"Last, but surely not least, they hate Hillary supporters who are actually now for Obama."

Huh? I think Hillary supporters who now back Obama are rational intelligent people who understand what is at stake for this country. You backed a candidate, she lost, now you understand that even though the guy who won isn't your first choice, he still stands by the same principles as your candidate. That is how rational politics works. Niether Gore nor Kerry were my favorite choices in 2000 and 2004 but I understood what was at stake. I welcome all Hillary supporters to the fold for whatever reasons they had for backing her and I don't understand how anyone could want McSame to win if they truly beleive in what Hillary did.

The ones I have contempt for are the Hillary hold-outs who swear they will NEVER vote for Obama UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! This seems strange to me given what is at stake for the future of this country and I don't think it is unreasonable to question who these people really are and if they were ever really in her camp to begin with if they are so willing to turn on the only other major candidate with the same principles she has. This is where the claims of republican troll come from. I'm still not convinced many of the people on here who claim to be backing Hillary aren't plants for McSame, especially if you look at when some of them registered and some of the republican newspeak they use.

I'm not "threatened" by women, I don't think Hillary would send out armies of feminists to cut off mens balls, and I would have backed her had she won the primaries, but I still feel as though she had some sense of entitlement and that is the reason why I think most of the hold-outs are still holding out. If you couldn't see that I guess nothing I or anyone else can say will change that but that is how I and many others feel.

For what it is worth, I also feel the media bought into the right-wing narrative that has built up around her unfairly. Whether that had any affect on why she lost I don't know, but it wasn't the reason I didn't vote for her.

I live in one of those states, Missouri, and I understnad what you are talking about but it is also no secret that Hillary was the talk radio crowds faovorite choice. So when I see someone use "Rush-speak" I do have to question who they are and where they really came from. To me, "liberal elite media" is a talk radio phrase and it is not outside the realm of possibility that some of them would disguise themselves as Hillary supporters to make it look like she has a larger selection of holdouts then she does in hopes it would sway the delegates (no one said talk radio listeners weren't delusional).

If your president is so smart, how come nothing he told us about the war turned out to be true? Could it be because he lied and you all fell for it? Real smart. Tell you what there, chief, when your party stops using religouis bigotry to win elections, then you get to lecture the rest of us about which party has the smarter voters. I'm not holding my breath though. I knew Bush had the 2000 election in the bag the moment he said his favorite philosopher was Jesus. Real intelligent populace we have if that's all it takes ot win elections.

That's why a rich kid from Maine can get into the Texas National Guard and still pass himself off as a war hero compared to an acutal war hero. It's the same reason said rich kid can pretend to be a cowboy and get the votes of actual cowboys. It's why their are christians who care more about the Old Testament then their are who care about the New Testament. Obama will not get these people's votes because he doesn't hate gays and muslims, McCain can pretend to be that kind of christian and he will.

Forget trying to reason with these people. Bush could scale Mt. Olympus and call himself the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and they would take him at face value. No matter how badly he screws up, no matter how much evidence you present them with that he lied us into war...ON PURPOSE, they will still believe everything he says. Hence the continued posting of "evidence" of a Saddam/AL-Queda link that has long since been discredited. He can do no wrong in their eyes. What I really love is this little nugget here:

"He did what he thought was right to protect the homeland and the citizens, and so far, no attacks."

I wasn't aware that sending the country into war under false pretense was considered doing "what he thought was right". This guy could drown a baby and they would still find some way to blame the baby.

I do have a few questions for these trolls however:

1) I know that Bush=God to you people but aren't you the least bit concerned that NOTHING he told us about Iraq turned out to be true? It certainly doesn't look like it by your posts. You'd rather just blame the messengers.

2) How do you get around the fact that PNAC, the organization that most of the Bush administration belonged to prior to taking office, had planned to overthrow Saddam before he was even nominated?

3) If Clinton, or any democrat, had done the exact same thing with the exact same result, would you still be defending their actuions the way yo uare Bush, or would you have demanded impeachment a long time ago?