How do they do it? 9/11 happened on the Bush-Cheney watch, not Clinton-Gore.

And shouldn't the Mainstrem Media be offering a critique of "The Path to 9/11"? Instead, they're covering the coverage. Again.

This is a sincere question (please no name-calling or vulgarity): Why do Obama and most other Black People think that "Race" means only Black? If People are Asian or Hispanic are we supposed to call that "Diversity"? Can we expect a speech directed next to "Diversity"? Is not "Race" about more than Black?

What a dialogue! Dumb me: I keep up, and always thought Joan was pro-Obama.

For folks kind enough to respond to my question re race vs. diversity, I never suggested that Blacks haven't suffered enough. I wondered why they seem to have a corner on the RACE word.

And I doubt that Hispanics and Asians consider themselves a "white subculture".

"pissed-off second-wave feminists", "Howling warhorses", "feminist whine": Whew! At least she didn't call us fat.

Folks, even the Messianic Obama, like most humans, has clay feet. Hence he cannot walk on water.

Everytime this guy does something wrong, we are treated to yet another "national discussion" and the focus is removed from Obama the candidate. It's good politics, bad policy.

Obama can do only a "set piece". He's very good as long as he and his handlers control all contexts.

This possible candidate has even less vetting and less experience than Bush.

Who've you got in mind for HIS Cheney?

While y'all talk to each other and castigate Joan Walsh, I'm grateful for ShawnWM. It looks to me as if Sportin' Life has come to town and y'all bought into it.

I am coming across Internet Info on a very tight Obama lock on the Democratic party, including strict directives on where $$ should go (to Obama campaign, rather than other Democratic resources). I don't wish to be naive here, but what are other posters seeing?

Obama winning the nomination is one thing; locking up the Party for some time to come is quite another.

Google that. I've gotta say it's not like me to be on this before 940 of the rest of you.

your "we were here first" posturing re the Messiah. I've always thought of you at Salon as fair, objective. I see I have to be more careful. It does look as if you're happy to be leading the bandwagon.

As the Italians say, "Co si." It is what is. It's still disappointing, your being happy to be among the first to anoint Obama.

I am absolutely horrified by the hatred for Applachia in these posts. What is the difference (except location-urban America, Appalachia- between people (of any color) who are poor, who are out of jobs, who only want to do their best, scrounge a meal for themselves and their kids and their elders) between them and us?

I think I've said this badly here, with too many parentheses. But what IS the difference between them and us, except luck? Why, how, can you write off these differences? How can you hate and disparage them this way?

I know it's not to the point, but someone needs to remember, that Appalachia is where some of our American best, our most indiginous music comes from: Bluegrass, Old Time, Black Blues.

What can you be thinking of, to parse out hatred this way?

This blog, i.e. Joan Walsh, seems to me to have bent over backwards trying to be fair. The comments, as least thus far, have Stepforded it into yet another anti-Clinton Obama shrine.

It doesn't bode well for a formerly lucid blog.

I'll miss you, Joan Walsh.

Yeah, what NYShooter says.

Dream on. That's still a frightened campaign.

Barack Obama is finishing off a complete hijack of the Democratic Party, and you're writing about wives?

Dream on. No Obama. Not Now. Not ever.

This drips with condescension. And some people of either gender simply won't support an incompetent unvetted candidate, who is, by the way, still not the official nominee.

I think Obama's in the wrong business. Preaching is what he's really good at.

And while I'm at it, I see yet again voters differing with Obama's candidacy are called racist. You know, the problem isn't us. The problem is the candidate. At this stage of the campaigns, the only ones vetting the incompetent Messiah are the Democrats who disagree with him.

My understanding of the "lie to reports that Obama had been having trouble raising money" is that the "lie" came out of Obama's own campaign, whether deliberate, disingenuous, or otherwise.. He/they told those who received the fund-raising letter, that receipts were down, that the RNC/McCain Campaign not only had a great deal more money on hand, but that money in the bank far surpassed the Obama/DNC treasury. A "correction" took less than 24 hours. Obama still has money to burn. Keep your hands on your wallet, count the silver, act like it's your brother-in-law who needs yet another loan.

You're finally back (missed you) and this love letter to Obama is what you post?

I read elsewhere that all of this (save interviews with the starstruck), is footage either from the Pentagon or from the Obama campaign. Doesn't that even merit a mention? Is it not true that the basketball 3-pointer is from 2006?

Um, yeah. It does look as if that's the best he can do, i.e. Kaine and Bayh. Tant pis.

Indeed. It does look as if a number of qualified people choose to not run with Obama. Some of us PUMAs really don't want Clinton on the ticket. Some of us think she can do better work for us in the Senate.

Speaking of the One (who is apparently modelling himself after JFK), I was delighted to read of Eleanor Roosevelt's comment on JFK's de riguer pre-election book, "Profiles In Courage": "More profile than courage". You can't beat a good line.