Salon does have a strange notion of fair and balanced.

Here's another article: The last 2 times the Democratic Party went with the "safe" nominee. Both times they lost. So maybe it's time to stop doing that.

Why are we so afraid to just stand up for what we believe in and run the candidate who most closely aligns with those views? Now we can debate over who that is. But why the fear to just stand where we are? I don't get it. All that's ever done is lose.

Whoever said they should title this "Obama: Threat or Menace" is right. We get it. He's a risk. I like risks.

No risk, no reward. We've proven that enough.

What we essentially have here is 1960 (the one year the author did not decide to cover.)

The young, clearly more capable, charistmatic upstart (John F. Kennedy) v.s. the old, dull, non-charismatic, boring policy wonk (Lyndon Baines Johnson).

Fortunately in 1960 the Democratic Party was still a working entity and had enough sense not to hesitate. They simply nominated Kennedy, put LBJ in the Vice Presidential slot and went on to 12 years of Democratic rule. They recognized a gift when they were presented one, in the form of John F. Kennedy.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party today is not that smart and would prefer to throw away the best gift they've been given since JFK, Barack Obama, away and nominate the LBJ candidate (HRC) early and lose. Hence they're reaping what they sow.

I agree with others. Where's the mystery again? Just nominate Barack Obama already and let's get a minimum of 12 years of Democratic presidents. Unless of course you don't want that. Where's the confusion again exactly?

I respect the voters in Pennsylvania. They seem to be trying to do their best to listen to both candidates and form an honest, truthful opinion.

But if they vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is "a fighter" I don't want to hear about it. If they can't read that she voted for the Iraq War, read that she voted for Kyl-Lieberman amendment (basically green-lighting a war in Iran) and read that she's lied on numerous things I don't want to hear the post-voters remorse.

They've had every chance to honestly examine both candidates (minus a moronic debate that consisted of an hour attack on Obama) that they could have. If they still vote for HRC, I don't want to hear any post-voting angst. Do the research now, and vote for the candidate that can obviously win it for the Democrats, Barack Obama.

He accused younger voters of "drinking the Kool-Aid" then gave them some long lecture on Benjamin Franklin, and what's wrong with speeches.

The college kids actually argue back it's great.

"One sad thing about tomorrow: We won't have Ed Rendell to kick around any more.

Above, the most entertaining, and dominant, surrogate of the cycle tells college kids they're "drinking the Kool-Aid" when it comes to Obama, and they argue back."

Here's the link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/

There's an actual video on the site, but of course, I don't want to post that and take up too much bandwith.

But watch this and tell me, who are the ones really perpetuating this generational war? It's (some) Boomers, Clinton and her surrogates who keep falling back on this old, tired line that because Obama has young supporters and gives good speeches, this must be the only reason young people support him.

Forget about the opposition to the Iraq War, or a change in Washington, nope it's just all speeches and "Kool-Aid."

This is precisely the type of thing you cover. In a forum with college students today Ed Rendell compared them to cult members and said they're "drinking the Kool-Aid."

Link:http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

Since you always cover every little, minute political detail and controversial subject, SURELY this qualifies. Cover it.

Everyone says they don't want expensive health care and those without it should be happy they don't have to deal with myriad health care system.

Until they need it. Then they're awfully glad to have it.

The truth of the matter is if this were happening to any other group in this country, besides African Americans, it would be a crime and on the top of this country's health care agenda.

And no offense, highland girl, but don't think this is only a black female problem. Go to any college health center waiting room and watch the difference in how white and black males are treated. They basically just throw condoms at the black males and then ask young white men: well what do you need? Are you sick? What's wrong? And I mean that's even if you go in for a cold or the flu.

Blame yourself is beyond insulting and stupid jaketwice. It's the medical profession's job and sworn oath to give equal treatment. If they're not on the basis of skin color that's horrific. I don't care if it's because of pre-conceived notions they have or previous experience. It's still monsterous and people suffer because of it.

This actually feeds into another symptom our society (sometimes) has and never wants to discuss: Forgive the white professionals. Sure they might have made a mistake, but really they were trying their best so we can't blame them now can we? Maybe you're missing crucial health care, but, hey, that's life. No it's not. It's their job, they should do it. And racism is a crappy reason NOT to be doing it.