It's not very fun watching the Democratic party rip itself apart in a year when they should easily be able to win. Incidentally, if it came down to Clinton vs. McCain, I'm voting for Nader. So it's pretty much way too late. (Sorry, but the crap her campaign is trying to pull with Michigan and Florida is ridiculous. I don't vote for blatant election cheaters.)

Yea Hillary!

I always had a hunch that Texas and Ohio would go to her. I never understood why for the past few weeks everyone has basically been saying the race was over when it was still close. I think yesterday proved that the race is definitely not over and a lot of people still want Hillary in the White House...and I'm one of them!

Well, I sat here and cried like a damned baby when Texas was finally called. And I went and said that on Hillary's blog but this morning, I can't find my post. I think I got bleeped for saying "damned".

But I don't care.

Clinton is total class, thanking everyone, doing her homework, being always fully prepared and indefatigable (when does she sleep?), even laughing Monday night at John Stewart's puerile insults...

Obama, on the other hand, gets peevish when things don't go his way. We just don't need another four years of THAT in the White House.

I'm convinced this election is simply giving us very good data about the relative density of misogyny and racism among democrats. It's cool and edgy to hate chicks if you're an urban hipster, but White is Right if you're a Texan.

This primary election is completely ideal for me - and it's the first one I've gotten to vote in! See, I prefer Obama slightly, but I really want Clinton because she's a woman and also because she and Obama are far more similar than not. Since I'd be happy with either candidate winning, it's fun watching them duke it out.

I disagree that this primary is bad for the Democratic Party, however. A long primary is not necessarily the end of the world - in this case I think it signifies the dedication and passion people have for both candidates, as opposed to McCain who is certainly not the favorite of all Republicans. We have an awesome field and I will be happy with either candidate winning the nomination - DEMS IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR '08!

Pup, MD makes an excellent observation (not that Clinton voters are all racists and Obama voters are all sexists, etc.) Racism is widely considered to be worse in places like Texas. I don't know about that, since I've always lived in blue states. But my perception is that sexism is far more socially acceptable than racism -- a perception that's much criticized around here -- and I think it may be because I spend more time around urban hipsters. And both in real life and online, misogyny is indeed cool and edgy among this group. If I lived elsewhere or spent less time on websites like Metafilter, I might have completely different views.

Texans are not a bunch of racists. As a Texan, I find that rather offensive.

Looking at the type of woman Texans like to elect, Clinton fits right in. Ann Richards, Kay Baily Hutchinson -- these are strong women who are also smart and savvy.

(Sorry, but the crap her campaign is trying to pull with Michigan and Florida is ridiculous. I don't vote for blatant election cheaters.)

zuzu at Feministe has spent a lot of time debunking this myth. In order accuse someone of "cheating", one must first point at the specific rule that she broke. Please enlighten us to the exact rule that Clinton broke, or I'll have to assume you're parroting the bitter tears of liberal d00dz.

In other news, my friends and I literally jumped up and down when Texas was finally called.

Clinton is total class, thanking everyone, doing her homework, being always fully prepared and indefatigable (when does she sleep?), even laughing Monday night at John Stewart's puerile insults...

The woman is made of Teflon, and she makes it look so easy. It's truly inspiring.

I'm with you, Liz and Jen-aren't the Democracts all about choice? The republican don't like messy things like deciding a primary or proportional allotments of delegates. It's icky. I like the chaos and duking it out. On the other hand, if Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row, Clinton would have been on him like white on rice to drop out...

Yay Clinton!!
but can we talk about the NY Post headline: "BACK FROM THE BRINK
HILLARY: THE CANDIDATE WHO WON'T DIE" why do they have to kill her?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/back_from_the_brink_100548.htm

I mean not that we expect anything less from the NY Post, especially after their "ATTACK OF THE KILLER LESBIANS"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/regionalnews/attack_of_the_killer_lesbians_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm

Yay Clinton!!
but can we talk about the NY Post headline: "BACK FROM THE BRINK
HILLARY: THE CANDIDATE WHO WON'T DIE" why do they have to kill her?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/back_from_the_brink_100548.htm

I mean not that we expect anything less from the NY Post, especially after their "ATTACK OF THE KILLER LESBIANS"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/regionalnews/attack_of_the_killer_lesbians_regionalnews_laura_italiano.htm

@ Pup, MD - I am a proud Texan currently living in NYC and I am shocked and annoyed by your statement. It's apparent to me you really haven't spent any time in my great state. I am from San Antonio and it's probably one of the least racist places I have ever been. Basically half of the population of Texas is Hispanic and we have tons of ethnic minority politicians/public officials. *shakes her head and blatant uneducated statement*

At any rate, I agree that sexism is more tolerated than racism. Just go to the movies for crying out loud. I am glad and proud that Hillary won in Texas. I doubt she'll win the candidacy though. We'll see.

