While I am, for the most part, a Radiohead fan (I thought HTTT was complete junk, and Kid A/Amnesiac should have been pared down to a single, consistently solid album), I'm not sure I'm ready to buy into this so-called paradigm shift in the recording industry just yet.

I don't like the way the major labels have ruined the business and careers of so many talented artists. But the fact is that I'm sick and tired of hearing artists who want to pretend that they don't owe a big chunk of their success to having been associated with those labels. Radiohead, for all their revisionism, made their name and fortunes with pretty big label backing (EMI). Their first album featured a hit radio single and went gold. They've had very expensive marketing campaigns, and were given complete creative control. I don't think this experience is common at all, and if they hadn't had the great songs, critical respect, and most importantly, the sales to back them up, they probably would have had none of those things.

I just hope that the next time someone touts a huge artist like Radiohead or Pearl Jam as being game-changers, that people remind themselves that they never would have been in the position they are in without playing the game for a while at first.

Shapiro, I hope you were being facetious with that bit of analysis! I don't see how emitting a cackle reminiscent of the time the Joker released his Smilex gas--in the middle of someone else's response--is considered a good thing. Especially when Obama immediately zinged her with a one-liner that shut her up quick and got everyone in the room to laugh at her.

You've been hanging out with Mr. Shaheen too much lately, I think.

HRC having "no masculinity to prove" is a legitimate selling point? Are you f-ing kidding me? Just because WJC is constantly trying to prove it with the ladies doesn't mean all of us Y chromosomes are the same.

Steinem wrote an article based on an ugly sentiment that unfortunately pervades many so-called "liberals": all things being equal, they'll pick the rich white person every time. Her intellectual dishonesty is exposed with another pathetic argument: "an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House..." Really? If being a stay-at-home wife was already the equal to anything out in the real world, what the hell has Steinem been fighting for over the past 40 years?

I'm not sure if Clinton is hurting herself as bad as her idiot, out of touch supporters.

solely applies to HRC. She had much bigger hype going into this before it came time to actually winning contests. She's the one who had the big name, the big rep, and more money. And she's the one who is currently 0-1, and soon to be 0-2.

I love how these HRC clones act like HRC has been a victim from day one. What part of "frontrunner" do you people not understand?

And for the record, Green Job, I think winning a Senate seat, formerly held by a Republican, in a midwest state like Illinois on his own is much more impressive than HRC winning a seat vacated by a 20+ year legendary liberal (Moynihan), with an active President giving you free press and only having to face an unknown (Lazio) who hasn't been in politics since.

Is it me, or are the HRC supporters sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats? After their facade of inevitability fades, suddenly life's unfair. Boo hoo.

I think what a lot of the boomers fail to recognize is that everyone below them has not seen the last 15 years (Bush AND Clinton) as an improvement. They have seen a steady decline. For all the talk of boomer accomplishments--and there have been some big ones--our country has definitely been headed in the wrong direction. Some even sensed it during our 90s hot streak. But it's clear that the environment has gotten worse, entire job sectors are disappearing, the rich/poor divide has escalated, our culture is becoming increasingly shallow and image-obsessed and corporations have more power over us than ever.

And who has presided over all of this? The boomers. Bill Clinton, for all his merits, was successful at one thing primarily: promoting Bill Clinton. Triangulation is not a political philosophy, it's a tactic. It got him elected, but it didn't promote progressive ideas. He pivoted to the right whenever he thought it would win him votes. In other words, he was more concerned with staying in power than trying to advance democratic ideas. It's why in the end he and HRC ended up much better than the Democratic Party did after his 8 years.

If you want to see a perfect example of different perspectives between the boomers and everyone else, ask a boomer what they think of Rolling Stone magazine, and ask everyone else. The boomers will regale great memories of a cutting edge magazine that was the voice of a generation. To everyone else it's an out of touch corporate rag, published by the same jackass who produces Us Weekly.