I thin you imagine that there's something sinister about the fact that, a mere few days ago, General Colin Powell was mentioned in the international press vis-a-vis his speech to the UN. It was the fifth anniversary of that speech and anniversaries tend to bring back memories. My typing still isn't great but I'm well-informed thanks to Britain's Channel 4. even our own national newscaster and many good newspapers. Journalism is still quite an honourable profession in many parts of the world, even if that has to exclude America with the media leading you any which way it likes. Why are you so prickly anyway? Are you denying that Colin Powell tried to coax as many countries as possible into invading a country which had NOT attacked the US. I'm finding it harder and harder to understand all of this dissimulation.

You wrote: "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."

I'm still a bit confused. The will of which voters? Are you talking about VOTERS or about PLEDGED DELEGATES? Your example of Nevada proves that they are not the same thing. It's entirely possible that, come April, Obama will have more pledged delegates than Hillary and fewer overall votes. So whose will should sway the superdelegates then?

Cythera 45 wrote: "Only hardcore antiwar liberals care that Obama was opposed to the war from the start."

Where do you get that? What poll? What stat? I think a lot more people care about Obama's correct take on the war than you imagine.

Cythera: "Most core Dems turned against the war later and are concerned only about who can and will get us out now."

That's not true at all. Speaking as somebody who marched in anti-war rallies before the war even began, I can attest to a very large anti-war sentiment all along, among core liberals who actually read up on the situation in Iraq and knew -- before it was widely reported -- that most of what Bush listed in his State of the Union speech was already known to be bogus (such as yellow-cake uranium from Niger).

Cythera: "To keep harping on who was the purest from the start may win debating points but I doubt it will win many votes."

Think again! The correct stance on the Iraq war couldn't be more important. The Iraq war will cost the U.S. taxpayer over $1.8 trillion in the long run, and it affects the lives of every American in some way. I think people who look at Obama and Clinton and want to know how they're different will take it very seriously when they see Barack on the side of reason and Hillary on the side of not only a naive and disastrous Senate vote, but also the inability to even own up to her mistake for the simple reason that she can't afford to lose face. Between those two people, who will the average voter respect more?

It seems like Barack Obama has discovered a system to game the arcane and Byzantine Democratic Party primary process. The strategy is to win in caucus states as opposed to primary states. Historically and generally fewer people vote in caucus states. And in caucus states insider party leaders and activist vs. general population tend to dominate.

This strategy to win caucuses rather than primaries is having the effect of preventing either candidate from attaining an early lead and thus being able to position them against the Republican nominee in the November election.

What, or who, is causing Democrats to become less united and to take our eye off November?

Has anyone else begun to wonder why there are so many red states going for Obama? Has anyone else begun to wonder why so many Independents have been going over to a Democratic candidate? And why are there so many Republican crossover votes in a Democratic primary?

I realize that Obama’s adoring throngs will say this only proves that he can win. It only proves he can win votes from red states, Republicans, Independents, as well as Democrats.

I am not so sure.

Are Republicans really finally starting to see the light?

I doubt it. Maybe some Republicans truly support Democrats this year. They have a lot to be disgusted with in the Bush administration. But historically cross over votes are not so prevalent, especially in primaries.

This year is different. And I wonder why.

It is almost as if a covert campaign is underway to steal another Presidential race and the White House from the Democrats yet again. But this time instead of stealing states (FL, OH) an entire primary system is being stolen. Another general election may be about to be hijacked.

And of course the media has played along just as they did in the run-up to Iraq, just as they did with the swift boating of John Kerry, and just as they did with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Like slobbering Pavlov dogs the MSM provides poll driven, misogynist, soap opera in place of objective reporting and investigation.

And who could mastermind such a devious plot against Democrats? Who could undermine our Democratic primary? Who could mastermind a plot so evil and so devious that we would not even know it for what it is? Who else could take the party of inclusion and divide us along black/white, male/female, and young/old lines? Who else could prolong the primary season making it impossible to begin planning the November election? Who else could cause bitter debate about regular delegates and super delegates? (Who ever herd of super delegates before this year?) Who else could so fracture the party and mortally wound us making a likely win in November into a sure win for Republicans? And who else could make it look like we were doing it all to ourselves?

Yes, who could choreograph such a finely tuned pas de deux?

Well, none other than that evil, Machiavellian mastermind of dirty tricks, Karl Rove. Did anyone really think last spring when he retired that he would sit quietly on the sidelines in the 2008 election? We all wondered what he was really up to. Maybe now we know.

Could this nightmare of a scenario we find ourselves in all be the doing of Karl Rove?

It is a thought worth pondering and thinking about as we hurl breakneck speed toward a brokered convention and another loss of the White House.