what they found was an authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters

Authentically unhinged.

Ezra,

Just a quick quasi-correction. FL and MI didn't have their delegations sliced in half. Their delegations will be seated in full, but each delegate will only have half of a vote. This is the same thing from a practical, vote-counting perspective, but most likely makes the state parties happier as everyone gets to go to Denver.

Unfortunately, no, this one is not "up to Clinton herslef" - indeed, what's become clear is that events have moved well beyond the woman herslef to much larger issues of angre and resentment that will be hard to resolve. I'm sure, if and when it comes to the moment to concede, Clinton will be gracious and fulsome in turning her support to Obama (I suspect it will not come as soon as some Obama supporters will like, which will then call into question its fulsomeness and sincerity)... but that won't fix this. The problem with the MI and FL decisions is that, together, they are rbitrary, somewhat absurd, and not particularly based on a standard to follow going forward (so... if when faced with a decision about delegate allocation... let's just make up a result that's based neither on rules nor actal votes, but pulled, out of thin air, as some deus ex machina).

The point is this: the question of unifying the party members around a candidate and an idea does not belong to the loser... it belongs to the winner. This has been my gripe about Obama all along: not doing what he needs to do to actually win over the people who are not backing him as their first choice. It's his job to reach out, the job of his supporters to offer common ground, the work of his team to offer ways to bring the party together. Mrs. Clinton did not run, and is not here now, to do his homework. And this weekend's events - which, like almost everything up to now, resolve nothing - continue to underline not so much what is happening, but what isn't. And while I remain confident that a Democrat can win this fall (and accept that the Democrat will be Obama), I can't say I'm fully convinced or enthusiastically determined to work for it. And getting there, I'm sorry... is Obama's job, not Clinton's.

Weboy,

I agree with you that there's work to be done by Obama to overcome the current divide (though I would say Clinton has her burden, too, as the existence of the divide is as much her fault as his, and it's her party as much as his), but I'm not sure what exactly that work is.

My question for you, though, is how exactly he is supposed to win over the support of those who claim they won't vote for him? The current resentment seems like something that his embracing mandates in his health care plan won't fix.

Further, and this may be my own bias showing, is I'm not sure what he did to alienate her supporters. He didn't dredge up any of her or her husband's dirty laundry, he didn't say that the state's she won were irrelevant, he didn't say her supporters were deluded cultists or that they didn't represent real, true, working Americans. I'm not sure what he did to upset the Clinton supporters except come close to winning the nomination. Actually, one thing he should have done is strongly attack the media for its sexism, regardless of whether Clinton's campaign was accepting/stoking the fires of racial resentment. Somethings are just wrong and need to be addressed, and he should have addressed them.

Anyway, I truly don't mean this to be an aggressive post, I just don't know what Obama is expected to do to salve the current pain/resentment.

so... if when faced with a decision about delegate allocation... let's just make up a result that's based neither on rules nor actal votes, but pulled, out of thin air, as some deus ex machina

The number -- derived by the state of Michigan, and not the RBC -- is not completely arbitrary. It was derived from an analysis of polls at the time (to include people who chose to vote in the Republican election because the Democratic ones would not count) and the Obama write-in votes that were disqualified. The Clinton arguments have been about not disinfranchising voters. That is exactly what this is about.

Actually, half a vote is not the same as a half delegation. The half vote result keeps the number of delegates, but halves their voting power. The half delegation approach actually narrows the differential - basically, in districts where there was a single delegate difference, the difference is rounded down, and so the side that "won" loses part of of its delegate haul. That's why the solutions are different, and produce different gains.

i think the "legions of angry hillary supporters" meme is overstated.

at one point the hillary blogs were promising "tens of thousands" would show up at the RBC meeting, and what'd they get? a few hundred? a few hundred screeching, goofily-dressed people who only have one word in their vocabulary--"Denver." heck, you can teach a parrot more words than that.

the question of unifying the party....is not up to the loser...it is up to the winner"

it is now up to all of us...the winner, the loser and supporters.

after a divorce, when a decision is finally made, it is crucially important for both the mother and the father to STOP saying unkind and critical things for the sake of their family.
those who want their children to stay intact, must both work together for their healing.

Joe - I didn't say, and wouldn't, that Obama has "alienated" me; my only question has been who would I prefer as President... and I support Hillary Clinton. I'm not alienated or opposed to Obama. But I think he (still) has work to do to win over people who have not, yet, chosen to support him.

Do I know how he does that? No; like you, I'm not sure what you do to change the way we talk about this race... but then, I thought that was the difference between us and campaign experts. Shouldn't this crack political team Obama's assembled have something in mind? And if they don't... is that supposed to make me feel better about the prospects in November? I'm thinking no...

And Walker, if you like I'm happy to use "sort of arbitrary" as opposed to "completely arbitrary"... that semantic distinction seems kind of beside the point.

Weboy,

I'd expect that Obama's team has something in mind, but so long as the Clinton campaign (really, her surrogates and prominent supporters like Ickes and Lanny Davis) frames this as the Obama campaign in cahoots with the media are stealing the nomination through ageism/gender hatred, it will be difficult as the more die-hard Clinton supporters will, understandably, have a hard time letting that go. It's not an easy thing to convince people that don't want to be convinced and that think you are operating in bad faith. (By the way, the bad faith accusations on both sides have been what have troubled me the most outside of the (c)overt sexism and racism, as once people assume bad faith in the opponent, there is very little that can overcome that assumption).

As for Obama's Appalachia problem, I do hope/expect that the Obama campaign has something in mind, but I also think some portion (but by no means all or most) of that is racially tinged and impossible to overcome in the short term.

If Hillary had been given the extra 4 delegates, would that have shut her supporters up? If so, it would have been worth it, but I somehow get the feeling they'd still be complaining.

On the plus side, the 500 people who took the time and money to make the trip were probably extreme and more dedicated than most (if crazier as well) and may not be representative of the overall Clintonworld.

Obama will reach out to reasonable Clinton supporters. Obama has been reaching out to reasonable Clinton supporters (as anyone who is paying attention will have noticed by now).

I doubt Obama will reach out to the crazies--nor should he. The folks with the seething irrational hatred of Obama can't be reached at all, and it would be stupid to try.

In fact, I think it's actually smart politics for him to have people like Harriet Christian out there blasting him. As (President) Clinton discovered, there can be certain advantages in having enemies who are batshit crazy (and, more importantly, appear batshit crazy to most people).

"This one is up to Clinton herself."

Uh, no. Absolute wrong conclusion. Obama needs to make the sale. And it won't be easy.

Giving Obama four of Clinton's delegates seems arbitrary and petty. He can't need them, can he?

The "unity" candidate had to divide the party to win the nomination.
It's Obama's responsibility to try to put it back together - after he called Democrats racists, clinging to their guns and religion...after he absorbed Wright's hatemongering and racist rants for 20 years....after he engaged in race-baiting and sexism and falsely accused the Clintons of racism...after he's repeatedly trashed the Clinton administration.

But Obama couldn't have done it without the permission of the elite Washington establishment that has supported him from the gitgo!

Obama/Wright08

Obama's philosophy learned at the feet of Wright and Phleger dictates Obama will continue "finding" racist motives and comments where none exist.

Obama has been more focused on playing the Race Card throughout the primary rather than issues and solutions - and as president would have MORE power to encourage his Thought Police to roam the earth seeking "racist" motives to destroy the reputations of good people with NO racist motives!

No thanks!
We'll vote for McCain rather than an Empty Suit race-baiter.

"This one is up to Clinton herself."

Do you have any idea -- any -- how breathtakingly arrogant and dismissive that sounds? The absolutely clear implication of that statement is that all of the anger of Hillary supporters is manufactured by Hillary herself, that the Obama and his camp have had nothing to do with it, and no responsibility whatever for remedying it. Could you present a more holier-than-thou attitude?

And then you Obama supporters wonder why so many Hillary supporters simply can't stomach you.

"...and what they found was an authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters. And that's not a problem the Rules Committee can resolve. This one is up to Clinton herself."

Once again - you are wrong. Any "unity" is up to Obama. But I don't expect much from the unity pony.

