Clinton has to know that the two races she references bear little if any relation to 2008. In both of those races the primary season started much later than it did this year. So the fact that she is still in the race into June has no valid comparison with 1992 or 1968.

The best possible interpretation of her remark has no merit.

So, what you are saying is, that Clinton gets the votes because she cheated, and it is folly to credit any to Obama since he foolishly followed the rules?

She will go back to the Senate, at least until 2012. In 2012, she will run for president again, or she will run for Senate again. Or maybe, like Joe Lieberman, run for both at the same time.

I doubt Obama would want her in his administration, but who knows. There are several cabinet posts she could adequately fill at least adequately, if not excellently.

I don't think she will have any difficulty staying busy.

This will be a troll-fest unseen in days, even weeks!

More proof of the inexperienced empty suit. More proof McCain will beat him. More proof Clinton should be the nominee. More proof he is a crypto-Muslim, gonna turn the keys to the country over to bin Laden.

Woohoo!!

It's surfer lingo, dude.

Hang loose, stop being such a hater.

You have long proved that you have zero objectivity when the topic is someone you have an interest is. See confessed cheater Barry Bonds.

But this is ridiculous.

Whether she meant to or not, Clinton said she is staying in the race because Kennedy was assassinated.

She said it three other times, so the defense that it was a mistake doesn't work.

The primary season this year has no relationship at all to 1968. The disparity in the number of states choosing convention delegates through primary elections alone makes the comparison invalid. But the fact that the primary season started so much earlier this year and the choosing of delegate is so much closer to complete this year makes the comparison to 1968 nothing short of ludicrous.

But since logic and reason are not enough to overcome your partisan hackery, all you need to do is look to Fox News talking head Liz Trotta. She baldly stated that she hopes Obama will be assassinated. That has nothing to do with Democrats.

Are you truly as deluded as you seem, or are you a knowing shameless shill? Either way you are pathetic.

Salon.com continues to get worse and worse under your stewardship. I wish there was a way to read King Kaufman somewhere else, so I wouldn't have to come here any more.

Be careful what you assume.

I wrote a very disrespectful letter calling Joan Walsh on her ridiculous column. But my letter was based on the indefensibile nature of Walsh's conclusions.

Any of the nine or so Democrats who entered the primary would be far less damaging to the country and the world than McCain. Not that any of them would have much chance of accomplishing anything. Given the spinelessness of Congress and the horrible messes the Bush Crime Familiy has left behind, the next president, whoever it is, is extremely unlikely to accomplish anything.

But the point is, it is possible to think Walsh is full of shit without being a sexist, a Clinton hater, or an Obama fan.

I just watched the clip on YouTube.

It is certainly clear to me now that any poster (all the one-timers) who used the word "sanity" were shilling. Walsh was shrill, she interrupted, she put words in Madison's mouth, and she was completely ignoring the reality of Clinton's words.

Wow.

Paraphrase:

Question - Why are you staying in the race?

Answer - Kennedy was assassinated.

Then Walsh claimed that Clinton's remarks were not in any way associated with the assassination.

That is ignoring reality.

--------

How is it obvious from the video "that the Obama campaign calculatedly planned this to slime Clinton."? I didn't see the Obama campaign represented at all in the video. Are you referring to the email they sent around? The standard practice of any campaign? If so, that is weak. But, weak as it is, it is in the video, I guess. But hardly obvious.

--------

You seem to be implying that I am an Obama supporter. I defy you to find anything I have written that would justify that assertion.

The point of what I am saying is that Joan Walsh is full of shit. Not Hillary Clinton. Joan Walsh.

You can raise irrelevancies all you like. That won't change the fact that Joan Walsh is using illogic and invective to pretend that this is not a real issue, or that it is merely Clinton bashing.

I don't hate Clinton. I have never said anything that would allow a rational person to come to that conclusion.

I hate what Joan Walsh has done to Salon. I was one of the original subscribers, within a week or two of the inception of the subscriber service. But since Walsh took the helm, Salon has been on an almost unbroken downward spiral. I dropped my subscription about two years ago. If I could read King Kaufman anywhere else, I would never come back here.

Because of Joan Walsh. It doesn't have anything to do with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

- The federal government is still losing millions of dollars of tax revenue since gay married couples in Massachusetts cannot file a joint federal tax return

I thought filing a joint federal tax return decreased the amount of tax you had to pay. But this statement implies it would increase the tax payments. (If that was true, why would anyone file that way?)

Don't get me wrong. I am strongly in favor of allowing any couple to marry, as long as both are consenting adults. But this makes no sense.