Yeah, she's so classy. Like Monday night when she said that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience but "Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002." And speaking of peevish...her campaign is already complaining about the caucus packages in Texas even though she won the state. No, she's not peevish at. all.

I'm from Texas and SOMEONE needs to complain about the caucus packages. It's completely ridiculous. Primary voting stops at 7 pm and then you have to rush over to your precinct at exactly 7:15 to write your name on a line in a frighteningly unofficial manner. It's so sketchy. But the main question is, why have it? It definitely benefits Obama because in college settings where it's hip to vote, easy to gather information about how and where to caucus and even easier to walk to your precinct a couple of dorms away- it's not hard to guess what demographic is caucusing the most. What of the voters who are working past 7:15? Or who don't have transportation to vote in the primary AND the caucus? Or those who have children? Or those who just don't have the time? Or those who don't know about it because it's unusual and ....well sketchy. I don't know who came up with the caucus system in Texas but it definitely seems to benefit and target a very limited demographic- informed, educated, middle and upper class voters and whatever candidate they want to secretly elect at night.

I am really happy for Clinton. The odds are against her but it would be amazing if she could be our next president. I really think she is the one who has what it takes to change things.

Blitzgal, why do you have to be so rude? People with attitudes like that are mucking up the democratic party.

Pup, MD, I don't think a 51%/48% Clinton victory confirms "White is Right in Texas" at all. Not all Texans are bigots, I promise. Also from what I've heard the caucus is likely to go to Obama.

Jamie, the caucus system is completely messed up. This election was the first time I've caucused and it was so disorganized and yes, sketchy. So many people are shut out of this portion for all those reasons you stated. It becomes a completely elitist system in which only those privileged enough to know about it or privileged enough to have the time and resources to get to their precincts get a say. My precinct was completely overwhelmed. They were expecting fifty people to show up but ended up with over five hundred. I thought that was a pretty awesome turnout.

I don't understand the purpose of caucuses at all, and reports like this one concern me a great deal.

Here's where I got my info on the Florida and Michigan thing: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY742M_s1ttD_ycf2Zusn1o1fD3QD8URVVHG0
I call shenanigans.

I've spent most of my life in Texas and other southern states and also a few years in the Midatlantic and New England areas.

The south is without a doubt more racist than the other parts of the country, and its not even close. Its true there are racists everywhere, but as a white individual when in close company with other whites, I hear the N-word dropped FAR more often in Texas compared to say Maryland or Massachusetts.

One of the exit polls in Ohio was a question like "does race matter to you?" and Obama split that vote 50/50 whereas Clinton carried it by 7 points, meaning that she won the "racist" vote. I'm not blaming her for that, she's not racist they just happen to gravitate towards her by default.

As for sexism, its true that sexist comments and behavior are far more acceptable in our society than racism, however, I dont think it impacts the election that much. Hillary came very close or won the male vote in most of the states so far, whereas Obama has been killed by women voters lately. I dont see evidence that male voters are voting against Hillary in droves.

To talk about this election in terms of black and white, penis and vagina, only trivializes our democratic process.

If anyone is interested, they might check out the Presidential IAT. It is put out by Harvard, and measures your implicit positive and negative associations with the candidate. It tells you a lot about your immediate reactions to the candidates.

HREF="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html">Click here to go to the IAT

Everyone needs to stop saying all this crap about anyone dropping out. It's not about how many wins in a row, or how many states over all, it's about the NUMBER OF DELEGATES! The two candidates have consistently been LESS THAN 100 DELEGATES APART. The whole time, pretty much. There is no reason to call on anyone to quit when a race is that close. It doesn't matter which person is ahead. If it stays that close, I don't think we're going to know for sure until the convention.

Seriously, did no one learn about the electoral college in social studies? I mean, it's basically the same system, with some slight variations and it's a little less strict.

I'm hoping for a Clinton-Obama ticket. Then in 8 years (because obviously they'll be fantastic and get re-elected in 2012), Obama can run for pres. We'd have 16 years of awesome, basically.

