We've all seen firsthand the relative worthlessness of polls, particularly polls taken 7 months before an election. Hell, there is tremendous discrepancy right now in PA polls as to who's "winning". So why does everyone want to cite current polling data as an authority on who's more electable in November? It's completely worthless.

Nobody knows what is going to happen when Obama secures the nomination and goes head-to-head with McCain. All it will take is one major stumble from either one of them to drastically change the political landscape, and that "stumble" doesn't even have to be fair or true. At the risk of being branded an elitist Obamabot, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that our electorate is largely made up of complete morons. I can't think of any other industrialized nation composed of people who are completely ignorant of their own history, have no idea how their own government works, have even less of a clue about foreign governments, and consistently vote against their own economic interests. We are a nation of idiots, and many of these postings prove it.

The biggest risk Obama has taken is treating the electorate like intelligent adults. We'll see how that works come November. But as is always the case, a nation truly deserves the leaders it elects. If we elect McCain, we deserve it.

"I have a real problem with Obama saying on the news that his country is so important to him, but he can't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance."

Can we at least agree that the breathtaking stupidity and ignorance of average Americans is the only thing keeping Hillary alive, and the only thing that will keep November from being a landslide?

"I will leave aside the elitist tones of "average Americans" and focus on the "breathtaking stupidity". I live in the Midwest and have experienced my fair share of frustration with the votes cast here. However, telling people they are stupid because they vote in a manner contrary to mine and 'I know better,' is not very helpful.

As others have pointed out, the policy differences between HRC and Obama are minimal. If informed voters look at these candidates' positions and see they are relatively similar, how is picking one over the other stupid?"

I agree that the policy differences are minimal. And I was careful not to say anyone who votes for HRC is stupid, so your mother is safe. I was merely pointing out that there are lots and lots of UNINFORMED people making their voting decisions based on flat-out false information (like the voter quoted in the article). You can't tell me with a straight face that a voting decision likely based on some completely false chain email isn't completely idiotic.

I'm tired of having to refrain from calling stupid people stupid because it's too elitist. I'm not saying every American should be well versed on the finer points of FISA or NAFTA or even Constitutional jurisprudence. And I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I'm just saying I expect most Americans to not base their vote on such blatant and ridiculous bullshit as "Obama won't put his hand on his heart for the pledge." That IS stupid - breathtakingly stupid - and there are millions of voters out there just like her.

I live in the midwest too, and wish I had a nickel for every political conversation I've overheard in which the participants were wildly misinformed and totally devoid of any critical thinking and reasoning skills. If someone wants to vote for HRC, that's perfectly fine. But if that person cannot advance a valid reason for that vote, and instead resorts to the dumbest reason possible for that vote (like the pledge lie), I don't believe I have to sit by and accept it.

If that's elitism, call me an elitist.

... it is pretty stupid for someone to not know how to propery use html tags and accidentally puts their whole post in italics.

But not nearly as stupid as voting for HRC because Obama won't put his hand on his heart for the pledge!

Here are Obama's commments to a California audience the other day. Yes, this was on Drudge and Politico and HuffingtonPost, but I think he pretty much nails it.

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Granted, this truth will hurt. I can envision a lot of middle-Pennsylvanians being offended by this because he cuts right to the heart of the truth.

But isn't it refreshing to have a politician acknowledging these realities instead of pretending like they don't exist while making disingenuous promises? Obama clearly "gets it" - the others don't care what "it" is as long as they get elected.