Have at it ankle biter. As if...

And I am certain that the DLC wing of the party has been purged from any meaningful positions.

Can't stop laughing. You packed a lot of stupidity into very few words. Let me see if I understand it tho. Barry should take his 50.05% MANDATE and get rid of the other 50% of the party? Is that it? I think he should make the DLC guys all into towelboys in his home sauna. Ya think?

God you guys are dumb. That can't be said enough.

All agents: Code Red. Secret Agent Wminme has gone rogue. (S)he no longer answers to the Director and has embarked on a personal mission to take out Hillary Clinton and DLC subversives. The enemy has dispatched their top agent, known as Indiex, to silence her. We must neutralize and bring in Secret Agent Wminme before Indiex reaches him/her and before any more damage is done. Wminme is armed and psychologically unstable, so take all necessary precautions.

Don't feel hard pressed, cher. Take the pressure off of yourself and simply face reality. Barry's about to sneak into the nomination and you're faced with the necessity of having to kiss a lot of Clinton supporter ass if you want Barry to even have any kind of chance to win in November.

Ready to pucker up for Barry?

What values differ between Hillary and Obama? Not in degrees of nuance, but to make such a great difference? Everyone is a Democrat--and not a fake Dem like Joe L.

I don't think it has anything to do with values. I've surfed through the pro-Hillary sites, and there's just an awful lot of talk about not letting the men tell them what to do anymore; not taking this from men; we won't be denied this historic moment; we'll never have the chance to see a woman president in our lifetimes. It really seems to be all about feminism. They truly and honestly believe that this is being "stolen" from Clinton, that "the boys" are stealing it from her. I don't understand it. She's behind by all metrics except the ones she makes up, yet they are convinced that this is being "stolen" from her. I don't think anything will change their minds.

You render yourself superfluous by supporting a cause that has been lost since february 5.

And that is not meant as a disrespectful Hillary hating diatribe OR a jeremiad, it is simply true.

BTW, doesn't Democracy demand that those new voters, if they outnumber "the superfluous" should be the ones who determine our next candidate?

Or have they just not paid their Democratic Dues to you liking?

I wuold guess that, collectively, they represent the future of our government, so maybe it would be wise to consider their opinion valid, since they seem to be "the new Democratic majority."

Problem is, just saying something nice about Obama here has, at times, been twisted into dissing Hillary by her rabid, unrealistic partisans...

No, the problem is that partisans on both sides have taken this approach.

If you want proof that "Hillfolk" haven't cornered the market on bitterness and divisiveness, all you need to do is look at the responses whenever someone blogs/posts about reaching out to Hillary supporters or the like.

"I imagine shivers down the spine and I'm not talking about his supporters".

I agree that Senator Obama's crowd in Portland is a credit to him and to the good people of Oregon. But you can see that the post you link to is not an example of the kind of positive post about Obama that you see being trasched by Clinton right or wrongers. To the contrary, the poster you link to could not control himself and was just unable to simply revel in the crowd that Obama attracted. Oh no, instead, he has to write that it sends chills down someone's spine and it's not Obama. It would be inaccurate at best to suggest that the poster is not referring to Senator Clinton. It's a shame; the poster is unable to appreciate all of the positives that surrounds crowd drawn by Obama; the poster needs to ridicule Hillary Clinton (he simply cannot help himself).

So, I think that your premise is correct to the extent it matters, and that is that some Clinton supporters will say jerky or trollish things in response to a post that is simply positive about Obama. But the example you choose reflects, I think, that you are unable or unwilling to see what is and what is not a negative assault on Hillary Clinton.

I have to say that it sounds presumptuous (not saying that's your intent) and actually telling that, six months before the election, some Obama supporters are throwing around Roe v. Wade as the reason that women should be voting for Senator Obama. Roe v. Wade is the kind of argument you make to an undecided voter in October. I submit, respectfully, that American women care about many things, and not just Roe v. Wade, in choosing whom to vote for. It's kind of dismissive almost, and again I'm not saying that was your intent, to presume that you just need to holler Roe and the millions of women who have supported Hillary Clinton are just gonna come a runnin'. My feeling is that the best way to sell Senator Obama is to have Senator Obama show that he is one of the people, that he embraces all Americans, young and old, rich and poor, and that he cares about how much they're paying at the pump. Boring? Maybe. The key to electoral success? I think that there is no question.

I do care deeply about Roe v Wade - and am terribly concerned by the facility with which many Obama supporters suggest anti-choice Vice Presidential candidates. Clearly, choice is not an issue that matters to them. One of the more frequently mentioned choices is Chuck Hagel.

After all the comments about Clinton being a conservative (false) and all the DLC-hating why are so many Obama supporters proposing rightwing conservative Democrats like Sam Nunn (eliminate income tax, national sales tax) and Republicans like Hagel? I trust Obama is not as ridiculous and am certain he would not propose anyone so repellent as his supporters do.

Interesting. Can you actually articulate what the mismatch of philospophies are? This Clinton supporter would love to be educated about mismatched philosophies in a tangible sense. Can you do that?

Hate to break it to you wayitwas, but Obama gets to choose his VP, not his supporters. I expect that the vast majority of us would support him even if he chose Dick Cheney. His primary objective is to bring in those who might not currently support him. Personally, I think that he could choose better than Clinton, and I doubt that he will choose her, but she has some advantages.

PS OK, Cheney might give some of us pause, but you get the picture.

PPS Please no one respond that you will not vote for Obama if he makes Clinton his VP. I don't give a shit.