Lmao, Give it up weboy. You people said thousands would show up to protest, and all you got was 300 members of the Hillary is44 gang. There is no massive wave of anger, just a small group of dead-enders screaming and howling like banshees. Most of those people saying they won't vote for Obama will come home, and both parties tend to lose 10-15% to the other party in any given election.

It is amazing, however, that the same people who argued that we shouldn't punish Florida and Michigan voters for the mistakes of their leaders are also arguing that we MUST punish Michigan Obama supporters for the Obama taking his name off the ballot. Will of the voters my ass.

As I said:

I doubt Obama will reach out to the crazies--nor should he. The folks with the seething irrational hatred of Obama can't be reached at all, and it would be stupid to try.

It is amazing, however, that the same people who argued that we shouldn't punish Florida and Michigan voters for the mistakes of their leaders are also arguing that we MUST punish Michigan Obama supporters for the Obama taking his name off the ballot. Will of the voters my ass.

(And no, I'm not accusing the Clintonites of racism; I'm accusing them of breathtaking cynicism and opportunism.)

I'm relieved it is finally over. MI and FL didn't live by the rules and in the end allowances were made anyway.

The change many of us wanted to see was to get away from the Dick Morris / Karl Rove playbook. I think that has been accomplished now. I honestly had little expectation that could happen. I love being wrong about this.

Obama is not "magical unity pony". He advocated a return to competition based on merit and vision. He also showed he could play tough without fully falling into the Dick Morris playbook.

Two wonderful things could come out of all this. One is the GOP finally shakes the social conservative corrosion that started with the bigoted Democrats turning Republican in the sixties and given a fatal degree of influence by Reagan. The other is the Democratic Party regains the ethical center and backbone to defend itself that it found in the thirties and lost in the seventies.

Hillary had my full support until February and completely lost it by the end of April. All her sheer talent and ability lost out to the same insecurity that makes possible the Dick Morris's and Karl Roves of the world.

I'm so glad this is over. And I'd like to see both parties transform into something constructive for the country.

Whipping McCain in the general will go a long way towards forcing the GOP to finally rebuild itself, and the Democrats to finally organize effectively.

Sorry, Ezra: you really get this backwards. It is up to the nominee to bring everyone together. Putting the burden on Clinton just shows shallow thinking on your part.

If you think the loser has got to unite the party then you are in the wrong business. You have been too ready to blame Clinton, when you should be focusing on how to bring her supporters under the Obama banner. Get over Clinton. She is not an issue for us.

Franklyo, we don't really give a fuck what idiots like you say. You're not smart enough to tell the difference between Obama and some random person on the internet. Clearly, you're a natural McCain supporter. So go have fun voting for another loser.

If you want to leave the party, then leave the party. The time for threats like this was 2 months ago, 2 weeks ago, or 2 days ago. Hell, I made plenty of them when the time was appropriate, when it might have had an impact. The nomination is over now, and it's obvious you all realize that. If you want to go join Holy Joe because the more conservative candidate lost, be our guest. We don't really want to hear you whining about it anymore.

Hillary is the one who spent the last 3 months telling everyone who would listen that Obama hates white people, that he hates women, that he hates liberals, that he hates conservatives, that he hates men, and all of that. She's a two-bit conservative demagogue, and your anger is her fault. She's the one who called you racist, saying you would never vote for Obama because of 'cultural' issues. She's the one who claimed she was the living embodiment of all women, and that opposing her was opposing women. It's time for her and her supporters to start taking responsibility for that. Polls are pretty clear, we only need a few more % points to win. We don't need all of you. We don't even need half of you. You can suck it up and vote for Obama the same way you would be telling us to do if Obama lost, or you can go cry and stomp in the corner like babies. Either way, stop telling us about it because we don't care anymore.

Frank (and all the others who accuse Obama of "racism"):

Prove to me when Obama or anyone connected with his campaign has called anyone a "racist." They didn't even call Geraldine Ferraro a racist when she clearly is one -- as demonstrated by her calling him an affirmative-action candidate (same as she did to Jesse Jackson twenty years earlier). All Obama said was that her remarks were unfortunate - he didn't say "she is engaging in race-baiting," even when she was.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton (who benefited tremendously from the private affirmative action of her marriage Bill) has touted what a historical "sea change" it would be to have a woman president. (Obama has never, to my knowledge, talked about what a historical precedent it would be to have a black man as president -- though it would be, since Western nations have elected women to the highest office in the land before, but never a candidate of color.) Her supporters, such as Ferraro and Bill, have consistently screamed "racism!" from his camp where none exists, even as they fan the flames of white resentment with comments about "hardworking Americans, white Americans," and Bill's comments about "Wouldn't it be nice to have a race between two people who love America," in a construction which clearly suggests that the scary Obama doesn't truly love America. Bob Kerrey told nonsensical lies about his "secular madrassa" education. Clinton supporter Bob Johnson, at a rally, brought up Obama's drug usage. (Obama and his team have never talked about Hillary habitually enabling a serial adulterer and accused sexual harasser.)

Hillary has said that John McCain is more qualified to be commander-in-chief than Obama. She got in the mud gleefully in the guilt-by-association fest that was the disgraceful ABC debate (even though she and Bill have their own connections with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers). Obama graciously refused to call her out on what she herself, not a surrogate, had done -- brazenly lie about her trip to Bosnia.

At every turn, the mud in this campaign has come most thickly and furiously from the Clinton camp, because by their own admission, they only thought they could win after Super Tuesday by going with the "kitchen sink" strategy of negative campaigning and personal destruction. Now Obama is supposed to make the hateful minions love him? The irrational hatred from the Clinton supporters that I've seen stems from one thing: Obama had the audacity to run against Hillary -- and beat her -- in a year when she assumed it would be "her turn." He's not to blame for her childish hubris and misplaced sense of inevitability that kept her from trying to win those "small, insignificant, activist caucus" states. (And if Michigan and Florida are so affronted by not having all their votes counted in unsanctioned primaries, why shouldn't all the states dissed by Hillary's camp protest if she is the nominee?)

He's not to blame for the fact that Big Fighting Feminist Hillary meekly stepped aside and let the menfolk (Bill, Ickes, Wolfson, Penn) tell her how to run her race. (Just as she meekly followed the Madness of King George's War.)

Fact is, based on the lackluster competition she ran against in NY, Hillary the Fighter only wins when she doesn't have a strong opponent. So no wonder some of her supporters are still angry after the RBC. They know she's not good enough to win on her own merits, as demonstrated by the fact that she has lost the pledged delegates, the most states, and the popular vote and has been bleeding superdelegates since March. And when the person beating her also happens to be black, that also enrages some of her less-evolved supporters, as evinced by comments from Kentucky and West Virginia.

So scream reverse-racism all you want, but eventually you will have to face the fact that Hillary Clinton got beaten fair and square by a superior political opponent who didn't have to go dirty to make his case. She had every advantage going in -- name recognition, fundraising apparatus, the Clinton machine, a media narrative that bought the BS about "experience" (though she has less legislative experience than Obama) and "inevitability." And she still screwed up. That's on her.

If you think you can afford the luxury of your petty hurt feelings in the light of a possible McCain presidency, then you are spoiled and out of touch with reality.

And again, if you can find links proving a single time that Obama or his camp has called anyone a racist, bring them on. Otherwise, I'll assume you are lying.

Many comments here, but nobody's managed to answer Joe's question about what exactly Obama is supposed to do.

I have an answer. Keep talking about how much McCain sucks. Some people have good reasons for preferring Clinton to Obama. Others have bad reasons (age, race, desire for Iran's obliteration, delusions about stolen nomination). Once people remember that McCain is the foe here, those with good reasons for supporting Clinton will support Obama over McCain. And for those with bad reasons--well, I hope they'll be won over by Obama's performance of office and vote our way in 2012.

If Clinton would like to run in 2012 or 2016, however, she'd better start worrying about how she can win back Obama supporters, because we've proven that there are enough of us to decide who becomes the Democratic nominee. One reason I've become so disillusioned with her is that I've seen so much more passion from the two of them in fighting Barack Obama than I've ever seen from them in fighting any other foe. Get out there and help beat McCain and maybe we'd see her differently next time around.

