... not to go back and research all the "Obama can't win" diaries and comments here from last winter and spring.

So tempting.

In "Being There." Sellers' brain-dead character uses almost the same phrases ("the roots are strong"), which are mistakenly interpreted by his listeners as economic analysis.

The one state where some argue that "the Jewish vote" might matter -- I say this as someone whose mother is Jewish -- is Florida.

The figure I've seen is that Jews might comprise about 5% of the Florida electorate.

So again: If McCain were to get a massive 60% of this demographic in Florida, he'd gain a 1% edge in the Florida popular vote from that.

I doubt that McCain will do that well among Jews in Florida; and in any case, I'm confident that Obama can more than offset such an advantage if need be by turning out young voters, new registrants, independents, et al.

I had to call in yesterday to my local NPR affiliate, whose morning show was devoted to whether Obama "has a problem with Jewish and Hispanic [sic] voters."

I pointed out to them on-air that:

(A) Jewish voters represent 1.3% of the population; so even if McCain grabbed 60% of this demographic (which he won't), he'd only gain a 0.26% edge in the popular vote;

(B) Obama is absolutely clobbering McCain among Latino voters, as the most recent poll further demonstrates.

I then told them that many of us are tired of this endless harping on demography -- race, class, religion -- at the expense of issues... And that I expect Americans to cast votes in November on the economy, the war, the erosion of our Constitutional protections, et al.

Reaction: OK, well, those are good points... But we've decided on our narratives, please don't confuse us with facts.

There were also people whose posting privileges were revoked entirely merely for making a strong case against Clinton and/or for Obama -- and calling the site's host out on some of his less-reasoned judgements and decisions.

This includes the person who originally introduced me to MyDD. This person is a progressive Democrat originally from the midwest, now a local Democratic committeeman in New York State, and a very early adopter of this site... one of the most mild-mannered people I know, but also someone of great integrity, who would not agree to the pledge he was sent as a condition of continued posting abilities.

Such injustices should be undone now by the site's owners. They never should have happened in the first place.

Before Obama became the front-runner, Republicans claimed to be salivating at the prospect of Hillary Clinton being our nominee, because she would be so much easier to beat than the rest of the field.

Republicans spread this disinformation no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

Ignore this meme.

But Montana was the last state to be tallied.

And she lost Montana.

This is the problem that so many of us have had with her candidacy -- the willingnessto completely ignore reality and choose her own "facts" to fit her campaign's self-image and self-interest.

Thinking that the public can be duped by such lies? Not what I ever want in a leader.

It was Hillary who raised this ugly prospect. Now she has to live with the aftermath.

Whatever the percentages, my point is that Clinton was not dealing with reality -- she was dealing with her ambition. And she was not willing to let her principle ambition go when she had the chance.

... to avoid having to deliver on that promise?

... Warren Buffett and Bill Gates naming me in their wills.

I agree that she lost ages ago. But the notion that she would have dropped out and "settled" for VP back in February or March, despite the fact that she could not realistically win the whole enchilada, doesn't pass my laugh test.

You can't really imagine that if Obama had offered Clinton the #2 job back then that she would have accepted and dropped out? After all she's said and done since then?

When a candidate talks openly about assassination being a path to the Presidency, that effectively disqualifies you from becoming Vice President ... in my book, at least.

Not to mention when the same candidate (and her husband) blatantly try to undercut the nominee by:

* Comparing the likely nominee's suitability to be Commander-in-Chief unfavorably to the Republican nominee's;

* Openly using code words to inflame social tensions against that likely nominee;

* Seeking to delegitimize that nominee's victory in the primaries using blatantly deceptive and wildly inaccurate "math";

Two months ago, Clinton still might have had a chance to salvage her relationship with Democrats who abandoned her, and positioned herself to be V.P. The past two months have been such a disappointment and disgrace to her once-good name that the chances of her being named to the second slot are surpassingly slim.

(Cue the normal hand-wringing about "divisiveness." Sorry, I believe more in justice, especially since I believe Obama would do far better with Edwards or Richardson or Sibelius.)

Since Canadian Gal has set herself up as an expert on trolls (even as she herself concern-trolls about civility during the endgame of the Democratic contest) I would like to just point out the following:

1) Her first diary on this site was on March 22nd of this year, long after the Democratic contest began;

2) That first diary and others after it made harsh accusations against Obama and his supporters, such as accusing him (and us) of capital-lettered "HYPOCRISY."

3) She is, according to that diary, a Canadian with no direct stake in this election but a strong "interest" in the proceedings as a political junkie.

Now, I think people who are new to the site have just as much a right to speak here as anyone.

I think having non-voters here from other countries adds interest to the site.

And I even think that there are plenty of Clinton supporters who simply preferred her to Obama, without being malicious or unfair about the candidates -- and who will now get behind him as nominee (much like Alice Huffman indicated she will, in her final remarks on Saturday). They understand that John McCain would be a disaster for our entire country, not least for women's rights and the ability of hard-working Americans to earn a decent living, receive health care, educate their kids... and the list of reasons to vote for Obama over McCain goes on and on.

By the same token, I think that those who are newer to the site ought to at least do a little homework before broadly tarring the intent of other users with a broad brush.

And I think that those calling for civility ought to practice what they preach, as far as using rational and non-inflammatory language.