Thank you, Thank you! After having read take after take on Hillary's response to Barack Obama's nomination for President, I can honestly say your article is the first one which really tells the truth. I am so tired of her endless spin about the mistreatment of women! Thank you again.

Bette Grotegut

Oh, come on. If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter. There'd be no question of reflecting badly on the male gender. Hell, he'd be given kudos for his toughness and tenacity.

we've been hoping she'd seize the high ground for the past twelve weeks. but she seems to prefer the low ground.

If a man made the same speech, he'd be called Richard III.

"If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter."

If a man was behaving so ungraciously, he would be called on it--just more strongly. Clinton has raised the sexist victim role so often that the press and Obama can't even be honest because all her supporters and surrogates would rise up and start trumpeting the same crap you are. All the other MALE candidates conceded gracefully in defeat: Huckabee, Romney, Edwards, etc. etc. The fact that she and Bill are constitutionally unable to accept defeat is not admirable in any way. Hillary Clinton is being called on her refusal to concede because it IS divisive and ungracious.

Thanks, that was well-said.

I'm a 59-year-old woman. Hillary can't claim to be the spokesperson for my demographic (long-time feminists.)

I'm not sure where her supporters are coming from....

Keep it up, smart boys. Try winning without Hillary voters.

"If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter."

Nope. I'd call him a self-serving asshole.

Hmmm... this situation reminds me of something... anyone here old enough to remember Jonestown?

It's been characteristic of her during this campaign that every time the opportunity has arisen for her to take the high ground, to act with grace, even to just not go for the kick to the groin, she has eschewed it. I've been disappointed by her too many times in recent months thinking she might take a pass on any cheap shot opportunity that came her way to think that she would elevate herself now.

Hillary is a smart, capable person. Her campaign showed an utter lack of class, and in the last few months it reeked of desperation. Once again last night, she had an opportunity to display at least a hint of graciousness, but failed to summon that up in the slightest. I'm not looking for her to live up to any feminine ideal--just a human one.

Through much of the past 3-4 months, Hillary has seemed to slowly morph into Bush. Cozying up to Richard Scaife Mellon, praising herself (and McCain!) as ready to lead and otherwise attacking Obama from the right.

Then this past weekend, drawing comparisons between her efforts to fully seat the Florida and Michigan delegations and the 2000 recount. There are valid comparisons, but not the one she was claiming ("count every vote!"). In my mind the more accurate comparison was that she and Bush both wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game.

And this morning, as I listened to sound bites of her speech, I was reminded again of Bush. She continues to beat on the idea of 'most votes', 'most electable', etc., even after the game is over and it's time to go home. If she really believes what she's saying, then she's living in her own bubble of supporters, just like bubble-boy Bush insists on having all of the news filtered through Rice and Cheney.

I agree that that the right thing for Hillary to do at this point is to accept reality. I fear she passed up the opportunity to bow out graciously some time ago; I only hope that she bows to reality quickly and spends the next 5 months fighting like hell to heal the rifts in the party.

To hear some of her supporters tell it (at least, people who claim to be her supporters), Obama is worse than Bush. She needs to do everything she can to make those people sane again.

"Oh, come on. If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter. There'd be no question of reflecting badly on the male gender. Hell, he'd be given kudos for his toughness and tenacity."

Was Gore called a fighter when he didn't immediately concede Florida? That's not how I remember it. I remember him being mocked at Sore Loserman.

Right Petty. Hillary voters are going to ensure that McCain wins so that Roe v. Wade is overturned and the Iraq war continues ad infinitum. Please tell me another one, that was a knee-slapper!

Imagine if it were Bill refusing to concede. My response?

"Fucking moron. Ignore him."

wtf? are you serious? because rancid stereotypes exist, if any woman fulfills them, it's her own damn fault?

i thought that progressives were supposed to be the enlightened ones.

I'm not sure where her supporters are coming from....

I am a 66-year-old white woman who was 18 years old when John Kennedy ran for president in 1960. During the campaign, he came to visit my Catholic girls’ high school and I got to shake his hand that day.

As a Catholic, I vividly remember the turmoil about his religion. But, he never, not once called any of his opponents religious bigots. Nor did he allow anyone else to do so.

When Obama allowed the Clintons to be branded as racists, he lost me forever. It makes me sick when he compares himself to JFK.

Just keep talking, is all I'm saying. You think John McCain is stupid? He's already making a bid for Hillary's voters.

So go ahead and celebrate by continuing to trash Hillary. You've beaten the Clintons, which is what you really wanted.

But if you really want to win the election, as I do, then you'll grow up a little bit and learn that you need to make nice.

Hillary really needs to graciously step aside.

She would be a terrible VP for Obama because of the statements she made during the campaign - particularly where she praised McCain over Obama as having the 'experience' to be president.

She was so obsessed with winning at all costs that she sabotaged her own opportunity to be part of the team. Unfortunately, both Hillary and Bill have severely hurt their legacy. I was a big supporter of Bill in 92 and 96 and have always had mixed feeling about Hillary.

But, I could never vote again for either of them again for any office. And that includes VP.

They are part of the old style 'big-money Republican light' triangulators. We need new leadership whose money comes from us rather than pharma, insurance, financial, and Hollywood PACS.

It's time for a real change!

Obama/AnyoneButHillary08!!

No matter what Obama does, he should know this:

Having BILLARY Clinton as vice president would be the equivalent of having a spitting Cobra as a room mate. You CANNOT control its NATURAL HABIT of spitting and biting. Either way, you get POISON in your blood circulatory system!

Hillary would make a great ambassador to Bosnia because she's such a hard working white person, as far as I know.

Let's see: "She'll do anything to win." Well, then, why didn't she win? Because Obama, the establishment candidate, had the DNC wired.

"How can superdelegates over turn the will of the voters and choose Hillary?" They didn't. They overturned the will of the voters and chose Obama.

Face it: Your mythological worldview is flawed.

Simple question - what does Hillary want?

Indeed - that seems to me to be perfectly logical question for someone who had 50% or slightly less than 50% or slightly more than 50% of the votes cast within the democratic primaries and caucuses.

Half of the democratic party are Hillary Clinton supporters.

It would seem to me that our presumed candidate would now be trying to bridge and be a unity candidate.

And if all of the Hillary-bashers want the Democratic party to win the election come November - they might want to re-evaluate their hate-speech.

Well, let me say this: Clinton won primaries, Obama won caucuses. Which would you think tends to make the party members feel more enfranchised? Not caucuses which can be manipulated to exclude more moderate or other groups of people. Primaries are a better reflection of where the general population trend is going.

I am sorry, I cannot agree that Obama has a good victory. Clinton beat him repeatedly when it came to actual cotes.

I am concerned that we once again have a weak candidate whose greatest skill is in pushing his agenda through the caucus system, which does NOT reflect the public's voting patterns. Time enough for Obama to pat himself on the back when he wins the election.

Meanwhile, as a progressive, I am really disappointed that the Democrats once again managed to not nominate a real populist/progressive. No fire in the belly, no heart felt empathy for the working class and the middle class. Just these narcissistic and coldly calculating politicos.

Ugh.

"When Obama allowed the Clintons to be branded as racists, he lost me forever. It makes me sick when he compares himself to JFK."

Jeez, I'm so tired of this. Obama NEVER called anyone a racist. What some (SOME, not all) said was that the Clintons engaged in race-baiting. Some think they are too smart to have said stupid things without realizing how dismissive they would sound to the African-American community and others. I believe they are so arrogant and perceive themselves so strongly as not racist that they said some truly stupid, dismissive things about Obama that were perceived by some as race-baiting. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, when Sen. Clinton KNOWINGLY said that white working class were her supporters that specifically singled out a racial group. She didn't say just working class, she said white working class. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was not consciously race-baiting, but the fact remains that they DID use racial references in their campaign.

So give it a rest. You're upset that they lost. But they did. If the Clintons would allow themselves to lose gracefully, you would be allowed to let go. But instead they are simply feeding their supporters more anger and bitterness with every defiant speech. It's very sad. I expected better from the Clintons.

And by the by, I'm not a "boy," a 40 plus white female.

Oh, come on. If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter. There'd be no question of reflecting badly on the male gender. Hell, he'd be given kudos for his toughness and tenacity. Posted by: Rook

Maybe. Or he'd be called an annoying delusional prick who needs either to get out of the way or get on board.

If we're all supposedly so concerned about "taking back the country," everyone needs to get behind Obama at this point. Everything needs to be positive as a party from this day forward. We need to not only win the White House but pick up a couple dozen seats in Congress to assure that the Rethugs can't act as legislative spoilers for the next eight years.

While I agree that Clinton's failure to conceed was ungracious, I'm not sure what the point of the first four paragraphs were. Vague, uncoordinated pointing at stereotypes without a thesis.

Yes, Clinton's speech was spin. I'm dubious that 'What does Hillary want' was some kind of veiled 'What do women want' allusion, I just thought it was third person rhetorical posturing. What those in the blogs like to call 'ass-hattery'.

Massachusetts revolutionaries seized the high ground at Bunker Hill, but had the good sense to concede it when their defeat became imminent. Then they became legendary. Sen. Clinton has forsaken her legacy by not conceding sooner.

What does Hillary want?

Before you go off saying Hillary's using the gender card why don't you try googling the phrase. It's the title of articles from Time, USNEWS, salon, yahoo news, etc. etc. Maybe, just maybe, she's responding to the media and I think giving an answer about the good of the nation was pretty classy.

While your at it why don't you try googling phrases about Hillary winning the white working class vote in appalachia? Maybe, just maybe she was repeating the news as reported by countless talking heads. Are they all playing the race card?

The caucus vs. primary question is a serious one, but I think the strength it points to is Obama's campaign's strengths in on-the-ground, grassroots campaigning, something that the Democratic party desperately needs.

I never liked Hillary Clinton very much, but I think she would have been a decent president, and I think she was ill-served by the architects of her campaign and savaged in incredibly misogynistic ways by the press. As a feminist I found that deeply depressing, but it doesn't stop me from preferring Obama. I think the fact that he is capturing the youth vote cannot be ignored. That's the future. I just hope he can live up to their optimism.

