What does "win" mean? How will we know when it happens? Do any of the war proponents have any idea?

I cannot think of any realistic definition of "win" that is achievable by military force. Until such a definition is given, requesting such should be the primary argument against this continuing war. Make them state specific goals that will constitute winning, and steps toward those goals that are demonstrably achievable and demonstrably being achieved.

Calling them out on their fantasy will go much further towards a resolution than simply calling for withdrawal.

There are millions of people out there who hate her merely because she is a woman.

But don't pretend that's the only reason.

Not every criticism of Clinton is attributable to her sex. Making that implication weakens the completely legitimate argument about the sexism she faces.

There is absolutely NO REASON to make a video of this writer reading her column.

None. It only makes it more difficult for her to get her message across.

Especially to get the message to people like me, who are not willing to sit through amateur-hour talking heads, and therefore never hear the message.

Everyone would be better served by having this in text version. Except, I guess, those people who think pointless video is "neato," kind of like Bush in his safety goggles a couple of years back.

Also we could avoid the commercials with Pfizer bragging about how they are helping Americans spend more on health care.

The logic here seems to be that Obama will get none of Clinton's voters in the general election.

Obama didn't beat Clinton in [insert state here] therefore he can't win it in the general election, but Clinton can.

Why would that be? Clinton voters are going to stay home that day? They are going to vote for McCain? They are such Hillary partisans that they would rather let the Republicans win than let someone who beat Hillary win?

What utter nonsense. Only a fool would vote for McCain rather than Obama because they would rather vote for Clinton.

Unless the story is true, that she is really a conservative. Which I don't believe.

Look, if you think she is a better candidate, make arguments based on that. But don't expect to convince anyone using some illogical and unbelievable arguments about electability.

This is the right way to use video.

King actually shows things. He interviews people. There is a point to having video associated with this article.

Keep this kind of video.

Stop the pointless, inane, inept, amateur-hour reading-my-column-at-you-very-poorly garbage that is currently the norm on Salon.

The pointless, inane, reading-at-you videos are a permanent feature, aren't they?

Why?

Why do you insist upon this? Why do you fail to see that this is much worse than no video at all? Do you even care? Is there some income stream that you are attached to, despite the disservice it creates for your readers?

Seriously, why?

I really should abandon this web site. Joan Walsh is very proud of the way she has dragged it down from what it once was. That does not bode well for its future.

But leaving this site and never returning would mean giving up on King Kaufman. The other content I would really miss; This Modern World, The K Chronicles, Tom the Dancing Bug, and a few other things, are available elsewhere, although I would have to wait a little longer for some of them.

But I haven't been able to find King Kaufman anywhere else. And I would really miss him.

It is no coincidence that his videos are the only Salon-writer videos that are not detrimental to the writer's message. Maybe he will leave soon.

P.S. I don't know if Tracy Clark-Flory had anything worthwhile to say, because her high-school-level presentation skills preclude me from sitting through her reading what would be better presented in text form.

Don't pay any attention to those people who don't like the way you "read" your broadcasts...I think you're quite attractive sitting there like that.

Because that is exactly what a feminist woman wants. Men who watch their videos because they look "attractive."

The desperation of the Clinton supporters is becoming quite sickening.

Not that the Obama supporters are any paragons of virtue, but the Clinton backers are really shameless and disgusting.

At this point it seems that regardless of which Democrat gets the nomination, McCain will be the next president.

At least the Democrats can look forward to at least four years of blaming each other for their self-destruction.

Your stupidities will sway no one, but it is entertaining to see how the tiny little mind of a Republican works, so please keep posting.

Actual quotes heard in the staff room today:

"The real Obama is showing now."

"I used to like Obama, but not so much any more."

"The more I learn about him the less I like him."

This ad will resonate with these people (my fellow high school teachers). I am sure the reactions after seeing this ad will be along the lines of, "I was right to doubt him, there is no way I am voting for him now."

Fortunately*, this will have no effect on the race where I live. Oklahoma is not going to give its seven electoral votes to a Democrat for the foreseeable future. But there will be states where this type of ad will matter, if it is not deftly deflected.

*Fortunately in terms of the presidential election, that is. The sea of ignorance that is Oklahoma is still unfortunate.

If anyone survives the onslaught of ads that have been purchased in PA, then perhaps the candidate has some electability issues. Mitt was doomed when they started calculating the amount spent per delegate. Will they do the same in PA?

So that's the thesis now? The most money should automatically mean victory, unless the candidate who spends the most has "electability issues"?

The smell of desperation is in the air.