The Clinton's have thrown every shameful thing they can find at Obama. As Bob Herbert of the New York Times has said, they have no shame. What she has made fair for her to do makes anything Obama would do, fair by her rules.

This would not be the first time she has said something and responded, oh, I didn't mean that.

Joan, sweetie,(I get called that by woman who don't know me very often. If they can, I can.) she is as slippery as a snake. I expect more from you than this.

Alas, I live in one of the five largest metropolitan areas in the country--but we have not reads stores. We have fine book stores, but not even a lousy reads store.

There are better places for HRC to serve than as VP. Obama is going to have enough concerns, especially with the rightwing smear machine on his own. To add Hillary's enormous baggage would be of no help. There are other places she could provide better service.

I imagine we will have to put up with these silly speculation for the time to come. Writers need work. Writing endless speculative pieces I guess works. Since it is Obama's decision it would be silly of me to even read this stuff.

Take a vaction rather than write this silly drivel

Almost any one with some intellegence knows we could have won in Viet Nam, but at what price in blood, treasure, and the national interests of the United States. It is pretty clear that to have prevailed against the North Vietnamese would have meant war with the Soviet Union and China and that would have meant nuclear war, most likely.

If ever one agrees with Rush Limbaugh, there is a 95% chance one is wrong. You are right that the years of George Bush leaves one without much of sense of humor--more a sense of awful tragedy. The New Yorker cover was not funny and it really was not satire (there will be too many on whom the satire will be lost and who will take the cover as meaning what it depicts--I do not have a sense of humor about that.), it was, at best, tastless and very immature and without any sophistication. It was just crude.

The majority of American (citizens of the United State who put this interests of the United States first before that of Isreal--we do have a few citizens who do not much care about the interests of United States before the interests of Israel.) really do not concern themselves all that much about a candidates views on Israel. Many, in fact, really tired of Iraeli whining.

All T.Boone wants to do is sell his natural gas--the rest is just deceptive fluff.

Watching the gathering of the McCains and Palins on stage together makes me thing of the Jerry Springer Show.

The President serves as the chief executive of the nation and in that primary capasity serves the citizens of the United States. Unless a U.S. citizen is in the military, the presient is not their commander-in-chief. Why so many people (even Biden) see it otherwise is beyond me. Thanks for trying to make this clear to your readers.

For so many reason Joe must go. The positions and priviledges he has had as a nominal Democrat must be taken from him. The self-respect of the Democratic Party and the respect of others for it require his removal. He can be trusted by no one. The Republicans can have him and deserve him. If they, understandibly do not want him, let him be his own political party.

It should be obvious why priests of the Roman Church try to force members to have more children.

If the priests of the Roman Church can withhold activites of the church from its members for the political actions the members have taken, the Roman Church must pay taxes.

If Obama is 'nodramaobama,' Bill and Hillary are all drama all the time--it is getting so boring. I hope we don't have foreign policy by negotiation and press leaks, but there is little to make one believe we won't.

Ari is a nothing.

Wow!! You relly think so! (How desparate you are for column inches. Better you than me.)

If someone has the audacity to think they can determine the destiney of 300+ people, there should be no secrets at all.

It is obvious that column inches and face time on TV are most important to commentators (aka bloviators). It is very difficult to trust them for even begining to tell the truth. They ill-serve this Republic to a criminal degree. But why should they be any different from CEOs of banks and automobile companies?

Sometimes it is impressive how many column inches can be taken up with utterly idle speculation.

At 66, a lifelong Democrat it is a source of enourmos dismay that Senate Democrats would inclue the traitor. Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus. That to allow him to continue to chair an important Senate standing committee is beyond understanding.

Now that a fillibuster proof Senate is impossible, what possibly could be the reason for not kicking out of the Democratic caucus this sorry person.

Obama has lost what was a very enthusiastic suppoter in pandering the the bigots of this country. There is no middle ground whan dealing with bigots. I deeply regret that I gave over $1000 dollars to his campaign. Morally he seems to have no foundation. I suppose if the Nazi's were an element in American politics, he would try to include them too--possibly leading the pedge of glag to the United States. Just where does Obama stand? What does he stand for? What does he have the courage to stand against?