then you weren't paying attention to the GOP race last night. He's got huge problems on his right flank. The more he tries to get those folks on board, the fewer centrist Dems will be voting for him in the general.

I don't see Clinton whipping out a PowerPoint presentation during any of her speeches. Speeches are all about rhetoric, and Obama is better than her when it comes to public speaking. It's just true.

What's not true is saying that because Obama doesn't whip out a PowerPoint presentation during his speeches, he doesn't have any solutions. His plans are available on his Web site. There are 27 different policy areas covered, each with its own general description and a link to a PDF with more specific information. Obama, smartly, understands that campaign events aren't the best place to discuss his 18 points on child advocacy.

As for slumlords and nuclear power and all the other nonsense, here's a revelation: Obama isn't perfect. Nobody claimed he was. So when people counter with missing tax returns and various Clinton scandals, it's not a dodge -- it's a direct accounting of the negatives of your candidate versus the negatives of our candidate. According to my tally, Clinton has more stuff that concerns me than Obama does. That's not the only reason I'm supporting him, but it does help.

This was a swift, measured response to an attack ad. No matter who wins, we're going to need that for the general election.

One involves deck chairs, one involves a fiddle, and one has a teapot in it.

If this is the best argument Clinton can find to make people vote for her, then she's definitely toast. There's a war on, last I checked; the economy is teetering over a cliff; the Senate is pondering a $1 billion patent bailout for banks and the Congress is pondering telecom amnesty for obvious lawbreaking; our rights are being flushed down the toilet while our borders leak like a sieve. But by all means, let's focus on a few words from a campaign speech. After all, that demonstrates true leadership and experience.

He's 6'5" and 250+ pounds... but unless he's also impervious to sniper fire, that observation doesn't mean a hell of a lot. This is just further proof that, if she makes it past the nomination process, Clinton will be firing blanks against McCain in the general. At least Obama has the common sense to try to change the subject.

and I'm glad I did. The thing is feather-light, easy to maneuver, folds and stores easily, and I've put hundreds of miles on it. It keeps my daughter up high, which means when we go out I don't have to lift her up in order for her to see things -- she's already at the right level. We use it as a high-chair replacement at restaurants where there's room. And because the seat is up so high, my mother-in-law -- who has some fused vertibrae -- doesn't have to bend over to get my daughter in and out of the stroller.

I didn't buy it as a fashion statement, even though it's cool as hell. I bought it because it delivers a lot of value.

I've known plenty of parents who have gone through four or five cheap strollers; for a couple hundred more, they could have had one of these instead. If you've never used one, don't knock it -- try it.

Obama detractors love to pull out the Jesus imagery, but here's a clue: we don't think he's perfect. We just think he's better than the alternative, and so far the plurality of Democrats who have voted agree.

And do you really want to snipe about who has been more deceptive?

The voters of FL and MI have a clear course of action, which is to punish those party leaders who decided to play a losing game of chicken with the DNC.

Oh, and for the people who are decrying the "disenfranchisement" of the FL and MI voters: Awarding delegates based on the votes that were actually held "disenfranchises" those who didn't vote because they knew it was a waste of time.

I don't think the Clintons being rich has anything to do with either their commitment or ability to relate to the working class or poor. Nobody forgets what being poor is like, and there's a history of rich folk in the Democratic Party who have done right by the common American.

What worries me about these returns are basically three-fold:

1) Why'd they wait so long? I'm not going to speculate; I just want a straight answer from them.

2) Why the Friday dump? It automatically creates the impression that there's something shady there.

3) Why are they incomplete? Seriously, they waited this long to release some, but not all, information?

I don't think it's sexist or Clinton-hating or unreasonable to raise these questions. And it's certainly not my fault that the Clinton campaign has released these documents in a way that naturally leads people to be skeptical about their contents.

Great advice. I know that I quit paying for it during your reign, and I also know that I'm not alone. And given the truly idiotic opinion pieces that have been here this week, I think I might quit visiting Salon entirely. Maybe Slate has gotten smarter over the last couple of years. Time to find out.