You don't like Obama, and that colors (so to speak) everything that you write

And I suppose your irrational hatred of HRC has no bearing on your wholesale endorsement of a candidate (Obama) you apparently know little about. (Well in fairness none of us do).

Again you are accusing others of what you yourself are engaging in.

I admit I endorse Mrs. Clinton -but then she has a life record of public service that has helped "regular" people, a record of fiscal responsibility, fair judiciary appointment, encouraging the young, and a host of other things I believe in - when in fact it would have been far easier for her and her husband had they been shills for the big money of the right and switched parties as so many former southern democrats ultimately did.

I don't dislike Obama - or I didn't until he ran this Rovian campaign which screwed all Democrats - himself included by splitting our vote on racial lines and ensuring a GOP victory.

And that's all. I have no wish to exchange meaningless barbs with you. I've amply explained my position.

Kennedy actually thinking his endorsement is going to HELP Obama. On behalf of Mrs. Clinton's supporters I will say thank you very much Teddy - you just sit right down and pour yourself another.

Oh surely having Kennedy, Kuchinch, Kerry - the three great liberal K's will help Obama with that alleged (but unproven) great "cross-over" appeal they insist he has right. LOL.

I swear you hang out on TableTalk and Salon letters long enough and you see everything.

I recognize you've been spewing your anti-HRC vitriol wherever you can put it, but I beg to differ with you on your most incorrect comparison of HRC's abandonment of Goldwater GOP politics with Rudy's abandonment of Democratic politics.

It would have been far far easier for both HRC and WJC after all to have gone GOP - it was the trend of the south and it would have saved them the merciless huntings of their presidency we are all so well familiar with (and of which continues on HRC). That she converted to, and remained Democratic states far more about her principles thus, than those who degrade her.

Shame on you.

This anti-Hillary obsession is only weakening our chances of a victory in November. In short Shapiro should take a long walk on a short pier.

I'm sticking with the candidate that has experience - good experience that can stand up to John McCain's "Big Daddy" platform and that ain't Barrack Obama.

As for Oprah, damn her to hell. After she gets him nominated and he gets creamed by McCain, she'll still have her billions and penthouses and limousines. And the poor will be more screwed than ever.

Shame on her. Just can't stand those limousine liberals.

I am not supporting Hillary because she is a woman. I am supporting her because of her experience and she will EFFECTIVELY do the things that are important -namely reform healthcare and stop the deficits and appoint smart people to her cabinet. These things will have the biggest impact on Americans continuing on with something resembling the lifestyle their parents enjoyed - or whether they go the way of Brazil and Mexico.

The same of course cannot be said of Barrack Obama (*either that his black support is not because he's black (at least he's black when THAT's convenient - *or that he's qualified). The only Republicans here are the ones promoting Barrack Obama knowing he'll get creamed - and the supposed "liberals" who hang out flaming Democrats who want to win, and then reveling in defeat on TableTalk threads after they lose, fancying themselves aristocratic martyrs.

I can't help but get the feeling that neither the Salon aristocrats or Oprah will be all that bothered OR adversely affected by a McCain presidency the way struggling working class Americans will be.

And there in lies the problem and why your smug (and wrong) opinions mean nothing to me.

I would also add that Mrs. Clinton has an intelligent and thoughtful solution for near everything she's asked. She is near amazingly versed on the issues and clearly is competent to enact solutions. Add to this her near entire lifes work has been helping the needy.

My alternative is a man who chose aligning himself with a rich slumlord for a fancy dancy home when he actually had the chance to help the very constituents who needed him.

A man who divides our party, starts race wars, and spends hundreds of millions of dollars running advertisements but won't even sit down and talk to the people at a press conference?

You gotta be kidding.

Both of these women should have been smart enough to know that Karl Rove and the G.O.P. created the Obama candidacy to prevent Clinton's landslide victory in November. With all the baggage associated with his relationship to an indicted slumlord, Obama has no chance in November once the mainstream media starts reporting on this 12-year quid pro quo (after Hillary's out of the way, of course). Supporting Barack is tantamount to letting the Bush-Cheney cabal maintain their lock on the White House for another four years!

Exactly.

No Clinton-supporter should call Obama unelectable because of Rezko. Clinton's history of scandals make Rezko look like an afternoon tea

You are truly shameless, aren't you?

On the contrary the Republicans spent limitless taxpayer dollars "investigating" Mrs. Clinton and her husband au nauseum, going so far as to lock up people in shackles to try to make them lie about them and came up with NOTHING.

For those of you who truly do support Obama, you best think about that. His scandals are fresh and Rezzo has already been convincted.