I can't presume to be speaking for others who have mentioned that they do wish Obama had more experience. However, I would like to point out that the experience I personally was wishing he had, is a bit more public speaking and a bunch more knowledge of how to fight a publicity war. Exactly, in fact (darn it) what Cythera was stating he is going to need if he wins the primaries. Reading what he says gives me better feelings about him than actually listening to him, and there are going to be many people who won't vote for him if he doesn't quickly learn to correct that.

But if anyone is suggesting that he needs more experience in the Senate ... well, is that because we see how INexperience has handled the last eight years? Are we punch drunk, from having twice elected someone who never even successfully led a business?

See. This particular Obama supporter doesn't care about Roe v. Wade. Nice. I'll bet this supporter also doesn't know anything about the Ledbetter decision either. If the WH goes to the Republicans again, we can kiss goodbye a lot more than just Roe v. Wade. Try kissing all job discrimination claims goodbye as well. Get ready for dirty coal in your neighborhood. Habeas corpus? What's that?

Honey, I just got done posting that I supported abortion rights. Read the post again. Kisses!

I am a supporter of Senator Obama. Should Senator Obama not win the Democratic nomination, I will vote for Senator McCain. This is not because of any hatred of Senator Clinton. I find her an intelligent, capable person and as a woman, would like to see a female President. I will not give Senator Clinton my vote because I believe campaign finance reform is more critical to the future of our Republic than my personal gender preferences. Senator Obama and Senator McCain agree with me on campaign finance reform. Senator Clinton's actions do not.

Second, the assertion that Senator Obama's supporters are out of control is blatantly false in my experience. Instead, Senator Obama's supporters are advised to be civil and polite, and as far as I have seen are civil and polite. On the other hand, I have encountered Senator Clinton supporters who call me, a woman, a "self-hater" and tell me that whether I think Senator Clinton is the right candidate, the best candidate, or even a good candidate, I must as a woman vote for a woman. This is a ridiculous argument and largely designed to create division. Perhaps Senator Clinton does not know this specious argument is circulating on her behalf, but if she does, I would ask that she advise her supporters to cease and desist.

Also, at a rally in Los Angeles before the debates on January 31, 2008, I tried to speak to a supporter of Senator Clinton who was attempting to run over my friend (a 67 year-old African-American supporter of Senator Obama), my fiancee (a close to retirement age man of Irish descent) and myself (who is nowhere near young and an American WASPy mutt). I simply said "We are all here to support our candidate," and suggested she try another spot which seemed relatively empty and from which she could be observed by the media cameras. I was as nice, polite and decent as I would be to my own mother. She said with venom dripping that I was "hostile and violent." When I asked in wonder how in the world I was violent, she replied "You spoke to me." I apologized to her for the horror of "speaking to her" and immediately stopped being so horrid as to speak decently to another human being.

I was taught years ago in a debate class that when a side has no viable argument they will resort to ad hominem and that when this occurs, it is a clear sign that you have won the argument. I suggest Paul Krugman consider that wise advice and instead, support his candidate with something substantive, rather than resorting to vitriolic drool.

isn't that she was unhappy with the comment, "I don't care if they do overturn Roe v. Wade." I resent her saying, however, that "there's an Obama supporter for you."

There have been times that I have been very nearly a single-issue voter in the past. That single issue, which in past years has risen as most important to me, is abortion rights. I have marched on Washington for those rights many times. And I am an Obama supporter.

Right now I am a many-issue voter, but choice is still one of the most important issues to me. I am a feminist, and have been very active politically as such. But in this election, and after MUCH thought, I chose Obama. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that I think that he inspires people to come out and vote, and get involved, who would not otherwise. I also think he's more electable - just my opinion, of course - and I think that it's more important to get a Democrat in the White House to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice than it is to have a female candidate in the general election. The two candidates are so similar in terms of their positions that I agree with both of them and think they would both do well by the American people. They are both strongly pro-choice. If HRC won the nomination, I would absolutely vote for her in the general, but she would not be my first choice.

So - the problem I have with Cythera's post is the generalization of Obama's supporters (which is the same issue I have with Krugman's article). Yes, there are passionate supporters on both sides. If you get a group of 100 people together, you can be pretty certain that there will be a couple of jerks in the room, and I think that element is magnified when people get online. I definitely do not see any more jerks on the Obama side than the HRC side. But, I think that the vast majority of supporters on BOTH sides are probably people like me, who have thought a lot about who they want to support, have their own reasons for who they chose, and want what is best for the country.