At this point in the election, it's a battle for the people in the middle.

We watched on CNN, which had its focus group "instant reaction" meter running along the bottom of the screen.

Every time McCain said "Sen. Obama doesn't understand," the Independent approval line started heading the same direction as the stock market in the last couple weeks. Same thing happened every time he talked about Iraq. Those statements were not winners for him, except with the GOP base.

Obama's reasonable, conciliatory tone played very well with those voters. Polling today is bearing this out.

McCain's refusal to look at Obama was weird and may well turn out to be the equivalent of Gore's sighs in 2000.

Actually, McCain has never been moderate on abortion issues. This is a common misconception among swing voters, that's he's really moderate on this and is engaged in some kind of double-talk to win over religious conservatives. (Yet they still revere him as a straight-talking maverick. Go figure.)

Here's an NPR story detailing McCain's views on abortion:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18632802

I'm a woman over 40, and I didn't vote for Clinton. Neither did my mother, my sister, or 90% of my friends.

That group includes secretaries, schoolteachers and women who work in retail, so please skip over the "elitist" response.

I didn't find the sexism I've encountered in my life "mirrored" in the Clinton campaign.

Clinton tried to have it both ways. She demanded (rightfully) that she be treated the same as any other candidate. Yet, when she was challenged (as any other candidate would be) she complained that "the boys are ganging up on me."

Go talk to some women under 45. You might find it interesting. Many of us were embarrassed by Clinton's campaign.

Yeah, you read that right. Embarrassed.

The contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is over.

Rehashing the old arguments (and trotting out discredited talking points) is a fruitless exercise at this point. You can't re-litigate the process to make your preferred candidate come out the winner.

So what's it going to be, Obama or McCain?

It's no longer about Hillary.

That says it all, doesn't it?

That's what the vocal minority of Clinton supporters are all about these days. It's all about them and their needs. We want. We demand. We are owed.

Sheesh. Do you folks ever stop and listen to yourselves?

This election is not about you and your grievances. It's about our country. It's about the tanking economy and the 20-year-olds being killed in the god-awful bloody mess that is Iraq.

So you'll get your much-demanded "catharsis." Once it's over, you'll get on board to elect Obama in November and turn this country around, right?

Because you understand it's not all about you, right?

to see Hillary Clinton elected in 2012, ex-Leonardo tells us.

But really, ex-Leonardo, what price are you personally going to pay?

We all know you're not going to be paying for the continuation of the Bush tax cuts and the gradual bankrupting of our country. That will your grandkids, and their kids.

And somehow I doubt that you'll be one of the ones dying in Iraq because John McCain will keep fighting until we "win."

Before you decide to sit this election out, go sit in a McDonald's in Killeen, TX or someplace like it. Watch the soldiers from Fort Hood eat their Big Macs and play with their toddlers.

Then ask yourself, "which of these young people should die because I'm mad that I didn't get my way? Which of these kids should be orphaned so Hillary can win in 2012?"

Speaking of rhetorical BS...

Hillary Clinton did not "win the popular vote," any more than Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet or Bill Clinton held up air traffic at LAX to get a haircut. Just because something is endlessly repeated does not make it true.

See this analysis:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

I think you are arguing for one side here -- you tip your hand when you write that Clinton won the popular vote. That's a talking point, not a fact.

Check out this link from factcheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_clinton_win_the_popular_vote.html

Or this one, from realclearpolitics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Formula is permitted. From the TSA website:

Declare larger liquids. Medications, baby formula and food, breast milk, and juice are allowed in reasonable quantities exceeding three ounces and are not required to be in the zip-top bag. Declare these items for inspection at the checkpoint.

All this info is available at http://www.tsa.gov/311/

Parent of the teether should have been allowed to keep the food even though he or she erred in not declaring it. (Though I can see why they took the water. Bottled water is available in the terminal and on the plane -- there's a less compelling case for making exceptions on that.)

I agree that some of the TSA rules are dumb, and some of the personnel are not the sharpest tools in the shed. But it seems an awful lot of the folks complaining here didn't do their homework, didn't know the rules, and then are pissed that TSA didn't make an exception for them.

Exceptions require discretion. And if you really think TSA workers are so stupid, do you want them using their discretion?

I have a friend who travels with liquid medication. He has it labeled clearly, always declares it, and has never had a problem. For safety's sake, he printed out the rules from the TSA website and carries that with him.

If it's something important, like your medication or your baby's food, it seems worthwhile to know your rights.