I think that, no matter how uncomfortable it is, Obama had to end up addressing "class." This issue dogged our Party and hurt Dean, Kerry and many other Dem candidates in the past.

Also, since Barack sticks to his guns (unintended -- but it works) and doesn't back down, he will, at the very least, earn respect that more pandering Dem candidates can't.

Obama has dealing with old Democratic "ghosts" head-on. Not flinching. Acting firm. Having integrity about his convictions. And he continues to treat Americans like grown-ups.

Strength is what the American people want. It's something that Republicans have known for a while. But, as Bill Clinton himself said: If you can't be right, at least be strong.

I believe Obama is correct but though some people may not think he is right, they can at least see that Obama is strong in his convictions and that he won't back down and pander.

And THAT is good for the Democratic Party.

Hillary does not need to "compete" with Obama about who is oppressed more. Is there a prize involved? The representative of the group who is most oppressed gets to be president?

I almost clocked one of my best friends as she tried to convince me that, historically, women have been more "oppressed" than people of color," specifically blacks. I told her that it was "apples and oranges" -- one couldn't CHOSE a "winner."

Who cares? If there is anyone in the world who is oppressed or treated badly -- it hurts ALL OF US!

This is a specious argument -- and wastes our precious time. It is also a good way to "keep us down." The OPPRESSORS have always DIVIDED AND CONQUERED.

I have no idea why you are wasting your time with this. All of us -- anyone who has to fight for a "place in the sun" should work together to make the world a better place for anyone who is weaker. Period.

I mean, really -- does that mean we should all vote for that incompetent, war-crazy Condi Rice because SHE is the most oppressed minority of the world? A single, childless, black female?

This is just stupid.

If the first woman candidate had been Janet Napalitano, Kathleen Sebelius or Maria Cantwell -- I think this poll -- a year into Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency -- a campaign marked by the Clinton's "take no prisoner's style of politics" -- the poll would have come out much differently.

It was PERSONAL, Joan. Not business. It is a statement against Hillary Clinton whose negatives are growing HIGHER. Not a statement against a woman candidate in general.

Hillary's divisiveness has HURT women in politics. And her angry supporters are reminding the American public of the angry feminism of the past.

It is a terrible thing for early feminists like us to hear, but it is true. Why to you think the movement fell apart for a few decades? Anger may be the way to START a movement -- but it is no way to SUSTAIN a movement.

Why do you guys have to be so nasty?

You turn yourselves inside out trying to come up with different ways to hate Obama.

Obama was raised in a foreign country. Ick!

Obama pretends to be a bad bowler. Ick!

Obama is a bad bowler because he was raised in a foreign country. Ick!

Obama is too happy. Ick!

Obama pretends to be happy. Ick!

Obama is on "happy drugs." Ick!

Obama is too smart. Ick!

Obama thinks he is too smart. Ick!

Obama is too unknowable. Ick!

Obama is too arrogant. Ick!

Obama is a liar. Ick!

Obama is to self-aware. Ick!

Obama is too comfortable. Ick!

Obama is too Liberal. Ick!

Obama is too un-American. Ick!

Obama is too black. Ick!

Obama is too racist. Ick!

Obama is too sexist. Ick!

Obama is too this. Ick!

Obama is too that. Ick!

Why do you have to denigrate Obama just because you don't want to vote for him?

Support Hillary because you prefer her policies. Support Hillary because a woman president is your heart's desire. Support Hillary because you simply like her better.

You don't have to "hate" one candidate to prefer another.

Are we Democrats or are we a bunch of enemies?

This is stupid.