Obama supporters don't seem to get the message.

It's gotten very very old.

it would be close to worthless since she'd have generated so much ill-will toward her among Democrats.

In fact, if this campaign undermines their faith in the Democratic party and the sincerity of its commitment to them and their issues, drives them away from the polls, or even out of the party entirely, so what? and good riddance.

That the things that are going to affect Obama the most in the general, the things that the Republicans will most certainly seize on, and use to the greatest impact, are things that are entirely of Obama's own making: his Jeremiah Wright connection, and Bitter-gate.

Once upon a time, Obama supporters might have made a case -- which I also thought was mostly bogus -- that Hillary was doing Obama great and unjust damage over the CiC remarks, and the 3AM ad (though there too, Obama's willingness to jump into the Presidential race with his absurdly limited experience was also entirely of his own doing), but how, given the self-inflicted damage Obama has wrought of late, can they presume to continue to criticize Hillary as if she is the culpable one, and not Obama himself?

I'll do it, because McCain would be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current unmitigated disaster.

BTD, I don't think Obama can get her supporters now, no matter what he does. He would have run a very different campaign if he had wanted unity within the Democratic Party.

oh for the photo-op handshake where Obama and clinton agree to fight as long as they feel they need to, but that in the end either will strongly support the other if their opponent prevails as nominee.  that it's really about defeating the republican nominee and reclaiming the white house for the good of the entire country.

They can come back with "hope you like McCain" all they want. I don't trust Obama to be much better. He speaks of wanting his foreign policy to be like the 1st Bush, and there's his Reagan admiration, promotion of coal and nuclear energy, and his bipartisan (i.e., spineless) ideals.

Don't forget about the MI and FL vote-quashing.  And his supporters, who seem to take their strategy classes from the rightwing?  We'll be seeing their damage, I think, for a long time.

1. But I won't work for Obama, because I won't forgive him for tarring the Clintons as racists, or for the grotesque misogyny of the OFB. (Has anybody thought that one consequence of the Obama Fellows program is that we're going to be subjected to this cr*p for the rest of our lives? Talk about fatigue...)

2. I won't give Obama money, of course.

3. I will work for universal health care and social security, and any legislators that support those policies.

4. I won't give any money to the DNC, and

5. Will look to the Greens from here on out. Maybe something can be made of them. Enough is enough. A party that disenfranchises its own voters is dead on its feet anyhow.

I think you underestimate what a pickle Obama is in however, and it underscores the difficulty in finding a sane ending to all of this. You suggest that Obama should refrain from attacking Hillary, but unilaterally disarming in the face of Hillary's attacks would have their own blowback in the general election in terms of making him look weak and unable to stand up for himself.

By saying that Obama will be the nominee, you are strongly implying that HRC's current run is in vain and offers little to gain for all concerned, since she has, in your opinion, already lost. Asking Obama to unilaterally disarm is therefore an odd stance to take. Usually the loser in a battle is the one who disarms, not the victor. And one would think that, given this opinion, you would be calling on Hillary to disarm, not Obama. I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that if she would stop attacking him, then he would no longer feel the need to attack her back, since it seems to me that most of his jabs have been in response to hers.

My name is Chastity and I'm a 33-year-old African-American woman. I was deeply saddened and disturbed by your comments about Senator Clinton. A woman has a right to defend the 2nd amendment without condescending comparisons that represent your lack of knowledge in regards to the women's suffrage plight.

"Who does she think she is? Annie Oakley?"

I want to answer that question. If you are asking if Senator Clinton is similar to Ms. Oakley in her amazing talent and timely rise to fame which propelled her to become the first American female superstar, then I agree with that depiction.

I must tell you I am deeply offended that you find it humorous that she would defend the right of men or women to bear arms. If it were not for the media's disdain for Senator Clinton, your not-so-humorous comments would be put in their appropriate context.

You expressed regret in regards to your wording of the "bitterness" of small town citizen's economic struggles but, the next day, you disparaged Senator Clinton regarding her defense of constitutional freedoms. I am appalled by the media's lack of outrage. (Women everywhere should also be outraged!)

Senator McCain also referred to your comments as elitism and out-of-touch. So does that mean he's the Lone Ranger?

It is also fair to note you did not make any jokes at Senator McCain's expense.

In a time when we have the possibility of an African-American or female president, to have one of the candidates publicly demean another candidate is unacceptable. I implore you to not only apologize publicly to Senator Clinton but to educate yourself on Ms. Oakley's contributions to society. She broke stereotypes, and she engaged in extensive, albeit quiet, philanthropy for women's rights and other causes.

"Shame on you." "You should know" that using humor as a vehicle to degrade someone that expressed justified concern about your misrepresentation of small town America as "bitter" -- instead of "ungratified" -- only antagonizes the up-hill battle that women face in the fight for equality.

If elected president, you will not only represent the ungratified small towns, but you will also represent Senator Clinton and her right to protect unalienable rights. To mock her remarks because your statements were "self admittedly inappropriate" is wrong.

You are displaying an antipathy for someone who represents thousands of American women who have been disparaged for centuries. And you abet the continued inappropriate characterization that woman cannot lead a country or defend a nation.

As an African-American, I am "very proud" to have someone of your caliber representing us in the presidential race, but as a woman I am "equally proud" of Senator Clinton for the same reason.

There is nothing funny about that!

Sincerely,

The next group he has to worry about are the undecideds and independents who are looking for reasons to be tipped either into the Hillary camp or over to McCain.  And no, this is not like "cow tipping."

Then there are the "Dems for a Day;" how many of them who voted for Obama in a primary or caucused for him, are now thinking, "hmmm, I knew there was s reason I voted Republican all these years - see ya, Barack!"

I don't see any guarantee that if Obama wins the nomination, he can win the general, national polls notwithstanding; he has spent far too much time with one foot or the other in his mouth of late, and there is no way these things are not going to hurt him in November.

I do not trust him.  Period.  And I know many others who feel the same way.  I do not trust the Blue Dogs like McCaskill and Casey and others like them, nor do I take comfort in the Austan Goolsbee-types.  He's all over the place on too many issues, I