You say: "I fear your poor little heart couldn't bear it if a real left-winger got elected here."

Congratulations - you've joined the considerable ranks of official ObamaSnots.

Rosenkavalier's post was quite straightforward and sincere, and I was about to make a comment on this when I ran into your little screed. My comment was going to be something about being touched by his/her message, seeing as how I'm about 40 years ahead of him/her in age and basically share the same sentiments. The message in question gave me hope that there young people out there thinking for themselves and caring about others, just as we - and that would include Hillary Clinton - did back in the Sixties and Seventies.

I grew up in a Republican household in a small Republican town, wearing matching sweaters and skirts and unaware that there might be something wrong with the fact that, though our public schools were fully integrated, not a single black lived west of the RR tracks, hard by the river. Little did I know that the civil rights struggle and the Vietnam War would shortly transform me into a committed liberal. So, yes, I identify fully with Hillary Clinton's transformation, as it mirrors mine so closely. And yes again, one can be a liberal without being a radical; it's called moderation, otherwise known as the secret of sanity and survival.

This is just another tired Paglia hatchet job. Girly men??? Would this include Hillary Clinton's husband or the now notorious Mark Penn? Give us a break, Paglia. You obviously have it in for Hillary Clinton, so any commentary coming from you is pointless on its face. Maybe there's a slot for you at MSNBC. You'd fit right in, no question about it.

Mark Penn may not have been the best choice as campaign manager, but hold the phone here, folks. Isn't it very possible, even probable, that it was a fundamental Obama strategy to maneuver Hillary Clinton into the role of heavy in the first place? David Axelrod likely gets down on his knees every night and thanks the lords of the MSM for making his job so damn easy. Not to mention the hordes of Obama supporters who have energetically vilified Clinton ever since SC - a Democratic fault line, if ever there was one.

Just thought I'd check in at salon here on my mo'-in-law's infernally slow dial-up connection in the poor ruined city of New Orleans, a place which should bring the loftiest left-winger most of the way down to earth (but probably wouldn't, because it's just too, well, real). A whole lot closer than some photo-op bowling alley, at any rate. My comment: Obama is outspending Hillary something like three to one in PA, so is it any wonder the jillion dollar juggernaut is picking up a few points here and there? If anything, Obama is attempting to outright buy this election. Ever think about that one, o ye Obamaites? And please - no rejoinders about how the 'little guy' is sending in all those nickels and dimes. No matter where it's coming from, that money could've done one hell of a lot of demonstrable good here in New Orleans. But that's not the point though, is it?

The TX delegate apportionment in no way reflects the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won. And yet the Obama camp loudly maintains that superdelegates cannot contradict the popular vote. So, which way do you want to play it? Both ways? That's sure what it looks like.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Lind, for a mighty refreshing bit of sane analysis in this season of The Elevation of Obama and Scourging of All Who Favor Clinton. Clinton supporters have been called every name in the book on this site and others merely because they do not support Obama. We have been branded rubes, racists, and rednecks many times over. On what evidence? None whatever, other than our disinclination to be swayed by Obama. Naturally many of us have been given great pause by the tenor of many of those on the left whom Obama attracts: what sort of candidate appeals to such deeply judgmental, frequently downright nasty 'liberals'? You have just delineated the ranks of the latter fairly and squarely, thus giving them occasion for yet another scourging. The good news: as individuals we Clinton supporters will handily survive the mountains of condescension and verbal abuse. The bad news: without us, the Democratic party may well not.

Have to keep this short since I'm confined for the moment to the mo'-in-law's Jurassic age dial-up connection, but it seems that far, far too many Obama supporters have this seriously pernicious need to paint Hillary Clinton in the nastiest hues possible. This begs the obvious question: what is it about their candidate that attracts such ugliness? I've been voting for over four decades now and have never seen anything remotely like this. Any conjectures out there (other than the previously discussed sexism)?

Obama has apparently outspent Clinton three to one in PA. So what does it say that Hillary's still the odds on favorite to win the state tomorrow? For some of us, it sure feels like Obama's trying to buy himself a nomination, with incalculable aid from the moveon money spigot. The sheer amount of dough expended to extol Obama and Obama alone is getting pretty darned obscene. In fact, it's enough to bring on an attack of the bitters.

Sorry, just had to get that out of my system, what with PA day finally arriving. You know, what far too many Obamaites refuse to accept is that most of us voters who support Hillary actually LIKE and respect and deeply admire her. Not with mindless adoration, but in a realistic, warts and all way. So kindly drop the gratuitous nastiness and let us enjoy what looks to be another in-spite-of-it-all, big state victory for our gal Hillary.