Why no mention on this thread of Richardson's very public judgment that superdelegate votes must bend to the popular vote? This judgment, pronounced just days before Richardson's endorsement of Obama, was in direct contradiction to Richardson's subsequent course of action. Clinton did win the New Mexico popular vote, by however small a margin, so at the very least Richardson has proven to be a hypocrite. Hypocrites have been known to play fast and loose with the truth, so the door is definitely open to charges that Richardson failed to keep his word to the Clintons.

I am one of those people you cite who are 'really hurting'. If you read my post earlier in this thread, you would see that my husband's and my chances of 'not hurting' were dealt a death blow by those who - like Obama - voted in the Illinois Senate to limit recovery for victims of medical malpractice in that state. In practice, what this 'limitation' means is, for all practical purposes, NO recovery, given the upfront costs of litigation and the very low caps put on any possible recovery for victims of medical malpractice in Illinois. Please explain how one can reconcile positions such as this on Obama's part with the image which we are supposed to feel comfortable voting for.

Just wanted to say that the bit about Bonaparte reminds me of nothing more than RN himself. The other night, I finished reading Anthony Summers's biography of Nixon (The Arrogance of Power). Turns out Tricky D was indeed enamored of the legend of the hero of Elba and did a little in-house polling about the odds of his becoming a sort of Emperor for Life. I'd forgotten just how creepy Nixon was. Actually, having read this book, I now believe Nixon was far, far creepier and more dangerous than most of us ever guessed. And I believe The Arrogance of Power should be required reading for every high school kid in the country, as It Could Happen Again. It's pretty frightening to think how little sense of history even the smartest kids seem to have these days. (My old fogette comment for the day.)

You say: "It may be highly unfair, it may be irrational, but large numbers of Americans just hatehatehate Hillary Clinton. Personally, I don't get it. Personally, I like her in a lot of ways. But there's no denying it -- lots of people just despise her. Hence her low approval ratings and high negatives. Obama, on the other hand, does not inspire such vitriol..."

Many of us believe that Obama's campaign has been instrumental in encouraging the greatly incresed vitriol towards Hillary, much to his discredit. You don't have to look too hard to see examples of this far less than kosher campaign style. There are more and more readers posting comments all over the Net about the duplicitous, down and dirty campaign Obama is waging in so many ways. He's only gotten away with it this long this because of the tremendous MSM bias against Hillary (fed, of course, by the Obama camp), which has reached such pathological proportions that it's actually beginning to work in Clinton's favor. I started out feeling pretty neutral about Obama, but I now have a pretty low opinion of him. To some of us, he's not cool, but rather just plain cold and self serving, a tad nasty around the edges.

One of the fascinating - and often unsettling - aspects of this primary season is that people with very similar views on matters political and social can come to such different conclusions about Clinton and Obama. Many books will be written about these months of often vituperative struggle within the Democratic party; I can't think that a number of chapters won't be devoted to this very subject.

Do some of you hate the Clintons SO much? Bill and Hillary constitute one of the few real success stories the Democrats have had in how long? Is this what you simply can't stand - success in spite of over 15 years of almost constant carping and gutter tactics, first from the far right, now from the far left? My husband and I have been temporarily reduced to an income far below the poverty level. Should I hate the Clintons because they aren't poor, because they've had the success that has eluded my husband and me much of our lives? I say, more power to them, they've earned every bit of what they have and, as someone mentioned above, instead of sitting back clipping coupons, they continue to be heavily involved in public life. So hate on, ye little people, and continue to drag down the Democratic party. How convenient that you'll have the Clintons to blame for your sins when the Democrats go down in flames this November, as they almost surely will.

I really needed a good chuckle tonight, but had no expectation of finding one here in the Paranoid Peoples Republic. (Actually, I sort of cackled, but what with all the fear and trembling, well, I kind of hesitated to, well, you know ...)