You wasted your vote.

Here's how it works in a representative democracy: You vote for the candidate/party of your choice, and to the extent your candidate/party is chosen by other voters, you gain representation in government.

Here's how it works in the two-party system: You vote for the candidate/party of your choice, and if less than fifty percent of other voters agree with you (or if the Supreme Court steps in), then you get bupkes.

I'm on exactly the opposite tack from Ms Traister's post. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I hate to think we would suddenly rally around her only because she teared up. For goodness sake, elect a person because you think she will be the best leader for the future of America, not because you're annoyed about the bad boys picking on her. This is what Glenn Greenwald is saying: it's all part of the media's cheapening of American politics and our public discourse.

Up there in the Peoples' Republic of Cambridge it may make sense to call for a Progressive president, but back here on Planet Earth, among the graying baby-boomers, the choices are:

1. Moderate, or

2. Conservative/Fascist.

If people were going to all stand up for peace and social justice, how did we end up with our current Fascist dictatorship? Obama has about zero chance against the Republican smear machine; and, if by some strange miracle he did become president in 2009, he would have similarly little chance of standing up to the Vladimir Putins of the world.

Read Morris and McCann's excellent post on NewsMax. The entire point of Bill Clinton's efforts in SC is obviously to racialize the campaign. His administration was great for minorities, and yet it looks like black folks will vote en bloc for Obama. Why? Because of skin color, of course. The bigger the coming SC landslide for Obama, and the more racially polarized the vote there, the more it will make Obama look like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. White voters will start to shy away. And if Bill can do it in February, you can bet the Swift-Boaters will do it in November.

Glenn, my lad, I think you have gone and joined the noise machine. Let me see if I under your logic: the majority of undecided voters went for Obama at the last minute, because they were disgusted (as you were) with Bill's comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson - AFTER THE ELECTION???

I believe the majority went with Obama because the majority is black, and they voted for skin color. It's somehow NOT OK to call that racist, only Bill's implying it can be racist. And, as you point out, the Swift-Boaters are just waiting to run commercials showing Obama with screaming crowds of South Carolina blacks behind him. If Obama is the nominee, it won't be post-racial, believe me.

that Ted Kennedy and Rush Limbaugh finally agree on something.

How was it decided among the Democratic leadership that Sebelius should do the response? It came across as "Democrats for Obama", and the crack about divisiveness seemed targeted more at Bill than George. She'll be the other half of the Obama ticket (God forbid), and I'm sure the Clintons are fuming. Why can't the Dems wait until the body is cold before they eat their own?

Anyway, IMHO It would have been much more appropriate to choose someone like Chris Dodd, a genuine hero who actually would have had something substantive to say.

If you're going to warm Tim's chair, give us wisdom, not bias.

Were it not for Bill and Hillary's support for Ted Kennedy in 1994, this stinker Romney would most likely be in his third term as Senator from Massachusetts. And here's old Teddy, out rabble-rousing for O'Bam-Bam. "Surrender to the terrorists". Words just fail me.

"Some think we won that battle when we reformed welfare, but the liberals haven't given up"

Oddly enough, others think that welfare reform was, in fact, accomplished under the Clinton Administration.

What - A - Maroon.

The old argument against womens' suffrage was that women would tend to vote for a charismatic good-looking guy, whether or not he had experience or capability. So I guess you have proved a point, all right. Hey, maybe he'll be truly great, and your wishing will make it so.

Hillary is the candidate who can't be swift-boated. It's been done to death already, and she's still standing.

And after all the Clintons did for Teddy Kennedy, they get stabbed in the back. Without their support in 1994, Mitt would be into his third term in Teddy's old seat, and Teddy's new seat would be in a bar on the Vineyard.

So, let's see: you support Obama because he can bring us all together, and by the way, anyone who disagrees with you needs a lobotomy. That doesn't seem to be the sort of adult thinking that will help us choose a wise leader. It's also the sort of inflexible attitude that would quickly make Obama irrelevant, if he were to become president. The folks on the other side are just like you, you see.

"[T]he 'Harry and Louise'-ish mailer [was t]ough, perhaps, but not altogether unfair"????

"Admittedly, the couple around the table was a questionable button to push."

And I'm sure the Republican attack dogs who thought up the original ad are still having a great laugh about Barack Obama picking up where they left off. You're either for making sure people have health care, like in the rest of the civilized world, or you're not. I think Hillary can get it done this time around; Obama clearly won't even try.