In the early days of radio, they put records on the air and discovered that was their most popular content. So the music publishing business got really upset and demanded that radio pay, even though radio made pop music much more "pop." So they negotiated the system we've had until today. The fact is, the Internet is the way that music spreads these days. I envision a market where you might get free tracks by sanctioned P2P, or a stream like LAST or something like that, but if you want high-quality sound, without copy protection but maybe with a tag id, then you pay a little extra.

The point is, technology has outstripped the old model where the kids heard the latest on AM, and went and bought 45s -- the Elvis model -- or they heard the music on FM and went and bought the latest Beatles album. The recording industry and the Internet industries need to sit down and negotiate a new pact. Treating music fans as if they were thieves guarantees only new thieves.

Here's another model: lower the price per high-quality track to maybe 25 cents. That would eliminate piracy, because, well, why bother? iTunes and the Zune store and wherever are searchable and contain as close to every track ever recorded as you can get. Why go to Pirate Bay and look for something that isn't favored by Swedish teenagers at the moment, or try to get a torrent going when there's nobody seeding? Just click the button.

The time to think about bipartisanship is when we've crushed the Republicans at the ballot box another two or three times, and they're walking funny when they sign what we put in front of them. Now THAT's bipartisanship I can believe.

Seriously. This is nice for Obama. It's attracting lots of naive young people, the kind who say, "Ohmigosh, Obama's so kewl. But if he doesn't win the nomination, I'll vote for McCain!"

We need to move the political center back to around where it was in 1966 and have a do-over. Wait until the Rockefeller Republicans are back, and Eisenhower is back from the grave. Then make deals. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of idealistic crap.

She got the most votes, in a state where the people were told their votes wouldn't count and where, maybe significantly, there hadn't been a barrage of ads or putrid punditry by the new popes of the press. People just came and voted. Now, of course, the huge lead in Florida must be discounted/suppressed, because it didn't make the Anointed One the winner. It's appalling to me how this result is being glossed over, or worse, being used as "proof" that she cheats. All the candidates were on the ballot. There were other propositions on the ballot that got Democrats out, and they voted. More people voted for Hillary than for McCain. (Oh. I'm deeply sorry. Hillary can't win against McCain, of course. How foolish of me to disagree with the Obama Bible of Self-Serving Speculation.)

Now, as to whether they should be counted, here's the way it goes. If Obama's up in the delegate count, they won't count unless he doesn't need the delegates. If Hillary's up in the delegate count, and it isn't the deciding margin to count her victories in Florida and Michigan, they will count. What decides that? Can you say, "politics?"

About how we got to ignore the votes of two populous, delegate-rich states, particularly in Florida, where the Republican legislature snookered the Democrats into this, well, I don't know. Mr. Dean, you're a great guy, and I love what you're doing generally, but I think we got screwed here.

I hope that Edwards doesn't endorse anybody. I'd like to see him somewhere commenting on the other candidates, in terms of this or that policy. He won't do that of course, but should it make a difference who he endorses? He has his principles, which he represented ably. Now's the time for him to say, "This Obama policy doesn't make sense to me," or "Hillary ought to step up here." Endorse? His supporters are smart. They'll make up their own minds.

Back in the old days of conventions, a candidate who wasn't going anywhere after a few ballots would drop out of consideration. He'd either ask his supporters to go to x, or he'd just release his delegates. If he released his delegates to one candidate over another, he was the likely recipient of a vice presidential offer, or a consideration for Secretary of this or that. Maybe that kind of bargaining is going on. Who knows?

How nice to introduce the topic of race and not be bashed for it, whereas the Clintons don't raise race and they catch hell. Funny how that works.

I got an e-mail. It gave you one box for Obama, one for Clinton. I wish there had been a box for "no endorsement," because that's what MoveOn is supposed to be: progressive, no ties to any candidate. Next time they want money from me, they can ask Obama for it.

I remind you that Kucinich won a lot of click polls on a lot of websites.