As macabre as Hitchcock could be, I doubt he would go so far as to portray cannibalism on screen. This was an episode of “Alfred Hitchcock Presents” where Bel Geddes played a housewife who murders her unfaithful husband with a frozen leg of lamb, roasts the murder weapon and serves it to the detectives. The episode, “Lamb to the Slaughter,” was based on a Roald Dahl short story by the same title (http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/lamb.html).

I give up: Whose friend is she? This post gives her more credibility than she has earned or deserves.

Her name is not Cilla Brown. Cilla Brown is a character on the long-running British soap, “Coronation Street.” The singer is Cilla Black. Her given name, interestingly, is Priscilla Maria Veronica White. It was a typo that changed her name from White to Black. She met the Beatles when she worked checking hats at the Cavern Club and I think it was John who got her the audition with Brian Epstein. As to nominating her as the Fifth Beatle, I disagree. At the Beatles’ 1988 induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, George Harrison at one point stated that there were only two “fifth Beatles”: Derek Taylor and Neil Aspinall. Besides, there are many other musical “Fifth Beatles” who would come before her—Eric Clapton, Billy Preston, Jeff Lynne (ELO), Jackie Lomax, to name just a few.

Barbara, do you do everything your kids tell you to do? The Supreme Court argument you present is misleading. In case you haven’t noticed, the 5 votes that could overturn Roe are already on the bench—Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Roberts & Thomas. (See Gonzales v. Carhart) All it will take is the right case. A Democratic president will have no effect on the make-up of the Supreme Court. The next justice likely to retire will be Justice Stevens and even if a President Obama nominates a raging liberal, it doesn’t change the fact that 5 votes to overturn Roe are already on the bench. And there is no guarantee that a President Obama will nominate a liberal to the Supreme Court. In the fall of 2005, Obama was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts’s intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds. Fortunately Obama’s chief of staff, Pete Rouse, reminded him that if Obama had any intention to run for president a vote for Roberts would bite him in the ass. Still liking that argument about how we need a Democrat to protect the Supreme Court? How about Obama’s backtracking on FISA? I guess he doesn’t believe in Constitutional rights after all. Doesn’t it bother you that he thinks the death penalty should be imposed for crimes where no death occurs? Or does none of that matter since, hey, it would be a Democrat in the White House! Hooray! But if you’re all for Obama, Barbara, here’s a bumper sticker for your car. Enjoy. Let’s make a deal: I’ll continue to whine and you can just STFU.

He didn’t win. He hasn’t won anything; reaching the requisite number of nominees isn’t the same as being the nominee. Only the convention delegates get to decide who the nominee is. I don’t care how many times you’ve interviewed Hillary; this piece suffers badly from banality. For example: “In the hours to come — I would argue by Friday at the latest — she will have no choice but to congratulate him as the winner or seem terribly ungracious and divisive.” Oh really? And by whose measure would she “seem terribly ungracious and divisive”? Al Gore was criticized for being divisive and ungracious for not conceding in 2000. It is not up to Hillary to unite the party. That is Barack Obama’s responsibility and so far he doesn’t seem up to—or willing to stoop down to—the task: “It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.” (Politico.com) Why worry about 18 million voters? Who is being “ungracious and divisive” now Cynthia? You can’t reliably read people’s minds. If you want to be decent, you can’t paraphrase any way you like. You need to be careful when you tell us what someone “really” said and especially careful about saying what somebody “meant” or “thinks.” Or about reporting the “impression” they somehow “gave” you. In the meantime, I suggest you brush up on George McGovern’s campaign in 1972.

Wow this is offensive on so many levels. Wait—Monica Crowley? Where have I heard that name before? Ohhhh, yes, a conservative radio and television political commentator, former assistant to the late former President Richard Nixon, former Fox News analyst, and female Jayson Blair. Why didn’t she just recycle her tasteless Glenn Close comparison for this tasteless commentary?

Yes, well, you know, she’s like Glenn Close at the end of Fatal Attraction. You think she’s dead, and then she sits bolt-upright in the bathtub.

Doesn’t anyone around here know how to use Google?

While I’m sure everyone is sending their good thoughts to the Senator and his family, perhaps we could avoid indulging in a continuous eulogy? I remember how Tim Johnson was basically buried after his brain-related health problems were announced. It was creepy. Let’s give Teddy a little more dignity than that.

This conversation doesn’t really address why Abigail Adams was able to persuade John to sign the Alien & Sedition Acts. It was more than being his “political compass.” You have to understand the context in which those acts were passed. At the time America was on the brink of war with France, the so-called Quasi-War. There was a lot of partisanship and Adams, a Federalist, didn’t support his party’s desire for a full war and agreed with the Republicans, who were led by Adams’ VP, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed that diplomacy would end the crisis. Complicating matters was that Jefferson and Adams didn’t get along, in part because Jefferson wanted the Federalist Party to fail, which meant that Adams would fail along with it. Some Federalists were accusing Adams of siding with the French and anti-French sentiment was fierce. Adams was under a lot of pressure; the press was attacking him and Abigail was really afraid for his physical safety. Adams was afraid of riots and the really ultra-conservatives were afraid of a French Revolution happening in America. Abigail was a great woman who was full of her own contradictions. While she believed in America’s independence, she thought revolution was a threat to the social order. She didn’t understand the criticism from the press. She strongly advocated the Alien and Sedition Act because it addressed what she considered the two most serious threats to the security of the United States: that of foreigners and criticism of the government by the press. Unlike this unnamed someone who told Lesley that McCullough got it wrong, I think McCullough got it exactly right. I would also refer people to Lynne Withey’s biography of Abigail Adams and to the Library of Congress for more information (http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Alien.html).

