Everytime an article on Salon.com has a positive article on Hillary Clinton, some of the Obama faithful practically twirl their heads a la "The Exorcist" and spew verbal pea-soup: "How DARE Salon run a positive article on her!", they seethe. Give us a break, please; we Hillary supporters aren't the enemy.

I support Hillary Clinton because I believe she has more relevant experience than Barack Obama; in this terrorist-filled, energy-starved, depleted-food and dangerous world, thats what I want in a President. That does NOT mean that I want to slam Barack Obama as evil, duplicitous, vile or incompetent...not at all; he's a patriotic, highly-intelligent and honorable man. Should he become the nominee, I'll have no trouble supporting him for President.

However, in the meantime, can we all just tone down the intra-mural rhetoric a bit? We have a very nasty Republican candidate to neutralize; that's where our energies should be directed.

I have never trusted polls. No matter who is doing the polling, pollsters tend to ask loaded questions, skew the responses to fit their particular paradigm and misinterpret the data. New Hampshire was a perfect example that had pollsters showing Obama winning handily, yet, Clinton won with a respectable margin.

People will sometimes lie outright to pollsters, i.e., say they will vote for Obama but, in reality, will never vote for a black candidate. They say they'll vote for Clinton but, in reality, will never vote for a woman. The biases of each voter surface in the quiet and sacrosanct voting booth.

With so many polls so all over the map, one may get a small sense of the electorate, but, not necessarily their exact intent. Even that hilarious "margin-of-error" caveat is ludicrous. Further, exit-polling has been shown to be erroneous for the most part.

With so many "undecideds" in Pennsylvania, the vote could be a whopper for Clinton and it could be a squeaker for Obama; guess we'll just have to wait until late tonight to see.

HP wrote: "Clinton's win in NH Was because she cried. Try crying at your office when you lose out on the promotion and see how far that gets you. But you have to have pride, right?And here is the best part...Hillary is still going to lose!-- HP"

So, HP...

If Hillary wins PA, other states or even the nomination, are you man/woman/vermin enough to offer up a mea culpa?

I bet not...

Walter...

Whether Hillary employs so-called "scorched-earth" tactics or Barack just can't close the deal is merely a sideshow; I'm more concerned with a third scenario that needs much more consideration. Democratic voters are basically splitting their votes 50/50 between the two. That bodes well and ill for the general election.

Will perceived or real wounds be healed by then? Will Barack's people vote for Hillary and vice-versa? Can Democrats coalesce around the eventual nominee? And, will some adult in the party produce a shotgun and force Hillary and Barack into the proverbial wedding?

I still believe that the pragmatists in both camps and the party in general must consider seriously this last reality. Its tough to choose between Hillary and Barack individually; if we combined the two, what an awesome ticket we'd have!

Bottom line: we have two awesome candidates for President; the Republicans don't even have one.

Just one man's opinion...

And, you may want to consider that Hillary just may be the better overall and winning candidate for the Democrats..."bionic" pejorative be damned.

I don't mind that you are enthused about your candidate, but, really...do you have to be so damned nasty and arrogant about it? You can certainly support your candidate without sliming mine.

You're not winning over the approximately 50% of Democrats who haven't supported your candidate to this point. Worse, you're taking a huge chance by your tactics that you'll alienate them for good for the general election should he get the nomination. I really can't see your guy winning with just blacks and wealthy white yuppies; you need the REST of the Democratic base, as well.

And, for God's sake...whining about "negative ads" just shows how many naifs make up the core constituency of the Obama campaign. The political maxim in Louisiana, Texas and many other similar places is that politics is a contact sport; an ad that highlights the shortcomings of your candidate may make you angry, but, it isn't "nasty". A course of Political Ads-101 should be a part of your required curriculum.

Neither my candidate nor me are your "enemy"; please try to focus that energy and outrage at the true target: John McCain.

1) "She better not steal the election!" Wahhhh!

2) "Hillary is a bitch!" BooHoooo!

3) "Boomers jus' bettah move outtah the way for us Obama backers!" Snivel!

4) "Their TV ads are jus' nasty; Obama's ads are all true!" Whine!

5) "Any "thinking" black person would be betrayin' his homies to vote for Hillary!" Whimper!

6) "She should just quit now...even though Obama hasn't won enough delegates!" Waaaah!

7) "How dare she get in the way of the Obama coronation!" BooHooo!

8) "Bill Clinton is a racist; the Reverend Wright is jus' tellin' it like it is!" Snivel!

9) "A vote for Hillary is a vote for McCain!" Whine!

10)"Even tho Barack lost by 10 points in PA, he actually won because he lost by only 10 points!" Blubber!

And, to forestall the expected whines of "you're slamming Barack", this isn't making fun of him, its making fun of his minions.