I am a Clinton supporter in recovery.

I was one of the many committed Democrats who saw Bill as the first charismatic and effective Democratic leaders of my life time. I was dismayed by the Repub attacks on him and assumed Whitewater, Vince Foster, and many other pseudo-scandals were due to media bias.

Because I now have Obama as, what feels to me like, a better option and have seen how aggressive the Clinton operation was in the post-New Hampshire pre-South Carolina period I have re-evaluated my feelings towards The Clinton Era. I now focus more on how selfish and self absorbed Bill and Hillary were. He (with a real assist from her on her handling of health care) gave Newt Gingrich a huge congressional swing in 1994 which led not to a full throated defense of progressive values but triangulation in which Clinton beat the Repubs to their own favorite issues and left me in the dust. I didn't mind at the time but I really do now.

So. Is all the smoke around the Clintons and big money without fire? I want to know. The fact is he DID have sexual relations with that girl... Ms. Lewinsky. I don't think the witch hunt was deserved but there was some There there.

Now that Hillary is trying to get elected on Bill's rep. and connections, I want to know more about the relationship between the Clintons and big money. Yes there were many Bill haters in the '90's but I wasn't one of them and now, in 2008, I think I deserve to have these issues vetted before McCain treats us to a horror show of Clinton connections that make his role in The Keating Five seem innocuous.

A couple of points:

1) If Krugman was really aiming to stop the polarization of Democratic voters this is a bad way to do it. Conflict resolution is based on finding common ground, not on blaming everything on one party.

2) Hasn't the whole notion of characterizing a leader or a movement by what random contributors say been discredited. Glenn Greenwald attacked this method in his July 25th piece when he took Bill O'Reilly to task. Are the ground rules somehow different if you're a Hillary supporter?

3) If you're going to attack someone based on their supporter's beliefs, shouldn't they be prominent and notable supporters? Say a candidate's spouse - such as Bill Clinton's blatantly racist comments in South Carolina. Someone who is speaking officially for the campaign - such as Bob Johnson's comments and the Clinton campaign's subsequent refusal to dismiss said comments about Obama's past drug use. Someone actually employed by the campaign - Mark Penn, Bill Shaheen, once again about drug use. Perhaps even prominent supporters - such as Gloria Steinem's suspiciously timed Op Ed attack piece, or Illinois NOW's suspiciously timed opposition to Obama.

Obama, Clinton, they all have their rabid supporters.

As I've written before, Obama is a better choice in the Fall. However, yes, we must support the nominee, and I'm confident that either of them would campaign and support the other for the sake of defeating McCanine.

I got this far in the letters, then laughed:

"In other words there's no rational argument to support a candidate with such THIN EXPERIENCE. It's based on irrationals. And the language is highly offensive. If Obama people want our support in November, they need to clean up their act.

And I still say that Obama will LOSE A GENERAL ELECTION. Mr. Obama has received NO NEGATIVE PRESS at all -- quite the opposite. When he does, he's GOING TO PLUMMET. He will be hit week after week after week on his thin experience, by every engine in the Republican machine. In the end, soccer moms -- and plenty more -- will vote McCain.

Obama's appeal is to LATTE LIBERALS. Wealthy liberals -- the mirror opposite of George Bush's wealthy republicans."

It must be those awful, Obama supporters, hiding in ALL CAPS... pretending to be Hillary supporters, just to look obnoxious.

If Hillary wants 'our' support, maybe she could consider telling these people to hush.

I also question why 'thin experience' seems to refer to 'experience not utterly based in politics, or in Washington for those 35 years that were so important, according to Hillary supporters. Because from what I've read, Obama's experience has been quite hefty, and in an area not entirely political.

Let's see: a soccer mom, (which means what? Has children, doesn't adhere to the strictest feminist code?) sipping latte, just the flip of a Bush supporter.

I'll vote for who I think is best. I will not be told by the NYT who I can consider. When someone can explain why Hillary's votes for Bush's war are ok, and why the fact McCain is more vehemently against torture than Hillary (or Bill) means she's a better candidate, anyway, I'll listen to Krugman, & not before.

I'm a proud Obama supporter, but that doesn't make me "anti-Clinton." If for some reason he does not clinch the Dem nomination, I will still vote for her in the general election with few reservations.

I take it Mr. Krugman hasn't received one of the "Obama is a Muslim hell-bent on handing over our country to bin Laden because he attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia" e-mails out in circulation over the past few months. And I'm sure we can all agree that Obama and his supporters aren't behind the disgusting group "Citizens United Not Timid." If that's not venomous, then I don't know what is, and it's coming from the Right.

This perceived bitterness between the Obama and Clinton camps exists only in the minds of the media, who are prone to bouts of shit-stirring, especially when it comes to matters of politics, gender, and race.

Search Google for "Obama movement" (in quotes) and do the same for "Clinton movement". Compare the number of results from the two searches.

Some of us, when we hear a political campaign called a "movement" and see people supporting that campaign repeating the word "unity" too much, we just get a nasty feeling in our gut. It's all got an undertone of fascism to it.

That might be part of what's bothering Krugman.

I am an Obama supporter but I will gladly vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I wish they could both win.