how can this issue be so easy for you when so many of us are struggling with it?

My question was: "Can you name one other democratic presidential candidate who attacked another democrat in the primary with sexism and racism in the manner and to the degree that Clinton has done in this primary?"

Nothing compares to this year, so it's moot point.

So, you appear to agree that she has reached a new low, but yet it is a moot point? If I understand you correctly, you are saying that because "nothing compares to this year," in terms of hillary's use of sexism and racism against democratic primary candidates, this issue is a "moot point"? I must be interpreting wrong, because how can a democrat turning two of the core principles of Democrats upside down ever be a moot point when the issue is voting for that Democrat to be president? My point is that she has taken this to an unprecedented new level in her belief that anything goes to get what she wants.  My point is that Hillary has done more than just objectionable "tactics."  She is dividing democrats and this nation and I think that is intentional.

What I mean by generalities is that you cite the general conclusions of interest groups on a broad subject area (e.g, civil rights, education) rather than citing specific issues.  Granted they had to review specific issues to reach a conclusion about a general subject area. And you may be right that it is an issue of trust, because I no longer trust that voting record as indicative of how she will act in the future.  How can anyone trust that she will stand up for human rights when she allows people to die and become sick by MTR?  How can she be trusted on environmental issues when she is willing to let corporations transform our waterways into waste dumps, not just figuratively, but literally? How can anyone trust that she will end the war in iraq when she voted for this war? Yes, hillary says she would have voted no had she known then what she knows now. Only problem is I checked into what news reports, based on government reports and officials, publicly reported prior to her war vote and all the grounds for war proclaimed by Bush were debunked within days. Yes, 3 months after war started, when she started backing off, more details were provided but basically it was the same debunking as prior to her war vote. She has never stated just what is that magical info that she did not know or reasonably should have known prior to war that she now is relying upon when she now admits her war vote was a "mistake." Yes, well, according to hillary, a "mistake" is when she lies about facts, such as Bosnia.

This whole issue is very frustrating for me. I have never not voted for a dem in any election. And I don't want mccain in the WH either. But I truly believe she has crossed a line that goes way beyond tactics. If what she did was just tactics, then I would vote for her as I would vote for any other democrat.  But, how can you reconcile voting for a democrat who is tearing apart our party precisely because she has turned her back on core democratic beliefs? The answer seems to be the ends of avoiding the madness of mccain presidency justifies the means of voting for her. But how do you then reconcile that the ends justifies the means is a tacky political philosophy used by goppies? The ends justify the means is what bushie does all the time, and we scream when he does. If her conduct is not sufficient reason to not vote for her, what exactly does a candidate have to say or do that would justify not voting for a democrat? I'd really like to know the answer to that.  I imagine if a democrat got caught red-handed committing a crime, we would say, ok, no vote? Is there any conduct short of criminal acts?  I just feel we are losing our selves. Fortunately, as I stated earlier, even if she succeeds in her quest, it's not likely to be an issue in California.