Obviously, I see the political landscape a little differently than you do. I certainly don't want to get into a shouting match over which supporters are more extreme, particularly in light of the wonderful display of party unity that I saw last night. I do believe that many of the responses about "Obama-bots" you note are due to a sense that we Hillary supporters have that no criticism of Obama is ever allowed or accepted by his supporters. I know that Hillary has flaws; I acknowledge them and accept them. I just think her good qualities far outweigh them and outweigh the good qualities of her opponents.

Moreover, as her supporters, we also get this sense, that like people who feel they've "seen the light," it's often difficult for Obama supporters to understand that not everyone responds to him as you do. I thought it was telling that you seemed to imply in your post that I was a "baby boomer." In point of fact, I'm a lot younger than Obama (who, interestingly and technically, is a baby boomer). I just simply don't have him as my first choice. It's as if you think theres no way anyone under 40 could be for Hillary. Well, guess again.

Reasonable people can differ. It's not a given that everyone who's open will see "the light" as you see it. I think the world of Obama and I will support his candidacy if he is the nominee. I just prefer Hillary and want to see her in the White House. What I took away from the debate last night, and the events around it, was that we are very lucky to have such choices available to us.

She then hit her biggest applause line, concluding the point by reminding the audience, "It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it might take another to clean up after the second Bush."

This may have been her biggest applause line (or was it that CNN was going to commercial?), but it's worth noting that Sen. Clinton was at best begging the question here, and at the very least contradicting herself. For those of us who take the dynastic question seriously, her implication that her surname somehow qualifies her for office is hardly reassuring. Isn't that exactly the opposite of being judged by her own merits?

I've seen her respond to this question a few times and it's always the same canned, unsatisfactory answer. Lame.

"Eight years of a hard working policy wonk aided by a born pursuader followed by eight years of a more seasoned, more effective leader. Sounds like Nirvana to me!"

You just got me so excited, I think I peed my pants!

Seriously my friends, after the debate last night Senator Hillary Clinton showed us what she will do with every issue placed to her.

After hearing Senator Obama last night I walked away confused as to how he will actually deal with immigration and health care. My feelings after the debate were that Senator Obama is never specific on how he will fix these issues and he showed it through his talk around of the issues.

I DO NOT NEED TO BE INSPIRED!! I need the economy to come back to where we were when President Bill Clinton ran the country. I need a defined process on how our President will handle immigration and health care.

The only candidate who has been able to specifically define these three points was Senator Clinton.

Enough of the INSPIRATION. Lets hire the best person for the job and that person is Senator Clinton.

I presume you believe that your oxymoronic tag gives you the freedom to hurl insults with impunity? You are wrong. We have seen the degenerate my friend and it is you.

Of course there are non-Boomers who support Hillary. But that is not the backbone of her support, as I'm sure you'll acknowledge.

I'm aware that some demographers peg the Baby Boom lasting as late as 1964, which would make Obama a Baby Boomer. But talk to anyone born from about 1959 to 1964, and they'll tell you the demographers are full of it. I was in kindergarten when MLK and RFK were killed and barely remember it. The Vietnam War ended when I was in grade school. The fights of the 1960s were not my fights. Andrew Sullivan had a great piece recently on how the Clinton-Obama battle plays out as a contest between those who are still fighting the battles of the '60s and those who are tired of it and want to move on. Google it. I think you'll find it interesting.

Hillary Clinton has many fine qualities, and of course I'll vote for her in November if she's the nominee. And then sit there depressed on election day as McCain triumphs.

I really don't understand how Clinton supporters can believe that someone who is actively hated -- yes, hated -- by 50% of the public before the general election even starts can win. She will not carry the swing states that Bill carried, because she's not Bill. She doesn't have his natural political gifts. Yes, those people who hate her are wrong, they're sexist, they're unfair. And they're still not voting for her.

Obama will inspire (there's that word again) high turnout among young and African-American voters. Obama can draw independents. Look at the electoral math. Obama can win. Hillary? Not so much.

I watched the debate and was delighted to see two human beings with intelligence and grace discussing issues. After watching the Republicans the night before and seeing the race narrowing to a contest between a cyborg from an Ahnold movie and a man who pandered to the people who smeared him in 2000, two people who openly despise each other and pledge four more years of George Bush's ruined and ruinous policies, I realize that we are going to have an important year ahead of us.

My conflict is not about voting in the November election. My conflict is about which of these two incredible people -- Obama and Clinton -- I will support in the primary. What a nice situation wherein I don't have to hold my nose.