I am neither 'anti-Obama' or a spinster.

As an 'outsider' I would just like to see the most electable candidate win the nomination and put an end to the Bush regime that has so deteriously influenced events in this country too.

It was my personal view that this candidate was Hillary Clinton; that has nothing to do with 'feminism' or the colour of anyone's skin.

The leval of negative campaigning on BOTH sides has been very off-putting looking from this side of the Atlantic.

The open venom expressed in many of the posts here has also been unsettling; the repetitive, continual, almost messianic fervour is only matched by prefacing or substituting support for Obama with blatent attacks or snide comments (like the one that opened this thread and caused me to comment) against Clinton.

As someone who has actively campaigned against racism all my adult life I find some of the responses equally unacceptable.

Today I read an article in The Washington Post which seemed to sum up many of the frustrations I feel.

'The longer the race goes on, however, the more bitter it becomes. Increasing numbers of your supporters say they will never support your competitor. And growing numbers of Democrats, once excited at the prospect of two extraordinary candidates, are turned off by all the negativity. What should you do? Pulling out of the race means giving up your dream -- when you think you are the better choice. Staying in risks collective disaster.

The fault line in this dilemma -- the interests of a candidate pitted against the collective interest of his or her party -- shows up in many economic and political domains and is sometimes called the "tragedy of the commons." Individuals embroiled in similar dilemmas find them impossible to solve on their own, because they are confronted by a Hobson's Choice: Act selfishly and cause collective disaster, or act altruistically and aid someone else who is acting selfishly. Either way, selfishness wins.'

Clinton, Obama and the Narcissist's Tale
by Shankar Vedantam