"Here's who we want politicians pandering too. Way to find the bottom of the barrel Salon."

I think I understand what you are saying. But if we learned one lesson from 2000 and 2004 it's that what we think of as "right" doesn't necessarily make us the winner. The democratic party can be as right as rain, but if we don't find ways to reach out to the nation as a whole, we will still lose. I actually think that Obama's message has gone a long way. A lot of Americans from all walks of life are behind him.

But I don't think that because Madden quoted a man who was making racist statements, that that makes this a bad article. I've never in my life wanted a candidate to win more than Obama. But I also realize the necessity of a sober assessment of the nation at large. And you know what? There are racists in this country. They vote. And pretending otherwise doesn't really help the situation. I'd like to find a way to reach out to those people, because they're probably not any different than my own relatives, meaning they're not beyond listening to reason. They're not monsters, but treating them as if they ARE is one sure-fire way to insure that they don't vote for Obama. I think if Karl Rove taught us anything it's that Democrats and liberals can't afford to be uppity about the "flyover" states.

And, for what it's worth, I think THAT is why Obama's message is so attractive to so many people; He's not an "us and them" kind of guy.

Yesterday I realized that Obama never mentions gender; He's not giving secret signals to the MEN about his MANLY decisiveness. He's not talking about how he would never cry, not like that girly Hillary. What he's not doing is playing on the sympathies of male America.

Now it could be argued that he doesn't have to. Politics is already such a man's game to begin with and, besides, there will always be the likes of Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson who do that FOR him.

Playing "What if?" can be a useful tool in politics. In this instance I think it shows the politician that Obama could have been but is not. If anything, I think he is more respectful to Hillary than she has earned. She's played dirty, talking about race at every opportunity. She's not afraid to use every trick in the book as long as it takes her where she needs to go in this election.

Her run (for office) reminds me more and more of the failed campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry; Lazy, uncreative, establishment campaigns without a backbone. They failed because they were reading from a script.

You know, I have been just as irritated at the HillaryTrolls as everyone else (LOLCAIT): Screeching, fearmongers that they are. And, yes, the kitten analogy is perfect.

But, in Hillary's defense, I think she's practical if nothing else. She must eventually face her own downfall. I think she is angling for something more, although we, the voting public, probably will not know right away, if ever. Maybe she wants an appointment? Money to dig herself out of debt?

Whatever it is, I have no desire to gloat over her loss. It seems as if Obama will be the new nominee. He's one step closer to the presidency and, by extension, history. That is good enough for me.

Jeffersonian wrote: "Part of me fears for his life if he gains a significant lead in the polls come October. Living through '68 gave me that knot in the stomach, but I still believe this country can turn toward its destiny as the last best hope of earth."

I would hate to say that we turned down this chance out of fear of what the bigots might do. That's no way to live and it's no way to run a country.

"Suspicions have been raised that Hillary is holding out for a VP position with Barack. I am curious what Salon and its readers have to say about that."

Are you kidding? Are you trying to start a bar-room brawl? She would have to be actually contrite for that spot, and I don't know that she's got it in her after all that race baiting.

I would like to draw reader's attention to the PHOTO. How many people think she looks like your mom telling you to clean your room?

"I'm very disappointed in you, Indiana. I thought you could do better than this."

But then, to be fair, is that the shot that the photographer and his editor vetted? Or was that just the face she was making all night? Hard to say.

There is a presupposition that Hillary SHOULD be winning the primaries. For heaven's sake, why? Say what you will about Americans, we dislike empire, and that is exactly to what Hillary aspires. It's not that she is a winning candidate stalled by bad decisions. She is an uninspiring candidate competing against a truly hopeful candidate, who is running on the promise of a better tomorrow and a more unified country.

Not that I exactly blame her for the mistakes of her husband, but the return of the Clinton administration does not exactly inspire me. And why should it?