anonymous maybe you should take a break. Every time I go away and come back to read here I find you as hate-filled as before.

You write:

He joined the Dem party in Chicago for connections to get rich,

How does his decision to accept a $10,000 per year job community organizing after graduating from Columbia and Occidental fit in with your assessment of him?

and milked them well tossing aside anyone who got in the way,

Do you mean Alan Keyes?

his constituents, public housing tenants, indicted slumlords and so forth and then decided he was qualified to be President without even finishing a single term in the presidency.

John Edwards ran for President after finishing less than one term his first try too. Are you also angry at him?

He and his fawning neolibs who should bloody damned well know better by now have crippled our strongest candidate.

So you are trying to cripple our second strongest candidate? If you don't want to vote for him, don't vote for him, but I don't think that the strong language and anger toward Obama is helping your cause with anyone who isn't already committed.

Obama has done this for his own ambitions knowing damned well he doesn't have a chance against McCain once the press turns on his resume and colorful history which they will assuredly do the moment they are sure Hillary really is done.

Anonymous, what you're talking about could happen to either of the candidates. Hillary will probably be attacked for her finances and I find it troubling that she hasn't released her tax forms. Bill's post presidency work will be examined ad nauseum. There's no reprieve if Clinton is the nominee.

He is a Democrat with a commitment to Democratic values the same way Ralph Nader was a Green committed to Green values and you'll have to examine your own reasons for refusing to admit that reality to yourself if you really ARE a Democrat, which I doubt.

So if a person reaches a different conclusion than you do, they are no longer a Democrat?

Anonymous, Nader ran as an independent and he "took" only a small percentage of the voters. Most people didn't bother to show up. Why don't you acknowledge that no one knows for sure how this is going to turn out. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all strong candidates who have shown more tenacity and ingenuity than their detractors have acknowledged. If you're wrong about Obama's chances, then you're just here all day long tearing him down for no reason at all. And that would be a shame for you to waste your valuable time doing something like that.

Especially if you are a true Democrat, as you say that you are.

Peace.

You write:

"For example, yesterday you were willfully spewing all over that Mrs. Clinton had voted against the Ethics Reform Bill of 2007, spouting McCain would kill her in a debate over it, and some sorts of idiocy until I produced the actual votes demonstrating you to be a liar. Undoubtably you continue to peddle that misinformation elsewhere though.

You are indeed a foul pox on a democratic society."

Hold on to the facts here. I went to bed last night and later I noticed that you had posted at two in the morning...sorry I was asleep. But I did not say that Clinton voted against that bill. I said that Obama had helped to sponsor the Open and Honest Government Act with Feingold and that Clinton had made disparaging remarks about Feingold's position ("you aren't in the real world, Russ"). KcM explained better than I have about how Clinton worked to weaken both bills, both the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act and the McCain-Feingold bill.

But I do sort of enjoy being called a foul pox on a democratic society.

Seriously, your arguments all seem to boil down to the fact that you think that Obama will be crucified or unelectable in the general election. What if you're wrong? What if he's not unelectable?

Your bitterness towards neoliberals I might even understand if I knew why you think "neoliberals" are supporting Obama and not Clinton? Do you think the neoliberals are responsible for Nader's campaign? Are you referring to libertarians?

I know that you're angry, but I don't understand exactly why nor at whom you're bitter. A lot of Obama's supporters are college students and teachers and every day people. Are these neo-liberals? I earn less than $20,000 per year. Am I a neo-liberal? I have serious problems with globalization and outsourcing--but I'm not sure why Clinton is a better bet than Obama on this issue. Please feel free to enlighten me. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have enemies, anonymous, but that you should know who your enemies are. I never voted for Nader for President. Like the majority of Americans who bothered to vote, I supported Gore.

I'm also afraid that if conversations like this continue with so much anti-Obama bitterness and anti-Clinton bitterness, it will be moot who wins the nomination. McCain will be elected. About that, at least, perhaps we can agree. So what's your deal?

I knew I liked something about you. I'm from WA state too, although I'm living in California right now. Thank-you for the links. I love the possibilities of wind energy. Have you seen the documentary called "Who Killed the Electric Car"? I thought that was interesting, especially since at the end it makes it seem like the hydrogen fueled thing is a mirage, and that between better battery power and wind electricity we could create cars that don't require foreign oil dependence and air pollution.

Fascinating.