Does anyone else feel exhausted over the push and pull of the past few weeks? Does anyone else worry that the nomination may become like King Solomon's fabled baby that someone and their supporters may have to concede for the better good (my guess would be that the person more likely to be pressured would be Obama).

Re race: I don't think a couple of nutty supporters should speak for all. I spent two years living in Asia and it strikes me that many cultures have a respect for age and experience that the US doesn't necessarily have, and for all the discussion of gender and race, no one has brought up the obvious age issue that may also be affecting women of many different races who face age (as well as gender) discrimination in the workplace. Clinton isn't a lot older than Obama, but the media always calling him "young" (he's not that young) or worse "fresh" and "energetic" does play into age discrimination that many cultures other than ours don't tolerate well.

Re MSN et al: I haven't been following this race on television, except snatches up CNN that play in the breakroom at work. I can't stand the political punditry. I might tune in to watch you some day Joan, but in general I'm not a t.v. watcher. That said, I have observed that both gender and age discrimination against Clinton (and truthfully against almost all women especially those who are above age eighteen and not supermodels) that has made me vow to--for the most part--keep away.

Yet I will say that I am one of those people who in general, after this campaign, will probably never feel sorry for either of the two Clintons again. Whatever sympathy I might have toward them when the race started has been used up by the obvious enjoyment they have of the back and forth with the media (only one obvious example being Bill in a feast of self-pity with his media fairy tale speech). I think they thrive on campaigning; the dirtier the better. As their vow to seat Michigan and Florida delegates regardless of party rules seems to indicate. And as for self-righteousness--I have not observed anyone in this campaign as self-righteous as Hillary Clinton after her LBJ remarks.

We'll see how things play out but after last night I'm not sure that I can see either side's supporters giving up without a fight that could hurt the party long-term as well as throwing this election.

What would King Solomon do?

"Where do you see that feminists are "railroading" Obama because he is a man? "

I see it in this article:

that certain feminists (clearly not all) gave him an okay to use a strategy, that they (the same women or just the same organization--I'm not sure) have suddenly decided (in a strategic election year) this same strategy makes him not pro-choice enough for them? I just think that it is railroading. Maybe you can't see my point, but that only makes it worse. Yes feminists are divided and we all vote our own way--see things our own way. But I feel that we should also try to be fair even to those we aren't voting for.

As for health care, I think you have a valid point. I'm not saying that all feminists should support Obama either--I'm just saying that arguing that he's not pro-choice "enough" over this issue reads like a sliming.

I calls 'em as I see 'em. If we disagree, so be it. You are a pleasure to argue with. I have the feeling that Clinton will win the general election, but the assassination of Obama (or Clinton for that matter) on the way to the nomination, is becoming painful to watch.

I also understand that Barry Obama was one of those who 'didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore,

--So you don't agree that "present" was (when it had the okay--and when he used it) a pro-choice vote in the state of Illinois?

because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns.' Fine with me. Why should he risk his future campaigns?

--He was not the only candidate to use this technique. If you recall South Dakota had amended their laws and he spoke out about it. His position was always clear, but to protect his seat AND to vote pro-choice was also an option (Before NOW took it back at least). So you should be mad at the other pols who did the same in Illinois (?)

I don't blame him for placing this issues on his D list, way below McCainesque proposal to chase illegal immigrants.

--?? First I disagree about the D List. See above. Also, the immigrant policy assessment seems pretty harsh. By the way, you know that McCain is despised by his party for his "liberal" immigration reform work--and at the last debate Clinton and Obama expressed very similar views on immigration other than on the issue of driver's licenses. Maybe you hate Clinton's very similar position as well?

I am fine with it. But why does his campaign has to lie and wiggle?

--Okay I need proof of lying and wriggling in order to respond.

Just admit it.

--??

It will not even hurt him considering his most active supporters. We already have one Obamite who supports parental notification laws.

--again ?? I haven't read that far back in the threads so I can't say that I know about that or have any response other than---yeah. And I guess "Obamite" is better than Obamabot--although it kind of reminds me of vegimite, the Australian sandwich spread. I think I just prefer Obama supporter who guesses from the posts here at least that she will be voting for Clinton eventually. If things can stay at least half way civil between now and then. (My If is not a threat or a caveat, but I have to admit that I think that the arguing can be exhausting. Maybe I need a little break from these boards.)

Peace.