Tom:

I don't know why you state such foolish words. From what I remember, just last night Obama was crying about the early vote counts in Louisiana, because he thought he was going to lose.

Lets be fair with our writings. Both Hillary and Obama have put in a great amount of time and energy into this campaign.

This will be my last post about the supporters of Obama who are so quick at belittling the Clintons.

I just hope that people are aware that by supporting Obama, we will not achieve our goal in taking back the White House.

You can mark my words that if Obama is our candidate, we will end up with another republican in the White House.

The hype needs to end and the people of america need to do the right thing. Lets get over the "rock star" image that has been placed towards Obama. This is not "American Idol".

you wrote:

"others have said it but it bears repeating: in states with a lot of dem VOTERS Hillary is winning. Obama is winning dem caususes in REPUBLICAN states and states where the Dem electorate is mostly black, some states are neither reliably Dem nor Republican and obama is doing ok in some of them but the trend is clear."

__________________________________________________________

Oh really? Barack Obama has now won more than twice as many states as Hillary Clinton, all over the map. He's doing very well overall among his own party. I also find it funny that you dismiss black voters...are they lesser democrats than white democrat voters?

More importantly: Exactly which states do you think Hillary will have to be competetive in to win against John McCain? That's the big point you're missing. Hillary NEEDS to be able to sway voters all over the map, not just a few big states on the coasts. That kind of thinking is what has resulted in Dubya's 2000 win. I can't fathom why you think it is beneficial for a candidate to be nearly-exclusively appealing to their own party.

In Maine, Romney is going to win despite dropping out last week!

What we need to hear from Obama is how he plans on getting our troops home, but instead he uses his sermons to keep on stating about the vote for the war.

He needs to be told to move on and if he really has a plan, then just state it and stop bringing up the past.

He has stated it in the past http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/us/politics/13obama.html and it's available on his website, just as Hillary's is on her's:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Starting Phased Redeployment within Hillary's First Days in Office: The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.

It's not hard for Obama to inject specifics he already has into his speeches. In fact, he's done so already: "Barack Obama gets specific on policy" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/wuspols210.xml

That Obama "has to get specific" instead of this nonsense of inspiring people has been a recent narrative of certain members of the U.S. press. Interesting then that this article is from a UK paper.

a lot of his "crossover support" is republicans gaming the dem caucuses, and when you combine this with the fact that the mainstream/republican press has done everything it can to promote him and has successfully prevented any critical examination of him there is no way to know whether he has real appeal to republicans and independents or whether he is being set up. Hillary has already been gone after so they can't do any more to her than they already have; who knows how many uninvolved/open minded/"swing" voters who tell pollsters they like obama can be turned against him by the right wing machine after he gets the nomination. A great many most likely.

Re: "That about sums it up for many Hillary Clinton supporters, who may not be visible on the 'net, or in the media, or even in the real world, for the reasons you state."

Amen. HRC stealth supporters. I wonder, when we read the polls, could there be a "Reverse Bradley Effect" wherein HRC voters are uncomfortable expressing their preference even to pollsters? Could this account for New Hampshire?

Although I am pessimistic at times about this race, I am totally psyched to see the "heartland" women (and some men) come out for HRC in droves. Not the folks who post on Salon, to be sure. But the ones who make their opinions known loud and clear in the privacy of the voting booth.

Works for me.

I hear that cythera can be cured with certain advanced antibiotics. I mean, like, really, man, farm trout. Having been in politics since Robert Kennedy, I know the real thing when I see it. Obama has it. Edwards has it. Hillary does not. She'd a plodder, and inspires no one not on a midol overdose. She lost again today. See a trend? I didn't think so. I know: let's burn our underwear. It's so sixties. Come to think of it, I think I had a case of cythera in the Navy; sulfa drugs cured it right up.