Yesterday, everyone said I was quoting a negligible staffer when I diaried about the "unimportant" states.

Well, no more.  From Talking Points Memo

[Clinton adviser Harold] Ickes, speaking of states Obama won or is likely to win,  said:

"Most of those states haven't voted Democratic in a presidential since the Johnson landslide over Goldwater in 1964, and we don't see that changing. They're great states, but Idaho, Nebraska and the Carolinas are not going to be in the Democratic column in November. He's winning the Democratic process, but that is virtually irrelevant to the general election."

He forgot to mention Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Delaware and Colorado.  All legitimate swing states.

With the Clinton campaign's comment about latte-drinking crowd and boutique states followed up with drawing a contrast between significant and insignificant states, I'm just wondering whether the Hillary supporters here see any problem with discounting a major part of the country's Democratic electorate during the primary campaign?

Fighting tough is one thing, but it just seems to me that there should be certain areas that should be considered off limits, certain lengths that a candidate refuses to go in order to win amongst Democrats.  Are there not standards of basic prudence to which the candidates should be held?

Honestly, how does either candidate expect to run a general election campaign when one of the candidates has been insulting half of the voters in every state as "latte-drinking"?  How do we expect to take the White House after dismissing the "significance" of states like Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Delaware, Colorado, Maine and Virginia?

I know, internet polls are biased and unreliable.  I grant everyone that.

But I was surprised at the results of this head to head poll nonetheless.

At the time of writing, Hillary against McCain is 50/50.

Obama against McCain is 69/31.

Go have fun and freep the poll.

I gotta say, this site is starting to rival the ferocity and viciousness that one normally finds on the Free Republic forums.  And it's really sad.

Everyone is starting to come across like the Bush supporters did during the 2004 campaign.

And can I say, I want the White House more than anything for the Democratic Party, but I am not interested in our party doing it with the same craven nastiness that Karl Rove employed.

On this site, I see mostly Hillary supporters being downright vindictive to their fellow Democrats, but that's because it's a pro-Hillary site.  But I know that Obama supporters elsewhere can be the same.  This is directed at all of them.

Winning by becoming a bunch of Bushies screaming at and demonizing each other is not progress.  It just means becoming exactly what we oppose.

I've been a fan of MyDD for a long time, but I'm a bit bothered by the change that has occurred here.

I'm fine with the site being pro-Hillary.  That's the prerogative of those who run the site.  There are loads of sites that are pro-Obama.

However, I've noticed lately that the recommended diaries are practically perma-linked, with little change.  In addition, they are ALWAYS pro-Hillary.  It doesn't seem that the rec list is truly driven by the recommendations.  (I guess the snarky answer is that there are super-recommendations to consider as well.)

So prove me wrong:  Recommend this diary and put it on the rec list and I will be PROUD to change the title of the Diary to "Diaries are NOT rigged."

This is the extent of Hillary's ambition:

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

...

Clinton advisers rejected the notion that the candidate -- and the party -- would be badly wounded in the general election if the nominee were essentially selected by a group of party insiders.

Regardless of how far ahead Obama would be in pledged delegates, regardless of how many states she may lose in a row, regardless of how bad her head-to-head numbers are against McCain, Hillary will do everything she can to game the system to take the nomination.

This is why I do not support Hillary.  Everything about her is personal ambition.  It's not about doing what's best for the country.  It's what's best for her.