You said

PPPS: This “Billary” nonsense used to describe Mrs. Clinton is sexist and demeaning. Can we refrain from such characterizations in a spirit of mutual respect.

I'm totally with you on that. Now would you explain why you threw a bone to W.E.S. when he has called people "dummy" and "kook;" he's called Obama "yellow" for not debating Hillary on FOX; he's called any state or caucus which went for Obama "Mickey Mouse;" and, most frequently, he's derided Obama supporters as the "Obama cult," "Obamamites," or otherwise implied that we have no brains (as when he refers to Obama as "St.Obama") and couldn't possibly have serious reasons for supporting him?

I appreciate your opinions and certainly don't think anyone (like you) who disagrees with me is a troll. I just wish reasonable people would avoid supporting troll-like postings, if only for that mutual respect you were looking for yourself.

Because nobody really responded to it, and I thought it was rather a departure, given the conventional wisdom that Obama will lose if superdelegates "vote their consciences" and win if they are strapped to a formula tying them to their district's or state's vote.

I said that I don't know why that's a given; Clinton's already-pledged superdelegates have already been added to her column and the rest seem to be waiting. One might say that many of them, established insiders that they are, must actually favor Obama or they'd have been out for Clinton already, right? Maybe they're waiting for some "excuse" to go for Obama?

My point is that if he stood up tomorrow and said, "Someone's got to suggest a resolution to this NOW, before it has played out, so we can agree to abide by whatever happens BEFORE IT HAPPENS, and here's my solution: Let the superdelegates, who've earned their status through accumulated wisdom, experience and hard work for the Democratic Party, vote for whomever they think will serve the country best. I'll stand by it, and I ask that Senator Clinton also agree that they should simply vote their consciences." Heck, maybe he can throw in that they seat FL and do MI over in a less expensive caucus (which, although tends to go for him can hardly be argued after he's given away FL and "given in" on the superdelegate issue.)

The point is, whomever offers a solution that appears to be concessionary wins the public perception contest, which may turn out to win some respect and votes. So if Hillary wants to be the hero, she has to offer a different solution (since the superdelegates appear to favor her at this point); maybe she can say that FL and MI should be do-overs or that superdelegates should vote their districts (which is silly imo--like adding numbers to each original delegate counts is all) because she "doesn't want to get in the way of the democratic process or the will of the people" or some such thing.

All I'm saying is that this thing has to be resolved somehow, and in my book, whoever comes out first with the "high road" proposition wins big and becomes the true change agent.

Anyone?

if you were on the receiving end of "Obamabots" and "St. Obama" you'd probably feel the same. It's terribly insulting and simply not accurate, as you'll have to agree if you read my and many other Obama supporters' past posts. We are, if nothing else, informed and reasonable.

In the same way that Obamabot (or derivative) can convey the messianic groupie nature that some Obama supporters demonstrate (I'll grant you that fact--that there are some groupies who are not informed), then "Billary" is also a construct that conveys that Hillary comes to the table with some benefits of having it both ways--she gets to run on her husband's successes (the prosperity of the 90's, his winning appeal, all that) but still gets to separate herself from him if he slips (even if his "slips" are media confections).

Personally, I don't use names like that, and I think you probably don't either, although I haven't checked. I think my biggest regret is that posters to this site don't assume that most of us are informed and earnest. I really just want what you asked for--mutual respect. You kind of can't want it unless you're willing to give it, and giving it does not include laughing and clapping when others aren't giving it. Does that make sense?

@RJforHRC:

Please explain about how not seating FL delegates at the national convention means that Dems don't get any delgates from FL in the national election. I've heard this before and I want it explained.

If not counting FL now means we don't get them in the fall against McCain, then we need them now. And I'm an Obama supporter.