In the 1920s while trying to recover from polio Franklin Roosevelt retreated to rural Georgia and formed the treatment center at Warm Springs.

While there throughout much of that decade he spent a lot of time driving around those very rural roads meeting and getting to know the people in the many small towns and hamlets he drove through. One of Roosevelt's gifts was a desire and enjoyment in meeting people and hearing their stories and sharing his.

In this process he engaged with these people and learned first hand the challenges they face and he did so not as a politician campaigning, but a person with his own challenges (polio) passing through. It was these trips and the people that he met that informed the New Deal and the development of the TVA and all of the many other programs that centered on providing relief to rural areas across the country as the Great Depression carried on.

By doing so he EARNED their respect and showed through actions, not talk, that he understood their piece of the world and that he cared.

What many of you who advocate leaving the people of Apalachia behind forget is that these people are Americans and they face challenges you can't even imagine, even if you happen to live in the same state or even the same town. No wonder they accuse Democrats and liberals of being elitist and all of the other epithets the Republican Party has provided them.

Right now, thanks to Bush being the worst president in the history of this country, there is an opportunity for liberals and Democrats to re-engage with these people and show through actions and deeds that we care and that we are all Americans. It is a chance to socialize these people away from the ignorance of racism and sexism and at the same time make their lives better as we improve our own.

And yet again, I say to those Obama supporters who are so filled with anger that they would support leaving whole swaths of Americans out of the political process--if you continue to spit in the faces of the other half of the Democratic Party (Hillary's supporters) and spit in the faces of all the rest of America, you will ruin Obama's chances to win and his chance to change American politics. You are as bad and ignorant and ruinous as any on the right wing.

You wrote in reference to disapointed Hillary supporters -- "Nobody really gives a shit who you vote for"

Ummm...you should care very much who they vote for because Obama cannot win without the support of the other half of the Democratic Party, not to mention at least a plurality of independent voters and a handful of Republicans.

This attitude that Obama will be able to win without the support of so many people that are outside of the scope of his current constituency is amazing and from many posts I have seen over the past five or so months is not uncommon.

United we win, divided we will lose and all the hope and promise that Obama represents will be for nothing.

I agree with you when you wrote:

"This isn't about a lack of capable woman politicians. There are quite some. The Point is they will not be considered viable enough for the amount of investment, political as well a financial, to get a successful campaign started.

Outside of Obama fantasy circles, there is a very serious majority that understands why Clinton fails."

People can piint to successful women politicians, but the fact remains they are not serious contenders to be president. Not in the same way that you can take a list of male politicians and make an argument for future presidential prospects.

In some cases it comes down to individual political realities--too liberal, couldn't win the nomination because they are too conservative, and etc.

But there is also the very real fact that for them to make the leap (and it is a leap in many ways) onto the national stage and promote themseleves as presidential contenders they have to do so in a manner that will make them look as if they are overly ambitious, self centered, and all of the other things hardened Obama supporters have accused Hillary of.

The reality of running for president is that it requires these traits. However, when a man does it--such as B. Clinton, Obama, McCain, and etc--they only seem as if they are "playing the game" or really are "being real" when in fact they are aggressively driven to succeed in a manner that would allow them to win a national nomination and general election.

But for women, to get there still looks uncomfortably negative and requires overcoming hurtles related to sexism and mysogeny that only makes the task that much harder and makes them appear that much less genuine.

Hillary is no different than Obama or McCain. In fact, she is more courageous than either in terms of policy (her health care plan is far better than either Obama or McCain's), but also in believing that she can overcome 20 years of corrosive, petty and untrue personal attacks, sexism, and running as a pragmatic center-left candidate in a party primary process that rewards further left candidates.

This is not to say that Obama is bad, far from it. Rather, Hillary is not what either the left or right have portrayed her to be. And many Americans get it. That is why she has polled as well or better than Obama against McCain throughout the primary. That fact alone, and the determination and level of support she has earned and won in the face of so many challenges, is why she deserves more respect than she gets from the Democratic left.

And it is why I have to wonder how another woman will be able to overcome all that she will face and still be able to do even as well as Hillary has all too soon.