From reading the quasi-lucid posts by the other half of the Democratic party here, I would seem to be part of the "Clinton Knuckle-Draggers" upon which much scorn is heaped. If simply suporting the candidate who appeals to me and roughly half the Democratic party can generate such juvenile animosity on the part of the Obama minions, you folks are in, to quote George H. W. Bush, "deep doo-doo".

Barack Obama, to this point, still has not secured the nomination. Therefore, I continue to lobby for Hillary Clinton because I believe she is the better candidate of our party and the better choice to defeat John McCain. I liked America when she and Bill were our First Couple. I liked the deficit being banished and the surplus being in the trillions. We were at peace and our people treated each other as brothers and sisters.

To read the pro-Obama posts here, I find most (not all) Obama supporters to be nasty, petty and boorish; they continue the rabid rants of "Hillary is hurting the party", "Hillary needs to get out" and worse. Calling her a "bitch" only secures your place as misogynists of OUR party; you may have a few more delegates but you have abundantly less class.

With the weird machinations at the Rules Committee meeting in DC yesterday, you even may have inadvertently written your own epitaph: "they won the battle but they lost the war".

As Barack Obama delivers his concession speech Election Night in November, remember how you treated the other candidate and her suporters during the campaign. We are not motivated to work for Barack Obama's election by donating time and money; we canot see ourselves enthusiastically voting for him either. If you think you'll win by excoriating the approximately fifty percent of Democrats who support Hillary, your math skills are as abysmal as your people skills.

While I appreciate the "atta girl" from you...and, I like your letters/perspective, as well..unfortunately, you and I have the same, umm, "plumbing", so, I don't think we're a match there. (But, I am flattered, nonetheless.) I am a divorced, single-parent father of three boys ages 6, 14 and 16.

"AnaHadWolves", btw, is simply a creative screen-name based on an interpretation of favorite literature, opera and philosophy.

AlecsMom wrote: @Ana It's funny that you decry the Obama-supporter name-calling when you engage in it yourself. Remember, that's 50% of the party, too. Or don't we count? -- AlecsMom"

Tsk, tsk. I called Barack Obama no names; I chastised his supporters, of whom you are one. Understand the difference?

Get your son Alex to lend you one of his 3rd grade English books; you might advance a grade.

And, your latest post proves my point: I find many Obamabots to be rude, offensive, naive, sexist, racist and hubristically maladroit when it comes to engaging in political intercourse.

By cherry-picking a few choice and descriptive bits of my past narratives, you have proven nothing of substance. I continue to find many denizens of "Obamanation" to be rabid rather than rational.

You continue to piss off Hillary supporters and sympathizers at your own peril; if you want us, our votes, time and money to just go away...fine.

See you all back here in 2012 when we try once again to elect a competent Democrat to defeat President McCain.

Peeps wrote: There there dear, you really ARE better than everyone else...Just keep telling yourself that and visualize your nice safe place and repeat..."they DO suck and I AM smarter then them...they DO suck and I AM better than them..." Reinforcement is a powerful tool.-- peeps"

You really should stop channeling Dr. Phil; its beginning to rot your brain.

Some, but, not ALL Clinton supporters will eventually support Barack Obama...that what you're saying? Fine.

What's an acceptable "loss", btw, by Obama of Clinton supporters...10%, 20%, more? In an election that most polling data says is within 3 points...McCain versus Obama...every Democratic vote counts.

You might want to try telling the Obamatons that every Clinton supporter who either abstains from voting or makes the McCain choice, is one vote they could have had...except for their strident and virulent character assassination of Hillary Clinton.

You have your personal opinion; I have the internal polling data from over five million registered Democrats through my Washington-based, Democratic-leaning advertising/public relations firm upon which to rely.

Based on what many of them say to us privately, I'll take my hard data over your gut anyday.

Actually, bud, I think AlecsMom needs a "time-out" in the corner with her 3-year-old before she implodes.

Nice refutation of the bovine excrement in your latest posts; please do continue!

Peeps wrote: to ana: Do you have a financial stake in Clinton winning?-- peeps"

For complete disclosure..yes, I do: my financial stake is lower taxes, a balanced budget, an end to the Iraq war, a return to civility in Washington, regained respect around the world and a return of intelligence and competence to the White House. I benefit, as we all do, by a Hillary Clinton victory.

Thank you for asking.

My firm earns an eight-figure annual income for Democratic polling, number-crunching, advertising, public-relations, data-mining, opinion-shaping and other appropriate activities for Democrats nationwide, so, no...we don't sell lists of any kind that we have generated to anyone outside the party.

My personal choice for President is Hillary Clinton. Others like Barack Obama. The data I've seen from our internal polling does indicate that Obama may be losing substantial support among women...young and old...within the party; even with his marginal gains in white men, Obama is still hemmoraging core Democratic support. Not good for him.

When people go into a voting booth and vote their true beliefs, funny things happen. Remember New Hampshire? Obama was trounced by Clinton after having a "lead" in face-to-face polling prior to voting.

Oops!