It'll help his issues with experience, too. And teach him how to handle attacks with grace as Clinton has been doing for multiple decades.

OK, try this one.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/featuredtask.html

I am glad to see that Clinton won a couple big states, but I do wish the primary would be over. In the next several weeks, John Mccain will be able to raise money to fight the Dem nominee, while our two nominees will be raising money to fight each other.

Although I am torn between Obama and Clinton, I am so sick of the way the media treats her. Every single thing she does or says, (and even some things she DOESN'T do) are so scrutinized. And even though I have boycotted Hardball with Chris Matthews, he was doing election coverage with Keith Olberman last night, and he was being such an a**hole. Some members of the media think Clinton is a total loser and should pull out of the race, but obviously there are a lot of people who support her.

Medical Student29 - Sure, I hear the N-word in TX more than in KS or NE or ME, but when I visit those states I rarely see non-whites. It's easy to claim not to be racist when you don't have the reality of them in your daily life.

I'm not excusing racism; it's deplorable. However, when New England stops with the racism against Portuguese and the farming belt stops with the racism against Mexicans, then I'll accept that Texas is the more racist state.

Racism is a lot more than black v. white.

The media may have declared Texas for Hillary, but it's still entirely possible that Obama comes out with more delegates.

In the primary, Hillary took 65 to Obama's 61. But as of now (noon EST), only a little more than a third of the caucus results have been reported. Obama has always been strong in caucuses, and it's quite possible for him still to walk away from them with at least 5 more than Hillary, making him the 'real' winner of Texas.

"Incidentally, if it came down to Clinton vs. McCain, I'm voting for Nader. So it's pretty much way too late. (Sorry, but the crap her campaign is trying to pull with Michigan and Florida is ridiculous. I don't vote for blatant election cheaters.)"

Agreed.

"Obama, on the other hand, gets peevish when things don't go his way."

LOL. "SHAME ON YOU, BARACK OBAMA" ring some bells? How about the Clintons bemoaning the invalidation of MI and FL delegates after winning both elections virtually unopposed? She doesn't give a damn about them not having a voice -- she never spoke up about it before Obama starting beating her consistently.

Amber, why is it rude when I echoed the exact same phrasing used by a previous poster in calling Obama peevish? I'm testy because during this entire campaign I've seen more vitriol and nastiness from Clinton backers than I've ever seem from Obama backers. We've been called everything from cult members to racists (because people of color are obviously only voting for him because he's black, which apparently is a type of racism).

I think the two candidates are equally able to do the job. However, I think that Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell of winning against McCain. That may be too simplistic of me, but at this point I just want to finally see the Dems take back the White House.

"However, I think that Clinton doesn't have a chance in hell of winning against McCain."

You are entitled to feeling that way. I am using this line of reasoning which I often hear to highlight a point, not to attack you in any way because you haven't expressed what you would do.

Can I just say how I want both camps to stop attacking each other and saying they won't vote if their candidate doesn't get the nomination? The vitriol I hear from both sides is so fucking obnoxious - seriously. Have these people looked at their sites? Many more similarities than differences. And saying their non-vote won't matter because they are not in a swing state is a piss-poor excuse.

I use this quote because that is one of the reasons I hear from Obama supporters when they say they won't vote for her. Uhm, to be frank, it makes the person sound like a whiny brat who really isn't a Democrat. I mean, Clinton worse than McCain?Or Obama worse than McCain, for that matter? Seriously?!

What I would love to hear more of is: I like ____, but I'll back whomever the nominee turns out to be 100%.

I am sick and tired of the way people act in primaries when we should be supporting both candidates. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but is it wrong for her to say that invalidating the votes of two of the largest states is unfair? I don't think so, especially because she said so BEFORE the elections.

Sick of childish threats: "If ____ wins, I'm voting ______".

Sick of sexism, classism, racism. I hate reading CNN and seeing literally hundreds of comments that say Clinton won Ohio because they're uneducated and therefore stupid, or Texas because they're racists.

Good for Hillary! It's about time that people start to see what she is capable of. I am so sick of hearing men and women saying how she is incapable merely because of her sex and that they thought our state was better than this being as they elected her here. It's just disgusting that people feel that sex is disabling.

[sigh] Why do you have Obama supporters and Clinton supporters have to be constantly wagging the "you-people-do-this" finger? We're all on the right side.

I've heard a lot from Clinton lately hinting at the 'dream ticket' of the two. Any one have some links on that? I wonder how much that's being considered. I, for one, would be delighted.