And man, I wish people could step back a little from the passions of this primary and see that the main thing we need to do is defeat McCain. I'm astonished by the vilification (and conversely, the unquestioning deification) on BOTH sides. I just hope blog commenters are not representative of the public at large.

Having BILLARY Clinton as vice president would be the equivalent of having a spitting Cobra as a room mate. You CANNOT control its NATURAL HABIT of spitting and biting. Either way, you get POISON in your blood circulatory system!

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor

You are apparently a not very good lawyer.

We can hope that Hillary Clinton seizes the high ground this week, but it's no longer important in the larger scheme of things.

The race for the Democratic nomination is over, and Barack Obama - and most of the rest of us - are moving on to think about and talk about the general election, and the competing Dem and GOP solutions (or absence thereof) for the problems we face.

It would be healthy for Hillary personally to acknowledge the reality of having come in second, and to graciously congratulate Obama on having won the nomination. But that's all about her well-being; it's not our problem.

In a way, it would probably be beneficial to the Dems if she refused to drop her quest for the nomination. She'd continue to be visible, off to one side, as the apparent justification for the past 16 years' worth of right-wing caricatures of Hillary - and as the road the Dems didn't choose.

The fact that the Dems have rejected what many Republicans see as this almost mythological figure of evil may well make it emotionally safer for Republicans unhappy with the course of their party to vote for Obama.

Total BS.

You know Edwards did the exact same thing. Had a validictory closing sppech for himself highlighting important issues to him and then waited (months in his case)to endorse. And he was wonderful.

Hillary had every right to make her speech last night just like she did. The race was a virtual tie and she is entitled to one night to thank her supporters, absorb the efforts and then to endorse later this week.

Obama didn't actually "win" last night. He never gained enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination and indeed lost the delegate race last night.

Instead the superdelegates- who can't vote until August- and the media decided ungraciously that they needed to push Hillary out of the race last night without a second to spare.

That was ungracious.

Obama could have done his victory lap this Friday and it would have been just as historic. Indeed with Hillary there to introduce and endorse him- it would have been better for Obama and better for the party.

The rush and the unjustified trashing of Hillary last night and today is not.
Indeed it seems to those of us who haven't drunk the koolaid nothing but a desperate attempt by the obamaphiles to cover up the fact that in the last few races - the bloom came off the rose and indeed Obama looked incredibly beatable and weak at the end of the nomination race.

Despite the media screaming it was over- he got trounced in Puerto Rico and lost badly in South Dakota where he had a double digit lead less than six weeks ago. Without a doubt He has done pretty poorly in this race since the Wright story broke a fact that noone wants to mention.

But the truth is that Hillary picked off one of his states (SD) while he could never beat her in the one of hers and indeed was trashed. His best showing in one of "her states" was Indiania (a state he in fact predicted he would win in his infamous memo) where the largest democratic bloc is a suburb of his home town of Chicago.

But instead of acknoweldging these weaknesses and trying to unify the party because Obama will clearly need all of us to win- you whiny idiots have to once again needlessly trash Hillary and Bill. The only two democrats who have won presidential race in the last 25 years.

There is nothing uglier than an ungracious winner
and honestly you guys are driving a lot of people away from the democratic party.

But hey continue the snotty BS and ignoring Obama's weaknesses. Its what made him lose South Dakota and its why he can't get any traction against McCain.

My vote has always been independant and is not going to go automatically to some "party".

I gladly voted for Hillary as I did Bill and Gore but if you don't want my vote- as your needless whining clearly indicates- I'll take it to someone who does.

"Oh, come on. If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter. There'd be no question of reflecting badly on the male gender. Hell, he'd be given kudos for his toughness and tenacity.
Posted by: Rook on June 4, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK"

No, he'd be called a delusional moron. See: Ron Paul.

Wah! Wah! Wah!

Can everyone stop a minute and count to 10? Please?

This isn't about Hillary/Obama anymore, it's about Obama/McCain. So those who supported Obama in the primaries need to stop bashing Hillary and her supporters, and those who supported Hillary need to get over any hurt and resentment they might feel, and do some deep soul-searching about what they want to happen for the next four years.

Whatever else you do, Hillary folks, PLEASE don't hold resentments against Barack Obama for things that his preacher(s) [or worse yet, his supporters in comment threads] might have said against Hillary.

Are you really going to let some hurt or resentment you feel about comments made by relatively/completely irrelevant people affect what you do between now and November? Is it really more important to nurse that resentment than it is to take this country back from the venal, self-serving, corrupt people who've been running it into the ground for the past 8 years?

If you're really concerned about the future of America, I can't believe the true answer is 'yes'.

And for the record, I find this article slightly stupid. "In hanging on, she fuels stereotypes of women: don't know how to play the game, bitchy and ungracious." No knowing how to play the game and being bitchy and ungracious is hardly purely female territory.

I don't think Clinton is playing to female stereotypes (except her constant victim role as sexist). I think she and Bill Clinton are so ambitious, driven and used to winning that they are going to take twice as long as average politicians to recognize they've lost. They think they can force Obama's hand and/or use political leverage. I suppose if I was a Clinton supporter I might admire her chutzpah in this regard. But mostly I think it's sad that she hasn't realized (or just doesn't care--again giving her the benefit of the doubt) that she needs to give up on her power plays and start considering the GE election rather than her own personal ambition. I hope that she will come around to that. Although I have been hoping for weeks now, so I don't know. Her surrogates claim she would never damage the party, but so far she has not demonstrated any loyalty to the Dem party from my perspective, only to her "loyal" supporters and the Clinton brand.

Clinton won primaries, Obama won caucuses

I guess primary wins in South Carolina Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Utah, Louisiana, Virgin Islands, DC, Maryland, Virginia, Wisconsin, Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, and Montana don't count??

That's 19 primary wins for Obama, which is the exact same number of primary wins for Hillary. And he beat her 11-2 in caucuses.

So what twisted math are you using?

Petty: ...then you'll grow up a little bit and learn that you need to make nice.

I don't understand this line of thinking. What are you talking about Petty? "We" are bloggers. Some are Obama supporters. Are you saying your vote for Obama hinges on the words of some anonymous poster on one of thousands of political blogs? Shouldn't the actions and words of ya know, the actual candidate be your guide? You're acting as if Obama was personally slighting Hillary supporters, being defiant, and splitting the party when the opposite is true. Obama's speech was about uniting us. It was a very positive speech about the future and includes everyone. Hillary is the defiant one, dangling her supporters as some sort of threat, allowing this party rift to fester. Your implied threat that Hillary supporters will jump to McCain if "we keep it up" is self-destructive as well - unless of course you welcome a McCain era.

talier said what I feel.

This week's substitute bloggers are really working hard to turn away 49% of people who voted in the democratic party. Oh, and that's sure going to be good for the democratic party in November, isn't it?

THE HIGH GROUND....Hillary whipped out the gender card again last night. "What does Hillary want?" she asked, evoking Freud's plaint.

Huh? Are your arguments always this vacuous? Talk about spin....

Anyway, the nomination is now Obama's. As his first opportunity to demonstrate his leadership, it will be interesting to see how OBAMA brings the party back together.

It's Obama's responsibility to do so of course.

Petty, the question is not whether Obama supporters want to win. The question is whether Hillary Clinton wants the Democrats to win. I'm sure, if she wants to, she could ask that her supporters support McCain or sit out the election, and some of them would do it. The question is whether this is what she wants to do.

All losing primary candidates have a base of support. It is simply assumed that the losers will throw their support to the winner. The winner does not have to "do" anything to make this happen.

Hillary Clinton just needs to man up! She needs to have to balls to show Obama who wears the pants. All this cock-blocking isn't gonna make Obama cry like a little girl. She's gotta girlfriend his ass back to the stone ages.

/insensitive snark off

Here's a heretofore unspoken Hillary employment option: McCain's VP spot. Obama disses her, her egomaniacal impulses take complete control (as opposed to the 98% control they currently exercise) and she accepts the spot. Many of her supporters already have expressed the intent to vote for McCain and this would cement it for them. She rationalizes the move by saying she had no choice, Obama left her no option in the matter and her leadership in the executive branch is urgently needed. She makes no guarantees to McCain about 2012, counting on McCain's advanced age and by then (more) noticeable senility to garner her the top spot on someone's ticket. Ridiculous? Yes. Improbable? We're talking Hillary here, so no, not out of the question. After all, she and McCain are not that far apart on some issues. Northrop, TRW, Raytheon and Halliburton would love such a ticket, especially since it might be McCain's only chance at winning. It's also Hillary's only chance of immediate employment in the White House.

I listened to her speech and in no way concluded that it was a complaint about sexism. I say give her a break, let her have some time, and she will support Obama 100%. She was entitled to close out her campaign with a rally and not a funeral.

David Bailey

What you say would make sense except Obama talks about change and a movement without any specifics- so his supporters are filling in the blanks. ANd what they are revealing is that they want to replace the Bush obnoxiousness with the same arrogant personality cult garbage except from the democratic side and with a misogynistic bent. Exhibit A- they now applaud thier own Bill O'Reilly in Olberman rather than condemning his sexist bs and lack of journalistic integrity because they will put up with anything if it supports thier guy,

And through this whole BS- Obama has remained silent. Just like he let his campaign circulate the memo accusing the Clintons of false racism without saying anything. Just like he let the SEIU ran the racist spanish ad in Neveda attacking the Clintons for not being :one of our people" without condemning it. Just like he remained silent for twenty years at Trinity when his "mentors" (his word) Wright and Pfleger were spewing their racist hatred. And just as he remained silent and ineffective with respect to the Iraq war during his whole senate term before the election despite his so-called wonder speech in 2002 (which by the way just contained what every Guardian editorial was saying in 2002- nothing unique to those who actually paid attention).

In short, all meaningless words and hype instead of actual actions and principles.

That is a movement I want no part of.

And i certainly don't want these supporters to be runnign the government. So yeah what they say mean something.

I also agree strongly with taliar. And I also hope that Obama supporters who post on this blog are not representative of all of his supporters. Short of one of the far right blogs, I've never read such vitriolic and ungracious comments. People, the race was (and still is) 50/50. Both sides need the entire party to win. Why do so many of Obama's supporters seem to be doing their level best to insult and alienate Clinton and her supporters. It's like they have a death wish. I can only hope that Obama himself can reach out and make a sincere attempt to unify the party. I can't blame him for the childishness of his supporters (and least the bulk of those who blog), and I hope for better things from him and his campaign.