That said, assuming that she really does care about the country and progressivism, she shouldn't need any incentive to fight for the Democratic nominee. She would just do the right thing. No, she's under no obligation--this is America, and she could transform herself into some kind of Geraldine Ferraro/Zell Miller hybrid if she wants to--that's her First Amendment right. However, she would be doing a massive disservice to her supporters if she intentionally saddled them with a McCain presidency.

Its "affect" not "effect" and by the way, it's up to OBAMA to figure out the anger thing and try to fix it. It will be his election to win or lose. His supporters like you, are making that a lot harder.

I'm a Clinton supporter who probably won't even vote for President for the first time in my lifetime. This isn't Clinton's fault, it's Obama's and yours, I guess.

If Obama wants the half of the country who voted for Hillary to vote for him, he'd better show more than he already has.

We didn't think he was worth voting for the first time.

It doesn't matter what Hillary does. This is not her problem.

The election is his -- and vicariously yours -- to lose.

How are you going to make me care after you've dissed Hillary and people like me for months? I don't care if you lose.

I'd just as soon you all learn the hard lesson and smarten up for next time.

Many comments here, but nobody's managed to answer Joe's question about what exactly Obama is supposed to do.

I have an answer. Keep talking about how much McCain sucks.

How are you going to make me care after you've dissed Hillary and people like me for months? I don't care if you lose.

"Franklyo, we don't really give a fuck what idiots like you say."

Responding is surely the best way to illustrate that!
LOL

You're just too easy, Trolllite.

This isn't Clinton's fault, it's Obama's and yours, I guess.

If you don't show up to the voting booth, it isn't Obama's fault, it isn't Clinton's fault, and it isn't my fault. It's yours. You are in total control, with total responsibility for your own voting actions. Nobody will have to feel guilty for your vote or failure to vote but you. Nobody.

In January either Barack Obama or John McCain becomes president. You may be able to convince yourself that you'd prefer to see an entire country of men, women, and children suffer under McCain than see Obama win. Maybe you'll think you could crack a smile or even laugh every time a soldier dies in Iraq or a child dies without coverage here. I've felt similar things in the past.

And I'm here to warn you that such cruelty never feels as good as you expect it to.

I'd just as soon you all learn the hard lesson and smarten up for next time.

If McCain wins and we still somehow manage to make it to 2012, I won't be the one who regrets my actions. I would seek allies among those who sincerely supported McCain because they thought he was a better candidate but might change their mind. But I won't have anything to say to those who supported McCain out of spite. I don't think there will be many such people--I have faith that Americans will remember what matters here and not intentionally act to screw over the entire country.

There is no way you can vote that will make us regret anything. You might as well give up on that goal. Vote for what's best for the country. You don't have to. But deep down you know you should.

There really is a breathtaking arrogance in Ezra's declaration that Clinton needs to be the unifier.

Not that it matters. The reason Obama can't make the sale isn't Hillary. It's him. He's too far left, has no achievements, and is an empty suit.

And Liza, weboy, and the rest, come on over to the dark side and be bad:

Don't Be A Good Democrat

Obama has "made the sale": he won. I've seen plenty of primary battles, and I've backed the losing candidate more than I care to admit. But I have never seen more contemptable behavior than that exhibited by Clinton partisans. Sour grapes, nasty insults at the winning candidate and his supporters, and veiled threats and blackmail demands if they don't get what they want. I'm not going to dignify these responses by begging; I'm only going to give them the answer that they deserve.

Grow up. Compare the actual candidates for president - Obama and McCain - and choose the one who is closest to your beliefs. If you're a Democrat it is likely that choice will be Obama. I didn't throw a tantrum when Dean lost, or when Edwards lost. I didn't spout Republican garbage about Democratic candidates. I didn't think that the nominee "owed me".

Cons,

There are Clinton supporters who actually think McCain would be a better president than Obama.

Then there are Clinton supporters who don't think Obama progressive enough, supporters who may vote Green instead; that will probably be my choice.

Then there are those who recognize that a corrupt process has reached its corrupt conclusion, and that a vote for Obama is one of approval for that system.

None of these would be spiteful.

Consumatopia, None of the Above looks like the only sensible choice in November if Obama and McCain are on the tickets.

Cal, your dark side doesn't interest me either.

I'm a mainstream Democrat, and none of these speak for me.

There are Clinton supporters who actually think McCain would be a better president than Obama.

How the hell could you call yourself a Democrat and do that? I'm asking seriously. He disagrees with Hillary Clinton on almost every point. Is a gas tax repeal really that important?

How the hell could you call yourself a Democrat and do that?

Because being a president is about characters and principle, of which Obama has exactly zero. And it's not all that high a standard to meet. He's done nothing. He's said nothing. He is only interested in his next job. The presidency should never be his "next job". He's irresponsible, anti-American, and way too far left for comfort.

The idea that specific policy prescriptions are relevant in the presidency is one of the great jokes of modern campaigning. As if anyone's going to be getting a health care plan through.

No, the only real issues to be concerned about are judges and Iraq. But on Iraq, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be no difference between the troop exit between an Obama and McCain presidency. the one difference is that McCain will be more competent at leading the country.

On judges, the Democratic congress and the public at large simply won't allow Stevens and Ginsburg to be replaced by conservatives. McCain can promise until he's blue. Ain't going to happen.

Cal, your dark side doesn't interest me either.

Staying home vs. voting for McCain don't differ much. If you feel Obama is wrong on the issues, then the best thing to do is vote for McCain. He won't be able to achieve his policy objectives, for the most part, but he'll be a useful brake on a Democratic congress. If you vote for Obama, the Dems will take exactly the wrong message away: they can put up any left wing incompetent to make the Move On nuts happy, and the "good Democrats" will fall in line.

A month or two from now, none of this will matter, and the campaign will be fully between Obama and McCain.

And as for Clinton or Obama. It's actually both. Obama needs to continue to be gracious in his win while beating the shit out of McCain (to effectively change the subject). Clinton needs to reign in her crazies. Seriously, as someone who could careless whether its Clinton or Obama, you Clinton supporters as represented at the event yesterday came across as just plain old crazy. I expect that of some hard core Obama supporters, but Jesus- the pot has become the kettle.

PS
I wouldn't waste time feeding the trolls along the thread talking about voting for McCain. Let them vent as much as they want. Let them vote for whom ever they want. If the last 8 years hasn't been enough for them, someone that fucked in the head is too far gone for conversaton and is in need of therapy that the 'internets' can't provide.

How are you going to make me care after you've dissed Hillary and people like me for months? I don't care if you lose.

Have fun comforting yourself with that when McCain overturns Roe v Wade, refuses to bring the Iraq troops home, the economy goes into the shitter, and the healthcare system continues its inevitable collapse.

I cant believe that your cult of personality worship for Hillary extends so far as to pick a far worse president than Obama, even if he was "sexist" which I dont agree with.

Exactly why does "how do we beat the bitch" McCain appeal to you over Obama?

I hope you never need an abortion.

Marc,

Couldn't agree more!

Maybe a good story for a liberal blog--could hardly expect the MSM to do anything--would be too look at how, in the past, candidates who have lost the primaries and their supporters have behaved. I doubt they will all have been uniformly gracious, but a lot of them will have bowed out graciously, and I bet your claim will hold up.

The alternate-reality dwelling sore losers in this thread are really amusing.

It's Clinton's responsibility to bring her supporters back into the fold because she was the one who alienated them from any cause other than her own candidacy. She needs to go to the "hard working people, hard working white people" who she got to hate Obama and start bringing down the temperature.

Certainly Obama has to reach out too. But he's doing that. But he won't have any success with it until the pot comes down from a rolling boil to a simmer.

And BTW I agree above that this is pretty much overblown. Sure lots of people are put out right now, but the real clowns like frankly0 are in a small minority. The huge proportion of Hillary supporters will come around quickly enough.

Posted by: Anonymous
Have fun comforting yourself with that when McCain overturns Roe v Wade,

Actually this would be the best thing possible for those who want an ironclad decision giving women choice.

It takes away the ambiguity that both parties have hid behind.

I say this as someone who is pro-choice and yet finds abortion itself tragic and in need of a better way.

