton dropped out and released her delegates today.

So in fact, it would be best for Obama's fundraising for Clinton to leave immediately (and, presumably, vice versa, I'm NOT starting an anti-Hillary thing here).

"Now one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-Bill Clinton, 2004

Thanks for clearling that up, Bill. When will you (as a superdelegate) apply your own law to this year's primary and commit to Obama?

This coming out today stinks of "lowering the bar" so that any .00001% victory in Ohio (plus a close loss in Texas) for the Clinton campaign looks like a major upset. Remember that Penn, the pollster in chief, was "seeing" a double-digit loss in New Hampshire, too.