At this point, it's mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with pledged delegates. Even if she won every single primary until the convention by a 20% margin, she would still be a few delegates behind. And let's be honest, there's no way she's going to get anywhere near those numbers. Obama will easily win Indiana and Kentucky (grassroots populism plays insanely well in the midwest), North Carolina will also be an easy win, and Pennsylvania will be really close. Quite honestly, anything less than a basement full of dead kids or a hitler tattoo, and Obama's going to get the nomination.

I really worry about Hillary continuing the campaign at this point. If this continues to the democratic convention, and if she tries to use Michigan and Florida or the superdelegates, we could see some really nasty splits in the party.

At this point, it's mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with pledged delegates. Even if she won every single primary until the convention by a 20% margin, she would still be a few delegates behind. And let's be honest, there's no way she's going to get anywhere near those numbers. Obama will easily win Indiana and Kentucky (grassroots populism plays insanely well in the midwest), North Carolina will also be an easy win, and Pennsylvania will be really close. Quite honestly, anything less than a basement full of dead kids or a hitler tattoo, and Obama's going to get the nomination.

I really worry about Hillary continuing the campaign at this point. If this continues to the democratic convention, and if she tries to use Michigan and Florida or the superdelegates, we could see some really nasty splits in the party.

At this point, it's mathematically impossible for Hillary to win with pledged delegates. Even if she won every single primary until the convention by a 20% margin, she would still be a few delegates behind. And let's be honest, there's no way she's going to get anywhere near those numbers. Obama will easily win Indiana and Kentucky (grassroots populism plays insanely well in the midwest), North Carolina will also be an easy win, and Pennsylvania will be really close. Quite honestly, anything less than a basement full of dead kids or a hitler tattoo, and Obama's going to get the nomination.

I really worry about Hillary continuing the campaign at this point. If this continues to the democratic convention, and if she tries to use Michigan and Florida or the superdelegates, we could see some really nasty splits in the party.

We might see a shared ticket! You see that? Yay, I say.

Come on, can't we all just get along???

That being said, I do think obvious racism is more prevalent in /parts/ of the south, whereas sexism is acceptable among urban hipsters. /But/, I think it's impossible to know what role exactly those trends among those subcultures play in this election of all Americans.

I've been called nasty things by Obama supporters, and I've seen Clinton supporters make ignorant remarks. Enough with this high-road stuff.

Really, can't we just be glad for either of them? Or do you really want George W McCain for the next 8 years b/c you're one of those priviliged people who won't actually be very affected by changes in policy, and so this is just purely about ideology for you?

For Tara K.: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/05/clinton-this-may-be-headed-to-joint-ticket/

And Jem, THANK YOU! I totally agree!

And whoever said that New England is all white which is why you don't hear racial slurs? Umm... you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Pup MD: It's cool and edgy to hate chicks if you're an urban hipster, but White is Right if you're a Texan.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think white racists aren't also sexist. The two tend to go hand in hand. But I've known lots of people who think nothing of making horribly sexist and misogynist statements who are staunchly and loudly anti-racist.

blitzgal:
Yeah, she's so classy. Like Monday night when she said that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience but "Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

It's true.

Pup MD: It's cool and edgy to hate chicks if you're an urban hipster, but White is Right if you're a Texan.

You're kidding yourself if you don't think white racists aren't also sexist. The two tend to go hand in hand. But I've known lots of people who think nothing of making horribly sexist and misogynist statements who are staunchly and loudly anti-racist.

blitzgal:
Yeah, she's so classy. Like Monday night when she said that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience but "Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

It's true.

I have to step in here Micheal. It is mathematically impossible for Hillary to score the necessary delegates to win but guess what - ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR OBAMA AS WELL!

That's the side everyone forgets - they are essentially tied in this race - which is why its such a deadlock and pushing for her to drop out is just offensive because clearly she has huge support and has been winning the big democratic states and the hugely important swing state of Ohio last night!

I am so sick of this one sided information and bias. Lets be real here.

It is going to come down to the convention and super delegates. Senator Clinton will hope that her wins in large blue states like California, New York, New Jersey and swing states like Ohio (and possibly Florida and Mich if they do a revote or something) will show the super delegates that she is a candidate that would be good for the party (among her other platforms) while Senator Obama will hope that a margin of state delegates (he won't have enough to grab the nomination himself) will convince super delegates to side with him, showing that the people want him if the delegates reflect as such.

