There is a lot of nonsense being bussed around this time of year in the news. Here are the nonstarters:

If you don't vote for __________ you are a jerk because they can't win and then you'll be responsible for 8 more years of the Republican regime.

Hillary won't win because she portrays herself as _________.

Obama won't win because he portrays himself as __________.

The truth is that we don't know. We are mostly working in the dark and, yes, I'm including you, Joan Walsh. You and all your employees, be it Glenn Greenwald or Joe Conason. We just don't know how this is going to pan out yet.

I was happy when Obama won in Iowa and disappointed when he didn't take New Hampshire, although he certainly didn't lose, either. He made a fair showing.

Hillary wants to become president. I'd rather she not, and that has very little to do with her campaign style. It has more to do with her vote on Iraq. Please feel free to enlighten me on this point, but as a woman what has she done to represent women? Is she a strong supporter of choice? I know she has some economic policies that help families. But how does that distinguish her from her opponents? I just do not see the added value I would get for backing Hillary. Am I missing something? I don't see it. What I see is that Hillary is the politician that LOOKS the most like the Salon staff and is therefore the politician that they most favor, and that this, in turn, clouds your judgment on the other candidates.

I myself am sick of the way that the press and all the Americans yayhoos (from all walks of life, be they rednecks or political pundits) have treated Hillary Clinton. But that alone is not going to win my vote. We're talking about the presidency! Sympathy has no place in the matter.

Can you imagine the snit the press would work themselves into if Obama tried to play the sympathy card? He doesn't ask anybody to feel sorry for him, which is a good thing, because you don't want the leader of the free world to play that kind of head game. We are in too much trouble as it is.

Personally, I don't see Hillary as a pity party, not in the least. I think she's very hard-nosed and practical. That's not why I won't vote for her! I won't vote for her because of her record on the Iraq war and her support of our frightening police state. I simply see Obama as a man who can be reasoned with, who will be a better listener when it comes to our civil liberties. And regardless of the analogies that people are making about how his lack of experience is just like Bush's, I don't buy it. He's far more flexible and sensible than our current president.

Hillary, on the other hand, knows just enough to screw us royally. And she'll expect us to smile while she's doing it. And then, if that weren't insulting enough, she'll have talking heads like you and Joan Walsh to tell us how stupid we are for not appreciate the screwing.

I think that we have all led with our guts on this election, but our guts know more than we think they do.

When I read this article, it crystallized a lot of the fears and anxieties I've held about Clinton.

I agree that she will work hard for us. If she is the democratic candidate I will grudgingly walk down to the poll on election day and cast my vote. But I am genuinely afraid of another Clinton era. I am afraid, not of the conservative masses who will be infuriated by her, but of the fat, complacent middle class who wants things to go back to the way things were, who want to remain in the consumer never-never land of 1998. I see Clinton as a person who loves power more than she loves her constituency, who will fight for an unsatisfying middle-ground instead of a hopeful future. Clinton speaks to our fears, Obama and Edwards speak to our hopes.

Jackie, I'm not entertained by Red State Update either, but it does keep me regular, just like Metamucil.

No, I kid. You two are definitely entertaining.

For me, the interesting part about Cruise's religious fervor is his confidence. He is certain of the value of Scientology the way that I am certain about (the value of) my freedom of speech, or of the value of sour cream enchiladas. (Obviously those are two very different things, but I'm certain about both, just in different ways. Mmmm, enchiladas.) But in that he's no different from Mormons, Baptists or Catholics.

More than anything, it is the inability to question that incites the faithful to commit atrocities. And Tom Cruise is certain that his beliefs are the "right" beliefs, not just for himself, but for everyone.

Did anyone else notice that Tom Cruise can never stop acting? Not that he doesn't really believe what he's saying, I think he does. But he's spent so much of his life putting on a show, he doesn't even know what a genuine exchange IS. Now THAT is creepy.