Okay, so this was the tactic: Clinton was caught out lying about her Bosnia trip, so they decided to hit Obama hard about his title at the University of Chicago. Wow. That's fierce.

And stupid. Because not all professors are in tenure track positions or have tenure. I should know. I had a one-year repeatable position after earning my doctorate in a department that did not grant tenure to those of us at the bottom.

Couldn't Clinton's team have done a little research?

I'm supposed to respect a journalist who says Obama cursed Edwards?

"Obama's imprecations"? I doubt it.

Maybe they were adjurations. Hell, maybe they were even embrocations, who knows?

She's not really upset. That ending grin is the giveaway.

The original video was a goof--nobody could be that untalented and offkey and not know it.

I haven't seen them in concert since 1975 at Madison Square Garden and have studiously avoided seeing them as they descended into zombie-hood. Glimpses I get here and there give me the creeps and spoil my memories of the first listen of Exile on Main Street etc. etc. etc. When D.H. Lawrence published his book of poems "Look! We Have Come Through," Bertrand Russell said, "They may have come through, but must I look?" That's how I feel about the Eveready Battery Stones.

For me, the show drifted into boredom as it turned into a high school bull session about belief and faith. None of the endless angst feels moored to anything specific enough--as if the writers never got beyond a first draft of each of those scripts. To compensate, they spent much too much time trying to make the camera work creepy, dreamy, whatever. The high praise for this show might make some people who don't know it think the writers have reached the heights of Heinlein or Asimov when it's often just trite and undeveloped. Oh well, maybe they'll do another Jamie Bamber-in-a-towel scene this season. Now that would be exciting, or at least diverting.

Love the illustration. The bottom two feet don't match. Looks like there's three bedded down.

Roberts also confidently and angrily inveighed against Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, dead-sure that the American people wouldn't stand for it and wanted him out. Week after week she blathered on. It's when I lost respect for her, for the punditocracy and stopped watching This Week with David Brinkley and similar shows.

The set-up sounds like it was lifted from Noel Coward's Private Lives, at least partially, but with one character missing and less than half the wit. I wonder what it says about the American psyche that zhlubs are becoming sex symbols--or at least they're being marketted as such.

I agree he was irritated, and frustrated--and that was human and real and smart. If he'd pretended not to be bored and fatigued by idiotic questions, if he'd been plastic and fake, I would have lost respect for him. I saw a man trying to steer the discussion back to substance, again and again and again. Was it his strongest debate? Not at all. Will it hurt him? Only according to the pundits, Joan, which includes you. Last night Bill Maher had a sequence where PA bikers--surely the Beltway Insiders' wet dream of blue collar voters--talked about how fed up they were with DC and Bush, and how they were pro-Obama. That's not the kind of information likely to make it to any news outlet, even salon, because it goes against the grain of received wisdom.

It intrigues and disappoints me that if you criticize the mind-numbing inanity of the debate questions, or criticize Joan Walsh's very narrow view of the debate, you're an Obamabot in the eyes of many posters here.

I thought the moderators leaned most on Obama, but I also was deeply disappointed by the Bosnia question for Clinton, slipped in via a "voter" so the moderators didn't have to do the dirty work. Enough about Bosnia! And I thought they treated both candidates with discourtesy. Am I still an Obamabot?

Oh, wait, I'm a skin job, one of those Cylons who looks like normal people, that must be it.

I have never reflected on "sacrifice" as a theme for Passover, have never heard anyone, rabbi or otherwise raise sacrifice as a Passover theme, nor have I seen a Haggadah bringing it up. The man will go to any lengths to make a point.

Glenn, in the wake of disinformation about World War I, Walter Lippmann wrote an eloquent, passionate few essays now available as "Liberty and the News": http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8504.html

One key point: when the government is bent on deception and the news media has its own agenda, as opposed to actually being objective, the legislature is sidelined and democracy is impossible. That was true in 1920 and even more so today.

How does this make a lick of sense?

"A fascinating wrinkle buried in the Pennsylvania exit polls is that Democratic voters do not appear to believe that Obama's nomination is a foregone conclusion. Given Obama's purportedly unassailable delegate lead, it was stunning that 43 percent of Pennsylvania voters said they believed that Clinton would be the Democratic nominee."

No. What's stunning given the vote totals is that 54 percent of the PA votes think that Obama will be the nominee.

The title of the piece shows that just as the MSM has absorbed Rovian talking points, some Salonistas are Clintonian ventriloquist's dummies.

"Close the deal"? Clinton had been for more than a year the inevitable candidate marching to coronation. She had everything: the name recognition, the experience, the husband, the fervent support among unions and women, and the juggernaut money machine. Obama may be in the lead but he is the challenger, has been, always will be. Has any challenger ever done so well? That's the standard to hold him to. Gary Hart? Ted Kennedy? I am amazed and thrilled that he has done this well against a Democratic icon.