I believe they are so arrogant and perceive themselves so strongly as not racist that they said some truly stupid, dismissive things about Obama that were perceived by some as race-baiting.

How about that they simply aren't racist and so it never occurred to them such an accusation would be leveled against them when they dealt with Obama the same way they'd deal with anybody else?

Clinton KNOWINGLY said that white working class were her supporters that specifically singled out a racial group. She didn't say just working class, she said white working class. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was not consciously race-baiting, but the fact remains that they DID use racial references in their campaign.

Of course they did, and so did Obama, and so did most analysts. Why is it such an outrage for Hillary to have identified a particular group of her supporters anyway? I've never quite understood that. If she'd simply said "working class" people were supporting her, that wouldn't have been accurate, because black working-class people were not supporting her. How was she going to refer to this group at all without specifying their race?

Meanwhile, as a progressive, I am really disappointed that the Democrats once again managed to not nominate a real populist/progressive. No fire in the belly, no heart felt empathy for the working class and the middle class. Just these narcissistic and coldly calculating politicos.

Are you joking if you think that's what Hillary Clinton is? John Edwards, the true populist in the race, endorsed Barack Obama. Clinton was part of the DLC -- you know, the group that moved the Democratic Party from progressive movements.

What you say would make sense except Obama talks about change and a movement without any specifics

his web site is full of specifics. go take a look. educate yourself.

Short of one of the far right blogs, I've never read such vitriolic and ungracious comments.

have you ever read TalkLeft, HillaryIs44.com, TaylorMarsh, NoQuarter.com ?

you ought to. they're full of Clinton supporters - each one crazier than the next. they make this place look like a love-in.

I supported Dennis Kucinich's primary campaigns in 2004 and this year. From my perspective there is little difference between Obama and Clinton on matters of substance. Speculations about which one would make a better candidate in the general election, or a more effective and successful president if elected, seem mostly driven by their respective supporters' wishful thinking.

In short the angry and bitter mutual demonization of Clinton and Obama and their respective supporters by the other side seems awfully silly to me. If you think you would be happy with the policies and actions of an Obama administration, you will probably not be too unhappy with a Clinton administration, and vice versa.

On matters of substance, they are more alike than they are different, and although neither one comes very close to what I want (and believe this country and the world urgently need) in a US president, either one of them is greatly preferable to John McCain.

It will likely be a close election, and McCain doesn't need to win -- he only needs to get close enough for the Republicans to steal the election through voter disenfranchisement and fraud, as they did in 2000 and 2004, and are gearing up to do again this year. The Democratic candidate will have to win by a large, theft-proof margin in order to be sworn in next January.

My advice to Democrats at this point would be to focus on generating massive turnout and on frustrating the RNC's ongoing criminal conspiracy to steal yet another election.

Obama has done a much better job of getting his spin on the race into the media, another factor that has helped Obama. It has been clear for a very long time that neither candidate would accumulate enough delegates from the primary process to secure the nomination. The nomination was ALWAYS going to be out of the hands of the "primary voters" and into the hands of the party. It still is. Obama is/will be the nominee not because he secured enough primary votes to get the nomination, but because he has convinced the party insiders (Superdelegates) to support him.

From the Clinton POV, the primaries have played out and the voters are split down the middle between 2 very good candidates. The decision is in the hands of the Party now. Since Superdelegates are not bound to their vote, the nomination will only be locked in AT the convention.

The media is pissed because they wanted to be first to call the nomination and wanted to call it back in February. It did not work that way for them and they have been trying to prematurely anoint a winner ever since. Obama is smart in playing the Bush/Florida strategy for the past several months because the party denying him the nomination at this point would look like a gross injustice. It is very clear to almost everyone that for the Party to choose Hillary over Obama, when Obama has already been declared the victor by the press would truly throw the Party into an uproar. Pay attention to the rules (Uncommitted delegates will decide at the convention.) instead of the spin and it is very understandable why HC has not conceded at this point.

Obama has done a much better job of getting his spin on the race into the media, another factor that has helped Obama. It has been clear for a very long time that neither candidate would accumulate enough delegates from the primary process to secure the nomination. The nomination was ALWAYS going to be out of the hands of the "primary voters" and into the hands of the party. It still is. Obama is/will be the nominee not because he secured enough primary votes to get the nomination, but because he has convinced the party insiders (Superdelegates) to support him.

From the Clinton POV, the primaries have played out and the voters are split down the middle between 2 very good candidates. The decision is in the hands of the Party now. Since Superdelegates are not bound to their vote, the nomination will only be locked in AT the convention.

The media is pissed because they wanted to be first to call the nomination and wanted to call it back in February. It did not work that way for them and they have been trying to prematurely anoint a winner ever since. Obama is smart in playing the Bush/Florida strategy for the past several months because the party denying him the nomination at this point would look like a gross injustice. It is very clear to almost everyone that for the Party to choose Hillary over Obama, when Obama has already been declared the victor by the press would truly throw the Party into an uproar. Pay attention to the rules (Uncommitted delegates will decide at the convention.) instead of the spin and it is very understandable why HC has not conceded at this point.

"He's not a Muslim . . . as far as I know."
- Hillary, on 60 Minutes.

Yes, what a class act.

Hi Emmarose,

I think your post may show a little what I was talking about re "Where Hillary's supporters are coming from...."

The passion of these core supporters seems to come from the very personal, not so much from a disinterested belief in what's good for the country.

(I support Obama now, but he wasn't my first choice -- I voted in the NH primary for John Edwards. Originally, I would have been well satisfied with Hillary as the nominee, but she has taught me to dislike and distrust her. She forfeited my good will with her refusal to abide by the rules (and her reluctance to concede when she would lose a primary -- how odd and impolite!) and the ongoing drama surrounding her supporters and campaign.)

But I don't take any of it personally....

frednich: I've never read such vitriolic and ungracious comments.

You must be new here.

Wow.

This is about as well as it can be said. Clinton is being selfish at this point.

Whatever else you do, Hillary folks, PLEASE don't hold resentments against Barack Obama for things that his preacher(s) [or worse yet, his supporters in comment threads] might have said against Hillary.

There are plenty of other things to hold against Obama.

Are you really going to let some hurt or resentment you feel about comments made by relatively/completely irrelevant people affect what you do between now and November?

Well, no, not me. On the other hand, it does give me a bit of pause that Sen. Post-Partisan--Sen. Transcendent, Sen. Unity, Sen. Kumbaya--has managed to attract so many incredibly meanspirited, misogynistic, just plain ugly-minded supporters; and that either he hasn't wanted or hasn't had whatever it takes to get them to behave like human beings.

i thought that progressives were supposed to be the enlightened ones.

That is an illusion that should not survive this primary season. The last six months have made it abundantly clear that it's just as easy to find sexism, racism, bad manners, foolishness and any other vice you choose on the left as on the right side of the aisle.

We're not progressives or liberals or Democrats because we're morally superior, but because we have different priorities that we believe would have a better outcome for the country. That's good enough.

Perhaps it's healthy to recognize this and move forward a little more clear eyed.

Adding to ckelly's excellent post, I would submit that people who make their voting decisions based on what charged-up political junkies say on blogs are really not grown-up or stable enough to be voting at all.

I have been amazingly unimpressed by some of the commentary coming from both candidates' supporters during this race, but if I were enough of an emotional gimp to let it, rather than the candidates' own words and actions, decide where my vote is going, I'd sure be too fucking embarrassed to say so in public.

Obama went out of his way last night to give Clinton full respect and to laud her accomplishments and influence. Clinton had a wonderful opportunity to do the same and demonstrate some largeness of spirit and a passing interest in what happens to the Democratic party, the country and the world rather than just to her own career. Very, very disappointingly, she passed up that chance in favor of giving another petty and ungracious speech in which she demanded that Obama give her "18 million voters" respect--as though Obama himself hasn't done so, and as though she doesn't have the same responsibility as every losing primary candidate to help move his or her supporters over to the winner.

You guys have no legitimate complaint to make about how Obama has treated Clinton or her supporters in his victory. That you would try to blame threats not to support the Democratic party on what a bunch of politicos say on blogs is at best a rationalizataion for what you planned to do anyway, and at worst an indication of serious emotional issues.

Get a fucking life, please. Support Obama or help elect the Republican, whatever you think is best, but don't kid yourselves that the accountability for that choice is not totally on you.

Let her run until she runs out. It must be so very difficult for her at this time. This campaign has brought out the misogynists and Clinton-haters, and she's caught it from both barrels. I respect her for sticking with it.

Who are these strawmen misogynist you speak of?

Obama didn't actually "win" last night. He never gained enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination and indeed lost the delegate race last night.

can you please give us a link to the relevant section of the DNC rules?

i'd like to see for myself if there's any basis at all in your apparent claim that there's a difference between pledged delegates and super-delegates when it comes to naming the presumptive nominee. because frankly, i think you're just spinning.

There are dynamics to a primary race. There is a winner and there is a loser. The loser's job is to concede and then throw his or her support to the winner. There is nothing incumbent upon the "winner" in this dynamic-- two candidates simply rolled the dice, and one of them was left standing. Hillary is the one who isn't holding up to her end of the bargain. Obama is simply announcing victory, being gracious towards the vanquished, and waiting for Hillary to do her part. She's not. And that's the problem.

Hillary supporters: take it from me, a guy who's supported plenty of losing primary candidates-- you dust yourself off, learn to appreciate the good points of your opponent, and vote for him in the general election. Your side might have lost, but you can try against next time to get your side to win with a candidate you support, maybe in a state and local election. Meanwhile, your help might be needed in the general election campaign. That's the sort of stuff I did, and that's what you need to do. That's the way it works.

Oh, come on. If a man was behaving in exactly the same manner, he'd be called a fighter.

Actually, he'd be called a delusional, egocentric, sore loser.

If I'm Obama, I tell Hillary that she will have input on the selection of a running mate -- but that person won't be Hillary herself, for sundry reasons (past comments about Obama, her polarizing nature, etc.). Put the pressure on her; is she in this now for her "base" or for herself?

