I'm so glad I never watch TV...

This is WAY over the line! I don't think the Clintons deserved to be trashed this way by anybody in the media. I'm rooting for Obama, but voting for Hillary if she wins the nomination. We don't need our candidates trashed by the media.

Why on Earth is it important what some supporter says about another candidate? I don't get it. When I heard about Ferraro, I said to myself "What an idiot, I feel sorry for her, it must suck to be her because she's so stupid." Same thing for Wright. Why should I care about Carville, or McPeak, or Samantha Power? These people are NOT the candidates and there is absolutely no way Hillary or Barack can police everybody. It's gotten way out of hand! Why do the media endlessly play stupid people's comments? On the Matthews program the camera should have just cut away like he was Janet Jackson's breast at half-time. Problem solved.

I thought she asked everyone to "Just say no."

Yes, I'll write it again, she's a hag.

I've been criticized for this but this is how I feel (hag = an ugly, old woman, especially a vicious one). Clinton is ugly in this campaign because of the way she's conducting herself, sinking so low that I think she'll do anything. She obviously would prefer McCain in the White House to Obama so she could run again four years from now. She's selfish, self-centered, shrewd, ruthless, vicious, lying, deceitful, decrepid. I'm REALLY disappointed in her. I expected more; I NEVER expected this type of behavior.

As each day passes, it becomes more difficult for me to rally for her and vote for her should she win the nomination because I prefer her politics and positions to McCain. I hope this primary BS is over soon, so we have time to regroup, heal, and get down to business addressing why we are much better than Repugs.

This type of behavior has to stop. Someone needs to reign her in lest she do more damage to the Party than she's already inflicted. We need to win in November!

As Slate has pointed out, how can she encourage or imply that PLEDGED delegates aren't really committed to a particular candidate while screaming that voters in FL and MI are disenfranchised? How does this woman live with herself? She is patently offensive and dishonest and each day it becomes more and more disgusting, leaving me with a sick feeling that I MAY have to vote for this creep.

Geesh,

Admonishing PELOSI for suggesting something that is totally obvious?

I suppose Hillary is upset that Pelosi even opened her mouth. But wait, Hillary is talking out of both sides of her mouth. Hillary claims that supers can make their own informed choice and vote for whomever they want, and that's all Pelosi is doing, exercising her judgment. I don't see anything wrong with that because the primaries are not officially over.

Hillary might as well just strap some dynamite to her back and blow herself up. After screaming that the FL and MI voters are disenfranchised, she now stresses that pledged delegates can switch THEIR votes from Obama to her, to hell with the voters. Talk about hypocrisy!

She'll do whatever it takes to win! I wrote this weeks ago and got blasted for it but it turns out I was correct (unfortunately).

Yes, there are some people, white Democrats even, who walk with their knuckles scraping the ground.

Sigh...

This is a non-story. I agree with some other posters that Joan is better off writing a story about the factors behind the scenes driving these petty stories.

Ms. Walsh truly has missed some important topics pertaining to the campaign (although I give her credit for her opinion about how the long primary fight is GOOD for the democrats, even though I think it is delusional), such as Hillary's doublespeak about pledged delegates (they are JUST like supers, they can switch their votes!), the possible re-votes in MI and FL, the comments of Reid and Pelosi, etc.

Joan has every right to express her opinion but I do agree with others that her credibility is tanking fast, it's so blatantly biased it's close to laughable. I think she's capable of improving it, however, because I think she's smart enough.

But what I read here is spot-on. As others have noted, however, science has been politicized by the Right Wing, twisted, demonized, and turned upside down (read The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney).

Armstrong is really addressing larger social issues in our culture. America has always had an anti-intellectual streak running throughout, stemming from our frontier mentality, where elitist Europeans and their East Coast counterparts were viewed with suspicion. The frontier mentality, where more emphasis is placed on a "can-do" outlook, has been adopted by the working class, and sometimes by upper class silver spoon types who want to be "regular guys" (Bush), mostly because they've historically been shut out of higher education due to socioeconomic factors.

I used to teach chemistry to freshman. It always came as a shock to many of them when I would heavily criticize their lab reports. Yes, I graded grammar. During my first year, I was appalled at how many students could not write basic sentences. I hear from my friends who teach high school that many parents, "helicopter parents", they're called, constantly harass teachers to intervene in their children's performance, as if failure is something that their children cannot endure. It filters up to the university campuses the freshman year, where many students either adapt or drop out.

Obama is not half as arrogant or condescending as Clinton.

She actually offered him the 2nd slot-but wait, she's the one in 2nd spot.

That's condescension and arrogance.

Methinks you have reality turned upside down, on its head.