I have read the statement Hillary made that you are referring to and I see nothing in it about McCain being a better candidate than Obama. As for attacks, I call race baiting a very ugly attack and it came from the Obama campaign, nor did I buy it at all...couldn't believe it then and still don't. As for attack ads, Obama has had a few of his own. This is a campaign and the candidates must show why they are more suitable than the other to be president. It is in the nature of campaigning.

I do not like being called ugly names. I have made every effort to be civil and I have been called all kinds of names and characterized in a derogatory way for offering my opinions. Also, others who share similar views have been attacked. I don't think it bodes well for the Democrats in November.

You indeed know little about me. I do have political positions important to me...actually, I have participated in elections going back to LBJ. Nor am I "dense," as you imply. I have never seen Democrats this divided and angry with each other, calling other Democrats names and characterizing them with words like "dense." This is new and not very hopeful for a Democratic victory in November. I believe that it is a very bad sign!

For your information, I am not a feminist in the sense that some women are. I am not a member of Naral. I admit I agree with the feminists in their strivings for equal status, etc. but to say that I am a knee-jerk feminist is a distortion.

I am for Hillary for reasons other than her gender. In fact, you will see if you read my long history of comments at Salon that I was for Edwards because I felt that Hillary and Obama would not be accepted because of the gender/race thing. I have not changed my mind about that but the voters selected between these two and we're left with it.

Actually, I am for Hillary because I know who she is. She has been well vetted and Obama is a novice. I do not think he is presidential material at this point in his career and I definitely believe that he will not be acceptable to the majority of Americans in a national election. I will not go into those reasons again because I have already stated them and it would take up too much space.

The polls were predicting Dukakis would win and John Kerry, too. Added to that, there wasn't an insurrection surrounding their nominations, either. Polls have been showing all this month that Hillary outpolls Obama against McCain in national match-ups.

Also, as far as Ohio being a bellwether state, it is and that pertains to primary votes. Do you actually believe that W. Virginia will change its mind and vote for Obama? It is not going to happen.

Obama has not yet received the nomination and if he does, millions of voters will be mighty displeased. Endorsements from Naral and John Edwards will not convince skeptical voters that Obama is right for America. They don't know enough about him and his associations in the past leave many doubts about him. The Democratic leadership can ignore votes like W. Virginia and PA if they want to, but they do so at the likely scenario of losing the election in November. Since February, in important primaries in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, Indiana, the voters have been giving warnings. Last night's vote was emphatic and dramatic. No Democratic candidate has won the presidency without W. Virginia since 1916. Also, Ohio is a bellwether state and Hillary carried very handily there. Obama is marked for loss and I do not want him to be our candidate. He is also the least known and the least experienced. I have no confidence that he can win and John Edwards and Naral cannot convince me.

Obama won all those delegates in red states heavily populated with blacks. Also, all those caucus wins are not an indication where the Democratic heart lies. Yes, Obama is attractive to blacks, the young, and liberals but he is not attractive to older Democrats, working Democrats, and moderate Dem's. He has gotten many popular votes but not all Dem's vote in the primaries. Voters in W. Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Indiana, California , New York, and others have clearly indicated they are not sold on Obama. In fact, many, too many, say they'll vote for McCain before they will vote for him. They are not making idle threats. The rebellion is for real!! Unfortunately, the Democrats are not listening. Party leaders are acting like Bush...stubborn. They think they can push him down the throats of average Americans. It isn't gonna happen!!!

Naral's endorsement does not impress me in the least. Obama is not a winner for the Democrats. The people have been saying this since February. Why won't Democrats listen? Not that I care particularly what Naral does. It just isn't that significant nor will it assuage voters. The same goes for the endorsement by John Edwards. It reflects badly on his judgment!

Edwards's endorsement of Obama at this time is actually infuriating to average Democrats who have been saying in no uncertain terms since February in important primaries that they do not want Obama to be the nominee. So what do Edwards and Richardson do? They endorse Obama right after a stinging defeat, throwing mud at us. This does not sit well and will not bring the party together. It looks staged, set up, and self-interested.

The Democrats are pulling a Bush type of mistake. The world told Bush not to invade Iraq. How does he respond?---he invades. The people have said not to nominate Obama. What do they do...endorse him. Same thing!