i am 62 years old, and have been a democrat since the day i could register to vote. probably before.

in 2006 i enthusiastically voted democratic, as usual, because i thought the new congress would work to withdraw troops and end this insane war.

wrong, didn't happen.

today i learned that the democrats have caved again, and voted - at least the senate - to allow bush to continue illegal surveillance of foreign nationals, immigrants, and others they don't like. probably every day citizens they find who have spoken out against the administration.

i keep getting calls from the democratic national committee or one of its adjuncts that i should support their candidates, even send money.

why? maybe i should support republicans! at least i know what they want, and what they are going to do. democrats are nothing more than republicans, except that they are hypocrites. republicans are merely liars. i will take them instead.

in 2008, i will find independents to vote for. i am so, so sorry about what has become of my party. fdr, truman, kennedy, even clinton must be completely outraged. i know i am.

r.k. scher

tim, you are absolutely right about the democrats caving in. recently i received a letter, signed by al gore (he of nobel prize fame), from the democratic national campaign committee. they wanted me to contribute money to retaining a democratic congress. why?, i wrote back. i voted in november to begin the process of ending the war, of stopping the assault on civil liberties, of ending torture, of blunting the administration's unconstitutional executive power grab, of demanding accountability, of standing up to bush's lies. so far, none of this has happened, the democrats have caved each and every time one of these issues has come up. to ask me to contribute money to this fiasco is absurd. even to ask me to vote for democratic candidates for congress next time is absurd. can anyone give a reason why i should, one that makes real sense? thanks for having the courage to wrote what you did, tim. richard k. scher

as a social scientist, may i point out the following:

1. polling is as much art as science. in particular, pollsters had to judge how new hampshire independent and uncommitted voters would break. in iowa, they broke for obama. apparently they broke for clinton in new hampshire. there is almost no way to know ahead of time how the break actually happens, except to use judgment and experience. this time, pollsters were off.

2. more importantly, turnout was exceptionally high, i understand a record in new hampshire. but pollsters only assess likely voters, for convenience and economy, especially as the election nears. yesterday in new hampshire thousands, literally, of voters went to the polls whom pollsters had not considered because in the run-up they were not regarded as "likely" voters. so, there was a "loose cannon" of thousands of voters out there whom no one had bothered with, and apparently they went for clinton since they were overwhelmingly urban, blue collar, and women - not exactly obama's voters.

3. did race play a role? of course. we know that edwards' blue-collar constituents abandoned him in favor of clinton. why? obama would be a more likely choice on ideological grounds. but many whites in this demographic group won't vote for a black man. how many? who knows? but even if it is only a thousand or so, given the huge block of unaccounted voters (see above), it is not surprising that clinton won and that the pollsters did not so anticipate.

4. within the limits established, the pollsters were not wrong. the problem is that their limits were too narrow, there were too many unaccounted voters, edwards was falling apart, and the spectre of race reared its head, if only at the end. pollsters could not catch up with these rapid changes.

richard k. scher

Shapiro is right on target, as usual. One point that needs emphasizing, however, is that all of the speculation by various media outlets as to the current delegate count is just that: speculation. There are four reasons: each outlet counts according to its political preferences, the ny times being the most egregious example; it has invested everything in clinton, ignoring the fact that she is losing badly; 2) in many states superdelegates are still up for grabs, and in some states can still change their minds; 3) nobody at this writing knows what will happen to the Florida and Michigan delegates, if anything; 4) many primaries remain to be held, there is still a long way to go and many delegates have yet to be accounted for. Media speculations now are about news that hasn't happened yet. Stay tuned, this show is not over, not by a long shot, even though a number of powerful media outlets think it is. R.K. Scher

this thing is just plain silly, maybe stupid. it's not that hillary is f---ing obama, she is f---ing herself. not simply by staying in the race - that's her business and her right - but the way she acts, and the things she says, for example, the bosnia farce, and today's comments that obama is trying to disenfranchise voters. none of this does her or her campaign any credit, in fact, it does the opposite. so the video is wrong-headed if moderately clever. hillary is indeed f---ing herself.