Wow, this thread started so well, and it's sad to see how it's ending. If John McCain wins, a lot of you are going to be part of the reason.

weeping for brunnhilde, I know you started out trying to persuade people and you still try, but your (understandable) anger is getting the best of you. And I don't understand how someone smart who studies history can say in a contentious thread like this that they don't know the history of Jimmy Carter's administration. Knitting together a national Democratic coalition is really hard work and it is depressing, but true, that only white Southerners have succeeded since JFK. Rambling Rose 22, it was Milwaukee, not Madison, that had the socialist mayors. Madison had lefty Paul Soglin -- I voted for him! -- but I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Milwaukee, its German socialism is fascinating. The whole state is...different. Having gone to high school and college in Wisconsin I'm proud of white Badger state folks for going for Obama! Go figure that one out, rufus 11!

Phoenix Woman, I certainly don't believe the polls showing high numbers of Clinton supporters won't back Obama can really predict behavior come November. I like the broccoli v. brownies analogy! Thanks!

And designatedknitter, I appreciate your post.

On Keith Olbermann, I believe he had no idea how his words could sound (and if they're a Mad Max reference that isn't violent, I didn't get it, because I never saw the Mad Max movies.) I'd just like him to become a little more aware of how he's coming off these days -- truly, madly, deeply furious with the Clintons and crazy about Obama. Luckily I have our letter writers to tell me how I'm coming off every day -- and honestly, a lot of you have made me try to see beyond what I naturally see, and I really appreciate that.

But you have also made me want to communicate what I do see -- why working class voters might genuinely support Clinton and not warm to Obama -- in ways that are persuasive rather than polarizing.

chuckv, we're looking at this now, but was there ever a substantial period of time, once the campaign began in earnest (the early leads were all name recognition, as we said at the time) where Clinton led by more than 20 points in PA? I haven't found one, but...we're still looking. Thanks, in advance, for your help!

Thank you Hotspur. I'll think more about your question. I think it's fair; clearly some Clinton supporters are vicious about Obama and his backers.

Thanks, artieshawjr, but it's only 10 pm here in SF, and that's well before my bed time. Maybe you're projecting! It happens on these threads, a lot. But I appreciate your concern about me.

Uncle Fester, I'm sure you're right. There is a self-righteousness to all true believers, and clearly nasty Clinton supporters are driving some great Obama supporters round the bend on these threads. I'll think more about why they don't get under my skin as much as the nasty Obama zealots (aside from the reason that's obvious to the nasty Obama zealots, which is that I support Clinton!)

I answered Carol Richards in an old thread about to close, so I'm rewriting here: Thanks, Carol, for your comment. To answer your question (which I feel like I've answered before): I am very proud of Salon's coverage of the Democratic primary. We are not pulling for any candidate, or trying to correct for any impression that we're pulling for any candidate. We're reporting the news fairly, and in our opinion columns, we're asking and trying to answer compelling questions other people aren't tackling. When we all look back in 2009, I think Salon will stand out for its fairness, especially when one looks at primary coverage on the Web.

After reading Carol's first question in this thread: I think it's a fair question, to ask why I'm more disturbed by Obama's more vicious supporters than Clinton's. I'll give it some more thought. On first reflection, I think it's that Obama says he stands for a new kind of politics, but his slash-and-burn supporters are the worst of the old politics. I also think even some of his nicer, more well-meaning supporters represent another dead-end kind of old politics: the politics of liberal self-righteousness, where we know we're better than those benighted supporters of those other guys (or gals), and that cheers us, even if we can't convince a majority we're right. And I say "we" because, honestly, they/you are my people: San Francisco by way of Madison, Wisconsin kind of people (but yes, the dad from Ireland/the Bronx sent off to the Christian Brothers does mix everyone up, including me.) I'm just trying harder this election to see the other side. And honestly, some Obama supporters are making it a lot easier to see the other side. I promise to develop these thoughts at greater length soon.

Thanks, Carol, for your comment. To answer your question (which I feel like I've answered before): I am very proud of Salon's coverage of the Democratic primary. We are not pulling for any candidate, or trying to correct for any impression that we're pulling for any candidate. We're reporting the news fairly, and in our opinion columns, we're asking and trying to answer compelling questions other people aren't tackling. When we all look back in 2009, I think Salon will stand out for its fairness, especially on the Web.