I thought you'd gone to Politico already, Mr Shapiro. Guess I celebrated too soon. So keep piling on with the anti-Hillary screeds just before you go.

I was really bummed out after South Carolina. But this rout in Florida erases that. Pure joy.

As I watched the returns come in last night I wept.

KcM posted @11:56 last night about Hillary's widely reported snub of Obama in the Senate back when word came out of his contemplation of a presidential run. Your silence is deafening.

Your hypocrisy is once again exposed.

This appeared in an article in the Nation magazine. It's about Edwards so naturally it isn't in this Salon piece. Just like Edwards, rural voters are evidently invisible to the media.

"In rural areas, Clinton pulled just 42 percent of the vote to 24 percent for Obama. Edwards showed his greatest strength in the small towns, winning 31 percent. Interestingly, Edwards won 10 of the state's 67 counties and ran a strong second in many more.

That's especially bad news for Clinton because, as a number of the country's most rural states prepare to vote February 5, Edwards will be competing for their votes. The populist Democrat showed in Florida, a state where he did not even campaign, that he can run strong in rural areas. And Edwards will be campaigning in coming days on Oklahoma, Tennessee, Minnesota and other states with vast rural stretches.

That means that, even as Clinton focuses on her fight with Obama in big urban states such as Florida and New Jersey, she will still be feeling some heat from John Edwards in regions that are not necessarily Obama's bases of strength."

About 1.5 million Democrats voted in Florida yesterday. A little under one million of them voted for Hillary. When you get many more votes than your oponent, that is called winning. What anyone might have done had everything or anything been any different is beside the point. If there is a do-over probably the half million people who voted for Obama whom he is sneeringly insulting with his dismissive "beauty contest" remark may reconsider their votes.

Gotta rush--so I'm making it quick:

@Deadhead (or anybody):

The numbers don't really add up--most of us think the C and O are sort of even, splitting the contests, etc. Yet the numbers for C are way too high. Is this the super delegates thing? If so, what's that about exactly, and why is it not EVERYWHERE in the msm, given that they are so invested in the horse race aspect anyway. I mean, in general, it's amazing how little they talk about the delegates. Shows go on cable for an hour at a time, and all the talk is about the "winner" etc., with nary a mention of delegate count.

So, what's up with the super delegate thing?

This was a music-hall song about a hundred years ago. It's pretty clear that Mr. Shapiro and Senator Clinton won't be walking down the aisle together but, having read his recent articles, I can't help wondering how any intelligent, reasonably objective, journalist has neither the guile nor the "taste" to conceal such bitter hatred for one particular candidate. When brought to book by his fellow Americans for misrepresenting what occurred in a debate involving Clinton, Edwards and Obama, Mr. Shapiro blithely ignored the protests and continued with his hatchet job. As I see it, Walter Shapiro is the Lizzie Borden of Salon.

I am more than pissed off -- spitting mad is more like it -- at the stupidity and obduracy of the Michigan Democratic party establishment. Brewer, Granholm, Levin, Dingell, the whole lot of them. I have never felt so disenfranchised from the primary season as I do this year. But the party establishment has gotten what want out of this messed-up, anti-democratic and anti-Democratic election -- they've delivered the state's nonexistent delegates to their chosen candidate -- so why should they give a s*** what the mere peons, the voters, think? If the national convention agrees to seat the Michigan pseudo-delegation, that will just be rubbing salt in the wound. The only acceptable solution is to hold a real caucus in Michigan, with all the candidates actually running and on the ballot. Anything less is a farce and a fraud. But with the party establishment we've got, fat chance we'll see any justice this year.

Dear Walt,

Thanks for pointing out the ludicrous method by which the democrats will nominate a presidential candidate, and thanks for relating it to the 2000 presidential election.

Democrats like to hold elections, and then modify the rules after everyone has voted. Our true saviors of democracy.

if not because of delegates, Hillary did get some 850,000 votes and Barack 570,000 votes. That in my opinion cannot be ignored. Too many votes to be ignored away by calling it

``beauty contest''.

The ridiculous notion that anyone in this country should be disenfranchised due to archaic rules set by either party is an affront to democracy. Not only did Hillary Clinton win the primary, she garnered more votes than ANY other candidate, Democrat or Republican.

It is worth noting also that she received more votes in Florida--by herself--than the total vote in the Democratic primary of 2004.

The Democratic Party better tread carefully here. To attempt to further disenfranchise residents of a state that many felt were not given a fair deal in past elections could come back to haunt them in November.

I sincerely hope that these delegates are seated.

Hillary's ability to get almost 1,000,000 people to get out to cast votes on her behalf--even though they knew the votes to be potentially worthless--speaks volumes about her, her candidacy, and the upcoming general election. And though I doubt anyone will take up the cause on Hillary's behalf, that in itself is a major story.

Also the idea that a few days campaigning would have altered the outcome seems silly to me, since this has been a national election from the outset. Anyone who cares enough to vote in a primary knows well enough who these candidates are, and that does not bode well for Barack Obama in the weeks ahead.

Thank you,

Robert Sandy