"In fact, I suspect that many Democratic voters who are on the fence -- and I count myself in that camp, and haven't written Edwards off either -- are prepared to consider supporting Clinton despite her Iraq vote because they believe that didn't really support the war, but felt she had to make up for her perceived "weakness" as a woman by voting for it."

But isn't this really the essence of Clintonism? Pandering to the public because of political insecurities..Who wants a president like that? Not me. Assuming your assumption is correct, should we really elect an individual who thinks one thing and votes another? Especially with such an important issue!

We don't know what Obama would have done, but we do know he's always been against the war, even when it was unpopular (before the troop surge and the paying off of insurgents).

. . . is that minority status should only be considered one factor in the analysis, as Kamiya argues. I totally agree with this. Race/sex is not unimportant, but the way a candidate handles the prejudices, stereotypes, and overall press associated with his or her minority status is very telling. I think Kamiya makes a good point here that doesn't get discussed enough or gets dismissed completely under the blind idealism that no one should even consider minority status when discussing/deciding upon candidates.

"Does a victory in South Carolina, based on the African-American vote, undercut Obama's biracial strategy and get him tagged as a black candidate?"

What a short-sighted question. Obviously a win is going to help Obama more than a loss. A win is a win. No one is going to change their minds about Obama because he WON South Carolina. A win will only enhance his appeal among all voters.

It's not like Obama supporters are going to wake up on Sunday after Obama's win in South Carolina and suddenly change their votes. It will only strengthen their cause. And if you didn't like Obama before a South Carolina win, you are not going to like him any less because of one.

This is one of those HH articles that transcends TV reviews -- a great cultural critique. This is why you need to be doing bigger stuff, Heather. I began thinking this after your last Mad Men review but I'm convinced after reading this article.

Heather, "breathtaking" is a great word to describe the finale of season three. What a great episode!

But was anyone else surprised that Peggy was not offered (and did not demand) a partnership interest in the new agency? I guess it is the mid-60s. Still, I was a bit surprised by that.