There appears to be potential for abuse of the "Anonymous" option in Salon's Letter sections. An astroturf letter spammer can falsely create multiple letters with a single point of view, in order to exaggerate the the number of people who share their view.

I'd like to suggest a refinement of the option to post letters as "Anonymous".

While to choice to post behind the "Anonymous" monicker would remain, each time the same writer used it, perhaps an individual identifier could be added.

Such as "Anonymous-1x". This would preserve the privacy of the poster, yet alert readers when a single poster is trying to create a false impression of like-minded fellows.

It would cut down on letter spam, and increase clarity of understanding for readers, without revealing anything about the actual identity of the authors. Perhaps the mechanism could be used only within a single letter thread, to increase privacy protection. That way, for example, if "Anonymous-A" foolishly mentioned they were Vice President of the United Staes, posters wouldn't be able to track their identity through multiple letters threads.

Give it some thought. I think some folks are trying to game the system, and it's getting rather annoying.

Perhaps if more of them had something worthwhile to say....

I thought Laura Flanders was going to just do another one of those "those silly starry-eyed change dreamers" articles which seem so fashionable right now.

She didn't. Thanks ever so much, Laura!

I'm an Obama supporter, and I frequently get bedeviled by folks who demand specifics, and sub-paragraph analysis, and concrete plans for what will be done and when (I'm talkin' to you, Paul Krugman). While there are many specifics availabe on the Obama website, I answer those bedevilers by saying what is important is not the plans. We've had great plans in many an election. But plans are only as good as the pressure that forces them into law.

We've seen, since Ronald Reagan, how much change money pressure can create. Our country and culture has been distorted almost past recognition to enable and celebrate greed and corruption. That somene like Donald Trump could be considered an icon rather than a national embarrassment would have been unthinkable 30 years ago.

What most of us in the Obama movement are working to create is a massive re-engagement of people in politics that can stand against, and eventually beat back the relentless corrupting of our culture and government by money and power.

The first step is to create the organization. Thank you Howard Dean, thank you Move-On, thank you Barack Obama. We're getting stronger and stronger, and we're ready to start effecting change. We're hitting a tipping point. Hillary Clinton was considered unbeatable. She had the support of the Party Fat Cats, the Money, the connections.

We're beating her. She can stay as a powerful and influential Senator, something she's shown she does very well. She would make a great Senate Majority Leader.

After that, we'll beat the Republican Party and take back the Presidency. Then we'll beat Big Pharma and the Insurance companies and create a decent system of delivering health care to our citizens. After that, we've got the polluters and the Military Industrial Complex in our sights.

It won't happen overnight, in a single term of office, and maybe not in a generation. But it will happen.

It will happen if we get off our backsides and organize, organize, ORGANIZE. Obama is the latest one who is showing us the tools. We are the ones who have to use them.

YES. WE. CAN!

If this article had been written by a white person about Asians or Jews, the screams of racism would have been deafening.

We're supposed to be moving beyond this awful stuff, not coming up with tinier and tinier little boxes to cram each other into!

Disgusting.

Do you think the guys with guns are from PETA?

If (and that's still a Big If--Obama supporters, keep working!) Obama wins out through the end of February, Clinton will rightfully be down to her last chances.

A loss in either Ohio or Texas means she's toast. These are states where she started with big leads and favorable demographics, and where she is currently concentrating her remaining campaign efforts. If she can't win them, then the writing is on the wall--she can't win, period.

It will be all over.

If she barely squeaks by in both states, that will still be a very bad sign for her campaign, but one would not be surprised if a candidate as obsessed with power as Hillary Clinton appears to be would continue in a state of denial. But it would require denying some pretty mortal wounds.

Obama's lead in actual delegates will start putting tremendous pressure on the Superdelegates to heed the will of the voters. Two thirds of the SuperDelegates are still holding their votes close to their chests. The idealistic part of me says that's because they want to see a clear leader emerge in the contest prior to committing.

If Hillary continues to lose in February (please, Gawd, PLEASE!) and doesn't mount a furious and decisive comeback in March, the clear leader will be Obama, and we should be able to wrap this primary up, after capturing America's attention with a thrilling race.

Then we can get on to the business of beating John McCaincient like the hollow old drum he is.

The majority (often quite a significant majority) of voters in Democratic primaries are women.

Don't blame Hillary's failure on us guys. If she couldn't make to the sale to fellow females, then maybe there is a problem with the candidate, not the electorate.