I have been a Clinton supporter since it became clear that Gore was out. This is based on my high regard for her abilities, intentions and toughness, demonstrated over in the service of the only antidote -- however imperfect -- to the toxin that has become the GOP.

That antidote to which I am referring would be the Democratic Party.

I believe Obama would make a much better president than McCain -- perhaps a "9.5" to Clinton's "10" f rom my perspective. I also believe that both Clinton and Obama have used every weapon at their disposal in their intramural contest, and that the demonization of Clinton by so many Obama supporters on this site and others has reached shocking proportions. A "devolution" in our discourse, if you will.

I personally could not care less about Obama's association with Reverend Wright. Some other voters will not share my indifference. The fact is that there is now a very real question about Obama's viability in the general election. Witness today's polling numbers versus McCain -- and Hillary was already doing as well as Obama in that matchup.

Before you feel too sorry for Obama, think what a Rezko analog would have meant to Clinton's chances -- lights out.

Time to tone down the rhetoric to the extent possible and let this play out. After all -- Are We Not Democrats?

Recent headlines generated by Reverend Wright, financial market turmoil and -- yes -- Eliot Spitzer -- all favor Hillary Clinton becoming the nominee.

The initial take in conservative circles, quickly adopted as conventional wisdom, was that Spitzer would serve as a millstone for Clinton, by reminding voters of the unpleasantness that ensued following her own marital issues being dragged to light by the GOP. Why do I believe instead that Eliot helps Hillary?

Ask yourself -- could you have been more shocked to learn of Spitzer's transgressions -- or at the very least to learn that he was foolish enough to get caught, given the stakes? Similarly -- were you taken off-guard by the Reverend Wright debacle? (And it is not over, despite Obama's brilliant speech today).

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has the "honor" of being tied with her husband as the most vetted US politician in history. Can you imagine anything new coming out about her that would rise above the level of background noise?

Again, any superdelegate who doesn't take such factors into consideration will be committing political malpractice.

In the last week, the odds have shifted significantly in the direction of Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Obama is now walking a tightrope on race while the ground underneath the candidates has shifted to terrain better suited to Clinton's policy surefootedness.

As Obama's speech today illustrated, the Reverend Wright's statements, recent and not-so-recent, put Obama, fairly or unfairly, in a situation where there is both no margin for error and no upside. He needs to distance himself  from the comments without repudiating his past association. He sought to do so by framing the Reverend's comments in the larger context of "we all need to move past race as a defining issue." While this may have been the best he could hope to do, it will likely prove thin gruel for his campaign. Obama will suffer in PA and MI for the association.

Meanwhile, events in the financial markets are exacerbating already stratospheric levels of economic insecurity among voters, and reminding all of the mess in which the GOP has left the country. The desirability of a decisive shift toward Democratic Party policies -- as opposed to a change in tone or how the two major parties work together -- has never been clearer. This dynamic of course dovetails much more closely with Clinton's approach. In addition, for all of Obama's gifts, Clinton generally comes off as more seasoned in addressing the details of policy.

Under these circumstances, a narrow lead in pledged delegates will not assure Obama the nomination if he loses handily in PA and MI. Nor should it -- any superdelegate who doesn't take into account both candidate momentum and the potential impact of Wright's statements in the general election will be guilty of political malpractice.

When it comes down to it, there are two arguments for not seating delegations in some form from Florida and Michigan. Neither seems to mesh with the idealistic penumbra of the Obama campaign.

The first rationale is based on enforcing clearly stated DNC policy. This "a deal is a deal" mindset values narrow procedural concerns over fairness. There is no fundamental principle at stake in enforcing DNC policy in this instance that comes close to balancing out the harshness of the outcome.

Better to redo both states than to punish their voters via disenfranchisement. The lesson will still have been imparted and the principle sufficiently upheld.

The other, mostly unspoken, rationale is to protect the perception of Obama as a viable candidate. If, as appears
likely, he loses in Pennsylvania, losses in Florida and Michigan would be devastating, despite the likelihood of his retaining a small lead before superdelegates are locked in.

Under this scenario, many superdelegates may feel more justified in supporting Clinton, perhaps tilting the contest to her. This is the outcome Obama is seeking to avoid at all costs.

That's fine, but perhaps its time for Obama supporters to lower the dudgeon levels.

