If ever there was a textbook example of "tempest in a teacup," this is it. Why anyone would think that Amazon, with its long history of gay-friendly policies and extremely tolerant product listings, would suddenly kneecap a large, vocal (and apparently prone to hyperventilation) community of writers and readers, is beyond me.

Apology? It's a database error. Why should Amazon apologize for that? Sites have data-management problems all the time for all sorts of reasons. Just because one person decided to cry CONSPIRACY, and many followed, there's no reason for Amazon to prostrate itself before the paranoid masses.

Given that there were some far more original and uplifting entries than "Obamacan," I'm a little disappointed that it came out on top. I much preferred "Playground Politics," "Vote hope" and (my favorite) "An America that believes again."

That said, it's probably better to put out something more traditional in order to get those hardworking, non-college educated voters interested in Obama. Sigh.

I tend to think that if we manage to shake our massive oil-lust, fuel prices will drop simply because the need for it has decreased. It would seem to be a fairly simple result of the old "supply and demand" classic. After all, Obama isn't looking for or promising lower prices tomorrow, but sometime in the future. And maybe by then it just won't matter.

It's more than a little disingenuous, not to mention embarrassing, to see Ms. Walsh trying to write about race given the horrible, horrible way she's echoed the hateful white-centric rhetoric emerging from the Clinton campaign. There's also a bit of the self-congratulatory tone that accompanied Ms. Walsh's claim of impartial writing about Obama, and her boasts about how tall and intimidating to men she is.

Complaints about Clinton-camp race-baiting aren't in the least bit overblown or unfair. This latest "hardworking Americans" thing veers dangerously close to Hillary out-and-out saying, "Look, I'm white and he's not. Do you really want a Negro in the White House?"

As far as the Brazile/Begala confrontation, Begala seems to think -- as Hillary Clinton would like us to believe, I might add -- that this is a zero-sum game, and only those Democrats who vote for either candidate will then vote for a Democrat in November, as if all those other voters just vanish from the face of the Earth. And Brazile's response marginalized no one, instead pointing that working class whites aren't the only people who vote or matter.

I sincerely doubt Salon gets much fan mail from Donna Brazile these days. On one page we have Joan Walsh endlessly rehashing Rev. Wright in order to invoke white fear of the black boogeyman, on another page we have Sean Wilentz making a total ass of himself imagining a fairer, better, whiter world in which Hillary Clinton had the nomination clinched, and on yet another a blogger on Broadsheet says smoking pot during pregnancy will make a woman give birth to a crunk dancer.

And for those wondering if that last example is true: unfortunately it is. Salon apparently makes a habit of providing a voice for some serious douchebags.

Democrats who care about changing the Republican dismantling of American government are going to pull together behind Barack Obama and vote for him. Those who refuse to do so because they're uncomfortable with blacks, or who believe the endless hype about Rev. Wright (see point one) or because they inexplicably think Obama is a Muslim... frankly, those people aren't the sort that have much to offer the better America of tomorrow.

The way Democrats (and everyone) learn to talk about race is by talking about race, and doing so while honestly expressing just and unjust emotions they have regarding the same. The way not to learn is doing what Ms. Walsh does: pretending to be totally impartial, or even progressive, on the subject while demonstrating with words and actions precisely the opposite.

Given the data you quote in your entry, wouldn't the title be better written as "George Bush is John McCain's 'Bitter-gate'"?

I understand the Wright thing has become a coded reference to Obama's scary blackness -- used by you and by others as a way to bludgeon the man for his skin color without coming right out and saying so -- but the title gives your game away a little too easily.

While I agree it would reveal a great deal of Hillary Clinton's potential for leadership if she stood up and made a speech concerning race and gender issues in America, it's never going to happen, and that reveals still more about what leadership qualities she actually has.

The problem for Hillary in this instance is that there's no upside for her. Rather than see this as a moment to step up and demonstrate real ability to cut to the heart of thorny issues, it's clear she'd rather "make hay while the sun is shining." She used Wright as a bludgeon against Obama before -- and it's her campaign's doing that Wright became an issue in the first place -- and she's far more likely to do that again than something constructive.

Unfortunately the purely political mind thinks first only in terms of votes gained and lost, and if all evidence is to be believed, Hillary's is a profoundly political mind. Issues of the greater good will always be secondary.

Given the hysterical coverage of the Rev. Wright situation from the outset -- and the depressing echoes of same by Salon's EIC, Joan Walsh -- it's good to see someone on the site putting this non-story in the trash bin where it belongs. Thank you.