The media are doing an excellent job of dividing the electorate into convenient labels: "black", "Latino", "white", "man", "woman", "blue collar", "college-educated", "religious", "secular", "young", "old" etc. I don't see any need for us to engage in this any further by trying to quantify who are "Hillary's people" or "Obama's people". The bigger issue is to try and bring more PEOPLE into the political process.

Most Obama supporters are not smug, arrogant, or gloaters (and I apologize for those who are). Far from it. I was thrilled to see so many people involved in democracy at today's Democratic caucus and (despite being an Obama supporter) went out of my way to ensure that the voices of Clinton supporters were heard. This spirit of cooperation and common purpose is what it's supposed to be about. This is the better politics that Senator Obama speaks about - Let's not lose sight of that.

In Washington state, we have a Democratic primary and caucus, but delegates are determined based on the caucus only. I don't like this at all, but we can later see if there is a major discrepancy between the primary and caucus results. If anything, caucuses tend to favor party insiders (i.e., Senator Clinton supporters).

Someone wrote that caucuses discriminate against "Hillary's People" (Elderly, women, and Latinos) because they are held in the "evening". In Washington state, our caucuses were held between 1 and 3 pm. There were many seniors, women, and Latinos there - the vast majority of them supporting Barack Obama. Today's sweep appears to be a real movement, not the result of some biased sample.

It's okay to be enthusiastic about a political candidate. I recognize that this is a rare phenomenon, but being inspired by a candidate while simultaneously approving of their policy positions is possible. Every once in a while, a candidate who is not the "lesser of two evils", "vote for while holding your nose for the greater good" type of individual emerges. For many of us, that candidate is Barack Obama. We are not all young, naive, or unrealistic. We simply set the bar a little higher and envision what is possible with effective leadership and are doing our best to make this hope a reality.

Hope has made it surprisingly far in 2008, let's keep it moving forward. Yes we can!

So, the Clinton strategy was to supress the votes of likely Obama supporters in Nevada, but be certain that the votes of likely Clinton supporters in Michigan and Florida are counted?

Democrats, just because someone is ostensibly "on our side" doesn't mean we have to support these tactics. We must demand better of our leadership and potential nominees.

No one is questioning that the 1960's were pivotal times and that great progressive gains were made. The efficacy of fighting and refighting those battles by people whose political views were formed in the '60's is a bigger question.

Personally, I hope to avoid the "wife of a draft dodger vs. Vietnam POW" storyline in 2008. As a post-Boomer, Barack Obama finally offers us the opportunity to deal effectively with the problems of the present and future without the baggage of the '60's (and the 1990's, for that matter). The description of Obama as "post-partisan" may be a cliche, but his message is drawing new people into the political process.