I can only speak for myself, but my debate with you has been about facts. I'm sorry that others have felt the need to hurl insults as a way to disagree with what you have to say.

In a sane environment what you say makes sense. However please don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. The silence of people like you as the worst of the worst were engaging in white racism, misogyny and a flat out roadshow of vulgarity is the same as condoning it at least as much as those folks who passively tolerated southern lynchings and Jim Crowe laws.

Sometimes you really do have to take a stand and do the right thing and that includes acknowledging that bigotry in all forms is ugly at least if you want to call yourself a liberal. As a moderate progressive been very turned off by the "liberals" here I can assure you.

As for my problem with the Obamateur's I think Delores Flower just summed it up perfectly when she said that Obama had gotten farther than she'd ever expected and that she didn't expect him to win. What in the F is liberal or accomplishing about wanting to promote a candidate to lose the General Election. Is this because he's half-black and it makes history?

Well somehow I'm doubting that's going to be much comfort to the now closing on 30 million people already living behind the poverty line or approaching it.

I have no used for these hateful people who are more interested in winning the battle than the war and have no regard whatsoever as to what was best for the party and for the people.

(*DeloresF is not the worst of them by far and I want to make that clear just becuase I happened to cite his/her statement as an illustration of something that is particularly bothersome about Obama's campaign).

What good is a "movement" that doesn't help anyone but Obama line his pockets. If this is what the American version of "liberalism" has bred, this traveling road show of condoned hatred against the "correct" groups to hate (whites, hispanics, women, the religious, etc) and people only intent on winning a primary knowing they can't win a General are determined to do so anyway, than our "liberalism" deserves it's current place in the dustbin and to become the irrelevant sidenote in history it has been.

Interesting. But as for the why, I think we can say succinctly that since Hillary is not hispanic, and since the hispanic vote is not going for her in the same numbers the black vote is going for Obama (statistically almost 100%) that for the hispanics they are making their choice on intelligent reasoning such as past performance rather than the emotional bigotry that blacks so obviously are.

As this particularly rabid clown illustrates so regularly, add anti-semitism to ever-growing list of permissible bigotry and hate speech to be condoned by Obamateur "liberals".

It is in your DNA. You people are so smart that even if them Moooozlims multiply 100 fold, you can still crush them with hi-tech, ultra sonic weapons supplied by USA to their medieval sticks and stones weapons for survival. I saw an ad in the New York Times from the large segment of the Jewish community who oppose this kind of attacks on Palestinians and people of Lebanon.

but I see Obama helping Clinton but not the other way around.

Yeah, what would he need with California, New Jersey, New York, Mass, Florida or any of the southwest to win a general...

I wouldn't want to see Obama concede anything if he's the clear winner in delegates, etc.,

yeah, we should let those 10% affluent caucuses pick our candidate! It's worked out so well in the past.

but if Clinton comes through big, I wouldn't mind seeing Obama on the ticket and I think he could help her win.

Surely his campaign by now wouldn't of alienated any of our core constituencies with all their race-bating, misogyny, anti-semitism and now slurs against hispancis.

I don't, however, think she could help him win.

See item 1.

I think the whole argument about her bringing out the Republican base still applies if she's on the ticket in any capacity.

Right! Just like they didn't turn out to vote against Gore and Kerry after all, and I'm sure they won't turn out to vote against a two-bit crook from Chicago that's built his entire campaign on an anti-war speech and dreamy speeches about Hope.

I know this "bringing out the base" argument doesn't make Clinton supporters happy, but it seems incontrovertibly true in my world; I am surrounded by righties who verify it daily.

Yeah, in Clevelandm, Kuchinech's home. You're a real expert.

Coming from somebody who has stated that blacks in Africa are more intelligent than African Americans

Yeah, and I'm sure you can produce a citation of me saying anything resembling that right up their with the rest of your daily barage of byte-wasting bile.

By the same token sugarman's assertion that jews have superior I.Q.s,

Not that I particularly find "david sugarman" particularly illustrative of it, but it is nonetheless agreed upon that Ashkenazi Jews have near the highest IQ's of all. What IS argued about is how much is a product of their environment and culture versus genetically inherited.

Try opening a book for Godsake's, instead of ranting and spewing bigotry on a public message board.