and change the name of the blog officially to "Apple Fellation Daily"?

For a $100 premium, I could have had a Mac with about the same processor, but with less hard drive space and a lot less memory. After a year's worth of use, the Mac retained more of its value than the PC.

That makes the Mac a better deal? How many people trade in their computers for a new one each year?

Here's another way to look at that same example: with the extra hard drive space and memory, that PC was a whole lot more useful than that Mac for the year it was owned. What's that worth?

We all like a TV show called "House" -- well, not all of us, at least insofar as we've never heard of it

Liberals are apparently far more likely to use that old "what's a television?" line in order to feel intellectually superior to the rest of us.

It doesn't serve a person with high negatives well to go on an obviously angry rant, which Clinton did. If she gets that riled up about what Edwards said, what will she do in a debate with a Republican?

Her "reality check" moment was defining for me, but not the same way as some other letter writers have said. We've got two candidates using the power of ideas and words to rally people to a cause, versus one candidate who's just interested in power. Kennedy didn't talk about the need for suplemental appropriations compromises that have to be made in domestic spending in order to facilitate the creation of technology necessary for establishing a path for putting men on the moon by the end of the 60s. He had a vision. America is craving a vision right now. She doesn't get that.

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I think he, Obama and Clinton all have what it takes to be a successful president. I'd just prefer to have someone in the job who can can be that uniter we were promised eight years ago. I'm not sure Clinton is up for that.

Reading the letters, it's perfectly clear that:

1) Salon is biased for Clinton;

2) Salon is biased against Clinton;

3) The press hates Clinton;

4) The press feels sorry for Clinton;

5) Liberals love Clinton;

6) Liberals hate Clinton.

Everyone is obviously seeing what they want to see in everything that's happening, and in the way those happenings are being reported. I'll admit, I'm guilty of that myself: I see a coldly calculated display of emotion from an anchorless campaign that bet the farm on inevitability and will probably lose because of it. I see an appropriation of Edwards' language from the last debate in a cynical attempt to make Clinton more human. But that's just me.

I'm willing to look at my own reactions and admit this is all a little ridiculous. All the spin and rhetoric and cognitive dissonance is tiring. Ultimately, is anyone persuaded by this stuff? I'm guessing that everyone is looking to the echo chamber to rationalize their own decisions.

Let's hear from some of the undecideds out there, because this back-and-forth from the True Believers has jumped the shark.

...so I had to go back and look at the first few to see what the fuss was about.

I ran a college newspaper back in the late 80s, and we had a comics page filled with amateur strips because, frankly, we needed to fill space. I can't for the life of me figure out what Salon's excuse is.

All defenses of this comic can be instantly destroyed with a quick read of "The Emperor's New Suit." All attacks against this comic are no doubt in vain, which is one of the reasons why I no longer have a subscriber icon by my screen name.

By all means, please carry on the mental masturbation.

Don't we want editors to be responsible for editorial content? Why in the world would we want corporations to dictate what gets published and what doesn't?

In this case, the editors have a responsibility to be responsive in some way or another to their customers -- otherwise, the customers can and will walk away. That's our prerogative, and that's our power.

Leaning on advertisers is a hallmark of knee-jerk conservatism. I expect better from progressives.

We're seriously parsing endorsements based on Kennedy DNA? Oh well... in 40 years, maybe the GOP will be doing the same thing with Bush progeny.

Wake me when a real issue presents itself.

There was a statistic that one of the talking heads on CNN threw out last night: something like 71% of Democrats would be happy with either Obama or Clinton as the nominee. Between the convention and the general, there'll be plenty of time to bring a good portion of the other 29% back home.

So let's not worry too much about one faction not supporting the other faction once this is all said and done. Emotions are running high right now, but we're better off spending that energy fighting the other side rather than each other.

I was for Edwards, I'm currently for Obama, but I'll vote for Hillary -- just not one second before I have to.

of diminishing marginal utility for these debates. Of course, free air time is better than the kind you have to pay for -- which I'm sure has crossed the mind of one of these candidates.

>Should we use images that are

>appalling to one demographic

>because they effectively serve

>another?

We haven't had dialog on any issue in years. Everything has been rhetoric, with one side talking right past the other side. If we were to use the test above, we'd probably never have any conversations at all -- someone, somewhere is offended by just about anything.

She's ignoring tonight, of course. Mostly positive speech, which is nice.

She reminded the Texas audience about the saying, "all hat and no cattle." She's the last person who should be talking about cattle.