Forty one years after three civil rights workers were murdered in Mississippi Edgar Ray Killen was found guilty and sentenced to three 20 prison terms. At the time he was tried but there was a hung jury. The government waited 38 years to retry him. There is no statute of limitations on the crime of murder and I agree with that. I was happy that he was finally found guilty. Forty one years was too long for it to happen but better late than never. Are you telling me it was too long ago to matter? That Killen shouldn't have been retried?

At the same time Ayers was setting off his bombs other people were bombing black churches in the south. What if one of the people who bombed a black church got off on a technicality and admitted he set the bombs multiple times, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird, America is a great country."  When asked if he regretted burning down black churches and killing people inside he said,  "I don't regret setting bombs, I feel we didn't do enough." If I kicked off my political career in the living room of this person who bombed black churches are you seriously telling me it would not matter to you?

Something else happened in  this debate that we're still analysing within  the campaign. First of all we're moving on to the final 35 days. But there were tears that melted people and those tears that Biden cried on that day clearly moved voters. He somehow connected with those voters. but those tears have to be analysed. They have to be looked at very very carefully in light of Katrina in light of other things that Biden didn't cry for particularly as we move to these final days. We saw something very clever in  this campaign. We saw a sensitivity factor something that Biden has not been able to do with voters that he tried in the debate. Not in response to Katrina not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq. We saw tears in response to his appearance. So his appearance brought him to tears but not hurricane Katrina, not other issues.

Are you suggesting it was a little bit affected, his tears, that it was staged?

I wouldn't say that, but I am saying that there are a lot of issue that we can be emotion about in this campaign. And I'm super sensitive to that. There are people without jobs, we're approaching a recession, the sup prime market is collapsing and people are losing their homes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA&eurl=http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/09/jackson/index.html

There has been quite a bit of discussion on this board on the value of bipartisanship and many people extrolling Obama for his commitment to bipartisanship. In the final vote on the bailout bill 140 democrats and 65 republicans voter yes and 133 republicans and 95 democrats voted no. Looking at the percentages of democrats and republicans voting for or against this bill, I was struck by the large number of democrats that voted against the bill.

Exactly what is bipartisanship? I'm only asking because it really seems to me that there was bipartisan support to stop this bill from passing. Clearly the vote to block this bill was significantly more bipartisan than the vote to pass it.

So maybe someone can explain to me what they, and Obama, mean when they talk about the value of bipartisanship?

I admit I don't know much about economics. That said its hard for me to see how this changes anything. We were 10 trillion dollars in debt and all the candidates, except Paul, didn't have a problem with that. What is it about 11 trillion that causes the politicians and us to suddenly sit up and take notice?

No candidate promised to balance the budget in their first year, second year, third year, etc. By the time Obama or McCain finished their first term in office the debt would have been way over 11 trillion anyway, now it will be over 12 trillion. Is that the magic number that is just too much debt?

I'd like some genius of the economy to explain to me why we could afford all these tax cuts and all the additional spending at 10 trillion but it all becomes unaffordable at 11 trillion debt.

The whole scheme seemed like a bribe to people for their vote, income tax cut for the middle class financed from letting the Bush cuts expire, an energy rebate from a windfall tax on oil companies. This with a projected deficit next year of 400 billion. This is not just Obama, Hillary had her payoffs on the table too and so does McCain.

I understand you don't get elected by telling the American people we can't afford any tax cuts, not for anyone, not if we want to stop the exploding deficit and begin to pay it down. Not if we want to invest in rebuilding the infrastructure. Not if we want to reset our whole nation on a path away from fossil fuels and into alternative energies.

To all those people who thought we could afford all these tax cuts and new spending when we had 10 trillion in debt and thought Obama was so wonderful for proposing them and are now oh so worried that we can now not afford them. What is it about 11 trillion dollars in debt that changes everything while 10 trillion dollars in debt was just hunky-dorey?

Drug abuse is a problem in our society. A large number of the population has gone through a period of their life abusing drugs. As I was reading the Washington Post article on Cindy McCain's period of drug abuse I wondered about the relevance to the presidential campaign.

Perhaps you think its relevant. Perhaps you believe a detailed account of her drug use and abuse and the ways and means she used to illegally obtain them is important information that the public needs to know and consider when choosing a president.

