"Tearing communities and families apart?"

Really?

Hypersensitivity run amock.

She'll never get a chance to run in the GE. If her strategy was to divide and come back to conquer in 2012, I think she is grossly underestimating people's outrage at her tactics. She may still have a career representing New York. She is finished on the national stage.

Thanks Tattoed Guy! I'm not sure what demographic I fit into, as a white middled-aged grandma who earned her college degree while being single mom, and found a career in a male-dominated arena. Now I drink lattes and live in the non-president-needing-boutique state of Oregon.

Well, yeah, the "tearing communities and families apart" statement is a bit of "mellerdramer" as an old teacher used to say, but otherwise your post reflects my own outrage at the Clinton/Williams/Ferraro triumvirate. Obviously being a vindictive bully is an equal-opportunity affliction. The tortured and intellectually dishonest rationales and explanations for everything from the Michigan/Florida delegate votes, to the strange juxtaposition of the laundry list of Obama's defects vs. the hint of him as her running mate just baffles me. Clinton is badly overplaying her hand, and whether she is truly so clueless that she doesn't see how she's coming across to many of us, or whether she DOES know and thinks it will serve her well in some way -- the only explanation I'm left with is that she truly thrives on chaos and conflict. A continuation of that particular brand of "mellerdramer" is not what I'm looking for in my next president.

I will be voting for Obama and if need be, will write in his name in the General.

so, where are the party leaders? Someone needs to sit Ferraro down.

Remember the case known as Bakke? Angry white men? “Special rights”? I can’t figure out quite how to counter it, but there is something really squishy about the logic of “lucky to be minority”. It’s suspiciously convenient when people one might assume were social conservatives espouse colorblind policies. When the same type of person then disparages a minority as having received special advantages it only shows how ignorant they are.

Gerry Ferraro is well described as Archie Bunker’s Congresswoman. She lacks his uneducated accent, but not his political clumsiness. To then complain about being attacked because you are white is even more juicy. We should not be very surprised Ferraro thinks this way, but can Senator Clinton rise above winning at all costs to instruct her friends, publicly, nationally, that race will just plain never be mentioned?

I am a political junkie of old and this primary season, I've astonished myself by how little I am interested in political gamesmanship. I guess it's a d'oh sort of moment, but you know what, this is not a game. This is our country and our future. Maybe we shouldn't play fast and loose with it, huh?

Anyway, good for you! This is what needs to happen in our country and what O has inspired us to do: to stand up for what we believe is right and what we believe will move the country forward.

Can I just say to everyone who had been planning on voting HRC if she were nominated only because of the Supreme Court and is now unable to do it:

Think again. It's what I'm trying to do. I harbor as much outrage at her campaign's filthy tactics as you could possibly imagine. Even if you had a really long time to imagine it in.

But: Roe v. Wade. Campaign finance reform. Affirmative action in school admissions (what's left of it). Separation of church and state. Gay rights, disability rights, voting rights.

It's really hard for me to imagine filling in a ballot for this person in the fall, but if it comes to that I'm going to try really hard to do it, because despite its recent disastrous veer to the right, its judicial inconsistencies in the service of GOP talking points, and its dishonesty about the precedents it's tearing down, the Supreme Court heads up the branch of government I have the most faith in.

I'm fervently hoping that Obama will restore the dignity of the presidency as a position of ethical leadership and not just canny maneuvering. But say Clinton somehow finagles the nomination. Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, three of the four liberal justices, are likely to retire in the next term or two. If Hillary Clinton is president, we maintain our minority and rely on Kennedy to mitigate against the worst tendencies of the Roberts court. If John McCain is president, we get a politicized, judicially radical, politically reactionary court lasting well into this century.

It's worth holding your nose for.

This tattooed white trash yankee bitch agrees whole-heartedly with you!

