I haven't read this whole thread but I wanted to reply to doloresflower: I think both those questions are interesting and I'll be looking into them more in the week to come.

I will read the whole thread, I promise, but since doloresflower asked twice, I wanted her to know I'm paying attention.

Bryson K, thank you. I'm sure letters to the school are fine, and if I find out information about any other kind of public memorial, or forum to channel your good wishes, I will let you know.

What I meant by referring to San Francisco's "privilege' is something I've written about at greater length before: In a city with so much wealth and influence, that prides itself on being so cutting edge in terms of politics, that congratulates itself for being progressive, we are a disgrace when it comes to the problems of poverty and crime. A black mayor didn't do enough, now a white mayor who claims Bobby Kennedy is his role model hasn't done nearly enough either. I didn't mean people of privilege and enlightenment should be shielded from tragedy; I meant they should get off their asses and use their privilege and so-called enlightenment to make this city, and this country, work for everyone. And now an African American man who tried to do that has been murdered, at my daughter's school. I'll be writing more about this later in the week.

susan sunflower, with all due respect, this is the issue I wrote about before I came to Salon, and this is the issue I'll write about after I'm gone (if that day comes). I'm not a newcomer to this, it's what I care about, and I'll write about it in the pages of Salon and anywhere else that will have me my whole life.

And yes, some of these letters are really tough to read.

Hi anonymous, good feedback. I think it is a slightly truncated piece; I tried to explain that (indirectly) at the end; I'm on my way to the airport! "Sort of" referred to up close and personal; it was only sort of because of the presence of all those reporters, like me!

But I don't think every post needs a lot of commentary from me; sometimes I like being our readers' eyes and ears on the campaign trail, because I feel privileged to be able to get out there and see what I'm seeing. If you feel like it isn't working, that's good to know. We're kind of making a lot of this up as we go along, the role of blog post v. story, etc. I'll be thinking about that on the plane! More later.

Zinzen, if you read my post, you would know I didn't "base" my story on Taylor Marsh. I read about this in the Las Vegas Sun, I tracked down the parties, and I'm the only one, so far, who got an interview with the woman who experienced the questionable CWU tactics, and who quoted her at length, in her own words. I mentioned Taylor Marsh to be fair, and also, because she's become part of the story.

I'm not saying this example means voter intimidation is widespread; in fact I say the opposite. But the lengths to which people will go to discredit this woman's story gives me pause. Read the post. Draw your own conclusions. Back your favorite candidate. Thanks for reading.

Wow. I know it was a longer post than usual; maybe people didn't read it through to the end. I come back to the issues around the lawsuit, the unfairness of its timing, as well as former President Clinton's assertion that casino voters' ballots could be worth "five times" what others are. I don't think raising questions about the caucus rules equals endorsing the clearly politically timed lawsuit. Here's what I said, for the record.

The caucus rules are an only-in-Nevada innovation that, upon close scrutiny, raise questions about fairness: Many people ask why Vegas Strip workers should have an easier time voting than Saturday workers in other regions. Equally clear, though, is the fact that nobody was raising those questions, at least not publicly, until the CWU endorsed Obama.

One of the biggest outstanding questions is exactly how many delegates the at-large precincts will be awarded. Former President Clinton complained that because of the state party's formula, Vegas Strip workers' votes could count "five times" more than everyone else's. I asked the Nevada Democratic Party's deputy executive director Kirsten Searer if that was true, and she patiently tried to explain the process to me. (The short answer is, it conceivably could be, but probably won't be.)

In traditional Nevada precincts, the party awards delegates based on the number of registered Democrats, regardless of how many or few turn out. Because the casino precincts have no history of registered voters, the party decided to award delegates in a complicated formula based on turnout. Clinton's claim, she said, is "based on an unlikely situation: that every Democrat registered turns out in the neighborhood caucuses, but that there's low turnout in the at-large caucuses." Searer sounded a little tired of the complaints about the process. "We had an open and transparent process," she says, adding she was "surprised at the timing" of the lawsuit -- six days before the caucus, after the CWU endorsement -- given that the state party approved the rules last March.