I'm tired of the supercilious, superior, I-know-it-all attitude of many of the writers here. What was important to me? I heard, first, about Hillary getting booed. Well, I watched the relevant parts at TPM, and there was a boo. There was also raucous applause, just like Michael Scherer said. Why is it that only those who boo are talked about? I mean, I can see why Politico or Drudge would talk that way, but lefties?

Look, as far as I'm concerned, the race is still open. I'm not very fond of the artificial bickering done first by Hillary and then returned by Obama -- my hypothetical policy is longer than yours, according to a secret scale I keep in my basement -- but I will take any of the nominees. Okay, Gravel doesn't stand a chance in hell, and I think he's in it just to goose things up a bit, and neither does Kucinich.

But the YearlyKos started with a stupid attack by O'Reilly, as a collection of "ultra-leftists." It is anything but, and nobody should know better than the ultra-leftists.

I lived through the '60s. I'm a Mario Savio guy. But one thing I've really had enough of are the hyper-activist, know-it-all, purer-than-thou asses who seem to infest the left just like greedy lobbyists and religious wackos infest the right.

I accidentally heard him on the Drudge Report, praising every sub-literate grunt by the guy who links to him. I think he means that, but it's also his m.o. He's a suckup. Forget him, and don't anybody dare link to politico.

Not grousing. Will somebody please make up a mailing list of Democrats who voted for the bill, and then me a hundreds of thousands of others can sign on? Move on? Anybody?

You see why he loses. With no vision or real loyalties to the people or to the candidate he works for, he just phones it in. Mr. Conventional Wisdom. It doesn't even have to be smart, just Conventional. Stabbing Edwards in the back, now Clinton -- who is he working for now?

Us. The people whose knees buckled when he started another whispering campaign. The people who saw him as any kind of "genius." And above all, the people who saw him as all-powerful. 2006 showed that he was not, that he was dead wrong about the mood of the country. That the "numbers" he was talking about were all wrong.

"But they're going to turn the country over to Blackwater! They'll cancel the elections!" Well, first of all, I doubt it. But if they ever try it, just remember what the Russian people did during their attempted putsch. They got on their fax machines. They got into the streets. The crucial politicians did not support it. Yeltsin got on the tank. The Red Army was massively against it. Any such thing would be over in 24 hours, if attempted. What these fears do is turn the opponent into a colossus, rather than very, very flawed men with extremist views. What this alarmism does is say, "Resistance is futile." Is that what you want to say?

Any Democrat worth his or her salt is not sitting around, wondering how the "genius" will take down Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards, or whoever. They're doing opposition research on our likely opponents. They're finding out what they can about how they'll attack, and preparing a booby trap. Come on, people, fight. Have you forgotten how?

Much love.

I've had it with these people who make this dire predictions about Hillary -- or any other Democratic contender -- and say, Giuliani will win in a walk, or Thompson, or whoever else the bete noire of the day is. The Republican Party today is more marginal, divided and weak than at any time in the last 25 years. 90% of the head-to-heads show Hillary easily beating any Republican. And the same goes for Obama, maybe more. Come on, naysayers, show some daring and courage. All you do is whine and make these dire predictions, never backing them up with fact -- or opinion, for that matter. If not Hillary, who? Why? Can they win?

The simple declarations are never based in fact or argument, just doomsaying. To which I say, pick up an oar or jump overboard, morons. And answer this question: are you being paid by the RNC, or do you have an inner fear of the RNC installed in your psyche?

Very similar things about the peaceniks and the impeachment people and so on. You're not the whole party. You really have to learn to play with others. If you have a criticism, it is welcome if you make it constructive. If not, go play with yourselves.

It is not "debilitating." Okay, so I haven't bought Bush's baked beans in 6 years, and that's irrational. But for the rest, I hate the bastard for his policies. Nothing wrong in that. My hatred for Bush burns with a cold, clear light. Only a mealy-mouthed pimp of the Matt Bai variety would think otherwise.

As for the very first message here, I really wish Democrats would just stop doing that. The writer apparently likes Edwards. I like Edwards, and if nominated, I would work hard for him. But because Drudge is attacking Edwards, immediately there must be some dark master plan involved. No, there isn't. Drudge hates Edwards. I doubt he has a nice thing to say about a single Democrat, have you noticed that?

Why the hell let Drudge define anything? He is pure sleaze, an influence-peddler and a jerk.

If you want to make an argument for Edwards, stand up on your own two feet and tell us why we should vote for him.