As usual Camille you've hit it on the head. Kathleen Sebelius is clearly the best and most qualified choice. The fact she keeps popping up everywhere, is actually beginning to convince me Obama might actually have the smarts and guts to go for it.

To me Wes Clark is still the front-runner, mainly because of the word coming from the Hill today that he might want a military man. Clark would get him Arkansas, and presumably help him in the South. And the presence of a white man, with military experience, would at least hold Pennsylvania and maybe get him Ohio. (Of course Sebelius father was the governor of Ohio, which gives her regional pull and is one of the reasons I think she's still a front-runner.)

So my guess: Clark 1, Sebelius 2. Two I'd be ecstatic, one I'd be content.

Agree with the minority here. The black Marines WERE there. They might have been the minority, but calling it affirmative action or asking if the Mona Lisa should be black ignores the fact black Marines WERE there, bleeding and dying like everyone else. And many of these men are in their 80s and 90s now, about to die. Just like white veterans, for many, this was their last chance to see their achievements represented on film.

Now granted 3% isn't huge. But at what point does the number become high enough to matter? And at what point does ignoring these black soldiers achievement become a willing re-writing of history.

Black soldiers were present at D-Day too, yet they're never represented there. The intial argument was, "Well they weren't in the first wave." Then they started interviewing white troops from the 2nd and the 3rd and finally even the 4th wave of D-Day. Yet still none of them were black.

Black soldiers, by the end of the Revolutionary War, represented 20% of Washington's force. That's 1 in 5. Is that enough to matter? At what point does the fact that they are supposedly "only a small number" become less about numbers and more about excuses? And if history never makes an honest attempt to tell the whole story, then how is that doing anything but willfully ignoring what happened?

I saw Flags of Our Fathers and a number of Behind the Scenes Looks. Clint Eastwood, specifically, set out to make an historically accurate movie. He then bragged about doing so ad nauseum, claiming it was historically accurate to an unprecedented degree when it comes to World War II movies. Well, turns out it wasn't. To me Eastwood's own incessant bragging on this is the final straw. He's getting criticism he deserves at this point.

Seriously. Joan is on our side now, and we're on hers. It's all ONE side now. That's the Democratic side. So please stop attacking her for mentioning Hillary.

Many of you also said you agree Hillary's faced some sexism and agreed at the time. Great, so did I. So what's the problem with Joan mentioning it? People can still mention, Hillary. It's ok. That's not a crime. Relax.

She's been a great advocate for Barack on t.v. lately. Quite frankly she's someone he desperately needs. An independent woman who (at least judging from the letters section) has a great deal of influence and outreach to other women. This is the key demographic Barack is going to need to win the White House.

Also, in case anyone missed it, Joan was on Barack and Michelle Obama's side on this one. Joan rightfully called FauxNews out for their blatant racism and sexism. Let us hope more people have this reaction.

Given that the Repugs have announced they now intend to make Michelle Target A, we can only hope that like Rachel Maddow said many female Hillary supporters (and hopefully male ones as well) will realize just how disgusting of a tactic this is. And it will backfire on the Republicans. Because Barack needs to make all the gains he can with Hillary supporters, particularly white women, if he's going to win this election as a Democrat next fall. If so Barack will be in a better position. So just thank Joan for calling out what the Republicans and their tool FoxNews are doing. And hope she continues to do so.

To have even a small sliver, let alone a big piece of our Constitution restored, is a major miracle.

One also can't help but think that John Paul Stevens at 88 might want to leave one last legacy before he leaves the Court.

The man who decided this, John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. In all likelihood the next presidential term is his last. And there are those on these boards still arguing that 1 Supreme Court Justice does not make that big of a difference.

That why hasn't the Supreme Court done these things (like overturning Roe v. Wade) some of us keep saying they will do. Easy, they don't have 5 votes yet. They're still one away. Just 1. Think about that the next time many of you are on here threatening to vote for John McCain because, hey, what difference could 4 years make? Apparently a big one.