So, Slate - when does Hillary get an equal share of the complimentary coverage?

She's not? Well, why not?

You thought that was complimentary?! No wonder Hillary people think all media is biased.

see your ludicrous statement for what it is.

Dickerson did his usual best to find a downside for Obama. Slate's Hillary "deathwatch" would seem to be biased aginst Hillary but they keep putting her chances of winning at around 10% which is quite ridiculous given Obama's insurmountable delegate lead and growing number of supers.

Still Dickerson did report that Obama had a large cheering crowd, something that Hillary has been unable to match anywhere even though she has won some states.

Why is this? Because people vote for Hillary not because they are inspired by her but because they feel that her centrist pandering might make her more "electable."

Sounds a lot like 2004 when the more "elecatable" Kerry lost to George Bush. Obama inspires people. He gets them to want to become part of the process. His candidacy has brought huge numbers of new voters into the process...

Obama has told the American people that they need to become involved if they want real change. Hillary has said that we need her. Obama has said he needs us. Which is the more compelling argument?

Slate has a pro-Obama bias, this much is pretty clear. Of course, since it isn't an unbiased news source and never pretended to be--it's a site for opinion pieces, not straight-up coverage--I see nothing wrong with that.

That said, it is also a media outlet, and the media thrives on the horse-race aspect of politics. If you ask me, Clinton lost this race in February after Obama's string of victories; I said as much at the time, and nothing since has changed my opinion one bit. But the media wants to squeeze as much coverage and excitement out of the race as possible, so they continue to pretend Clinton has a shot even as the dirt falls on her coffin.

Funny, the Obama camp has been making a rather concerted "electability" argument of their own. Looking at policy positions on issues like health care (wow, wouldn't it be nice to talk about policy for a change?), Obama's plan is the more conservative, or "centrist" if you prefer.

I've read Slate authors from the beginning of his contest paint Hillary Clinton in a far more negative light - remember, she's the "emotional", stone-cold manipulator who gets criticized for her choice of clothing, but who is unfairly claiming she is being judged more harshly because of her gender.

In this article, the author certainly mentions the McCain flub, but then goes on to note Hillary's hypocritical statements about it. So if the article is slanted against Obama, I'm having a hard time seeing it.

During the first debates, when Hillary was pounded with the same types of non-policy, "character" questions, Obama fans (and Slate) wrote it off to the realities of the political process. When Obama flounders under the same kind of questioning in return, however, it's suddenly the worst debate in recent history.

Please. If you've been reading Slate, you must have seen the Obama-halo effect, and Hillary's little horns.

What people are not getting: the optimal course for this election to take, for the McCain camp, is for Obama to drum up a lot of emotional enthusiasm, but remain relatively unexamined/untested. Then they've got all this character-destroying ammunition, see, that they can undermine his campaign with through shock value and repetition. What he needs is to be challenged on these issues now, to inoculate the electorate against them later. And frankly, if he's got a glass jaw, better he break it now in the primary.

If you're asking me who has the more compelling argument, I'd argue in return you're being naive. Look at their policy positions. Hillary's the more progressive of the two.

But you'd never know it by the coverage. Odd, that.

Hillary and Obama are pretty close on policy. Hillary has been consistently more hawkish then Obama on Iraq and Iran but I do believe that their pretty close on that issue too.

The big difference between the two is their approach to the voters. Hillary has treated voters as gullble and naive and has changed positions so often it's hard to know, if anything, she truly believes.

Obama has treated the voters as intelligent and capable of changing this country. He has told them, rightly, that nothing will change unless they get involved and demand change.

We face many big challenges as a nation right now: the war in Iraq, a huge national debt and a falling dollar, global warming, job losses and wage stagnation to name a few.

If we fail to address these problems now we are on the road to national ruin. Hillary does have ideas but she doesn't inspire people so it's hard to see how she be able to make her ideas into reality. McCain offers more of the same failed Bush policies.

Only Obama has the right ideas for real change and has the power to convince the people to demand that change. This is why we must elect him as our next president.

I can't believe you are actually defending HRC's choice in clothing. Those Womanish Leisure Suits are the definition of drab and clunky outerwear. Its like she just stepped of the movie set for "1984: 20 years later". She made 100 million dollars and she shops at Lenny and Carls House of Salvation Army Rejects?

Condi may not know her way around the world, but she sure knows her way around a rack of clothing.

Obama doesn't have a glass jaw. He's a good campaigner who knows how to dish it out and when to let things slide. Contrast his campaign with John Kerry's for a sobering reminder. He will be a good candidate in the general election.

There's nothing naive about questioning Hillary's policy arguments. Obama has better ideas on health care - it makes a lot more sense to be able to opt out of coverage, keep premiums low, and to simultaneously mandate coverage for people who can't choose (children). Hillary is close to having a workable system, but universal health care only works if you can offer to pay the premiums. Believe me, a lot of the people who really need coverage, can't.

