But, seriously, I do not think the Clinton campaign or many of her supporters treated either the candidate or Obama's supporters "like sh*t." However, when people did post links to informative articles about Obama's legislative history, they were often told to go die or shut up. On a nice blog where the owner did not clearly take sides!

Both sides treated the other like sh*t

not hardly dadler, unless you've succeeded, where so many obama supporters (or should i say, idolaters) have, in blinding yourself to reality.

obama supporters, as individuals, groups and bloggers, were consistently derogatory towards both sen. clinton and her supporters. while some clinton supporters repaid in kind, most (at least on this site) managed to be civil, until the obama supporters just went off the deep end.

i don't recall any clinton supporters accusing obama, or his supporters, of racism. i don't recall sen. obama, or his supporters, decry the blatant mysogony of his campaign. no, they rationalized it instead.

i have little use for sen. obama or his "supporters". no, wait, i take that back, i have absolutely no use for them. i won't say anything bad about them, why bother? but i won't let them get away with the BS either.

at first, my only problem with sen. obama was his obvious lack of experience; i thought he'd make a heck of a VP to clinton's pres.

as time and the primaries went on, i realized not only does he lack actual experience, or understanding of, well, anything, he's just a republican in democrat clothing.

Arnold's proposal about state workers/min wage stole the headlines -- the real story is the tens of thousands of small vendors and contractors that may go bankrupt waiting for a budget. This is not hyberbole; many small vendors go out of business each time there is a  budget crisis.

I did not know how vastly the FDIC was underfunded until I read your post ... scary. Like NYCstray, I just have this nebulous bad feeling based on all the information I'm reading, and an unsettling suspicion that I'm seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

  Counting the actual citizens who voted (with Obama removing his name from Michigan ballot for strategic reasons and leading a move to have other Dems to do the same to embarrass Clinton in Iowa -- a political decision much the same as Clinton opting not to compete in the early caucuses -- both normally would have to live with their decisions), Clinton did get more of the actual votes that took place.

  Also bear in mind that caucuses representing 3% of the total vote represented 14% of the number of delegates.  
That's where Mark Penn failed her (and should drop his fee by a few million).  

  The problem was the way in which Obama refused to go along with Re-votes (he knew he'd be better off not paying any mind to the votes or the re-votes) and the way the DNC handled the Michigan situation in particular, handing Obama all the Uncommitted votes (against the Charter rules which forbid that kind of transfer) and also 4 that Clinton earned.

  Here is, though what could be termed a rebuke we must watch for in November - because of what happens with poll expectations and people who believe them too much, in any direction (or who believe Hillary was rejected once Obama's background of choices became better known).

  Starting with March, in the state primaries (as opposed to caucuses) which are much more like the General Election method of voting, Obama did often poll well and it was said his registration drives (and even his Democrats for a Day campaigns) would keep him him ahead of Clinton in voting in the last half of the primaries.

  However, Obama did -not- win 9 of the last 15 races with HRC and, worse, he lost 3 of those 9  by 30 to 40 points AFTER he had been deemed the 'nominee' by Tim Russert and by TIME Magazine.

  In the very last primary, South Dakota, he was -ahead- by 8 points but he lost South Dakota by 10 points.  That was not noted much because Richardson told superdelegates to join Obama BEFORE the primaries ended in order to be "remembered" by him.  And, well, you know old politics.
They moved before the polls closed that night so we wouldn't have to hear about South Dakota's surprise or about Puerto Rico's oversized voting for Clinton (a '30' margin not included above).  

  That is not indication of a 'rebuke' of Clinton.  However, those who never liked the hicks in power and prefer it for their own got behind the guy who could be molded, and I suspect the Clintons were not great on sharing power in the way others wanted, but they ran a rather prosperous 2-term administration (after even being voted in, twice, which was unusual in that 40-yr time period for Democrats).  

  So be aware that Obama will need a very large margin before Dems can remain so confident about any polling leads.
EVERYone will be needed to win in November, especially once the nomination is actually secured and then the GOP and 527s can then go to town in the way only they can.  We haven't seen anything yet.  A strong ticket is needed, but it seems we're not going to get it.

  A candidate who runs on "unity" but is showing that he may well be unwilling to lead the harder way by paying attention to the other half of a tremendously divided constituency will have supporters who follow his lead in being unwilling to 'compromise' (they might even still write disdain about his opponent) and, as a result, others who might lean toward him with time will have doubts about his actual ability or willingness  to unify larger forces (like the country itself).

  I must say I'm distressed by the idea of Kaine, who is very pro-choice and even anti-gay from what I read.  This is a choice for a person who could become president within a heartbeat.