These are tough tactics. Toughness, a quality you say you admire in Clinton, is something that eventually destroys nearly everyone who possesses it.

The toughness I most admire in Clinton is her sheer endurance and unwillingness to bow to those who would attack her. Barry should get some of that. Clinton simply hasn't attacked Obama on his race. It is a lie to say this is so.

When you write "She is the toughest politician I've ever seen" I don't disagree. But I wonder if toughness is an attribute you ought to value as highly as you do.

Is the facile employment of hyperbole and illogic as a means of persuasion one you should admire and emulate? Your tricky and dirty argument here has caused me to lose respect for you.

I didn't begin to actually loathe her until the smirking innuendos about race and religion became part of the game plan.

Proof? You offer none. You only slyly add religion as something she has attacked. Not approving of every religion is hardly an attack. By this sort of logic, I fully expect that you will start defending John McCain on Hagee.

The toughness of her - the absolutely unprincipled willingness to use any weapon she can reach - is the reason why.

Bah! This is where Obama supporters make me laugh. Your whole argument is that Clinton has been hard on Barry. And yet in your own examples, she hasn't been tough on him at all she has distanced herself from Wright and Farrakan saying she would not choose them as associates. You can this tough? You call this a weapon?

Shorter version: OMG, don't kill the baby seal with words. Just words.

Whiny, whiny, whiny.

HealThisNation is "mistaken." Joan does read some of the letters. How else could she have replied to some in the past if she has not read them. I have noticed though that she replies infrequently on weekends. Not being a bot, she must take some of the weekend off just like other human beings.

However, you are correct that she doesn't issue stars. She has said so.

Chuck Todd wrote:

...nearly half of all remaining delegates will get handed out tomorrow. And the math will be a lot more crystal clear after tomorrow, both in delegates and the popular vote. Following Guam, there are now 404 pledged delegates up grabs, and 187 of them will be decided on Tuesday. Plus, per our count, there are 268 undeclared superdelegates. Here are the basics of what each candidate needs: Assuming he wins half of the delegates tomorrow (93), Obama needs just 38% of ALL remaining delegates to get to the magic number of 2,025. If Clinton wins 94 delegates on Tuesday, she will need 66% of all remaining delegates. In addition, assuming that delegate split tomorrow, then Clinton will need 85% of all remaining PLEDGED delegates to catch Obama for the lead in that category. Moreover, if Clinton simply wanted to cut Obama's pledged delegate lead to 100, she'd need to win 62% of all remaining delegates after tomorrow. As we've noted before, the math is certainly difficult for Clinton.

What a major point misser, Mr. Todd is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nobody disputes that Hillary, based on the math of who is winning, probably won't win the primary. But the reason Hillary will and SHOULD win has nothing to with the present math involved. It has everything to do with the fact that we simply don't know what Barack will do or say next. I defy anybody on the earth to tell me exactly what Barack will say later today or what we will learn about his past. As long as Hillary stays in the race, she will win if we find out that Barack said something really snide about the working-class or if he turns out to be secretly telling his friends that he has no idea how to run the nation. Anything like that will make Hillary the winner. It has nothing to do with math. It has nothing to do with votes. It has nothing to do with this primary thus far.

It has everything to do with the possibility that an awful truth about Obama might come out. This is why we often stress that Hillary has been vetted. We can be almost certain that we won't be surprised by Hillary. Even when she shocks us with her "memory", "misstatements" or dis-economic theories, we don't dwell on it because it doesn't mean the same thing as it would mean about Barack.

Here is an example: Wright.

Here is another example: "bitter".

You want another example: "I'll talk to Iran".

It really is endless. But when it comes to Clinton, the people who already can't stand her already can't stand her!!! They don't need to know more about her; they already feel sick about her the same way that more people might start feeling sick about Obama. We simply don't know.

So when I read all this math and how it relates to the primary, I almost start to laugh. Just wait and see what happens....

You don't know that God is not female, do you?

If you think God is male, could you supply evidence?

I think when Hillary made that comment two years ago in which she referred to God as "She", she was just kidding. I think the bible never mentions God having female genitals. And while it never explicitly makes reference to God's penis, it does use "He" whenever it refers to Him.

For instance in Deutoronomy when God says that any man with crushed testicles CAN NOT enter the house of the Lord (as well as seven generations of his family) the bible refers to God as a man.

Also, when the bible says that God created the rainbow to ensure that He always remembers the promise He just made to never again kill every human being, it explicitly mentions that God has a man's body.

I think it will be very hard for people to prove that God menstruates. In fact, I bet nobody will ever prove that.

There is no way Hillary really meant that God was into wearing dresses!