For me, articles about Hillary Clinton, especially those written by liberals, are like the "Conventional Wisdom" section of Newsweek Magazine. I don't get it, at all. I don't find Senator Clinton at all polarizing and find no more reason to "hate" her than any male politician. How can you write anything about the latest Democratic debate without pointing out that all the other candidates ganged up to attack Clinton and that the ostensible moderator, Tim Russert, was completely unfair and biased against Clinton. Russert even misstated facts in some of his accusatory questions. Clinton never "told" Russert, for instance, that she would not lift the cap on the income subject to the Social Security tax. What she said was that nothing or everything is on or off the table and that after she's elected she will appoint a bipartisan commission to come up with any solutions necessary to see that Social Security remains solvent. Russert blatantly misstated this. Incidentally, Alan Greenspan himself told Russert on Meet the Press that there is no Social Security crisis and that the program is easily fixable. Russert simply chooses to ignore the facts on this issue, as he tries to pump up a "crisis" which doesn't exist. I was very disappointed in the conduct of the other Democratic candidates. The last thing we want is to help the mainstream media construct another bogus "storyline" about the Democratic Presidential candidate, as they've done in the last several elections. Actually, the very last thing America needs is the election of another radical right-wing Republican, who will continue Bush's work of tearing up the Constitution and destroying our American society in favor of a Hobbesian world of "all against all," otherwise known as the "Ownership Society."

Senator Joe Lieberman can't possibly expect to be reelected again after endorsing a Republican for President, can he? Maybe this means he intends to retire after his current term. Does Connecticut have a recall provision? If so, I wish they'd use it.

I watched the debate twice and was very much upset because two of my favorite politicians were attacking each other. I hope this doesn't preclude a Clinton-Obama ticket in the general election. Mr. Shapiro, however, has the order of attacks completely wrong. Senator Obama made the very first attack by saying that the Clintons' attacks on his record were not factually correct, aiming directly at Bill Clinton in the process. Obama is also the one who first pointed out that Hillary was on the WalMart Board. Only after that did she go nuclear with the charge that Senator Obama had represented a "slum lord." It is, therefore, incorrect to say that Obama knows how to respond to attacks, as he was actually the attacker. I don't ascribe any particular motive to Mr. Shapiro in reversing the actual order of things, but his factually inaccurate account does dovetail better with a "storyline" about the "Clinton Attack Machine." If we liberals can't get the facts straight, what do we think the scurrilous, low life Republicans will do in the general election?

I can't believe that Walter Shapiro could possibly have checked John Edwards' actual words before he accused Senator Clinton of swiping them. The sentiments were basically the same but the words were completely different. I think Shapiro should retract and apologize to the Senator for this unwarranted accusation. Incidentally, Senator Clinton's words were extremely moving and I'd actually like to hear them again. That doesn't happen very often with modern politicians.

Wait a minute, if Senator Obama is really at ease with himself and relates well to others even when he rolls a gutter ball, then could Maureen Dowd in the NY Times possibly have been making a bunch of stuff up about Obama being an effete snob, who turns his nose up to an offer of chocolate and daintily throws a bowling ball into the gutter as he turns off working class Pennsylvanians with his intellectual elitism? NAH, couldn't be! After all, Ms. Dowd truthfully disclosed that Al Gore said he invented the internet and was a role model for a character in Love Story. She also truthfully reported that during the 2004 campaign John Kerry said, "Who amongst us does not like NASCAR," didn't she? Didn't she truthfully call John Edwards, who made the Clemson football team as a walk-on (I'd like to see cheerleader Bush do that) the "Breck Girl?" I wonder when, if ever, our liberal journalists will start calling their mainstream brethren on this kind of nonsense? I guess when the mainstream media conglomerates stop handing out prestigious, high-paying jobs to those who don't rock the boat too hard.

I applaud Joan Walsh for having the guts to swim against the stream of incredibly ignorant, cruel and blatantly unfair criticism of Hillary Clinton's reference to Bobby Kennedy. It's obvious that what Hillary meant was that Bobby had just won the California primary and his campaign was just revving up in June of 1968. I'm a true yellow dog Democrat who thinks it is imperative for the survival of our constitutional form of government that a Democrat be elected President in 2008. Nonetheless, I have been taken aback by the so-called liberals and Democrats willing to "believe," or, more accurately, suspend their disbelief about, almost anything derogatory regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Clintons as "racists?" Ridiculous on its face. Keith Olbermann, for one, should be absolutely ashamed of himself and Chris Matthews is way beyond the pale (not a racial reference for you Obama supporters). The primary season has reminded me that liberals can be every bit as unfair, unreasoning, deceitful and inured to facts as right-wingers. It's very disappointing.