Yes they are Democratic primaries, not the general election, but I'm still uneasy that the state that gave us George Bush (Texans could have said: are you crazy, this guy as President?, but didn't) and the state that ensured his re-election (even after the focus on job loss and Democratic concentration there in 2004 Ohio went for Bush against its own self-interests) decide whether it's over or goes on. Are these really the people we want to entrust with deciding who our nominee is in 2008?

You've got to hand it to her. In spite of her attacks on the alleged media bias against her, Hillary quite literally dominates every single news cycle. Even following Obama's eleven straight wins, the lead stories are inevitably thus: what can Hillary do to get back in the game/catch up/come back? Are we being too tough on Hillary? Is Obama getting a free pass? Every storyline, good or bad, has been handed to the press by the Clinton campaign.

In the parallel universe that is the Clinton campaign, this point is rarely, if ever, discussed. It's almost become a pathology. The media can't help themselves, they just have a compulsion to cover her every public utterance and take at face value every reckless charge (Obama hates the Jews, Obama is an empty suit).

What this unfortunate oversight misses is something all voters need to consider: this destructive and co-dependent relationship the press has with Clinton is a part of the whole Clinton thing. It will never go away. All the chaos, the drama, the histrionics, the whining, the blaming, the almost oppressive narcissism and self-pity, is not something new. We had it in the 90s and Arkansas had it in the 80s. It is a fundamental component of the Clinton public experience. So much so that it goes unnoticed by the Clintons themselves and their most ardent supporters. People living inside a psychosis, see their psychosis as perfectly rational (really, the tinfoil hats will keep the government from reading my thoughts).

So I say to the undecided voters of Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont, is this really how you want to spend the next four years? All caught up on Clinton drama and histrionics' gerbil wheel? Spinning and spinning and spinning? With meaning and productivity being lost to unrelieved whining and belly-aching?

Please, please consider that when making up your minds.

To CHHabili :

I read with great interest your rant against the Clintons.You seem to have quite an axe to grind.Even Walter Shapiro recognizes

the qualities that Hillary bring to the Presidency,she is much

maligned by quite a few people all of whom have developed "Obama

fever",including you.Your support for a "johnny come lately" out

of Illinois,with no practical experience to offer and lots of

false hopes and empty promises has got millions of voters completely mesmerized (can he walk on water too?).Wake up you fools he is NOT what he appears to be and ALL of you will found the hard way just how good a President he will be after he sits

down with Osama Bin Laden,Hugo Chavez,..etc to talk thing over.

The NEWS of the World newspaper of London,UK had the following

headline the eve of GW Bush reelection in 2004"There are 59,789,567 million idiots in the United States..."I hope all of you Obama supporters don't join that group.If Obama gets the

nomination I will sit this election out,I am an independent NOT

a Democrat.The Democratic Party has gone to the dogs!!!!

More than one study has been done on the subject of media bias - for Obama, against Clinton. Conclusion: it's verifiable. I can't remember the source (a highly reputable media watchdog), but stories and analyses and TV commentators critical of (not to mention cruel toward) Clinton were running three to one in Obama's favor as of a few weeks ago. I'm sorry, but the bias is SO blatant that it's making Clinton supporters really dig in their heels. Obama's cool condescension towards her doesn't exactly warm the heart, either; he comes off as a real chauvinist at times.

I'm afraid the damage is already done: it's entirely possible that Clinton partisans will just stay home when the general rolls around. That's how offputting this whole charade has become.

This excerpt from a story in Media Matters (nonpartisan media watchdog) buttresses my argument above:

"During the January 26 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford responded to host Joe Scarborough's assertion that former President Bill Clinton is "divisive" by stating,

'You know, I have sat down here in Florida for the last month. And I have watched the coverage, and I really think the evidence-free bias against the Clintons in the media borders on mental illness. I mean, I think when Dr. Phil gets done with Britney [Spears], he ought to go to Washington and stage an intervention at the National Press Club. I mean, we've gotten into a situation where if you try to be fair to the Clintons, if you try to be objective, if you try to say, "Well, where's the evidence of racism in the Clinton campaign?" you're accused of being a naïve shill for the Clintons.

'I mean, I think if somebody came out today and said that Bill Clinton -- if the town drunk in Columbia [South Carolina] came out and said, "Bill Clinton last night was poisoning the drinking water in Obama precincts," the media would say, "Ah, there goes Clinton again. You can't trust him." I really think it's a problem. You know what? You guys make him stronger with this bashing. This actually is what makes the Clintons stronger.'

"More than one study has been done on the subject of media bias - for Obama, against Clinton. Conclusion: it's verifiable. I can't remember the source (a highly reputable media watchdog)"

KateTex: If you are trying to make a substantial point, instead of just make one up, "I can't remember the source" fails utterly. You might as well say, "I'm pulling this out of my ass." There's no excuse for such evasions in the google age. Find these multiple studies and provide the links so we can read them ourselves.

Until that point, you're just blowing smoke. You might as well be saying, "I can't remember the source, but I'm sure a highly reputable watchdog says Mexico steals tourist kidneys."