I wish the Clinton team had not done this, but I don't think it is any worse than accusing Bill Clinton of race baiting on several occasions which has worked to drive blacks away from Hillary Clinton and has erroneously given many the idea that she is running a racist campaign. The fact that Obama supporters in the media spread the lie doesn't make the allegation true. It offended me then and I am still furious. At that time, I was still backing Edwards so my feelings about it were not partisan. I felt that the whole thing was highly destructive to the Democratic Party because it drove a wedge between the Clinton supporters and the black community.

Comparing Bill Clinton to McCarthy is over the top and crosses that line Conason talks about. It sounds pretty cynical to me, too. I am tired of Salon beating up on Hillary and Bill. This publication rarely has anything good to say about her, devotes almost all of its space to promoting Obama, and has many times accused her campaign of doing ugly things while rarely, if ever, pointing out the less the equally unethical conduct of the Obama campaign.

Predating this brouhaha, in conversations with my Jewish friends, I have not been able to find a one of them who supports Obama. They are very angry about Rev. Wright and Michelle Obama's comments about America. One even went so far as to say that she will back McCain if Obama is the nominee. Of course, my friends make up a small group and may not reflect Jewish sentiment as a whole; however, I get the feeling that if Obama if the nominee, he is going to encounter a great deal of hostility out there within the Democratic Party itself. I know I am not sold on him because of his lack of experience and when one of Obama's devotees called me a racist because I suggested that Michelle Obama has a hostility problem, I have had to fight back angry feelings toward the whole idea of his candidacy. To think that blue states will remain blue with Obama at the top of the ticket is not necessarily true. The fact that he won red states and has not prevailed in the big blue states like California and New York and others on the east coast, even Massachusetts where Ted Kennedy and Kerry endorsed him, says plenty to me about his electability.

I am delighted that Edwards has not endorsed either candidate. It will be a big disappointment to me if he does before the nomination. These endorsements are such a farce...anybody with any sense at all knows that a deal of some kind was made which will accrue to the endorser who then comes before the people in all his feigned eloquence for self-serving reasons to tell us how to vote.

I hardly call the New York magazines piece even handed but it was enlightening. Words, such as "self-aggrandizement," "glib" and "aloof" are very judgmental reflecting more on the author himself than the candidates. All the same, it was still very interesting to find out that Edward's reticence is issue related. That makes me happy that I was one of his ardent supporters.

It should be pointed out that Hillary has the diplomatic skills to cool off any residual resentment which Edwards may have carried for her in the campaign. Hillary knows how to behave with adversaries. When she shook Kennedy's hand at the State of the Union, she demonstrated her ability to maintain her dignity.

I am beginning to see why Salon devotes so much of its space to Obama...it is the only way to survive. If anything is remotely frank, much less critical, of Obama, his supporters call for his/her head. The Democratic Party is a huge diverse coalition of many opinions, some even conservative, but there is little tolerance if Obama is not viewed as some kind of savior, perfect politician, true mechanism for change, blah, blah, blah, blah! I believe this attitude is divisive and destructive to the Democratic Party.

I am one of those liberals, yes liberals, who happens to back Hillary because I question whether Obama can win in November. I think a number of factors will sink him--- number one being racial (racial prejudice is still rampant), number two being his association with Rev. Wright which has just emerged but was always suspected by conservatives, number three his perceived liberal politics, and equally as important his perceived but actual lack of experience.

Along those same lines, Hillary's gender may sink her, too. For that reason and others, I did not want Hillary to be the nominee. Edwards was my choice but he never caught on and was ignored to death by the media which from the very beginning liked the idea of a race/gender election as being much more exciting to cover. Also, I have wondered if the media really wants McCain to win and have pushed Hillary and Obama so as to have a better shot at keeping us in Iraq with a McCain victory. I've been told I am paranoid about this. If I am being too suspicious, then why do the media not really cover the Iraq blunder anymore. Instead, we keep hearing about how wonderfully the surge is working when that absolutely is not the case. That digression aside, I return to my reasons for wanting Hillary. It is simple. I believe she will appeal to a wider range of Democrats and like lolcait, I think many, many Dem's will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I do not approve of that attitude, but it doesn't matter whether any of us approve. Voters are going to vote for whomever for whatever reasons, many of them being bigoted and not thought out. By the way, I won't vote for McCain but I'll be mighty angry that the Democrats found a way to jeopardize their chances by offering the American people too controversial a candidate.