Obama could have put this entire debate away had he expressed more of the anger almost all of us have in our gut toward the bailout of the Wall Street con artists and their Washington cronies who are asking us to foot the bill for their crimes.

The title of your post sums it up nicely. Cranky vs. Cool.

Although the substance of what is said during debates should be of primary importance, body language is just as important, as we have witnessed with debates over the decades. Tonight, Obama looked much more engaged with McCain, often speaking directly to McCain and looking at him when McCain was speaking. McCain rarely, if ever, spoke directly to Obama or even looked at him regardless of who was speaking. It made McCain look dismissive, close minded and stubborn.

I would love to see a debate with Broder and his team of establishment media figures against Greenwald and his team of bloggers regarding the issue of whether the MSM is and has been in the tank for Republican propaganda and corporate interests, particularly in respect to the last two presidencies from Lewinsky to current day.

Attention Hillary people!

If you're a racist, just change your attitude and be tolerant.

If you're undereducated, get smart quick! Take a summer college course.

If you are a "downscale vote", get a high paying job.

If you're an angry older woman, well, I don't know what to tell you. Vote for McCain I guess.

Your entire piece assumes or argues that there is some sort of equivalence between the two candidates.

I see a vast difference. Not in stated policy, but in integrity of character and principled behavior and politics.

The fact that Obama won gives me a small ray of hope for the future of the country and the world. Had he lost, I would be very despondent right now and I could understand the impulse to vote for McCain instead of Hillary. In my view, I wanted the silk purse, but the Democrats decided to choose the sow's ear. So why not vote instead for the horse's ass? The country and the human race would get what it frickin' deserves, which is a quicker road to extinction.

Although I am profoundly at odds with the Clinton supporters, if their loathing for Obama is as equal as mine is for Hillary, I understand their impulse.

Joan, please be intellectually honest and address the points of so many of the letters here that take exception to your article.

What has Obama said and done, or what policies does he hold, to alienate women to such a degree?

Granted many of his supporters may have exhibited signs of misogyny, and some in the media, but is it fair that Clinton women hold the candidate to account for the actions of others?

There is a difference between saying lack of strong support of women is his problem and saying that it is his fault.

If demographic polling shows that Hillary's supporters are "of a certain age", why is it biased to note that? And who is saying they are irrelevant?

If many of these same supporters say they cannot vote for a black man, why would it be unfair to characterize them as older, racist women?

The more insidious and constant racial game the Clintons have played throughout is the charge that Obama is "unelectable". I don't remember ever having heard that said about one candidate by another candidate of the same party. It really isn't an argument at all, but an ad hominem charge that, lacking specific reasons, to my ear sounds equivalent to "he can't be elected because he's black".

You don't have to have big racially sensitive ears to hear that particular dog whistle.

It stuns me how over 15 million people (the number who have voted for HIllary Clinton) can be shoved aside as if they don't matter. We do, and she is our representative.

Try to understand. Some people prefer a candidate other than the one you prefer, so they vote for him. That's the way it works. It is not a matter of casting anybody aside. Your whining smacks of imagined victimhood. So typical of the candidate herself as well as so many of her supporters.

Unlike Obama, Clinton continually refers to the needs of the American people in her speeches. With Obama, it's all about him... want to change the world?

One hundred and eighty degrees incorrect! Obama has always stressed political change by building coalitions from the bottom up. His mantra is "Yes WE can!"

Clinton's mantra, which her supporters appropriated and bastardized from Obama is "Yes SHE can!" She always talks about how SHE is going to fight for you, etc.

Remember her Christmas ad showing her handing out gifts of health care, tax relief, etc. all wrapped up in a bow and signed from her to you? That about said it all.

I am a democrat. As the old joke goes.

I suspect that if this were happening in the Republican party, the Republican voters would tend to strategically get behind the frontrunner in order to increase their odds of winning in the general. If not their party leaders, then the Limbaughs, Colters and Hannitys would whip them into line.

Democrats can't or won't think or vote strategically. They are like the proverbial herd of cats.

Dude, he's already secured the freakin' nomination, unless you consider implosion of the Democratic party an acceptable option.

He'll get those voters come the general.