I think it would make a compelling campaign idea to do several docu-style commercials with people who feel the same way you do. People who supported Hillary, but saw her true colors when she started launching vicious, underhanded lies.

And switched to Obama.

"at least you'll have your principles"

you say that like sticking by your principles is a bad thing. then again, judging by your response you're a hillary supporter so you wouldn't recognize the value of principles if they came up and introduced themselves to you.

Freaktown,
I'm a middle aged loyal democrat, always vote democrat (Mondale was my first election--how's that for loyalty?) but I'm with you on this one. I have been trying to convince friends that even if they support Obama in the primary, if she wins, they should vote for her. Setting aside the fact that it is mathematically impossible for her to win, I can't see myself voting for her now. Promoting John McCain's experience? And putting herself on par with him?

This whole experience thing is a such a joke. She has more experience than Obama in the sense that she's OLDER. But McCain is even older than she is--what a way to hand someone your supposed advantage. If her argument holds, then any experience she's had before she reached the age of 47 doesn't count, because that's how old Obama is, and he doesn't have this vaunted experience of which she speaks. It's a house of cards she's building, and Obama needs to blow it down, and soon.

I'm with you here as well. I've been voting Democrat for all the elections I've been a part of, and I will never vote for her. Ever. I'll write him in if I have to.

People have flamed me on this, but I don't think that a person should vote for a Party. They should vote for who they think is the best person - period.

Finally, why should I be loyal to a party when Clinton can't be loyal herself?

Even more party loyalty here: my first (Democratic) vote was in the Johnson/Goldwater contest. And four generations of my family before me have been loyal Democrats. I'm also a lawyer and know full well the importance of those two powerful words: "Supreme Court."

HOWEVER, Clinton has irretrievably lost my vote ... and my registration as a Democrat, to boot, if she becomes the nominee. The analogy to Gore/Bush doesn't work: no matter who said what, it was clear which of those two had principles and a sense of integrity. What Gore has done since his loss if proof of that. (For amusement, try to think of what GWB would have done if the election was stolen from him!) Anyone looking at Obama and Clinton can tell which one has more integrity, and anyone looking at Clinton and McCain knows, as well. Her only principle is "win at all costs" and voting for her would demean (and sicken) me. If this is how she deals with a decent person and a promising star of her party (along with his many supporters), then I don't want to see how she will deal with our country.

Integrity for what? Will Hillary steal from the till? No, I don't think so. Will she work for anti-poverty, educational and women-in-the-workforce priorities? I expect so. Will she get us out of Iraq? I expect so. Will she deal with the mortgage crisis? Yes, I think so. Will she deal with our European and Asian counterparts to have a more effective foreign policy and global economic approach? Yes, I'm rather certain. Will she try her best to get universal health care implemented? Yes, I'm sure she will, though at this point I don't know what the result will look like.

What is all this integrity crap? That she gave away the White House cat? Oh my, she mentioned John McCain has about 55 years of relevant experience. Scandalous - the Republicans would have never guessed. "Hi, my name is Barry and I said that Saddam was no real threat, so give me your vote." It's a laugher. If the 3am ad got results IT MEANS VOTERS ARE CONCERNED. And if voters are concerned, it means you better come up with something better than "gosh, Hillary shouldn't have mentioned this".

Americans are worried about economics and security - which one is #1 depends on the year, but you still need good street cred in #2. Now, I guaran-damn-tee you that if Hillary's AUMF vote would hurt her come November that Obama's side (and all the "progressives with integrity") would still be smacking her at every turn for it. But she's one of the few Democrats who's made a serious effort at building up security credentials (and please spare me the snore of Obama-Lugar), and between both thinking we need some kind of security as well as thinking that Democrats should find some way to lose the sheep's clothing, she should be commended for it. Similarly, she has done a fairly good job of wearing her religion (some of the child-game-protection crap aside) to neutralize much of the potential religious wing attacks. At this point they don't like McCain or Hillary much, so it's a wash, and she didn't divorce to marry an heiress.

But Obama is setting himself up on both security and religion and getting himself boxed into an anti-American caricature (which is of course what Republicans always like to do with liberals/Democrats). His wife is definitely not helping. I'll take a slightly ruthless candidate who'll get elected and do 60% of what I want over a rather naive one that would have given 100% of what I wanted had he been elected (not that I think Obama's priorities fit me so well). Nothing in American history shows elections as ever having been pretty, and all these silly ground rules that people keep coming up with for how Hillary should behave leave me in stitches.

