It is amusing hearing Hillary talk about how she will fight for the people as she claims her Rocky Balboa crown. It is even more amusing that the same person that said "screw them" about ethnic whites is viewed now as the un-elite, despite the fact that she was born into privilege and now possesses assets in excess of 109 Million.

But by far the most interesting aspect of her new persona is that she waited until she had effectivly "castrated" Barack Obama with her race based tactics that all too easily appealed to the so-called reagan democrats (an oxymoron if I ever heard one). She inflamed the racial divisions through the Rev, Wright decacle, South Carolina, Texas, etc. But it wasn't until she got to PA when the claws really came out and all pretense at racial civility was lost.

When she thought she had him on the ropes, out jumps the alter-Hillary and from that point on her lies and other baggage were lost in translation. Nevertheless, the ethnics bought into the latest iteration of Hillary which effectively prevents Obama from returning fire in-kind.

Imagine the headlines in the minds of the ethnics if he were to attack her the same way that she has attacked him. Powerful Black man attacks poor, innocent white woman who was simply defending her honor. Yeah, like Obama stands a chance after she has repositioned herself as the great white hope.

Barack grossly attacks Hillary with,

""An attack on Israel, one of our most important allies in the world, would be considered as an attack on the United States," he said on CNN Monday. "Using the word obliterate, however, is the kind of language that we've seen George Bush use over the last seven years,"

Whereas Hillary appropriately attack Iran with,

""I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran,"

Which person do you want attacking you? That's what I thought!

The examples are super-numerary

You're my favorite comment luminary

Daaamn!

Girl, you're a poet and you know it!

IF Clinton loses it won't be ok to infer from her loss either that she ran a poor campaign. But IF you insist on detailing the ways she ran a poor campaign it won't be ok to infer from that that she might have not been a better president than Obama.

In sum: The only reason Clinton might lose is that too many people are literally in an Obama Trance in which they believe he will heal the world in his first 100 days. The only positive thing we can say about Obama in response to his possible victory is that he is very talented with words and is- unfortunately- fortunate to be a black man and not a wealthy white former first Lady.

p.s. I am only using the words "fortunate" and "unfortunate" in the highly narrow context of humans who are running for President of this particular country.

This was my attempt to immediatly mirror your rhyming structure. Don't read anything into it but a reflection of the fun I had reading yours...Unfortunately I had to resort to surealism a bit....But I bet you really do have clean socks!

You're super luminous and smart

You trickle a runny nose

and ride on my carts

Boy, you ain't no reason for shame

Cos Boy, see your socks, well your socks be claane.

I thought what she did has more to do with stupidity than fortitude. If she loses because of what she chose to do, (And I mean the entire campaign.) would it be another example of "fortitude?"

My first post was in response to your God and gender comment. I couldn't quite understand the intense anger about a quip. The God is a woman thing is, in fact, something some feminists make a point of saying. Do you literally believe God has a gender? Do you literally expect me to argue that God is a man?

But after having read the two longer posts I understand that it was just a continuation of your violently angry mood.

I can't think of a single word I have written to you or about you that was anything other than straightforward, pleasant, and respectful of the fact that you and I are voting differently in this election.

The specific post of mine that prompted your reply was written to explain why I draw different conclusions about Clinton than you do, and that is, after all, the point of this forum. We come in order to disagree.

So you can't be surprised that anything I write to you will be in some way or another in opposition to what you think.

You can't imagine how surprised I am by the tone of your two replies. What is wrong with you that you would react in such an unhinged manner to someone making a point which has been made by so many people on Salon and elsewhere?

I do not like your candidate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what I think of you.

You're really humorous and sharp

You tickle the funny bone

And lighten the heart

Girl, you ain't no more 'o the same

Cos girl, what you got, you got game.

Yep. But I'd say that the Bible is about as good at proving all of its certainties as Obamaites adn Clintonites are at proving theirs. The only difference is that the bible asks you to have faith in inner concepts and mental pictures, whereas Obamites and Clintonites can point to actual (and highly selected) events to prove their cases, like:

Day One Readiness

The Transformation of Politics

More years near White House = More Experience

Good Judement can be independent of DC lifestyle

Wright Proves Bad Things about Him

Bosnia Proves Bad Things about Her

Gas Tax Proves He/She is more in Touch.

I am always interested when somebody points to the data that has swayed them, but it really is biblical to me when folks get angry that others don't see how obvious the truth is...