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.

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.

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!

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.

I get it all right. I get it that Obama is going to have a difficult time winning this election and I wish I had never heard of him or Hillary. This election has taken a turn that I have never witnessed before and it isn't pretty. Nor will I vote for McCain. I don't vote for Republicans. However, the ugly tone, the blatant hostility towards other Democrats is hard to take and is a big turn-off for people. Furthermore, many of those Democrats who have been subjected to it will vote for McCain.

Thank you for your civility. I don't vote for Republicans but many Democrats who have been attacked just might. That's my point.

Last week's polls had Hillary beating McCain while Obama only tied him. Of course, Walter, that doesn't mean anything to you people who have already decided that Obama can defeat McCain, despite the fact that he couldn't even beat Clinton in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania outspending her by 4 to 1. How is he going to persuade those bitter voters in PA that he really didn't mean those remarks, or the voters in W. Virginia that he is right for them, or Florida, full of Hispanics, that he's their man, etc? No, those minor little details don't mean a thing!

I have always felt instinctively that Hillary is the stronger candidate in November. She not only won the swing states, she polls better in them and is a more certain winner in them. Her contentions are correct in my view but I do not think it will sway the superdelegates who are being bought off with campaign contributions from Obama. Hillary's Iraq vote is what set the liberal faction against her and while I understand this, she will begin a systematic but stable withdrawal. Obama has been rather vague about his intentions in Iraq and I don't trust him to do anything more than Hillary would do if as much!

All the ranting by the Catholic priest sounds very familiar. These are the same points I have been reading over and over again from Obama supporters on the web who seem to be expert at mind reading. Hillary has "pulled" this and "pulled" that, she feels entitled, she is faking the tears, blah, blah, blah while Obama is an innocent fresh voice on the political landscape minding his own business. Baloney! Actually, incendiary accusations from his supporters have made it very difficult for me to accept Obama. On the other hand, Republican supporters have always repulsed me so thoroughly, I'm sure that I will be voting for the Democratic nominee whoever it is. I have to wonder, however, how many Democrats have been run off in the frenzy.....