For a bonus point, tell me what Kerry and Edwards' excuses for voting for AUMF were, and tell me what the top 5 items on Kerry's campiagn platform were.

I'm a former independent voter (for 27 years) although I almost always vote with the Democrats. Because of Obama, I registered as a Democrat for the first time so I could caucus in Iowa.

I like to tell the tale of our little rural caucus, because I think it presents sample of the rest of the country.

In 2004, our rural precinct had 4 voters caucus. This year, we had 15. Of those, only 6 were registered Democrats. The other 9 were former independents or Republicans.

Our caucus ended up with 6 in the Obama camp, 6 for Edwards and 3 for Clinton. Of those in the Obama and Edwards camps, ALL agreed they would not move to the Clinton camp. In fact, most indicated they would vote across party lines if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee.

Remember this was early in the campaign. These folks were basing their decision about Clinton on the Clinton presidency and Hillary's senate record. Their dislike for the Clinton's was set years ago, and what's happened since the Iowa caucuses has done nothing to change their minds.

I believe the number of voters across the country who absolutely will NOT vote for a Clinton make it impossible for her to win in the general election. Even though I'm not sure what I'd do if faced with her as the nominee, I am certain about my friends and neighbors. This is the political reality I believe Democratic leadership needs to face, and I don't think they've been willing to confront it before now.

But if they don't, I think the Democratic Party will get torn apart. Obama has brought new people into the Party, but they won't stay if Clinton is the nominee.

As a lark I took questionnaires posted on the websites of two newspapers, USA Today and the Boston Globe, comparison my position on a variety of issues with those of various Presidential candidates. The issues included Iraq, health care, education, etc. In both examples, Obama was my 1st choice. Suprisingly, Clinton and McCain were extremely close to each other in their positions in both questionnaires. So the question becomes what will be the difference if Clinton or McCain wins? Obviously, the Supreme Court does loom large. However, from a practical standpoint, the current court has already done major and irreversible damage to educational advances made in the African-American community. We will regroup, adapt, and move on as we always have.
I have the sense from this election that feminists have declared war on Black males. The Tina Fey's "B****h is the new Black" was not just a joke. In the past, African-Americans were "invited out" of the GOP by the entry of the Dixiecrats and the rise of Barry Goldwater and the Nixon Southern Strategy. If we are being "invited out" of the Democratic Party by feminists and Latinos, that is fine. We have dealt with denial of entry before. A significant portion of African-American voters will likely become, in effect, Independents. We'll just go on a case by case basis in future elections. This is not a problem. Sen Clinton's tactics may produce a short-term political gain, but she has done considerable damage to the way the Democratic Party is viewed in the Black community now and in the future.

The arguments of Clinton folks on this thread are not persuasive. In fact they reinforce the reasons Obama folks give for not voting for Clinton. If Clinton takes the nomination by holding the Democratic Party hostage, we may see a permanent fracture in the Party, the beginnings of 3 party politics.

I have been a loyal Democratic voter since I turned 18. I have never pulled the lever for anyone but a Democrat and I have put in long hours working for candidates all over the country. But if Hillary is the nominee, I just can't do it.

Why should I support someone out of party loyalty when that person cannot even show party loyalty to a person in her own party? Her comments with regard to Obama's readiness to be Commander in Chief have gone way beyond crossing a line. In my eyes she's now a traitor and she would be if she had said the same things about John Edwards, Bill Richardson or any of the other Dems in this cycle.

And since I live in NY, not only will Clinton not get my Presidential vote, I will never again vote for her in any office that she runs for including another Senate term. She has permanently lost my support.

It's as if Karl Rove sent some money orders in to Rogaine, grew his hair out, slapped on some lipstick and bought a few pantsuits. It's a campaign driven by focus groups and schemeing, not principles. She accuses her opponents of doing exactly what she has done repeatedly. She attacks from any angle that she thinks will work. McCain started with the Rovian attacks and she saw an opportunity to double her effectiveness, joined in on it, and then held conference calls to blast Obama for HIS campaigning.

There is no clean way for her to win the nomination. If she does win it somehow, she will be in no position to win in November. But she will be the official face of the party. All those Senate races we think we can win, the chances of a super-majority, and the current demoralization of the Republicans will all go away.

This rare opportunity to solidify a progressive movement that could last decades will be gone. George Bush and Dick Cheney did one great thing for the Democrats--they pissed off so many people that the conservative movement stopped in its tracks.

