Has driven a lot of her supporters underground.

Of course, some of them are people who don't own or use computers, so they only see the media hatefest - if they have time to watch TV.

But I think you are being very naive if you count these people out. They are not stupid. They don't like being told what to do by people who "know better." They are the salt of the earth.

They will never put a Hillary bumper sticker on their cars, they won't wear campaign buttons, they won't display yard signs and they may never tell another soul who they are planning to vote for. The reason for that is obvious - just look how Mr. Uniter's followers treat them, and how they treat Hillary.

They may not even know until they get into the polling booth. And when faced with the choice of "trust me, I'm inspiring" and "I will work and fight for you and I always have" -

They are going to very quietly, with no fanfare, vote for Hillary Clinton.

You are flogging a dead horse. Only hardcore antiwar liberals care that Obama was opposed to the war from the start. Most core Dems turned against the war later and are concerned only about who can and will get us out now. To keep harping on who was the purest from the start may win debating points but I doubt it will win many votes.

That is one of the best posts I have read on this site in eons.

Look -- I know you're trying to bait people with the Colin Powell thing, but what I don't understand is why, and what your point is. I also don't understand how this in any way changes that fact of Hillary Clinton's failed Senate vote, which led the way for Bush & company to engage in their completely bungled, no-plan Iraq war.

ncawley writes: "IF WE DIDN'T HAVE COLIN POWELL SHOWING ALL AMERICANS THE WMD'S WE WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY."

Nor Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Wolfowitz, nor the lapdog Democratic congress -- led in part by Hillary Clinton -- that gave them a blank check to do whatever Neocon garbage they wanted...

Anonymous writes: "Really? To think I thought Powell retired gracefully after serving as Secretary of State. You are indeed a goldmine of (revisionist) history!"

You are indeed a sarcastic and smug one, for somebody too ashamed of his/her own writing to attach a name to it. But yeah, Colin Powell did pay some price in terms of being politically disgraced -- the same price being paid by everybody else in the Bush administration. Do I think they should be held more accountable? Hell yeah, all of them should.

Anonymous wrote: "Of course. But isn't that what you are specifically HERE to say over and over. Isn't it?"

Sorry, not sure what your point is. This is a message board about the Clinton/Obama race, with people weighing in on the merits and failings of each side. Most of my posts are responses to people who make what I feel to be inaccurate claims. As for you and your concerted attempt to inject Colin Powell into the discussion, what are YOU here for?

"I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. You don't win "without the pledged delegates from this primary season." You win with them AND the superdelegates. Am I saying something somehow controversial? I thought this was the way the system worked. No?

Look at it this way. Clinton won Massachusetts by double-digits and got more pledged delegates from the state than Obama did. But Obama got the superdelegates of Kennedy, Kerry, and the governor. That's how it works. I doubt seriously that Obama wants to give those superdelegates back."

No, you are correct. That is how the system is set up. My view of superdelgates is that they are not going to go against the will of the people. Kennedy and Kerry are not going to vote for Obama if the pledged delegates support Hillary. Obama can't "give" superdelegates back, they are free to vote for who they like. My view is that they are not going to go against the grain and nominate someone that is opposite of the will of voters. While there may be some history of this type of thing, in this election I cannot fathom them doing this. It will destroy the credibility of the nominee and seriously harm the democratic party. Additionally, one could argue that they should vote the way their districts and states voted depending on the type of superdelegate they are. This then begs the question of why we have them anyway.

So, that is why I consider them largely meaningless.

"the system works with superdelegates the way it always has."

I have always been against this system. I do not support ideas like this that go against the people who vote in the primary and more importantly, I'm not for a system that has such a blatant flaw in it. The only reason it hasn't mattered in previous elections is because the vote wasn't close for the nomination. A system is seriously flawed to me when it falters at the most important time when you need it to work. This system is just that.

If superdelegates vote with their state or district, they are doing nothing but reaffirming what voters have already done. If they follow the will of the people and support the candidate with the most pledged delegates they again do the same. So what is the point of superdelegates other than to select a candidate that did not win the primaries and cause serious concerns about the legitimacy of the nominee? How does this system benefit the party in 2008? My argument is that it doesn't and will not happen. Thus, they are largely meaningless in this race. Pledged delegates are all that matter.

that some supporters will actually vote for McCain if Obama gets the democratic nod over Clinton. Clinton and Obama have nearly identical political platforms, yet because Clinton might not get the nomination, some people will aid McCain in his effort to nominate socially conservative judges who may very well continue to rewrite our Constitution and further erode individual rights?

This is the most selfish thing I've heard this election season. I support Obama but will support Clinton if she gets the nomination--because they are, ultimately, very similar politically. I do fear that Clinton will do exactly what Kerry did in 2004--win all the blue states but lose the crucial swing states. I don't think that there is much risk in assuming that either Clinton or Obama will carry New York, Massachusetts, and California, but a candidate must win beyond the solidly blue states, and I fear that Clinton will not (excepting Arkansas, her adopted home state).

Nonetheless, if Clinton is the nominee, I will support her because my Constitutional rights hang in the balance. I am not so shortsighted as to throw my support to John McCain in my favored candidate does not win the nomination.