Confusing the message with the messenger. He is telling us what he experienced in the White House. Perhaps you do not believe him. That is fair. But this story is not about Scott McClellan's supposed turn of character. It's about the White House and how our country has been tricked and lied to. Let me be clear. To take "insider sources" at face value while they trash the former Press Secretary is, at this point in the game, beyond naive.

It's ironic, actually. He's being attacked with the same kind of lies and obfuscations that he himself was paid to generate. And that would be fine, except that we the citizens are the ones who lose out by prioritizing the rumor mill over the message.

Bottom line, if he has something to say about the White House, let him say it. We can judge for ourselves whether or not it's the truth. Everything after that is just gossip meant to distract us from the truth of the matter.

". . . has an out of control temper that flares up randomly over the tiniest little things."

WHEN DID MY SHIFT SUPERVISOR BECOME THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE????!!!!

No, but seriously. If that is true, and my boss is indicative of "bad tempered" management, then we as a nation are screwed. Imagine if we had to get a new Attorney General every other month because the president couldn't stop blowing his stack. Not good.

I have read here in these very comments section the criticism that you, Joan, obsess over only the very meanest of detractors and jettison the intelligent ones. Now I'm pretty much convinced of it. You can support Obama and resent the strategies of the Clinton campaign and NOT be a maniac.

Is this how it's going to be for the next four years??? (assuming that Obama wins . . . which is a long ways away. We've got a long way to go and I'm not breaking out the champagne until the day I see his hand on that bible.)

We had 8 years of pain, sorrow and foul-tasting conservatism. Is it so wrong that we are eager for a new face? That we crave optimism and change in pace? I don't think so.

I suspect that the main difference between Clinton and Obama supporters is that one group experiences nostalgia for the so-called "good-old days" while the other is ready to forge ahead and redefine the nation. Guess which side history is on?

Thanks to Walter Shapiro for broadcasting to us a particularly strange and awkward moment in our nation's voting history. Though I am an unbending Obama supporter, it seems odd that Democratic nominees can turn their back on the voting public. It's true that Obama was honoring an agreement by refusing to campaign and run in both Florida and Michigan, which I respect, but when the agreement involves ignoring votes, I can't feel too enthusiastic.

It would seem that the majority of Salon readers will vote for Obama in the coming election. And we all want to see the backs of the Republican regime. You could argue that these are unique circumstances that call for unique measures. In order to win in November, we can't all win in the primaries. But respecting the voting citizens is key.

Having said that, my patience with Clinton is running dry. I assume that she will not be the party candidate and whatever future role she plays in politics, I won't be supporting her. Additionally, I don't believe Joan Walsh's spin on her assassination comment. Clinton is an accomplished public speaker, and even if I gave her the benefit of the doubt, mentioning murder seems, at the least, Freudian.

"WRONG! He shared those views by not objecting for many years."

I take it that you have never had a relation that you objected to? A parent or sibling that you disagreed with politically? EVERY affiliation in your life has been one of perfect agreement?

I remember an old friend of mine describing how her catholic priest castigated an ENTIRE church for not sufficiently supporting George Bush, Sr. They should have tried harder! They should have campaigned. But because they were not obeying the commandments of GOD HIMSELF, they were responsible for all the future abortions that would occur under the Clinton presidency. All of them!

And, yes, she is still an ardent catholic. She didn't walk out. She held firm in her belief that it was HER church as much as his and she could decide how best to respect and honor God. Hell, it's what people do every day in America and elsewhere! They go to church and worship in the best way THEY see fit, and they don't always agree with the sermons of the preacher.

I can see why he attended that church. It advocated social justice. It told him to be proud of his heritage, to be both black with dignity and a lover of the teachings of Jesus, who was a rabble rouser AND a man of compassion and equality. He was all those things according to this church. I don't feel one bit confused at Obama's choices. I feel respectful.