I thought I knew the rules of the game going in, but apparently I misunderstood. I thought the idea of a political website was meant as a place to exchange views – and yes, in a primary season, to proudly support one’s preferred candidate.

However, what GD-P has become is something else entirely. It is no longer a matter of supporting one's candidate, but a matter of dismissing the underlying reasons for anyone making a choice contrary to your own.

When I encounter a supporter of either Hillary or Obama in a discussion thread, I start with the assumption that they have made a valid assessment of the two remaining contenders, and have chosen accordingly.

Unless someone says something that leads me to think the contrary (e.g. “I’m voting for Hillary because she’s cool”, or, conversely, “I’m supporting Obama because he’s dreamy-looking”, I stick to my initial assumption as to their reasons for preferring one candidate over the other.

But according to way too many posters here, all Obama supporters are kool-aid drinking cultists. It couldn’t possibly be the case that millions of Americans have made their decision as to who to support based on reasoned judgment. That particular choice must be dismissed as the ravings of the lunatic fringe (albeit a majority lunatic fringe as of this writing).

“Obama’s supporters think he can do no wrong. Obama’s fans are just that, fans – people caught up in the image with no regard for the issues. Obama’s excuse-makers will forgive him anything, no matter what he says or does.”

Now try this: Replace the name “Obama” with the name “Hillary” in the above statements. That shoe fits equally well on the other foot, doesn’t it?

And I can hear the replies already: “No, because Hillary has substance, and Obama doesn’t.”

I have listened intently to both candidates’ campaign speeches, as well as their responses in the debates. I am not hearing any more details from one than the other – and that’s as it should be. Campaigning is meant to be a broad-strokes overview of their respective positions (which, of course, are not terribly different). Campaign speeches, by their very nature, are meant to be a rallying of support and enthusiasm; not a lecture series.

And by the way, if either candidate went out on the road with a PowerPoint presentation, pie-charts and graphics explaining their plans in excruciating detail on how to reduce the debt, fund education, etc., their audiences wouldn’t be able to vote either way – simply because they’d all be asleep.

By the same token, Hillary’s supporters are not war-mongering corporatists who are too idiotic to understand that she won’t be the nominee. Hoping that there is a drastic change in the current Obama-leaning momentum, or a scandal or false move on his part that will turn the tide, is not idiotic nor delusional; it is the same kind of hope that Obama supporters would rally around if that proverbial shoe was yet again on the other foot.

As I stated in an earlier post, the minute you resort to using terms like “HillBot” or “Obamaniac”, you’ve already lost the argument. And it should be apparent why: If you must resort to name-calling in order to make your point, you obviously have no other point you feel is worth stating.

In the end, we’re all going to have to come together behind the nominee, whoever he/she turns out to be. That has nothing to do with your personal preference nor mine, but has everything to do with the choice of the majority of Democratic voters.

And if it is your considered position that your opinion is more valid, more intelligent, more fact-based, and should carry more weight than anyone else’s opinion, I’d be interested in hearing why.

As for those of you who will persist in NOT voting for the nominee because he/she wasn’t your personal choice – well, let me be blunt: You probably aren’t mature enough to participate in the process anyway.

Those of us determined to see a Democrat in the White House come next January will just soldier on without your “contribution” – because calling John McCain’s supporters McSame kool-aid drinking cultists doesn’t win general elections any more than it will win the party's nomination.