If the drug abuse by the wife of a presidential candidate is of such importance that it gets front page coverage in the Washington Post it seems to me the drug abuse of a candidate for president is equally if not more relevant and important.

"Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though."

Frankly I think Obama's drug use was long enough ago to be irrelevant. I also believe Cindy McCain's drug abuse was long enough ago to be irrelevant. But the Washington Post disagrees, at least as far as Cindy's drug use.

Far be it for me to suggest that the Washington Post is in the tank for Obama and has turned its newspaper's front page into the liberal equivalant of faux news. As much as I disagree that a candidate's, or a candidate's wife's, long past drug abuse is news worthy I'm sure they think that they are serving the public's interest.

So what about a detailed front page story about Obama's drug abuse. How often did he smoke marijuana? Everyday, just on the weekends, several times a day? And for how many years? Blow would imply powder cocaine. How often was he able to "afford it?" Or was he also abusing crack cocaine? "No smack" he tells us, but are there any other drugs he didn't mention that he abused? Did he ever use the same drugs Cindy McCain used, vicodan and percocet? What about LSD or qualudes?

The means that drug addics use to illegally optain their drugs are often quite sordid. Again, not a topic I think worth discussing. But the Washington post thinks these details are front page news in the story of Cindy McCain. So how did obama get the illegal dugs he was addicted to? Did he ever sell them as well?

If this is "news" it seems to me its news not just about Cindy McCain, but news about Obama and Palin as well. I look forward to a fair and balanced front page story about them on this subject in the Washington Post.

There's been a lot of discussion about Obama changing his views on several issues, FISA, guns, abortion, off shore drilling, as soon as the primary was over. There was some upset, some anger, but the main reaction has been resignation, acceptance, an understanding that he must move to the center to win this election. I saw many posts expressing the sentiment that we all know what Obama really believes on those issue but he had to move to the center to win in the GE. Well we may be right, we may have correctly analysed what Obama really believes in spite of these moves to the center or we may be wrong. But we do pride ourselves on having a sophisticated enough view of the political process to not be shocked by the changes and to understand the necessity for them.

You might want to consider the possibility that the average voter is not a moron, that they've been watching this process for years too and have just as sophisticated and nuanced a view as we do. Conservative democrats, independents, and moderate republicans know that McCain has fought with his party over the years on immigration reform, the Bush tax cuts, torture, earmarks, even the power of the evangelicals.

Perhaps this is why McCain is staying even with Obama in spite of the overwhelming dislike of bush. Perhaps the average voters are saying the same thing many have said about Obama. We know what McCain really believes on those issues but he had to move to the right to win  in the primaries.

The average voters may have correctly analysed McCain's real views on those issues or they may be wrong. But that may be the reason the democrats have been unsuccessful in defining McCain as Bush's third term.

I've seen several posts here complaining, even horrified, by the chanting of USA at the RNC. I wasn't thrilled with it either. I hate pep rally politics. I just can't be part of a group and yell with them. I could see myself at either convention standing quietly with my back against some wall as people chanted USA, O-BA-MA, or Yes We Can. I'd look on mystified at what I perceived to be the antics of those extroverts. I could never be a part of it, not for anyone, no matter how much I admired her.

I'm an introvert, I know I'm different than most. We are a minority among the population. But most of you are not. Most of you who are offended by the chanting of "USA" found the chanting of "Obama" or "yes we can" to be a positive emotion experience, inspiring. So maybe you can explain it to someone who finds all the shouting and chanting mystifying, someone who can't be a part of that group energy no matter who or where its directed at.

Why is chanting "Obama" good and chanting "USA" bad?

There have been complaints about how boring the cafe has been since the primary ended. Oh there have been moments, like when it was announced Hillary would get a roll call vote, but mostly just that silly wonkish issue related blogs. Spiced of course with personal attacks on other bloggers not toeing the party line.

Good news people, our 2 minutes of daily hate are back. The blogs are bubbling with excitement. No no, Hillary hasn't done anything to undermine Obama, recently. (we'll be watching though) Almost better than Hillary, we've got a new Emmanuel Goldstein to slime and hate on.

Welcome to the monkey house Sarah Palin.

Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."

Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

There seems to be wide spread misconceptions about what Roe v Wade actually said as well as what the current policy concerning abortion in the US is. At least that's how it appeared when last this subject came up. Abortion is not an unfrettered right in the US. Roe v Wade gave the states the right to ban all abortions in the third trimester except if the life or health of the mother is threatened. Mental distress, mental health or psychological issues are accepted as falling under the health of the mother exception. Over 40 states now ban abortions in the third trimester except where the life or health of the mother is threatened.

Figures vary but I have never seen any number relating to the amount of third trimester abortions that exceeds 1% of the total of yearly abortions. There is no clear information as to why these abortions have been done.

The pro choice contingent plays up those instances where there are severe medical problems to the mother, the fetus, or both. In these examples its clear that the late term abortion was necessary. The pro life movement plays up those instances where there is not a physical cause and claims that the mental distress exemption has been abused. Obama appears to be echoing the argument set forth by the pro life movement that the mental health exemption has been abused or quite possibly should be eliminated or greatly restricted. This would increase the states ability to restrict abortions in the third trimester. But wait, its not just the third trimester.

To further complicate matters there is a flaw in Roe v Wade that has been somewhat corrected, but to the detriment to those who are pro choice. A rather arbitrary line was set at the beginning of the third trimester. At the time of the decision that was pretty close to the time that a fetus was viable outside the womb with reasonable medical attention. Anyone with even a small amount of knowledge about the advances in medical science could see how easily that line of viability could be broached. And, of course, it has been. Its quite possible that a fetus at 4 1/2 months could be considered viable.

In a court case, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the court refined the third trimester rule and replaces viability as the line at which the state could ban abortions to protect the life of the fetus. Again, excepting when the life or health of the mother is threatened.

As decided by Roe v Wade and refined by PP v Casey states can ban abortions at any time that the fetus is viable given reasonable medical attention. This could easily mean abortions can be banned at 4 months or, as medical science shifts, sooner. If the standards for mental health as it falls under the "life and health of the mother" exemption are tightened as obama seems to propose women could find it increasingly difficult to find an abortion provider early into the second trimester as they now find it in the third trimester.

I find it laughable that so many here are upset that Clinton didn't concede last night. Your political naivety and lack of historical perspective is astonishing. Though perhaps I'm being a bit harsh since for many this is the first or one of a few presidential primaries you've ever pay attention to. Not that most of you have paid much attention. But I guess I shouldn't expect much intellectual rigor or study since I haven't really studied past primaries all that much either. I have the advantage of having lived through 10 presidential primaries so I can just remember.

I never expected Hillary to concede last night. I can't think of any hard fought primary where the losing candidate rolled over and supplicated themselves before the winning candidate. With this being the closest primary in my lifetime I knew there would be some negotiations before Hillary got on board.

I remember the negotiations between Mondale and Hart after the primaries were over. Hart also was threatening to take the fight to the convention floor. There were disagreements about the primary rules and superdelegates. Before Hart was willing to suspend his campaign and support the nominee he had certain issues he wanted addressed.

Hart wanted reforms in the campaign rules that hurt his candidacy. He called them pro democracy reforms and maybe they were. But they were also the rules that stymied his candidacy that year.  He wanted changes in the number of supers and changes in the caucus rules. There was extensive behind the scenes negotiations and when an agreement was reached there was a meeting between the two candidates with a public announcement afterwards. Even then Hart did not end his candidacy, he simply suspended it and agreed to not bring any fights to the convention floor.

The 84 primary was much less close then this one yet still  Hart had earned enough political clout to bring up issues, make demands and expect discussion  with some acceptable compromise to be reached before he gave his support.

This primary has been the closest one in my life time. Hillary has earned considerable political capital from this fight and I fully expect her to spend it. I don't know what she'll ask for but what ever it is she will get most of it. There are likely behind the scenes negotiations going on at this very moment and quite possibly some party elder acting as mediator. A truly neutral party like Gore is the most likely mediator.

When some compromise is worked out there will be some public meeting between Obama and Hillary. There'll be smiles and hugs all around and all sorts of cliches about party unity and how lovin' and friendly they all are. The show must go on, you know.

