You say that Walsh is preparing a new narrative in order to make a seamless jump onto the Obama bandwagon when the time comes. But I'm not so sure. Just as Hillary will only leave the stage kicking and screaming, I doubt Walsh will abandon her until that day finally arrives. Even if it means watching her precious little viper destroy the party.

Here's a good indicator of just how much Klinton Kool Aid Joan Walsh has drunk:

Last Friday, on MSNBC's "Race for the White House," host David Gregory played a clip of Bill Clinton addressing a group of veterans in Charlotte. He was talking about what a great thing a Hillary vs. McCain race would be for America. Why? Well, according His Slickness, "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country."

Obviously, Clinton's rather transparent attempt to characterize Obama as someone who doesn't love this country left the pundits on the program either appalled, bemused or somewhere in between. Except, of course, for Joan Walsh. She just kind of squinted at the camera and scrunched up her face like a child trying to figure out what all the adults were talking about.

I honestly don't know if Walsh's bubleheaded support of Hillary has blinded her completely or if she's just plain dumb -- but she clearly didn't get it.

Hey, Joan, I have an idea. It's sort of a "let's see how Joan will spin this one" challenge. Write an article on Hillary's trip to Bosnia in 1996. You know, the one where she claims to have landed "under sniper fire." Recount Hillary's version a few days ago versus actual tape of the event along with statements from other people who were there with her. Then tell us if you think she's a pathological liar or not. Please, please please. We'd all love to hear it.

Among all the other nonsense in his hate speech, Rev Wright also claims that:

- The U.S. government gives African-Americans drugs, created AIDS and is deliberately infecting blacks with that disease.

- Israel is responsible for 9/11 and for terrorism against the Palestinians.

- Israel is a "dirty word" and "racist country."

And from this, Mr. Kamiya surmises that the only reason Americans are rejecting this madness is because we feel compelled to be patriotic? No, Gary, actually we feel compelled to steer clear of wild-eyed morons like Rev. Wright and yourself.

When I first came out of college in the late seventies, I went on my first job interview at WPIX in New York. After a very pleasant half-hour chat, the interviewer finally shrugged and told me, "I'm going to be honest with you -- we're really looking for a black person."

So keep on playing the victim, my friend. Keep on talking about slavery and how the white man puts you down. That's really productive. That's how you get ahead.

Maybe you just need a nice long chat with Bill Cosby. Or maybe you should read some of his books. Or perhaps some of Thomas Sowell's writings will do the trick. Oh wait, I misspoke -- I'm sure you already consider them both traitors to your race.

Your pathetic attempt to find a silver lining in this bloody Democratic primary debacle -- namely the fact that Dan Balz thinks it's good for the party -- is more evidence of just how much Klinton Kool Aid you've been drinking.

The irony here is what your article SHOULD have been talking about is buried in the third line of your last paragraph, reading:

"I'm concerned about reports that as many as a quarter of each Democrat's supporters say they'll vote for John McCain if their candidate fails."

You're concerned? Oh, yes, Joan, BE concerned. Be VERY concerned. Because it's not some meaningless report that you can simply brush aside and say -- "But I don't believe it" -- even though that's exactly what you did. This report is a blockbuster insight taken from a current Rasmussen poll. THAT's the story here, Joan. Not some starry-eyed take on "how good" all this gutter sniping will be for the party over the next three months or more.

The fact is, Hillary needs to get out -- now.

Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of Politico that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination. Now, after losing her battle for revotes in Michigan and Florida, and topping it off with her "sleep deprived" Bosnia lie, David Brooks of the New York Times believes she's probably down to a 5 percent chance.

I suggest your time would be better spent reading yesterday's article by Mr. Brooks' entitled "The Long Defeat" rather than deluding yourself over fantasies put forth by misguided scribes like Dan Balz. The Brooks article details precisely what Hillary is willing to do to the party over the next three months for her meeker 5% chance at victory. Go to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html

and, for once, allow reality to slap you in the face nice and hard, Joan.

You're better off not responding to him.