A quote from Maureen Dowd's latest follows:

"Better the devil you know than the diffident debutante you don’t. Better to go with the Clintons, with all their dysfunction and chaos — the same kind that fueled the Republican hate machine — than to risk the chance that Obama would be mauled like a chew toy in the general election. Better to blow off all the inspiration and the young voters, the independents and the Republicans that Obama is attracting than to take a chance on something as ephemeral as hope. Now that’s Cheney-level paranoia."

The Clinton posters on Salon seem very much like the "Republican Hate Machine."

Clinton's dysfunctional experience only assures us that she will keep making the same mistakes. She will also continue Bush's preemptive war strategy and McCain will make sure her vote for war negates that issue in the general election. I for one shall vote for McCain over Clinton.

Many of the posters on the Salon site also say that the only reason they are voting for her is because she is a woman. Let's wait for woman who can give us hope rather than a load of vile baggage.

As far as I am concerned, OBAMA won.

Considering the fact that 2 weeks ago the MSM was proclaiming Clinton the prohibitive favorite, leading by over 20% in all the polls. They said Obama would be extremely "lucky" to win 3 states. The result was that the overall vote was even and he led in delegates.

This alone is a remarkable achievement.

I always read Krugman. I am amazed that I am normally %100 in agreement with him. Up until now! I sent him an email in protest. As with all my emails, it will be a fruitless exercise. For 6 years I have been writing my congressman, Steny Hoyer, not very nicely, and have never received even an acknowledgment.

But Krugman is dead wrong on this issue. I find the Obama supporters on the web-sites I read and the comments in the newspapers and get the sense that the Obama supporters are truly enthused. I am also very enthusiastic. But hardly a cult! Hardly "Nixonland!" There are a few jerks, but when I come across one it just seems to prove to be the exception to the rule.

The Obama campaign, including Obama himself, is scrupulous in its honesty! Really and truly appealing in this day and age. I am going broke donating.

On the other hand, I totally agree with Frank Rich and his column clobbering the vicious tactics applied by the Clinton campaign. Truly Roveian! Truly Atwaterian! And the column is not leveled at the supporters, who I think are mostly feminists, from my readings of postings/comments.

But if you want to read truly nasty and vile comments, read the comments written by Clinton supporters in response to Rich's column in the NY Times.

The Times has a "Recommend" question after every post so you can vote as to whether it is a well-written, thought-out posting. The Clinton supporters go through and recommend every post that is favorable to Clinton even if it just says, "I like Hillary!" - 423 recommendations. "I like Obama!" - 2 recommendations. A bit of hyperbole, there.

Krugman is also wrong, as far as I'm concerned, about coalescing around the nominee. If it's Clinton, I am voting for McCain. Again, from my readings I am not alone.

I feel that if she is nominated, her war vote will destroy her. I knew the war was wrong when I was protesting in DC and getting stomped on by the police, while she was busy voting for the war. It will be the same-old, same-old back-room politics, and renting out of the Lincoln bedroom and more pardons for her cronies. Marc Rich revisited! And the lobbyists will dominate as they do now in the Bush administration.

Obama will surely be tested by the Rove/Atwater tactics of the Clinton campaign. Long live Frank Rich!

I always read GG's articles. I would post to his threads but it is just a chat room with the same posters saying the same things. If Salon had a filter where one could ignore certain posters, I would participate in GG's threads. Or if I could determine who wrote the comment at the beginning, it would be OK. But to read a paragraph or a sentence and discover you're reading bebooper; that's depressing!

Reading Kovie or gc_Wall is truly enlightening and rewarding! Even shooter242 or some of the remarks imparted by sugarman are OK. At least I find out what the neocons are thinking and what their talking points are. But regarding most of the other chatters, without the benefit of a filter, I'd rather not bother.

As far a McCain goes, I detest his stand on the war but at least the torturing would stop. He is for campaign reform. He is far from an ideal candidate for me, yet is better than Clinton. He is honest, at least I tend to think so, but he could be fooling me. I don't have to make that choice yet.