For the few of you who aren't partisan hacks spinning superficial MSM talking points for your candidate I took a little time to find a link to a article written at the time to back up my memory of the situation.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950074,00.html?promoid=googlep

I'm angry, there's no doubt that many people are. So while bitter isn't the best choice of a word, I guess it fits. Now a lot of people here have posted that they are bitter and how true Obama's statement about bitterness was. Apparently the anger or bitterness I feel causes me to cling to guns to explain my frustrations. And apparently its was a good thing for Obama to tell me this. Now I don't go to church. So clearly I don't cling to that to explain my frustrations. I'm just wondering. What do you use to explain your frustrations? Is it on the list?

guns
or religion
or antipathy to people who aren't like them
or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment

Or is it something not on the list? You all have told me you're bitter. You all have told me what a wonderful thing Obama has said. It would be just so much more wonderful if you would join the wonderful Obama and add to his wonderfully true comment. I get bitter, I cling to _________ as a way to explain my frustrations. Or is it just those working class people who cling to things to explain their frustrations?

I'm angry, there's no doubt that many people are. So while bitter isn't the best choice of a word, I guess it fits. Now a lot of people here have posted that they are bitter. And how true Obama's statement about bitterness was. Apparently the anger or bitterness I feel causes me to cling to guns to explain my frustrations. And apparently its was a good thing for Obama to tell me this. Now I don't go to church. So clearly I don't cling to that to explain my frustrations. I'm just wondering. What do you use to explain your frustrations? Is it on the list?

guns
or religion
or antipathy to people who aren't like them
or anti-immigrant sentiment
or anti-trade sentiment

Or is it something not on the list? You all have told me you're bitter. You all have told me what a wonderful thing Obama has said. It would be just so much more wonderful if you would join the wonderful Obama and add to his wonderful comment. I get bitter, I cling to _________ as a way to explain my frustrations. Or is it just those working class people who cling to things to explain their frustrations?

 "I can't wait for someone to say that they were the son of mill worker." (just a little post for genghis)

I'm sitting here reading tpm and eating a nice venison steak. Road kill I picked up a month or so ago. Its hard to poach where I live now in Florida. I haven't been able to poach a deer since I left Bethlehem PA. My father worked at the Bethlehem Steel mill. Fortunately he retired with a nice pension at the first downsizing, several years before they closed down the plant.

I reach for my Rugar (22 cal automatic pistol) thinking about the uncountable squirrels I've killed and fried up. Not in a corn popper like Huck, I use a cast iron skillet.  A person's home is their castle its said and even though I live in a 27 foot Winnebego RV, well, its a castle to me. So I do keep a gun loaded and near by at all times.

There was a time when I thought I liked to hunt. I thought I liked wild free high quality meat. I thought I held the second amendment to the constitution as sacrosanct as the first. I thought an armed populace was a necessary check on authoritarian government. I know, "It can't happen here." But now I'm beginning to wonder if it all comes back to the closing of the steel mills in my home town. It's not surprising I got bitter, I cling to guns  as a way to explain my frustrations.

I'm guessing I'm just a bit different than most of the posters here. I'm guessing many will find this post hard to relate to. Spin Obama's little gaffe anyway you want but there's a lot of people in my home town who grew up like me. This was more than a bad choice of words by Obama. Its not going to play well with folks like me. It does seem like obama just doesn't get it and it does seem condescending.

You can take the son of a mill worker out of the mill town but you can't take the mill town up bringing out of the man.

Ah well, it probably won't lose him the election but it surely will move some undecided people into the Hillary or McCain column.

And in case you're wondering, While this was somewhat tongue in cheek none of it is made up. Bon appetit

I grew up in a working class family. My father worked in a steel mill in Bethlehem PA. There was no overt racism in my childhood home. In fact sometimes there were AA at picnics at our house during the summer. But my father was a racist. He liked his racist, sexist, and anti gay humor. The sexist or anti gay humor was acceptable t anytime. The racist humor only among the whites. Of course I don't disown him. I don't reject or denounce him ove the jokes he found funny.

After leaving home after spending a few years overseas when I returned home I confronted my father over one of his jokes. It wasn't angry. I didn't condemn him. I just simply told him I wasn't into that type of humor and I wished he wouldn't tell those jokes around me. He stopped telling me those jokes and that was the end of it. I was about the same age Obama was when he joined Wright's church. I'm older than Obama is now.

