I have a confession to make. I'm not a Clinton supporter turned Obama backer.

I'm just a lowly concern troll.

And yet, I'm a diabolical genius because I tricked nearly all of you. Naïve fools! But don't worry, I'm going to tell you how. I wouldn't want you to make the grave error of mistaking concern trolling for genuine support ever again. For all you Clinton supporters out there, let this diary be your guide to concern trolling. Obama supporters are all 13 years old, so even though I'm sitting here, flat out telling them I'm a concern troll, they still won't get it. Their young, puerile, undeveloped minds still won't process it - kids have poor reading comprehension, you know, and they all have ADD nowadays, anyway. Thank god we're all old, wizened, spinsters. So pull up a chair, put your 30 cats in your lap, and read carefully.

There's more...

Many Clinton supporters have a lot to be upset about. The media bias against Clinton has been outrageous. Fellow Democrats are telling false lies that Republicans built in the 90s against Hillary Clinton. Top party officials have been trying to use their influence in the election to fit their needs. Both MI and FL have been disenfranchised because of the "rules."

I have a question to fellow Hillary Clinton supporters: If Hillary wins the nomination will you join the party again (if you have left)?

Another: Do you still like the Democratic Party?

Post answers.

There's more...

The Feingold amendment to cut funding just went down with ONLY 28 in support. Obama did NOT vote...this negates his speech yesterday. I am not a Hillery fan, but she DID vote yes.
Obama's failure to vote dropped him off as my second choice.
No excuse is valid.
There is no way for Obama folks to spin this....
(It is possible he voted and I missed it...but I was really listening)
His speech yesterday...means nothing now...

I don't want to hear any Dem who either voted no or did not vote criticize the Bush/Cheney Iraq policy..
Screw all of them...

There's more...

I am out for the night but I checked Drudgereport and found this.

www.drudgereport.com

Obama made a bad mistake and admitted that he was tired and that he makes mistakes....that's tough.

Its news and it time for Obama to take some heat. When will it be Hillary's turn.

There's more...

A great number of words have already been spilled over David Broder's contention today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is as big of an embarrassment to his party as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is to his because Reid had the gumption to say that the Iraq War is no longer winnable (a notion that, by the way, Americans agree with by a wide margin). But I'd like to take a stab at the broader implication of the Broder column -- that Democrats made the wrong decision of chosing Reid as their leader in the first place.

Broder writes that this is not the "first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language." After listing off a litany of statements by Reid with which Broder takes umbrage (I think unfairly, but that could be debated at another time), Broder concludes, "The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader."

Of course to come to such a conclusion, one would have to overlook the vast successes Harry Reid has achieved during his 28 or so months as Democratic leader. Obviously, it would be improper to begin any discussion about Reid's tenure without mentioning the fact that he shepherded his party from the minority -- and in fact their lowest level in the Senate in over 75 years -- into the majority, a feat not viewed as possible by many when Reid became Democratic leader.

And during that 109th Congress, Reid not only proved able to put his party in the position to make great gains during the 2006 midterm elections, he also kept his party unified better than almost any of his predecessors -- no small feat given the Republicans' ability to steamroll through much of their agenda given their 55-seat majority. During the first session of the 109th Congress, Democratic unity in the Senate increased from 83 percent the previous year to 88 percent, matching the level of Republican unity (something not often achieved by Democrats). While Democratic unity in the Senate slipped back a tad to 86 percent during the second session of the Congress (as did Republican unity, in fact), Senate Democrats voted unanimously more often than Senate Republicans for the second straight year.

Yet looking at the broader numbers even misses some of Reid's successes as Democratic leader during the 109th Congress. While there were some notable setbacks -- the bankruptcy bill and the confirmations of John Roberts and Sam Alito, in particular, stand out, but there were others -- Reid was able to outmaneuver the Republican majority on a number of occasions, for instance on the estate tax, ANWR, the gay marriage ban and the flag burning amendment. Perhaps most memorably (at least for those who pass their time watching C-SPAN 2), Reid forced the Republicans' hand when Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts was attempting to whitewash details about the run up to the Iraq War.

Reid has been similarly successful leading a Democratic majority as he was leading a Democratic minority. First, the fact that Reid is governing with perhaps the most tenuous Senate majority in recent memory (even more so, I would argue, than the Republicans' short-lived majority in early 2001) cannot be forgotten. Even with this, he has been able to score a number of successes, most recently keeping almost his entire caucus united (all save Joe Lieberman) and picking up two Republican votes in favor of important legislation that would help end the war in Iraq.

So while David Broder has engaged in some fairly shrill concern trolling, suggesting that the Democrats would be better off with someone other than Harry Reid as their leader in the Senate (it's so nice of Broder to think about what would be best for the Democrats!), the facts just don't bear out his conclusion. As such, it's not at all surprising that the American public continues to side with the Democrats on issue after issue, for instance on Iraq backing the Democrats over President Bush by a remarkable 19-point margin. And although Reid isn't terribly well-known among the public (in fact he is one of the least recognizable leading political figures in Washington), when Americans are prompted for their opinion of him as Senate Majority Leader they tend to rate him favorably. Broder might not be among those who like Reid and what he and his party are doing for this country, but Broder is in a noticeably and decidedly minority of Americans.

There's more...