You say: "is it not the very essence of public service that one puts the public good first, ahead of one's personal desires and ambitions?"

Perhaps the essence of public service is giving all factions a fair hearing, sans the tactics of intimidation. That's one definition of the public good. Have you read about black Ohioans' attempts to intimidate black Clinton supporters into switching their allegiance? I see that deeply shameful behavior as akin to this petition.

What exactly is your point? For 8 years we have lived with a President whose motto is "that's my story and I am sticking with it." As Dr. Phil would say, how's that been workin for ya? I admire people who are not too proud to admit that they were wrong as chhabili did. Why are people so bothered by this? Maybe you should spend more time listening, really listening to, chhabili's reasons for moving to Obama. Or are you afraid you might have to question your support for Clinton and, god forbid, admit to a mistake?

"Have you read about black Ohioans' attempts to intimidate black Clinton supporters into switching their allegiance? I see that deeply shameful behavior as akin to this petition."

I'm not sure how this is different than Clinton supporters calling women who vote for Obama, traitors, slaves, and brainwashed cowards. There has been bad behavior on both sides. The great thing, and it is a great thing, is that we have laws that protect our right to express our political opinions. Whether a minority find these opinions shameful or not.

Have you heard about the bully, Alpha girls trying to intimidate other woman into voting for Clinton? Not only have I heard of it, I have been on the receiving end. And it wasn't pretty. But enough vitriol.

KateTex, my son is a senior in high school. He's waiting to hear from colleges. He is a pretty cool kid. He knows that probably some disappointments will come his way on April 1. But he's been able to avoid the "gotta get into Harvard" hysteria that is prevalent where we live and knows he'll get in somewhere and his life will turn out just fine. Maybe you should take a page out of his book. Calm down, take a deep breath, gather yourself. I know that you really, really, really want Hillary to be the next President and I understand the disappointment you must feel (if Obama does not get the nomination or win the general election I know I will be incredibly disappointed). But this anti-Obama hysteria, as if he is the Devil incarnate, has gone too far. Only a united Democratic party can beat the Republicans. Isn't that the common ground upon which we all stand? Hysterical anti-Hillary-ism and anti-Obama-ism certainly will do nothing to unite the party.

The great thing about this primary race is how much I've learned about the whole process. I've been a solid Democratic voter for 25 years, but seldom had a chance to vote in a primary and always found it annoying that two or three states got to make the choice. I think especially with an unknown quantity like Obama, the longer he campaigns the better it is for him.

The history of the primaries and all the changes the parties have gone through in the past hundred years or so is fascinating and the articles I read about it wouldn't be out there if this race wasn't going on. And on. And on. The journalists and the voters who believe their candidate is winning want it to be over. But this is an historic campaign not just because of the candidates but also the way it has exposed and possibly altered the process. In fact, the founding fathers never expected the President to be chosen by popular vote. The Senate and the Congress were to reflect "the voice of the people" and the Presidential nominee was to be chosen by the party. We still have many vestiges of this system in place. When it comes to real change and unity it's probably still more important for us to focus on the Senate and the Congress.

As far as I can tell it remains to be seen whether either candidate can get the delegates they need to tie up the nomination. This is a much more complex process than people realize. The 11 "wins" that Obama has just made aren't exactly that simple and straight forward. I wish the media would at least spell that out, but not many seem to want to delve into non partisan analysis.

Here's just one recent interesting article: http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/briefing/35652/briefing_convention_chaos.html

Correction: Guess that would be the Senate and the House of Representatives.

"Voters this year seem to be risk takers. What other message can you draw from the ascension of Barack Obama, a candidate who personifies promise?"

Hmmm, I wonder. Promise, right? What could be the attraction there? Is this statement a joke or do you really not understand what American voters are trying to say during this election. The 'messages' are rather clear - at least to those interested in investigating them. Amazing that you would describe voter's decisions and actions as 'risk-taking.' We take a risk every time we elect any politician. Is the 'risk' any higher in this election - because we can consider someone other than Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama? How do you define 'risk' and how do you define political - 'status-quo?'

" ..."To offer a glib one-size-fits-all explanation: It may be that the voters are saying, "We thought we made the 'safe' choice in 2004 by reelecting George W. Bush in the middle of a war -- and look where it got us." ..."

Or, perhaps they are saying, "The Bush administration took the threat from Al-Qa'ida and used it to justify attacking Iraq - and the media helped them do it. How about we try not to let that happen again? How about giving a DC 'outsider' a chance? How about not forgetting that Bill Clinton was charged with handling the threat from Al-Qa'ida for 8 years before Mr. Bush took office. Do we really want Hillary 'answering the phone?'"