Over the years there have been other times where I have dont the some with friends or acquaintances at get togethers or work. Not every time, probably not nearly as often as I could have. But those many times when I didn't have the energy to deal with racist rhetoric and humor, those times I kept silent, I did in fact keep silent. I didn't laugh along or play along to get along.

I am no crusader for equal rights, I'm not a saint. I'm sure many have done the same as I. I'm sure many have spoken up now and then when exposed to racism.

Personally I don't see how I could have stayed in Wright's church for 20 years not matter what the good works done there. But if i had weighed the good and the bad and decided to stay I don't see how I could have stayed silent for 20 years. At least now and then I would have been moved to say something, to mention to Wright that he had gone to far or that I was uncomfortable with something said.

Obama makes no mention of ever saying a word over 20 years to Wright about his discomfort or disagreement with anything Wright said. Its hard to believe he wouldn't have mentioned it in his speech if he had at sometime even gently confronted him.

This puzzles me. How could Obama stay silent for 20 years and listen to statements he said , "have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike" and yet at no time even express his discomfort to Wright? That's a level of passivity that is disquieting.

Hillary was not my first choice in this primary season, nor my second, nor my third. Yet I find my self becoming hard in my support despite my late and reluctant  support for her mostly in reaction to the Obama supporters and some in reaction to the Obama campaign.



This first point might seem small but to me its indicative of an over
all trend. The constant attack on Clinton for being the only one on the
MI ballot. This lie is used to claim she is unethical, devious,
unwilling to keep her word and/or play by agreed upon rules. Spreading
this lie is not confined to the hate Hillary machine that has taken
over so many of the blogs I read. Its the meme spread by the MSM. I saw
Daschle, a major Obama supporter, attacking Hillary with this lie.
Saddest of all, the only tv pundit I've seen tell the truth is George
Will, a republican. I never thought I'd see the day when I was looking
at republicans as truth tellers about the democrats.



From the top of the Obama campaign, throughout the MSM to the least
obama supporter the lie has become accepted truth. I choose this
specific example because its the most easily proven. Edwards, Obama,
Richardson, Biden removed their names. Kucinich, Clinton, Dodd, And
Gravel did not. One theory is they removed their names to pander to the
Iowa voters at a time when  each were looking for a good showing
against Hillary, the presumptive front runner, to gain momentum in
Iowa. While I don't have 100% faith in it, there is credible story line
I saw quite often at the time that Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich cooked
up the scheme and revealed it at the last minute in the hope that even
if Clinton wanted to follow suit she wouldn't have adequate time.
Thereby hurting her in Iowa. That Kucinich announced he was removing
his name but didn't have time to file the paperwork and was on the
ballot adds credence to that story.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/09/michigan.primary/index.html



While Dodd's campaign is "committed to the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire going first," Dodd will not withdraw from the ballot, said Dodd's communications director Hari Sevugan.

"It does not benefit any of us, if we are the nominee, to pull our name
off the ballot and slight Michigan voters," Sevugan said.

Hillary's statements at the time were basically the same as Dodd's. At
least cynical pandering by Obama and others  or perhaps an underhanded
scheme to tar an opponent has been turned into an attack on hillary.
While some are simply spreading the talking points from the media out
of ignorance, I'm convinced that some are deliberately spreading the
lie or at least letting happily it pass without correction. That no
rational Obama supporters feel any need to correct clearly false
information makes makes you complicit it the spreading of it.



The second point I'd like to bring up is the so called gay bash tour.



http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/10/barack-obama-ca.html



For most candidates this would be a deal breaker for me. I understand
the difficulty of the issue and I accept a candidate keeping silent.
But to deliberately use homophobia to get votes is a republican tactic.
When confronted on the issue obama released a statement saying he
disgreed with their (the gospel singers) words and beliefs. he hired a
minister who supported gay rights who came out before the concert, said
a prayer which contained no reference to gay rights, and was not seen
again. Totally insufficient and my vote would have been gone at that
point. But the LGBT community seemed to give him a pass and since its
not a personal issue with me I followed their lead on this. But that
doesn't mean his use of a republican tactic disappeared.



Third, after using homophobia to pander for the black vote he played the race card.



