The extreme right hates McCain. They have been whining ever since he won Florida. They are pissed that with the likes of McCain and Huckabee that they cannot drive the agenda a be the kingmakers.

Make no mistake, they still hate Clinton. Watch them go back and forth trying to damn with faint praise or outright villify either Obama or Clinton. They want to weaken whichever Democrat appears to be the most likely nominee and some of them may be hoping for a third party choice that they find palatable. (You have seen them at work even at Salon in the guise of virulent Hillary Haters.) However, make no mistake, most of them will hold their nose and vote for McCain if they have to. Democrats are helped by the fact that many of the rank and file may stay home and the rest may be in disarray. Karl Rove's star may be fading.

Acting Like You Are On the Side Of the People But Being Allowed to be Bought by the Elites Who Want To Enslave or Destroy Us All.

Good title. Can't wait to read the book.

why do you always reappear when "Thrasher" disappears?

Is there a connection?

"brightstar65

why do you always reappear when "Thrasher" disappears?

Is there a connection?"

Both respondents have crippling issues regarding gender and race. Both lack compassion, although brightstar appears to be able to string a sentence together without calling anyone a racist or using phrases such as " Privileged white woman", " Making a difference, do you?", or " lol,lol,lol", he has consistently insulted that which he seems to most desire.

The only "difference" made by their posts is one of discord. The hostile words, and the manner in which they attack another gender or race serves as a reminder to us all that there are some absolute nuts out there!

One Misogynist, check.

One Racist, check.

Whether they are on Salon to go after Salon itself remains to be seen. It sure does seem like they need some attention!

As Shakespeare said, "Character is in the accessories."

"That you fell into this rhetorical trap you yourself constructed is so funny, I will be giggling thinking about it all weekend."

It's funny, but once I hit "Publish my letter" I tend not to think too hard about it. I play with my kid, I listen to music, I live a full and varied life that just doesn't grant me the time to sit and mull over rhetorical victories on this and other boards.

That you do speaks volumes, and none of them are very flattering.

When Obama speaks before large crowds he's simply amazing. Nobody does it better. But--and nobody ever points this out--in debates and in interviews, his speech is halting. He can't complete a sentence with stopping every three or four words with "ehrrs" or "hmmms". Hillary, on the other hand, speaks in complete, smooth sentences.

Yet, compared to our current president, for whom English is a foreign language, they are both terrific.

CLINTON-OBAMA '08

-- Actually I just read NYAmiga's message so I'll respond to it first: I think the reason Obama uses halting speech during debates is simply to find the best words to communicate. He ends up using less words, but with more impact. Hillary, on the other hand, says "um" much less, but uses more words, with somewhat lower impact. It's just a style point though -- both are very good speakers.

-- Regarding who "won": I thought Obama won. People have different takes on this. That's fine. Somebody in here wrote to disagree with me, then concluded by calling Obama a retard. I forget who that was, but you totally lost the argument when you took it that low. The fact is, both Obama and Clinton are highly intelligent. They're both top-tier candidates.

-- Regarding clothing: I too thought it was a little weird how Schaller's article mentioned the clothing. But not offensive. He's just making a visual description...that's what writers do! I thought Obama's tie was a shimmery light-patterned gray, not lavender. I thought Clinton looked nice with her light-blue jewelry. If Clinton wins the presidency, you can be sure she'll always have more interesting clothing than Obama would. (Though I'd like to see Obama win and then wear one of those cool African jackets that Mandela wore...)

-- Regarding the love-fest: Some people wrote that they thought it was bland and boring for the two to be so nice to each other. I thought it made it much more watchable! I got a warm, gooey feeling inside....like I just ate a hot chocolate-chip cookie. Yeah, that's it. Seriously, it made both candidates look better. It was especially important for Obama to look gracious, because it has been proven that antagonism toward Hillary wins HER points among women. Obama looked like a consummate gentleman. I think he pulled her chair out for her at the end.

-- Regarding Hillary's "cackle": She certainly has a notable laugh, but I agree, it doesn't qualify as a cackle. It's a hearty Southern-style laugh. My aunt who lives in Virginia has a laugh like that. It's endearing. It works for Hillary. Aren't you glad Hillary has a hearty, full-bodied laugh instead of a rodenty little giggle?

-- Regarding Obama's response on inner-city black and Latinos taking their jobs: That was the right response. Obama made it very clear that although the problems are complex, he is above scapegoating minorities. With just a few words, he erased any possible unease among potential Hispanic voters. He doesn't have to worry very much about losing the black vote, and he won't lose it based on that comment.

-- Love-fest aside, I did notice Obama taking at least one solid, but careful, swipe at Clinton, for her Iraq vote, which I've already mentioned here. It was interesting to watch Clinton's reaction to that. Here is what I imagined her thinking: "Barack...? Do you want to be vice president, or don't you?"

-- Clinton's answers about Iraq prove that this is going to be an ongoing problem for her. This is one of her biggest weaknesses, and I do not think she's ever answered it to anybody's satisfaction. One of the questions posed was, "Why haven't you denounced your vote?" and the real answer, which Clinton can't come out and say, is "Because I don't want to lose face." That is all it comes down to -- Hillary knows she was wrong, but she can't lose face. That said, I agree with others who stated that when Wolf Blitzer challenged her to explain why she wasn't "naive," he overstepped his role. You didn't seem him ever asking Obama a negatively pointed question like that.

-- Regarding the question of this being a "Dream Ticket": I don't know about "dream," but they'd be a good ticket. I laughed out loud at the poster who wrote that it's a redneck's nightmare. It's pretty obvious that Hillary would be loathe to settle for a VP slot. But I'd be sorry to see Obama stuck in that position (even though it would prime him for a later presidential run). I liked Obama's response: that it's a premature question. There's no reason people shouldn't think of Obama as a *presidential contender*.

I liked that debate. They both looked good. Hillary isn't my choice, but she's all right. I think the U.S. can do better than a re-Clintoned White House, and I don't really understand why anybody would choose Hillary over Barack, but....