When you say this

You can call the white people in Kentucky and West Virginia all the nasty little names you want

Who is calling them names? What names? Write back soon.

And when you say this

but they make up the largest bulk of the electorate and they ain't gonna' vote in droves for an ill-qualified, elitist, black man, who, unlike his Republican counterpart, can't seem to break the mold of lecturing people instead of holding town meetings and listening to them.

Now, who's calling names? And also, why is "black" relevant to you? By including that, aren't you in fact suggesting something there that you're suggesting we're suggesting? Or is that you bringing that up? Hmmm. Longer letter later?

that Boggled our minds. But let's not Scrabble around for any more analogies about the real game of Life. Hillary needs to get a Clue: Obama has finally sunk her Battleship.

I recently did some research on gene-centered evolutionary theory. It's depressing as hell but what I think is mostly the leading opinion out there (correct me if I'm wrong all you biologists reading salon). Apparently, it's not even the organism anymore that we think is naturally selected. Genes--in their everlasting quest for immortality--create, exploit, and discard humans (their vehicles for transmission into the future). It's that fucking simple. (I guess this isn't directly addressing your free will question, but it's enough for tonight isn't it? Jesus, add that to your happiness quotient before you go to bed, all. We're just vehicles for some little cellular particle information-packed thingies. Sweet dreams.)

I really must second XH's last post:

Joan Walsh: "Why are Clinton's supporters beneath respect for so many people here?"

Why on earth aren't you asking the same question in reverse, Joan?

No -- seriously -- why?

You have NEVER answered this question to anyone's satisfaction, nor have you ever even addressed it.

I mean, seriously, have you read RamblingRose22? and lots others? In addition to personal negativity toward the candidate, I'm talking about in many cases generalizations about other posters that are then not defended when questioned. Perhaps it is my bias, but I have noticed that Obama supporters are mostly specific in directing questions to other posters, both with questions about the topic at hand (issues, politics, whatever) or with specific requests to substantiate earlier claims denigrating them as Obama supporters. Most go unanswered. Just wondering if anyone else noticed that. I'm open to the idea that it's my bias.

That she's been the victim of sexism isn't a reason to vote for her. It's bad, but it doesn't explain why she is good for women.

"Wow, I just have so much animosity towards this person."

It's amazing how much I have developed myself. Quite seriously, I am really angry at her for allowing Obama to be tarnished in the way that the right, the right nuts for goddsakes, did to Kerry and Gore. In one fell swoop, she could have disabused everyone of this false distinction b/t herself and Obama on their ability to represent the working class.

I'm as disappointed as I've ever been, perhaps b/c I think the world of Obama, still do, but see that she has played an unnecessary part in turning people against him. No matter what you want to say about Hillary's negatives, she didn't get them from him.

But we're two sad sacks. Let's go to bed. G'Night.

OMG, I don't mean together of course.

Just so you know who you're takin' to: I'm a lot less pessimistic about free will than you are. Perhaps you could be the WLG on this issue and work on me, but at this point, I find myself in the camp of evolutionary biologists.