Kate, I think it was a nice letter, and I have no doubt that we do have many of the same goals in mind. This is why seeing the campaign devolve this way is so upsetting to me. Hillary did so much as say the other day that reasonable people could make a choice between herself and McCain, but that all other dem voters were basically delusional. That statement was WAY over the line. Note the upper case WAY. That's just part of the energy that is making me angry with her. As I see it, the main difference between Clinton and Obama, as she has continually been saying, is that she claims she has the experience to make it happen while he does not. But her speech about how all Obama has is a speech is itself just a speech. It doesn't mean anything in itself. I want to see her inspire and elevate herself, not spend all this time knocking the legs out from under Obama, and certainly not implying that if the nomination doesn't go to her, the better choice would be to vote for McCain. Again, that idea is not only WAY over the line, in context it sounds almost desperate and insane.

The reason I think Obama is the paradigm shifter is the energy he has drawn from young people. I work at a community college, deal with a lot of young people (how old it makes me to say those words: the young people) and they are - most of them by far - all passionate for Obama. My experience of the past several years is seeing them basically apathetic. One reason for their apathy, I think, is that so many issues that we keep battling over (gay marriage, racsim, you name it) are just so old and tired to them: "Oh, one of my friends turns out to be gay? Yawn. You couldn't be boring me more." Not all of them are like that, but certainly far more of them are than when I was their age.

If the country is ever to move in the direction I'd like to see, that youthful energy must be cultivated and encouraged. If it's not, the only people who will eventually enter politics are the cynical, the calculators, the realists who see how the current machine runs and will think nothing of keeping it rolling exactly as it is, because that's the way the machine works.

Believe me, I don't want to be at your throat over this matter. Wage an illegal war, attack the constitution, set yourself as untouchable, above the law, however, as the current administration has, and a McCain administration will further perpetuate, and it will be a different matter.

And now, I must leave this charming dialogue for awhile. The real world beckons, and I have work to do.

I hear this argument over and over, and I'd like it explained pleased.

How does Clinton winning over Obama in a few states suddenly translate into proof that Obama can't deliver a victory in that state?

Both candidates, after all, did pretty good, and if you combine the Democratic vote the total easily trounces the votes for Republicans, so how does the win for Hillary indicate anything useful about the general election in November?

It seems to me the only way the gloom and doom prediction can come true is if vast numbers of Hillary supporters jump party lines to vote for McCain, just as Hillary's now infamous statement would seem to indicate as the preferable choice. But that would be to say that Hillary supporters look at her proposed platform, look at Obama's very similar platform and McCain's radically different platform and find that, in lieu of their preferred choice, their best interests are served in voting for McCain.

Am I reading this situation incorrectly? Hillary supporters, please enlighten me! Are you really, truly so invested in Hillary as president that you would engage in this kind of scorched earth retribution? Hillary doesn't get the nomination, so you just usher in McCain? Endless Iraq occupation, more right wing Supreme Court judges, and all the other attendant horrors? Really? Obama is that abhorrent to you? I'm trying to understand here. Please.

Okay, so I barely survived the Bessie Smith test. Had to run the old brain a few seconds before the name clicked up. However, I'm generally with him on how we could easily lose a few really stupid people.

How about the person, a life-long citizen of the United States and a college graduate, who asked me one day who the person on the penny was? Abraham Lincoln. —"Who?" — Sixteenth president of the United States. Was president during the civil war. — "Huh? The what?" — Oh, splendid, thinks I, and you're allowed to vote and everything.

When Harlan gets on about stupid people, it's usually more about the "My opinion is just as good as any other opinion" assholes. You know, the kind of person I still meet who says something like, "Hey, if the Iraqis don't want us invading their country, maybe next time they'll think twice before Saddam flies a plane into one of our buildings; I only wish I could vote for Bush for another four years. I'm just calling it the way I see it."

How about assholes like those? Can we shoot them?

I will always thank Ellison for waking me up in high school through his writing, and saving me from a life of dull conformity. I hear what you all are saying, but I've noticed in life that even his haters can't wait to chip in with their big Ellison story. No doubt about it, the guy gets around. Even I have had a few encounters with him, but they're kind of boring though.