The problem here seems to be that each "side" is accusing the other of bad behavior, and both sides believe that the other candidate acted reprehensibly. Each side is convinced of its absolute rightness and the other side's absolute wrongness.

However, there really isn't any objective scale to measure each candidate's transgressions. How do we measure Obama's alleged tardiness in leaving his church against Clinton's alleged playing the gender card? Anyone want to take a stab at going down the list and coming up with a tally for each side?

Clinton supporters have to realize that Obama supporters are truly convinced that she is a dirty, lying sleazebag politician. And Obama supporters have to realize that Clinton supporters are truly convinced that he is the same. But, in the end, it seems to come down to: "He started it!" "No, she started it!"

So, please, don't make me pull this car over.

Although I realize that each side here feels wounded, and their list of grievances may be genuine, I would propose that those grievances are petty when compared with the hell that the Bush administration has put this country through for the last 8 years.

Obama and Clinton hold similar positions on many issues. McCain is in complete opposition to many of those positions.

If you want to vote for a third party, I will always respect the right to do that. Vote for McCain if you truly support his policies. But, if you're a committed Democrat, please don't cast a vote for McCain, or stay home, out of spite.

I'm begging you.

I hope you are treated better by your next party.

But, in reality, these are politicians. All of them. Don't expect them to get all warm and fuzzy.

I'm not thinking about getting out of the stock market because of a potential increase in the capital gains tax -- I'm thinking about getting out because the market has been so volatile for a long time now and because the economy is about to go down the crapper.

No more talking to trolls. Buh-bye.

What do you think you are accomplishing here?

Do you think Obama would approve of your tactics? I already know the answer to that: Not by a long shot.

...since it seems to have enraged so many people here.

I think that Mr. Conason is speaking to Clinton supporters when he mentions mourning defeat, not to Obama supporters, or to the entire Democratic party.

And I do think that Clinton supporters are entitled to mourn a little bit. As long as we unite in the end, and I really hope that we do (please, think about the alternative), I think we can win this thing in November.

How about the opinion of someone who hasn't been a "core Obama supporter"? I gave my money to Edwards, and voted for him on Super Tuesday, despite the fact that he had dropped out of the race.

But, I'm voting for Obama. Why? Because, on most of the issues, on the big picture, he is much more in alignment with my vision for America than is John McCain.

Also, because I have not heard one cogent argument (that is based on issues and not on politics), not one, as to why it would be better to either stay home or to vote for McCain.

"John McCain: More than twice as old enough to be your President!"

"John McCain: Actually, he IS your grandfather's President!"

I guess it's nothing at all for you, then. Buh-bye now.

I'm kind of wondering how Chucks got associated with punk rock, and especially with The Ramones. In most pictures that I've seen of The Ramones, especially Johnny and Joey, they seem to be wearing Keds. Really dirty Keds.

I have always said that, after John Edwards dropped out, I would support the eventual nominee. I am just glad that we can now, finally, start getting down to the business of trying to defeat John McCain.

I would have ben 100% behind Hillary Clinton. I am 100% behind Barack Obama.

Time to grow up, people.

Obama will be the nominee. He is, on most issues, 180 degrees opposite John McCain. He is the only sane choice for any Democrat.

If you stay home or vote for McCain, you will be responsible for further damaging this country.

Your bruises will heal. Time to let it go.

Clinton is not going to win the nomination.

Obama may or may not win in November.

Those are the facts. Anyone who says otherwise is engaged in rank speculation.

Since the new plan for those who oppose gay marriage in California is to change the state's Constitution, isn't that basically an admission that the Supreme Court ruled correctly in this matter?

If one has to change the language of the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, doesn't that mean that, under the existing language, such a prohibition is unsupportable?

So, instead of "creating" a right that previously didn't exist (which isn't what happened), the plan now is to abolish a right that actually does exist under the state's Constitution.

Isn't that interesting?

I will definitely keep these points in mind.

It'll be interesting to see how McCain, Clinton and Obama handle the issue.

it's not a "term of endearment" when you aren't endeared to person you call "sweetie"!

But it's a very common thing here in the south, whether you're "endeared" to the person or not. One of the lawyers I work with uses the term "sweetie" quite often.

Now, I realize that Obama is not southern, and it really wasn't the smartest thing to say. But, if people are seriously thinking that he can't or shouldn't be president because of this, well, I find that absolutely astounding.