...I'd be highly disappointed.

I don't quite understand Hillary Clinton's reasoning. She says she'll be a stronger candidate for president than Barack Obama because she is more popular with blue collar whites. That's why, she said, that she was able to easily defeat Obama in states such as West Virginia and Kentucky and Pennsylvania. But what Clinton seems to ignore is that nationally, she's come up short. Obama has outpolled Clinton, and he's corralled a majority of the pledged delegates and he's followed the rules established by the Democrats. Fair and square. And Obama has more or less come out of nowhere after Clinton was the early-on favorite to be the Democrat's nominee. Fact of the matter is that she didn't run a campaign as effective as Obama's. Well, I can't completely blame Clinton for grasping at straws, and still wanting to be the chosen candidate. She's ambitious and she's a fighter and she's a hardened and tested politician. But I'm gonna assume that an overwhelming majority of Clinton's backers will, in the fall elections, support Obama. Rather than John McCain. Oh, a few of 'em, those that tend to be racists, will cast their lot with McCain. Which is sad. But that's reality. Meanwhile, I think it would be good for Clinton to reflect on the fact that she's been weak with well-educated voters and with young people (those below 35) and the affluent and most of the Democrat's big-wigs. Yes, Clinton has her strengths. But weaknesses as well. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'd vote for Clinton. She'd still be a much better choice than McCain. After all, Obama and Clinton aren't that far apart on the important issues. I just happen to like Obama more than Clinton. But really, I find both of them acceptable...despite any flaws. If we Americans chose either one of 'em for president, I'd be optimistic about the future. If George Bush or his proxy McCain made it to the White House for another 4 years, I'd be highly disappointed. --Jim Broede