I think the poster who mentioned "vague uneasiness" has it right. A woman with whom I work who is white, fiftyish and probably has some college education -- unsurprisingly -- is an ardent Hillary supporter since Edwards dropped out of the race.

Since the beginning of the campaign she keeps repeating that "there's just something about Obama" that makes it impossible for her to support him. She says she "just has trouble imagining him being president."

Perhaps I am not conveying her sense here, but it seems pretty clear that what is bothering her is race, but it bothers her in a way that she can't even articulate it to herself. I should say that this is a lovely woman without an overtly racist bone in her body. She has always treated me and my family, as well as black colleagues, with warmth and respect.

But as she tries to find words to express what she doesn't like about Obama, it seems to come down to some innate sense that he's uppity.

Nonetheless, I'm with Obama all the way and if I thought Hillary would be a better president, then I would be with her all the way, regardless of the fact that certain percentage of population would not vote for them because of their race/sex. We can't control others. But we can put forth the person we believe to be best able to do the job. People thought Americans would never vote for a Catholic either. And they did. Once.

The problem is that he is an out of touch old fool who is proudly ignorant of economics.

I wish they had spent more time using McCain's own words against him. The one bit they did use -- about working two jobs etc -- is edited so tightly that it makes it seem like it is the middle of a sentence being taking out of context.

McCain should be exposed with his own words, not computer graphics.

This is a weak effort. Would Dems have bought this if it was about John Edwards? No. Because the point isn't his wealth, it is his policies.

... unless you're Bill Clinton and the winner is Paul Tsongas. Then second place is a win.

If we had a press that functioned, someone might ask about this. But nevermind.

Sure, Houston sucks, but you're being unfair. In the expansion draft, they took Tony Boselli first.

Now, injuries ended up making that a bust, but the idea was there. If you're going to start a franchise from scratch, start with your left tackle.

Carolina took a DB then a tackle in their expansion draft.

Really. Steve. You will be missed. However, since you are just heading back to your regular gig, i hope all of war room's readers come with you. i certainly will.

I like to get to work, turn on my computer, print up King's column (which I fold up neatly into my pocket) and then retire to the bathroom and read a sports column where a sports column should be read.

If it's going to be hard to do that with lots of little blog entries, then the whole raison d'etre of the column is right out the window.

I'm just saying....

But sexism rankles most when it's used to discriminate or belittle; when it's wrapped in a compliment, it's harder to be harsh about it. I thought Clinton handled it well

Really? I guess if someone said she was "working like a nigger" to imply she was working really hard, that would be okay.

If they said Obama's management of his campaign finances "would make a Jew proud", that would be okay.

If a reporter complimented her interior decorating by suggesting that a faggot couldn't have done a better job, that would be okay.

In addition to being a shill, you're an idiot.

why -- especially given the fact that even in ideal circumstances exit polls are uneven -- would anyone suppose that people would answer these questions honestly?

First of all, if I were a Republican voting in the Democratic election in order to sow "chaos", I might give wrong answers to have the questions. Wouldn't that be better? If you wanted to undermine Obama's candidacy, wouldn't it be better to say "I'm a Hillary supporting Democrat and I'm going to vote for McCain in Novemeber."? These are, after all, people who are voting maliciously and in bad faith in the first place, no?

Secondly, people often can't be honest with themselves, much less with pollsters. How many people who voted for Obama did so because they just can't stand the thought of a woman as President? Surely some of them. But are they going to tell a pollster that that's the reason? Probably not.

So why are we giving these exit polls any weight when they have no scientific basis even when compared to other polls which are dubious in themselves?

Edwards was a flop last time. He did not do particularly well in debates. He did not do well this time as a Presidential candidate. He will not even deliver his home state. No to Edwards as VP. As AG, great. As Poverty Czar, super. As, SCOTUS, okay, although I think HRC would make a much better justice. (And Cass Sunstein!)

Rendell is a nightmare. He is an amoral win-at-all-costs politician who will say or do anything, including the most unnuanced race baiting of this campaign so far to advance his partisan objective. No thank you. I'd much much rather have Hillary than Rendell.

My vote is for Webb by a mile.