I was an Edwards supporter. After he dropped out of the race, I chose to support Hillary mostly because I like her policy proposals, I think she is definitely more electable and partly because I was sickened by the pushiness and holier-than-thou attitude of Obama supporters, a portion of whom admit to not even being interested in politics before he showed up.

It drives me crazy when people taut their political apathy as if it were a virtue. I cannot believe that some of Obama's supporters' relative lack of political knowledge and interest is supposed to be a positive sign. I cannot see how those votes are reliable. So he won landslide victories in the South. What use is that in November in Bushland? The white, conservative majority of the South is not voting for a Democrat or a black man or a woman, at least not for a decade, we all know that.

Yes, Obama was against the war. I commend him for that, so was I, from day one, but I doubt Obama would be voting against Bush's war if he were a US Senator at that time. He is too much of a good politician and at that time it would be a misstep to vote against the war. Unfortunately, there are no ambitious politicians who would dare to vote against Bush at the height of the Freedom Fries craziness. His gift is not his good judgment. He was just lucky not to be in the US senate at that point in time.

Call me jaded but, I don't look to politicians to be inspired. I honestly don't understand why anyone would. It is lazy to wait for a Messiah to inspire you to get involved in politics. I am inspired to be involved without a good looking man, delivering beautiful speeches (written by speech writers) and devoid of content. As it is, Obama campaign reminds me of the Reagan campaign. The symbolic rhetoric is so similar. It's all feel-good speeches. Middle class and upper middle class America eats that up. Working class is not moved that easily with feel-good rhetoric.

If you looked at history, you'd see that there is nothing older than a candidate who promises change in Washington, DC. So Obama is old news to me. Having said that, all Democrats should vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in November without any reservations and I like Obama as much as I like Hillary and I think he would make a good president, but I like her policy proposals more and I think that's what matters in the end.

What is incredible is that the Clinton supporters only hear and see what they want. Didn't Clinton bring up the "slumlord" when asked about her tax forms. Didn't Clinton supporters say that Bill Clinton was blacker then Barack because Bill dated more black women.

That was from an exchange when Obama was dissing Clinton for working for Walmart. So the both were coming from the gutter if that's what you mean. So to criticize one candidate but not the other is from the "it's ok if my guy does it, but it's not if your guy does it" playbook.

As for the last comment, that was Andrew Young, veteran MLK's SCLC. He is a Clinton supporter, but I cannot find any documentation that states he is working in the campaign.

I hope that people can make the distinction.

For instance, think of all the comments people are saying about their candidates here. You cannot reasonably hold the candidate responsible, unless they are paid shills.

Now, I am sure we all think Walmart is a bad corporation. I know I do. But look at this headline from the WSJ:

Citing the increased demands of her husband’s presidential campaign, Michelle Obama quit the board of TreeHouse Foods, an Illinois company whose biggest customer is Wal-Mart Stores. The move clearly helps Sen. Barack Obama, a big critic of the giant retailer’s labor practices, by putting the Wal-Mart connection behind him.

Mrs. Obama didn’t put it that way, of course. As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities,” she said in a statement.

Last year, Mrs. Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer and an administrator at the University of Chicago Hospitals, collected $51,200 from the company, according to the Obama’s tax returns. She recently has scaled back her hours at work to help her husband’s campaign. (See Obama’s tax return and tax summary.)

Just how big a deal was that for the campaign? Earlier this week on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show, columnist Lynn Sweet mentioned the Obama connection: By the way, in Trenton last week, Barack Obama proclaimed that he will not shop at Wal-Mart. His wife is on the board of a company that is a vendor to Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart could emerge as a second or third issue. It’s a litmus test of something.

You can find language to that effect on all sorts of media publications, dated around May 23, 2007.

Wake up, America

Funny how the left, and by extension, Obamabots, liked Krugman when he slammed Bush, but now that he is pointing out the unnatural zeal of Obama's fans, he is getting slammed in turn. As a witness to rude and unruly Obama campaign workers at the PATH station in Jersey City, NJ, I can personally attest to Krugman's observation...

Just because I agree with Krugman on one issue doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on every issue. It doesn't mean that I 'like' him, or that I'm his friend, or that I owe him some loyalty for having voiced some past opinions that I agreed with. It's called indpendent thought, and unless you are part of some 'Krugman-cult', or maybe you're a 'Krugabot', I don't understand your argument.

Why has no one surveyed the likelihood that Repulican operatives have been encouraging Republican caucus voters to cross-over,vote for Obama because they see Obama more vulnerable in November than Clinton ? And doe that also skew poll results that show Obama more likely to beat McCain?