Boy, it’s a tall order keeping up with your insights. Eric, you've taken my research on height and brought it to a new elevation! Has any of your political analysis on height been published in political journals?

Here is my question, Eric: Starting with the well founded premise that if you took any man who has been elected president and made him under 5’9”, he would not have been elected. Do you think that racism would be playing a greater role than sexism in this country if Obama was 5’5”?

Tought stuff….but gigantically important!

My question was suppose to read:

Do you think that racism would be playing a greater role than sexism in this PRIMARY if Obama was 5’5”?

You said:

I am interested to see how Obama supporters would feel about the scenarios I have presented. Can I have honest answers without the snark and ad hominem attacks?

You know, by definition, that if you get an honest and reasonable response it is NOT from an Obama supporter. I know that a small percentage of his supporters are decent, but they are anomalies and their answers would not represent an Obama-response. You set up the perfect paradox. In fact I bet all those crazy videos that are surfacing of Clinton’s alleged supporters are actually Obama actors doing some video-trolling.

Nobody voted for Obama in Michigan !!!!!!!!

Yea, I'm not stupid; I know he wasn't on the ballot, but that begs the question:

Did nobody vote for him because his name was not on the ballot, or was his name not on the ballot because nobody would vote for him. Facts are facts, bernbart and I know that Obama did not get one vote. And you Obamatrons can't prove that he would have. Hillary trounced him and that's why she wanted him to get NO votes. It's called LOGIC!

Look, I'm new at comment sections, so I forget that there are often streams of new people pouncing in here. I was kidding about the notion that Obama should not be represented in Michigan. I don't understand Clinton's point on this.

The two people who responded to me made some great points, but great points are-unfortunately- not what this type of issue is about. Anyway, I'll try to make my satire more apparent so as to avoid you folks wasting your finger energy.

What if Obama refuses to substitute his Health Care program with Clintons? He may (sexistly?) stick with his plan and thereby prove that he enjoys upsetting Clinton supporters. This will harm him greatly. Why can't he see that Clinton is asking him to take her plan because it will be part of the healing of the party he is expected to fullfil?

I'm worried that Obama won't accept Clinton's suggestions. Doesn't he have to if he wishes to be decent? This is the type of concern that we had better type mountains of letters about if we want to, eventually, be ready to type about the differences between Obama and McCain. But let's please not put the cart before the horse and try to deal with McCain before Obama has proven he will take responsibility for the hatred of Clinton's worst supporters. This will be the test for Obama that many people will be using to determine if he gets there vote. Now that Clinton has conceded the race (soon), we get to see if Obama can subordinate himself to her and the anger of her worst-supporters.

But seriously: the kind of Clinton supporter that needs to be seriously engaged is exactly the same as the kind of Obama supporter who needs to be seriously engaged. They are those folks who already see that this election is going to be determined by how solidily each party works to capture votes from that small (but massively significant) swath of people who can always rather easily vote in either direction. We teach our children to not get distracted in critical moments by that which they can't control, to stay focused on the small areas they can actually influence. I think within 60 days we will know if the democratic party (as a whole) is too distracted to win or is sufficiently oreiented towards the critical voters.

One sign that I think will be atrocious in the next 60 days is if the worst Obama and Clinton supporters are grated validity for their basic presumption that something evil took place that was primarily generated by something very wrong in the other candidate. Those conversations will hopefully take place in the palid eddys of the internet. It will be interesting to see what happens when they crop up in this blog. But, realistically, the next week or two should probably get a bit caught up in such distractions.

Hi, Thadeus Crumb.

When I say things that are outrageously illogical, I'm being sarcastic (accept when I'm just dumb).

When I say that I am much more disturbed the kind of discussion than the content of discussion, I'm being serious.

I think that Clinton's plan is superior, however I think Obama might be correct in thinking that he could make his plan happen. I think Hillary's plan in 93 was even better than her plan now, but unfortunately it wasn't implemented well and might not have had a chance even under better guidence.

my satire was based on something I think will happen: the tendency in both camps (of the fixatedly projective supporters) will be to take any gesture on the part of the other leader as proof that they should be worried. And they will "helpfully" exclaim that their worry must be addressed before the general election. or else...