Obama is a chameleon. People see in him what they want to see. He has yet to explain how he will "change" this country. There are many people, myself included, who believe that there are natural tensions built into government. No one side is always right or always wrong. Parties havig strong convictions are not necessarily gridlocked. Clinton can work across the aisle. Heaven help us if Obama becomes president. The Republicans will mop up the floor with him. I heard one of his zealous pundits say he'll be ok -- he just needs to surround himself with people who will do the work while he "inspires" the country. That seems to be in keeping with Obama's perception of himself as chief executive.

Mr.Krugman, for whom I have great respect, can think what he wants. He seems to be missing the real point, which is that Hillary Clinton is a deeply divisive candidate. Not only for other Democrats, but clearly for Independents and Republicans as well.

A significant number of people, myself included, simply don't like her. We have our reasons, and they are as good as anybody else's reasons for preferring one candidate over the other. I'm not going to apologize for my candidate preferences, nor will I vote democratic if they field a candidate I don't like.

They are welcome to advance their arguments for the importance of party loyalty, but as an independent, those won't sway me. There is always a subset of the electorate who is not at play, and are going to vote for their party no matter who they nominate. They might be important in the primaries, but they never decide the general election. That is done by independents and moderates of both parties who are open minded enough to consider each candidate on their own merits and not to simply vote in a knee-jerk fashion.

Surely some of the enthusiasm for Obama is driven by a realization of who the alternative is. Some think they see a cult of personality developing, but for many of us he is the first candidate that we've seen in a long time who doesn't appear to be manufactured out of one of a few molds. People are legitimately excited by his candidacy, and to suggest that they are caught up in something and not thinking clearly is to give insult by questioning their competence as voters. It seems unlikely this approach will win Mrs.Clinton votes.

I am really sick of all of this b.s. on both sides. Please, vote for Hillary if you like her politics. Heck, you can vote for her if you want 1) a woman president 2) think she has more experience and is therefore a better choice 3) think she's hot. Just like I can vote for Obama because I think a man with big ears is dead sexy. If Obama supporters choose NOT to vote for Hillary (or vice versa) that's their choice as American citizens. If like susansunflower, you see Obama's campaign as divisive because it's not coming out and saying, vote Democrat not for Obama, then don't vote for him. Stop bad mouthing, characterizing, sniping at, making gross generalizations about, the supporters and what sort of people they are. Stop saying I'm following Jim Jones and am ready for my kool-aid and maybe I won't be so quick to call you all a bunch of shrill old douchebags. It's funny, but I thing people are getting so passionate about the whole thing precisely because their policies are very close together. So it's really come down to personality and experience, more than anything else.

And another thing; I think, AKA, we can all go through the letters section here on Salon and find instances of where Obama supporters are mean and where Clinton Supporters are mean. If you want to quantify it, then I expect you to do a percentage of mean to Obama vs. mean to Hillary with strict definition of what constitutes as "policy disputes" vs. "character assasination."

If you read Shapiro's letter thread, It starts out attacking Obama, and then, most likey, because his supporters started getting pissed, it evolved into a free-for-all. There was even someone who said they would vote for Huckabee if Obama became the nominee (though I think someone later on in the thread said they must be an Obama supporter in disguise...)

So there. Just drop it AkA. You are entitled to vote for whomever you want. If the women fighting for the vote let the fact that men were mean to them and made snide sexist comments stop them, then neither of us would be able to vote. If my foremother hadn't have fought for civil rights in the face of real threats of violence...you get the picture. This is going to be a dirty, knock down, drag out presidential race. It's a good thing.

Just listen to his followers on this thread. They have no interest in commity, especially if you raise any questions, any at all, about their candidate. It IS like a cult. They will accept you so long as you genuflect to their idol. If not, watch out. Obama as President will be a duplicate of the last candidate who ran as a uniter, not a divider.

Usually I listen to NPR in the morning. When I used to have a car I'd listen in the car and try to find out what was going on in the world, although BBC has better coverage of world events. I know that MSNBC has been driving many viewers here crazy with its Hillary bashing (I'm an Obama supporter but I stay away from that kind of punditry because it offends me so much I worry that it would push me into her camp if I tuned in!) but on NPR I cannot help but notice the killing him softly with polite political disdain treatment of Obama.

For example, this morning they were again talking about the racial breakdowns of voters, and wanting to ask him about Lousiana. Never mind the other states he won this weekend where blacks are not a majority by a long shot (like Washington State where I'm from). They asked him if he was "concerned" about racial divisions. And he said that he objected to the question because in many of the states where he's won by a wide margin that was not the case--like Nebraska or Idaho for example, or Iowa. The interviewer sort of treated his answer with disdain, and then said basically that he's trying to have it both ways. I wonder though why Barack isn't questioned more about his conerns about sexism--and why Hillary isn't questioned more about her concerns about race? Why are race divisions the responsibility of the black man and sex divisions the responsibility of the woman? Doesn't this only contribute to the stereotyping and belittling of both candidates?

One final aspect to the story that bothered me: the story ended by commenting that the consolidation of the "black" vote behind Obama is giving him his "leverage" in this campaign. They are partially correct. As Clinton's base among large groups of women creates leverage for her. But the way they said it about Obama--it was as if this is his only leverage. They failed to mention that he is currently ahead in the delegate count. Doesn't that also create leverage--regardless of one's race or gender?

I've been gratified to see in this election so many voters choosing a candidate based on their understanding of the issues, beyond race or gender, voting for the human being and the candidate. And yet NPR will not stop trying to box Obama in as that black guy with scary--yet more easily quantifiable-- black voter leverage, and MSNBC will not stop trying to box Hillary in as the chick in bad pantsuits with menopausal female harridans as her base who doesn't quite deserve to play with the big boys on capitol hill.

Our media need a collective spanking!