I think someone like Wesley Clark, who has ties to the Clintons but is hardly a mouthpiece for them, would be a good choice (though I personally would prefer James Webb). And I think most of the Hillary camp would be satisfied with that choice.

When Hils first began here speech I figured if she really wanted to be on a "unity" ticket she was making a good start.

Then came the rest of the speech. Although it had a few artful phases, it was a poorly crafted presentation (not unlike her entire campaign).

And then this:

I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my website at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

What? Is it the case that this decisive, experienced leader just cannot not decide what is best for her party?

...and help in any way that you can.

or is she using a last golden opportunity to get a few of her personal loans repaid.

Vice President? Hell, she's acting in a way that is on par with what we expect to see out of our county commissioners down here in Texas.

Too bad.

Sorry, the above 12:29 was me.

I don't think Progressive means the same thing to people. A lot of bloggers who fall on the Democratic side of the pundit number line think they are progressives just because they are using a relatively new means of communication. If you read DailyKos, TPM and other so-called "left-leaning" blogs you realize they are not really progressive, they are Democratic fanatics. Progressives would want the country to move forward in ways that enhance the well being of all citizens (ir make progress). Democratic fanatics just want the Democrats to control the White House and Congress. This means nothing if we get just milder versions of conservatism (voir Bill Clinton who slowed down the conservative juggernaut but hardly changed course for the country).

Neither Clinton nor Obama are progressives. They are hardly even populists. God knows what progressives and populists will feel like when Obama becomes President (if he does, which only time will tell). They will feel betrayed because all he will bring to the table is a vaguely populist, sorta kinda maybe middle of the road rightish corporatist agenda. Which is all he had to start off with. I have no clue if Clinton was actually more in tune with the middle and working class people than Obama, but she sure didn't start out that way.

Tant pis.

Hillary got more votes than Obama.
If the Democrats counted their votes the way the Republicans do, she would have wrapped it up months ago.
Accept reality? Here's a reality for Obama supporters to accept. The rifts you and your surrogates have made are deep, and McCain is not as repellent as George Bush. Either Hillary is the Vice President, or we will stay home . . . no, not all of us, but enough of us to make Obama lose. The idea of Keith Olbermann's face hanging to the floor on election night is a little too hard to resist.
If you don't want to win, keep insulting Hillary Clinton. We're already thinking of 2012.

"We can hope that Hillary will seize the high ground this week."

Don't bet on it.

. It must be so very difficult for her at this time.

Yes, please keep furthering the idea that women are delicate creatures who can't play by the same rules as men. Poor, poor Hillary. She must have "space" for her delicate emotional state. I find it funny -- and a little sad -- that some of her supporters are doing more to perpetuate sexist memes than the die-heard Clinton haters. Which is what this post was really about, wasn't it?

Some people read way too much into things.

She wasn't "defiant" and she didn't shit on Obama. She thanked her supporters for helping her get so close. Edwards didn't grovel either and I don't think anyone expected him to. They're all good candidates. If the media is a remotely sane we're going win in the fall.

"How about that they simply aren't racist and so it never occurred to them such an accusation would be leveled against them when they dealt with Obama the same way they'd deal with anybody else?"

Ok. I'll accept that too. The problem is that these remarks DID offend and instead of saying, "I'm sorry I offended," they went into attack and denial mode. I get that they are simply responding politically, but I don't happen to prefer that style of politics.

But really, all this is beside the point. I only raised those issues because a Clinton supporter went full hog in the opposite way and claimed Obama said they were racist. Which he did NOT.

Frankly, I like Sen. Obama better as a candidate. I'm sorry if it appeared I was "demonizing" Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton and I think Sen. Clinton was an excellent candidate. But I don't see her through rosy glasses. She is a politician through and through (just like Obama, who has his own weaknesses) and of course she is ambitious; and I do find the Clintons to be arrogant often--another common trait amongst politicians. I was simply arguing against the charge of Obama saying they were racist.

Although I am pretty angry that she is being so unwilling to compromise and attempt to unify.

I am angry because I really expected better of her. I admire her career and her tenacity. I don't admire a refusal to face facts. Yes, the race was 50/50, but someone had to win. And unfortunately for her supporters, she did not. Is she going to accept this and move on to the GE? I hope so. But so far she has not demonstrated a willingness to do so. Please tell me what you see as a willingness to move on to GE in that speech?

I understand that her supporters would like to have VP as the consolation prize. But I don't think that would be the best match. I think she would be an excellent Cabinet member (as I previously stated). I wish all you Clinton supporters would read Hilary Rosen's article on Huffpo. It makes clear why some of us Obama supporters are frustrated. We don't hate her, we are just upset that she is willing to do this power play at the very last minute.

"How about that they simply aren't racist and so it never occurred to them such an accusation would be leveled against them when they dealt with Obama the same way they'd deal with anybody else?"

Ok. I'll accept that too. The problem is that these remarks DID offend and instead of saying, "I'm sorry I offended," they went into attack and denial mode. I get that they are simply responding politically, but I don't happen to prefer that style of politics.

But really, all this is beside the point. I only raised those issues because a Clinton supporter went full hog in the opposite way and claimed Obama said they were racist. Which he did NOT.

Frankly, I like Sen. Obama better as a candidate. I'm sorry if it appeared I was "demonizing" Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton and I think Sen. Clinton was an excellent candidate. But I don't see her through rosy glasses. She is a politician through and through (just like Obama, who has his own weaknesses) and of course she is ambitious; and I do find the Clintons to be arrogant often--another common trait amongst politicians. I was simply arguing against the charge of Obama saying they were racist.

Although I am pretty angry that she is being so unwilling to compromise and attempt to unify.

I am angry because I really expected better of her. I admire her career and her tenacity. I don't admire a refusal to face facts. Yes, the race was 50/50, but someone had to win. And unfortunately for her supporters, she did not. Is she going to accept this and move on to the GE? I hope so. But so far she has not demonstrated a willingness to do so. Please tell me what you see as a willingness to move on to GE in that speech?

I understand that her supporters would like to have VP as the consolation prize. But I don't think that would be the best match. I think she would be an excellent Cabinet member (as I previously stated). I wish all you Clinton supporters would read Hilary Rosen's article on Huffpo. It makes clear why some of us Obama supporters are frustrated. We don't hate her, we are just upset that she is willing to do this power play at the very last minute.

Hillary in '12. McCain in '08. UNLESS, Hillary is the Vice President. Otherwise Obama loses . . . and he deserves to.

Lois: Obama supporters are, on the whole, sick of Clinton for three reasons. First, she voted for the war in a display of utter opportunism. That is simply unforgivable to many of us and we have a hard time with her defenders who do not acknowledge what a grave weakness this is for a democratic nominee running against McCain. It certainly was for Kerry. Second, we do not want dynastic politics; Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton is just totally wrong for this country. Sure, we all want a woman president. Just not somebody with acres and acres of baggage, someone who, effectively, would be America's Evita Peron. Third, many of us were highly disappointed with the Clinton unwillingness to fight for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. They only seem to care about themselves and it has cost this country dearly. Please understand that, when combined with what can only be described as "ungraciousness" here at the end, we are a little pissed. We are hopeful for CHANGE. That also means we need to make a break with the past.

oops sorry for posting twice.

And I do apologize for saying she was being divisive and ungracious. sigh. Ok ok maybe she needs a few days. Like I said, I hope she will do the right thing. I do wish however that her supporters would back off and let Obama make his decisions without political pressure. I don't think that's a lot to ask.

"it does give me a bit of pause that Sen. Post-Partisan--Sen. Transcendent, Sen. Unity, Sen. Kumbaya--has managed to attract so many incredibly meanspirited, misogynistic, just plain ugly-minded supporters"

You rail about misogyny while calling him "Sen. Kumbaya." Nice.

You should see the race baiting and xenophobic trash Hillary supporters post all over the place. That doesn't bother you? Does it fairly represent your own beliefs, or is it just "the friend of my enemy?" Will you "renounce and repudiate" them? Hmm?

There is nothing Hillary has been subjected to that Obama has not also been subjected to. He just doesn't moan much about it. He expected it, and chooses to rise above it rather than wave it around as his battle cry.

Hillary in '12. McCain in '08. UNLESS, Hillary is the Vice President.

That technique must've wheedled you quite a few extra cookies from the babysitter. Not so sure it'll be quite as effective when you go to the boss for a raise, but, hey, you've still got your teen years ahead of you to work out the kinks.

Either Hillary is the Vice President, or we will stay home .

So you must like war. You must like cutting taxes and therefore cutting loose a great number of impoverished single moms and their children to fend for themselves.

So you like Republicans commitment to the health insurance industry over patients?

So you are willing to let Antonin Scalia control the reproductive choices of all American women?

Ok then, sit at home and enjoy the unraveling.

I did it again -- 12:47

apologies

Hillary got more votes than Obama.

Ummm, no, no she didn't. Unless you count the rather dubious Michigan and Florida tallies and exclude caucusses etc, etc.

If the Democrats counted their votes the way the Republicans do, she would have wrapped it up months ago.

They don't.

Either Hillary is the Vice President, or we will stay home

Wow. Ultimatum much?

If you don't want to win....Hillary in '12. McCain in '08...

Apparently you don't want to win. Or you're an agent for McSame.

stuck in 2000 says:

i thought that progressives were supposed to be the enlightened ones.

That is an illusion that should not survive this primary season. The last six months have made it abundantly clear that it's just as easy to find sexism, racism, bad manners, foolishness and any other vice you choose on the left as on the right side of the aisle.

We're not progressives or liberals or Democrats because we're morally superior, but because we have different priorities that we believe would have a better outcome for the country. That's good enough.

Perhaps it's healthy to recognize this and move forward a little more clear eyed.

Yes! This is the insight we should all be walking away with. Regardless of how good it makes us feel, we have no claims on moral superiority to the Republicans. We may once have in some arenas, but no more. Decades of identity politics has taken that away, and now we are entrenched interests going after others, and bureaucracies ensuring their own survival.

And we are not the only people to realize that what stuck in 200o says is true. All of our friends, the people that we think should be voting Democratic, but aren't. The people we think are voting against their own interests, those people think we're completely full of shit too.

And ya know what, they're right.

Equality means equality for all. It does not mean identity politics are okay.

By realizing this, we can take the steps we need to actually progress and once again become the party of equality and civil rights.

