I voted at a precinct in downtown Minneapolis--a lot of oldsters, especially older women, and youngsters. Mark Dayton, a former senator, came to our caucus to give a stump speech in support of Clinton. At the end of his speech, everyone in the audience "sat on their hands." After a few seconds, he received polite applause from about a quarter of the audience. We could all see that he was shocked--a deer in headlights look. He thought he was in Clinton country. He wasn't.

Obama took the cities of Minnesota, the miners up on the range, and the farmers in the southern part of the state.

If Clinton steals the nomination with dirty backroom tricks and deals, a lot of Minnesota Democrats will stay away from the polls in November.

On Sunday evening, the History Channel broadcast a show originally produced in Australia, called "Crude." This program should be seen now by every living person. It really brought home the significance of the rising levels of CO(2) in the atmosphere and the longer term significance of the melting of the polar ice caps.

CO(2) levels in the atmosphere are rising at a rate not seen in the history of the planet! Like many chemical and physical phenomena, the relationship between concentration and impact is not linear--it/they are best described by catastrophe theory. Thus, we will see some tipping points--of no return--in CO(2) levels that will inevitably lead to an anoxic, "dead" ocean and the destruction of most all life on the planet. Once the poles melt, there will be no cold water, no oxigenation of the oceans. These tipping points occur fast, in years, not decades or centuries.

We will run out of time before we run out of fuel.

We created this catastrophe by burning a significant portion of liquid sunshine of the Jurassic period, concentrated over hundreds of thousands of years, in under 300 years, and the planet may end up back in a new Jurassic period.

This issue overrides every other problem. We've got the intelligence to solve it but we've got to get out of our collective brain, an assumption and perceived right of cheap energy.

ShawnWM but I have come to exactly the opposite conclusion regarding Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. My hatred for Hillary Clinton is at least equal to your hatred of Obama.

I thought Hillary Clinton's husband was a very good president. However, I don't understand how that translates to her, anymore than the performance of any other president translates to his wife. As another poster has mentioned, we have not been given any specific examples of greatness that could be attributed to Hillary Clinton. What we do know is that she is not inspiring, is not that smart, has no personality, and without her husband, would not have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president. Her monumental ego sucks the air out of a room.

As an outsider, this looks like payback for Hillary sticking by her man. Some women get expensive jewelry. Hillary Clinton demanded the presidency and Bill had damned well better deliver.

If she is nominated, she won't win because she is creating even more enemies, in the Democratic Party, than she had before.

I support Obama because he is a lot smarter than Clinton, a lot more creative and inspiring and he has a lot more energy. Also, he has a vision that is forward looking, not backward. I am naive enough to think that this will be more attractive to independents and possibly some Repubs than Clinton, McCain, Romney, or the rest of the field.

Someone on Bill Mahr's program last night mentioned that Ruppert Murdoch is creating a dossier on all of the sexual exploits of Bill Clinton since he left the White House. Hillary Clinton says that she is fully vetted, unlike Obama, and can withstand anything the Repubs can throw at her. I doubt it. By turning this into a vicious, mean co-campaign before nomination, the Clintons have signaled that it will be a co-presidency. Everything about their weird marriage and extra-marital activities becomes fair game. Everyone except their most rabid supporters will get sick of this pretty quick.

To those commenting that the Clintons didn't do anything at all to bring up race, I say, "grow up." These two and their surrogates are very good politicians. That is exactly what they want you to say and think.

The disgusting campaign that they have waged against Obama will not make them sympathetic characters to anyone. Democrats and independents will vote Repub third party or will stay home. The country will suffer terribly as a result.

Edwards is probably the best uniter and I hope he does well today.

I will vote for Obama or Edwards but not Clinton. Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have showed their true colors in the past couple of weeks and they are not pretty. I have lost all respect for the Mr. and feel only revulsion for the Mrs. Their political strategy is to try to marginalize Obama by labeling him as a "Black" candidate--divide and conquer.

Obama has the makings of a great president--a person who can focus on what we have in common not our differences. We need that kind of person to tackle the overwhelming problems we face.

I believe that Clinton wants to be president to get back at her political enemies, of which there are many. We have no idea of her management style because she has never actually managed anything except her campaign. At this point, the only difference I see between her and Bush is that she can speak in complete sentences. We cannot afford one day more of this crap, much less than 4 more years!