the first results are close because the big cities reported first. Obama will win the two large cities, and will lose parts of far eastern Kentucky by about four to one.

The exits polls suggest that Hillary will win 65-30 or so. And later tonight, Obama will win Oregon by a large margin, though probably not this large.

Appalachian whites really dislike Obama.

Working-class whites in regions other than Appalachia are far more willing to vote for Obama than working-class whites in Appalachia. Obama's going to win the white vote in Oregon today, just as he's won it all over the west.

Certainly the party has work to do. I think that nominating Jim Webb for VP would help Obama make inroads with Appalachians, and I'd enjoy seeing him make mincemeat of John McCain and the Republicans generally.

But pledges by Clinton supporters today never to vote for Obama six months from now should be treated with skepticism. There will be a long time to heal the wounds.

This is the first big wave of selloffs from foreclosures. Investors see the chance to snap up houses for 40% off, and take it. But they might not be able to unload those houses.

... and the coverage has been missing the point. This allegedly lonely guy clearly had an attractive female collaborator who posed for all of the imagery in the project.

It could equally well be interpreted as a commentary on loneliness and alienation.

... is that some of the very same reporters who make a big deal out of this sort of thing will go on and talk about how much better HRC connects with the white working class, in part by using the same forms of address ("Hon", "sweetie", etc) that they condemn coming from Obama.

Now, there certainly is an asymmetry in the language: women often use these terms for both genders, while a man (at least a straight man) can't get away with using them on another man.

But this kind of thing is only a problem for Obama if he is foolish enough to listen, and tie himself into knots trying to avoid offense. Better to be authentic and to apologize to any specific people who might feel offended.

... it's not why HRC lost. If anything, a backlash against the blatant misogyny of the media (led by uber-misogynist Chris Matthews and the shock jocks who thought "Hey Hillary, iron my shirts") helped her come back to win New Hampshire and prolonged her campaign.

The main reasons she lost were:

- She was wrong on Iraq, and not only wouldn't admit it, but ran as a hawk.

- Her "coronation" strategy, presenting her as the inevitable candidate, could not survive even one loss.

- She grossly underestimated Barack Obama, who's proven to be an amazingly skilled politician.

Specifically, they traded arms for hostages. And just as Hitler wasn't satisfied with only part of Czechoslovakia, the Iranians kept the arms and immediately captured replacement hostages.

The next time a Republican dares to use the word "appeasement", that should be thrown in their faces. The mistake the Dems made in the 80s was to focus the discussion on the rightness or wrongness of aiding the Contras, instead of focusing like a laser on the Iran end of the deal.

Under Saddam Hussein, bad as he was, women not only went about unveiled in the big cities, but they trained in large numbers for professional careers. Extreme Khomeini-style Shi'ism was repressed. By overthrowing an oppressive but secular Arab regime, this is what we got: in the south, self-appointed "religious police" persecute women for trying to live the way they'd lived for many years before.

I do think, though, that the sheer bloodthirstiness this woman was the target of was compounded by the fact that the object of her affection was not only a non-Muslim, but an occupier, a member of an army that had killed Iraqis in large numbers. This might be seen as treason even in a secular society, with a corresponding penalty.

Paglia's rantings come out of her own head and don't reflect anything that is going on in the external world, except in a very distorted way. But you attached your letter to an item about cross-dressing in Saudi Arabia. Many of us don't care to read or discuss Ms. I-am-the-cosmos, so please keep your letters in the appropriate place (attached as comments to her articles).

... for Clinton supporters to combine a discussion of illegitimate or offensive criticisms of Hillary, with valid criticisms of Hillary, treating them all as morally equivalent. The purpose appears to be to tarnish the valid criticisms by linking them with the invalid ones. Joan Walsh commonly engages in this.

It's offensive and misogynist to compare Hillary Clinton to Glenn Close's "Fatal Attraction" character, and this kind of thing should be condemned.

But Ted Kennedy's statement that Hillary hasn't been "in tune with [Obama's] appeal for the nobler aspirations" of the American people is, unfortunately, legitimate criticism of the way Hillary Clinton has been conducting herself lately, though it still might have been better if he hadn't said that. Clinton's recent remarks about "hard-working Americans, white Americans" are not an appeal to the nobler aspirations of the American people, and neither were her repeated threats to obliterate Iran. Kennedy's remarks were not misogynist, neither were they unethical.

Just the same, at this point in the race, it would have been wiser for Kennedy to have held his tongue. We do have to put the party back together, and Hillary Clinton can be an asset to the party when her hyper-competitive win-at-all-costs spirit isn't overwhelming her.