As an early participant in online discussion forums like The WELL and early AOL I experienced the almost inevitable tendency of online conversation either to degenerate into abusive attack and defense or to be commandered by a vocal and obsessive minority with some axe to grind.

In online discussions that are unmediated and unedited I've experienced myself and others drawn into the darkest and most reactive parts of my personality and even watched in dismay as my online persona is apparently possessed by a creature that I would hardly recognize in the real world of actual physical face-to-face contact.

On my part this encouraged me to take more responsibility for editing myself offline before posting something online (I have an aversion to the chat room menatlity). Online publications that feature letters and readers responses should take the editorial responsibility for keeping discussions on a civil and respectful level. Some will consider this censorship but I submit that it's merely civilization.

As the headline states, I'm a white male who supports Hillary, and who likes Obama.

My main reservations about voting for Obama are the very Obama supporters that are described in the article. Lacking any real difference in platforms between the two candidates they have waged a campaign based mainly on character assassination, race bating and ridicule. Ironically for a campaign that speaks of a 'new politics' they've managed to take a page from the swift-boating Republicans and run one of the ugliest races I've ever seen.

For me the Obama 'movement' brings up images of 'herd' and 'mob' more than anything based on serious political dialogue. More than once I've been so disgusted by the blind self-righteous arrogance and disrespect displayed almost daily by these people that I've been tempted to change my allegiance to someone like Ralph Nader should Obama get the nomination. Unlike most people at the extremes of left and right I tend to head in the opposite direction when faced with a stampeding herd. As the willing enablers of the mass media, lacking any real news, spend their time fanning the flames and stirring the tides I feel that I'm being herded toward some inevitable preordained narrative.

I suspect that many of the 'true-believers' of the Obama flock are driven by a visceral and less than conscious revulsion, and in many cases fear of female authority. They flock to Obama not because he represents, as has been absurdly claimed by the likes of The Nation, the 'only progressive movement' in this country, or because of his positions on the issues, but because he has become the great white hope of the anti-Hillary left.

Having more respect for Obama than I do for his followers I do not believe this has ever been his intent. It happens that he is the one Democrat candidate who could avoid the potential minefield of gender politics because he represents another oppressed social group.

I personally believe that the party can more afford to alienate young white male and female elites than it can afford to alienate the working class independent voters who have and will determine the outcome of modern elections. In other words, if it gets down to the dirty finish, I hope the party has the sense to go with the candidate most likely to win a general election and not the one who can best organize the mob.

If I'm faced with the choice of voting for Obama in the general election I will do so, but certainly not because some imbecile tried to convince me of his divinity, but out of respect for the intelligence and sincerity of the man himself.

Ever since Camille bragged about smoking cigars with Rush Limbaugh her credibility as a sane commentator on American culture has been in grave doubt.

Accusing the Clintons of being responsible for the bombing of the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City achieves an astounding new standard in the free associating hate crusade she parades as intellectual discourse. The pathological account of her repressed temper tantrum while passing Terry McAuliffe in the train station (which comes from nowhere and goes nowhere) is particularly bizarre.

Perhaps she is one step closer to endearing herself to the academic alpha males of the new and upcoming 'Crashing the Gate' Democratic establishment that will be swept into office with the Obama cult. I can almost smell the cigars.

Before Obama gets to confront the challenge of post-partisan politics as president he will have to confront the challenge of reaching across the aisle within the ranks of the Democratic party. In his bid for the nomination his answer to this challenge will make or break the party's bid for the presidency. Truly, this is a challenge faced not only by Obama but by the party as a whole, but as the potential leader of that party his test is to step beyond the vitriolic sentiments expressed by the portion of his base who persist in vilification and dismissal of Clinton and her supporters. As these represent a good deal of the necessary base for winning a presidential election it will be the true measure of whether Obama can step beyond rhetoric into pragmatism.

The Obamacrats never had a sense of humor to begin with, or else they lost it about midway through the primary process, when any criticism of Obama was quickly painted as heresy-against the progressive movement. This very quality of cult-like behavior has kept me from embracing the Obama candidacy, as it breeds a stifling atmosphere of political correctness, overconfidence and above all, unrealistic expectations. Whatever the outcome of this campaign it has served to deconstruct the so-called 'progressive' movement centered around the online blogs like Daily KOS, Huffington Post and organizations like Move-On, revealing them as a world of true-believers bent on accomplishing what the left has always been the very good at: eating its own.