New Yorker Lawyer raises an interesting point with respect to Clinton's apropos of nothing reminder of Jesse Jackson's SC primary victories. I think all of us saw it as a way to marginalize black voters but the idea that it was also intended to rev up tensions between the Jewish and black communities... ? Wow! These guys are good! So, hey factcheck 2, they do not need Karl Rove - they've been doing this kind of stuff for years (look at the way they treated the late Paul Tsongas in 1992) all by themselves. And, does Atlanta214 seriously believe that Bill Clinton was a starry-eyed naif when he went to Washington "until he learned how rough a town it is?" Ah... right. I think that Bill Clinton could and can rough it up with the best of them so I will shed no tears for his lost innocence.

I would like to add that I am not and never have been either a Bill or Hillary Clinton hater. And I never understood the visceral, irrational Clinton hatred that is out there. On the other hand I never understood the adulation either. I voted twice for Bill. Idealogically I am a liberal Democrat, he was the Democratic nominee, simple as that. Nor did I ever get any pleasure from all the anti-Clinton witch hunts not least of which was the Lewinsky thing - they disgusted me. (Wouldn't it be lovely if we could go back to a world where a blue dress and a blow job were the worst we had to worry about. We fiddled while Rome burned - thanks to all of you who accused Clinton of "wagging the dog" when he tried to take out Al Qaeda in August of 1998). But now I am seeing things in this campaign that I think are ugly and divisive and it makes me wonder if maybe the Clinton haters were on to something. I want to respect the Democratic nominee but if it is Clinton and if they have not reigned in the ugly campaign tactics, I will, as I have for every presidential election I have voted in (since 1976) hold my nose while I make a choice that is, at best, the lesser of two evils. How sad.

You got that right. Hillary sure knows a lot about shifting landscapes.

I am so pleased that you brought up the issue of the prevalence of ad hominem attacks on these and other forums. These forums could serve as an opportunity for vigorous debates/discussions - a place where a variety of POVs can be expressed, treated with respect and discussed in a calm, well-reasoned, intellectual way. Unfortunately, so much of what I read does not even come close to this ideal. It is possible to be both a strong, powerful, and passionate advocate for your POV without going negative or falling back on ad hominem attacks. (In the hierarchy of debate tactics ad hominem attacks are at the bottom because they do nothing to advance one's argument.) In fact, a well-reasoned argument, presented calmly and coherently can do one of three things: 1) preach to the choir, yes, but also strengthen the choir's POV so that it can preach from a stronger position; 2) persuade someone - bring them around to your POV; or 3) without acrimony or rancour you and your opponent may agree to disagree. Here are my three wishes for the future of online discussions:

1.) No more ad hominem attacks.

2.) Before you respond to a post read it carefully and analytically - make sure you understand the other's POV. If you do not fully understand all or some points, maybe in your post you can ask for clarification.

3.) Before you hit "Publish my letter" hit "Preview." Make sure you have said what you meant to say and that you have said it in a clear, well-reasoned way. And you should at least try to respond to your opponents arguments - compare and contrast is always helpful.(And, of course, that you have not resorted to gratuitous nastiness or ad hominem attacks. Wit, irony, sarcasm, satire, parody, etc. can all be helpful tools in expressing your POV - just don't go too negative here.)

Re: NY NOW statement. This is not quite the tempest in the teapot that some would have us believe it is. Perhaps if it had come from a NOW chapter in a state where very little was at stake in the upcoming primaries. But this was from New York - a state that Hillary must win. You can't tell me that members of NY-NOW are green behind the ears political bumpkins - please, they are all seasoned experts in advocacy. Of course this is intended to get Hillary the women's vote in New York and it will probably succeed. (Just as her show of emotion and the whining about the bully boys ganging up on her - especially that nasty Obama being so mean and saying she's likeable enough (the horror) - helped her get the women's vote in New Hampshire.) National NOW's more reasonable statement on Ted Kennedy was just a good cop/bad cop thing meant to diffuse the NY statement but with a wink and fingers crossed behind backs. The NY-NOW statement is out there, it will remain out there and it will, unfortunately, probably have an impact.

You ask "How can Obama win a presidency and act like a President if he needs to be rescued?" Well, a similar question can be asked about Hillary's floundering primary campaign which is being rescued by Bill the attack dog. If the strategy works and she gains the nomination - can Hillary win the presidency and act like a president if she needs to be rescued by Big Bad Bubba the rescue dog?