Michigan wasn't a legitimate contest and doesn't reflect the voters' wishes so it should NOT count. Unfortunately, the only alterantive in the time left is a caucus, and we all know by now how bad they are.

However, Florida was a legitimate contest with record turn-out.

The voters knew the issues, from extensive debates and national media coverage. Internecine fighting from Democratic party managers is irrelevant.

The approx 1.8 Million Florida voters should not be dis-enfranchised and I can't think of any way to redo the election that would seem legitimate if it didn't come up with the same result.

P.S. I'm watching video of the Texas caucuses on CNN as I type this and, frankly, the Texas Caucuses seem less legitimate than an open vote in Florida by 1.8 Million people. They have video of people sitting in the Texas caucuses for three hours with no idea what was going on, until all the parents with children left, all the senior citizens left, and the caucus was defaulted to those few that stayed by midnight. That's represenhisible and certainly not representative.

Thanks for the good article.

Obama acolytes don't want their candidate held up to examination.

IMHO Sen. Obama has run a negative campaign from day one: Accusing Sen. Edwards of dishonesty and corruption and sending Obama's surrogates everywhere to smear Sen. Clintion's personality and record.

I still remember being stunned to hear an Obama campaign manager say on CNN after his New Hampshire loss; "Senator Clinton didn't cry for Katrina," followed by a "supporter" stating that "Clinton said states with black votes don't count", and wondering how the press could fail to call Obama out on that.

Atlantic Monthly, I believe it was, reported that early in the campaign Obama managers were urging the press to "look into President Clinton's post-Presidential sex life." That might be audacious but it certainly isn't hopeful -- nor representative of a campaign based on issues.

Calling Clinton a "Monster" isn't a new tack for Obama. What's new is that for the first time a few of the national press are not letting Team Obama cover it up with homilies about hopefulness, pretending that the great one is above all that while conducting a campaign Karl Rove would be proud of.

We can expect a parallel article on pollution from manufacturing compact fluorescents.

The migration to CFLs means closing six light bulb plants in the U.S. with the manufacturing replaced by CFLs in, surprise, China. There is no reason to believe the Chinese will do a more conscientious job of manufacturing CFLs than anything else.

Since a toxic byproduct of CFLs is mercury, one can assume it is only a matter of time before we see multiple Minamata's springing up in China.

Will your headline then read, by parallel: Are Environmentalists in U.S. Responsible for Mercury Poisoning in China?

.

When Obama first joined the U.S. Senate he described his own good fortune in terms that were quite similar to Ferraro's, in fact if not in sentiment. So Obama agreed with Ferraro before he criticized her.

Obama said his life made his book deal possible, which raised his profile, and established not only his then financial status but accelerated his career.

Nothing wrong with that.

Ferraro did NOT say what others have, that Obama is unqualified.

Gloria Steinam, in a NYT OpEd wrote just before NH's primary (quoting from memory), "If Obama were a woman he wouldn't be considered qualified to be in the U.S Senate, let alone a presidential candidate."

Your criticism would be better aimed at Steinam than Ferraro.

It is amusing to see the "attack the messenger" attitude of various talking heads on cable news, and this column. That usually happens when you either can't or won't address the point itself.

Unfortunately, the fanatics, and overly-positve reviews from the likes of Pogue and Mossberg, cover up serious flaws in the Macintosh and thus have the unwitting effect of keeping Apple form fixing them.

I'm writing this on an old Thinkpad because my new, $2,700 Apple Macbook Pro won't wake up from sleep mode and recognize an external monitor. You can find this and many other flaws discussd by users on Apple.com, but not in the press, which treats Apple like the political press treats Obama -- fawningly.

But that does a disservice to the Apple users by failing to point out flaws, and failing to put pressure on Apple to fix them.

You might also point out the financial conflicts of interest guiding the fawning press: For example, the NYT's Pogue probably makes much more from his books on the Macintosh than from his NYT's gig. Does that influence his glossing over of Mac flaws? How can one know?