Oh c'mon! Oprah has made American Marathoners slower?!? Just because the author doesn't share the disdain of the Penguin for "nylon shorts" guys, doesn't mean he should disdain himself for not being competitive in the marathon. Like a lot of guys, I no longer feel the pleasure of running through the pain in my knees, but surely it is not a bad thing that thousands of overweight smokers have been inspired to get off the couch and TRY to push themselves. We have too much of the "feel-good" syndrome in this country, awarding accolades for little or no achievement. But as one who knows he can't finish a marathon, I have nothing but respect for ANYONE who tries, and finishes. That actually IS an accomplishment, having nothing whatsoever to do with those who run for the sake of winning the race. Slower runners do nothing to dimish the success of the competitive runners and as for checking things off the to-do list--how about checking off the last bit of self-loathing? That would truly be an accomplishment!

Perhaps the problem is one of number. Mr. Rosen continually refers to "the media" as "it" when, more properly stated, "they" should be used. The media ARE a collection of individuals chasing after a story so single-mindedly that they begin to report on the chase, and each other, rather than the story. Once the chase becomes the story, the news becomes whatever THEY say it is. "Obamamania" may yet turn out to be real, but let us hope not because any of them (the story-hungry media) try to make it so. Likewise it is no crime for journalists to report that some in Hillary Clinton's campaign were, themselves, worried they might lose the New Hampshire Primary. The crime is that that "story" wasn't big enough news to stand alone as merely a part of the primary narrative. Political reporters feel compelled to follow the white SUV down the highway, breathlessly speculating about possible outcomes. Voters may ultimately make decisions from their gut, but that doesn't mean that they don't crave and need actual FACTS. Yes, in some ways, campaign coverage sucks--mirroring the chaotic and unreasonable way we run primaries. Perhaps the antidote for both is unflinching refusal to deviate from the actual issues. Let THEM report about THAT!!

David H

Pennsylvania in play? First, Ed Rendell, won't allow it. Secondly, if anything, Pennsylvania is poised to go even more strongly Democratic than either of the last two elections.

To me, it sounds as though Republican strategists actually BELIEVED that because the electorate split in Pennsylvania against Obama and for Clinton, that those Clinton voters are up for grabs. MAYBE—But again, much higher turnout makes another scenario likely. In the G.O.P. primary on April 22, open only to registered Republicans, even though the candidate was already apparent, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of 807,000) cast ballots for Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Obama. Put it another way, BOTH Clinton and Obama polled WAY,WAY more votes than all republicans together. Let us say for the moment that 25% of Clinton supporters move over to McCain—let’s also say that McCain gets ALL the republican votes (instead of the 75% he received) That is 807,058. Add to that the 315,052 he gets (in GOP dreams) from disillusioned Clintonites (ain’t going to happen, but let’s imagine it anyway) Assuming all that, McCain TOPS OUT at 1,122,110. But the other 75% of Clinton supporters have already declared for Obama which is an additional 945,000 added to the more than 1,000,000 that he already polled. That is nearly 2 million votes to just over 1 million for McCain. Democratic voter registration has now topped 4 million in PA (a record for either party in that state) That means out of 7,260,430 registered Democrats and Republicans, Democrats have a registration edge of about 1,000,000. Democrats pulled a larger percentage of their party’s voters than GOP (over 50% to less than 33%) in the primary and they have greater numbers. You tell me how McCain cracks THAT nut.

I don't know if the planet I live on is lugubrious, but I do know satire and I still laugh when I see it. As a pre-9/11 cynic, perhaps i was immunized against the deadly, irony-killing virus that evolved after the attacks, and there is REAL irony in Kamiya's thesis. He uses a bludgeon to wake up his liberal audience to their burgeoning bitterness, (understandable, though it might be) when, forgive me, a little humor of his own might have worked just as well. The problem with the New Yorker cover is that it appears that what is being satirized are the Obamas themselves. I am reminded of "Good Morning, Vietnam!" when Robin Williams is unctuously lectured about what humor is by his ludicrously unfunny lieutenant. The New Yorker has switched sides from the rebellious, shoot-from-the-hip wise guy and become the clueless boob trying to break in on the fun with a "joke" that is both too subtle, and, as it turns out, not worth the bother once you've figured it out. "Okay, they are NOT making fun of the Obamas, they are making fun of people who think Obama is . . . . ." (fill in the blank with your favorite salacious rumor.) The trouble is, once you've gotten that far, you still are not laughing. As my cousin once calmly remarked after failing to laugh at his cousin's feeble attempt at humor, "Maybe I just didn't think if was funny enough."