Lovely letter: one minor correction. I think you probably supported Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and he lost out to Humphrey as the Democratic candidate. Did McGovern run that year? I know McGovern was the democratic candidate in 1972, because I was 5 that year and it's the first election I remember. I can picture the bumper stickers.

Yes. And it's as transparent as you think too. The GOP owned media WANTED him to be the candidate. Word is Rove saw him coming as far back as 2004.

Meanwhile all of red America already thinks he has "ties to terrorists" - you know the only states he won the Democratic primaries in.

It's obvious to me that libs are at least as stupid as Rush Limbaugh has told his audience they were for 20 years. At least.

whatever it is you had to say about it, it might be noteworthy. The dark background on your website made it all but impossible to visually read.

But, typical of most Obama-rama internet crap, you can't see what ain't there!

I'm old. I'm 55 years old. I have to enlarge the print on my laptop to see it clearly. I get most of my information from the internet. I watch very little television. I have a 4 year college degree. I was the first person in my family to get a college degree. I was 28 years old when I went to college and 32 years old when I graduated. I was married, raising 2 children, taking care of a home and family and working part-time while I was going to college full-time. I graduated with a 3.48 GPA. I am smart, I am computer literate and I love the internet!

I was young once. Back in the 60's. Way back then, young people like myself were saying, "Don't trust anyone over 30". We marched for civil rights, we protested an unpopular Viet Nam war, we witnessed the assassination of a president, a civil rights leader and a presidential candidate (the candidate of choice for young and idealistic people). We had our consciousness raised in so many different ways. It was a heady time, full of young people's energy. a social revolution. I loved being a part of it! Lots of things changed...and lots of things didn't.

In 1968, we idealists supported a candidate named George McGovern. He was going to end the war and champion the people. Hubert Humphrey eventually became the democratic nominee and he was defeated in the general election by Richard Nixon. The rest is history. So, I understand how exciting it is to be able to get behind a candidate who seems to stand for a change from the status quo and more representative of your own generation. I am happy and encouraged by the younger generation's spirited participation in this presidential campaign. It bodes well for our future. Because it takes an involved electorate to keep politicians from succumbing completely to the powerful few. So keep it up! Keep going! Keep supporting and fighting for the candidate of your choice! The more of us involved the better!

I became a feminist way back then and I am still fighting the good fight.

So, I am supporting Hillary Clinton to become the FIRST woman president of the United States!

You keep fighting the good fight for the candidate of your choice too!!

At 7:00!

Also seen on the Internet: Tupac is alive, Jews and Bush did 9-11.

Cookin' the books with the Clinton crooks.

Ron Paul.

So much for your interweb. The interweb doesn't count votes. Crooks count votes.

Good point, but web traffic stats for American sites are almost always US only. Don't know if that's the case here, but it's likely.

Clinton is by far the bigger Boobtuber candidate.

One point commentators in the US tend to forget when writing about anything on the Internet is that the Net is not a US-only thing.

Obama's campaign has generated a lot of interest in US politics in the rest of the world, and at least here in northern Europe, he is a clear favorite. However, Europeans do not vote in US elections, and it's quite possible that a significant part of the millions of YouTube hours could be Europeans, Asians or others watching.

So no doubt the man is popular, the real question is how popular he is where it really matters: among US citizens registered to vote in November.

I'm a strong Obama supporter, but I do want to point out that maybe the reason Obama is getting more attention on the Web is becuase Hillary has been in the public eye for a few decades and there isn't anything new people are going to learn about her. We don't know all the details about Obama and I, like others, do a lot of looking on the Internet to learn his positions and his personal history. I for one, expect some time to be diappointed, but he has only impressed me positively so far.

Obama has more young supporters, who are spending a lot of time online anyway.

I think GW did manage to get elected, with far more going against him. He just didn't have so many people afraid of him - then.

I'm interested to see what Obama does with the internet, if he gets elected, as well. Most of the candidates are making half efforts. McCain posted a question on LinkedIn, which got a huge response, but I wonder if anyone will actually read the answers. Obama is doing better than anyone besides Paul, but most of them obviously don't know what they are doing (Obama included). That puts them in the same boat as probably 95% of the enterprises on the Internet, so it's not really a shot.

If Obama wins, there is the possibility that we will see a compelling, engaging, participatory use of the internet that helps us define our nation and the way we are governed. That would be something. Paul, sadly, can't win at this point unless he puts together a grass roots campaign twice the size of Perot's in the next month. If HRC or McCain wins, whatever they do (and they will do something) will amount to nothing more than more ineffective advertising that makes them look forward thinking to the mass of voters who don't know any better.