I don't actually want McCain to win. I'd rather that Clinton's supporter's be given a good reason to vote for Obama. I started out as an Edwards/Obama supporter with little affection for Clinton. When I learned more about Clinton and Obama, however, I switched allegiances. I'd like to find a reason to change back, but I haven't even been given crumbs at this point.

From Walsh to Shapiro this faulty charge of demonization is a ludicrous crybaby refrain that is overripe and factually wrong. She and Bill weren't demonized; they did it to themselves and got called out on their behavior much less often than they should have been; apologists like Walsh acted as enablers for their awful tactics and words. For examples, imagine the reaction, if:

*Michelle Obama had made comments about hillary sending people out to slime Barack they way Bill accused Barack of doing?

*Imagine the reaction if Barack had mocked Hillary and her supporters the way she did with the "the skies will open up" speech? She was portrayed as a fighter while he gets slammed by Walsh for having a priest he knows mock her.

*What if the current roles were reversed and the losing candidate (Obama) was DEMANDING this and that while refusing to acknowledge the winning candidate? In fact, Obama would have had to leave the race long ago. But Hillary has been given pass after pass because she is a Clinton and because she is a woman. Sexism didn't hurt her; it enabled her, though her campaign's cynical use of women's fears and experiences, to stay in the race longer than she should have. The Clintons demonized themselves, no matter how much yellow journalists like Shapiro and Walsh want to try lie about the facts.

They ain't giving you any because they are irrational cult worshippers, most of them. Get used to it, they live in their own bubble. Come November they will swallow the bitter pill...

Separate taxes for each item of spending wouldn't work. You would just generate another tax for collating the various items of spending.

No, what you need it a simplified, progressive tax system. Basically, someone bloody minded enough to go through and eliminate a lot of the exceptions as to just what constitutes income, and simplify just what constitutes expenditure.

The trouble is of course, whatever tax code you have, it is either written by the rich, who have enough know how to keep themselves from paying too much, or the poor, who don't have enough know how and thus end up coming up with something overly vague.

And also, any major change, even over to a simpler system, results in disruptions to income over the short term - which America can't afford until it is out of the position it is in now thanks to massive overspending by the Republican government.

I would venture to guess that 60% of the pure waste of money going through government's hands right now is through the Pentagon. This is because I honestly can't think of when last the Pentagon had to actually really account for its spending.

The Republicans aren't going to do anything about this, for all of their talk on "Fiscal responsibility" they aren't terribly good with public money - and they translate security as being how much money is spent on defense, not on how well managed that money is.

Obama as a Democrat, and as the leftwing candidate stands a far greater chance of tackling wasted expenditure.

If you think that ANY of those were near as overblown as Wright and Bitter/Cling then there really is no way to reach you.

I never meant to imply that Clinton had anything to do with starting them, but she certainly threw a gallon of gas (no doubt of the reduced tax variety ;) on both of those scandals - or was it a coincidence that in PA she turned into a shot-drinkin' deer shootin' good ol gurl? My point was that even with the two hugest scandals this primary season, scandals that would sink most anyone's campaign (let's be honest - those were the perfect storm, it made him into the militant, scary black man who thinks he's better than you) she still lost.

She lost.

You can blame Axelrod (who must be the world's greatest ventriloquist!), or Chris Matthews, or whoever else you want...but it doesn't change the fact that she lost.

so you can either get over it...or you can continue to tell us strangers who you aren't voting for...it's up to you.

Walter Shapiro writes: "Every other presidential dreamer in her position had taken the fight to the convention (Ronald Reagan in 1976, Ted Kennedy in 1980, Gary Hart in 1984), but she has been demonized for hanging on until the first Tuesday in June."

Hmmmm. Well, Walter, you have a good memory. What do the parties' eventual nominees in all three of those races have in common?

Give up?

They LOST. And THAT, not some imaginary discrimination against Clinton is the reason why she has been so heavily criticized.

And now I see what's wrong with politics today.

Who played the race card? Who played the gender card? Who said what when and ranted about whom and who's a liberal and who's a Republican in Democrat's clothing and who is SOOO MEAN!

Ladies and gentlemen, candidates attack each and pick at their little differences because they have to do something to try to differentiate themselves from opponents who are more alike than a lot of people realize. That's politics, dating back to the 19th century. I'm sure Obama and Clinton piss each other off, but when it comes down to it, they know that this is how the game is played. So no, I don't blame either one of them for "tearing apart the Democratic party."

No, I blame you.

At least, the ones who attack the opposing candidates and those candidates' supporters for being too stupid and narrow-minded to think exactly the right way. I think Clinton and Obama have showed each other plenty of respect. You're the ones who haven't.

And until politicians and voters alike open their minds and consider that those who don't agree with them may have some decent points, politics is going to stay where it is now -- with administrations, like the Bush administration, who refuse to respect the opinions of those who may not think the same way.