The question is how to explain Mitt Romney’s victory in Michigan primary, after his endless justification of President Bush’s economic and international policies. The facts are well known. After a defeat in New Hampshire primary, Mitt realized that Washington is broken and that only he can fix it. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of the Americans realized this sour reality long before Mitt Romney did, which makes the ex-Massachusetts governor the least probable candidate capable of fixing Washington.

It takes morally and intellectually crippled individual to completely change a course without realizing it. It takes a morally and intellectually crippled person not to feel a need to explain to the voters such an abrupt change. It takes equally crippled media not to report such a stunning attempt of fooling those unsuspected voters. The voters have their lives and many of them didn’t pay any attention during previous years, but the traveling circus of journalists should have noticed the previous political records. Our media have stopped holding our politicians up to higher standards and that’s why we have ended up with the leaders like George W. Bush.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

What if the pollsters got it right in New Hampshire? I believe they did, and here's why... The hand-counted votes strongly favored Barack Obama, just as the polls had said they would. But the machine-counted votes favored Hillary, enough for her to win the primary election.

How could this strange and suspicious inconsistency happen? The voting machines used in the New Hampshire primary election are of a type that can be tampered with, and that have been tampered with in the past. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are now both requesting a recount in New Hampshire in the interest of preserving voter confidence in this country.

Let me say the "unspeakable": I believe Hillary operatives made sure that Hillary would win in New Hampshire. I can't say exactly how they did it, but I think the inconsistency between hand-counted and machine-counted votes really needs to be looked into.

Hold on to your seats folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride !

Ronald James

Chicago, IL

I'm not sure the left realizes it yet, but a brokered convention scneario might be their best chance in a very long time to get some real power. The left must back Edwards and Kucinich, all the way to the bitter end. The Establishment Media poo-poohs it, but this could end up a brokered convention. If so, both Edwards, and even Kucinich, praise God, could have some serious horse-trading power come convention time. It's conceivable Kucinich could hold the deciding votes in some kind of tightrope contest, even if he can only muster ten to twenty-five delegates on the lonely campaign trail; he might truly be able to hold out for something substantial, which otherwise the Democratic Party would leave behind or ignore entirely. I'm very enouraged he's being allowed to debate in the Nevada caucauses--with only four candidates left, he's bound to get more airtime than ever. Anything helps at this point. My scenario is not only conceivable, or possible, but if both Edwards and Kucinich are supported through to the end, almost likely. I'm about to whip out my wallet and give another $10 to Kucinich right now. The left needs to rally to this. Even against admittedly longshot odds, it is a vision worth fighting for at this point. In the suddenly Wild West nature of this political season, every possibility must be pursued as best we can, a "no (rolling) stone unturned" sort of thing.

Peace.

S. Debs

San Diego, CA

Thank you for an excellent editorial. Your points about the pundits and pollsters are spot on, and it's nice to see someone in the press highlight the lack of press about John Edwards, which is truly remarkable, considering how much time Obama and Clinton have spent in his wake on so many policy issues.

Edwards has continually been out in front on issues ranging from healthcare to an increase in the minimum wage, to predatory lending. He has the bold proposals you say Obama needs to have. Yet by the end of your editorial, Edwards has disappeared again, this time in the race for South Carolina.

I support John Edwards because of his stance on the issues. I appreciate that he has never taken lobbyist or PAC money. I'd like Obama to explain why it was okay to take over $1 million in lobbyist/PAC money for his Senate race and Hillary to comment on the money she's received from the Carlyle Group. I would like to hear how either of them can talk of the need to reduce global warming while simultaneously supporting the liquification of coal, something that would double the rate of global warming, and which John Edwards is against.

They talk of being able to bring people together. Some of those folks we don't need brought together. In Obama's case he managed to bring together corporate execs and right-wing Republicans, and as a result he ended up voting for an expansion of NAFTA (so much for being pro-union), he voted to allow credit card companies to increase interest rates above 30 percent and he voted for Bush's 2005 energy bill. (Which certainly made coal, oil and nuclear companies happy.) John Edwards, on the other hand, has been endorsed by Friends of the Earth and the United Mine Workers. That's an alliance I can live with.

It's time Democrats in general and progressives in particular starting asking hard questions of Obama and Clinton, and expecting substantive answers. And it's time the media started paying attention to John Edwards.

Sandra L. More

Reno, NV