if this source is YOUR due diligence you really need more education. This is so often the question when this sort of thing comes up: are you innocently uninformed or a republican working the system.

No - it's struck me from the beginning.

I think for myself. I knew global warming was real in the 1980's. Ask my family. They thought I was "so" wrong.

I was already really creeped-out by Obamamania to such a degree that I felt uncomfortable with our country.

People are so irrational.

It is creepy.

Peter Sagal was the first one I heard say anything about it, but I had been feeling it for weeks.

I was relieved to hear him say it too.

When you comment the way you do, it demonstates very shallow values and priorities.

There are a lot of intelligent objective people who truly think independently. You are paranoid to the max to think that the Clinton campaign has so much control. They obviously don't.

I have to go.

Take Care -

He says words matter.

If saying an opponent lacks experience is a racist statement then using even a much stricter standard his comment is very very sexist. ' feeling down periodically'. periodically? You would wonder why he said it if not as a sexist slur. It is not an ad lib.

In his reply to 'words are cheap' he quotes Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, 'that all men are created equal'. Thomas Jeffereson had a little over 130 slaves when he died. He freed a few in his will. But 130 were sold at the estate auction after his death. So if we counted on Jefferson to put that sentiment into action we would have been sorely disppointed.

What do Obama's inspiring words mean? Will his words sweep away the senate rules or the lobbyist's influence? Does he plan to rule by signing statement like Bush? Does electing one man change the system? Wake up.

So are we all equal? Are women to be treated as equals in the political arena? Will women get equal pay for equal work? Will cable news ever stop it's frat boy towel snapping sexist ways?

Don't tell me he has daughters. Every woman in the history of this country has had a father, at least in the biological sense. If they had all worked for the equal treatment of women Senator Clinton would not be the first woman treated as a serous candidate for president.

One more thing....

unlike the case with clinton where we can assume that all or nearly all her voters can be counted on to be democratic in november.

Not true, there are a number of R's that want Hillary to be the nominee, they are just as divided in their opinions over who would be the best candidate to run against.

There were Dem's that voted for Romney and Huckabee for the same reason. Frankly, I don't know that either of those guys would be "easier" to beat than McCain.

Anyone who thinks that there is a massive, country wide effort to thwart a Democratic president by voting for Obama is crazy. Seriously, Obama is so unelectable that independents (who are apparently secretly very Republican) have united and are voting for him, but not a peep has been uttered to anyone outside of this secret coalition?? Nobody, anywhere has any real evidence of such a phenomenon, but that's just because these deviant little "independent" voters are sooo hush-hush, without even a single person blabbing?

That's insane.

Sorry, you're wrong. Obama does lead the popular vote, even when you factor in Florida -- and Michigan, where he wasn't even on the ballot.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/599357/obama_handily_sweeps_potomac.html

You may have miscounted because many people don't understand how the vote count in a caucus works. The reported vote count in a caucus is the number of precinct delegate votes. A roomful of 400 people in a high school gym might elect 3 Obama delegates and 1 Hillary delegate, for example. This would show up not as 300 votes for Obama and 100 for Hillary, but rather, as 3 for Obama and 1 for Hillary. That's why the vote totals in caucus states appear so low.

As for the other line of attack, that Obama's votes in "red states" don't matter, I find it very cute. So far, the Clinton camp has said that votes in "black" states don't matter, votes in "caucus" states don't matter, votes in "red" states don't matter, votes by independents don't matter, votes by crossover Republicans don't matter, votes by "wine-drinking" liberals don't matter, votes by young people don't matter, and votes by rich people don't matter because -- and this is a recent quote from Bill Clinton, "the caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

According to Hillary, the only voters who matter are people in New York and California. I'm sure she will say that Latinos in Texas matter. Oh, also, voters in Arkansas mattered.

Everyone else? Not so much.

Not exactly the way to build a winning coalition.

1) Most of the criticism of Hillary mirror the right wing propaganda produced for years by the rightwing/mainstream media and many of the clinton critics display clear signs of right wing psychology.

2) Far more obama supporters than hillary supporters are ignorant or misinformed about recent political history

3)The mainstream/rightwing media has not meaningfully examined obama and has relentlessly promoted him.

4)Many of the states where are obama won caucuses are overwhelmingly republican and the democrats have no chance in them in november.

So what you're saying is that he was sexist but didn't intend to be? That he's misogynistic but too ignorant or unself-aware to know it? And yet he was still able choose his words so carefully as to obscure the fact to a great many people, including me. You're at once crediting him with great awareness and blaming him for great ignorance. All of which is far more complicated and less likely than the statement's not being sexist in the first place.