You support your candidate; we get that. He's getting about 50% of the popular vote in the various primaries/caucuses. It's good to see how energized you are about your candidate.

However, supporters of Hillary Clinton, of which I am one, are also energized by her candidacy. She's also getting about 50% of the popular vote in the various primaries/caucuses.

Both candidates are separated...for the moment...by about a hundred delegates, pledged and regular. It looks increasingly like there will NOT be a clear winner by the convention. That all having been said, may I offer a bit of unsolicited advice?

Don't build your candidate (Obama) up by tearing my candidate (Clinton) down with pejoratives straight from the Republican slime-book. If you won't vote for her, fine; I won't vote for Obama either.

My reason for not voting for Obama is strictly a lack of confidence that he could be an effective president from day one due to a lack of overall experience. That's it; nothing more.

Most of you Obama supporters, however, diss Clinton because (a) you think she's a "bitch", (b) we will have Bill Clinton as a co-president, (c) you're so young that the only presidents you remember have been either a Bush or a Clinton and we need a change to Obama because of that (which has to be the most inane reason ever!) or (d) Republicans will vote against her en masse (as if they're going to vote FOR Obama).

Obviously, her qualifications are not at issue. So, given that "experience" will be a key issue for voters this year on both sides of the political spectrum, who better to oppose John McCain than Hillary Clinton?

Since there will most likely NOT be a clear winner before the convention in Denver, I hope the Obama supporters will tone down the rhetoric, understand that it is the Republican Party who is the enemy and try to win over voters for your candidate.

Calling Hillary names and villifying her isn't the way to do that. Just my opinion...

One of the most humorous ads for a male political candidate features him, beaming wife by his side, surrounded by six, seven or even more of their children, as if having that many offspring somehow makes him more able to do the job. I'm not thinking of his qualifications for the job; I'm only thinking "Well, at least his penis works."

That incredibly selfish couple, who breed like a pair of rats, has zero concept of their impact on the planet. They seem to think that an SUV loaded with their progeny somehow proves how much they "love" children. It only proves that they have no moral responsibility.

Roman Catholic clergy are pushing their European congregations to have more children. Mormon families...well, just look at the Osmonds. Remember that woman who was featured on TV a few months back who had 18 children...and, was pregnant with #19? Good God!

One look at the huge groups of unwanted children around the world and the millions of sick and dying ones in third-world or developing nations will give all but the guilty parties pause.

With abortion down, family-planning clinics under fire, contraception attacked and multiple-child families encouraged without reservation, this crowded Earth will only get more crowded. Besides, the cost of producing food will only increase due to the price of energy needed to produce it.

China, like it or not, has the "one child policy" that at least tries to control population, even though their policies are Draconian. Will their forced abortions be the norm in the future to control a burgeoning population with a decreasing food supply?

"Having a second child"? Why not be happy with just one? Just a thought.

In perspective, its a Democrat, so, the other party is an adult woman; had it been a Republican, the other party involved probably would have been an under-age male.

Anyone who has ever watched a Presidential news-conference will probably ask why some members of the press seem to be Dubya's loyal lapdogs, virtually licking his hand, while being simultaneously kicked by the President.

There are precious few who actually do their jobs of asking hard, incisive questions and who then follow-up with even more biting questions. Helen Thomas and David Gregory are two of my favorite journalists...asking the questions that others won't and then boring in for the kill. Kudos to both.

The press failed on Iraq precisely because they failed to do the job of "journalist"; they, instead, wrote their stories straight from White House press handouts or while sitting on a barstool chatting with White House flacks.

Shame on the so-called "journalists" who are patsies; double-shame on the editors and news directors who wouldn't have a f*ckin' clue about what constitutes "hard news" if it bit 'em in the ass!

"News-people" these days don't graduate with a degree in "Journalism"; they graduate with degrees in "public relations" and "flackery".

"Chinese" food in America may be as Chinese as Kansas, but...who cares? It is tasty, easy to prepare, always welcome, nourishing, interesting and a quick and complete meal ready in minutes.

Chow mein, chop suey and the rest of the Chinese favorites that are found on menus nationwide have become as American as meatloaf and mashed potatoes; who really cares if they're authentic?

I've eaten at big Chinese restaurants in Toronto and Montreal's Chinatown, in Chinatown in New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco; I've also bought Chinese food to go in small hole-in-the-wall neighborhood outlets nationwide. The one constant, no matter where purchased, is that the food is absolutely a "comfort-food".

Real Chinese? Perhaps not, but, it is real good.