Roe v. Wade is a political football. We need something stronger.

"Have fun comforting yourself with that when McCain overturns Roe v Wade, refuses to bring the Iraq troops home, the economy goes into the shitter, and the healthcare system continues its inevitable collapse."

Where are the Democrats in Congress going to be while all of this is happening?

It seems a bit odd to argue good luck giving McCain the win while threatening to vote for McCain. Which is it- those of us who don't agree to your blackmail are giving him the win or you? It seems you want to blame us for your own actions. Weird.

Have fun comforting yourself with that when McCain overturns Roe v Wade, refuses to bring the Iraq troops home, the economy goes into the shitter, and the healthcare system continues its inevitable collapse.

I'm not an angry feminist. As has been observed, lots of Clinton supporters merely think that Obama would be a disastrous president.

As for your specifics:

No way does McCain get two conservative judges replacing Ginsburg and Stevens (assuming they retire)

Neither of them will be bringing the troops home.

The economy will do what it does; presidents have a limited ability to impact it. Certainly, Obama has no qualifications to deal with the economy and has no accomplishments of any sort to point to in order to argue his competence.

Neither president will make a change to health care, although I suspect that the market will ultimately move everything McCain's way. There's already a lot of talk among Democratic politicians saying that there ain't no way that they're taking on health care.

I hope you never need an abortion.

If you're going to play in the big kids' pool, know your facts. Roe vs. Wade doesn't legalize abortion. It merely prevents the states from making it illegal.

Given that South Dakota, the most conservative state, couldn't get an outright abortion ban past the electorate, there's not much chance that states will be making abortion illegal.

Not that it matters. McCain won't get the judges he wants. He'll cut a deal.

There are Clinton supporters who actually think McCain would be a better president than Obama.

Sure, I find it plausible that there are some liberal Clinton hawks out there who want to obliterate Iran and get universal health care. Like I said, the time to earn their trust will be after January. I hope people like this will come to be glad that they lost in 2008 by the time 2012 comes around--as some liberals were (mistakenly) glad they lost briefly after 9/11. They are well-motivated but wrong.

Then there are Clinton supporters who don't think Obama progressive enough, supporters who may vote Green instead; that will probably be my choice.

Well, the Green party candidate has no chance of winning. Now, maybe sometimes you could argue that voting green would send a message to Dems to be more progressive. But not this year. As you said, some Clinton supporters like the conservative McCain more than the liberal Obama. Clinton's support seems to be driven by demographics and name-recognition rather than ideology, so it's not clear what message I'm supposed to get from an Obama defeat other than "screw Democrats and screw America, I was fucking right!" There's no lesson for me to take home from an Obama defeat other than fighting harder next time.

Then there are those who recognize that a corrupt process has reached its corrupt conclusion, and that a vote for Obama is one of approval for that system.

Here's the thing about the second two reasons you have for voting. They're about sending messages. But the messages you want to send cannot be sent.

Clinton supporters are not sufficiently coherent ideologically to send an ideological message by refusing to vote for Obama.

And the case that Obama's nomination is "corrupt", is, to say the least, not widely shared. Even if you were right (and I think it's appallingly obvious to anyone with any honesty that you are not), no one is going to see it that way even if Obama loses. I repeat, even if Obama loses, nobody is going to say "if only the DNC had followed the rules more closely".

There is no coherent message for Clinton supporters to send by refusing to vote for Obama.

Not only has nobody here explained what Obama is supposed to do to earn your support (I mean, you could at least say "Obama should apologize for X!" where X is some imagined offense you think he has committed against you.) nobody here has even managed to explain what lesson I'm supposed to learn from the Obama general election defeat they're threatening. The motivations behind the Clinton movement are all strange historical idiosyncracies and personal sympathies, with no general ideological or principle lessons for me to learn and apply to future elections.

There's a difference between a protest vote and a spite vote. With no coherent message to be sent, you can't call an anti-Obama protest vote a protest vote. It's just a spite vote.

And there won't be very many of you making it.

I'm not an angry feminist.

Posted by: Consumatopia
And there won't be very many of you making it.

Up until this last observation you were on a roll. :-)

Actually now, the politics of triangulation, identity, and victimhood is very much alive on both sides of the aisle. I have to admit that HRC has it down to a fine two-edged blade.

In fact the only thing that precludes a triumph of the old stage overcoming the next stage during this particular cycle is exactly the old school who can't move on.

We boomers have always been our own best friends and worst enemies. I'm a '63 boomer and used to being on the crux.

Look at it this way. If we slip and McCain does win, we'll still be a helluva lot closer than anything else Senator Clinton, Senator Liebermann, and the republican old guard could throw out.

Win-Win either way.

What you are is a Republican troll trying to ratfuck the Democrats.

Wrong. I have never voted for a Republican for president, or indeed voted for a Republican for any office more than 2 or 3 times.

I am not a very good Democrat, but it's the closest term to describe my politics, and so far as presidential elections go, my vote's as Democratic as yours. Until November, anyway.

That said, I am certainly hoping to help the Democrats lose in November. The Democratic leadership needs to learn a lesson about ignoring the moderates. I hope enough people choose to be bad Democrats to make them remember for another 20 years, at least.

What if they threw an election, and old Democrats shrugged?

Above all, I want to live in peace here in America and in the rest of the world and on the Net.

I've been called every name in the book by Obama supporters for supporting Hillary, as has she.

Why would you take for granted the votes of people you continue to vilify?

There's no peace there.

('63 "boomer" Observer, you missed the sixties. They were fully over by the time you were 11.)

I've been called every name in the book by Obama supporters for supporting Hillary, as has she.

Right, and we're never called anything for supporting Obama.

Of course, under McCain, name-calling won't be the worst that happens to people. He's repeatedly demonstrated misjudgments both foreign and domestic (unlike Hillary who's misjudments are at least usually foreign or electoral)

"they found was an authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters"

I don't doubt that Clinton supporters are angry...most democrats are hoppin mad after nearly 8 years of incompetent conservatism and wrongheaded belligerant foreign policy...

Is the Clinton camp confused about how we got into this Iraq mess in the first place (hint/clue: democrats that authorized it) or about which president (i.e. "W") neglected...nay undermined the (economic) interests of the average american?

Seems to me that the country needs new leadership...

Lmao @ the flood of TalkLeft Trolls. Go back to your restricted comment section where BTD's racist ass bans everyone who disagrees with him, erases their comments and replaces them with vicious screeds.

You people ALWAYS demand that we support the loser when your side wins. You talk about Roe V. Wade. You talk about the Supreme Court. You talk about the Environment. But the moment YOUR side loses, you all act like spoiled children and threaten to bolt the party. You admit that you don't REALLY care about the supreme court, Roe V Wade, or the Environment; you only cared about getting Humphrey/Carter/Mondale/Clinton/Kerry elected and perpetuating DLC power.

Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. If you EVER want a chance at winning another election, if you EVER want us to support your candidates when they win primaries, you best shut the fuck up and fall in line like you've spent the last 2 decades demanding we do. If not, you can kiss any chance at party unity goodbye for a generation. If you think you can throw Obama aside and ever expect his supporters to support one of your candidates in a general election, you've got another thing coming.

I, for one, am sick of coddling you. I'm sick of your accusations and your bizarre belief that your faction is the only faction that ever deserves to win. I'm sick of you all pretending this is still 1968 or even 1988. I'm sick of your 'OMG, someone to the left of me won the nomination ARGHHH!!!!!' BS. Get in line, or shut the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit about your god damned histrionics at this point.

Both candidates will bring the troops home, as it will become clear that we can no longer afford to keep them there in either blood or treasure. Obama will realize this sooner--the better for the country.

The same is true for health care--medical inflation is out of control, and we're spending too much money figuring out who to deny coverage too. If we don't get universal coverage now, some Romney or Schwarzenegger Republican will give it to us.

Either candidate will start investing money in energy independence--though Obama will likely realize the importance of this before McCain does.

Across the board, the necessity of the "liberal" path is inarguable. It's just a matter of whether we have a Dem do it today, or a Republican belatedly do it eventually after whatever bankruptcies and fatalities are caused by the status quo.

