Wow, Joan,

I've been feeling that your recent posts about Obama have been terribly out of touch with how most of us view his candidacy; but you are really far out this time!

I think the new CBS poll bears this out. 70% think he did a good job discussing race; 70% think he did a good job explaining his relationship with Rev. Wright.

Me thinks your devotion to Sen. Clinton doth cloud your analysis. (and, if I'm wrong here and you're somehow not in her camp then it really begs the question: wtf?)

King, I concur with your assessment of the quality of CBS's coverage in terms of respect for the game; but your Bay Area coverage was quite different then that of my Portland, OR broadcast.

I turned on my set about 10 minutes after the Notre Dame/Washington State contest tipped off, and of course the Xavier/Purdue game was nowhere near over. Over the final excruciating minutes of the X/P battle, not once did they cut away to show me what was going on with the Coug's. I just sat there watching the minutes tick by and the score go up and up in the little ticker bar on top.

When the X/P game did end, WSU/ND was nearly to halftime. They came back from halftime to show about 20 minutes of coverage (about 9 of gametime, tops) and then decided that with Notre Dame down by 10 that game wasn't worth watching.

This is the same beef I had with them last year, and the year before that. As impossible as this may seem, some of us aren't betting on the brackets. Some of us--you might want to sit down for this--some of us are watching the teams we follow throughout the season. There is no other sport and no other network that allows an in progress regional game to be preempted midway through to show a game that some suit has deemed more interesting.

That is wrong, and you know it's wrong. I'm glad they're streaming the games, but that doesn't cut it for me yet. I can't get me and my friends and family in my little office to cozy up to my computer monitor for two hours.

Obviously this is partly a problem with CBS's business model. If it were NBC we'd be getting the option of watching full games not only on NBC, but also on MSNBC and maybe even CNBC like during the Olympics. If it were ABC we could choose to watch the game on ABC or the one on ESPN or the one on ESPN2. But, it's CBS and they get to decide when I'm done watching the game of my choice.

It's bullshit.

It is shocking to me to see how incapable the Hillary supporters in this thread are of making light of their candidate (and by extension, themselves). This seems to me right in line with how Sen. Clinton seems to view herself (based on her many years in the public sphere). She takes herself far too seriously. Her supporters, in many cases, take her AND themselves far too seriously.

The ability to laugh at oneself, or at the shortcomings of one's chosen focus of admiration, is critical for good leadership as well as healthy "followship". Each day that passes sees Clinton's zealots digging deeper and deeper trenches, and her thoughtful supporters abandoning her in favor of a candidate who offers not just thoughtful arguments for similar policies but also a commanding integrity that far outshines the desperate attacks of his Democratic rival.

And, btw Clinton's attacks are in reality quite shocking viewed within the context of two Democrats going after the same (stated) goals. Be honest with yourself: you never imagined a year ago that the Clinton campaign would be slinking in the mud to the degree that it has/is. 'OPUS' is a comic strip: to satirize the actual behavior one must take the satirical behavior beyond the actual. Lighten up.

Walter,

I have really been enjoying your coverage of the Democratic race. But, rather than commend you for journalistic integrity allow me to commend you for your post-modern/second-tier, journalistic integrity:

Your choice of "(warning: cliché alert)" was funny and admirable. The word cliché itself has become a cliché; to the point where it's nearly a signal to 'tune out momentarily! By drawing attention to this you force the reader to focus more broadly, and reinforce the pre-cliche meaning of the word. That is a beautiful technique!

Bravo.

Rowe,

That was really, really funny! Thank you for that!

Mr. Breathed,

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

I forced everyone I know (or perhaps more accurately, suggested that it would be best for) everyone to read last week's strip. I could not believe how far you went; I could not believe that so few understood why you went there, and moreover why you had to.

Last week was brilliant.

This week is transcendent!

All the greens and oranges and ambers out there don't sweat it. A new wave is upon us, and as the Founders rejected the crown, so we shall reject the oligarchy, and retake the ways and the means for the betterment of all mankind.

Melodramatic? Fuck yes. We deserve nothing less!

The desire to punch one’s face upon hearing their voice is, in and of itself, simply not a sexist remark. While I sometimes experience this exact feeling when hearing Sen. Clinton’s voice, I always get this feeling when I hear George W. Bush’s voice; I increasingly have it when I hear John McCain’s; and I am even having it occasionally these days when I hear Bill Clinton’s voice (a shocking response I would never have imagined 8 years ago).

That that comment was interpreted by someone as sexist says more than anything else about the ridiculousness of this whole argument.