But I do wish Salon writers could watch out for the loaded language, where they turn an otherwise positive comment into a negative. Here, once again, I see more of an interpretation that Obama supporters are the immovable objects in this equation.

Well, in the past week, I've met several Hillary supporters who are supporting her "Because it's time for a woman President."

"Okay, but what about this point or that point?"

"Men have had the power long enough. Time for a woman."

"Okay, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just trying to have a discussion, here. What about issue X? It could be that neither candidate has a good enough answer right now."

"All I know is it's time for a female to be president." And etc.

Each of these Hillary supporters seemed to have no vision at all beyond that one core idea. Time for a female; end of story. No more discussion.

The problem with the title of this piece is that they are not in a stalemate. Hillary has been checkmated; she can't overtake Obama's lead. She can't win, but she won't concede. Her only strategy is to take it to the superdelegates and hope that they give her the nomination in spite of her having lost through the regular rules of the game.

So, ultimately, I find this endless replay on Salon of the same old story to be really frustrating. The camps are obviously set in, and the basic tone of all these articles seems to be that the Obama supporters should just stop being so obstinate and vote for Hillary. How about writing something about the policy's of each candidate. Why one person is better in one area, and the other person might be better in another. How can we find common ground?

I feel like I keep writing the same letter. Salon is uniquely placed to elevate the discussion. Let us discuss our mutual vision for 2009, as we try to undo the damage wrought by the neo-con nightmare. Let's show those blue-collar workers and the college-educated people alike how we are not as different as we might think.

For the last couple of years I've kept hearing about how bad Uwe Boll is supposed to be. Now, I admit that I've only seen "In the Name of the King," and it is admittedly derivative and cliched a lot of the time, but it was nowhere near as awful as the word of mouth would have it. I'm not saying it was good, but it wasn't awful.

I think Boll is correct in his assertion that Hollywood does release films that are as worse or more all the time. For instance, I thought the Fantastic Four/Silver Surfer movie was easily on the same level of blehhh as "In the Name of the King," what with it's reinvention of Galactus as a giant space cloud, or whatever it was supposed to be. Blehhh.

My attitude to Boll is this: if he has the resourcefulness to go out and raise the money, hire the technical people, gather everyone in one spot, deal with the million and one things that can go wrong on a set, shoot the film, see it through post-production and secure a distribution deal in a marketplace that is increasingly monolithically designed to keep people like Uwe Boll out of the marketplace, then he doesn't need any advice from all the millions of fanboys complaining that his movies aren't nearly as good as the ones they would make if they ever got off their ass and decided to make a movie. Oh, no. Their movie would be much better, almost automatically. Yeah, whatever.

Well, laugh all you want but I'm betting that the next time those guys start to hate us for our freedom, they're gonna think twice, long and hard.

I wish you had been the moderator of the last debate. All your questions are right on.

At least I think they are. I can't tell unless I first know if you were wearing a flag pin when you wrote them. That's the important thing.

I wonder - if Obama had won last night do you think that Clinton would be bowing out today, acknowledging that the writing is on the wall for her 2008 aspirations? Given that her only remaining strategy is to take it to the convention and hope the Superdelegates give her the victory she has been unable to earn through the primary process, did Obama ever have a chance of "closing the deal?" I think it's a fair question considering the obvious slant of the headline. If he'd taken 75 percent of the vote, but Hillary still stayed in the race, I bet you'd be running the same headline.

When Obama wins North Carolina, I wonder how Salon will be spinning that one. I bet it won't be "Hillary unable to gain ground on Obama." No, it will be just another spin job about how if you factor in this or that, Hillary actually won in a landslide.

The only thing that has scared me the last seven years is the reality of what the Bush gang as been doing to the country and the constitution. The only thing that scares me on the horizon is McCain carrying on more of the same.

I think the thing Hillary fears most is that she doesn't get to be President.