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.

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.

People keep repeating the idea that all Republicans who are switching are doing so just to be a spoiler in the election.

My mother, a life-long Registered Republican (though she hasn't always voted that way) changed her registration the other day because she wants to vote for Obama in the primary.

She will not be casting a vote for McCain in the fall. She knows that the Bush agenda in no way resembles the Republican ideals that she grew up with. I'm sure she's not the only Republican to legitimately feel the same way.

Some Republicans may be trying to act as spoilers, but It would definitely be wrong to claim, as some have in these threads, that ALL switching Republicans are spoilers.

Two reservations: Del Toro is too unique a voice in his own right. I'd rather see, in those four years, a couple of films emerging from his own sensibility.

Two: I must admit, it's hard to imagine trying to merge Del Toro's visual design sense with the look and feel of the LOTR universe that Jackson has already created

I think Jackson should have picked one of the many competent "craftsman" like directors available; not necessarily visionary types themselves, but excellent at cracking the whip and delivering the film. By calling them "craftsmen," I don't mean to sound like I'm downplaying what they do. Hollywood used to have many of these kind under the studio system. Given a western, they could deliver a reasonably decent western, then a couple of months later they could be doing a hard boiled detective movie, or a comedy.

For the Hobbit, I foresee two distinct visual and philosophical sensibilities clashing, not always to the best service of the material.