...Paul Krugman is absolutely correct. At my precinct, the Obama supporters were rude to the Clinton supporters. Additionally, in their comments of support, NOT ONE spoke of Obama's policies, plans, or ideas. Instead they spoke in reverential adoration of his message of hope and change, and his ability to bring the country together -- then they booed the next Clinton supporter who spoke.

Nice.

I'm either going to have to settle for no universal healthcare, let's do away with SSI, let's trash democrats Obama, or settle for can't get elected because she is so vilified by the right, voted for war and never looked back Clinton.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, one jackoff is black and the other jackoff is vagina.

Whoopty-do.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Michelle Obama wasn't asked whether she would support HRC. She wasn't asked whether she would vote for her. She was asked whether she would "work" to get her elected. Well, why *should* she? She's somebody's wife. She has a career of her own completely outside of Democratic politics. Why shouldn't she go back to it if her husband isn't in the running? Can't she at least admit that this is something she would have to mull over?

If this question had been posed to Barack Obama and he had responded similarly, I would have a bigger problem with it. It's his job to serve his country and the Democratic party. It's not hers.

Incidentally, if we're going to discuss Krugman's column, why not throw Frank Rich in as well? See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?em&ex=1202878800&en=e24742716b04417f&ei=5087%0A

From what I've seen here, neither side walks aways clean. I've heard both sides' dirty talking points so many times I don't know why I bother reading the comments anymore. If I could turn off the "anonymous" posters altogether, I'd be a happy little boy (c'mon, Salon).

Here are your marching orders depending on which side of the fence you fall: Clinton is Satan. Obama is Jim Jones. No go out and find any articles that allude to these candidates and post this ad naseum.

Is Krugman blind, stupid, or deluded?

This, to me, has always been the biggest problem with the Democratic Party. I hate to tell you but the world is a big scary place full of swift-boaters, people who can twist even the most pristine record into a tawdry transcript of debauchery and ilk. Toughen up! For crying out loud! Obama supporters are passionate. They are primarily young but they are predominantly under-represented. And for the first time in what seems to be eons, we have someone that seems, through all our squinty-eyed suspicion, to be a candidate that is for and by the people. I understand others want of a different candidate. I have nothing against Clinton. She's a fine woman. But, to me, she is entrenched. She is part of the corporate structure that I have seen decimate our democracy and I want a change. We, as a party, have to stop whining. We have to stop examining our cuts and scrapes like some toddler after a fall. We will survive arguments amongst ourselves and we will continue to debate and toss grenades because, baby, they are going to be raining down upon us once a nominee is selected and the Republicans take aim. We, as a party, must test our strength, test our collective determination to see if we can go up against what’s in store for us later. Fighting amongst ourselves is part of the process. Once we have settled on a candidate, and that would mean “we” as in the people of the party not said “super-delegates”, then we can pull back together and show how very unified and strong we really are. If Clinton wins, if Obama wins, nothing, not one damn thing, will stop us from getting to our goal. The goal of taking back our country, setting ourselves on the right global path and cleaning up the mess that has been made for the last eight years. So let other members of our party have their say, let the liberals, conservatives and all those in between come to the mike and voice their concerns. Then maybe, just maybe, everyone will feel included and part of the process and, in turn, will immerse themselves fully in a course of action that depends completely upon the participants to succeed.

The real biggest difference is that Obama is taking money from the same industries, it is just not coming directly from a lobbyist so he can say that. He has taken a great deal of money from the insurance industry, nuclear energy and every where else, its just it comes diretly from the execitives.

If you think he has raised all this money on $25 donations, you are kidding yourself. His campaign manager David Axelrod came from one of the largest nuclear energy companies and he has figured out how to use the language to make you think all the money is from the people.

both make me sick and they are both really good at spouting crap in the like of my candidate is wonderful and the other satan incarnate

but overall I see more Clinton supporters on salon spewing venomous, near rabid like foaming of the mouth and only hurting themselves as having any real worth to actual 'dialogue.'

case in point

eeave 1 on page 2

I've never seen such ugliness as on blog sites written by Obama supporters. What you get is a string of slander and then the phrasing "Go OBama!!"

but then follows with this-

Obama's appeal is to LATTE LIBERALS.

HE IS TOO LAWYERLY.

Mr. Obama has received NO NEGATIVE PRESS at all.

Senator Obama does NOT resonate with the base of the party.

If Obama people want our support in November, they need to clean up their act.

supporters are supposed to shout 'go hllary?' and Clinton's record is that she is a lawyer too but isn't?and Krugman's wasn't negative press? he doesn't resonate with the base then who are these bad obama people nd how dare they vote? I think you're off base on that one or it wouldn't be the horse race it is now. and I'm a latte liberal who needs to clean up my act? forgive me but I don't remember myself slandering you as anything like a 'latte liberal'. Before you shout in uppercase letters about cleaning up acts, you should pluck the beam from your own eye first and clean yours.

or this nugget

p.a.mb.'s reference to Obama as BHO, maybe it's just me but the H in BHO since this is the first time I've seen it in this context here isn't too subtle a reference to his gasp horrors middle name and its one of those dirty muslim names "Hussein". Oh horrors, we can't have a president with that kind of name. Talk about under the radar in attacks? Nope.

I'm a reluctant Obama supporter but honestly I have seen more irrational invective by anonymous and non-anonymous clinton supporters by far.

Supporters of any candidate spewing venom is a turnoff to their anointed one, you want me to support Hillary then give me reasons beyond the shopping lists of experience and accomplishments as I don't shop there and aren't convinced of the brand. I've got my own set of issues with Obama but so far he offers more IMHO than Hillary.