For the most eloquent political spokesman of our day to reduce the core of civic oratory to a sophomoric cheerleading chant on such an importnt issue ill serves his unique talent and the nation's need to elevate political dialogue. The "Yes we can!" embarrassment he rationalized by plagiaristically sourcing it to a second rate politician's bag of tricks. On an issue for which he is both the intellectual model and personal representative of the the race issue, reduction to another three syllable chant: "Not this time!" is demeaning.

Strange, Mr. Conason, the thesis of your article which by its subtitle asserts that Sen. Clinton "...crossed the line..." for including a photo, along with other blurbs, of her uncomfortably seated with Scaife [a core political enemy of the Clintons and progressives, therefore undeserving human acknowledgment]. The article presented "facts" presumably in support of the thesis which, in reality were assumptions and qualifications on your undefined thesis, although you present them as evidence for its validity than the thesis itself. Ignoring the prerequisite for a reasonably objective standard of the "crossed line", the qualifying data you present seem to infer an opposite conclusion.

While it is not addressed in your article, as I recall the first controversial position by First Lady Clinton in 1993-4 was that a two state solution was a core of any feasible resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for which she was excoriated by the Jewish lobby, but has since been proved prescient and inevitable. Ironically, her critics and political opponents contemporaneously attacked her for not adhering to the traditional role of first ladies in presenting the obvious.

The demographic strongly supporting the Clinton candidacy is broadly the very demographic to which the Democratic Party must significantly impact to capture not only the presidency but congressional, legislative, and gubernatorial races. It was the same demographic which gave control Congress marginally to the Democrats in 2006, the "soccer mom" set in the 1990's, and effective control (except for the Reagan years) for most of the middle of the 20th Century. The now politically incorrect term was WASP (white, anglo-saxon, protestant]. [No race baiting intended or inferred!] This demographic is the core support of Clinton, but its support for Obama, our probably nominee, is somewhat flat if not tepid; however, the issue is not race, myopic talking heads' blatter notwithstanding.

By remaining active, Sen. Clinton can secure and maintain this constituency, the benefit flowing both to the party and to electoral success for the Obama candidacy. The complementary strength of the Obamaphiles and Clintonphiles, absent the negativity of Obama's Clintonphobes, the nation will be well served. Both candidates have committed to a joint effort, but the melding process would be truncated by an early "surrender" as Clintonphobes seem to demand.

Recall, if you will, myopic pundits and clueless bloggers, the historical context of the California Primary. Prior to the surprising decision by California Democrats on June 2nd to favor RFK, the presumed nominee was the VP. Few recall the details of the day Sirhan Sirhan made infamous, but it was the night of the California Primary in June; until that day the conventional contemporaneous wisdom had been that Hubert Humphrey was the inevitable nominee, but the California vote that day reversed the odds to RFK. As the editor pointed out, the context of the question related to whether an earlier (non-legal) "concession" by Sen. Clinton was to the advantage of the party. It is the "gotcha" play by the sound bite media which is the threat to democracy and civil polity. Congratulations to the Obama camp for emphasizing this point. Condemnations to the MSM for failing to explain the historical context and rational conclusions for the time reference context.

As the parent of three professional daughters (all successfully raised or raising children)who support Sen. Clinton as a role model, but are impressed by the eloquence and dynamism of Sen. Obama. Recent disaffection with the Sen. Obama has been engendered by his campaign's seeming acceptance of any reference by Sen. Clinton in any speech of comment to the use of "white" as race baiting, yet ignoring pundit reference to "black" voters or voting block as a legitimate political adjective.

Having experienced the vicissitudes of struggling for acceptance, much less professional success, they are frustrated by the absence of affirmative defense by his campaign and supporters of both subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Sen. Clinton for her gender, and even seeming encouragement of such attacks by Sen. Obama's tepid and half joking responses. The summary dismissal of Ms. Ferraro's valid and serious observations on this point was frustrating to say the least. I suspect that their views on his subject are not uncommon and will be ignored at Candidate Obama's possible electoral peril in key states.

One can certainly applaud this column's quick and logical analysis of a candidate's response to the precise details of an historical event given the vicissitudes of complex memory recall. An obvious question arises, however: Why is a defective recall not equally as deserving when the opposing candidate who makes an illustrative recall, significantly less important to the core of the point she is making. than Sen. Obama's; yet, her treatment in this space is presented as continuing examples of ingenuity sans the apologetics from this post that parity of ethics should mandate.

When historical accuracy of Sen. Clinton's point is not at dispute, then the attack is her judgment in pointing out the historical fact, even though her contextual usage was the point in time and not the event.