The fact that corporations don't necessarily act ethically becomes a serious problem only when corporations are granted the same rights and protections as people, which has been the case in the USA since the late 19th century. This is part of the reason why our government is now basically run by lobbyists and corporate PACs.

It's OK to have low ethical expectations for corporations as long as they aren't allowed to impose their weak standards everywhere. The problem is that they've done just that.

Too many precious adverbs: "gaspingly unfunny", "desperately beautiful", "unnervingly funny", etc. Sounds like someone is worried that without this stuff they won't sound like a "real" movie critic.

Gary Kamiya talks about how America's disillusionment with the Iraq adventure is more in the manner of a cat touching a hot stove than a "Socratic dialogue". When has America ever engaged in such a dialogue? In "Dark Ages America" Morris Berman points out that America is "pathologically averse to introspection", and the truth of that has been reaffirmed once again in the years since 2001.

Kamiya says that people he knows have yet to recover from the 2004 election. It's far worse than that; this country has yet to really come to terms with either McCarthyism or the JFK assassination. So don't hold your breath.

A long time ago Lewis Lapham wrote an essay in which he defined the "permanent government" and the "provisional government". The former represents the enduring body of interests and power blocs which usually have a definitive influence on policy, while the latter is the elected government in Washington.

Lapham was trying to make the point that, on issues of major importance, the provisional government is not going to be able to buck the permanent government. On relatively marginal matters, such as gay marriage, the permanent government has no investment, and policies can evolve democratically, without interference.

However, when it comes to core policies, especially those which impact the distribution of wealth and income, the permanent government stands its ground, and change is usually stifled. This is why hedge fund managers are likely to continue to receive their tax preferences, and why real reform of our health insurance system is unlikely.

So John Edwards' campaign for reform is doomed, and Kucinich's call for people to vote is irrelevant. The system we have is the one we're going to continue to have, regardless of how many Democrats sit in the Congress, or who occupies the White House.

A play written hundreds of years ago is not automatically more valuable or important than a script for "30 Rock". However, the fact that we are still aware of that play after hundreds of years is a very strong point in its favor.

Theodore Sturgeon said, "90% of everything is crap". It is the process of time passing, and the filtering effect of all those minds over all those years, that helps us reliably identify the 10% that isn't crap.

So, the very fact that a work has passed through that pitiless filtering process and managed to come out the other end is a good indication that there is something of quality there.

The issue here is one of overlapping change. Because of globalization (and other things), it is no longer possible to be affluent in America without a college degree (without winning the lottery). This trend will continue. So, it behooves Democrats to court that segment of the population, the college-educated, that represents both present-day and future economic strength.

But a college education doesn't just provide training for good-paying jobs. It has secondary effects, effects which are reflected culturally. Thus the stereotype of the "latte-sipping, brie-nibbling, Volvo-driving" liberal. A politician who wants to communicate with the college-educated set will, like Obama, clearly identify himself as one of them. And Obama is strong among those who are college-educated.

Yet that very presentation will trigger the age-old resentment of the uneducated for the educated, of the rural for the urban, etc. There really isn't any way out of this. It's not possible for a politician to simultaneously have strong appeal for both of these two groups, when there is so much contempt and resentment between them.

Once this is accepted, the only question left is, which group better embodies the future of the country, and the party? The question answers itself.

I have seen many comments regarding the earlier campaigns of Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, and so on. Joan Walsh references Jesse Jackson in her article.

These comparisons break down for this simple reason: the stakes are very very much higher now. The margin for error is correspondingly smaller.

If the Democrats fail to elect Obama this fall - along with a larger Senate majority - the consequences for the country, and the world, will be disastrous far beyond my ability to describe.

For this reason, it is extraordinarily important that this campaign be about the future of the country, and not about sexist or racist slights, real or perceived. And yet that is exactly what it has been about, right up to the present moment.

To Clinton supports I say: in the end Hillary Clinton doesn't matter; Barack Obama doesn't matter. What does matter is the repair of the country after two-plus decades of Republican misrule. The fact that this is going to be harder to achieve now than it looked in January, I lay at the door of Hillary Clinton.