I'm late to the party here, but I'd like to thank AKASmith (or was it lateagain?), for pointing out something that I hadn't really thought about.

No, Hillary isn't a racist, but her obsessive focus on electability is divisive (especially in this case), and bizarre. And it's true, I don't get how we've reached this point where continually talking about how electable you are can be viewed as:

1) Important.

2) Interesting.

3) A viable political strategy.

Politically speaking, talking about electability is dead air. "I'm more electabile!" So. And? Either you are or you aren't, but that's not really a message. It doesn't make me care about you, one way or another. It's like if I go with my friend to the video store:

"Hey, what movie should we rent tonight?"

"How about 'Titanic'?"

"Um."

"What. You don't want to see 'TITANIC'?"

"Well..."

"But it's the highest grossing movie of all time!"

"So? What's your point?"

"So? So out of all movies, it's the movie that the most people want to see. So, therefore, you should want to see it too!"

"Have you gone insane?"

...See the problem here? Why would Hillary talking about how electible she is make me care about her in the slightest?(Especially since, if she's so f#cking electible, then I don't really have to care at all, now do I? Other people will choose her as President, whether I give a crap or not.)

...And as the current campaign shows, talking about electibility all the time is a house of cards. It sort of worked when Hillary was ahead in the polls. But as soon as the race was tied, or Obama was ahead, it became useless as an argument. Talking about your own electibity only really works when you're winning.

And what good is a political argument that only works when you're winning? Seems kind of redundant, no?

I'm so proud, in a weird way. The first stupid RNC attack ad against Obama! We've made it to the big time, baby! I remember watching Obama's speech during the Kerry nominating convention and thinking "God, if only he was our nominee instead of droopy-pants Kerry; but of course, that... would never happen..."

And now, four year later, it's all happening. Sweet.

And yeah, I love the RNC's use of hypotheticals in this ad.

"CAN WE ASK BARACK OBAMA IF HE SUPPORTS GIVING THE VOTE TO EVIL VAMPIRES AND SUPPORTS FLOODING THE ENTIRE MIDWEST WITH A VAST TIDAL WAVE OF ORANGE JUICE?!"

Yeah. Sure. You can ask him that. You can ask any hypothetical question. It doesn't mean that the question itself is in any way rooted in reality.

Has Joan Walsh ever written anything original or incisive or creative? When was the last time? Is there anything in these blogs that anyone hasn't already heard about, or read about? It reads like a blog written by someone who only had 45 minutes before deadline, and so just watched a bunch of stuff on MSN, and summarized that. Hillary's in trouble? Jeremiah Wright? She may drop out? But she has the right to continue, if she wants? But negative campaigning is bad?

Joan, if you don't have anything interesting to say, then remember; you don't have to say anything at all.

You are the perfect cross-section of the American public. Unfortunately, that's not really what I look for when I go to read opinion columns. If I want to hear what everyone else has already said, I can just turn on the TV or stick my head out the window, you know?

There are so many interesting ways to discuss this campaign. I don't see any of them happening here. But I am, as always, fascinated by the train-wreck that is your column, as well as your numerous horrible commentators. ...Hi, Shawn!

...By the way, I don't leave negative comments about writers on the internet. I get paid to write a column too, and I know how hard it is. But even if my column sucks, I at least make an effort to make it different, and original. And I have to write a sh#tload more content each week than Joan does.

So, negative comments about blog posts; I don't do it. I've been there myself. ...Crazy commentators; sure, I'll write mean sh#t in response to them; that's a whole different story. But I never EVER leave comments saying, "Hey, your column sucks." Never. Ever. Because I've been there, and I know how knee-jerk negative most people can be. ...But Joan, for the past few months, you have managed to bring me to that point. I have made an exception in your case. ...And that's very impressive.

My god, if Hillary actually wants one of the most useless political positions in America, then give to her. VP? Fine. Anything to make her supporters shut up. I think I'd be willing to tap-dance naked on my roof, at this point, if it would make her supporters shut up. We get it. You like her. And we're all... sexist or something. Got it. Got the message about three or four months ago, if you want to know the truth.

Salon.com... where you get last week's news today!

Oh, and Joan, cry me a m#therfucking river. No same person really thinks that Hillary was advocating Obama's assasination. What sane people think is that she said something tone-deaf and political -- something that would help her for that precise political second of her campaign -- without pausing to consider the larger implications what she was saying for longer than three seconds. Just like she's been doing for her entire campaign.

So cry me a m#therfucking river, Joan. I'm sure you didn't seriously think that Obama wanted to goddamn America to hell in the way that Reverend Wright's taken-out-of-context remarks suggested, but you managed to keep that one alive for three weeks in your blog, now didn't you?

In summation: you suck.