When it comes down to it, there are two arguments for not seating delegations in some form from Florida and Michigan. Neither seems to mesh with the idealistic penumbra of the Obama campaign.

The first rationale is based on enforcing clearly stated DNC policy. This "a deal is a deal" mindset values narrow procedural concerns over fairness. There is no fundamental principle at stake in enforcing DNC policy in this instance that comes close to balancing out the harshness of the outcome.

The other, mostly unspoken, rationale is to protect the perception of Obama as a viable candidate. If, as appears likely, he loses in Pennsylvania, losses in Florida and Michigan would be devastating, despite the likelihood of his retaining a small delegate lead. This is the outcome Obama is seeking to avoid at all costs.

That's fine, but perhaps its time for Obama supporters to lower the dudgeon levels.

Folks, get it together. The "enemy" is the GOP and McCain, not Hillary Clinton. Enough with the demonization.

Obama has run a largely content-less campaign, relying almost exclusively on three strategic pillars -- each of which is disingenuous and each of which Clinton supporters have every right to resent deeply.

First, touting his prescience and courage in opposing the invasion of Iraq as an Illinois state senator. No fair observer would compare that context to the one faced by Clinton at the time.

The second has been to frame Clinton as part of the same cynical and divisive politics embodied by the GOP. She is a victim of that politics, and he knows it. We don't need someone to elide the differences between the parties in the name of "new politics" or a doomed bipartisanship.

Both of these first two strategic lynchpins are ahistorical at best.

The third strategic pillar has been to surf the GOP-driven meme that Hillary is unelectable. The polls don't support this. Just as important, letting the right wing haters determine who you support for the Democratic nomination is of dubious utility -- once they've narrowed our options for us, they'll have plenty left for Obama.

Obama can get away with this disingenuous, content-free approach in large part because the mainstream media in its role as arbiter despises Hillary. Let's do a thought experiment -- can you imagine the disruption to her campaign if a Refko-type relationship were to surface? It would be lights out.

Rest assured, many Hillary supporters view the dynamic in similar terms, and don't blame her for hitting back.by seeking to ensure that Obama's own potential weaknesses in November are brought into play. But there are limits to our fervor -- if there is a demonization of Obama occuring among Hillary supporters, I'm not aware of it.

Get ready to vote for the Democratic candidate in November -- or stand by and watch McCain veto every bill we care about and appoint three Supreme Court justices, for starters.

What do Frank Rich, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd have in common with reliable GOP apologist David Brooks (besides the obvious)? All four were shown by last night's results in Ohio and Texas to be dead wrong about Hillary Clinton's standing with voters.

Collectively, these pundits have been tap dancing on the presumed grave of Hillary's presidential ambitions, to the sanctimonious tune of "voters have had enough of old-style  politics," while portraying Obama as some sort of post-partisan savant. Don't buy what you'll read next, which will be to the effect that old politics won in OH and TX. Obama has only begun to get the level of scrutiny that HRC has endured for years, not to mention throughout this campaign.

For her to ask for, even insist upon, equal treatment from the press is not "going negative." Should have been done long ago.

While "working the refs" may have helped, I suspect Clinton's surge has been driven in large part by late deciders with respect to whom she has humanized herself by going for broke these last couple of weeks (SNL, Letterman, etc.), in contrast to Obama's recent pose of inevitability. It's been Hillary's two-minute drill versus Obama's prevent defense.

That said, as despised as she is by the media, if anyone ever had a right to work the refs it's Hillary Clinton. No need to belabor this at this point, but just take the Times editorial page -- Krugman's occasional weighing in on her behalf versus the drumbeat of derision from Dowd, Herbert's passionate support of Obama and Brooks' [disingenuous] musings about Obama's transformative potential. Of course that's just the tiniest tip of the iceberg when it comes to the "refs" (see Matthews et. al.). Imagine the glee with which the Rezko and Canada stories would have been pursued if they pertained to HRC.

Like many yellow dog dems, while I was a Hillary supporter from the outset, I was prepared to support with enthusiasm any Democratic candidate who could win. At this point I am sufficiently offended by the Kewl Kids' piling on, Obama's leveraging of the right wing's anti-Hillary talking points and the sexist memes with which Hillary has had to deal that I anticipate holding my nose to a degree if I am left with voting for Obama in the general. There are likely many Democrats who feel the same way, and who do not begrudge Hillary any successful "working of the refs" during her current "two minute drill."