The only silver-lining to a McCain victory would be McCain's proven willingness to flip-flop whenever convenient on all issues from torture(!) to tax cuts.

I don't expect the last irrational die-hards of GOP idiocy on health care, defense and taxation to switch sides in time for the election. They will only be won over after our policies have a chance to prove that they work.

indie wrote: "Then there are those who recognize that a corrupt process has reached its corrupt conclusion, and that a vote for Obama is one of approval for that system."

I am a Clinton supporter who will not vote for Obama for the reason indie points out.

It occurs to me that I've always thought the US works best when one party controls congress, and other the white house. With Hillary as the nominee, I felt comfortable with Dems running both the exec. and the legislative branches. I'm not as comfortable with Obama in the same situation. He, with the help of congress will take us too far to the left, which will give us another republican congress/whitehouse in 2012.
So voting McCain doesn't look as daunting to me anymore.

Like I said before, all you fools could muster is 300 whackjob protestors and a lunatic who thinks Obama gave him a blowjob, claims to have personally witnessed Obama and Wright murder someone, and thinks he's next.

You people are every bit as pathetic as the freepers. Leave the party if you want, good luck exerting influence in the Republican party with the evangelicals and business types exerting all their power. At least here you had some influence. Do stop pretending you're taking more than 1 or 2% with you though, most of Hillary's supporters are reasonable people who did well under Clinton, not bizarro right wing freaks who can't get over the 60's. We'll gain more people than we will lose, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Don't expect anyone to beg you to come back if we lose either, you're going to be treated just like the naderites were. You'll get all the blame and nobody is going to miss you.

"But not this year."

??Are you arguing that Obama is more progressive than the Greens?

I don't know that my vote needs to send a message, Cons. It just needs to be counted.

Neither Clinton or Obama are idelogically different from each other. I think that point needs to be repeated over and over again. I agree the CLinton supporters are over the top. I don't agree with deluding ourselves into thinking Obama is going to be any less centrist than she would have been. What he is our nominee.

"Get in line, or shut the fuck up." (soullite)

Good definition of fascism.

Why would you take for granted the votes of people you continue to vilify?

So somebody called you a bad name? Boo fucking hoo. Grow up and get over yourself.

soullite: "I, for one, am sick of coddling you. I'm sick of your accusations and your bizarre belief that your faction is the only faction that ever deserves to win. I'm sick of you all pretending this is still 1968 or even 1988. I'm sick of your 'OMG, someone to the left of me won the nomination ARGHHH!!!!!' BS. Get in line, or shut the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit about your god damned histrionics at this point."

Boy, that'll get us all together! When you don't understand why your opposition opposes you, then you're up s**t creek without a paddle. Good luck winning without almost half of the base.

IF Obama is the nominee, he won by 51%, but most of his delegate votes were by caucus. The majority of people who actually went to the polls to vote, voted for Hillary. The difference between the 2 candidates is a fraction of 1%, both in delegates and popular vote.

To be told to get out of the race by Obama and his supporters months ago, is insulting and disreprectful. If you can't/won't see that, and how Obama needs to bring the party together, then I don't know what to tell you.

McCain/Clinton '08?

Tom Hilton, fascist or nazi?

Anonymous, you need to make up your mind. Do you want ot be ignored, or not?

This little game where you go 'Please, please, please pay attention to me. PLEASE!!!!' and then go 'Waaa Waaa, you said you weren't ever talking to me again!!!!' after I rip you apart is pathetic and needy.

So which is it?

As opposed to invading the comment section of a blog thats dedicated to a party you no longer want to belong to and bitching and moaning about how horrible we are for making you leave the party?

Don't piss in peoples faces and then cry like babies when they're mean to you. Go join the Republican party, or shut the fuck up about it. We don't need you, and we aren't going to beg you to stay.

SL,

I think you have me confused with another Anonymous, but no harm no foul.

soullite

many of us have hoped and worked hard for this...month by month, through many obstacles.
all we can do is to work to be the change we hope for.
in a world of personal responsibility, others will do as they will.
we all decide the journey we need to take.
we all uphold our own ideals.
dont let your joy and hopefulness be stolen today!
remember...
yes we can!
:-)

Obama supporters dissed Clinton, therefore I am forced to vote for the guy who said the reason her daughter was so ugly, was because Janet Reno was her father.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Jacqueline, I really don't know how you stay so cheerful. I'm fairly confident that Obama can win without these people. These people can do whatever they want. The campaign is over and Obama will be the nominee. If they want to call themselves Republicans now, thats fine. I don't have to care about it, though, and they should be reminded that they aren't the most important people in the world. Complaining at this point is a waste of time.

Question for the crowd: might it not have made sense to give Hillary everything she wanted? Why not undercut her or her supporters arguments about lack of democracy, etc? What I'm getting at is, Obama's lead would still be impossible to overcome. Right?

I think the whole thing was handled in ham-handed fashion. If ever some stars needed to be aligned for the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (given all the pro Democratic party trends and the deep antipathy toward the GOP brand and George Bush), this might be the year it happens.

soullite....

you know i am not always cheerful...
some of the obstacles that have been on the path of this campaign have often left us disconsolate and questioning of our faith in things.

we never know what the future holds.
.....it is hard enough to have your joy and hopefulness stolen on a bad day, but today is a good day!
the shortest distance between two places is a leap of faith:-)

Anonymous, then I'll answer you. Thats exactly why these people oppose Obama. I read TalkLEft, I read MyDD, Correntwire, Hillaryis44, and NoQuarter. Overwhelmingly, it's people who are angry because the DLC candidate lost. They might pretend it's for other reasons, but you always see them slipping up and using terms like 'left wing freakshow' or 'too far left'.

You're a bunch of over-privileged brats who didn't get your way. We're ahead in most polls even before we regain those of you who are sane, reasonable people who will eventually put your country ahead of your bruised egos. having 20% of an opponents supporters claim not to be willing to vote for you is normal, it's not some unusual occurance that requires drastic measures to counteract. The normal dynamics of a general election will do that. The rest of you are unreachable, and we don't need you.

You spent months laughing in our faces, telling us it didn't matter how many elections Obama won, because SD's would rig the game for Hillary at the end anyway. You told us black people and young people had no choice but to vote for Hillary, even if she did that. Given that we don't need very many of you, and that most Democrats don't actually care who the nominee was, given the way you all have acted in this primary season; why should we care about your hurt feelings? It's up to you all to decide if your egos are more important than your country, it isn't up to us to beg you to do the right thing.

Jasper, no. That would be chaos. This isn't about sticking our fingers in the eyes of Hillary supporters, it's about making sure we don't have a single, national primary on a single day. That would inevitably happened if we allowed states to move up their primaries with no penalty. If that happened, the establishment candidate with the highest name ID would always win. There would be no process to drag them further to the left with an insurgent challenger. There would be no process to make sure insurgents could win.

It might have been better for unity to give Hillary what she wanted, but it would have been a disaster for our party and our country. HRC and her supporters were playing for political gain, the rest of us were trying to maintain order. Thats why so many of us are angry at Hillary. She kept making these demands that nobody could have accepted, knowing that nobody would accept them. She demagogued these demands knowing that it would rile up her supporters, and neither they or her gave any thought to the logical result of doing so.

I would like to point out, as I constantly do, that if Barack Obama loses, you won't see another woman nominated for decades. Very few people will take a chance on a woman after a black man lost. It'll be older, white, southern men for a generation or two. Is that really something you want? Are you going to ignore the future because you didn't get what you wanted today? The same DLC types who are on your side today will use Obama's loss to argue against you tomorrow. Some of you may want to think about that?

You people ALWAYS demand that we support the loser when your side wins.

You are 100% correct about this. Every time an insurgent candidate challenges the establishment candidate in a primary, the hurt feelings of the insurgent's supporters are disregarded in favor of everyone "getting behind" the nominee in the fall. This is what happened with Howard Dean, with Bill Bradley, with Tsongas, with Jesse Jackson, and with Gary Hart. And, win or lose, the supporters fell in behind the candidate who had more money, more party inner circle support, and the big-name consultants.

