The perception of a massively pro-Clinton bias of the media, and a prejudice against Obama, is inexplicable to me. It's like the Fox News people who, thinking of the press in the '60s or something, see nothing but "liberal bias." Methinks both camps see what they want to see. The press as a whole have been savagely dismissive of Hillary, and in fact they've been the secret ingredient, allowing Obama to float like a butterfly while the press is stinging like bees. We had the relentless Russert being about as "journalistic" with Hillary as a seal hunter with a baby seal. Trick question after trick question, until she buckled. And Obama went in for the kill, even though his position on the question is very much like Spitzer's. But he's gotten a free ride.

Matthews on MSNBC has been having a festival of smarm, dissing Hillary -- not on policy, that's fair game -- but on her "authenticity" and her femininity. The guy's a psycho, and he represents a lot of millionaire idiots. It's not a right-wing press, though it definitely tilts right, but it's sure as hell not left either. Tell you what, lovers of the empty speaker, if the past front-runner falls, they're coming after you. It's like sharks. That's just what they do.

Remember, it was only a little while ago that MoDo was calling Obama "Obambi."

And tell me, what great thing have i got to hope for? And no, electing a black president isn't good enough. If it was Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas, it would be a disaster. So where is your man at?

As far as I'm concerned, I think Hillary is the best compromise between ideals and realism. Others disagree. I wouldn't be upset if Edwards, or any of the rest, win. If Kucinich were to get the nod, I'd work very hard for him in his hopeless cause. Our Goldwater defeat? No, there's been too many. But the one I'm most disappointed with is Obama. What does he stand for? I agree with Talbot that the early tussle with Hillary over who they'd negotiate with was silly, but so are a lot of the silly things said by Obama and his acolytes.

He forever echoes right-wing memes on Social Security, on unions (who's got no union endorsements?), and now on "trial lawyers." Is he just, maybe, opportunistically winking at Republicans, who will be able to go over to the Democratic caucuses and vote for the guy who repeats so many of their code words?

Obama is, uh, young. Never trust anybody over 46? Who sez? Really stupid idea when Jerry Rubin first tried to make age a political delimiter. Still a stupid idea. Because he's "change"? Really? What change? Isn't he just triangulating, with a lot of help from Dowd and Rich and MSNBC? Attacking Hillary, not from the left, but from the right? Obama's campaign thus far: I'm young, I'm for change, and Hillary is an old bitch. Hardly progressive politics. Bill Bradley with better speeches, still uninspiring, and still wrong. Look at the one place where he's put some detail in his policies: his healthcare plan sucks.

But his supporters know about a dozen lines against Hillary, which is the backbone of his campaign. Take Kyl-Lieberman. Forget the fact that it was non-binding. Forget the fact that the worst part, the near-declaration of war with Iran, was taken out before the vote. Hillary voted to put the Iranians on notice that even the Democrats would look at the aid Iran was giving to the militias as an unfriendly act. Guess what: it's subsided. Take his senior senator, Dick Durbin: he voted for the resolution. Where was Obama? When the noxious parts of the bill were still there, he decided that it was more important for him to be in New Hampshire. But now, when the idea that this was a hawkish vote has taken hold on the left, he too denounces Hillary's vote on something that he didn't think was important enough to show up for. I call that cynical politics as usual.

But the fans of Obama never seem united in anything but hatred of Clinton, and a kind of vague admiration for their guy. Shapiro was urged, by one writer, to forget about those issue thingies and concentrate on the crowds and the charismatic leader. That doesn't give me any confidence at all. Enthusiasm from the devotees means nothing unless you know what the theme is. What is the theme? Will it be an Obama-Bloomberg "let's all feel groovy while repeating right-wing memes" all the time? Why is it that so many tiresome people, from Broder to Bloomberg to, yes, Obama, say "bipartisan" when they mean "center-right"?

Of course, I really loved to provoke the outrage, the "that's beyond the pale" thinking.

Being a Clinton backer, you get used to being called all kinds of names. Apparently Hillary started the Punic Wars, never meant to pass healthcare at all, and any questioning of Obama's policies means she's being unspeakably negative; she's just like Bush, after all, right?

He's given Obama campaign advice. And Obama's following it.

Sounds a lot like that old song, "Tomorrow belongs to Us!" But I guess that was an old, now-discredited political movement. Look, pick Edwards. Pick Dodd or Richardson or anybody. I liked Obama at the beginning, but the guy is an empty-headed huckster, as dry as Bradley. But he's cool, and all the young folks just love him, because he's... and he'll... we'll, he's not those baby boomers. Except, technically, he is.