I'm a woman, and I thought it was funny (of course, I'm not planning to vote for Hilary). But I kinda liked the way Obama was able to get a dig in without being overtly hostile. Fwiw, Hilary's attacks are unappealing--and Bill's even more so. They've probably cost her quite a few primary votes. It seems that this primary season, people are drawn more to those candidates who keep the negative to a minimum (Obama, McCain) and not to those who have been more negative (Clinton, Romney, Edwards (to some extent)). We want to feel that there is something to look forward to out there, and mud-slinging doesn't provide that.

Anyonew who claims to "trust" Hillary wasn't alive for the last Clinton administration, or just plain old hasn't done the research, and willingly runs around with hand over their ears singing "LA-LA-LA-LA!"

Someone who lies as easily and often as she does, about things that don't need to be lied about cannot be trusted to tell the truth about things of national importance. Now run along, put your hands back over your ears and go back to singing, because God knows, you don't REALLY want to know the truth, do you? You're far more comfortable in the lie she's spinning right now.

Is that is probably got scores of Broadsheet readers to fan themselves rigorously in righteous indignation.

Pretty clear Obama won't be able to handle any severe criticism from the GOP if he is the nominee, if he personalized and internalized any criticism from Clinton on the key issue between she and him: he gives speeches, she gives solutions. This is critical to her supporters, and hopefully, some of the glassy-eyed individuals who have swung his way but now realize they have a man who has had very little foreign policy experience, and certainly, won't necessarily be in a position of gravitas to push legislation through Congress. He personalizes criticism, or tries to imply Clinton's criticism is somehow related to her own psychological inadequacies. This is a moronic response.

Put up or shut up, Barack. He will dodge and weave. Democrats had best inquire within when it comes to plans, solutions. If they fail to do that, McCain and the GOP attack machine will eat his butt off. And he won't be able to put it off on psychological disturbances of McCain, or some nefarious anti-African-American animas coming from the GOP. Without a doubt, however, ambiguous anti-African-American attacks will come out somewhere in the general election campaign, if he is the nominee. He'll have to lower his projected poll #s if he's the nominee, because there will be a "Bradley Effect" which will come from independents and Republicans who have thus far not had a chance to weigh in on Obama.

That's unfortunate, but that is the way it is. The Obama campaign castigated Ed Rendel,of PA, for articulating what he knows, and everyone else knows, is a very ugly truth of the electorate in general: there are still racial prejudices out there.

It is a sexist comment -- and Saint Obama has made plenty of sexist comments that have been ignored by the media and his supporters.

Of course, I'm a woman too, so I'm sure I'm just being overly emotional because I'm feeling a little down.

I can say with certainty that this single sentence proves that Obama is a sexist monster, far beyond anything Bill Clinton has been accused of, and is unfit to be President.

"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

...you're dreaming if you think that's anything but a mild rebuke. I mean, does the ground hurt your feet when you walk upon it? If that's a polarizing statement to you, the GOP is going to flay you alive, and no Clinton cocoon is going to make their noise machine go away. Get plenty of cotton for the ears and a mask to cover your eyes, because it'll be far worse against the Republicans.

This letters thread basically shows why identity politics are so bad for America. These outraged ladies are so myopic about anything that might be twisted and turned so as to resemble an insult to their sex that they are blind to all else.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/moser

This article sums up the tactical advantage of backing Obama.

The last paragraph says it all:

"Purple America is ready, and eager, for Obama. His popularity with young voters, independents and suburbanites could very well translate into general-election victory. As for McCain--who is being hectored to pander even more to the GOP's right-wingnuts, which will only further alienate his former independent fans--his chances seem to boil down to one increasingly improbable headline: Hillary Clinton Wins Democratic Nomination."

But of course this means nothing to the insane Hillary supporters. At points in their lives, they have been slighted because of their sex. Therefore, logic dictates that they must support a female candidate for President, regardless of how much she is despised by the general population.

If you think that logic is flawed you are just a tool of the patriarchy. Such is the way the world works when you leap through the looking glass and enter Hillary-Lady Land.

Noting that sexism exists - and is deemed acceptable - in contemporary politics, and desiring that that attitude change, is not the same as being an "insane Hillary supporter."

Hillary doesn't say anything worth plagiarism. She's a wonk in a pantsuit. Is she bright? Sure. Is she inspiring? Nope. And her 35 year/day one mantra is stone dull. If she were born with male plumbing instead of female, no one would have given her a second thought. Washington is already full of bright pedestrian thinkers.

Oh give it up! You sound silly belaboring this point. When you say: Bill Clinton could have most certainly be sued for sexual harassment, you are avoiding reality. Monica did not want to sue him. She pursued the relationship she had with him. He knew he was in no danger of being a sexual harasser of Monica because he knew damn well that Monica was willing. The truth is that, at the time, Monica's main regret was probably that they were not having actual sexual intercourse. Can you sue a man who won't fuck you?