He shouldn't have said that.

But again all of this would be easier if we had some idea of when this thing was going to end and some notion that Senator Clinton's not going to take it neutral (continue to push her insane 128-0 seating of the Michigan delegation and take it to the convention.)

Why can't one of her major supporters, Carville, McAuliffe, Bill, Begala, Lanny, Hillary Rosen, Lisa Caputo, Maggie, get out there and give us an unequivocal sign that come June 5th she WILL QUIT if she doesn't have the delegate lead. Period.

Please Obama supporters try to keep the sexism to a minimum. You shouldn't be doing it at all. It is disgusting. And this campaign has taken it to unheard of levels. While I think we should be focusing on winning the White House and getting a Democrat elected, do understand why some Hillary supporters rightfully feel the need as they should to point out the stupid, counter-productive role of sexism in thsi campaign.

At some point I hope there is a realization on Clinton supporters part that they too have a duty to support the Party and the ideas that matter to all of us (ending this stupid war, fixing the economy, putting the Justices we need on the court, diplomacy) and get behind Obama.

You make excellent points. Frankly I'm exhausted with the whole sexism thing too, and consider it far overplayed. To me most of the examples are false, even the major ones, but I can give you 2 or 3 false ones and maybe 2 real ones.

The chair thing is perfectly false, you've got them there. When he pulls out her chair for her, he's being sexist and dominating. When he doesn't he's being dismissive and rude.

I also think HRC blew her right to point out that "shrill" was sexist (which it probably was) after her screaming, "Shame on you Barack Obama!" tirade in Ohio. There's no other way to describe in than shrill.

I suppose the "she's got to leave the race now!" narrative can be viewed as sexist. To me it's not. It's no different than Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and John Edwards. But (in their defense) I suppose you could compare it to Ronald Reagan in 1976. There weren't quite as many calls (I'm told) for him to get out of the race as there are for Hillary now. Of course what Reagan did and knew he was doing (like IMHO HRC is attempting to do) is purposefully take his Party down to defeat so he could run again in four years. That's a bad idea.

What I'm saying is there has to be a realization on Clinton supporters part that not all (maybe not even most, say somehwere around 40%) of criticism of Clinton is sexist.

But we Obama supporters also have to be honest and realize SOME criticism of Clinton is sexist. As a man I also have to admit that I might miss this from time to time. That's just honest.

If all that's keeping us apart is this issue, then I say I'll admit it. Much of the criticism of her has been sexist. And I'm not just saying that it has. Chris Matthews is another example of this. But what I wish the Clinton supporters would see is in the end we're all working towards the same important goal, getting a Democrat (Obama) elected.

But you guys make good points to. Every time you criticize her it's not sexist. And you have every right to keep doing it. But maybe sometimes it is.

Fried. Too much Salon for one day, but yeah if the real not perceived sexism is that big a deal to the few real Clinton supporters, not Republican trolls posing, on this site then cool.

The good news is after Barack's 2 terms we can run Sebelius (because she's the best governor in the nation with real executive experience of her own) and then they'll finally see our problems aren't with her gender they're with Hillary and her despicable brand of politics. But until then whatever.

Can't wait until this thing ends. The superdelegates really are spineless. And I don't trust HRC to not either go George Wallace or leak some false story on Obama to try and steal this thing from Barack. Thankfully people seem to be aware of it and this thing should come to a close around June 5. Best of luck to everyone. Hittin the hay.

Well you're mentioned by Joe Klein in it. You should really check it out a very interesting debate is going on over there (again it's the lead story) between Klein and a poster who called Joe out on his poor coverage of the Pentagon general fiasco.

More specifically the poster is on what Joe Klein terms as a "silly little crusade" to simply ask Klein if any of the generals on the Pentagon list were used as his sources. When Klein refused to answer the poster simply asked what Klein's methods were for using a source.

Joe gave a long response. Anyway you should check it out, as you are the only journalist he specifically cites by name in the article. Ever since the absurd Stepho semi-debate and these latest revelations on the Pentagon generals, the media is FINALLY being called to task.

Link: http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/how_actual_journalism_works.html

Klein also tries to act like he did a fair and balanced job of covering the surge and didn't just buy the Petraeus kool-aid on the so-called "surge." We all know that's not true.

. . . like Virginia, Missouri, Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina, Minnesota, or Iowa otherwise I might think Hillary Clinton's not entirely right about her being able to win all the swing states.

Whew. I can rest easy now, knowing that Hillary Clinton wins all of the swing states and West Virginia with its grand total of: 5 electoral votes. In the primary, not the actual election. That's make or break.