Hillary in '12. McCain in '08. UNLESS, Hillary is the Vice President. Otherwise Obama loses ... and he deserves to.

Juliet, is there anyone else who Obama could choose as a running mate -- even someone handpicked by Hillary herself -- who would get your vote? Or is this more a personality than an ideology/issues case, meant solely for the glorification of Hillary Clinton?

Funny, for years we've been saying that it was the Republican coalition that couldn't hold.

Wanna know how the ten-percenters came to run the country? Just go back to the top of this thread and re-read the previous comments.

And what carol said above is very true too.

Neither of these candidates are terribly progressive. Both of these candidates had lackluster senate careers. Both of these candidates ran very middle of the road, don't rock the boat beyond being black or female campaigns. Both of these candidates did this because actually leading in the Senate (to stop the war and stop Bush) was too risky for their careers and campaigns.

I am amused by how, before Obama, the netroots was pretty much opposed to so many of his votes and positions. And now He has arisen.

juliet, who is this "we" you keep speaking of? i'm a bit incredulous than anyone could support both hillary clinton (passionately, it appears), and john mccain, but what can you do? the idea of hillary being mccain's vice president is pretty absurd. maybe some section of her voters who are more devoted to her personally than to her policies will switch over, but the entire republican base would stay home.

like a few posters above, i don't see any great difference between them, but i slightly prefer obama. i would have a lot more time for clinton if she hadn't spent so much time in the past few months writing republican attack ads for them (viz. the commander in chief test).

I was simply arguing against the charge of Obama saying they were racist.

Fair enough.

Please tell me what you see as a willingness to move on to GE in that speech?

I did not see that. I really don't think she's decided what she wants to do from now till August. I'm not sure what I'd like her to do. I frankly think the Democratic Party falling into Obama's hands would be a disaster, not to mention his taking the White House. If she believes there's any chance at all of converting a bunch of Obama's superdelegates before the convention, I'd support that effort.

Because the race was so close, and so much depends on winning the general election, I think the superdelegates need to look at other measures besides the delegate count: the popular vote, the two candidates' respective chances of winning the electoral vote in the general (there are some analyses that suggest she would be more likely to do so), and the broken nature of the primary process that gave Obama his delegate majority.

Plus, there's the "vetting" issue, which is not yet complete with Obama.

I know for sure that I would not want to see her take the VP slot if it were offered.

Bottom line, I seriously doubt the goal of a unified Democratic Party is possible at this point, so I'm not inclined to make it a priority over other options.

Nevermind Hillary: How about the poser feminists who are going to hold a grudge and vote for McCain? They should be ashamed of themselves, and their highly prized title of "feminist" should be permanently revoked. We REAL feminists aren't behaving that way. Because we save our bitchiness for our husbands/men. Not for presidential elections.

You rail about misogyny while calling him "Sen. Kumbaya." Nice.

?? What's wrong with kumbaya? I'm pointing out the disconnect between what he's preaching and what many of his supporters are practicing.

You should see the race baiting and xenophobic trash Hillary supporters post all over the place. That doesn't bother you?

First you assume I haven't seen it ("You should see...") and then you ask if it bothers me. How could it bother me if I haven't seen it?

Actually, of course, what I've seen of it does bother me (why would you suggest otherwise?). But I have seen much less ugliness from Clinton supporters than from Obama supporters.

He expected it, and chooses to rise above it rather than wave it around as his battle cry.

Hillary has commented on it, but I haven't seen her "wave it around" as her "battle cry."

Don't you mean sleaze the higher ground?

Jeebus. Obama supporters who are saying "we don't need them" to Hillary supporters are living in a dreamland. Grow up kiddies. If you think Obama got badly treated by Clinton (I'm not sure why you would think that, but never mind, let's pretend for minute) you ain't seen nothing yet.

Somebody give me a raincoat, 'cuz it's going to start raining turds.

thersites, Obama does need Democratic voters who voted for Hillary. However, if Hillary chooses not to tell her supporters to vote for Obama, and if those supporters choose not to support Obama, that is up to them, and there is little that I or Obama can do about it. The question is whether Hillary wants the Democrats to win in the fall. They win if Hillary follows the proper role of the losing primary contender.

Juliet, is there anyone else who Obama could choose as a running mate -- even someone handpicked by Hillary herself -- who would get your vote?

***
Al Gore, but that's impossible.
The thing is, Obama is the beneficiary of the hatred and misogyny and unfairness with which MSNBC and all the media goons have treated Hillary. I can't exactly blame him for not stopping it, but he didn't, and the rifts are there, and they are big. This is not like 2004, when I voted for Edwards in the primary but was happy to vote for Kerry in the general. This is personal, and it ain't going away in five months.
I don't have much hope for an Obama presidency, because I perceive him as weak. I've read "The Audacity of Hope," which is intelligent and gracefully written, but which basically is all about compromising. So the prospect of skipping an Obama presidency is not so terrible, especially as his defeat would come with the delightful spectacle of Olbermann, Russert and Tweetie sitting there on election night like their dog died.
However, considering the fact that McCain won't be good either, I'd be willing to take a chance on Obama, IF he atoned for the last few months -- and for the obnoxiousness and self-righteousness and flat-out deviousness of his media lackeys -- by putting Hillary in the Vice Presidency.
Short of that, I can't do it. It's too much to forgive. The visceral joy of seeing Obama lose is too appealing. And if you think I'm the only Hillary supporter (and donor) who feels this way, go ahead, make my day. You may get 75 percent of us, but you need 100. So the question is, how much do you hate Hillary? How much do you want to win? If you don't care, keep insulting us. I can wait until '12, and I doubt I'm the only one.

This is personal

That's your mistake right there. Supporting a candidate in a primary fight means you get ethusiastic, work hard, spent you time and money, and then if you lose, you brush yourself off and support the party choice in the general. Once it becomes "personal," you've missed the point.

And man, I wish people could step back a little from the passions of this primary and see that the main thing we need to do is defeat McCain. I'm astonished by the vilification (and conversely, the unquestioning deification) on BOTH sides. I just hope blog commenters are not representative of the public at large.

Amen to that.

And while I thought Hillary's speech had a bit too much "me, me" in it, I think she was entitled to one last rally. And she represents a lot of votes. Obama supporters are just going to have to deal with the fact that Obama needs to talk to her about what she wants - and that they are going to see her on the campaign trail for Obama this fall. Is she going to be an evil witch then?

Clinton supporters need to get over the fact that Obama won. And the ones - especially women - who claim they are going to jump to McCain are just cutting off their proverbial noses.

As for the post - I was offended by the gender crap. I don't think Hillary played the gender card in the ways you mentioned last night. It WAS historic that a woman got this far, just as it was historic that a black man got the nomination.

As for "fueling stereotypes of women" - when Hillary is soft, she's a stereotype (weak little woman). When she's tough and combative, she apparently a sterotype (bitch, this time).

Bah.

"Never give up, never give up, never give up." -- Winston Churchill

Unless you're running against Obama and the media is shouting for you to throw in the towel.

What did they call Ted Kennedy when he hung in until the convention, 700 votes behind?

This election is a virtual tie. It is ungracious for a candidate to declare himself the winner then expect his opponents to bow out on that basis. It is inappropriate for the media to declare the winner, months before the last primary, much less the convention. If Obama were not a front-runner, I'll bet he would have given up by now, because he is showing he hasn't the stamina to see this through until it is actually decided. He wants Clinton to give up because he's had enough -- and that isn't how these things happen.

To those who point to the lack of time Obama will have to campaign against McCain -- there has been nothing stopping him from doing so all along. Obama is showing as much about his character during these last few weeks as he will in any effort after the convention -- and much of it isn't good.

I am with the others here who have stated they will not vote for Obama. I don't want McCain to win, but I will not collude with someone who does not respect me, my demographics, and my concerns. I don't have to go to Obama supporters for reasons -- Obama gives me reasons to stay home every time he opens his mouth, sweetie. There are times when integrity demands such a stand. I have lived through many Republican presidents, so I know the world will not end if McCain is elected. I also know that I cannot live with myself if I sell out my own values by endorsing someone who has trashed the things I believe in -- beginning with respect for the capabilities of women, and ending with respect for our democratic process, at last week's rules and bylaws committee meeting.

All the abuse by Obama commenters here is just frosting on that cake -- basically, Obama has done his own work alienating many Clinton supporters.

"The thing is, Obama is the beneficiary of the hatred and misogyny and unfairness with which MSNBC and all the media goons have treated Hillary."

Hillary started this campaign 30 points ahead in the polls, with all the money anyone could ever need, all the name recogniztion anyone could ever have and all the institutional support anyone could ever want. Where, exactly, was all this "hatred and misogyny and unfairness" then?

It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with some Hillary supporters because they deliberatly refuse to understand that...

A. Presidential candidates ALWAYS get mean and belittling things said about them (remember the talk about the color of Al Gore's suits of the "wimp factor" with Bush the Elder?).

B. Losing Presidential candidates get more mean and belittling things said about then than winning candidates, and Hillary has been losing the nomination fight for several months.

Mike

Obama does need Democratic voters who voted for Hillary. However, if Hillary chooses not to tell her supporters to vote for Obama, and if those supporters choose not to support Obama, that is up to them, and there is little that I or Obama can do about it. The question is whether Hillary wants the Democrats to win in the fall. They win if Hillary follows the proper role of the losing primary contender.

WTF? This guy wants to elected ruler of the free world, but he can't figure out how to get people to vote for him? Only Hillary can control her supporters? Feh. You make the guy sound worthless and I am pretty sure he is better than that.

"It is ungracious for a candidate to declare himself the winner then expect his opponents to bow out on that basis."

Obama did not "declare" himself the winner. He IS the winner because he did the same bleepin' thing that every previous winning candidate did, get the most delegates.

I don't know if it's a feminist thing or what, but the sense of entitlement on the Hillary side just about passes all human understanding. I mean, I can understand being pissed off. I can even understand vowing not to vote for Obama in the immediate aftermath of such a bitter defeat. But Hillary and her enabling supporters are venturing into the realm of the emotionally and psychologically disturbed.

Mike

I think now is the time to revive Inkblot's campaign - to run as an Independent for President.

