Thanks no small part to your own role in ensuring that Mrs. Clinton didn't get the nomination at any cost and riling up the lefty-left rabble into a hate-ridden, profanity filled, vulgarity contest to rival anything, and I do mean anything the right has ever offered.

By the time the Republicans are done ensuring Barrack Obama is seen as the inexperienced, corrupt, incompetent (that he actually IS sadly), the Dems will be lucky to win a mayors office anywhere with the least bit of a diverse population.

So Mr. Shapiro, I hope you'll wear it really proud when President McCain begins the last unravelings of social security, employer funded health insurance and of course, any moderation in the federal courts.

If there were less male 'journalists' and CEOs that were less concerned with insecure penis issues and just recognized the facts in this primary season maybe, just maybe this would have been a whole different ball game...no pun intended.

And now cue peanut gallery:......Got all your 'Hillary's been dropping the ball for the last 100 years anyway' comments out of you now? Good.

OK, now let's see how golden the golden boy is going to be. McCain and the Repu-bots haven't even STARTED yet. There just waiting. I want the Dems in but, man this is going to be a blood bath and were going to see how CHANGE plays a part in all of this. The only thing I see changing are the minds of middle-class, 'heartland' voters and their related ilk. You think once the Repugs start the hate machine that they're going to go Dem? We'll see...we shall see. So thanks media. One dynasty ended for health issues, the other because of YOU. Happy now?

Can you please please please do ALL of us a favour and ban this yahoo ShawnWM already?? It's painfully obvious that he's nothing but a neo-con troll who is only stirring the pot? His continued use of right wing talking points is a dead giveaway, and I'm almost positive that he is also the same "Anonymous" that caused so much trouble a few months back (his manner of writing is VERY similar).

Simply put, allowing him to continue to post as an ostensible Clinton supporter achieves nothing but to continue the rancor that's been brewing here these last few months.

thanks

Think it was a slip? Same slip 4 times?

Four days after ABC polled that 59% of Americans feared for Obama's safety, Hillary started talking assassination.

Hard to believe, but this site has the facts and sources: zFacts.com

The facts show this was a very well crafted message designed for "plausible deniability." Remember, Hillary is brilliant.

You can measure the desperation of the Republicans in Operation Chaos by the inanity and insanity of Shawn's tirades. Don't ban the barometer!

The sooner the Clinton dynasty of over the better. We need to get back to our progressive roots.

Clinton's cry about the media is absurd. They did not even talk about Obama until after Super Tuesday. Before that is was all Clinton. She played the "gender" then complains about sexism. Give me a break. Now Bill is running around telling the LIE that Hillary is winnin, but tehmediaiskeepingit from the public, Huh???. Have they gone over the edge.

Their desperation to keep Bill in power and the desperation of some of Hillary's supporters is very sad.

It will be a sad day for Democrats if the Clintons take this to the convention.

I remember this idea being considered. Gosh it'd be nice.

An 8-year presidency (Clinton's) makes not a dynasty, even with Hillary's 7 years in Congress. The Kennedy's, on the other hand, certainly are. So many of them have been in high office it's ridiculous.

Now, I'm only 23 and I remember the 90s and those political battles well enough. For a man in his middle aged years (Obama) to pretend as if (a) the 90s are ancient history, and (b) that he is truly 'post-Reagan'--having been a grown man throughout both the 80s and the 90s--seems a little cheeky to me.

Here we go again, another 'broad sunlit uplands' push by Salon to make us feel good about voting for Obama's sunny smile (that trust-me smile is so Reaganesque) and wave a 'thanks, but no thanks' to the 'ancient' Clintons. Salon writers have been so ridiculous in supporting Obama's 'game-changing' presidency, essentially depicting him as though he--and we--were a political tabula rasa. But how, if it WERE true, would that be a good thing? Where's the backbone? Why NOT argue for policy positions that make us right today, and made us right then? This disconnect with the past makes renders any attempt for real future change useless. (To put even less elegantly: what can we change when we're disconnected from the past?)

And what is so darn 'new' about the policy arguments of today that make them so fundamentally different to those of 16 years ago? For Pete's sake, even environmental issues are far from new (e.g. nuclear power scares in the 70s; the bloody Kyoto protocols were signed BY the Clinton administration.)

The logic of it all is so ridiculous...that the Democrats' best hope is someone who is unwilling to fight the fight, and who is willing to compromise (for the sake of what, unity? Bipartisanship for its own sake?) on the most CRUCIAL aspects of Democratic liberalism (HEALTHCARE, for the love of God.) And never mind, again, the ridiculous claims as to his 'newness', as if that alone should be reason enough to give him a shot.

Obama isn't standing up for social democracy, pure and simple. I don't care about what his 'historic' (i.e. black American) victory would mean for America; I DO care what tangible results he could pull out of the hat. But perhaps driving home that point is too 'Clintonesque', too 'realpolitik'...too...90s! (See, the 90s were bad because there was too much prosperity coupled with too much arguing.)

All of this punditry is nonsense; it is myopic and unhelpful. But I guess Thomas Mann was right: 'Is not the pastness of the past the more profound, the more legendary, the more immediately it falls before the present?' Indeed.