I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?

Seriously? The Clinton campaign has gone increasingly negative in this race and it is likely to get much worse before they finally call it a day. It is unclear exactly what more you would like Obama to do at this point? But really, are you suggesting that a large number of people who voted for Clinton are going to prefer McCain to Obama? I have my issues with both candidates but this is pretty silly.

I will answer you, I promise, but first I must drink some more Kool-Aid, put on my orange (orange for Obama, don't ya know) and do my prostrations to my Sainted Leader first.

Back, now. That's better. My mind has been purged of all Bad Thoughts.

Now:

You just can't give it a rest, can you?

From this week's Sunday Times:

Clinton’s camp has been circulating stories criticising the “cult” of Obama in the hope of portraying “Obamania” as a mass delusion. Media Matters, a watchdog organisation sympathetic to Clinton, compiled a report headlined, “Media figures call Obama supporters’ behaviour ‘creepy’, compare them to Hare Krishna and Charles Manson followers”.

It was forwarded by Sidney Blumenthal, a top Clinton adviser, to select reporters.

Just keep recycling the talking points.

Now, back to my Kool-Aid and my prostrations. Mmmm, tastes like almonds! Must.... worship... Him....

To think I just joined The Cult a couple of weeks ago. Amazing, how fast they work. The 24-hour doughnuts help, of course.

How will I ever explain this to my family? Oh, wait... I have no family. I mean, I have a new family, I mean Family.

Yes, anyone who supports O (or even has problems with HRC) must be in The Cult, and of course, sexist to boot. Her record, associates, corporate ties, etc., are irrelevant to our decisions, because we have Joined The Cult.

Why don't you Join Us? It's so... peaceful. And Exciting too.

Given Obama's voting record (identical to that of Sen. Clinton)

With all due respect, pmj6, that statement is untrue.

The most obvious and recent example which comes to mind is in regard to the 'Protect America' Act. Please recall that the vote took place on the day of the 'Potomac primary', with voting going on in Virginia, Maryland and in the District of Columbia.

Senators McCain and Obama took time out of campaigning to vote on this legislation (voting for and against, respectively).

Senator Clinton didn't show up for work that day.

and his words to the effect "there's little difference between me and George Bush on Iraq",...

Quote it, with a source and a link, please. In context. If you can't do that, then I will consider it bogus. The burden of proof is yours.

Back in 2003 nearly half of registered Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq.

Citation, pease.

Even in the best case, assuming your assertion is true, it also means that a minority of Democrats -- at best -- supported the invasion. By "nearly half" do you mean 30%, 40%, or 48%? There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You may be trying to hit a triple here.

I wonder how many of the posters on this site supported the invasion back in 2003 and are now trying to atone for their guilt by taking it out on Senator Clinton.

Nice try, Dr. Freud. But armchair psychoanalysis doesn't get you very far.

I can only speak for myself and my circle of associates, but I can't think, offhand, of a single one of us who supported it. I certainly did it. I don't think I slept more than a couple of hours any night in the weeks surrounding the invasion, because I was so horrified. But maybe I'm just in that "over half" -- you know, that MAJORITY -- of Democrats who, even by your dubious and unsupported "numbers" (or rather, assertions about numbers), opposed this misbegotten military adventure.