I'm always amused by the stridency of Three Name's sexist supporters (as an NPR listener said: Voting for a woman because she's a woman is sexist; voting for a black because he's black is racist, and voting for the best candidate because you think they're the best candidate is called democracy.). So why are they getting wired about 4 lousy votes that, as you point out, won't make a snowball's difference in hell?

While Three Names is perfectly authorized to drag this primary to the bitter end, I, for one, wonder why. I realize that she is the epitome of the back room pol who is going to do what she wants regardless of anything else but this is stupid. YA LOST LADY. Sure, you've won some blow out primaries but so has Obama. Because of your insider position, you started out with a majority of the "super delegates" but now you don't have a majority. Will you give it a rest for Chrissakes and call off your attack females? Your behavior and that of your supporters isn't doing anyone a lick of good, except possibly for your ego (which appears to be only matched by your husband's).

And while I"m at it, what's with this popular vote crap? I'm 58 years old and can't remember a single instance where the popular vote was an issue in the primaries for either major political party. There's a reason for that - you don't have a popular vote for the entire electorate given the number of caucuses the states hold. The non-meaning of a popular vote in this particular primary is exacerbated by Florida and Michigan. I know that in her desperation, Three Names is grasping at any straw, regardless of how tainted but this ploy is ridiculous.

And lest ye think I'm some Obama partisan who merely wants Three Names out of the race, think again. I will probably vote Democratic this election but that's only because I think every single Republican should be purged from the government if we want to save any vestiges of our former Republic. Normally, I vote Libertarian.

Rather, a culture of high living. There is a group of Americans who have high credit card debt because they were paying off ridiculous hospital bills and that sort of bill. For that small group of Americans, my heart goes out to you. You've been pushed into a corner and the government sure as hell isn't going to help you.

For the other 98% of you, lose your houses, turn your wives and children out onto the street to beg for some daily gruel. 150 years ago Charles Dickens said "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery." (David Copperfield - I've misquoted the details of this, but not the sentiment, before). This isn't rocket science, people! If you spend more than you take in, pretty soon it's debtor's prison for you!

Seriously. There is no substitute for personal financial responsibility. I realize that many were beguiled by our government's utter fiscal irresponsibility but, guys, it's illegal to print money in your basement. There will be a price to pay and I want them to pay it. Not me as an American taxpayer. And don't be beguiled by Mr. Leonard's bullshit about the housing bubble. Americans were doing this long before the housing bubble gave them even greater scope to live high on the hog and push the tab off to the future when hopefully they'd have the money to pay for their spending.

Hope isn't a plan.

If by "small government conservative party" you are referring to the Republican party. The Republicans are as much of a big government/big government control as the Democrats, maybe more so.

A listener wrote in with the following...

Let's be clear about this:

To vote for a woman because she's a woman is sexist

To vote for a black because he's black is racist

To vote for the best candidate is democracy.

By that measure a lot of Clinton supporters are sexist and a lot of Obama supporters are racist. What place do sexism and racism have in politics? They should have none but as long as we insist on a cult of personality where we insist that the candidates be someone we like and not have any connections whatsoever with anybody scary or whom we don't like, they will be there.

And so you come along and say that we should continue this cult of personality and Obama should try to woo all these sexist females who were rabid Clinton supporters with something. I'll tell you what I'd like to see him do (although I'll freely admit that taking political advice from me would probably lead to experiences which, later, would lead to good judgment since I probably couldn't get elected head janitor if I tried). I'd like to see a campaigned focused on strategy - what direction he wants to take the country in. I'd like to see a campaign focused on policy, especially the failed policies of the past. In short, I'd like to see a campaign that focused on the functions of the presidency and how those functions would be discharged by a future president. I don't want to hear Gerraldine Ferraro (who has a lotta damn gall coming out with crap like this considering her background) whining that Obama got where he is by virtue of being black nor do I want to hear some Catholic priest mocking Clinton as a whiner who thinks she's entitled. Neither provides the slightest amount of information upon which to make an intelligent decision.

Of course, I have it on good authority that you media types are just a bunch of enablers......