Tyro: However, if Hillary chooses not to tell her supporters to vote for Obama, and if those supporters choose not to support Obama,

You make it sound like they're a cult. Yes, Sen. Clinton should at some point urge (not tell) her voters to support Obama if he is, as seems likely, the nominee. And at the end of the day, each person who voted for Clinton in the primaries has to arrive at their own decision who to vote for in the GE.

But Obama supporters can also help things by dropping the "we don't need you," or "we can't wait to see you die off" type of rhetoric. I'm not talking about you specifically, Tyro. But the words in quotes are words I've read here, and I've read plenty of similar crap elsewhere. It needs to stop.

Hey Mike, resorting to playing e-psychiatrist marks your argument as losing. It's a godwin thing.

"tailer said what I feel" by Optical Weenie. That says it all- bwhaaaaaaaaaa. Operation Chaos is over now. The republicans are doooooomed.

thersites, had Hillary Clinton won the primary, the commenters over at Taylor Marsh's place and HillaryIs44 would have a lot to answer for, but the truth is, I wouldn't be expecting them to kiss my feet in exchange for my support. Candidates have a lot of supporters (and sometimes, candidates themselves) that get mean and nasty during a campaign. If you support the goals of the party, then you brush yourself off and get over it.

This election is a virtual tie.

it is not a tie, virtual or not. and this election is over.

Massachusetts, California, Vermont, Connecticut, Del., Oregon, Washington, Maryland, New York (maybe), New Jersey, Illinois.
Plus, DC.
That's all Obama is going to win in November, without Clinton on the ticket. Remember you read it here first. It's going to be a blowout.

This reminds me of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections.
In 2000, George Bush lost the popular vote, but was proclaimed President by the SCOTUS. He promised to be a uniter, but we know what we got.
In 2004 he narrowly won the popular vote and he had a "mandate."

Now Obama has narrowly won the delegate count. Will he step forward to unite the party, or will his supporters decide it is more important to force their will on the Clinton HALF of the party? Will HE take the "high ground?" Why does she have to bow before the new King?

Is it OK to ignore the needs or issues of the slightly less than 50% if you win?
Is it really winner take all, and damn the other half?

This is has turned into a Republican "lite" and the Democrats have turned out the just as petty and vindictive as an Republican faction.

See you again in 2012 and let me know how this worked out for you.

If you support the goals of the party, then you brush yourself off and get over it.

That is of course, unless the shoe was on the other foot. Then there would have been riots in the streets. Remember that crap y'all were peddling a few months back?

Wow the K-K-Karl pysch-ops weanies are out in force today! Even posing as "feminists". Of course a lot of repugs ARE cross-dressers at heart.

"Hey Mike, resorting to playing e-psychiatrist marks your argument as losing. It's a godwin thing."

What else is one to do when wittnessing irrational behavior? Being angry at Obama and his supporters is one thing, but there are folks in this thread and elsewhere denying that he's won the nomination. That's leaving behind the land of sanity and checking into the Cuckoo Motel.

Mike

Juliet reminds me of Norman, except that Norman doesn't pretend to be a Democrat.

Ill-informed trolls abound here, but Juliet wins this round.

I'm an Obama voter.

I think it would be well for all Obama supporters, including me, to STFU for about a week. Just stifle.

Sometimes there's nothing one can say that helps.
Sometimes anything one can say, every sincere attempt to understand or to empathize or to explain or to discuss, just makes things worse.

I think it's beyond obvious that this is one of those times.

I harbor no illusion that this will occur.

elmo: i believe it was Jonah Goldberg who was claiming there would be race riots.

The rest of us realized that Obama had won by the beginning of March. But if he had lost the Potomac primaries and the post-super-Tuesday caucuses, we'd be chalking it up to "just the way it goes" rather than demanding that Hillary's online supporters kiss our feet in exchange for support.

"Is it OK to ignore the needs or issues of the slightly less than 50% if you win?
Is it really winner take all, and damn the other half?"

Excuse me, but what the heck are you talking about? What "needs or issues" is the Obama campaign ignoring, except Hillary's need to be the nominee? And it seems to me that it's the Hillary supporters saying "damn the other half" of the party.

Mike

But if he had lost the Potomac primaries and the post-super-Tuesday caucuses, we'd be chalking it up to "just the way it goes" rather than demanding that Hillary's online supporters kiss our feet in exchange for support
***
This is probably true, but this is necessary because your candidate was not unacceptable to most Clinton supporters, while Clinton was acceptable to most Obama supporters. You see Clinton as the old politics, but OK. We tend to see Obama as inexperienced, not ready, not even a particularly good speaker, as an empty suit. This is the reality. It's heartbreaking for me, and I doubt I'm the only one, that this once in a lifetime opportunity comes along, and we have a candidate that I'd just as soon see lose. You don't have to kiss our feet, just give us a good reason to support the ticket. Put somebody on it we can stand to vote for.

Juliet:

I live in Maine --- there's no way Obama is not going to win Maine. The caucus in Maine (which Obama won) brought in so many new voters and energized the Democratic base like nothing else. Obama remains way ahead in the polls here and there's no way McCain is going to catch up with him. So I don't think you can count out Maine from being solidly in the Obama camp.

And most polling data shows that even with all the convulsions within the Democratic party he has been contending with, and even with all the attacks from the right-wing he has been fending off, Obama still beats McCain in the general and in the electoral college. Now, if the party can just unify and not get so worked up into a lather over what was, granted, an intense and competitive primary season, the Democrats will be poised for a landslide victory.

If you support the goals of the party, then you brush yourself off and get over it.

First, what elmo said. There have been a lot of threats that to not vote for Obama would literally cause riots.

Second, my understanding is that most of the money in the party is now controlled by Obama. It's his party, his goals.

I don't support social security reform.
I don't support his health care initiative.
I don't support his continual funding of the war.
I don't support his voting present on issues where he was afraid to take a stand.
I don't support his leading a committee and never showing up to it.
I don't support telling manufacturing workers their jobs are gone and are never coming back.
I don't support telling white people that their concerns, while legitimate, are the problems of corporations, and not the problems of corporations AND politicans and our legal system
I don't support calling people racist when they are not being racist.

I don't support the ignorant, arrogant, knee-jerk, no brain liberalism espoused in a morally superior, ethically superior voice ala Neal the Ethical Werewolf.

I don't support a Black Liberation Theology as angry and divisive as what "Father" Phleger just showed us a few weeks ago. And I don't support hypocrites like Phleger who then apologize and pretend it was some minor gaffe. I don't support willful idiots that can attend that church for 20 years in order to build up credibility and then later claim not to know what is being said.

None of this makes me a racist. None of this makes me a Republican.

All of this makes me a progressive thinking liberal, and one who believes in actual equality for everyone, not just lip service. But I am not sure that *that* is a party goal.

What is most dismaying about some Sen. Clinton supporters, is their declaration they will vote for McCain because of the perceived slights to Clinton's womanliness. That is incomprehensible because McCain is more sexist than any Democrat and has no liberal, let alone moderate, policies.

If Clinton supporters cannot support Obama, their alternate choice should be Cynthia McKinney, who is both a woman and a liberal. That so many Clinton Democrat's reaction is to vote for the antithesis of their preferred candidate, rather than for a candidate who most resembles Clinton, belies their real reason for not supporting Obama - race.

Being angry at Obama and his supporters is one thing, but there are folks in this thread and elsewhere denying that he's won the nomination.

My understanding is that until Clinton concedes OR the superdelegates actually do vote in Denver, whichever comes first, Obama really hasn't won the nomination.

Because of the losing round with pledged delegates, the Superdelegates are in control, and apparently no matter how much they are brow beaten, they can change their minds up until the time they vote.

It's backroom, smoke filled, politics time, whether you like it or not. It's negotiations and pressure and bluster.

But won the nomination? While it seems probable, it's not for certain. That's the superdelegate process.

Jeebus. Obama supporters who are saying "we don't need them" to Hillary supporters are living in a dreamland.

I've just read this thread completely through again. Thinking that anyone in this thread has said anything of the kind is...well, a perspective from dreamland.

Of course we need Clinton supporters. No one here has suggested that we don't. But there is a small minority of them, including Juliet, emmarose, and Mary/Perry/Psych Prof/etc. posting anonymously at 1:38, who have announced, in some cases for months now, their unbending intention never to vote for Obama.

If anyone is arguing for spending time and effort trying to convert these very few whose desire to see Obama lose in November is so much stronger than their interest in preventing a third Bush term, then that person's got a lot more time on his and her hands that most of us do. I'm putting my own efforts toward those who share liberal and Democratic goals and values...including almost all Clinton voters, most of whom don't sit on blogs all day. Out in meatspace, you'll find most folks are a whole different ball game in what they value and prioritize.

so I know the world will not end if McCain is elected.

Setting the bar a little low for the election now aren't we? Besides, if Hagee has his way it just might.

and ending with respect for our democratic process, at last week's rules and bylaws committee meeting.

?? Yes, by all means, our democratic process should not adhere to pesky rules and bylaws. And apparently it includes counting votes for Hillary but not Obama in a state where his name did not appear on the ballot and where all candidates and the DNC agreed to those pesky rules and bylaws prior to the primary season.

"Because Obama, the establishment candidate, had the DNC wired."

I voted happily twice for Bill Clinton. I started out this year as a Hillary supporter, and if Granholm and Levin had not behaved like spoiled 8-year-olds at a sunday school picnic trying to elbow their way to the front of the ice cream line, I would have cast a vote for her in the Michigan primary. I have not contributed to or volunteered for the Obama campaign, and truth be told there are other Dems who I think would make stronger candidates in the general election.

Having said that, calling Obama the "Establishment candidate" may be one of the most comically delusional bendings of actual fact that I've come across yet in this campaign.

We have Candidate A:
A First Lady for eight years;
Member of the most recent Democratic political dynasty;
A name recognition second to nobody within the Democratic Party, if not the country;
US Senator from a state containing the largest city in the country;
A huge list of high-profile and very wealthy donors contributing to the maximum allowed;
A popular former President actively campaigning on her behalf;
The active declared support of hundreds of elected officials at all levels all over the country;
The former head of the DNC playing an important role in her campaign;
And, going into the campaign, the presumptive nominee in the analysis of the large majority of seasoned political observers of all stripes.