We need to take advantage of this. But nothing will change if the face of the party is someone who chose self-determination over party loyalty, who preyed on the unfortunate weaknesses of voters so easily exploited by the neocons, and who proudly proclaims that she will fight, that she is tough, and that she has "crossed the threshhold." Can we expect anyone to believe in a new progressive future if these are the traits that will define the next four years?

Desidero -- Integrity and decency as a human being. That's what I'm talking about.

Someone who wouldn't send out utterly false mailers a day before a primary and later scream 'shame on you' when their opponent puts out truthful ones - who wouldn't try to change rules they previously agreed to in NV, MI, FL and elsewhere - who wouldn't suck up to voters in a state before they vote and then dismiss and insult both the state and its voters if they lose the primary -- who wouldn't go searching in kindergarten records for amunition against an opponent (and who wouldn't think it *was* amunition if they found something) -- who wouldn't go ballistic over a mild negative word, uttered impulsively, and demand 'off with her head' -- and the list goes on in nauseating length.

Just decent, principled, civil, intelligent human behavior. Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I believe those things matter. "The end pre-exists in the means." We learned that was true with GWB; I don't want to re-learn the lesson with her.

Where do you get the idea Obama was talking Republican talking points on social security? I heard him speak 4 times in person. Never did he use the republican talking point (social security is going to collapse soon unless we privatize it). He did say it would be prudent to raise the tax for the top end of the income spectrum causing the top end to pay a more equitable share of the program making the social security tax less regressive - I believe that is sound Democratic principle.

As far as encouraging republicans to vote for him, how far from the mark have we gone when we think that we only want democrats to vote for our candidates?

If the Republicans wanted to destroy the Democratic Party, they'd invent Hillary Clinton. This would be funny if it wasn't tragic.

Anyone else thinks that when Hillary is damaging Obama, she's damaging herself just as much or even more? Hillary's presidential bid was always an uphill battle, but now it looks like her "plan" for victory is turning off half of Democracts, in addition to all the Republicans who are never going to vote for her anyway. Is she so oblivious of the strategic consequences of her behavior? Or is she doing this on purpose, knowing full well what it means?

I am an Edwards migrant to supporting Obama at this point but Josh gets it just right, I believe, in his 1:03 post today, "Thank You, May I have Another?" I'm 48, have extensive campaign experience, former Congressional committee staffer, loyal Democrat. I was shocked to learn that Power resigned. What nonsense. I think it made Obama look weak, much to my disappointment. Who is he to be dictated to by the Clinton campaign on who his advisors are? Does anyone doubt that Hillary's people say that and probably much worse about Obama behind closed doors? This was one of those moments where Obama refuses her resignation, tells her to get back in there and be careful next time, and comes back hard at Hillary.

If you're old enough to have heard the old saying "politics ain't beanbag" you're old enough to know that that's true, not more so than at this level. And it doesn't change when some new, fresh face comes along, no matter how inspirational, talented, and appealing she or he is. This isn't to say the world never changes--it can, and it does. But the struggle for power is age-old within human societies and it is never pretty on the scale of a presidential campaign such as this one.

So, come on, Barack, get back on your game so this stays a one-off incident and doesn't set in as a campaign motif, knowing full well the Republicans will try to make it one. Think of this as practice in Hardball Politics 101 because it appears you could benefit from a little at this point.

From a supporter who wants to see you sworn in next January.

HRC has 50% negatives nationwide. Much higher among men.
HRC alienated black voters, the democrats most reliable constituency.
HRC has brought no new voters to the democrats (even in Ohio and Texas)
HRC promises more endless partisan bickering like WJC gave us.
HRC has old women, low income whites and superdelagates.

HRC is the current manifestation of Kerry, Mondale and every dem who couldn't inspire indies or attract new voters.

Wanna lose again, vote HRC.

"If the Republicans wanted to destroy the Democratic Party, they'd invent Hillary Clinton. This would be funny if it wasn't tragic."

I've thought this for awhile now but could never put it so succinctly. I think that's exactly right.

dembillo, unfortunately you really do need to double-check things that Clinton says before repeating them. The sub-committee that Obama chairs does have some oversight of NATO ...... **but not** NATO's involvement in Afghanistan. That sphere of its operation is overseen by a different subcommitee, one chaired by John Kerry, which has been meeting. -- She's said several bald untruths in debates and I don't know how Obama has held his temper, but commend him for not getting into a "you did't!" "did too!" dialog.