“I don’t think the campaign is race-baiting but it certainly means to draw attention to Obama’s skin color.” Joan, did it ever occur to you that the supporter was making a point about Obama’s inexperience? Naturally the lowest common denominator is appealing but he is a far less experienced individual than you’ve been led to believe. Since his election to the US Senate in 2004, he has spent probably more time campaigning for president than legislating as a senator. If you can find substantive proof of leadership in the US Senate, I suggest you put it on the table for consideration. And the race-baiting campaign? It’s not Hillary’s, it’s Obama’s. His campaign has consistently played the race card and put the blame on Hillary. Not only were these charges false, they were deliberately manufactured and then promoted by a compliant press corps. It’s a fraud that is being perpetuated by a supposedly uplifting campaign. Read and learn how race has been manipulated by a candidate who knows only how to play using a scorched earth strategy: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c2…

Liz, you’ve got Virginia on the brain because Sen. Brooke is not from Virginia. Brooke was the first African American to be elected by popular vote to the United States Senate when he was elected as a **Republican from Massachusetts** in 1966, defeating Endicott Peabody. He was also the first African American elected since Reconstruction, and the African American in the Senate until Democrat Carol Moseley Braun was elected in 1993. If anything, Barbara likes Republicans if she also romanced John Warner.

I always refer to the ever-excellent Paul Krugman at the NY Times on economic issues. His assessment: “The McCain gas tax plan is a giveaway to oil companies, disguised as a gift to consumers.” “The Clinton twist is that she proposes paying for the revenue loss with an excess profits tax on oil companies. In one pocket, out the other. So it’s pointless, not evil.” Krugman says here’s why the tax holiday doesn’t make sense: “It’s Econ 101 tax incidence theory: if the supply of a good is more or less unresponsive to the price, the price to consumers will always rise until the quantity demanded falls to match the quantity supplied. Cut taxes, and all that happens is that the pretax price rises by the same amount. … “Is the supply of gasoline really fixed? For this coming summer, it is. Refineries normally run flat out in the summer, the season of peak driving. Any elasticity in the supply comes earlier in the year, when refiners decide how much to put in inventories. The McCain/Clinton gas tax proposal comes too late for that.” In the end, though, Krugman says the gas tax holiday isn’t a major issue; it’s a one-time thing and voters know it’s unlikely to happen. Health care reform is more serious and more likely to happen and it’s on that issue where Hillary Clinton has the moral high ground while Obama has run against universality (his plan leaves 15 million without insurance).

I think the better question to ask is what has Obama learned about Wright in the past 8 weeks that he didn’t know over the past 20 years? How could he sit and listen to Wright’s sermons for 20 years and fail to see him for what he so obviously is? That “outrage and sadness” you saw was a calculated attempt to save his campaign. Will it derail Obama’s candidacy? I think it will do major damage because it shows that Obama’s judgment, which he has touted as a positive asset, is now called into question. He had to have known that Wright was a problem; that why he rescinded an invitation to have Wright speak at his campaign launch—yet the two of them prayed in private before Obama’s speech. Obama has never been honest about his relationship with Wright. His sudden “conversion” to disavow Wright will only raise more questions and could very well cost him the general election, if not the nomination. It certainly won’t help win him the working class voters he needs to attract. You ask: “Does this justify Sen. Clinton’s decision to remain in the race, despite her long odds and growing pressure from some Democrats?” You’re conflating two issues. Sen. Clinton’s decision to stay in the race is justified by her belief that she’s the better candidate. She will hang in there as long as she wants to, not because of pressure from “some Democrats.”

Neither candidate should drop out until **all the voters have spoken.** I’m a Clinton supporter by attrition, having supported John Edwards initially, and Barack Obama is by far the weaker candidate, since his campaign was designed to run on the strength of his personality as opposed to the strengths of his policies. Howard Dean is right and he speaks from personal experience as a presidential candidate. He’s a pretty strong-minded guy and smart enough to know in 2004 when John Kerry was the presumptive nominee that it was time to bring people together.

Joan is right; this does border on violation of the Establishment Clause but the Bush Administration has willfully looked the other way. Recall, for example, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jerry Boykin, who notoriously boasted, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol…” The whole U.S. military is dominated by those who truly regard themselves as Christian soldiers, who harvest souls and battle evil. Ms. Dee, you might be interested in Mikey Weinstein’s account of anti-Semitism at the US Air Force Academy called, “With God on Our Side: One Man’s War Against an Evangelical Coup in America’s Military.” Proselytizing is open and encouraged in the military.

“Get over” Bush v. Gore? On a snowy day in July, maybe, but really, never. I hope that decision is hung like a millstone around Scalia’s neck for the rest of his life. That decision was a disgrace to the Supreme Court.