To me he's the enemy for insisting on running for President before he obviously was ready or qualified to and for splitting Dem voters right in half with this (tired) theme of pandering to the lefties and factioning them off.

How dare he run for President in an open primary! He should have conceded immediately to The Anointed One.

You have got to be a parody. There's no way someone could say that seriously.

We really need to learn to shut up and do what we're told. You'd think we would've learned after eight years of G.W. Bush, huh?

My favorite bit in this thread has been people casting aspersions on my nick, though. Because I spent hours and hours thinking up the best way to represent myself in the letters section of an Internet magazine. (Do you think MO'Fullofit meant to imply I'm mixed-race? Or just of insufficient 'pedigree'?)

We got to page 28 before someone used "Hussein-Obama." Wow. You Clintonites have really raised the level of political discourse in this country.

But of course that's why we were supposed to vote for Hillary, right? Because she could take the punches? Pity her campaign's collapsed under its own weight.

I'm not sure why you think what I said is a pipedream. If anything, my statement was about stepping back from being fixated on a particular, perhaps unrealistic, outcome to ask, "If I don't get my first choice, who will be the best second choice."

That's not a pipedream. That's the art of the possible.

Nicely put, CBL. I think that some of the trolls on this post are deeply angry and bitter that the world doesn't work the way they think it does. They're angry that their cynical, sad worldview didn't play with the country (and make no mistake, Obama has won plenty of voters in all the demographic groups, including the working class). They pull their blankets up over their heads and shiver, warning us that the world is a scary, terrible place, and that we're crazy delusional fools for thinking or wanting it otherwise. They think merely repeating the word "Hussein" will make the country turn against someone-- perhaps the way people thought a divorced former actor would never score against a paragon of virtue like Jimmy Carter.

We should probably just pity them, their fear, and their tremendous anger. I've been laughing, though. I probably shouldn't.

(Please note when I say 'troll' I really do mean troll, and mostly the anons. I appreciate very much the sensible, smart Hillary Clinton supporters I've talked to on these boards, and hope I can look forward to being 'on the same side' again in the general. We all want what's best for the country and that means knocking McCain out.)

As I apparently have "at least 3-5 sigs and anonymous posts," you might be me in disguise!

No, but how do we know that he didn't get the general idea from her?

By the same logic, Deval Patrick might well have gotten his original speech from Barack Obama.

Obama comes from the Muhammad Ali school when it comes to boxing, especially Ali later in his career. Deflect the jabs dodge the hay makers, let your opponent tire and in the late rounds, when he can't raise his arms to punch or defend himself, annihilate him. It's a thing of beauty, if you've never seen Ali employ this technique I suggest you find some video and watch poetry in motion. I guarantee Barack has.

My favorite part of his last acceptance speech was when he brought up John McCain. His audience booed, and he hushed them down, talking about how he respected Senator McCain and his service to this country. Then he demolished McCain's policy positions, point by point. The crowd went nuts.

The idea that his report itself is proof and that unless Clinton flatly denies it they are "guilty" is a bit much.

I don't get why they're not denying it, though. The non-denial they're currently putting out plays into a lot of the negative mythology around the Clintons-- "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Why aren't they just saying, "We don't feel it's particularly inappropriate [inserting the language they used about Mrs. Clinton's outfits as first lady]. To our knowledge, however, no one on our staff has sent any such email."?

However, you are missing the point that people in large organizations like campaigns may not actually know what every lower level staffer and volunteer is doing.

That would be why I recommended using the phrase "to our knowledge." Of course, the Clinton campaign hasn't been particularly great at keeping a lid on their staffers (is it cold in Concord tonight, Bill Shaheen?), so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that that's the current excuse.

They don't object to a woman in the White House, they say. They just object to Hillary. Even though, in this election, that's the same thing.

Yes, it is the same thing in this election. Will all elections have the same problems? Hard to say. I would've thought that a black man would never have a chance at a national ticket, but Obama's leading in many polls. Things change and they will continue to change.

Does sexism exist? Hell yes. Is it in some ways more insidious and damaging than racism? Indeed it is. Does that mean I have to vote for Hillary Clinton? No, it doesn't.

If McClelland is really more likely to vote for a candidate because his 'equipment' is right, that's sad and disgusting. But it doesn't mean that I'm going to do the same thing. I'm very tired of people-- Clinton supporters in particular-- thinking they know exactly how I think, how I vote, and how I really should be leaning.

I'm not even voting for Hillary in the primary, and I think she'd be awesome to have a beer with.