The biggest pander (though perhaps not the biggest panderer) is Obama saying that he will immediately withdraw the troops from Afghanistan and that if he were a US senator in 2002 he would have voted against going to war.

Guess what, he can't and won't pull the troops out in the timeframe he claims and if he were a US senator in 2002, especially one up for reelection, he would have voted for the resolution.

This is not because Obama is a bad person. It is because he is running for president and is trying to win the race by being pragmatic and in a sense pandering to what he believes the electorate wants to hear.

And you know why the gas tax holiday is a good issue for Clinton and why she has taken the risk? She knows that most people don't think it is a good idea, but they appreciate that she is willing to try something to help working class Americans. What has Obama's proposal been as working people are squeezed by higher food and gas prices while real-income is less than it was twenty years ago?

Most people don't know the answer to that question, but they can point to at least one thing that Clinton would do for them, even if it may not work.

Against a very spritited and determined opponent. It is to both his credit to have hung on and her credit that she showed such strength in fighting for what she believes in.

I look forward to the coming election and supporting Obama, whom I presume to be the nominee, in what will be a very challenging and hard fought (it will make the primary look mild) general election.

To the Obama supporters who have been so hateful and accusatory of Clinton (who won nearly 50 percent of the votes and delegates) and her supporters, I can only laugh at the naivete you have displayed. You grew angrier because Clinton continued to campaign and you accused her and her supporters of being GOP supporters in some sort of healthcare-for-all-end-the-Iraq-war disguise.

And now that Obama appears to have locked it up, you continue to spit in the face of 50 percent of Democrats as you spit in the face of all Republicans and Independents that don't agree with you. Not a very good way to support your candidate as he struggles to build a winning coalition that will require the other 50 percent of the Democratic party, a majority of independents and even a handful of Republicans to win the election.

If people will read the responses on the NARAL website they would see that they are primarily arguing that compaired to Hillary, Obama is the weaker candidate on issues related to choice. And they are providing information to support that assessment.

Also, to those Obama supporters who continually spew hatred to Clinton and the millions of people that supported her--you are wrong and are the biggest obstacle Obama faces as he moves forward to the general election.

I've said it before -- Obama will need the support of the other half of the Democratic party, by spitting in the face of those people and independents in the electorate, those Obama supporters are making it very difficult to build a WINNING coalition.

What's right is right. Stand for what you believe in or remain seated.

Because he is representative of the ignorance behind the Republican claims that speaking to countries and organizations the US is in conflict with is the same as appeasing those countries and organizations. In other words--talking equates to facilitating threatening and dangerous actions taken by those who mean to do us harm.

Therefore, by taking down that individual and his ignorance, Mathews struck down at a symbol that represents the larger collection of people who believe and propogate that kind of crap. It is to say to the right wing and Bush and all the others who have done so much damage to this country and the world that you don't know what you are talking about. You are ignorant.