One thing I've learned in this primary process, a large part of the democrats (I'm going to assume they actually are democrats) are just as mindlessly tribal as the republicans (ug, My candidate good, your candidate evil and must be destroyed, ug). And yes, I've seen more of that from Obama supporters than Clinton supporters. Too bad, children, it's a fact, and its proven by the fact that a bunch of mindless, tribalist Obama supporters go around saying the Clintons are racists, and seem to actually believe it, despite the complete lack of evidence. No, saying the name Jesse Jackson does not automatically make you a racist. Nor does saying he won in South Carolina make you a racist. Nor does noting that many black people in South Carolina voted for both Jesse Jackson and Obama in very high percentages. Considering the racist past of South Carolina, I'm not surprised blacks would vote for someone they could trust would be more vested in interests they share, so that doesn't make them racist either. Given the history of police abuse of blacks in Los Angeles, I wasn't surprised at the OJ verdict either. In this case, it probably wasn't a good verdict, but it was certainly understandable. It was a clear case of chickens coming home to roost on the LA justice department and police.

So fine, if you think Obama is a better candidate, and you can demonstrate why in clear terms, that's great. I haven't seen much clear reasoning for him so far myself (his claim not to have supported the war is probably the weakest of good reasons to support him, since he wasn't there to vote, and subsequently admitted that he might have voted the same as Hillary, Kerry and 90%+ of democrats did), mainly a lot of projection and a lot of complete and utter nonsense that any clear-headed person should be embarrassed to spout or advocate. I'm looking at actual policy positions, and there's not a huge amount of difference between Obama and Clinton, but there's a chasm of difference between the two of them and McCain. If somehow Clinton manages to get the nomination, she's a far superior alternative to McCain or that idiot, Nader, and only the most irrational of people won't see that. Obama, obviously, is not my first choice. I truly believe he would be a really great president if he would have worked to by Vice President for 8 years first, and we could have been assured of 16 years of policy to undo the insanity of the past 7+ years. Who's going to be the following great candidate after the next president? Do you really think that Obama's lofty goals are going to be immediately achievable now? There's a nightmare of economic, foreign policy, judicial and other policy that needs to be stopped, and then reversed. It's going to take a long time just to stop this crap! Neither Obama nor Clinton are likely to be able to do much more than stop the slide in the next 4 to 8 years. It's going to be a frustrating time, because things are REALLY bad! I think we're only seeing the barest tip of the iceberg of just how bad things are. The fundamentals of our country have completely crumbled, and all that's left is that most have not noticed it.

On the other hand, if you're a Hillary supporter, it's just as wrong-headed to tear into Obama with scorched-earth rhetoric and assigning motives you can't possibly know to him. If you're trying to persuade people to see Hillary in a different light, appeal to their sense of justice and use reason. But very likely, at this point, Obama is going to be the nominee. Like you, I don't think that's the best choice right now, but we'll probably just have to live with it. We've certainly lived with worse.

Hopefully, people will get that what really needs to happen is that the republican establishment needs to be totally wiped out electoral existence. As they are now, they are not worthy of any leadership position of any kind. Their philosophical foundations are utter garbage and that has led to the insanity we see now all around us.

--Ron Robertson