Deanie, I think you're being way over sensitive here. And that's my problem with the pro-Barack movement -- it's the constant over reaction to minor insults and jokes. It's the aversion to conflict. Toughen up! We Clinton supporters are used to it, I guess, given the rough treatment out gal gets from the press.

Everything is Clinton's fault. Jesus...is there no end to it?

Beautiful letter. I'm so disgusted with Howard Wolfson et al. I started off supporting Hillary, but they have ruined her entire campaign for me. She caves into them and keeps them on, despite it smacking of the same "cronyism" for which she condemns the Bush administration. Now, feeling angry and desperate, she lashes out personally. It's really too much.
I only wish your letter would really get into the hands of some of the Clinton operatives, so they could see what kind of damage they have done to their candidate.

Awesome post Deanie Mills! I love West Texas by the way - Terlinqua, Big Bend, Marfa, etc... Awesome. Enjoy yourself, and keep spreading the word about Barack! 7 days from now, Texas will decide this election.

Great post Deanie, but...

"If you want your girl to get into the White House..."

could we make that woman?

Amen!

Point of fact -- Barack has made several snide comments towards Mrs. Clinton: his patronizing comment during a debate about how "she is likable enough," his comments about her "claws coming out," his dismissal of his campaign spreading false information in Ohio by claiming that her reaction was only timed, because the fliers went out days or weeks earlier.

I wouldn't accuse all Obama supporters of being cult like, but I am concerned that I see that his supporters appear to have become "believers." There is something strange about seeing him as some kind of spiritual leader, instead of what he is, which is a very clever and talented politician.

Deanie Mills -

First, I thank your son & nephew for their service and wish them safely home - as I do each member of the armed services.

This post had me at once applauding (literally)and tearing. It should be posted on both Clinton's and Obama's websites.

You are the definition of what makes this a legitimate movement and the Clintons repeated, fundamental miscalculation of the gravity and force of this sea change is bordering on political malpractice (if there could be such a thing).

Thank you for so succinctly, forcefully, passionately and eloquently stating this case. It is supporters like yourself that will mean first Obama's nomination and eventually winning in November.

I don't especially like being teased by Hillary supporters, but it doesn't really hurt my feelings all that much. I realize passions are running high, and there's a lot of taunting going on out there from both sides.

But when the candidates themselves resort to personal ridicule of each other or their supporters, that really hurts.

These are the primaries. I've been favorable to ALL the Democratic candidates this year, and I don't think I'm the only one who feels this way.

I voted for Obama in my state's primary (early voting), but will easily vote for Clinton in November if she's the Dem nominee.

So I hope both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will be VERY careful to avoid mocking each other personally. And mocking ANY voters is not only extremely offensive; this year, considering public mood, it could be political suicide.

What in the hell has she done in this campaign that the Obama campaign hasn't done?

The Clinton campaign didn't start the cult crap, that was the news media - the first mention was in Jake Tapper's "the Note" where he compared it to Helter Skelter and David Brooks who called Obama "the Messiah."

You claim as though it was the greatest of patient virtue that you didn't say anything when Nightline did some Obama cult comparison, (as though that is Clinton's fault, which is laughable considering the hatchet job they've performed not only on the Clintons but all the dems for the last 15 years) when quite frankly you should be damned ashamed or yourself for not saying anything or doing anything.

Some you people are just naive beyond belief. This narrative by the press is just that - a press driven narrative. It is exactly the same kind of reporting that they did in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004.

The Clintons are corrupt - that was their narrative and no matter how many times you pointed out that this was incorrect, that there was no Whitewater scandal, in fact, they spent over 100 million dollars investigating the Clintons past and present and found NOTHING. That doesn't matter though, because like Pavlov's dogs, you've been thoroughly trained to believe that the Clintons equal scandal. (Here's a little fact - the most corrupt administration in the history of our nation was the Reagan administration - 178 members indicted for misfeasance and/or malfeasance in office. You know how many Clinton administration members were indicted? Zero. Nada. Zilch.)

Then we came to the Gore goring. Gore was the official liar of the campaign 2000. Everyone including the liberals in the media let that one pass without a damned word. In fact, they were happy to keep the canards going and going so far as make them up too. No one bothered to check or research or source any single one of these alleged lies. When the recount began all those good liberals in the media were calling for Gore to throw in the towel "for the good of the nation" to "not throw the country into turmoil" and all the other platitudes and patriotic humbug that passes for political discourse these days. So what and who do you think put Bush in the White House? The press monkeys and the liberals who wouldn't open their mouths to defend one of their own.

