Makes some of us wonder, why do they lionize and demonize? Does this news as entertainment have to feed the horse race? Does it have to feed the conflict instead of analyzing and informing people how to question what they are told.

Keep us all honest.

Thanks, Joan, for your comments about how biased the media (and, I would add, blogs) coverage of the Dem. campaigns have been. Obama can do no wrong, Clinton no right. It's like the Goofus and Gallant show.

Even worse, Obama acolytes cry "racist" and worse whenever someone says anything less than a hearty hosannah for their guy. It is all very depressing, not just because I think Clinton is the far superior candidate, but because our electoral politics looks more like some weird Survivor/American Idol/Oprah show hybrid. We're not looking for real talent, we just want to have someone make us feel good.

Obama may very well be an excellent president, and I will certainly vote for him if he is the nominee (will the Obama people stick with the Democrats???), but it would be nice to have a campaign with an level media/blog field. Well, one can "hope" for "change."

"But if you look at the way the race had tightened over the last two weeks -- the surge of momentum Obama got after winning South Carolina, the endorsements of Caroline, Ted and later Ethel Kennedy, SEIU and MoveOn.org, the predictions that he'd take away Massachusetts and he might even win California -- then it looks like a pretty good night for Hillary Clinton."

I'm sorry, but this rather equivalent to how people say the surge is working in Iraq: Set the bar for success so ridiculously low -- and in obvious contradiction to previous benchmarks -- that success is all but assured.

Two weeks ago, Sen. Obama was down 20 points nationally and leading in only two states: Georgia and his home state of Illinois. Meanwhile, Super Tuesday had been deemed -- by Terry McAuliffe and others -- to be Sen. Clinton's knockout punch. That, of course, didn't happen. Clinton swung and missed, and now it looks like we're going the distance.

Other than the one goofy Zogby +13 poll, which was such an outlier that few took it seriously, there weren't very many predictions going around that Obama would win MA and CA -- until the second round of exit polls. To suggest MA and CA were meant to be Obama pick-ups is, I'm sorry, disingenuous.

I haven't ventured into the asian-american discussion, so I presume you're correct in saying that awful and stupid things are being said by Obama promoters. But, trust me, Obama supporters (Obamamaniacs, Obamatons, "Obamamite dogs") have no monopoly on intemperate and idiotic rhetoric at the moment.

By the way, now that the California primary has come and gone, may I ask who you voted for? (Here in NYC, I voted for Obama.)

"Hillary Clinton's growing appeal with white, male voters is good news for America."

"I stated a fact: Obama lost California, despite his own multiracial heritage, because he didn't run a campaign that was up to the challenge of winning a majority of Democrats in this racially complex state."

Also, this isn't quite a "fact" -- more of a subjective analysis on your part. Sure, one could argue that the proof is in the pudding -- Latinos and Asian-Americans went for Clinton rather than Obama, Q.E.D. But it's just as likely, and this goes to my message below, that Clinton won California thanks to a diminishing-but-still-huge lead in name recognition. That's also not a fact, just a possible analysis of the returns.

Joan, your apologist stance for Hillary was always apparent but, since hanging around that clown and HRC water carrier, Abrams on MSNBC, you have grown tiresome in your excusing the Clintons for everything.

The media is not to blame. I know Abrams has his nightly rants about how everyone is sooooooooo mean to the Clintons but, honestly, it sound silly and whiney.

The Clintons have been around for 20 years. How much is there to talk about or write about. We know everything there is and more than we want to know about this dysfunctional duo.

Obama has not been around forever like the Clintons so there is more to talk about and learn about.

Use some common sense.

That will backfire on the campaign; it may already have begun to.

There's likewise reason to believe the pundit class's love for Obama might be hurting their chosen candidate.

Oh, Ms. Walsh. Look, we all know who you're pulling for in this campaign. The pundit class is a fickle lot -- I seem to remember them putting Clinton forth as the inevitable Democratic front-runner before votes were actually tallied. Who cares what they think, besides Clintonites eager for any bad news for Obama?

As for the Salonista flap about Asian v. Black racism, it's a mirror image to the ongoing "anybody who doesn't like Hillary Clinton is a sexist" nonsense -- just paranoiac identity politics ugliness. With all of the Anonymouseketeers scurrying about in Salon, I can only wonder who is saying what -- could be GOP provocateurs busy fanning internecine feuds between Democrats, or cynical pro-Clintonites trying to defame Obamaniacs, or Obama zealots out for rhetorical blood -- or all of the above.

I feel like Democrats want a good race in theory, until they actually get one. Then they get uncomfortable when the knives come out -- but this is the best race we've seen in a long time, and the face (and fate) of the Democratic Party as we know it hinges on its outcome. Politics-as-usual it's not, so who knows how it's going to end up. Enjoy the ride, before it's history! :)

The media keeps telling people that the media adores Obama. What's up with that?

in the feverish monomania of the Obama supporters, not just in the MSM but on blogs like Dailykos, which has essentially become an ongoing pep rally for their guy. It's a cult, basically. If you disagree, raise any questions at all about their demigod, they swarm you, demonize you, chant in your face. I do think it is turning thoughtful adults off.

Also, Obama's Reaganesque attachment to stylistic spectacle over substance (like that grotesquely fulsome Kennedy endorsement event) may be backfiring on him with core Democratic constituencies who don't buy his messiah narrative. He got crushed among working-class voters in Massachusetts, who apparently want more than happy words and rah-rah shows.

There IS a reason he is losing blue-collar voters, Latinos, and older voters. But to listen to the Obama fans, the only possible explanations are are that they're racists or they're old and cynical. His fans' persistent attempts (which Obama himself today endorsed) to basically blackmail Dems into supporting him by implying that his glorious coalition will abandon the party in November if he's not the nominee, is only making things worse.