It is mathematically impossible for Hillary to score the necessary delegates to win

Let me rephrase. It's, on a practical level, mathematically impossible for Hillary to lead in pledged delegates.

She can go the superdelegate route, and watch as the party tears itself apart through political maneuvering in the hopes that she wins the nomination, despite not having the delegate lead or the popular vote (which is a basic social impossibility. The math has been done).

It would be a complete mess. If Hillary's only hope is a brokered convention, would you actually advocate she go through with that?

If Hillary can make her case well in the next few weeks and Florida and Michigan voters are not disenfranchised, it IS mathematically possible for her to catch up in pledged delegates.

It'll be extremely tough, but Hillary is a fighter and it'll be a good chance for Obama to hopefully show some more depth on the issues than he has shown thus far. Passions are running high now, but anyone who honestly would vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama is clearly at the wrong site.

I hope I don't have to remind anyone that McCain is not exactly a champion of women's rights.

This is a historic race between two skilled politicians. Let's enjoy the competition and let them both finish the race. It's going to come down to superdelegates no matter what happens from here on out anyway.

Re: Lyrael's comment...And speaking of peevish...her campaign is already complaining about the caucus packages in Texas even though she won the state.

I read the captain's manuals were stolen by pranksters and others locked the doors on Clinton supporters.

For the fifteen people who like to get offended more than they like to read closely, I simply point to the actual content of my message: relative density of misogyny and racism among democrats.

And the point to be garnered here isn't that Texans are a bunch of racists (not that I said that in the first place), but that there are plenty of "enlightened" urban PBR-drinking, Arcade Fire-listening Mac users who find latent (or blatant) misogyny perfectly compatible with their neo-libertarian slash.dot/fark world view. And those people are a sizable minority of our current "progressive" movement, unfortunately.

And as someone whose father-in-law sports a prominent confederate flag on his forearm (and refuses to wear sleeves, even in the winter, even when visiting us in the communist little village we live in now), I know a little bit about white attitudes in the South. And it's not like I didn't live in the South until I was 22.

JESUS CHRIST WAS A HARD CORE LIBERAL

I am not a religious person, but I have read all 4 gospels. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say that we should make laws against people that make us uncomfortable. I seem to recall him instead saying something like, “Whoever is without sin cast the first stone�.

I am pretty sure that if he were living today, and turned on Fox News, and saw O’Reilly spewing his hatred and Ann Coulter calling John Edwards a “faggot� that he would get up and kick the in the TV.

Jesus was a hardcore dude. He told his followers to be tolerant, feed the poor and love each person as you would love yourself.

I recently watched a speech on YouTube. It was given by a man who claims to be a devout Christian himself. This man is constantly being accused of being a Muslim because of his race and his funny name.

So in this speech, this man said something that at first I wasn’t sure if I agreed with. He said, “I am my brother’s keeper. If my neighbor is suffering, I am suffering. If my neighbor is sick or living I poverty, then I too am sick and living in poverty.�

I thought about Jesus Christ and wondered where he would stand on that. Would Jesus be a “Conservative�? Would Jesus say, “I know McCain wants to lead this country into more wars, but I must vote for him because saving money on my taxes is more frankly more important than innocent human lives and I can't stand being a Liberal?�

I say he’d be a bleeding heart Liberal. Yes, that “L� word that a.m. talk radio has trained us all to despise and to think of as wimpy and lame and frankly just uncool.

Somehow I think that the guy who coined the phrase, “Love your neighbor as yourself� would not be able to get behind the Iraq war or the next war that McCain can’t wait to start.

Would Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter have been Jesus’ disciples? I don’t think they’d have the stomach for it. And what about George W. Bush, the man responsible for the deaths of 1.1 million Iraqis, half of them innocent children? Jesus would certainly accept him unconditionally, but old Dubya wouldn’t have the time or the tolerance for such a bleeding heart liberal. It would get in the way of all his plans.

So when I was watching all of these speeches and listening to Barack Obama, I was really struck, seriously it really touched my heart when he said, “There is not a conservative America and a Liberal America. There is not a black America and a White America. There is not a Gay America and a Straight America. There is the United States of America�. I was practically moved to tears. He didn’t have to remind the audience, by the way, that he was giving them any straight talk. He just spoke from his heart.

Here is a man who expects more of us than we expect of ourselves. He seeks to unify instead of divide. He seeks to heal instead of to kill. He represents everything it means to be an American and is, by far, the most “Christ-like� candidate running for President today.