Then came Kerry, "the flip flopper, the Frenchman, the commie stooge who hates the military" who we allowed to be swiftboated not only by the that lying organization, but by the press who so willingly gave those people a platform no matter how disengenuously they voiced their "outrage" at such a thing. The press has been swiftboating dems for years, they should recognize it when the see it.

Still today, the press is swiftboating Clinton. Every single thing that happens in this country somehow translates to the fault of Hillary Clinton. It doesn't matter in the least to some of you that BOTH campaigns regularly attack, challenge, pass rumours along, work the refs and generally campaign, no, it can only be Clinton who manages to do such things. Here's an example - Clinton brings up the negative and untrue mailers sent out by the Obama campaign, and the Obama supporters blame this on Clinton. "How dare she mention one of Obama's campaign tricks," you indignantly say, "why she is being mean in bringing that up!"

This primary season has become the crappiest, damned awfullest marriage in the history of campaigning. Both campaigns and campaign supporters think that they alone are the victim, they alone have been victimized, the other party is all to blame for everything, everywhere. In many of these posts I read charges against the Clinton campaign that were debunked over and over and again, and still they are repeated, in the very comments section of this post. You've been so Skinnerized you're not even aware that you're doing it. Out of every ten blog entries at this site, SEVEN are negative stories about Clinton, Clinton supporters and Clinton surrogates with all the nasty name calling, accusations and meanspirited attacks that regularly appear at lucianne.com or the Weekly Standard. It's as if this board was channeling Karl Rove 24/7.

Do you honestly believe that Clinton with the animosity of the press is really controlling the media? It would be interesting if she did, because 70% of coverage is positive for Obama and 61% positive for Clinton. You'd think that if she was controlling it she'd up the ratio a little bit. According to a Harvard study, 86% of the stories published are about the campaign, the horse race and personalities. Less than 23% were about issues. Diggit found the same percentage with blog and internet stories.

So some obscure labour leader called you "latte drinkers" - it's interesting that you missed the part where he voiced some legitimate criticism of Obama - that part seems to have gone over the tops of your heads. Or, probably, you just didn't hear it. That's because for the most part few of you even bother to read or research anything before you post it. It's as if some bell goes off and you rush to your keyboards and type it up as fast as you can, never, ever questioning the veracity of the report or the source.

Time and time again, people make the comment that if Clinton wins the nomination (which they always imply, will be by some sort of cunning theft) you won't vote for her in the general election. How damned selfish and self-centered can people be? These so called liberals won't vote if their candidate doesn't win. Then of course the blackmail is always inherent - "you'll need us so you better be nice." Which actually does make you look like some sort of cult - the cult of the selfish. And then we have the Obama surrogate Douglas Wilder blackmailing us with the threat of "rioting in the streets" if Clinton wins the nomination - and your feelings are hurt because you're called "latte drinkers?" If Obama supporters are going to "riot in the streets" I think you have more problems than hurt feelings.

This campaign isn't about YOU. It's not about how good you feel, how hopeful a candidate makes you feel, or how exited you've become about politics. It's about this country. So instead of getting pissed because you're called "latte drinkers" why don't you start getting pissed at the press who drum up this silly crap, who regularly lie and trash dems and stop pretending to great virtue because you refrain from calling the press on their dumbed down, personality driven, insider campaign doings reportage. Stop lecturing, hectoring and moralizing to Clinton supporters. Knock off the pretense that Obama is perfect and Clinton is perfect evil. Quit threatening Clinton supporters with the threat of taking your toys and going home if you don't get your own way.

I'm a democrat - I'm going to vote for the democratic candidate who is nominated by the party because this isn't about egos it's about the nation.

BevD, I appreciate the passion of your support for Hillary. You mistakenly assume that because I have criticized her recent campaign antics, it means that I hate Hillary. This is an unfortunate assumption on both sides.

The truth is that I have been on Hillary's e-mail list since she ran for Senate. I have supported her ever since the first bimbo eruption, cheered on her Senate race, insisted to my right-wing friends that nooooo, she wasn't really interested in running for president (she just wanted to be senator) and donated copies of both hers and Bill's autobiographies to my local library when they made it clear that they were not going to stock them. (The librarian seems to think the public library is really a Bible book store and Republican platform, judging from all the Ann Coulter books she buys, but I digress.)

I even voted for a Hillary song. (NOT Celine Dion.)

I have said from the beginning that I would support the nominee whomever he or she turned out to be.

