I don't know why it bothers me so much, but people seem so lacking in objectivity around here. I honestly used to see this site as kind of smart and analytic.

As an Obama supporter, I am happy to confess and explore my reservations about him: for example, I prefer Hillary's (minutely) different health care plan and I think her experience in the White House as First Lady is, contrary to what some say, invaluable. I worry about the tag I know will be attached to him, undeservedly in my opinion--"Where's the Beef?"--and I'm sure too that his supporters will have to fight an uphill battle defending their apparently unthinking vote, an insulting premise if I ever heard one, especially among salon readers, who tend to be, if nothing else, informed. But I like his early position against the war, which I think will play well against McCain, and I am for whomever I think will break the chokehold of corporations on politics. I think he is better for that, although I admit his platform on campaign finance reform has yet to be fleshed out. Nevertheless it is better than hers, and she is far likelier to be aptly labeled a "corporate candidate." Her hold on the established means of financing and otherwise supporting legislation and campaigns, while seen perhaps legitimately by some as a valuable "network," remains the very reason some of us are taken with the notion of "change," a word which may have become ubiquitous and vacuous (partly because of its overuse among candidates who wanted to co-opt Obama's message for themselves) but which certainly means something specific to those of us who support Obama.

I don't get why Hillary supporters are so strident. I have noticed it here and in real life. They are more angry about people who might not vote Hillary than Obama supporters are with them. I'm asking this earnestly: Can anyone go through these threads in the last couple of weeks and deny that support for Hillary is more strident than support for Obama? I'm not sure the label "divisive" doesn't fit here, and I think it's patently absurd to call that word misogynous, especially considering it's often used to describe both Clintons, not just her. I've carried a lot of water for the Clintons, and I'll be thrilled if someone as brilliant and capable as she ends up in the White House. She's just not my first choice. To call my thoughtful decision sexist is reactionary, defensive, and "shrill," dare I use the word. Besides, how can a feminist be sexist?

Here's my question: Was it like this in 2004? I've been racking my brains trying to remember this kind of divisiveness among democrats in the lead-up to Kerry's nomination. I know I liked Dean a lot and wasn't thrilled about Kerry, until I saw him in the first debate, after which I ran right out and put a bumper sticker on my car. But I'm talking about January-March 2004. Was everyone on salon screaming and calling each other names? I honestly don't remember it that way. Someone please weigh in--I really want to know. If you can avoid calling me an irrational, Hillary-hating, misogynist, zoned-out robot, that might be helpful.