No matter who you support for Pres, please take a breath, then read this. Please.

It is with a fair amount of trepidaton that I write this.  No, more than a fair amount.  A lot.  I'm worried that I might be violating some protocol and get myself a bad rep on this site.  (If it's inappropriate, I will be happy to remove it.)

I'm more worried that responses to this diary will contribute to the hysterical and bitter tone that seems to be dominating DKos today.

And I'm even more worried that, although I've always been told I'm a very good writer, I will somehow fail to clearly and credibly communicate what I'm trying to say, and this will be viewed as just one more diary in the primary candidate flame wars, and people won't actually read it.  That worries me a lot. But what would worry me most would be not to put the information out there at all, so with a gulp I begin:

Yesterday, SmileySam posted this diary about the O'Bomber smear.  Since it had 837 comments last time I looked and the longest rec list (502) I've ever seen in my few weeks here, I would have assumed that virtually everyone had seen it.  But from the diaries and comments I'm reading here today, I think that assumption might be wrong.  

I understand that duplicate diaries aren't allowed on this site, which is the source of my first worry listed above, but (with apologies to SmileySam if I'm overstepping) I'm hoping it's OK to do this anyway as a 2nd installment, since the original has 837 comments, which is a ridiculous amount of text for anyone to navigate their way through, especially with dial-up.  Plus I'm adding in a brief summary of the gist of the comments, with some references to some additional topics discussed in some of today's diaries.

The essence of SmileySam's diary was an article from the ABC News website headlined Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties  Read it and weep:  

The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories.

"Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.

Just one more episode in the candidate wars?  The authors of at least 800 of the comments to the original diary didn't think so, including many former Clinton admirers.  Here's why:

1. By referring to the Weather Underground as a "terrorist" group, Clinton is cynically playing into the "Obama as Muslim" meme and all the prejudice and antagonism toward him that that entails. If you are over 45 years old, you probably know that the Weather Underground, a/k/a the Weathermen, were no more Muslim than Hillary Clinton is. They were a radical student group, an arm of the SDS. But in today's sound-bite driven world, how many people will bother to find that out when they hear "terrorist"?

2. Obama was a little kid in the 60's -- or at least the part of the 60's that occured after he was born. Ayers has become a good ol' librul in his old age -- teaches juvenile offenders, adopted a kid and raised him to be a Rhodes Scholar, was on some kind of community organizing board with Obama. He gave $200 to Obama's campaign in 2000. Of what relevance is this info now? Silly Season squared!

3. This is the biggie. Of course in e-mail you can't see the expression on people's faces, but can you imagine the expression on Phil Singer's face being anything other than a smirk as he was sending an e-mail to the media "wondering" what the Rethugs would do with this issue? Combine this with the other things we're seeing in diaries here today, after her make-nice moments Thursday night, and it is becoming clear that her strategy now is to work hand in hand with the Rethugs to to undermine the essence of the Obama candidacy -- to so discredit him with hateful distortions that even if he is able to withstand the onslaught of Clintons + Rethugs to gain the nomination, he will not be able to win in the GE.

The above is a VERY brief summary, and I don't know whether I've done the comments justice.  I encourage you to go read the comments in the original diary if you have the time and energy to wade through it.  For many posters, this was the last straw.  I understand that others may not see it the same way, and will assert that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.  But is it also good for the party, the Presidency, or the country?

I'm not going to ask people to respond to a poll.  We've had a bunch of polls lately.  How you respond, either in your personal feelings, your support for a candidate, or any action you might think is appropriate to take (such as expressing your opinions to party leaders) is an individual matter.  I am alarmed.