Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus should NOT be the model for the rest of the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Is this where we want it to end - with everyone bloodied (not unbowed BUT dead)? Does this further the interest of electing a Democratic president - the whole point after all?? My letter, posted 11:32 this a.m. (2/23), makes many of the same points that you make in your letter (hey, maybe you plagiarized my work!). Yes, I completely agree that the general election will be nasty, ugly, dirty - the way the Republicans like it. And, yes, the Democratic nominee better be prepared for it - prepared to meet each and every attack head on (my 11:32 am letter talks about this in detail). In her article, Joan Walsh took the position that Clinton should not "withdraw if her poll numbers drop in Ohio and Texas" but went on to speculate that this might be good for the Democrats, "as long as the two candidates don't bloody themselves." Agreed that you can't "nice" your way to the Presidency. But Clinton and Obama are not yet running for the Presidency - they are running to be the Democratic nominee. Of course "nice" won't cut it against the Republicans, however, it is up to each and every Democratic strategist (whether they are now with Clinton or Obama) to unite and develop a strategy to come out swinging after the convention and, indeed, well before. There is a danger in waiting until the primary season is over for the Democrats to "make nice" with each other. Unfortunately, because, as you say Hillary Clinton is a fighter, and will not quit until every last option to win is exhausted, if the candidates ratchet up the attacks, really go for each other's jugular, I fear that the Democrats will begin the general election campaign without the energy (and unity) that will be critical to winning this "do or die" fight.

In my last post I ended with: "Unfortunately, because, as [evans evans said] Hillary Clinton is a fighter, and will not quit until every last option to win is exhausted, if the candidates ratchet up the attacks, really go for each other's jugular, I fear that the Democrats will begin the general election campaign without the energy (and unity) that will be critical to winning this "do or die" fight." What I have been trying to say is that, yes, the problem lies with Clinton - she is willing to go down fighting and take Obama and any chances the Democrats have of winning in November with her - but I wish it were otherwise. The Democrats must be strong and united in the general election. At this point, I don't know how this can happen. So, maybe you're right the best course of action for Obama is to not engage directly with Clinton when she attacks and instead continue making his case directly to the American people.

This article ranks in my top 10 "worst articles I have read during this campaign season." I dare say it is probably even in the top 5. This article is "much ado about nothing" other than the joy that the sound of his fingers dancing across the keyboard brings to Mr. McClelland's life. (Or maybe it is intended as humor, satire, irony, whatever and I just don't get it.)

Will some men not vote for a woman? Yes.

Will some women vote for Hillary because she is a woman and for that reason only? Yes.

Will some men and/or women not vote for McCain because he is 71 and for that reason only? Yes.

Will some men and/or women not vote for Obama because he is black and for that reason only? Yes.

Will some men and/or women vote for Obama because he is black and for that reason only? Yes.

In short, are there voters who will vote for Clinton, McCain or Obama for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with each candidates ability to effectively lead this country? Of course. Is this something completely new, something we have never ever seen in any election in this country before? Of course not.

...especially on foreign policy. Clinton campaign manager, Maggie Williams, says, "if [the Obama campaign] wants to suggest that [the Somali dress photo] is divisive, they should be ashamed." The Obama campaign is not suggesting that the photo is devisive. Rather, the photo is intended to appeal to voters who may harbor doubts that Obama is really "one of us" or who think that there just might be something to the "Muslim thing." That is not divisive that is fear-mongering. The most critical task that will face our next President will be to begin to repair relations with the rest of the world . Clinton's Bush/Cheney/Rove-like smear tactic (Obama = Muslim Muslim = bad, therefore, Obama = bad) can only hurt the task of restoring America's standing around the globe. Clinton claims that her "experience" in foreign policy is one reason why she will make the better President. Conceding her "experience" claim for the sake of argument, it would appear that with all this "experience" she has gained not one wit of the wisdom, judgment or common sense that is required to lead this country in such dangerous times. What Clinton's publication of this photo shows is how desperate she is and that she will stop at nothing to gain the nomination even if it is damaging to our nation!!