As for favorable coverage for Obama, I'll admit that the media was harder on Clinton for a short time between when they were already calling her the winner (before the first primary) and last Tuesday (where she picked up something like 4 delegates -- at least until Texas finally releases its caucus results, which may make Obama the winner from last Tuesday).

Obama has received withering press since Tuesday, and Clinton's endorsement of McCain has largely gone unexamined. What's more, the TX Democratic Party has not released caucus figures that will probably make Obama the winner from that day. This is appalling -- none of this Clinton bounce, and the resulting press, would have been possible had Obama won (which it looks like he did).

I'm not attacking Clinton here -- I'm just pointing out that Obama is not getting the kid gloves that Clinton supporters claim. From Fox and Limbaugh to the NYT and NPR, Clinton is now getting the kid gloves, and/or Obama is being treated like public enemy number one.

Why is Obama so dangerous? Do you really think it has to do with "experience" to best lead the poor out of the dark? Or do you think it has more to do with experience in working the status quo?

If I were a billionaire, or an arms contractor, or an oil company, or a neo-con, or a media magnate, I'd feel a lot more confident that the profitable status quo would continue under McCain or Clinton than I would with Obama (who, I admit, could play ball too -- we just don't already know he will, which is a scarier "investment" for those who currently fund our public discussions and public elections).

Yes, some people will not vote for Clinton in the election because our votes matter to us and Clinton has rejected our values.

But look at the candidates -- presumably what we're talking about here. It is Obama who said Clinton would make a fine president and Clinton who has said McCain is more prepared for office.

I have never said that Obama occupies a higher moral plane. I have contended that Clinton's attacks are generally more baseless -- and that she is not a defender of progressive values, whatever her rhetoric over the years. I ask you to respond to the following:

Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience.

Question 1: Is it okay that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's view -- that fighting "terror" militarily is our raison d'etre -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?

Question 2: If it is okay to make the most important issue our military "war on terror" -- as McCain understands it (remember, he's more qualified to "cross that threshold" according to Clinton) -- then how does Clinton match up to McCain without nuancing it in ways that would support Obama's opposition to the war? After all, McCain has more "national security experience" than she and his position was that the military option was okay, Bush just did it the wrong way (essentially Clinton's position given her vote to authorize the whole thing).

I don't think it's all that useful to debate whose attacks are more grounded in issues that matter to the public. I think I could win, but so do you, and there's no judge.

As for Clinton's support from certain demographics, how much of that has to do with the media's framing of the issues -- that Clinton benefits from the economy and Obama from youth? How much of it has to do with race? I can't say. I only know that Clinton has done more to work for and give lip service to issues that affect women and children than she's actually done. We can debate that too, but it would probably be fruitless (I'd say that NAFTA and the Iraq war has done more to undermine poor folks -- including women and children -- than the minor things that she's led on have helped).

I'd also add that I'm disappointed in Obama for many of the same reasons I don't think Clinton gives a rat's ass about the poor: both support open borders for labor and capital; both taken record amounts of money from insurance companies and banks; both support preemptive war; etc. I am not pollyannaish about Obamam.

But what put me over the edge against Clinton was her chucking all of the progressive advantages Obama has over McCain by claiming that "national security" is an overriding concern and McCain is more ready to be president when it comes to what matters. I would find it helpful if you could answer my questions.

I responded to you with respect and a simple request -- about the candidates and strategy, not about us. I could use the perspective of a Clinton supporter. Please answer the two questions I posed below.

You are the one who is spinning. She said that she and McCain have the experience to be president and Obama made a speech.

If you don't call that an endorsement (in effect if not explicit -- as if anything but in effect matters in politics) then you are delusional.

Yes, the terror is real, but the threat is not. If you think it is worth derailing all of our other priorities to stop foreign terrorist attacks, when only 3,000 people have died in 1 attack in our entire modern history, then how in the hell do you ever let your kids/loved ones get in an automobile? They are about 100,000,000 times more likely to die each time you do than they are from a terrorist attack.