What I am trying to understand is why anyone thinks Clinton supporters are so simple-minded that that won't realize they are only being schmoozed long enough to get their votes, and then they will be ignored or abused again. We have to assume that the reason they are supporting Hillary is because they believe that Obama doesn't have the same values or concerns that they do. That hasn't changed, and won't. That's why it seems to me that pretending to be nice to them for the next month or six months won't persuade them.

Posted at May 19, 2008 9:47 AM in response to Obama Orders Faithful to “Be Nice to Clinton Supporters”

I hear you, and appreciate your perspective, though it makes me a little sad, and I hope it will prove to have been overstated, albeit unintentionally. What is critical is that you are looking at which Democrat can win the White House in the fall; that is what we all NEED to do. Seeing McCain's praise for Roberts and Alito today is all we need to remind us that our singular focus must be on which candidate can save us from more of them. Clinton can do that. She also happens to be shockingly smart, in an intuitive, practical, effective way, as much as in book learning. And she has become a diplomat to a degree that I never realized would be possible. I am proud to be supporting her, and thrilled to have you aboard. I hope when you see the results you will regain some of your enthusiasm, even as you temper it with the reality of politics under our Constitution.

Posted at May 6, 2008 4:01 PM in response to Concession to Clinton

And here is a second. I am a professional, educated at ivy league undergraduate and graduate universities, I have children, and live in the South, earning over $100,000 per year, and I support Hillary Clinton with every fiber in my body. I can't say that I am ready to vote for McCain in the fall, but I have realized that I can't vote for Obama and the painfully divisive coterie that he has implicitly, if not explicitly, encouraged in order to get him where he is today and that feels to me exactly like the gloating, bullying masses who put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000 with the same "delegates trump the people" anti-democratic theory. I, like my spouse, my four siblings, my parents, and so very many friends, have gone from proud and optimistic to nauseous and discouraged thanks to Obama and his threatening, un-Democratic supporters.

Posted at May 4, 2008 11:37 AM in response to Rasmussen: Obama Ahead By 12 In Oregon

Excellent point.

Posted at March 25, 2008 7:08 AM in response to Who Would Hillary Vote For? Obama or McCain?

Thanks, AJM, for articulating much better than I could how I and so many of my friends and relatives feel.

Posted at March 23, 2008 2:46 PM in response to My Story: Emotional Infantilism?

Destor23, count me in. Senator Obama may have won the delegate count in more states, but the popular vote, even without Florida and Michigan, shows ONLY 2.6% difference between Senators Obama and Clinton. She should drop out of the race? Quitters are losers. She should be forced out? Shades of 2000, George Bush and the Supreme Court. There is a reason that our wise founders set up the system of intense competition under which we still live with enormous pride. Can it be uncomfortable at times? Sure. But it works. Let it. The Millions of voters (not including Florida and Michigan) who support Senator Clinton for President are no less important, valuable, or rational than the nearly identical number who support Senator Obama. Viva la democracy!

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:45 AM in response to I've Had It! (and I'm doing something about it)

Thank you, Michael, for your rationality. This is what we need to hear more of these days.

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:37 AM in response to I've Had It! (and I'm doing something about it)

I was in Dallas from Wednesday through Sunday before the Texas primary and, being politically interested, I talked to LOTS of people all over the city. I heard 2 comments over and over: (a) older people of all races and both genders and parties saying they had already voted, and it was for Senator Clinton and (b) people of both genders who said they were Republicans but had or were voting for Senator Clinton because it looks like Democrats are likely to win in the general election and Senator Clinton would be a much more qualified president given her experience, her respect in the world, and her ability to work with Republicans in the Senate for significant legislative efforts.

Posted at March 13, 2008 9:28 AM in response to Why Republicans have "shifted" towards Hillary

I wonder why no one talks about the claims from Senator Obama's camp that he is getting so many Republicans voting for him. Why would the cross-overs for him be any more permanent than for Senator Clinton?

Posted at March 5, 2008 10:44 PM in response to Texas voting

Or just the opposite: where independents and Republicans can vote in Democratic primaries or caucuses, and haven't needed to vote in their own primaries, they are distorting what will happen in the general election, where they will vote for the Republican. Thus Senator Obama's wins in primaries in Red states tell us very little about whether he could/would win these states against McCain in the general election.

Posted at March 4, 2008 3:06 PM in response to Poll: Two Thirds Say Hillary Should Stay In Even If She Loses One Big State