What's nice about Obama's ideas is that they don't have flash - they don't try to blaze a new trail that would probably get bogged down in Congress anyway (see health care plan, Clinton). They're just smart and practical and have more or less the right priorities. And they seem pretty feasible - reinstitute the estate tax, raise the cap on Social Security taxes. You might agree or disagree with his numbers, but at least he's telling you how his ideas would be paid for.

Regarding the gender issue, no doubt there have been piggish remarks from both right and left directed at Hillary. However, for a candidate with African American ancestry to make it this far is a significantly greater achievement than a woman making it this far. Only eight years ago, Dave Chappelle joked that if he were elected president, his only chance to avoid assassination would be to appoint a Mexican vice president. That Obama has sold us on his ideas and his character, says a lot about his remarkable gifts. Geraldine Ferraro was way off base. If he were white and had that wattage of charisma, I suspect he would be even further ahead. But there's no way of knowing that.

of the "The sky is falling!" reaction many of his supporters had to the last debate? Think that their anger might have been a little misdirected?

I'm getting tired of arguing this repetitively. Look here, if you're inclined. I don't have anything in particular against Obama, and will vote for him without reservation, assuming he gets the nomination (as will almost certainly be the case). But I think Clinton's objectively a better candidate, and I wish she'd had a fair chance.

making a similar comment about any of the male candidates?

Didn't think so. Thanks for demonstrating that point (again).

I put this in for two reasons.

First, I've heard many people complain that HRC is critised for her clothing, but I've never seen or read one such complaint. So now there is one.

Second, I think the term 'womanish liesure suit' is hilarious and pretty damn accurate.

These primaries have been going on for what seems like ages, and the majority of Slate readers are educated and in touch with politics, especially those who post here on the Fray. These are the people who exhausted their attention to policy long ago. We know what the differences and similarities are, we've gone over both Obama and Clinton's with fine-toothed combs, so to expect an op-ed type of publication like Slate to rehash them over and over again is to completely misunderstand their goal and function.

The alternative? Rehash the weekly politiks; the gaffes and statements, and glad-handing speeches. It may not be the most educated and civil source of political information, but it never purported to be that in the first place. Slate is here to sell ad space and keep some authors on the payroll.

Maintenant, Bandolier, I won't insult you by telling you to go somewhere else if you feel Slate is biased towards Obama. But I really wish you could understand Dickerson's tone, at least in the preceding article. It seems to me that Dickerson has caught wind of some of the Clintaumoton's criticisms, and is doing his best to impartial, and I think the only way he knows how to do this is to be subtly insulting to BOTH candidates. It's odd for me to finish an article that I considered to be nipping at Obama, and come to the Fray where you assert that it is biased against Clinton. I guess it just comes down to how you perceive the rally with Dickerson's mocking thrown in.

To explain my bias towards Obama: I think progressively to a fault. I'm always theorizing with a nod to years so far in the future, my ideas are unworkable. Hillary, as you say, has a more progressive approach to Healthcare, and in her case it also is to a fault. I could maybe be sold on it if she could explain how people who don't afford it now, will afford it through an even larger bureacracy, but she won't. And she's been looking rather duplicitous when the question is asked of her. I don't trust her plan for those reasons, and think it will be a good idea for her to try to originate it in the Senate, and let them expose every detail.

Honestly, I'm 24, in great health, and don't need the government to mandate health insurance premiums upon me to visit a poorly trained shaman, er doctor, who'll give me an expensive prescription pill (that was also poorly researched) to swap my symptoms around (my sinuses COULD be a little clearer, any way I could trade that for an occasional headache, grogginess, and a loss of appetite?). In an emergency, I have the wherewithal to cover myself, and as a rule, I try to avoid emergencies.

(I wasn't calling you a Clintaumoton above, but they are out there, and as much as I hate it, so are Obamabots)

I guess that makes your point. If they award a checkmark for your post then they must feel guilty by ignoring Hillary and want to make up for it by pointing us all to your comments. I think they are just ignoring the loser, we don't see too many Edwards articles anymore do we? Not many Kucinich posts either.

Uhm, that little blue bong-hit was quite unexpected.

But I disagree - the coverage at Slate has been skewed from the outset. Maybe we Hillary supporters just tend to notice when, you know, the majority of writers are effusive about the other guy, while describing Hillary as "strident", "manipulative", and (mis)playing the "gender card" when somebody mentions her "periodic instability" or something.

Obama's a politician. I hope you'all can get used to watching him act like one.

Oh, and for the record: about half of the Democrats in the country are still pulling for Hillary. She's way down, but not yet out. Dismiss her, you're also dismissing half of the party [something the editorial staff at Slate should consider, given their target Demographic].

Think about it.