What is the point of this article? Are you trying to make sure the wound never heals by constantly taking Clinton supporters for granted?

His craven complicity on the FISA bill is chilling.

What is Clinton's position on this bill? I haven't heard anything one way or the other about her feelings or plans for this legislation.

The underlying point is this: Regardless of how I feel about an almost certain ineffectual one-term president, I cannot understand how any true progressive would vote in such a way that would facilitate a packed conservative Supreme Court.

I chose that wording on purpose. Anyone who lives in a strongly red or strongly blue state can snit this one out. But anyone who lives in a battleground state but does not do what is necessary to defeat McCain is complicit in whatever crimes he may commit if he gets elected. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Was there misogyny in the race? Of course there was! Clinton was the first ever legitimate female candidate. How could there not have been misogyny?

The question is, why are so many people using that as an excuse to support the candidate who is the most anti-woman?

Yes, if you live in a battleground state, and do not do everything you can to defeat McCain (like, vote for the only legitimate opponent), you are supporting the candidate who is the most anti-woman.

Is it really worth that?

I don't need reproductive rights. Why should I care if anyone else has them?

I won't go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran. I have no sons or nephews or other family member who will have to go fight. Why should I care if anyone else has to go?

I don't care about the Supreme Court. Let McCain pack it with young conservative judges who will abuse the Constitution for the next 30 years. I've got mine, get your own.

All this is justified, because Hillary was supposed to win, and the evil Obama and all his evil supporters unfairly kept her away from what was rightfully hers!!!

You cite data from elections between Obama and Clinton. Come November Obama will be running against McCain.

You have been offered contradictory evidence which show Obama overwhelmingly defeating McCain. Yet you just choose to discount it. Based on what, exactly? Your own personal prejudices?

If you are going to make a statement vis a vis Obama's chances versus McCain, you need to offer evidence that refers to Obama's chances versus McCain. Not evidence that refers to Obama versus Clinton.

I sure hope you are never my doctor.

Nurse: Doctor, the patient is bleeding to death! Quick, do something to stop the bleeding!

Faker: Not necessary, the patient is not running a fever.

I don't get that at all.

Isn't Bush still in charge? Isn't our security still his responsibility? Wouldn't another attack be his, and by extension the Republicans', responsibility?

Your article neglected to mention the main reason Clinton voters will not vote for Barack Obama. The reason is that he is not qualified to be president. etc. etc. etc.

I wonder which website these posters are being sent here from.

Because no on is noticing the almost verbatim posts or anything.

The only way to make a Democrat look good is to compare one to a Republican.

Were there voters who decided to vote against Obama solely because he is black? Of course there were, and of course that is racism.

Were there voters who decided to vote for Obama solely because he is black? Of course there were, and of course that is also racism.

Were there voters who decided to vote against Clinton solely because she is a woman? Of course there were, and of course that is sexism.

Were there voters who decided to vote for Clinton solely because she is a woman? Of course there were, and of course that is also sexism.

Were either of these two "isms" the basis for the outcome of the election? Possibly, but how would anyone know?

Are they both a stain on our culture, and a source of embarrassment for our country? Yes, if you look at the question honestly.

Was either of them a surprise? Is either of them worthy of being the main topic of discussion?

Gotta hope the answer to those questions is a resounding "NO!"

Yes, we as a country and as a culture need to do a lot of growing up. But it isn't going to happen if we keep whining about it.

Actually, if you were to choose to read what I actually wrote, instead of giving a knee-jerk reaction that feeds your pet cause (Hillary was ROBBED) you would realize what I said contains no contradiction.

The word I used was whining. Stop crying about how your candidate was punished by sexism. (Conveniently ignoring the possibility that the number of votes sexism cost her was overcome by the number of votes sexism gained for her.) And start addressing sexism and racism in general.

Education is the only way to fight this. Whining only makes the job harder.

Unlike previous applications of the label "appeaser," this ceding of ground at the expense of the truth is Obama actually appeasing.

Craven.

Pathetic.

Disgusting.

Unfortunately, this election will only offer the lesser of two evils. Of which, of course, Obama is still the only possible choice. But it is enough to make me puke.

Wow.

It wasn't just an annoying "writer reading a column" talking head things.

It actually made sense to have video on this one.

Not that Joan Walsh gives a damn. As long as I was forced to sit through the obnoxious and offensive Pfizer commercial, where they brag about making health care more expensive.

Joan Walsh, are you too dim to understand what video is for? Or are you such a money-grubber that you don't care?