Barack has never gone for the cheap shot. He always takes the high road. Whatever he lacks in experience, like JFK or Roosevelt, he makes up for it in his idealism, in his belief in the goodness of human nature and in his ability unite and inspire. I’m pretty sure that if Jesus Christ were alive in November he would vote for Barack Obama.

- Eric Allen Bell

www.WeCanStopMcCain.org

There is a terrific article about marriage (or, rather, about chosing not to marry) in the Guardian newspaper here in the UK. To read it online: http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/relationships/story/0,,2260749,00.html

Darn...posted the above in the wrong thread -- sorry! (My internet connection is acting up today.)

I'm an Obama supporter but I can't take Maureen Dowd's pieces in the Times anymore. It seems like 4 out 5 Op-Eds that she writes mercilessly slam Clinton. The last one on Wednesday? Shoulder-pad feminism? I thought this was an interesting response:

http://current.com/items/88860191_clinton_s_recent_win_surprised_and_angered_many_people

I commented on another thread a while back about what my very conservative cousins and his ilk decided to do for the Texas primary: Vote Hillary. They don't think McCain is conservative enough, but he was too far ahead to stop, so why vote in the Republican primary? They decided to vote for Hillary, because they think she doesn't stand a chance against McCain. I believe that may have tipped her over in a few counties at least. There were some where voters have traditionally voted in the Republican primary who were voting in the Democratic primary instead, and in those counties Hillary won.

I personally was very torn over who to vote for, but voted for Obama in the end. But I'll be pleased as punch to vote for either candidate over McCain come November!

As to whether or not misogyny or racism is worse in Texas, the answer is both. :-) In my mind, it doesn't so much matter. The battle is the same: getting people to believe that people who don't look like them or act like them are still worthy, acceptable human beings with as many rights & privileges as they enjoy. Unfortunately for people like my cousin, who grow up sheltered in a conservative, rural environment, changing their minds on either problem seems nigh impossible. (And I include the phrase "act like them" because in my family's case, they do think that anyone who doesn't "act like them" is weird and worthy of scorn)

janetfaust:
I commented on another thread a while back about what my very conservative cousins and his ilk decided to do for the Texas primary: Vote Hillary. They don't think McCain is conservative enough, but he was too far ahead to stop, so why vote in the Republican primary? They decided to vote for Hillary, because they think she doesn't stand a chance against McCain. I believe that may have tipped her over in a few counties at least. There were some where voters have traditionally voted in the Republican primary who were voting in the Democratic primary instead, and in those counties Hillary won.

You know this is very insincere and sounds of sour grapes. It's like if she wins, there has to be an excuse. She won cause she has support out there. Contrary to the "paid netsers" (those who constantly cut and paste then link to an Obama site, like a few posts up), Obama is not running away with this election. It is EXTREMELY close. They are about even in pledged delegates and votes. Perhaps the reasion the net seems so onesided is that Hillary voters have more to do then be on the net. ;-)

janetfaust:
I personally was very torn over who to vote for, but voted for Obama in the end. But I'll be pleased as punch to vote for either candidate over McCain come November!

Then why did you feel to make up an excuse to why Hillary won? Does the female candidate have to explain herself? If you watch the news, you would think so! ;-)

Jennifer -

All I mentioned was that not all people that voted for Hillary may have been voting for her because they actually believe in her; I wasn't trying to make up an excuse for why she won. I also never said she had to explain herself, and I do indeed believe she has a lot of support, and rightly so.

After the election, I looked up my cousin's county on this map:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/index.html

And indeed, in his county, more people voted Dem. than Republican, and Hillary won by quite a bit. I don't know the history of how this county usually votes - Dem vs Republ., but I would imagine that there are a lot of Rush Limbaugh fans there. He was encouraging his fans to vote for Hillary because he thinks she doesn't have as good a chance against McCain in November.

That's the whole point I was trying to make. Clearly, from the rest of Texas's results, you can see Hillary has a lot of support, and it certainly can't all be the result of so called "suicide voters" or Rush Limbaugh fans. But I think those voters are out there, and it's unfortunate that they don't vote for the candidate they truly want to win. It seems dishonest, and it is also probably rooted in sexism - maybe they think that McCain stands a better chance against Hillary because she is a woman.

I stand by my earlier comment - whoever wins the Dem nomination in November I'll happily vote for, no sour grapes at all. :-)