Agreed. I think the most likely outcome is that Hispanic voters will stick with Obama since they'll constantly be hearing from the rabid right about how we should ship all of the Mexicans back and finish building a 2000+ mile fence. If I were in their place, I'd make damn sure I was not only supporting a candidate with good immigration policies but also the party that is most likely to treat me well and fairly. It would be nuts to put my trust in having a President who will veto anti-immigrant legislation when his party supports it. There's also the problem that McCain has flip-flopped on so many other issues in his bid for the presidency (courting right-wing Christians, supporting the Bush tax cuts, etc.) that it is hard to know whether he wouldn't cave on immigration too.

The behavior Glenn reports here reflects one of the biggest mistakes made by the founding fathers when writing the Constitution. Unfortunately, we have a winner-take-all electoral system instead of a system of proportional representation. The result: a two party system where significant minority views are all but unrepresented.

As long as, one group has a mere fraction over 50% of the vote, it's as if no other point of view exists within that voting district, at least in terms of representation. And so our parties lose their identities when it comes to their roles in representing the full range of views and their willingness to uphold potentially unpopular, but constitutionally protected rights and liberties.

Beyond real public financing of campaigns, the one change I would make in our government would be to institute proportional representation. Then maybe, just maybe, we'd start to really hear about the diversity of ideas in this nation and our national dialogue would be enriched and broadened, rather than this narrow Kabuki theater that passes for politics in our country. And most likely there would be a party in Congress willing to stand up and call the laws surrounding warrantless wiretapping what they truly are: unconstitutional.

--There was sexism directed at Hillary

--Hillary was mistreated by the MSM

--Obama had mud slung at him by Hillary

--Younger women don't appreciate what the older women did for them by fighting for reproductive rights

--Etc., etc., etc. (with apologies to the Rodgers and Hammerstein)

Oddly, I'm a white male who feels he has been neglected by both parties during my entire adult life. I am and have been far more progressive than the Democrats have ever been during my lifetime. I'd like some other truly viable party to turn to that will actively fight sexism and racism, that will support civil rights and liberties, that will take bold moves to protect the environment and alter our current energy use, and that will work as hard at diplomacy as it does at preparing for and fighting wars.

But that just ain't the way it is, no matter how much I wish it to be. So I accept that I often have to think strategically about my vote, particularly about trying to do the least harm possible.

So, even though Obama wasn't my first, second or third choice in the primaries, of the options that remain, he is still the candidate that is likely to do the least harm and some good. I don't see how anyone who supported Hillary and is even moderately progressive can say that about McCain. And sitting out the election is just as bad if it makes a McCain presidency a higher probability.

Politics is about the possible. The process has left us with McCain and Obama and a handful of candidates who will be voted for by their immediate families. For our collective sake, please see beyond whatever pain you feel to act to do the least harm. There will be other excellent women candidates, you can be assured. History is turning that way just as it finally turned enough to allow an African American to win the nomination. We need to pull together or we shall suffer for at least four years for not doing so.

I can't let it go by without commenting that Steve Benen is an improvement for War Room. Alex Koppleman is talented, but IMHO, War Room is the wrong venue for him. His posts are too long and detailed, at least for what I come to this forum for, i.e., short articles with links so I can keep up with the events of the day without taking too much time from critical work.

Please consider keeping Steve on here and giving Alex the opportunity to work on more extended pieces to which he is better suited.

Everything I've read about the Smart says the same thing. Weak engine, lousy transmission, jerky ride, mediocre gas mileage considering its size.

Just because a car is small doesn't mean it has to perform as poorly as the Smart Car. Some company needs to take the concept, put a decent engine-transmission combination in it that is frugal with gas and try again. There's no reason a car its size shouldn't be able to routinely get in the 40s or even 50s if designed well.