"the way they toss out words like "bit-h", "harpy", "hag" or nearly as bad don't call their fellow supporters on such words, but scream "racism" when someone points out that Obama is getting a distorted vote due to his race"

I think that no true Democrat or true Obama supporter should ever use a term like b--, harpy or hag in reference to any woman, but particularly in this contest in reference to Senator Clinton. To do so exemplifies behavior that is as bad as racism. John McCain evinced class when he said that no one should disrespect Senator Clinton or Senator Obama in his campaign. Whether his supporters will follow his lead remains to be seen (and I suspect that at least a few will not), but he was right.

But I'm worried that the Democratic party is going to be pulled in two. The delegate race will only be closer if Senator Clinton wins any of the upcoming contests.

Throwing around sexist language, acting arrogant, isn't helping--anyone who thinks they are helping Obama by behaving this way is ignorant. No one has won anything yet. The contest is still to be decided. And Senator Clinton is a well-respected and hard working Democrat who has worked hard for the public during her years of public service. Disrespecting her is offensive to all of us here, and makes the supposed distinctions between Democrats and people like Limbaugh negligable.

That said, Senator Obama shouldn't be disrespected either. I've heard some Democrats treat him as if community building in the poor neighborhoods of Chicago does not count as public service. As if teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago wouldn't add to his ability to understand significant issues at stake right now in this country. As if giving powerful and intelligent speeches will inhibit instead of enhance his ability to pass progressive legislation in Washington D.C.

Disrespecting either candidate at this point is only hurting the party, as well as grossly underestimating two powerful and powerfully supported candidates. Neither personality should be more important than the party's ability to come together to put a Democrat in the white house in November. Rush Limbaugh, is by the way, very happy at the way the Democrats are bloodying one another. He says that although Republicans have always known how to go after Clinton, they haven't had the stomach to go after Obama....but the Democrats are showing them how to do it. {Belly laugh.}

You can look that up.

I understand that this contest has become urgent. But each time Clinton gives a speech she tries to reduce his campaign to a smaller and smaller point. Last weekend it was his "lofty rhetoric and speeches" as the only basis of his campaign: this weekend it has been reduced to only one speech--if her campaign makes it to next weekend, it will be only one section of a speech. Maybe the weekend after that a dangling participle.

If you want to know what I think: both of them have been overly cautious in their senate votes. Each of them has tried not to alienate voters by taking up controversial legislation. However, in politics, talk is a rather expensive entity and talk is part of what builds coalitions and creates law. It will be talk, for example, carefully chosen words and carefully stated orders and directives, that get us out of Iraq.

Obama's campaign, just like Clinton's is based on supporters that look at his long record of service...just like she has a long record, and appreciate what they see. Clinton was a positive contributer to her husband's administration, and has always been an advocate for children. Obama has worked with inner city communities, helping citizens to get involved in improving their communities. He has also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. His supporters think that this variety of experiences--which differs from many politicians--is an asset he would bring to the white house. His appeal is based on an ability to bring people of different backgrounds together for a common cause.

Each candidate is a leap of faith. But tearing Obama down so that Hillary can win isn't really helping the party. If he wins the nomination, these same insults will be used by conservatives to try to defeat him.

I think one of the things that upset me about Clinton's approach to this campaign was when she created an ad where she was wrapping presents for the American people...presents like "universal health care" "pre-K school for all"... It's not that I don't want these things...but I fundamentally disagree that it is any politician who "gives" these things to me. I am a citizen. Everyone who pays taxes is as much a part of government as the president is. These things are not christmas presents....and they will only be given to the coalitions of people who rise up to demand them. LBJ would not have passed civil right legislation if Martin Luther King Jr. hadn't risen up and energized enough people across race and class lines to demand equality for all...Martin Luther King Jr. provided the energy and the incentive. His talk was not cheap.

Marriage vows are just words. Virtually all legal contracts. Promises. Iou's. Nearly every interactions between human beings consist of "just words." We need politics that ordinary people can get involved with again. Words--and yes--speeches too, are part of what gets us there.