It's strictly political. Hillary can give him a boost in the Ohio valley where he badly needs it. Either that, or somebody from Ohio--Brown or Strickland. No less a politician than Richard Nixon once said, "Ohio is the ballgame."

Go to one of those sites where you can jigger the vote around. See if you can find a way to win without Ohio. You can do it, but you have to thread a bunch of other needles to do it.

that any hint of reason or reality in this campaign is going to be flamed by the glassy-eyed Obama fanatics.

I actually like Sen. Obama. I wouldn't have trouble voting for him--except I'm given pause with the realization that a lot of really loopy (mostly young liberal males) people would be in actual positions of authority.

Maybe this declaration of "mission accomplished" wil work out better than the last one.

What the hell does "majority of the pledged delegates" mean anyway? Do you get some kind of prize for that?

Which I'm fine with, actually. They can have it.

How could you possibly know whether or not Hillary and Bill have a "sham marriage"?

At heart, Camille is a sentimentalist and a romanticist. Who knew? We can transform ourselves into wonderfulness! Hope! Unity!

Hillary is at least smart enough to know that that's a bunch of crap. It's the same old world out there. The rich beat down the poor, the strong screw the weak, and that's just the way it is.

You make change through hard work, through getting up every day and battling for change. That's how you get Social Security and Medicare, and now, health care. You fight for it.

Which is why I'm for Hillary.

I know I'm supposed to think all kinds of bad things about the Clintons. The really cool people tend not to support them, and lots of people--OK, nearly always Republicans and media pundits--say bad things about the Clintons all the time. Yet, every time I've seen them, they seem to be well-spoken and well-mannered, so, as far as I know, they are perfectly normal human beings, and not the hydra-headed monster of their enemies' imagination.

Here's dignity for you: She keeps winning.

I don't get this, I really don't. She wins the bigger states, she polls better in the states we have to win, she carries Latinos, which we have to carry, and yet the pundits--like it was their decision--keep hammering at her to get out of the race.

Has this ever even happened before? RFK had less of a shot than Hillary does. Did anybody tell him to get out of the race?

Your guy leads by a handful of delegate votes, racked up mainly in red states where few people live, and which we will never carry.

My guess: The pundits finally have a candidate that they think is as cool as they are, so they identify with him.

Please. Would that all of us were "post-racial," but we're not.

The fact is that we keep talking about having a "conversation on race," but we never really do it, except to offer nice little bromides that don't say much except to express sentiment.

Look, it's all politics. When Hillary said LBJ was one who pushed legislation through, that is, in no way, a slur on MLK, but that's how the Obama campaign played it. Am I sore? No, it was good politics. It rallied African-Americans and liberals to his side.

She carries the "working class" with every ethnic group, except African-Americans.

I fail to see how mentioning that Jesse Jackson--whom I supported in 1988--is either offensive or dismissive. What's offensive is the Obama campaign going around calling Bill a racist for saying it, and calling Hillary a racist for saying that LBJ got the civil rights act passed.

What truly IS offensive is calling working class voters "racist" and "Archie Bunkers."

"Racializing"? What's THAT supposed to mean?

Here's the facts: Clinton mentioned that Jackson won the SC primary about noon on the day of the primary. As historical precedent only two people have rolled up a big win in SC--Jackson and Clinton himself. (If he'd mentioned himself, I imagine the pundits would have said he was being egotistical.)

If that was supposed to be a big "shout out" to white voters it failed because, if that's what you were doing, you would say it 2-3 days before the primary, not the day of.

Secondly, this is the Democratic Party. You don't get votes in the Democratic primary by making "racializing" appeals; you get votes by accusing others of being racists.

if his supporters continue to peddle the line that people who vote against Obama are racists.

The left-liberal (mostly white) insurgency in the Democratic Party is never happier than when they're branding someone else a racist. The problem is that the people so labelled take umbrage.

And how is it exactly that saying Jesse Jackson won SC a racist comment? It is simply a statement of fact. It is apparently all right for commentators and pundits to say that Obama overwhelmingly gets the black vote, but when Bill Clinton says Jackson won SC, that's somehow "racist."

Yes, Bush is a United Methodist also, but it didn't take with him.

Plus, Wesleyanism is not really in his make-up. He's really an evangelical, but joined up with his wife's church as an adult.

but they are a valid explication of her United Methodist faith. More than any other candidate this year, Hillary Clinton has been formed and influenced by one major Christian tradition, that of John Wesley, and her comments are completely in line with Wesleyan thought and understanding. I don't think Wesley would like it that you called this "saccharine."

Look, people, this is not complicated. You haven't beaten Hillary, and until she gets beat, she won't get out.

Plus, just generally speaking, I'd rather be on the side of the fighter than the side of someone trying to "back in".