I am so sick of the slimy hateful politics of division. Geraldine Ferraro should be ashamed of herself, but she isn't - that's why she's working for Sen. Clinton's campaign, they have no shame. They will do whatever it takes to achieve power, and her inner-Republican is telling her that she must destroy the party to save the party.

If Sen. Clinton manages to get the Democratic nomination she will probably choose Evan Bayh (DINO - In.) as her running mate and I will be forced to change my party affiliation and write-in Bill Moyers and Molly Ivins.

I also agree with cole_dranx, you are a tattooed white southern country gentleman of the finest order.

Larry - I grew up in Cincinnati, Ohio and I heard the dog whistle as soon as the Clinton's started blowing it in South Carolina. I was absolutely SHOCKED and appalled that they would stoop to using the Karl Rove play book against a fellow Democrat.

You are 100% on target about this giving a certain segment of the population the permission they are looking for to bring their racist ways back out in public. Clinton's tactic's worked in Ohio and they are working in PA. They will work in FLA, too. She is appealing to the worst elements in society, not to mention she has Rush Limbaugh's help. How the hell can she sleep at night?

If she get's the nomination, I will not vote. And almost everyone I know in the D.C. area feels the same way - we are just disgusted and DO NOT want to be a part of this in any way.

And, for the record, I'm a 51 year old white female!

I'm white, from a conservative Republican family, grew up on a farm in rural Michigan, love old-time country (not the crap that started hitting the charts in the '70s) and punk rock. I'm for Obama, also. (Some would point out that I'm also college-educated, but I'm not anywhere near well-off and I don't sip lattes.)

I'm just barely hanging on, by my ravaged fingernails, to the feeling that if Clinton got the nomination, I'd better vote for her. Supreme court, wanting to end the Republican White House, all that. Just barely hanging on. I'm 90% sure that the math is on Obama's side, so I won't have to face that moment of decision.

In December I got into an argument with a friend on how, he thought, there was no difference between Clinton and Giuliani (remember when it was assumed he'd be the opponent?). He would skip the vote if it came down to that, and I argued, no, Supreme court and all that.

Now I really wonder about her. It's not accurate to say that she's exactly like any Republican, but she is doing their dirty work by wrecking the party and shitting on the chances to win in November.

Larry,

I spent a decade living in a 'liberal' part of KY (where they filled in the swimmin pool when segregation hit). I heard the 'dog whistle' blown as early as SC and I, too, am appalled by this crap.

Senator Obama is not the perfect candidate, but he represents a way forward and a way out of the current nonsense in DC. To my eyes, he seems the only peaceful and legal way towards change.

To those who are holding on to Senator Clinton for Supreme Court issue, I must respectfully disagree. I would be more than surprized to see her nominate qualified people who hold views as liberal as the retiring justices, let alone try to swing the court to the 'left'.

This is a former Goldwater Republican and former president of the Young Republicans at Wellesley who served as counsel to some of the largest companies in Arkansas (Wal-mart and Tyson, to name two). She has been a long-time member of 'the Foundation', the influencial and secretive Christian organization in Washington who's public members are mostly Republicans.

I find it unlikely that, given the nearly unfettered power of the Unified Executive model, that she would nominate justices which believe in curtailing that power.

I could be wrong, but I hope that the question is academic.

Hillary DOES in fact know what she is doing...

Knowing that she cannot win mathematically, she is positioning herself for 2012 since McCain at 71 or whatever his age is, will be a one term president. Coupled with Michelle Obama's statement that this is the only time that Barack will run, Hillary does not want to wait for 8 years of an Obama presidency which will make her too old and politically damaged from working against his administration.

With her win at all cost strategy fails to see is that as a one term president, McCain will pretty much do what he wants and extend GW Bush policies only more hawkish than Bush himself, putting the country in three times as bad a position as it is today and maybe start WWIII by militarily engaging Iran as Bush wants to do.

This means that we could be looking at another 12 years of a Republican in the Oval Office.