You say: "I'm through dealing with her. People like her and that's their prerogative. What can you do?"

You can start by having a little more, no, a lot more, respect for Hillary and her supporters, 'infantalized' as they may be. I find your condescension here appalling. But what can you do?

You say: "Bros Before Hos - If you don't think that's funny, you've got issues."

How 'bout "Pigs Before Nigs"? Would that be equally as amusing? To you, of course.

Hillary Clinton won 51 percent of the popular vote in TX, while Obama won 47 percent (don't ask me where the other two percent went). This is obviously not the one percent which you claim separated Clinton and Obama. And yet Obama will walk away the delegate victor. How? Due to prior elections which had absolutely nothing to do with his run for the Democratic nomination nor his qualifications for the presidency.

As I've written before, the caucus system here in TX is completely screwed up. It's survival of the fittest, pure and simple, and involves nothing more, in my experience, than signing your name on your candidate's sheet on election night after the polls close (often long after the polls close, and assuming the opposition's precinct captain hasn't co-opted your candidate's sheet); then attending a county delegate convention at which you raise your hand for your candidate (after hours and hours of sitting around on gym bleachers); then attending a state convention at which I presume you once again raise your hand again (if you can stay awake long enough). Given the size of Texas, getting to the state convention is neither affordable nor easily achieved for those who aren't highly mobile and/or are poor.

This is hardly the thrill of democracy; it's more like being a luge entrant at the Olympics. So bravo to the Obama campaign for its highly effective - albeit hardly transcendant - embrace of the Democratic caucus event, a tradition which can't end soon enough.

You say: "Why shouldn't the gal or the group who has been voting democratic for the last 10 years get a little extra weight compared to those who show up infrequently or at the last minute?"

It's pretty hard to agree with this statement. Number one: because the TX system rewards those who stay in place (in the exact same precinct) for at least four years, while penalizing those who move, often not by choice. TX has experienced a huge inmigration in recent years. It turns out that a large percentage of this added population is more likely to vote Democratic. I just moved here from Louisiana, where I was a chronic, reliably Democratic voter for many years. Should my candidate and I be penalized because I just pulled into town?

Number two: Obama has benefited hugely from the 2004 presidential election which, as we all know, Kerry lost. Kerry wasn't exactly a voter magnet in this state, as in many others, but black voters turned out in larger numbers for him than did Hispanics, who didn't feel compelled by Kerry. The overwhelming majority of blacks in TX voted for Obama, while Clinton received the lion's share of Hispanic votes. So Clinton and her Hispanics supporters should be punished? This doesn't make sense.

Number three: Because TX has had such a small Democratic contingent for many years, the caucus system here was practically unknown, and more importantly, practically unfathomable, so very arcane is its design. Someone at Obama HQ obviously had a sharp eye trained on the possibilities, however. This may be highly pragmatic, but it's hard to see how it serves any democratic ideals. It's more along the lines of redeeming Wheaties boxtops.

Krugman's has been one of the few consistent, steadying, reasoned, adult voices speaking out in the opinion columns this primary season. Too bad Thomas Friedman is on vacation, as he too is a reliable source of sanity. And really, really too bad that the NYTimes has once again allowed Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich to not only run amok, but to do so in a particularly vicious way. Krugman has been fair to Hillary Clinton, something far more scarce than hen's teeth. I always look forward to his columns as a remedy to the back knifing hysteria which permeates contemporary American media.

Krugman's has been one of the few consistent, steadying, reasoned, adult voices speaking out in the opinion columns this primary season. Too bad Thomas Friedman is on vacation, as he too is a reliable source of sanity. And really, really too bad that the NYTimes has once again allowed Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich to not only run amok, but to do so in a particularly vicious way. Krugman has been fair to Hillary Clinton, something far more scarce than hen's teeth. I always look forward to his columns as a remedy to the back knifing hysteria which permeates contemporary American media.

Come on now, Krugman's one of the very few columnists who hasn't dumped all over Hillary Clinton in recent months. It's quite apparent that Obama fans have absolutely no qualms about the mountains of vitriol regularly heaped on Clinton's head (some of it emanating straight from Obama, much of it from his supporters). This is something she's just supposed to endure. But let one less than adoring column concerning Obama appear and y'all have conniption fits. It's quite telling that you and your fellow Obama supporters, not to mention your candidate, can't tolerate the least criticism of the Senator from Illinois. As many others have mentioned, this isn't a coronation, nor an ascent into heaven. It's politics, remember? Hardly an arena for jaws of glass.

Obama's message may have been one of ending divisiveness, but his campaign has evidenced the usual split between theory and practice, at times to a rather extraordinary degree. In short: Obama is nothing new under the sun and unfortunately, that was the original, entire thrust of his campaign. This leaves him nowhere to go, really.