I never said--nor meant to imply--that I thought the Hillary campaign "controlled" the media. What I was saying is that they have gleefully bought into the media mythology on Obama if they think it helps them.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice and defended him from all the conservatives around here who vilified him for eight years and who continued to send me Hillary jokes for eight years after that. Do not assume that my anger with the manner in which she and her surrogates have chosen to conduct this campaign that it means I buy all the media mythology about the Clinton's either.

But I do resent your assumption that I do not research things; only "fly to the keyboard" when I am offended. This is insulting. I read both of Obama's books before anybody had even heard of him and became a serious supporter of his when he spoke out against the war my son and two nephews have been fighting without a break for the past five years. (There has been a Mills family member in Iraq since 2003. I have another nephew there now. All combat deployments.)

Every day, I read: The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Buzzflash, HuffingtonPost.com, Talking Points Memo, and various other newspapers and magazines. At home, I subscribe to Newsweek and Time, as well as the Washington Monthly, and read them all.

I am a writer by profession and work out of a home office. This affords me the time to research issues that people who work full-time outside the home do not have. As a writer, I take seriously what I put out there under my full name, (not a pseudonym.)

I deal in facts when I post blogs. Visit http://deaniemills.com and read through some of the archives of my insights on the Iraq war among other things. See if it sounds like somebody just mouthing off.

I have come to my current state of anger at the Clinton campaign over time, over this entire campaign. I have been a serious student of politics for many years and I know dirty tricks when I see them.

I think they have no place within our own party.

Because I take umbrage with them does not imply that I think that "Obama is perfect and the Clintons are perfectly evil."

If you think so, then that is your right. But perhaps you should read a bit more carefully, yourself, before pouring your own outrage out onto the keyboard.

This is exactly what has been confusing me for the past few months--since I was in love with the entire field. An Obama supporter writes a thoughtful, well-developed argument against a segment of the left's adoption of pseudo-Rovian politics and is immediately slammed. Personally. The writer is naive, selfish, not tough enough, etc.

As hard as I try I just don't get it. Education and intelligence is certainly not an absolute bar to naivity, but it certainly helps. This is one of Obama's key demographics. I find it hard to believe that the majority of the most educated liberals in this country are so easily susceptible to cultish urges.

My 20 year old sister probably couldn't have told you which Democrat ran for president in 2000 without thinking about it for awhile. She saw Obama speak (we live in Iowa, so any "wave of adoration" had yet to build) and imediately went out and bought Al Gore's latest book. She was so interested in politics after one speech that she read an entire book about it. Now she brings up different issues each time I talk to her.

I could give you more personal examples, but my point is clear: These new "cultish" supporters don't just show up, wave signs and cheer adoringly. People don't get excited about hearing a man talk unless they're excited about what he's saying. People don't get excited about change unless they're troubled by the way things are. In order to be troubled by something a person must have at least a general familiarity with it.

This excitement doesn't stem from the man or the word change, it comes from the desire to actually participate in ending the disgusting way politics currently work. Listen to Obama's Iowa victory speech:

"I know you didn't do this for me, you did this because you believed so deeply in the most American of ideas -- that in the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it."

It shouldn't surprise any Clinton supporter that the views of people supporting this idea would only grow when they're insulted for believing it (and then insulted for being insulted).

If you don't believe Hillary is campaigning in a way that is detrimental to the Democratic party--fine. If you think there is no difference between Obama's tactics and Clinton's--fine. If you think this is all the product of media-bias, misogyny, or whatever--fine.

I completely respect your right to have a view contrary to my own. And I, as I think most Obama supporters will, openly condemn comments from Obama supporters personally attacking the candidate herself or her supporters. These people come from both sides.

But to demean the intelligence, motives, and beliefs of a fellow Democratic candidate's entire electorate is mind boggling.

I understand people from both sides go overboard, but I think there is a difference between the substance of such attacks. Comments from most Obama supporters--even if regrettably personal--stem from an aversion to her tactics and are mixed with a degree of confusion. Where did this come from? These feelings have sprung up only recently. Those from the Clinton side are different. Little of it relates to the means he uses to deliver his message, but goes straight to him personally or to his supporters--usually not for their words or insults, but their support of him.

Filtering out the various trolls from each side, I have been shocked at how many people in my own party adopt the very conflict-minded tone and animosity (justified as "toughness") that drove me towards Obama in the first place.

If I'm selfish, naive, and weak, you shouldn't be surprised that I will be more inclined to vote for Obama each time I'm insulted from someone within my own party.