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064146.php



Hillary's statement about MLK and LBJ was in no way disrespectful of
King.  It was a historical fact that was spun to get the black vote to
switch to obama. That's politics, the old style, of which obama and his
campaign team is a master of.



Fourth, Farrakhan. While I agree that Clinton pushed it too hard in the
debate I totally disagree with the overwhelming posts here that think
he was unfairly attacked. In the blind defense/offense that is the hate
Hillary machine  attempted to crush Hillary for going to far  there was
little acknowledgment of the racism of Farrakhan.



For me and others for whom Farrakhan is not history this was a fair
question. For any other candidate belonging to a similar white church
would be another deal breaker. If any white candidate belonged to a
church that gave an award to David Duke no words, no rubuke or renounce
would spare that candidate. They would have to leave the church and
after being a member for 20 leaving when the issue came up during an
election might not be enough.



Obama was not attacked unfairly with that question, he got a pass, as
have other black leaders. He got a pass because liberals know that
discrimination still exists. That we are still a racist nation. We see
the statistics on poverty, incarceration rates, we even understand what
someone means when they say they were stopped for DWB. We know that for
all our efforts liberals have fallen short of the goal. The vile racist
Farrakhan provides services to the black community that mostly should
not have to be provided if we were a freer nation and at the very least
should be provided by the government.



For those who say the comparison to Duke is not apt or that Farrkhan
and the NOI is not significant enough I offer this. In 1995 Farrakhan
and the NOI called for a million man march on DC. Nearly that many men
showed up. I doubt that Duke could get a million men to march on
Washington. In 2004 the March for Women's rights has barely more than a
million and this was with major stars participating and both men and
women participating.



So Obama gets a pass  that I and many others would not give to any
politician belonging to a church that honored David Duke. All we ask is
that he clearly reject the racist in the hopes that the racism will not
spread.



Now I will admit that Ferraro's statement was racist though more stupid
and ignorant. It needed to be dealt with. But let's put it in context.
It was the last tatters of ignorance of an old women born in a
strikingly different culture then today who has done much to further
the cause of minorities throughout her life. The character
assassination of this good women on this board by the hate Hillary
machine was difficult to watch especially when just a few weeks ago
those same people attempted character assassination against Hillary
with almost no mention of the overt, vile, totally over the top and
dangerous racism of Farrakhan. By your silence you gave the nod to
Farrakhan. What a perversion of liberal principles for the sake of
nothing but a win.



Last this Fl revote. Again I'll point out the lieing. Surely there are
many here who know that when the DNC sanctioned Fl and MI there was
always several ways to get them seated. Most articles and blogs I read
at the time fully expected them to be seated since  few thought the
contest would last this long. I believe the plan all along was to seat
the delegates. The punishment was clear in the pledge from the
candidates. Do not campaign or spend money in the states. 



No rules have been broken. Each state has always had the option of
submitting a plan for a revote or petitioning the credentials committee
to be seated.



But that is immaterial in my view. I didn't get asked what date the
primary should be. I didn't agree to the sanction. I didn't sign any
pledge.  I didn't agree to be disenfranchised. Obama is using
republican tactics to take away my vote. There is credible evidence
that he is slowing and impeding a revote. That every vote be counted is
a core democratic principle I didn't give up. Neither Clinton, Obama,
or the DNC can give it up for me, they can only take it away. If Obama
wants my vote in the GE he must stand for that principle, work to see
it manifested. If winning is more important than that only my concerns
about the Supreme Court will cause me to vote for him.



Obama has gotten too many passes from me already. He is an old style
politician, a master at it. I can accept that if it wasn't accompanied
by this holier than thou attitude and nonsense about new politics. And
if it wasn't accompanied by the hate Hillary machine I see on the net.



I don't think many will read this far but I could go on for another few
pages. And I doubt many will hear me. If people trashed Krugman for
pointing out the viciousness of  some Obama supporters who would listen
to me? At one point I could have easily accepted Obama as the nominee.
But now I almost don't care how Hillary wins and at times all I see
between me and a vote for McCain is the supreme court. If I, who came
to Hillary reluctantly when my other choices didn't pan out, am now so
hardened I wonder how those who started with her feel. I'm wondering if
its still possible to pull back from this brink and whether McCain will
be the next president.