The big-state race isn't over. Walsh makes sense and not for the first time. On "Hardball," which seems to suffer a kind of hysteria when it comes to Clinton, Walsh provides the contrasting voice; i.e. when fellow panelists faulted Clinton for alienating the male voice, Walsh reasoned that rather blame Clinton, we ought to be questioning men's disdain. Original thinking on TV. What a concept.

Response to a response: To argue that male disdain for Hillary is "only human nature" ignores the huge number of males who pooh-pooh Hillary. And saying "It's only human nature for people to support people they find likable" is worrisome. Should we be voting on likability? We assume charm is important. But is it?

This is to applaud your reasoned tone. Your words are not clubs but attempts at conversation. You strike me as someone trying to figure things out. So many pundits come across as hysterics. Your sometime appearance on Hardball remains the proverbial pause that refreshes. Next to Matthews, you’re practically Solomon-esque.

Your voice-of-reason views continue to be the pause that refreshes. I'd add this, though. While Hillary may have good reasons to campaign until June - say, giving the remaining states the chance to vote and regaining some dignity if the vote goes mostly her way - there needs to be more to her agonizing and pricey effort than fairness and face-saving. I'd like to think she's after a a bargaining chip. If not V.P., maybe a cabinet post. An exchange of her health plan for his would be my choice.

Thanks, Joan Walsh, for putting Chris Matthews straight on Hardball today(not that it did any good). His ongoing view that no one is urging Hillary out of the race is inexplicable. AS Walsh pointed out, the MSNBC-ites - including Matthews himself - have been suggesting in one way or another this for months. Whether Matthews gets it or not, it's important that Walsh noted the amnesia. His ongoing question, "What does Hillary want?" makes the point.