If you look at tape of Hillary's first run at the Senate, it's clear to me that she has worked at it. She has a voice which can go up into her throat when she speaks louder, a throat voice, which, with her basic so-so timbre, can sound screechy. In terms of speaking voice alone, I would advise her to stay away from large rallies. She is very good at "close-up magic," when she's just talking to a few people. Another thing would be to work with a good voice coach, and the other thing is to relax, so her voice could travel down to her diaphragm, where all voices are supposed to be.

There was a voice teacher who used to be on TV out in LA who could demonstrate a throat voice and the strange, strangled voice of Henry Kissinger. The point is, though, lots of politicians have less than great voices, but we like them anyway. It helps, for a politician, to have a pleasing voice. But it's not everything.

People seem so intoxicated. I'm still waiting for it. I see a guy who was endorsed by Ben Nelson. I see a guy whose health care plan is almost like Edwards', which Hillary copied, and he didn't, all the way, because I can only guess he wants Republican votes -- which he gets more than 50% of -- in the fall? I doubt it -- and young people's votes, so he's doing them a favor somehow by not covering them. Wow, thanks Obama!

And don't wait for Russert to come clean.

We need a progressive network, you know? Screw these mutimillionaire Reagan Democrats who sold out to the right-wing nutcase billionaire, and now live in big fancy houses in the Vineyard right next to the guy who tried to fix the 2000 election. Why do they have an audience?

Anything wrong with that? It's only fitting, because it was Republican decisions that led to Florida Democrats getting stuck between disobeying the party and accepting a Republican victory on a ridiculous tax measure.

But what about Michigan? Are they so broke they couldn't have a Democratic primary?

One thing it would settle, once and for all, is this: can Obama carry a large industrial state in a primary?

I'd want a primary, too. Nothing dramatizes the questions I have more than Obama's victory in the Texas caucus, while he was losing the popular vote in a primary. It's pretty strange when the populist candidate does with the lower turnout of a caucus. He's apparently winning the Texas caucus by 2,000 votes out of 40,000, as of this writing, while Hillary took the primary by 100,000 out of 3,000,000 votes. Percentage-wise, that's the same result in reverse. It gives him more delegates at the same time as 100,000 more people actually voted for Hillary. How much sense does that make?

Oh, and another detail: Obama got 80% of the black vote, but their turnout was lower than the last time. That was surprising as hell to me. What's happening there?

My question is, is Obama scalable? (He's run a very Internet-savvy campaign, and his supporters will know what I mean.) Sure, in a red state with the governor on his side, he can trounce Hillary in a caucus, while denouncing the superdelegates as unrepresentative. So, let's throw down: Michigan, Florida, fair fight. Who gets the most votes? Who wins the popular vote? Hmm. Are those closed primaries?

Longer term, one of the things we owe to Howard Dean is that we're all getting to know the state Democratic parties. Man, some of those things are creaky, and the party rules are also weird. We need one set of rules on how to award delegates. I myself don't like caucuses, or the strange Texas rule that bases how many delegates who get awarded partially based on how many voted last election. What the heck is that about?

You know, there's despair in the Obama camp today. Don't worry. Your guy is still ahead, and likely will end up the candidate. But if his election would depend on not counting two major states, that's not so inspiring, is it?

Funny how everything is that way.

I know who should drop out: Tweety. Wouldn't it be great not seeing his crazed face or blustering vote telling us which Republican man -- or Barack -- sends thrills shooting up his leg?

Look, the dispute between the DNC and the Democratic Parties of Florida and Michigan are pretty Inside Baseball. Political junkies care about it, but these are the people of two states whose votes will not be counted unless we do something about it. Any Democrat should think that is unacceptable, and certainly, the followers of the populist candidate, who makes such a big deal of the superdelegate system as undemocratic, (and with some justificiation, but you know, that was decided a long time ago, and not by Hillary) -- should be a little careful about "punishing" the voters of two whole states.

I say, let 'em have a kosher vote -- primaries, preferably, it helps turn out the vote -- with only the two contenders on the ballot, and then get the primary system fixed more long-term at the convention.

You're partially wrong. Obama and Edwards had their names on the ballot, but took them off at the last minute. Obviously there's a big problem with that. But the names were on the ballot in Florida. Of course, nobody campaigned there, so you could say Hillary possibly got the name recognition vote.

These are the votes of fellow Democrats. They should have their proper influence at the convention.