The summary dismissal of Ms. Ferraro's valid and serious observations on this point was frustrating to say the least.

The fact that Obama being black was the reason he was doing so well? That point? I thought it was absurd then, still do.

The only other black man that might have had a shot at the presidency in the past in this country was Colin Powell...and it wasn't because he was black, but because he was a General who was perceived to be a moderate voice of reason. Similar to how McCain is being portrayed today.

Neither being a woman or a minority is a help in presidential politics. If you are attacked by racists or sexists and respond, you're seen as "shrill", "hysterical" and/or "whiny" if a woman, and "weak", "angry" and/or "calculating" if you're a man. They're accused of playing the victim card no matter how gross the initial attack was.

Ferraro's comments embarassed me at the time. I've seen her speak, I expected better from her, still do. Her comments since on the topic still leave me with a vague feeling of distaste.

Believe me, I know as well as you do how racist jews are.

I didn't know that Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Amish, etc. approve of marrying outside of their faith. Or for that matter that in Mexico some native women (there they are still refered to as Indians in English for lack of a better term) are not allowed to learn Spanish when young so they won't marry Mexicans and leave their tribe.

Being an atheist, I see that much of the world would disagree with anyone marrying someone like me. I see the bias, but do not see those that disapprove of me and my views all as "racists".

I've met one Jewish person that wouldn't acknowledge my presence and shake my hand because I'm not Jewish. He was a jerk that through marriage is now in my family, the rest of his family I count gladly as my own. I've had a Muslim freak out and say that my touch made him dirty when our hands met passing him some plans. He offered me a job later, he respects me on many levels. I've heard a professed Christian president say that someone like me should not be considered a citizen, let alone a patriot.

To use these example as a reason for me to suspect an entire groups as racists, sexists, etc. would be wrong.

I've also met some horrid women in my life, they were not indicitive of their sex.

There is too much generalizing going on here.

What is McCain's experience as an "executive"? He was a pilot, then a POW, not an admiral, not an experienced Pentagon planner, etc. He wasn't a CO. There are things to greatly admire (and not) in his background.

He's been a Senator.

What is Hillary's experience as an executive? She is a powerful advocate, she's been a lawyer, she was a spouse (like Laura Bush) of an executive. There are things to greatly admire (and not) in her background.

She's been a Senator.

How is this sooo different from Obama...also a Senator? How are either of these two people so much more "experienced" in their so called executive skills?

State the issues facing the country where Obama is to the "lefty left" of Clinton. I want to be reassured that he really is a hard core liberal, because so far, I'm not that convinced. He seems pretty centrist to me, not much difference with Hillary except for style.

As far as giving the vote to McCain, so far, the loudest voices screaming that they would do that if their candidate didn't get the nod is from the Hillary side, though some are willing to say they would just throw there vote away instead.

BTW, a solid majority of Americans wants timetables, is not supportive of the Iraq war, is pro-choice in many cases, do not want to privatize social security, etc.

It seems to me that these are all "liberal" issues and Clinton and Obama both are on the correct side, the majority side.

Don't fall into the BS of people being more conservative than they are, much of that has been because of branding. Dubya and company have hurt the brand.

change "throw there vote" to "throw their vote".

I've always figured ShawnM for a fake Hillary supporter, too, but I'd like to see his reply.

The question is legitimate.

Wow, the thread turned interesting overnight. Thanks for the entertaining read.

Wait, I thought Glenn was a Ron Paul shill... Or was it a Jewish hating, gay activist, Kucinich lover?

Wait, he also spent a day touting Dodd, or was it he just like the actual position Dodd took on the telecoms? Nah, he was probably just shilling.

Their "scoops" are determined by whoever gets chosen to be the first one to copy down (or cut and paste) those statements first.

This is Glenn commenting on how Politico is getting the so called scoop on the newest Hillary "controversy". I will reread it again, but it hardly sounds complimentary of the journalism in this latest idiocy. How outraged should he be? Should he clutch his pearls?

As for Friday, you think there weren't enough places elsewhere on Salon (and everywhere else) that were covering it? Good lord, I saw it multiple places, sometimes with over the top comments from supporters in both camps.

If I wanted to read constant (feigned) outrage over what either camp said lately that was over the line I'd read the campaign blogs or if here at Salon, I'd read the comments in Joan's (hardly a Hillary hater) blog, or the incessant poo flinging in the War Room.

Even Glenn's trolls are better than some of the partisans that scream away in other threads at Salon.

When I wrote "This is Glenn commenting" it would be be clearer to say "Here is a quote of Glenn's..."