Well, now the challenger to the big name, establishment candidate actually won. It was hard, and it was close, but your candidate lost. You don't always get to win, and when you lose, you are supposed to get over your disappointment, just like the supporters of losing primary candidates do all the time, and start fighting for the Democratic candidate.

I realize that for people who got behind Mondale, Clinton, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry in the previous nomination fights, this is an experience you didn't expect to have. But trust me, it's a necessary one and it's necessary to learn that sometimes you can work hard and still lose and not lash out at the nominee over it.

the most important thing that soulite said in all of that stuff he or she said was that the people who are like those you find on places like talk left or mydd are insignificant, and their numbers will decrease as the passion of the momentary feelings wear off. This is just the reality of the fact that McCain is their other choice. They can lie here and say they don't see a difference or that Obama is worse, but who here honestly believe the lie or that this is applicable than a very small subset of crazies? I saw a great diary yesterday that separate out Clinton's supporters from her "supporters." It sums up nicely why its better to just let the "supporters" vent. Not all of her supporters are the same.

"I would like to point out, as I constantly do, that if Barack Obama loses, you won't see another woman nominated for decades."

Dream on. Obama is not THAT important, except in this echo chamber.

Apology accepted.

You all Obamatons were apologizing for claiming Florida and Michigan didn't count right?

I mean even the DNC now claims the election in those states was legitimate and wants to count the votes so why were all the Obamatons going nuts all these months??
Funny how the DNC managed to find delegate votes for Obama in Michigan even though noone voted for him.

Must be a good affirmative action thing going on there.

Now why won't the DNC go back and give Hillary some delegates in states she lost??

Tyro: ""Well, now the challenger to the big name, establishment candidate actually won. It was hard, and it was close, but your candidate lost. You don't always get to win, and when you lose, you are supposed to get over your disappointment""

That's all fine and dandy, but I don't recall those candididates labelling their opponents voters as racists, bigots and haters of people not like them.

Maybe you can point me to some similar attacks on a candidates voters, but I don't recall any candidate attacking the very people they would need to vote for them in the fall.

Call me a racists and a hater and you lose my vote.

At some point my own personal dignity kicks in and says I can't vote for a guy that shows such antipathy toward me and shows such love of haters like Rev Wright, Trinity Church, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, Rashid Khalidi and the list goes on.

Obama clearly is NOT the person he is running as being. His record does not match his rheteric on any issue.

His winning was based on keeping the truth about him secret until after Super Tuesday.

It would be like finding out after Super Tuesday that Howard Dean was a member of the KKK and had been attending Klan meetings the last 20 years. Such people have not earned our votes.

Tom Hilton, fascist or nazi?

Sweetie, you sure defend McCain and insult Democrats an awful lot for a so-called 'Clinton Voter'.

If some of Clinton's supporters are supporters, and others are 'supporters', then some 'supporters' are just Republican trolls.

I do think some Obama supporters are getting trolled here into acting a bit silly (folks, we've won. Look happy, damnit. Be gracious. Don't become what you hate.).

But I do wish to emphasize how completely unique every explanation above for why so-and-so will vote for McCain seems to be. There's no common threa--for some he's too liberal, or he's tooconservative; he's a liar or he's too idealistic; he doesn't respect hard working white people, he doesn't respect baby boomer hippies--there's no common pattern here other than Obama Sucks. Everyone's in their own microtrend. Penn would be proud.

This thread alone should make absolutely clear why it is utterly impossible for Clinton supporters to send a message by defeating Obama--because the "Hillary Clinton" brand means something totally different to every single one of her supporters.

This isn't about sticking our fingers in the eyes of Hillary supporters, it's about making sure we don't have a single, national primary on a single day. That would inevitably happened if we allowed states to move up their primaries with no penalty.

Soullite: We won't have a single, national primary in 2012 no matter what we do this year, as long as we have the sense to simply adopt the GOP method next time (halve the delegations of transgressing states).

There's no rational reason -- if winning the White House is our goal -- to insist on punishing these two states' electorates in 2008. That's all water under the bridge.

And unfortunately, a lot of Clinton voters -- many of them -- let's be honest -- low information voters -- will interpret the DNC's actions as an act of hostility.

Again, Obama wins the nomination -- easily -- even with the most Hillary-friendly apportionment of Michigan and Florida's votes and delegates. This is all maddeningly self-defeating for Democrats. I guarantee you if it were the other party grappling with the issue they'd take the action most consistent with maximizing their chances at winning in November. Why the Democratic party can't do so is baffling.

Obama is the nominee. Nothing can change that. Now let's all get started on the process of beating McCain. Regrettably, the compromise reached by the DNC is not part of this process.

In fairness Consumatopia, that's true of both Clinton and Obama. Both have traded on their supporters projecting onto them the voters own aspirations and beliefs. But, you point is actually accurate, especially when one realizes people are arguing shades of very fine gradations of gray.

I mean even the DNC now claims the election in those states was legitimate and wants to count the votes so why were all the Obamatons going nuts all these months??
Funny how the DNC managed to find delegate votes for Obama in Michigan even though noone voted for him.

Connect the dots. The RBC gave Obama some MI delegates because they felt the MI primary was illegitimate.

They are correct.

It's an odd political scene when akaison seems to me the most reasonable and consensus building amongst us.

Look, I don't share a lot of the extreme views here - I do think unifying the party is key, and I think there's more work to it than some of the more cavalier Obama types are suggesting. I do think it's incumbent on Clinton supporters to be reahcbale - that is, I'm still willing to hear a good argument for Obama that moves me. I just haven't heard it yet.

And in this, yes, I agree with jacqueline... up to a point. We should all work harder to keep this positive... but let's not do it by pretending there's no tension here. There are real, and deep, divisions, and it means trying to bridge them, not haranguing people for them.

I do think it's incumbent on Clinton supporters to be reahcbale - that is, I'm still willing to hear a good argument for Obama that moves me.

The only argument that we're going to give you is the argument we give the rest of the voters--the issues. The war. The economy. Health care. Energy independence.

We're offering a better America here. I don't know what else you could possibly ask for.

The one thing you will not get is an apology. I'm deeply proud of the way Obama ran his campaign--it restores my faith in the Democratic party and the electoral process that a black reformer can challenge the establishment candidate and win. It's a victory for Obama and a victory for America that a lot of people worked damn hard for. And it will be a victory without an asterisk.

the stakes are so high this time...
i know that bill and hillary clinton realize this too. they still have many aspirations that they wish to realize in public and political life.
i think there will be restoration and we will move forward in an energized way.
it may take a little time, but i have faith that this is going to happen.

It's funny weboy how you keep focusing on what Obama needs to do to convince you. He doesn't need to do anything in my estimation to convince you other being the Democratic nominee against the GOP nominee. The last 8 years should convince of the folly of voting anything else. For the record, I was an ardent Edwards supporter. I don't remember the level of whining from most Edwards supporters that I am now hearing from Clinton supporters. That again is because it is as I suspect a reflection of the nature of the support. Most of his ardent supporters were about the issues, but as Consumatopia describes- many of the rest of you are personality driven. He or she is wrong not to admit to Obama being also driven by these forces. But the idea that you can be "convinced" seems beside the point. This isn'ta bout you. It's not about Obama. He may hold the office of President, if elected. But his duty is to America. I will repeat anyone who has to have Obama (THE DEMOCRAT) personally convince you at this point is really fucked in the head when comparing that choice to the REPUBLICAN. I cap those words because I , like most Americans, now get that there is a dimes worth of difference between the party. Even if that difference in the difference between a centrist and a reactionary- the choice for level heade rational voters should be easy. It shouldn't require any convincing. And if I see one more poster talk about McCain as if he has better character than Obama, I think I am just going to write everything in caps- McCain's character is one in which whether he means it or not includes Iraq for 100 years, includes the Keaton 5 (hope I am getting the right scandal), includes engaging in some pretty bad relatonships with lobbists, includes trying to placate folks like Hagee, includes voting with Bush 90 percent of the time, includes voting for the war with Iraq, includes saying anything to win the idiot vote, includes multiple other things that were this not just about pure emotion you and others would already know. I am not saying you will vote for McCain. I am saying you are aiding and abedding the idea like Obama isn't far superior. You are pretending as if Clinton wasn't a flawed candidate. You are acting highly emotionally with out anything to base it on other than personality. The thing you like to accuse Obama supporters of doing.