And we have Candidate B:
A little-known Senator with a funny name serving his first term in office, with a fund-raising operation dependent on raising small sums from large numbers of individual donors, with virtually no chance of winning the nomination in the opinion of a large majority of seasoned political observers.

Unfortunately, the absurd assertion that Obama is the "Establishment candidate" is just one among many I have read or heard from the Clinton campaign and its supporters over the last month. While it's absolutely correct that it will be difficult if not impossible for Obama to beat McCain without the large majority of Clinton supporters, it seems evident that there is a hard core of her supporters who are essentially Bushian in their disregard for empirical fact. I don't think it's possible for Obama to win their votes by any manner of persuasion; they'll have to come to that decision on their own, or vote for the man who has voted in support of George Bush virtually 100% of time over the last two years.

You know, I used to view people who read all these nefarious motivations and cynical political calculations behind every action Hillary (or Bill) took as bitter-folk suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS).

But after seeing Hillary in action, I think I may owe those CDS sufferers an apology. She has shown a willingness to do ANYTHING to get elected, from the subtle and not-too-subtle race-bating, to the blatant (and unbelievably successful) attempts to change the rules after the fact. If she were anyone other than a Clinton, not only would she never have gotten away with it, but she would never have attempted it.

And now she's apparently attempting to hold the Presidential campaign hostage until she gets....what exactly? The VP slot? She lost, move on, or at least let the rest of us move on. Her ambition knows no bounds, and it's hurting our chances at beating McCain.

Let's be fair. This is a race. It's not over until it's numerically impossible to win, or the results are confirmed. Since the superdelegate votes aren't locked in, it's not over until they can't affect the vote.

The problem is not Hillary, or Obama. It's people trying trying to create a result when one isn't there yet. The worst offenders are the media.

It's not over until it's numerically impossible to win, or the results are confirmed. Since the superdelegate votes aren't locked in, it's not over until they can't affect the vote.

Using this logic, no nominee would ever be selected until the convention.

Hanging one's hat on the hope that 250 (at this time...later it will be many more) superdelegates will suddenly turn around and change their votes to Clinton for some unexplained reason doesn't seem like much of a plan. I hope you'll excuse the rest of the party for moving on with the general election campaign in the meantime.

Hey, people. Guess what? HRC is not Gandhi. And she's not Nixon. She's a politician. Obama? DItto. It just so happens that everything HRC says and does is assumed to be evil, while the opposite is true of Obama. I didn't vote for HRC in the primary (mainly because of Iraq/foreign policy issues), but all these tempests in a teapot over HRC's supposed race-baiting and gender-baiting (or whatever you want to call it) have left me more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt than I was before because so much of the outrage has been manufactured out of thin air. I would ask why the same level of "scrutiny" (aka cavalier accusation-tossing) wasn't applied to the Obama campaign, but I wouldn't wish this kind of scrutiny on anyone, least of all Obama (whom I like).

Juliet,

I hadn't thought about it that way, but now it's as plain as the gaping canker on a whore's privates. You're absolutely right. In hindsight, it was a mistake for me to have hired Matthews and Olbermann at MSNBC. I probably shouldn't have been writing their scripts for them, either. And there's absolutely nothing to excuse my not having apologized for them again and again.

Now about that bidness you've been batting around -- that stuff about VP, well, I think you're on to something, but I'd feel a little bit guilty about the whole thing. I'd like to, if it's all right with you, just be done with the whole thing. I see where that part about me running for president was a little over the top. It wasn't supposed to get this far. In fact, the whole thing started as nothing more than a couple of sixpacks and a dare. I don't know what I was thinking. So if it's okay with you, I'd just as soon hand this baby over to the Clinton folks. Most of their White House stuff is still in a storage locker over in Georgetown, so the whole thing would be a lot easier for them.

But let's get to what really matters. You. And your feelings. And what I can do to make the world a more perfect place for you.

So in the spirit of coming together, may I impose upon you with a simple request? I know it's a little too early to ask your forgiveness, but as a way of working up to that, would you let me rub your feet?

bluestatedon,
you forgot to mention the Democratic Leadership Council...you know the group that Clinton (Bill) helped found, along with McAuliffe and the now independent Lieberman. This was a group dedicated to the premise that the Democratic party was too much on the left and needed to be dragged to the right.
Hillary Clinton was active in DLC, so I also find the claims that she's more progressive pretty laughable. But then again, the people saying that are willing to let a man who calls his wife the c-word, opposes reproductive rights, thinks the authoritarian powers Bush accrued are A-OK, sings about bombing Iran, take office.

whatever.

"My understanding is that until Clinton concedes OR the superdelegates actually do vote in Denver, whichever comes first, Obama really hasn't won the nomination."

This is the sort of lawyerly sophistry and leads really smart guys like Bill Clinton to embarass themselves over what the definition of the word "is" is. By the standard of every freakin' nomination fight in the modern political era, Obama was won. If Clinton refuses to acknowledge that fact, that doesn't alter reality.

Mike

Hillary was running for the party's nomination, and has finished by running away from reality. Whether she intended to or not, she gives every closet racist cover for not supporting a strong African American candidate.

And those of you decrying sexism? McCain called his own wife a cunt if I remember correctly. Yow. So, one cannot use that cover either. Let's build a stronger party and make the platform one we can all endorse.

(Great posts, Shortstop, as always)

So in the spirit of coming together, may I impose upon you with a simple request? I know it's a little too early to ask your forgiveness, but as a way of working up to that, would you let me rub your feet?

***
Not unless you want to get kicked in the face.

Juliet,

That's an embarrassingly small price to pay when you consider my obligation to bring healing to the country. My only regret is that you have but two feet with which to kick me. Oh, that you and all the other McCain-voting Clinton supporters could be millipedes. Only then would I begin to scratch the surface of setting things right. My miseries are compounded, as I must pass the rest of my days without the privilege of your thousand little feet doling out my cosmic justice. Oh, cruel Fate!

"Whatever else you do, Hillary folks, PLEASE don't hold resentments against Barack Obama for things that his preacher(s) [or worse yet, his supporters in comment threads] might have said against Hillary."

You mean things like this: "You women will vote for Obama or you can just get used to throwing yourselves down the stairs when you get pregnant."

Kiss my butt, fool. You sound like an abusive man: "Oh,sweetie, it'll be okay. If you just put an ice pack on your eye and then do what I tell you....".

"Barack" amuses highly. The millipede comment at 3:46 inspired a monitor-green tea meeting.

(Thanks, Sparko! You know I've dug your posts for years!)

shortstop,

This isn't about you -- or any of the other shortsighted fools who voted for me -- this is about Juliet. Let's try to remember that, shall we?

But if you insist on making this about you and your selfish mirth, you might consider selling your house and pledging the proceeds at hillaryclinton.com as a first step in your atonement. That, or turn in your uterus. Traitor!

Hush! Quit distracting me. I'm putting my mountain bike and sex toys on eBay (proceeds benefit HRC) and you know how bad at multitasking I am.

Tch, tch Barack, why are you offering to massage women's feet when you have offered to "heal the planet". The latter is going to require so much more of your attention - imagine all the SUV driving Americans you are going to have to placate.

Don't you understand how destructive your blog post is? Obama won, (in reality, he has basically won for a while now). I continue to be confused by fellow Obama supporters who seem stuck in primary mode. It's over. Let me say it again, *it's over.* Don't be like one of those soldiers who can never give up the war. Attacking Clinton, looking for every mistake, every thing she does wrong, is stupid and counterproductive. Do that to McCain, do it to Bush, but leave your fellow democrats alone. Take a page from Obama, it is time we won with grace and dignity, and extend our hand to the other side. Stop being the same stupid politics of division and hate. It's over.
Every time you keep posting like the primary is going on, it means *you* (not just Hillary) keeps it going. It means *you* keep the division and the splits in the party going longer.
It's over (how many times is that now? Enough, has it sunk in yet?).
It's over, so now, really, it has just begun. Fight the next war, not the won we just got through with.

This comment thread and the post that inspired it terrify me...If we don't get ourselves together a bit better, there'll be a McCain victory in November, and the country might not survive it. With all this sniping and parsing and whining and blame assigning, you all are doing the republicans' work for them. The Clinton haters, in particular, seem to be in the grip of the same weird psychodrama that characterizes and diminishes so much of the Washington press corps. It's not very pretty, or very useful.

... why are you offering to massage women's feet when you have offered to "heal the planet".

You act as if there's a difference, optical weenie.

For more details about my tri-phase program on Heel the Planet, you can access the white paper at my new website, barackforhillaryforpresident.com. (We've been a little concerned at the cobwebs massing in the Campaign Contributions section of the hillaryclinton.com website, so we've taken over the fundraising efforts. Actually, we've taken over the entire campaign, and we look to clinch back enough superdelegates for Clinton to claim victory by Friday. You can check the superdelegate-counter when you visit the website. Don't forget to contribute, cheapskate! We notice your previous donations to Hillary were a little light.)

Atonement

If McCain had been a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, perhaps that one little word would not have kept that movie from winning best picture.

You Obama supporters are going to start respecting Clinton supporters so that Democrats can win the general election -- WHEN? After November maybe?

If you wish to accept Hillary's invitation to express your views at hillaryclinton.com, you must fill out a form which reads: "I'm with you, Hillary, and I'm proud of everything we're fighting for".

On her blog many groupies...er, supporters (and they called us a cult) are urging Hillary to run as an Independent.

I was appalled by Hillary's speech last night. She has earned her reputation as a graceless and divisive figure. Personally I think it would be a travesty if she were on the ticket. But...it was a close race.

I completely agree, KD. It's high time somebody showed you some respect. There's no reason you should have to spend all your time chasing kids off your lawn the way you do.

(For a mere $5 pledge at barackforhillaryclinton.com, we'll send over a crew of poll workers to get rid of them for you. Don't worry, our poll workers are clean-cut.)

When all candidates are short of the number needed for nomination, the decision will be made at the convention by the superdelegates. Yes, they can change their votes.

A scenario where they might -- let's say the Larry Sinclair stuff turns out to have merit. Even Obama wouldn't be able to explain away his gay trysts, so he would be finished as a serious candidate. If that broke before the convention, Clinton would be nominated.

