Welcome to the Sanity Club. Membership is growing, it seems.

I don't know that Chris Mathews or Tim Russert is Obama central - it is true though, that both are seriously anti-Hillary. Mr. Mathews had begun mellowing out some, and then wrote his book about campaigns. That did the trick. This election cycle was too tame for him, therefore, Mr. Mathews began his Power Numbers etc series, so that, he could, and I quote "mix it up some"!

It is frustrating and aggravating to the very extreme when Messrs. Mathews, Russert and others of the same ilk, describe Sen. Clinton as "the divisive" candidate, while Sen. Obama is a uniter. Really???

How is it that Sen. Biden gets taken to task by the moderator from Desmoines Register, because he spoke about Sen. Obama in terms that could be considered racist or prejudiced, yet when Sen. Obama goes to South Carolina and begins a speech by saying "Oh I know what they say about electing a Black man President", or during a speech in Illinois, he says "I know what they say about me - he's got a pretty wife, 2 cute kids, he's alright" - if that isn't blatantly race-related what is ?

Hillary Clinton is wrong because she said stuff about being a woman running for the Presidency and how several other women have come to her and said that they would like to be alive to see her elected President. Mr. Russert called her on it, Mr. Mathews frequently does as well. How is it no one asks Sen. Obama when he deliberately identifies himself as a Black man, or when he talks about how people see him, knowing perfectly well that he is appealing to a certain group, why he is doing that? Do we assume that he is to serve only his African American citizens?

Oprah Winfrey goes stumping for him and announces that she isn't on his side because he is African-American, but while delivering a speech, she says "We no longer have to dream the dream. No, we can vote it in"! So, let's invoke Martin Luther King, Jr. when we are in certain company and then pretend that we have nothing to do with it.

I probably would never have written this, but I am truly sick of the advertisements on MSNBC about how the various anchors like Messrs. Russert, Mathews or Scarborough are non-partisan and very objective, and no one can buy their loyalties. I have watched this election cycle intently, and seen the way numbers and facts get manipulated, so as to further a cause. Its interesting that Mr. Mathews talks about the "Fundamentalist" Republican Huckabee rising and the Optimistic Obama rising to the fore as well. Apparently, they are tired of people not being honest with them, or not following the tenets of liberalism and /or conservatism as determined by them. For the longest time, we have revered these people (not Mr. Scarborough so much, nor Tucker Carlson the perennial sophomore) - to watch them carrying out an agenda nauseates me. Maybe there is a time in one's life when one should forsake one's heroes or at least look closely at their qualifications and re-evaluate.

For the last 7 years, Democrats have lost everything - in fact, it seems as though, they are even now so overpowered, that they have become timid. Look at the way they keep losing face every time there is a Veto thrown at their newest cause by the President. When has optimism and idealism filled a belly ? Or won anything ? The audacity of hope is exactly that - a bombastic concept full of air and fluff, which can only be made real, provided it is buttressed by the Oprahs and Mathews, etc. of the world. Let's get real for heavenssake.

Someone call Sen. Obama on his duplicitous "I am everyone's uniter and the man who dares to hope" image please.

As for Joe Trippi, give him a break - he was fine with Howard Dean, who is an honest to God liberal - when you have to work for a multimillionaire like Edwards, who sees 2 Americas, is a trial-lawyer, and has a field day robbing the people he hob-nobbed with to benefit his clients, Trippi can't do any better than he is. Leave Trippi to the ministrations of Chris Mathews and Tim Russert - both are 3/4s in love with Mrs. Edwards, and will look after the Edwards well.

Obama answers the door in a silk robe...

"Motorin'..."

clarification.

Damn straight! You said it well.

I have asked a few Hillary-bashers (who claim to be progressives and liberals) to please tell me EXACTLY what it is that they object to about her.

Without exception, they sputter and stutter and finally spit out "she's so polarizing."

I ask them if they are familiar with her voting record in the Senate when they call her Republican-lite.

Without exception, they say she "always votes with the Republicans."

Some people just love to hate, so they can feel superior.

It's refreshing to see people like Steve Fox and Linda-English post on Salon, on this topic. I still have no favorite candidate but I've been so discouraged to read the daily unceasing attacks on Senator Clinton by so many posters here. For every letter suggesting Mrs. Clinton is a worthwhile and supportable candidate, there are eight or ten tearing her apart, using every single component of the Republican right-wing narrative about her, again and again and again. Personally, I've contributed to three candidates, none of them Senator Clinton, and I worked hard for Senator Obama's election to the Senate here in Illinois, but the unending cannibalism of my fellow Democrats is just breathtaking. Today's article and responses show just how this self-defeating process works--take the cues from the O'Reillys and Matthews and Hannitys of the world and swallow them hook, line and sinker, then use them over and over to help destroy the candidate those cretins fear the most. I like Mrs. Clinton; I like Senator Obama; I like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson. Not so fond of Mr. Edwards or Mr. Kucinich but hey, that's just me. But by God, I will do whatever I can to help elect whoever our Party ends up nominating and I will argue then against the smears and lies about that candidate that the GOP will use and that the Chris Matthews of the media will trumpet.