"I'm deeply proud of the way Obama ran his campaign..."

Wow, you must have been watching with blinders on. I saw Obama and his supporters as divisive as could be. His regular negative comments about how bad Bill Clinton was as a president, was a repeat of Republican talking points. His constant implication that Hillary wasn't trustworthy reminded me of Bill Bradley.

Like webboy, I'm still waiting for a reason to vote for Obama.

"I don't remember the level of whining from most Edwards supporters that I am now hearing from Clinton supporters."

Edwards wasn't a contender. Hillary has won significantly more votes that Obama. The fact that the media drank the Obama kool-aid, and have in lock-step with the Obama campaigned dismissed her and her supporters have hardened some of us. According to all of you, Obama has been the presumptive nominee since Indiana, and yet he's not closed the deal. He and most of his supporters are arrogant, elitist, and rude. And yet he runs on Hope/Change, it's a bit hypocritical. He's a politician pretending to be something better, and yet he's just another politician (and a hypocrite). I'll be thinking of you when your rose-colored glasses fall off and you realize your hero is just a man who's been able to manipulate you into thinking he really cares.

Strange. When McCain was wrapping up the Republican nomination, everyone on the right was insisting that he needed to heed the base and appease the conservatives and earn their trust. In other words, the onus was on the nominee to win over the voters. I don't remember anything about Romney or Huckabee or Guiliani needing to make nice with McCain. It was all the other way around.

Why is it so different for Democrats? Why does everyone assume that it's up to the woman to make nice?

akaison, you really are wasting your time if you think I need a primer on a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama. I've never said, nor will I, nor would I accept in others, a notion that my alternative - or theirs - is voting for McCain. I'll go further and tell you that I wouldn't remotely consider Cynthia McKinney, or Ron Paul or Bob Barr or anyone else. I'm a democrat. I vote for democrats. That's what I do.

And that, really, is not my point. There is a difference, and it strikes me as key, between getting this nomination and blithely assuming everyone is on board, and doing the actual work of having us come together, united. I think Barack Obama can win this fall, either way. I think if there's a democratic agenda we care about, and actually want to see it happen, then there needs to be more than blithe assumptions and cavalier notions that "Clinton people will just have to accept reality". This isn't about McCain, this isn't about shrill shouting, and really, this isn't about me. If you want to think that it doesn't matter, and that "those Clintonites" are a lost cause, that's a choice. If you want to think I'm one of those shrill haters, then feel free; I'm not, and it pains me to think people will think that of me, or others who simply care about the party we share. But I'm not crazy on this, and I know what I'm asking isn't unreasonable or unnecessary - we need people to do the work of uniting something that's breaking apart. I'm not shying away from it. And I'm not leaving to vote for John McCain. I don't know how much plainer to be about it.

It's clear you having a reading comprehension problem since I never said you were endorsing McCain over Obama. I said your comments aid and abbed the other posters who say shit like that. Learn to read.

And, most of the shrill shouting as I wrote is coming from your fellow Clinton supporters right now if you have no noticed. There is no practical difference in the behavior exhibited earlier on from some from of the Obama supporters when they weren't sure their candidate was going to win, and what is being exhibited here now by you and others, by sites like TalkLeft and Mydd, and indeed by threats of the Clintons to continue with no real way to win.

I am carefully discussing your behavior, and how its attempts to act like this is Obama's issue is bullshit. This is about sore losers who can't accept that they lost. That's why I mentioned how we Edwards supporters conducted ourselves versus how you and others are conducting yourselves.

You can of course continue to pretend I am not being clear now that I've once again made the same point as my last post, but you would be wasting both of our time.

Lmao, I gave you the only reasons you really need. You need to pull your heads out of your asses. MonaL, Pfish, listen up:

1.) At some point, your faction will win a primary again. If you want our faction to support you, you'll stand by us now. If not, we won't support you then and you won't win the general election. Our generation is as large as your is, we can ruin every election you win and just wait for you to die off.

2.) We will likely win without most of your help. We're at 46-48%, 2 or 3 more percentage points and we've got it in the bag. We're likely to get that on increased turn-out alone. You can either buck up and get a place at the table, or sit it out/vote for McCain and be locked out of the process for at least 4 years. Given the incumbency rates in this country, it'll likely be 8.

You may not like those 'reasons', but act adult. Adults think with their heads, children think with their hearts. You should side with us because you need us more than we need you in the long run. This doesn't happen in a vacuum, what you decide now will be remembered for a very, very long time.

Pfish, because the Republican base has been in charge for the last 20 years. The Democratic base has been shit on by the weboys and Clintons of the world. We saw our candidates lose primary after primary after primary, and these same people complaining right now that Obama hasn't given them a reason to vote for them used to laugh in our faces and tell us that we had to support their candidates because of the Supreme court, Roe V Wade, and the environment. Now that we've won, they've decided none of those issues matter. They've decided that since their faction lost the primary, they are going to torpedo the party to make so they can argue that only the DLC can win in 2012.

Thats the difference. They're delusiona, because this isn't 1988, and I don't think we really need them. But thats the difference between the two parties.

soullite- i have to keep saying this- I have no idea who you think obama is but if you i imagine he's not a centrist, I am guessing its not related to what we will actually see in an Obama administration. Right now, you are the only obama supporter along this thread acting kind of childish. It seems the choices are "sore losers" as rep'ed by weboy or "suck it cause you lose" as rep'ed by you. Neither is very constructive or useful. Nor is your fantasy about factions of the party. What faction by the way- do you think Obama represents- idealogically I mean- not in terms of the mostly fake generational identity crap, but stuff that matters to me in terms of well my actual life. Bully for you that Obama won. now tell me how you think that means something more than if Clinton had won, and how her policies would have looked. Id on't see the difference and I am not a Clintonite- so enlighten me.

LMAO that soullite thinks he/she is an adult.

ROTFLMAO because you think we need you in the long run. The reality Grasshopper, is that in the very short run (November 2008 to be exact), you'll need us more than we need you. Politics are politics, we may be on the same side someday, just not today.

If Obama wants my vote, he needs to earn it. And truthfully, you're not helping him. Hope and Change remember? No more politics as usual?

BTW, I don't plan to die for a very long time. And I'm not sure who your generation is, but if you're any example...

soullite is an asshat
last fall when Obama hit a rough patch he was all over the place screaming the Democratic Party needed to be destroyed. Now later he is wailing about other commenters not declaring their undying love for Obama.

He needs professional help

"It's a victory for Obama and a victory for America that a lot of people worked damn hard for. And it will be a victory without an asterisk."

It's a hollow victory based on sexism and gaming technicalities, and there will always be the asterisk of delegates given to Obama that he did not win. Thanks for playing.

Kiddies, can we stop the name-calling?

Anyone interested in BHO's policy proposals can look at his website. Let me venture one or two basic points.

1. Assertions that McCain can't pack the Supreme Court are wrong. Yes, we can mobilize to stop crazies like Bork. But what the last few years showed was that when a Republican President nominates a personable, competent, non-crazy conservative like John Roberts, it's impossible to stop. Power of appointment matters.

2. The same arguments for sitting the contest out were made for not supporting Al Gore 8 years ago, and we can see where that got us.

3. I could make an extensive catalog of why holding the presidency is better than not holding the presidency -- the power to propose a budget, appointments of all kinds, the NLRB and other regulators, the almost completely free hand that Presidents have in foreign affairs, the fact that this would be a rather good moment to have a constitutional lawyer in high office, but somehow I don't think most of the arguments on this are being made in much seriousness.

"It's clear you having a reading comprehension problem since I never said you were endorsing McCain over Obama."

What a maroon!

"1.) At some point, your faction will win a primary again. If you want our faction to support you, you'll stand by us now. If not, we won't support you then and you won't win the general election. Our generation is as large as your is, we can ruin every election you win and just wait for you to die off."

Trolllite,
Do you have any trick up your sleeve besides the threat?

First it was riots in Denver if Obama wasn't given the nomination.

Now it's future support if Obama doesn't win.

