It's all quite simply about the ego of a now doddering and irrelevant old man.

Her Imperial Majesty is going to give up her quest for power based on some poll numbers?

What're these people smoking and where can I get some? The only way you'll get Her Imperiousness away from the path to power is to beat her off with a stick. Besides, polls have been wrong before in this campaign and could well be wrong again. Lord knows, I'm no fan, but at the very least, she's game. She'll play out the string.

It's going to come down to a floor fight at the convention, barring any unforeseen circumstance, IMO.

The supposed "accomplished" one in the race voted to go to war with Iraq (although later claiming it was a vote for more inspections, thereby in one fell swoop calling into question both the "accomplished" one's judgement and veracity).

Accomplishments like that don't deserve to be rewarded. Those kind of "accomplishments" are the reason we're in the mess we find ourselves.

As ever, you always stand ready to address the issues.

Well, not so much.

It's been thrilling watching the tantrum.

First, I have no idea whether you be woman or man.

Second, your rush to impute sexism to my language speaks volumes about your issues, but addresses nothing within my post.

Third, your invariably over the top emotional reaction (eek, is that sexist, too?!) to anything Obama related is infinitely amusing, if not for it's plausibility (well, never that actually, since there would have to be some first) then certainly for it's predictability.

Amusing to see one pining for the erstwhile "National Mom" of yore (and fable) followed by another complaining of erstwhile (albeit feverishly imagined) sexism against same...

She comes up with a solution to that pesky lack of delegates problem that she's got, get back to us.

once again signifying nothing. Still, if this is the best "controversy" Her Imperial Majesty's campaign can manufacture to wail and gnash their teeth about, more power to them.

As usual in this race, I think the nature and motives of the finger pointers reveals more than the actual brouhaha (real or, as in this instance, imagined) being pointed at.

As to believe that Her Imperial Majesty would be oh-so-insistent on the rights of the "disenfranchised" of Michigan and Florida if she had LOST there?

Can anyone be so naive as to believe that Her Imperiousness wouldn't have stood a good chance of losing at least a fair portion of Florida and Michigan delegates had other candidates not followed the party mandate and either taken their name off the ballot or not campaigned there?

If any one of the Clinton breast-beaters REALLY gave a good goddamn about actual voter enfranchisement, wouldn't they be interested in pursuing a fair and impartial electoral process?

For the terminally robotic, those were purely rhetorical questions, so all you minions of Her Majesty need not respond...

Okay, she "departed" from the role of campaign manager to step down to the role of friend and "trusted advisor."

In political speak, that's pretty much the equivalent of being handed a gun with one bullet and told to "do the right thing."

lingers on this memo.

Where exactly Mr. Krugman draws his information, but here on Salon I've seen Clinton supporters that were nothing short of rabid.

I've always made it clear that my differences with Her Imperial Majesty were policy based, not based on gender, familial lines or other irrelevancies. Okay, well what I perceived as her initial her attitude of entitlement didn't help matters, but fundamentally I don't trust her judgment or veracity and I don't think she's electable.

I have not hesitated to point these concerns out on any number of occasions. Nor will I refrain from doing so in the future so as not to offend Mr. Krugman's (and, by extension, any other thin-skinned supporter of Her Imperial Majesty) delicate sensibilities.

By the way, Mr. Krugman, it IS a two-way street. Where are the opinions bemoaning the antics of the other side? The idea that they are as pure as Caesar's wife would be laughable were it not simply disingenuous. Rather, such a patently ridiculous notion is simply an indicator of an innate, puzzling and irrational bias-- much like that you claim to have found in Obama's supporters...

Apparently to write silly letters about articles they apparently didn't bother reading.

How narrow-minded. It's clearly about choice and free will, not mindlessly voting for one or the other because of gender or skin color or [fill in the blank].

But let's pillory her for making the "wrong" choice (as though there is a right and wrong one). That's SOOOOO much more enlightened and feminist.

I must've missed that "surrender to terror" plank on the Democratic platform.

Maybe it's right next to that "declare war on Christmas" plank.

Arrggh! You're right!

If only hand grenades were legal! Damn those NRA pansies!

That if the mere use of a vulgarity is so offensive to the public welfare as to constitute a crime, what about all those idiots who drive down the freeway at night with their brights on?

Can we just shoot them on sight?

I actually like that idea. I agree that these debates have degenerated into a circus of paid media mouthpieces trying vainly to appear Murrow-esque and "gotcha" moments from all sides. How much better to give each candidate an opportunity to fully discuss their platforms and take common sense questions from the general public!

Of course, because it makes so much sense, it'll never happen.

In a totally non-partisan way, I mean.

That's a truly amazing figure.

Well, I did my part and chipped in another fifty bucks on Wednesday morning.

No wonder she's trying to get a debate a week. Some of her staff is working without pay this month. She'll obviously be needing all the free publicity she can get.