Another scenario where they might -- Obama is in the midst of a stirring speech attacking McCain and collapses with a heart attack. He is rushed to the hospital where he undergoes the same kind of multiple bypass surgery as Bill (and gets an empathy transplant). His doctors and family decide he will be unable to handle the rigors of the campaign. If this happened before the convention, Clinton would be the nominee. (If afterward, the VP might carry on, but I don't know what would happen.)

Yet another scenario where they might -- an investigative reporter discovers proof of quid-pro-quo between Obama and Rezko, perhaps with an intermediary. It hits the times in headlines and all of the news shows discuss it endlessly. Obama begins to tank in the polls and appears to be a less viable candidate. If this happened before the convention, Clinton would be the nominee. Or substitute any other undiscovered scandal from molesting boy scouts to cheating on his LSATs.

I seriously thought the superdelegates would be impressed by the fact that Obama cannot win in the Fall, but clearly (after Kerry) that is an insufficient reason for failing to nominate a Democrat.

Here's why women are still angry about this situation. It exemplifies every time a more qualified woman was passed over for a less qualified man, and had to listen to all the reasons why she was not fit for the job, while being told to be a team player. Clinton doesn't feel entitled -- she knows she is the better candidate. Her expectation was that she would be given a fair chance -- which she was not. She is still proving that she is the better candidate by winning primaries and piling up the popular vote. She is still proving it with Obama's daily failure to improve his poll numbers.

There is no precedent for a committee taking delegates from one candidate and giving them to another after an election. And don't forget that Obama took his own name off that ballot. Who has the right to put it back on afterward, just to help him along?

"When all candidates are short of the number needed for nomination, the decision will be made at the convention by the superdelegates. Yes, they can change their votes."

So, if the media uncovers Hillary having an incestous relationship with Chelsea and all her superdelegate abandon her...THAT would finally mean Obama is the nominee?

Mike

@5:35 p.m.
Here's why women are still angry about this situation.

You don't speak for all women. You certainly don't speak for this 47-year-old white woman.

she knows she is the better candidate.

She's wrong about that, though.

Her expectation was that she would be given a fair chance -- which she was not.

She was given a fair chance, and she blew it, but not competing effectively in the primaries, racking up losses in many states while failing to accrue sufficient numbers of delegates, despite her massive fundraising advantage and name recognition.

All primary contests are biased in favor of the establishment candidate. Hillary was that candidate, and only did as well as she did because she had that establishment support, name recognition, and built-in voter base. Obama ran a campaign that was able to neutralize her, particularly given the opening he had because of the fact she so loudly supported the war and Kyl-Lieberman. Look, every other group of campaign volunteers for so many other candidates have had to deal with losing after a hard-fought primary. There's no reason that Hillary supporters are so special that they, too, cannot learn how to deal with losing, as well.

I seriously thought the superdelegates would be impressed by the fact that Obama cannot win in the Fall, but clearly (after Kerry) that is an insufficient reason for failing to nominate a Democrat.

Oh mary, how could the superdelegates fail you, you, YOU?! It is a mystery.

Barack,
You should send your poll workers over to Norman's old place in Maryland. Apparently he was having problems with the stick urchins. If your poll workers could clear that up I am certain that he would be most grateful and open his wallet and peel out at least $10.

Clinton supporters

I heard a self-identified Clinton supporting woman on C-SPAN this morning say she will never vote for a presidential candidate with the middle name Hussein.

Today a former co-worker said he would never vote for a presidential candidate with a Moslem name.

It is not feminist sensibilities that prevents these people from supporting Obama.

Barack! Mary needs lovin', STAT! Personal attention in aisle 8A!

If you wish to accept Hillary's invitation to express your views at hillaryclinton.com, you must fill out a form which reads: "I'm with you, Hillary, and I'm proud of everything we're fighting for"

Not quite. While you know how to correctly use commas, Lucy, the Hillary Clinton campaign does not.

... let's say the Larry Sinclair stuff turns out to have merit. Even Obama wouldn't be able to explain away his gay trysts, so he would be finished as a serious candidate.

Whoa there, nameless commentor. Let's not get carried away. I'm not saying that I don't find the occasional strapping young lad appealing. I had more than a couple of Herb Ritts' posters adorning the walls of my dorm room at Columbia back in the day. But I draw the line at crazy, and that Larry Sinclair is madder than a chimp on a trike. Nothing says plug ugly quite like barking for antipsychotics in the middle of the night.

(But details on my Herb Ritts stash -- as well as other favorite male erotica -- are yours for the asking if you pledge $1000 or up at barackforhillaryforpresident.com. We're on track to declare victory for Hillary by end of business Friday, but with your help we can nail this down by lunch and take the afternoon off. Act now, and we'll even throw in a recording of Bill Clinton doing the greeting on your voicemail.)

lou, perhaps you've never been passed over for a job in favor of a less qualified male. If so, I congratulate you on your lack of merit.

By the way, we've got to get rid of a bunch of empty doughnut boxes with Mark Penn's DNA all over them. We're paying excellent money to anyone with the appropriate green credentials and a fleet of semi trailers. Sorry, right-to-workers -- this one's union only.

You say Larry Sinclar is crazy. Do men routinely administer sanity tests before having casual sex with someone?

Something tells me Mary's gotten passed over a lot, both for jobs and for casual sex, and it wasn't her "superior qualifications" for either that caused the lack of takers.

... perhaps you've never been passed over for a job in favor of a less qualified male.

Wait a minute. Is that you, Mary? Look, I'll say it again -- for the thousandth time -- you didn't get the job because you started barking for your antipsychotics in the middle of the interview.

By the way, you can put your mind at rest. We didn't hire a less qualified male. We hired the chimp on the trike. And she's doing amazing work with our super delegate-counter.

You should send your poll workers over to Norman's old place in Maryland. Apparently he was having problems with the stick urchins. If your poll workers could clear that up I am certain that he would be most grateful and open his wallet and peel out at least $10.

First of all, they're far too busy right now. You have no idea of the chaos that erupted when we tried to migrate data from hillaryclintonforpresident.com to barackfohillaryclintonforpresident.com. Apparently Mark Penn does business with the junta that owns the company that owns Smith Corona, and their entire online fundraising operation was a bunch of electric typewriters plugged into television sets.

Second of all, those stick urchins have a right to organize.

And third, where's your contribution? $3 was a nice start, but the Starbucks coupons you've been sending in since then aren't worth the postage you've been slapping on them. We could really use a hand with Penn's Dunkin' Donuts tab.

Too funny!

Barack,
You must have your weenies mixed up or else someone is posing as me! I only gave one bill, and I don't do Starbucks.

Maybe you should put identity theft on the top of your agenda?

Where to start
Hillary is a human being. Why do some many of you, including Kevin, insist otherwise.
Kennedy went to the convention, knowing he did not have the votes. Why are you holding Hillary to a different standard?

Kennedy went to the convention, knowing he did not have the votes. Why are you holding Hillary to a different standard?

Um, because we don't want to lose disastrously this year like we did in 1980" If anything happens to Obama, Clinton will get the call. Promise!

Trying my best to look objectively at this (and maybe failing), it looks more like this was a primary race between the Baby Boomer candidate (which had overwhelming BB support) and the Gen Y candidate (yes, I know Obama's age, but he got the Lion's sharge of Gen Y support). How Gen X voted?? I would love to see the analysis. My guess is that they split fairly evenly.

So, I am ready to propose that race and gender played a much smaller role than age.

If anyone knows of any studies on this, I would love to read them. I don't have time to do the research...

BadMoonRising @ 2:33 PM - "My understanding is that until Clinton concedes OR the superdelegates actually do vote in Denver...".
This post captures what I think Sen. Clinton is considering - simple, old-fashioned politics. Sen. Obama simply doesn't have the required number of votes to lock in the nomination without the superdelegates' votes and those votes may be swayable. How many, if any, supers could be switched is another question. And, unless Sen. Clinton attempts to sway some superdelegates, no one will ever know.
Sen. Clinton may indeed concede the nomination on Friday, but it is just as likely that she will, instead, "suspend" it. Going into the convention with committed delegates, she would be in a very strong position to influence how the convention turns out: platform, VP, etc. Sen. Obama, could, of course, with enough superdelegate votes, ignore Sen. Clinton and proceed as if she doesn't matter. While many of his "supporters" would prefer that (I swear, I think the most rabid ones just HAVE to be Republican trolls!), it would also tarnish his image in the sight of just as many more non-frothing supporters by simply reducing him to the same level as all the other "politicians".
The Senator from Illinois is going to have to show he's mastered 20th century politics first to be nominated before he moves politics into the 21st century. I hope he can manage it, because I do NOT want McCain elected in November!

When Clinton partisans claim they would rather vote for the conservative, anti-feminist McCain because of the treatment of Clinton's femininity by Obama's campaign and supporters, but do not instead endorse the liberal, female Cynthia McKinney, they are unmasking their real reason for opposing Obama.

When Clinton partisans claim they would rather vote for the conservative, anti-feminist McCain because of the treatment of Clinton's femininity by Obama's campaign and supporters...

Right 'bout there, that little light bulb in your head should have gone off..

When Clinton partisans claim they would rather vote for the conservative, anti-feminist McCain because of the treatment of Clinton's femininity by Obama's campaign and supporters, but do not instead endorse the liberal, female Cynthia McKinney, they are unmasking their real reason for opposing Obama.

I'm no fan of McCain (except for his POW days). But, Cynthia McKinny sometimes appears a little over the top. I agree with a lot of things she says, but her marketing of her ideas (which anybody in business will tell you is really about marketing yourself) puts me off with her shrillness sometimes.

And, no it's not a racial thing! I'm just not comfortable with her "antics." I guess what I am trying to say is she is not a viable VP choice because of her attitude, even though I think her positions are strong. Don't think that qualifies as racism.

"We shoot the messanger because of the way they deliver the message, not because of the message"
Cite Unknown

Wow, somebody who has 18 million votes has the gall to say that they're fighting for the 18 million people who voted for them on the night they won a primary. That's GALL!!!! Get a grip. It is/was a close race, she was respectful of Obama and wanted to celebrate her primary victory (I know, how rude, to rain on Obama's limp to the finish line, pointing out the loose legitimacy of his claim to the nomination).