Fuck off.

"First it was riots in Denver if Obama wasn't given the nomination.

Now it's future support if Obama doesn't win.

Fuck off."

I actually thought this was convincing, If Hillary's supporters bolt the party because a black man won, why should Obama's supporters fall in line when a racist hag wins in 2012? And if we're playing that game, Obama's supporters have the edge. They'll be around long after the racist old biddies die off. Yes, it will suck. But if that's the price to rid the party of the residual Dixiecrats, so be it.

Joe,

For the Democratic party's sake, I hope you are really a repub troll in sheep's clothing.

Or are you just Trolllite in drag?

Lmao, Anonymous. for someone who doesn't want me to respond to you, you sure do whine and beg me to pay attention to you on every single thread.

Like I said in the other thread, there's nothing to you but a pathetic reaction to me. You don't have dick to say without me, and you can't even pick a name that isn't a reaction to mine. Without me, you're nothing.

Akaison, I have no idea who you think Obama is. You're so terrified that everyone is going to betray you that you never both to accept that maybe you're wrong.

Is Obama perfect? Probably not, but he's not a Clintonite. There are more factions in this party than you and them.

MonaL, Grasshopper? Yeah, you're about the age I thought you were. A pathetic Boomer in arrested development.

Trollite, I don't care if you respond or not. I'm just calling out your idiocy.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: can I get a MI delegate? They look cute!

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/01/call-the-dnc-tomorrow-and-demand-a-free-delegate/

It's a hollow victory based on sexism and gaming technicalities,

Wah, wah, wah. Obama won a brilliant campaign against an establishment candidate with huge advantages. And Hillary just didn't thing the pedestrian acts of organizing on the ground in the primaries were worth her time. If things had gone the other way, the rest of us would be licking our wounds and getting ready to move on to the general election and supporting Hillary. I have a feeling a lot of people lined up behind Hillary because she was the "natural winner," and had no idea how to deal with the possibility of being out-campaigned and out-fundraised. Grow the hell up: you need to learn that sometimes you can support a candidate you really like and see that candidate still lose.

I do think it's incumbent on Clinton supporters to be reahcbale

Actually, it's not. Clinton supporters, like any other voters, don't have to commit to a thing. If they don't like Obama, they don't have to vote for Obama. There's nothing "unprincipled" about voting against the party. People do it all the time.

Don't like Obama? Think he's too far left? Don't vote for him.

BTW, Soullite is a babbling lunatic, but she's right about one thing: the main reason Democrats don't like Obama is because he's too far left. Left wingers have bit the bullet and supported moderate candidates, and now she's demanding that moderates do the same thing.

See, that's the great thing about voting. The moderates don't owe the leftists a thing. Don't like it? Imagine, if you will, my devastation.

The most important reason to elect McCain is that Obama is a nothing, an empty suit, filled with nothing save ambition and arrogance. The second most important reason is to teach the Dems that they can't give in to the left.

Anyone interested in BHO's policy proposals can look at his website.

Oh, please. They aren't his opinions. His team pays people to write them up. To the extent he has opinions (and most people who've known him a long time can't remember him having any), they are far left of center.

As for judges, if the Democrats allow a conservative judge to replace Stevens or Ginsburg, they have only themselves to blame. But don't yammer on about Roberts and Alito, as the Republicans held both houses of Congress at the time. The Democrats will be able to bury any nominee before it gets to the floor, and if they choose not to, then they're the ones to blame.

For the Hilary supporters who have come to hate Obama and expressed this on the web page, I have some questions that I have never seen answered.

1. Who voted to authorize the Iraq war in 2002? Who continued to support the policy of indefinite occupation until 2006?

2. Who made Mark Penn, the union buster, her primary campaign advisor?

3. Who came up with the campaign strategy to basically ignore a whole series of primaries and caucuses from the first Tuesday of February to the first Tuesday of March?

4. What great accomplishments can Senator Clinton point to that would demonstrate her superior character over Senator Obama.

I was not an Obama supporter at the start of the campaign (probably leaned toward Edwards although I considered his resume actually leaner then Obama's).

As for those who forecast that a McCain presidency would not be a disaster, checked by a Democratic Congress, all I can say is that the same arguments were used against Gore to justify why they were voting for Nader. I take McCain at his word. He will continue to make war in Iraq as long as people are still shooting at us and as long as we stay in Iraq some faction will be shooting at us. He will make war on Iran as well. But for the Clinton supporters, that perhaps is not such a bad thing since she is threatening make war on Iran as well.

doesn't this whole debacle remind you of those election officials holding up the punch cards to th light in Florida looking for any indention indicating a 'possible vote' that would be counted because.....every vote counted!
So, now here we are where the Democratic Rules Committee has decided that every vote should not count after all!

My...my....how things change! Change that we wish we didn't have to believe in!

Soul,

You have no idea what you are talking about. I've read Obama's proposals. I understand what his leadership style means. I am not worried about being betrayed. That implies trust. Elected officials aren't a matter of trust. it's about accountability. That's what our system is based on. It's based on clear headed thinking. The number one reason its failing now is your sort of touchy feely approach dominates the thinking process of most Americans. Pure opinion, nothing to back it up. I can and others have done the same compare and contrast Obama's leadership style with the expressed goals, I can look at his messaging and to whom he is seeking to appeal, i can look at who he is choosing as advisors, etc, and I can extrapolate what this means. His top economic advisor for example is a School of Chicago right of center economist.

ps the kooks here such as cal don't change where his policies fit on the spectrum. for the record i am an old fashion moderate. ie, i agreed with him on pakistan, etc. so this isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. just fitting what he says on the spectrum. essentially what people are doing is Obama=far left. That doesn't mean its true. I saw this dumbing down of principles at other Obama sites. The stardard for whats left or center is outside of any particular candidate. One compares the candidate to the stated principles. One doesn't decide the stated principle based on what the candidate says. Even Ezra admits their is little policy difference between Clinton and Obama. So do others such as bowers, etc. You are like the general public in that there isn't much thought in your anlaysis other than candidate support.

Hmmm...

Is it really SO IMPORTANT to keep McCain out of the WH - SO IMPORTANT that Hillary supporters are supposed to forget their grievances and jump onboard the O-train?

Good to know. That means it's surely SO IMPORTANT that Obama should publicly announce that he will ask Hillary to be his V.P. in order to assure victory.

After all, this may not be his first choice, but the alternative is TOO IMPORTANT to risk.

Right?

And if not, why not?

Obama has been reaching out to reasonable Clinton supporters (as anyone who is paying attention will have noticed by now).

Yes, Tom, I did appreciate that thoughtful, impassioned defense of Hillary Clinton in response to Father Pflegher's nasty attack...

Oh, wait. That was John McCain, wasn't it?

JOHN MCCAIN defended her. Obama didn't. Brilliant strategy, that.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think Hilary's supporters are right here: It's always the winner's responsibility to unite the party after a hard-fought & tight primary. Of course, Hilary should do her part to unify the party, but the burden is on Obama to win over her supporters. And like BigTentDemocrat says, screaming at people who feel aggrieved is not a winning strategy.

As for Cal, he obviously has an agenda that goes well beyond supporting Hilary Clinton. Trying to win over people like him is a waste of time.

Yep, John McCain really defended Hilary when he was asked "how do we beat the bitch" during one of his town meetings/fundraisers last winter. He chuckled, semi-embarrassed, and then said how Hilary would be a "tough" opponent. Lots of warm and fuzzy feelings there.

Again, Eric Alterman said it best in a recent column in "The Nation" when commenting on both the MSM and Hilary supporters obsession when ministers go crazy at Obama's now former church. Let's have some perspective folks. I drive by Arlington cemetery every day. Think about the men and women have gone there who would be alive today but for decisions a few thousands voters made in November 2000. I am one who has to live with having voted wrong and seeing people die as the result who would have lived. I am not going to throw my vote away again on someone is is very clear that he will MAKE MORE WAR.

"Suddenly, Obama's tardiness in denouncing the nutty notions of his friend and pastor was somehow more egregious than her decision to support Bush's war, which has killed hundreds of thousands of people, wasted trillions of dollars and destroyed America's reputation the world over."