between the two is this: Hillary is taking a bunch of money from Wall Street and the DLC crowd and giving it to slimy weasels like Mark Penn, unionbuster extraordinaire; while Barack is taking money from people like me and giving it to organizers that work to get people to the polls.

As a non-American, who is following these races with interest without leaning towards either candidate, I like to think that I'm in a somewhat neutral place when it comes to judging between the supporters.

I was just about to post this comment on the thread about Obama's win in Maine when to my surprise I saw a post dealing with this exact issue. I was stirred to comment by Cythera45, who may or may not be a Republican troll, but is certainly for Clinton. On that thread, she talks about Republicans running ads similar to the Dukakis in the tank photo in '88. I'm sorry to say that all of her - and most other Clinton supporters' - comments are of this variety: a mixture of strange what-ifs and ad hominem attacks. They are all characterised by this strange attitude that could almost sum up the Clintons themselves: "Politics is a dirty game but it's unfair if you play dirty!"

On the other hand, I've generally found a number of Obama supporters on these boards talk about what a fine candidate Hillary is, but their support for Obama stems from the fact that he's better. That too is keeping with the image that Obama is trying to sell, his "new politics" or whatever he calls it. True, Salon boards are hardly representative of the entire US, but there for what they are worth are my impressions.

-greetingsfromsouthasia

"I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody," Krugman writes.

I think if he starts reading the Salon letters sections he'll find just the opposite is true. I find the majority of the vitriol coming from the Clinton camp. ("Anonymous" anyone?) Yes, I think Obama supporters are very enthusiastic about their candidate, but they don't display the sense of entitlement that the Clinton supporters do, and therefore the outrage that anyone dare to run against her. Constantly I read very belittling remarks, and frankly insulting dismissals, about both Obama and his "naive" followers. As a former Edwards supporter, this is how it has always appeared to me, at least based on reading Salon and other sites.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't quite get what Mr. Krugman is saying. While some of the venom being passed between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is unfortunate, I haven't seen a more exciting and riled-up election among Dems in my whole life. Eight years after ‘settling for’ Gore (who got robbed) and four years after ‘settling for’ Kerry, we have not just one, but TWO Democratic presidential candidates we really really like -- I mean, A LOT. Doesn’t that mean something? How often does this happen in one lifetime? If Obama's supporters seem a bit overzealous and suspicious of Hillary (more of the same) Clinton, we also have Clinton supporters saying over and over again that Barak (Are-you-kidding-me-his-middle-name-is-HUSSEIN!) Obama is an inevitable loser and does not deserve serious consideration. Neither invective is essentially correct, nor does either camp help themselves when speak this way about the other. But the candidates wouldn’t have gotten this far without the passion of their supporters, and passion is passion. This does not excuse misrepresentation, meanness or disrespect, but no matter what, this has been one of heck of an election. After so long, people have faith in the possibilities again; I don’t think we should denigrate that by getting too wrapped up in the back and forth.

If you want to prove some Obama supporters are unhinged, it's not hard to do, just as it's easy to find Hillary supporters who've lost their grip on rationality. There are some very smart, very dedicated people out there who have very smart reasons to like or love either candidate, but there are a lot of nutballs out there too, even among the "reality-based" Dems (at least, they can sound like nutballs in the blogs). Are we supposed to count the nutballs and award the nomination to the candidate who has the fewest? Or, would it be better to say, "Well, God must love irrational people because he sure made a lot of them, but I think I'll make up my mind based on the candidates themselves and not let people over which they have no control (or other external factors) influence me one way or the other"? I vote for the latter.

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.