that I haven't had time to read all the responses yet, but I just had to weigh in.

Surprise us, Obama. You're supposed to be the inspiring, transcendent candidate of change. And I want you to be. Your recent foray into Christian advertising in South Carolina, while pragmatic, suggests that you are being sucked in to the game of politics-as-usual.

Standing up against this wiretapping thing, and finding a way to explain your principled stand that answers and supplants the inevitable Republican "weak on terror" attacks is the kind of thing some of us are dying to get from you. Striding in to Washington and strongly standing up for civil liberties--now there's an inspired move. You of the gold tongue--who else but you can do this with impugnity? I remember being impressed with Mike Huckabee's response about immigration in one of the debates when he was challenged about giving "alien" children an education. He said something from the heart (maybe it was practiced, but at some point I think the policy itself came from his heart) about America being better than that, better than the mean-spirited kind of people who would deny education to children who are not responsible for their parents' actions. His answer was really plain and heartfelt and seems like the kind of thing that could be applied to this situation.

Can't you find the words, Barrack? Something about how this is just too important for America or something?

This Burke guy is the same one who wanted Kerry refused Communion. Last election, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops seemed to specifically refute his public campaign to make abortion and homosexuality "single issues" on which to base votes. They put out their election guide which was anything but if you were looking for a specific candidate to vote for. (Who does that, by the way? Ask their Church who to vote for? Never mind.) It was pretty nuanced and made it clear that no single issue was valued over others and that, for example, one could be against abortion but disagree on whether it should be legal.

Anyway, I tend to like the Jesuits. They're the liberal wing of the Catholic Church. I'm not surprised that a Jesuit school hired this decent man. My son goes to a Jesuit (all-boys) high school, and the mantra for each student is "A Man for Others." There is a great focus on social justice issues, and they have had the following speakers at their school: Sister Helen Prejean (DEAD MAN WALKING), Ralph Nader, Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-US Congress), Elie Wiesel (NIGHT), Pat Buchanan, and the African man whose life was featured in HOTEL RAWANDA, among others. (They tried like heck to get Jimmy Carter but couldn't--not sure why).

I'm like others here--a "cultural Catholic" whatever that means. I like the boots-on-the-ground corporal works of mercy stuff. (Nobody feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, and shelters the homeless like Catholic Charities, at least here in my city). I leave the pedophilia and pope-worship to others and focus on the good stuff.

It's now a cliche, but the truth is often tedious: This "Bill Clinton as monster" is mostly media driven. A simple clip from tonight's (Thursday's) A DAILY SHOW drove that point home; they showed the actual footage of a relatively mild Bill Clinton rebuking a reporter, telling him "Shame on you" a few times. Then Stewart went to Soledad O'Brien (CNN?) who reported Clinton's raged response, calling it a rant or something.

The truth is that if someone wrote a transcript of Clinton's actual words (in context) the last few weeks, we'd see that it's all just politics as usual. It's the old press-looking for-a-storyline bit again, and I'm getting sick of it. As someone here already mentioned, I'm sure Michele Obama and others in all the campaigns have been saying all kinds of things that could be contoured into any particular storyline the press wanted. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything; I'm just saying it's the tipping point or critical mass phenomenon combined with the media's Clinton (Bill) Obsession. Perhaps it was his fairy tale comment or Hilary's ill-advised MLK thing, but something triggered this now larger- than-life Bill Clinton Story. I thought salon was better than this.

For the record, I'm not voting for Clinton for a lot of nuanced reasons, among them the dynasty issue, but fair is fair, and this cherry-picking by the press is starting to really take a toll on the optimism I felt just a couple of weeks ago about the Democratic candidates in general. The press is taking on too big a role in this thing.

says that a NYTimes endorsement means nothing at best for a Republican, but not this time, not when the endorsements are for McCain and Clinton. His political strength, an appeal to independent and "soft" Democratic voters, is poised perfectly to exploit her political weakness, a strong "unlikeable" rating. So, while getting a NYTimes endorsement will not make any conservatives vote for McCain, it might in fact, sway some Democrats who can't stand Hilary.