Right on, Joan! Alas, Bonds, for all his greatness, is part of our culture. Drugs, stuffed ballot boxes, uncounted votes...you name it, "every body does it." And in our well documented racist society, he's also tough to take for the racists among us, one of those "uppity" you know what. Even on TV, last night was a moment to cherish. And moments after the blast, Bonds and Aaron showed more class than their respective detractors will ever comprehend---and Aaron had his share, those with much the same motives as Bonds'. But I'm willing to make a deal: I'll put an asterisk after Bonds, if he detractors do the same for their hero, W.

No one should put an ounce of hope into Powell's doing the right thing--ever. He had a chance many years ago, but blew it (so to speak) in his failure to support Clinton's very early effort to bring gay men and women into the military, no strings attached. Nothing has changed. And the "Powell Doctrine," to only go in with "massive" force has nothing to do with leading or integrity: it's no different than the betting on a sure thing. Little wonder he's a "rich" man. Sad!

If I understand Graig's argument, it's a "no no,' i.e. "very very naughty," for the police to bother men in their bathroom privacy. Who could argue with that?! And who says Iowa is a red state.....sounds pretty pink to me.

Alas, Joan, you try too hard. Obama's comments about his grandmother were a valif part of his story......we're all racists, even those who care about and for us, and the sooner we come to understand that, the sooner we can deal with the deeply ingraind issue. You don't have to be "fair and balanced" when confronting an amazing almost once in a lifetime moment. dk

How about a system where the candidate who lies with regularity would lose, or a system where the camdodate with the most number of aids getting fired would lose? Then your candidate--the oh so dishonest lady--would lose. How about a system where, whatever the rules are in advance, jerks like you stop whining. Too much to ask, especially from the elite.

To find Hillary unappealing, disengenuous, slimy and all too much the "politicain<' is not the same as overt sexism. And.....for whatever reason, the latter seems easier to get away with that overt racism. This has nothing to do with reality, and my guess is there's way more than both in our society. Obama's greater appeal over Clintion's (in the polls) is way more a matter of two individuals, than two stereo types; one is attractive, one is a jerk.

Joan, again, you don't understand the difference between being treeted with disrespect because of gender or becuase of substnace. Just becuase Hillary is a disaster as a person/candidate, doesn't mean the criticism is sexist.......Bill and Hill are two peas in a pod, and the Hill detractores love Bill no more. But, it would be good if you found something else to think about.....think, that is.

Hey Fed, try ducking sniper fire, or mom unable to get health insurance, or supporting Bush, or the quality of her "help"

Do you really think this woman in fit? much less fit for President??

Hey Brad, you took the easy side of the argument. Try this: how in the hell did such a jerk (Winetz) get tenure at Priceton? I'm reminded of a long time ago debate about why some fancy Harvard Political Scientist never got into the National Acadamy of Sciences......the argument was that when Political Scientists use numbers, it's like McCain explaing the economy, or Hillary discussing the nature of sniper fire. Cluelses. Nice column.

Hillary brown nose, aka Joan W, wrties, "Obama can sometimes seem glib and a little bit above it (us?) all." Too cute by half as the Brits say. And then JW writes, "Personally, I hope the campaign moves to higher ground soon." Was it Walsh who said to another dishonest creep, "have you no shame." Joan, how can you wish for higher ground when you keep your nose burried so deeply in the muck? As both H and O both have said, "shame on you," You are soooooooo obvious.

You write, "We are not pulling for any candidate, or trying to correct for any impression that we're pulling for any candidate. We're reporting the news fairly, and in our opinion columns, we're asking and trying to answer compelling questions other people aren't tackling." How do you spell delusional?

A few of your words: "self-righteousness to all true believers, and clearly nasty Clinton supporters are driving some great Obama supporters round the bend on these threads...the nasty Obama zealots...I support Clinton!" Wow, not my self image, but hey, who knows. Pollitics does funny things to even the most self-respecting of us. But it would be so nice if you would tell us who some of the "nasty Clinton zeslots" might be. Perhaps there are none. Joan, it is indeed late, and you should go to bed. You're sounding too much like your idol, and that ain't good. I almost used the word "hysterical," but then you'd think "sexist." How about just plain "dishonest"?

Hey Joan, I'm in the same time zone, but a good bit older than you...thus the "early" bed time. If I may offer some thoughtful advice, or at least an observation, the specific hour (10 pm in our case) has little to do with the obvious need for sleep. Trust me, you need to go to bed. Tomorrow's a new day, and if you really want to look on the bright side, it won't be long before your idol will be out of it (officially). I assume you will find less to love in McCain than O, and all of the zealots will have vanished. A nice thought for both of us. Sleep tight.

This is so sad. You seem to be attached at the lip (hip) to Hillary.....the more obvious the outcme, the more idiotic, rancid, and disengenous the two of you become. Hillary doesn't seem able to stop, nor do you. Sad, for both of you.