i agree that hot-air punditry that suggests that the clinton campaign is over is repugnant. however, it is a big story ... this shocking "collapse" ... or use whatever word would feel more comfortable ... maybe "suprise."

i personally have written in this blog comments & elsewhere about clinton's presidential career being "over" ... not to advocate for it to happen, but rather to let all of us catch a break from ... what i'll call "guilt induced voting." seems that the steady clinton hold-outs are older women. multiple sources report this. clinton is a capable leader, and i imagine some of this group want simply to see female president. others, i'm sure, a drawn to her style of leadership or policy points. what seems fairly clear, though, is that democrats and independants & some repubs. themselves prefer obama or edwards. so, i think dialogue that suggests that a loss for hillary isn't the end of her monumental climb over the glass ceiling. she could get elected in the future ... she could still win now ... she could go on to become something even more amazing. we don't know. rigid adherence to "what i want" as opposed to "what is" is a mainstay of the bush admin. i think this country will be better served if we had conciliatory language for clinton to embrace. maybe once she's free she can divorce the (politically savvy, but emotional infant) bill clinton. her greatest asset is also her heaviest weight. establishing her own "brand" ... and her own real voice ... will serve her so much better.

... that when a media figure does something "bad" ... many to claim stake in the "badness" use the same "badness" manual. i like rebecca, but john edwards didn't call anyone names. you did, ma'am. if your cause is to enlighten, i recommend putting aside the vitriol. or maybe that was just man-bashing humor. how drool.

i drooled on my keyboard. i meant droll.

joan walsh: hey rebecca, i'm in new hampshire and i'm really busy hangin' out with hill and bill ... devising super-secret ways to trick salon readers with our new mind control laser. will you write a funny blurb about that man edwards, and the mean things he said about our supreme leader, hillary?

rebecca traister: yes, mother. i will obey.

gary ... this is a real love-feast ... and it's the candidate i want to be the next president. but, if the "establishment" talking points are that the man has no substance behind his flashy, maybe "manipulative," style ... why write a decent article about haiku's and talking mermaids?

some obama people support obama because his policy is often spot on, his ability to transcend partisan bullshit with bring effective results, and his rhetoric will help us all heal from the atrocity we all suffered through GWB. all three. it's not just one blind "roll of the dice." passion and judgment can co-exist ... and i think a multi-racial man is the perfect embodiment of this.

the polish & magic are important ... but why not also help the unconverted take a look at how logical and sound his judgement is. clinton needs to attack him, and she has no policy footing. meaning: there isn't anything to really criticize him on. this is not because there is no "beef." there's plenty. obama is focusing on inspiring people first. but there is no shortage of sound leadership.

so, go to obama's website. (i do not work for his campaign, nor do i volunteer for it ... yet). he has policy positions well documented on nearly all leading issues. research & try to be open. of course, ideas don't equal action ... but isn't he clearly the man to be able to deliver results? it's not like running a corporation, being president. there's much more nuance, and the skills are about finding commonality. not brow beating others into submission.

you got part of this right, joan:

But a big win for Obama in New Hampshire Thursday could be a different kind of tsunami, sweeping up potential and even committed Clinton supporters in a nationwide wave of enthusiasm for Obama's inspiring-if-vague politics of change.

barack obama's website has policy plans in great detail. they are not vague. as for "how" he will implement these plans ... he seems to be forming a new coalition ... of change-oriented dems, independents, and republicans. congress won't know what hit them. his conciliatory and inclusion approach may leave some points to a broader compromise, but he will be able to lead a wave of change.

hopefully you'll be able to see this, too, joan. be prepare yourself for a disappointment in under one month. but ... as i've said repeated times around these parts: losing this will be the best thing that could ever happen to clinton. it will allow her to break free and really become herself. i can definitely cheer her on for that.

I'd be interested in reading your thoughts about this:

- what is the difference between "reporting" and "opinion" or "punditry"? how can one discern the difference?

- is there an ethical code that states reporters are "bound to objectivity"? is it some "unwritten rule" of honor ... or something real?

- would you be ok if these "reporters" were henceforce renamed "eel fish" ... or if the activity they engaged in was now called "stenography"? or is your issue with the fact that they exist in this way? what should or shouldn't they be doing?

i honestly don't know the answers to these questions myself. i would like to understand your premise. i'm not certain if i think this is "wrong."