I don't have anything new to add to this discussion that has not been said in the 120 previous letters. I am just sad that Ms. Walsh is adding her voice to the diversion Barak Obama mentioned instead of either really discussing race (instead of some pro-Hillary backing ala Fix news). It adds to the growing narrative that Hillary backers will do ANYTHING; even mislead. It is hard for me to think someone as smart as Joan Walsh doesn't know what was said and meant here.

Though I agree that "super delegates" should look at elect ability and that you can draw different conclusions about that, I continue to agree with Policio's analysis that if you deny Barak Obama the nomination after he has got the most delegates, you have BIG problems. Elect ability is one of them. Annoying blacks is one of them.

But more critical than ether of these is the youth that have turned out for Obama. Youth are fifty years of dominance for a party and these are not people you want to alienate.

This is a very minor point of this article but I have heard it raised many times that somehow caucuses are "unpatriotic" or "non-representative".

I live in Washington state, a caucus state. I went to our caucus and it hard for me to believe that anyone who went there and took part felt it was unpatriotic. As I met many of my neighbors, people spoke pro-Clinton and pro-Obama in what seem to me as more "democratic" than any election that I have taken part of. And a recent article point out that if there were primaries in those states, Obama's total vote lead would be even bigger. If it would be or not, I (for one) really liked going to a caucus and participating.

At my caucus, several of my neighbors that have small children were there. And I know at least one person that works in the local steel mill was there also. Of course, this is a small N and just my experience. Most studies that I have read say that the notion that caucaus have less old people, people with young children and working class was false. Maybe it is or not. One thing that I know people that supported Hillary Clinton really passionately supported their candidate; they were not Limbaugh "dittoheads" trying project chaos.

The letter that said we have two states--Texas and Washington--that produced different results and evidence that caucuses were not representative.

I live in Washington state and my wife and I did not vote in the primary that happened weeks after the caucus as we were not sure why this even happened. The Texas caucus had a different result and no one knows what influence of republicans voted for Clinton had on this, but it had some.

I don't live in a "large state" and participated in a caucus. Somehow my vote doesn't matter as much as those who are from big states and have a primary. It wasn't my experience and besides a partisan argument and view, I don't see how it has much credit.

I personally would not describe my experience of going to our caucus (I am in Washington state) as a "smoked filled room". What took place there were my neighbors and I talking about our country and who and why we supported our candidates and then voting and re-voting if this changed our minds at all.

This is not a criticism of primaries, which was the way my vote was cast throughout my life. It is simply one description of my caucus experience and the feeling I left with of participating in democracy at a higher level than I had felt previously and the call by some here to remove this in the future and go back to primaries. Quite apart of the outcome of our caucus or any other, a step like that (away from a caucus) would not be a step forward in my experience.

Among the many descriptions and spins that bothers me, I would have to nominate "he can't close the deal" as the worse. A memo from the Obama camp well before this primary season picked these primaries. This was Hillary country and she won, surprise.

She has two things in her camp. She is part of a family that has been democratic policy makers for twenty years. She is the ultimate insider with the advantages that insiders have. And she is a woman and therefore has a base that is massive and passionate.

If it is perceived that Obama "limps home", I agree this will not be grand for the party. It is more of a description of which primaries when. If the super delegates gave it to Hillary and she lost eleven primaries in a row, has huge negatives, is a hawk that is willing to bomb Iran and alienated youth which would have given you fifty years of dominance, that is not grand either. The perception of "limbing" is Hillary's fault, if she cared about the party she would have gotten out. But she doesn't. She cares about Hillary.

PT reported what I heard that the North Carolina Republican party is running an anti-Obama ad. The letter said thank God they are weeding out the weak candidate. I don't know if you are serious but do you seriously think that the Republican have the Dems best interest at heart. Like Limbaugh, they want to run against Hillary and sure enough, people are going along with it.