I like your heart and vigor. And I'm a fellow Obama supporter. Just one small suggestion - your posts would be much easier to read if you typed without wearing mittens. That, or use a spell checker.

I really do appreciate your posts, but the number of typos and misspellings are killing me. And sadly, they tend to discredit your arguments. Usually it's the Hillary and McCain supporters who display a very weak grasp on the language (not necessarily on Salon, but on other places - the ignorance of the postings usually correlate quite nicely with the lack of basic spelling & grammar skills). Just my two cents. Keep on rockin in the free world.

A few days ago, I heard an interview on BBC Outlook with a Wisconsin college student who also happens to be a superdelegate. He tried to explain why he's holding off on making his decision, but it really came down to the fact that he loved all the attention he was getting. Phone calls and personal meetings with big shots (including the candidates), as well as knowing that he holds this mythical power, all made clear that he's loving this joyride. I know he's one of the only college kids and is easily susceptible to this kind of fawning, but don't you think the other superdelegates like it, too?

They're not voting yet because they love the attention.

All one has to do is figure out who benefits from a prolonged, drawn-out race, and who has the ability to prolong and draw-out the race.

When you're in control of the message, you have that ability.

The media has done nothing but chill the debate and degrade it into Jerry Springer politics. The candidates are deathly afraid to stray from pre-approved, platitudinal talking points because the slightest slip of the tongue will be twisted, lifted from its context, and played endlessly by the bloodthirsty media in order to drum up controversy and boost ratings. Nobody is there to say "whoa whoa wait a second - that's not what s/he meant!"

This latest shift from Hillary bashing to Obama bashing has nothing to do with fairness or balance and everything to do with the for-profit media trying to boost its bottom line. The most controversy is created by tearing down the frontrunner. Obama benefitted from this when Clinton was the inevitable candidate, and now that Obama is leading, he's being dragged down.

Our celebrity-obsessed culture, spiked with doses of schadenfreude, loves nothing more than to see successful people dragged through the mud. See, e.g. the fascination with Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and Tom Cruise. Sure, these people largely bring it on themselves, but they are also victims of a culture that loves to see falls from grace. This is but another extension of that.

... totally disagree that resistance to said sexism is a valid reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.

I also don't think that sexism is causing people to vote against her. Rather, it's merely an easy (yet despicable) way of expressing their distaste for her. Remember, she held a commanding lead at one point. If sexism was truly a reason people are against her, I don't think she would have ever held any lead, let alone a commanding one. It's not like people suddenly discovered she's a woman. It's more like people gradually discovered that she's a pandering, disingenuous, lying, calculating, manipulative, selfish megalomaniac who has mismanaged her campaign from day 1.

The fact that she's a woman happens to soften some of her most vile characteristics, and at least in my opinion, has helped her far more than it has hurt her.

But yes, I agree - I wish people could express their disgust for Hillary in non-gender-based terms.

... that whenever someone feels the need to point out how fair and balanced they are, it means they are inherently unfair and imbalanced.

I'm pretty sure Christopher1988 is being sarcastic.

Clinton's hawkish statements on Iran, her Iraq war vote, and her Kyl-Lieberman vote. HUGE deals.

Obama's flag pin, his minister, his bowling score, his "bitter" comments. little deals.

Which have received the lion's share of attention in this column? To even attempt to equate them is disingenuous at best.

The race didn't turn vicious until Hillary decided to make it vicious. That's what has all us Obama supporters riled up.

I'd love nothing more than to have open, honest, intelligent debate. Obama has real flaws that need to be discussed, and Hillary does have some strengths. But by using the trivial and irrelevant nature of Obama's gaffes as counterpunches to the serious and highly-relevant nature of Hillary's blunders is completely unfair.

It reminds me of the evolution/intelligent design "debate" - the ID people can put forth absolutely ridiculous arguments with no basis in fact, and when the scientists say "WHAT? That's ABSURD and WRONG on so many levels!" the ID people say "see, we have a debate here!"

That's what Hillary supporters do. They use twisted logic, shoddy analysis, and junk science to support a fundamentally flawed idea, and when the Obama people get pissed off about it, they say "what's the matter? Can't take the 'tough' questions? Why do you get so mad when someone questions you?"

It's not that people question Obama. He needs to be questioned. It's that the questions that are asked are so asinine and irrelevant and unfair and loaded and flawed, that it's impossible to not get furious when they're given serious merit by intellectual institutions as respected as Salon.