Billcap,

Your letter was extremely reasonable and I agree with almost every point you made, but was intrigued by this statement:

"I think Hillary knows if she wants the Clinton legacy to stay high she needs to take that high road"

From my own (admittedly biased) perspective, that ship has already sailed. It's no longer a question of the Clinton legacy staying high, but how low it can possibly go before this race is over. It seems that the Clintons have been burning long-term "legacy" for perceived short-term gains since at least South Carolina.

Given the behavior of Senator Clinton's campaign thus far, is taking the high road still an option? How forgiving will Democratic voters be, even if Clinton ends up conceding gracefully? How much "Rovian" campaigning will they accept before essentially disowning a candidate?

I ask these questions not to be argumentative, but to get perspectives other than my own (and I could be accurately described as Obama-centric). Here's my question to anyone who cares to respond: What are the future prospects, if any, of the Clinton legacy?

I can just imagine Senator Clinton's campaign advisors sitting in a planning meeting in 2007. They decide that her weakest point is a lack of political experience and, in perfect Bush-era/Orwellian form, decide to call her inexperience "EXPERIENCE" and put it front and center. After all, we've learned that if word combinations are repeated frequently, people may begin to believe them (i.e., Saddam-9/11 or Clinton-experience). Unfortunately, just being alive and of adult age (35 years of experience!) does not count as political experience. The Bush Administration has clearly demonstrated that experience isn't everything, but if it's going to be the central pillar of your candidacy it should be true. We've had enough "factual inaccuracies" and "false statements" this decade.

"Democratic lawmakers are becoming persuaded that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) would have a more positive impact on other Democrats on the November ballot than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)."

A pretty obvious conclusion, but I'm glad they're "becoming persuaded". Any Democrat running in 2008 is right to worry about Clinton appearing on the ballot. Anti-Clinton Republicans and Independents would come out of the woodwork simply to vote against Clinton, presumably voting against other Democrats on the ballot as well.

The "sure, American voters hate Hillary now, but once the general election rolls around they'll learn to love her" argument has always seemed a little shortsighted to me.

Truly awful.

How long before someone points out that the lyric "We don't need no bling, we've got the real thing" might be construed as "racially charged"? I'm not personally offended, but hey it's a slow news day. Discuss.

April 22nd can't come fast enough. Senator Clinton bought herself a little more time (who benefits from what she's doing with that time?) with her win in Ohio and quasi-win in Texas, but hopefully she will bow out shortly after Pennsylvania. Then we will no longer have a two front war and can devote all our energies to electing Barack Obama in November.

Can you imagine reading a speech as utterly honest, reasonable, unifying, and uplifting as the one given by Barack Obama this morning and feeling...anger and outrage. I can't either. If Hillary Clinton (or even John McCain) gave a comparable speech I'd be applauding them, not twisting the speech into something that fit my predisposition to distrust Clinton and McCain. Whether or not you support Obama, it was a great and important speech. Don't miss the message just because the messenger may not be your first choice for President.

Dear Ms. Walsh,

Why have you increasingly developed this habit of choosing article titles phrased in the form of a question with answers that are obvious, but not favorable to Senator Clinton? I have really enjoyed and respected your work, but it is beginning to feel like your sole purpose is to raise doubt after every Obama triumph (today's included). Was Obama's speech enough? Yes, and phrasing titles in the form of a question does not mean that all answers are equally valid. I look forward to "Obama elected President of the United States...Is it enough?"

The problem with the Clintons and the Republicans is that they're fighting yesterday's war, not realizing that the rules of the game are changing (sort of like attacking an unrelated nation state when the real enemy is Al Qaeda). Clinton and the Republicans excel at conventional thinking at the same time that people are getting more and more tired of conventional thinking. They launch conventional attacks against Obama and thus far he skillfully repels them because he does not respond in the expected way. Clinton and McCain are too hardened to think in any other way. They are too programmed and reactive. Meanwhile Obama maintains enough intellectual and political flexibility to easily sidestep these clumsy attacks. In November 2008, a fundamental break with the inept politics of the past is going to be a much stronger argument than the equivalent of a third Bush term.

Excellent letter, Frederick Bernanke. Lately, media coverage of the Democratic Primary reminds me of FOX World Series coverage. The Red Sox (Barack Obama) are up three games to none in a best-of-seven and dominating all aspects of the game, but the Rockies (Clinton) could still force a deciding Game 7, so stay tuned! Just because Senator Clinton hasn't been mathematically eliminated doesn't mean it's close.