I for one stop listening to any candidate or advocate for any candidate who says they and they alone are "electable." I want to see what a candidate plans to DO if they are elected. You know, positions. It's all we have, as consumers of politicians. Of course, the promises are subject to revision depending on what Congress gets elected, and so on. And of course, they could be lying a bit. But then you have something to hold them to, right?

When a certain candidate, I'm not naming names, runs on "Hope," which was the slogan of another candidate's husband 16 years ago, just before, apparently, anybody started calling the Republicans the Party of Ideas, aside from Patrick Moynihan, former senator from New York, who used the term in the early '80s, well, you know, "hope" is not a campaign issue. What are we hopeful about? A lot of people are hopeful that electing a man of a certain pigment makes them feel noble, and that electoral hopefulness will heal the divide that's bothered us since, well, at least the Garden of Eden or the founding of the Church of Latter Day Saints, whichever came first.

What I mean is, why don't we read the campaign promises, the wonky stuff, and decide, instead of buying into one or another of the personality cults that are offered to us by fly-by-night marketing operations? Why do we still decide who to support based on the willful misinterpretation of some utterance among the millions made every day in every campaign, and even more, why do we entrust the selection of the president to the personality cults of the beltway media and the programs whose network has the initials of M.S.N.B.C.? I don't know. It's a mystery. That certain other candidate whose race shall not be named by fair-minded people has a campaign based on air, and the accumulated hatred of another candidate whose campaign rhetoric and style of a former day he is copying to a T.

And now I've said my piece. I take no sides, of course. I am Above the Fray. But my favorite candidate, I think, is both experienced and hopeful, but not the other one, who offers his followers only hope™.

"Obama won a majority of whites under 30, along with the vast majority of African-Americans and most women."

The majority of whites under 30. Yes, that means that a large minority of whites under 30, and the overwhelming majority over 30, voted for Hillary or Edwards.

Blacks made up 55% of the Democratic voters, it turns out, up 5% from last time, it seems. They voted 80% for Obama. I would guess that more than 50% of those votes were from female blacks. Did the black women vote because they were black, or because they were women? Golly, gee, I don't know.

But I do know who wants to inject race (and sex, thank you for the Monica reference -- the RNC has a position there for you -- but you didn't want to drag us through that again, did you?) into the race. You don't get any fingers pointed your way for that, you notice?

The bipartisanship that Obama refers to seems to be that they use Monica or whatever comes to hand about the bogus scandals of the '90s that they steal from Republicans to stop Hillary Clinton.

Oh, by the way, Jesse Jackson this morning says he didn't see any problem with Bill's remarks. He and his wife plan on voting for Hillary. His son is the Obama co-chair.

It's sad, that hurts a Hillary supporter. But let's be clear. The Kennedy family is, as Sargent Shriver said when Ted forbade him from running as McGovern's VP to preserve a run for Ted in '76, a palace guard without a palace. It's symbolic.

Kennedy count: Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Hillary. Ted and Caroline, for Obama.

Jackson count: Jesse Sr. and his wife, for Clinton. Not offended by remark. Jesse, Jr., Obama's co-chair. And also, not convinced that Hillary didn't cry on purpose. I'm sure all you proud liberals here stuck up for her-- why no, you didn't.

Obama OR McCain? I've heard that a lot from Obama supporters, and that ranks as the most politically idiotic statement I hear. You'd actually vote for McCain, a very far right-wing candidate who has vowed to keep us in Iraq "for 100 years, if necessary," just to keep your vote from Hillary? I'm befuddled by that.

I support Hillary, but if Obama's the candidate, I'll back him. Hillary and Obama's position on most things is nearly identical. McCain is about 180 degrees opposed. He wants to keep Bush's tax cuts.

I'll give this to you: he seems to be a nicer guy than anybody else in the Republican field. Is that what decides you? You don't really understand politics, do you?

That piece of crap? Well, I guess they pay well. I thought you were taking a job with Obama.