mountain girl, I'm not a member of the cult of Obama. I supported Edwards, out of the three top-tier candidates.

That said, since it seems that my primary vote will be a choice between Obama and Clinton, Obama gets my vote. I don't trust him, and I fear that if he were to win he'd end up being the Jimmy Carter of the 21st century; not the near-saint Carter of recent years, but the hapless Carter of his presidency.

That said, if Hillary gets the nomination, for the first time in my life this life-long proud Democrat will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee. The only other candidate I've ever said that about is Joe Lieberman, by the way, and I think history has proven me right on that assessment.

I won't vote for McCain, of course, but I'll either find a decent third-party candidate to vote for or I'll write in someone I respect.

Why won't I vote for Hillary? Because I'm quite sure that Hillary will be the George W. Bush of the Democratic Party. Her nomination will be the greatest gift the Republicans could ever hope for, which is why they've been pushing for her to win the nomination all along.

And I will not be a party to the suicide of my party and - I fear - my country. These are times of incredible peril, not only for the United States, but for our nation. We need another FDR. Senator Clinton isn't even another Bill Clinton. Her secrecy, triangulating, and contempt for the American voter makes her a train wreck waiting to happen.

"...but for our species" is what I meant to say in the final paragraph of my last post. Sorry.

I need coffee.

Thanks for the chuckle, dctace. Sitting here on my mink-lined chaise lounge, sipping mimosas served on bended knee by my impeccable silver-haired butler, I - wait a minute!

Actually I'm a corporate cube-monkey, trapped within four gray, gray walls. I spend my minuscule free time worrying about how to pay the mortgage and figuring out which bills can be put off until next month - without having the lights or the gas turned off, that is.

And no, I don't have a plumber, electrician, or gardener.

I'm not sure where this fantasy of the fabulous elite came from, but I can assure you: they are not a numerous clan, and I am not counted among their number. As I said before, I'm not in the Obama "cult"; he gets my vote out of Hobson's Choice. But since Obama is giving Senator Clinton a strong run for her money (without having her advantage of the support of the majority of the Democratic Party hierarchy) clearly his supporters DO include "lunchbox" people.

(Incidentally, I don't have a lunch box. They cost money. If I have lunch at all - which is rarely, because money is tight - I use a plastic supermarket grocery bag. They're free. Except at the discount supermarket my family shops at most often, which charges for every bag. But I digress.)

"i sincerly urge all of you obama supporters urge your candidate to open up communiction with hillary and for him to accept the VP..."

How generous of you! I'm sure Senator Clinton would be happy to forgo the primaries. But the race isn't over, not by a long shot. Obama might as well offer Hillary the VP slot. Although he'd be a fool to do so, because she's electoral poison.

Karl Rove and the Republicans have been angling for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination from day one. That's not because they think she'd be the best candidate for the nation! No, it's because they're pretty sure that they can beat her, and that the hatred they've been building up against her will bring millions of ignorant rednecks to the polls to sweep in Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Do you think our nation and our world will survive another eight years of untrammelled Republican neocon rule? I don't.

"vote for substance and not the fluff."

Oh, please! Hillary has had half a term more as Senator than Obama. Neither one is highly experienced, as such things go. Unless you count sleeping with the President as experience. In which case, let's vote for Marilyn Monroe for President!

Her role as First Lady may have been more activist than most. Nonetheless, it was unelected, and the extent of her activities are unknown - in part because she and her husband won't release the records.

The whole "experience" argument is a joke. FDR was relatively inexperienced when he became President. So was Bill Clinton, for that matter - the governor of a mostly-rural state? People laughed.

So please don't try to push the "experience" line. If experience were the main concern, we'd be voting for Dick Cheney. The President has people who help him or her deal with the reins of power; his/her task is to serve as chief executive. There is no requirement for "experience", and history has shown that character, intelligence, and vision matter far more.

Anonymous wrote:

"...if the superdelegates decide it, it means that the electorate did not decisively choose a candidate.

In that case, maybe it is better that they are decided by the professionals."

You mean, like the wonderful, competent professionals who thought that John Kerry could win, and shouldn't bother to respond to the Swift Boat ads? The professionals who decided it wasn't worth fighting in Florida in 2000? The professionals who lost Congress for so many years, and who have been busily falling over backwards to give Bush and Cheney whatever they want?

You know, the "professionals" who were totally helpess when they were in the minority in Congress, and are totally helpless now that they're in the majority? The ones who couldn't stand up for a core Democratic principle to save their lives?

Please, tell me more about those incredible professionals!