When did I say I wanted the young/new people to "bug off"?! Quite the opposite. What I said was I want them to learn that they still have to VOTE in November... REGARDLESS of whether or not their main man or woman wins the nomination. Saying you're not going to vote unless your chosen candidate is the nominee is childish and ultimately self-defeating. Politics doesn't work that way. You don't take your ball and go home because your team got knocked out in the first round. This isn't grade school. This is for real.

And to the brave Anon I've already forgotten how to identify... if you're enough of a Democrat or even Independent to not want another Republican regime, you'll vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever he or she may turn out to be. I'm no big John Edwards fan, but I'd rather see him in the White House than any Republican. Sometimes in life we have to take the next best thing if our first choice is not a realistic option. It's part of growing up.

I'm certainly not going to risk another four years of a Republican stranglehold on the world by either not voting or lodging a pointless "protest" vote (which is just a tantrum in response to not getting your way) if the nominee isn't my perfect choice. There's too much at stake to be that immature, irresponsible and self-absorbed. It's not all about ME. THIS is what the young/new people have to learn--and fast.

I do not know ONE Hillary supporter who would not support and/or vote for Obama if he were to win the nomination. I wasn't a Kerry supporter in '04, but I and every non-Kerry-supporter I knew (even those who, like me, feverishly worked our butts off for other candidates in the primaries) supported and voted for John Kerry in November. Because above all, I'm a Democrat. Which means that to me, any Democrat in the White House is better than a Republican. I voted for the person my fellow Democrats chose to represent the party, even though I didn't agree with the way that happened (another story for another day).

Unfortunately, I run into Obama supporter after Obama supporter who swears they won't vote for anyone else but him in November. And, probably not coincidentally, nearly every Obama supporter I run into is fairly new to politics and is just so caught up in the "charismatic newcomer/underdog" vibe that they can't see past it to the possibility that he may not win the nomination... and that the election will still go ahead without him. For them, the election ceases to matter or even exist if he isn't the nominee. And if you're so immature that you'll *only* vote for your main squeeze, you're probably too immature to be getting into political discussions at all.

You have a civil duty to vote, even if your first choice is not the nominee. That's reality.

"Oh, if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, I'm not even going to vote! Any Republican is better than her! I'm sitting this one out!"

Yeah, you do that. *yawn* Stick out your tongue, cross your arms and sneer "and you can't make me!" But don't come back here and complain for the next four years about yet another totalitarian Republican theocracy that YOU helped to elect by being a selfish, whiny baby.

If you honestly think another Republican administration is better than Hillary Clinton, you're either a Republican, really frickin' stupid, or a self-absorbed drama queen who feels the whole world should suffer if you don't get your way.

Cut the childish crap and grow up.

My comment was aimed at Aycharaych and Anon 12:16.

Carry on.

I know straight women who would rather die than give a blowjob. And straight men who would agree with Dan Savage. That has nothing to do with hating the other gender, it's merely a distaste for a particular act. What's next, saying every woman who'd rather die than have anal sex is a homophobe?

The grass is green, but not everything green is grass, y'know?

Absolutely AGREED. Here's what Charlie Rangel (a prominent African-American politician, for the uninitiated) had to say on the subject on NYC TV station NY1 yesterday:

In a candid interview on “Inside City Hall,” Rep. Charles Rangel calls Barack Obama “absolutely stupid” for attacking Hillary Clinton for remarks she made about President Lyndon Johnson and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"How race got into this thing is because Obama said ‘race,’” Rangel tells Political Anchor Dominic Carter. “But there is nothing that Hillary Clinton has said that baffles me. I would challenge anybody to belittle the contribution that Dr. King has made to the world, to our country, to civil rights, and the Voting Rights Act. But for him to suggest that Dr. King could have signed that act is absolutely stupid. It's absolutely dumb to infer that Doctor King, alone, passed the legislation and signed it into law."

Right on, Abbybwood. I am also a big fan of the "same-day national primary" idea. It works just fine for every other election.

(Then again, so does "whoever gets the most votes, wins," but we're still inexplicably stuck with the ridiculous electoral college concept. *sigh*)

Wesley Clark would DEFINITELY be Hillary's best choice for VP.

I feel like I'm back in high school. The whole thing is appalling. I want all of them to stop gossiping, squabbling and sniping... stop telling me why I shouldn't vote for him or her. Tell me why I should vote for you. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? Is it really that difficult a concept?

If only Democrats could sling mud back at Republicans the way they sling it at each other. Perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess (i.e. second Bush term) right now.