than Obama in more ways than one and there is no need to feel bad about your support to Hillary over Obama. The mob mentality that is pervading the netroots is disgusting and has really turned off long time Democrats like me. I started of being o.k even kind of excited about Obama. But the camapign and his supporters behaviour made me relook into everything Obama. The things that I have read regarding Obama's Chicago senate campaign, which incidentally was also for hope and change but since then the hope and change just vanished, was an eyeopener. Did you know even his chicago campaign had lots of disqualification of candidates based on rules. He had ample time during his senate tenure to implement the hope and change he talks about and thus provide us with a prototype of what he wants to achieve. Unfortunately he was only talk and his senate tenure was at the best a lacklustre tenure in terms of any accomplishment. Compare this with Hillary's senate tenure and then you will know what we are dealing with here.

One is talk and one is action.

Regarding KO. Speaking for myself his sentence conjured up a terrible image in my mind and left me feeling highly uncomfortable. Didn't help that I had only recently seen a movie in which the men took a woman to a room to hang her because she committed adultery (red Lantern Chinese movie).

wrt Fl & MI.

When the so called "rules" were agreed upon nobody had thought Fl & MI votes will become so important. Everybody thought by Super Tuesday we would have a winner. Since that didn't happen and instead after so many states we still have a tight and competitive race it is only logical that FL & MI be counted at the least or have a revote.

By any democratic definition that is the rules. Anyone who tries to circumvent it is clearly not interested in playing fair.

Dear Joan,

For all the sound and fury about Wright, let me just make one thing clear. Wright was, is and will remain the same man. He didn't go seeking Obama asking him to join his church, Obama sought Wright,joined his church and furthered his relationship with Wright, though Wright at the very outset had warned him that he is "controversial".

And now for Obama to denounce him by pretending that today's Wright is somehow different from yesterday's Wright is to say the least highly hypocritical. Is this the new way of doing politics?

Whatever may be Wright's fault, at one level I admire him. He may tout all these conspiracy theories and may also genuinely believe in them but from all accounts he has also done a lot to actively help his congregation in concrete terms. He has walked the talk and his loony conspiracy theories aside he has never harmed anyone. That's more than one can say about Obama who is all about speeches and books and speeches and books. Even when Obama had to defend himself all he could offer as evidence for his character was his speeches and books. You mean for 20 long years that's all he has to his credit.

As per the author Hillary lost Black support because Bill made the fairy tale comment regarding Obama's Iraq war opposition and because Hillary constantly said she is better than Obama in terms of electability. How ridiculous is that.

So what the author is trying to say is that Obama can use any argument to attack Hillary irrespective of its sexist connotation (and believe me there are plenty attacks that have come out of Obama's mouth that can easily be classified as a sexist attack ) but Hillary should not respond in any which way because then it will become racisim Huh? And how is criticizing his Iraq war stance racist?

We all know why Hillary lost the black vote. It is because Obama campaign used ordinary remarks by Clinton and her team to make it it into some kind of racist slander. They alongwith their media surrogates like Donna Brazille (who incidentally was the first person to see racisim in the Iraq war remark though she had not read or heard the remark in entirety) actively went pushing the story line of Hillary and team being racists. And Clyburn who is an Obama surrogate just repeats more of the same.

Obama campaign played dirty politics and yet they are being given a free ride by one and all.

Why should Hillary defend Wright when Obama himself has disowned him?

More importnatly the youtube videos of wright dissing Hillar and her husband from the pulpit to a cheering crowd was seen by all . After all this Hillary should defend Wright?

And also note, Jesse Jackson first came out with the race baiting theme when he criticized Hillary's tears. Given below are his exact statements:

"Those tears," said Jackson, "have to be analysed ... They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina, where 45 per cent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest ... We saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina, not other issues."

Donna Brazille followed it up with her assuming racist overtones in Bill Clinton's fairy tale remarks and the rest followed.

And why is that Obama camp conveniently come up with the race based allegations against Hillary before an election in a state with significant AA population. They did it in SC and now again in NC.