I'm sorry, but you really can't rely on her. Her supporters in NH and elsewhere have learned that, to their sorrow. Some who were very active in the local women's rights movement lost standing that they had worked decades to achieve because they relied on her word and took action based on the assumption that she was telling them the truth. She does have her strengths, but I'm afraid honesty isn't one of them.

I have grown to hate HRC.

True story -- I was defending her as recent as 3 months ago. It seems strange now that I think about it, but I had always thought the Clintons were hardball but against the GOP.

No one would mind her playing a little dirty against McCain. But her willingness to go racial, to go "muslim", to endorse McCain, is just sickening.

She's become exactly like he GOP in order to beat the GOP. Problem is, then all you have is the GOP.

If Hillary gets the nomination (she won't), I'll write in Obama in November. There's no way she's getting my vote.

This is just what I have been thinking today -- the unthinkable. If it's Hillary, I will stay home on election day. I have had it with dirty politics in this country.

As of February 4, I really was torn between candidates.

Three weeks ago, when Obama made the sale and I decided to support him, I had no problem with Hillary and was glad I had two good choices instead of one bad and one worse.

As of March 5, I fear and loathe the Clintons as much as most here, however, this point cannot be made often enough or loudly enough.

The current ages of the US Supreme Court justices are:

John Paul Stevens, age 88
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 75
Anthony Kennedy, age 72
Antonin Scalia, age 72
Stephen Breyer, age 70
David Souter, age 69

The SCOTUS has not adjourned for the term yet. They will be issuing opinions soon. They just got finished hearing arguments about the Exxon Valdez, for the love of Pete.

Pay attention to those decisions as they're announced and keep this in mind:

Clarence Thomas, age 59
Samuel Alito, age 57
John Roberts, age 52

Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/blctjustices.htm

Because I guarantee every right wing fundagelical nut in the country who professes to be disappointed in McCain as a nominee has the above etched in their brain.

The problem that exists by a non-vote for Clinton, should she win the nomination, is that you essentially vote for John McCain. Not that he wouldn't be decent as President, but not voting because you don't like your parties candidate is plain lunacy.

Here is the fact: like it or not we are either going to elect a democrat somewhat yet to be determined, or a Senator who was Anti-Bush at the beginning of Bush's presidency and is now being endorsed by the same president he didn't like.

Tell me, if you had a choice, would you have given George Bush the right to appoint Supreme Court justices for any vacancies that occurred over the last 7 years if, in return, Al Gore or John Kerry (or just about anyone intelligent and thoughtful and capable of foresight) had gotten to be president and make all those *other* decisions a president makes?

I truly believe that Hillary Clinton will, if elected, turn out to be a composite of GWB and Nixon: fixed in her own path, certain she's right, secretive and averse to any challenge, and also mean and vindictive. -------- And, anyway, what's going to happen to the Supreme Court if she follows her husband's example and loses Congress for the Dems by Year 2, polarizing the nation and her own party? The Senate has to approve and when there is enough enmity, a President's selections can be turned down one after another, as happened to Nixon. Also, the people appointed can turn out to be unpleasant surprises for the appointer ... and pleasant surprises for the rest of us (go back and read about Dwight Eisenhower and Earl Warren). The law is very resilient .... more resilient than the 1000's who've died in a senseless and damaging war and the ones at home who have suffered because of all that war has taken from the rest of us as well.

I don't agree with John McCain's policies and his temper worries me and I probably wouldn't like his SC choices, but I honestly believe that HRC would be a greater tragedy for our party and for our country than he would. He has some considerable claim to authenticity; she has none. He understands the difference between truth and lies (and I believe tries not to lie most of the time); I don't think she even sees a difference, caring only what version of something will be more effective in whatever the current "fight" may be.

A year ago I thought that by this time I would be working on her campaign: she's my senator, a woman my age, someone I've always admired, and has many strengths. Having seen what she is like, consistently, during this campaign, however, I can never vote for her again. There is such a thing as a toxic personality (I've worked with a few), and sadly I think she is one.

From this day forward, a vote for HRC is a vote for McCain.

She is destroying the party and our chances in Nov.

Anyone who wants the Dems to win, should vote for BO, donate, volunteer, and complain to the DNC and the MSM.

The sooner the supers jump ship, the sooner her kamikaze tactics are ended.

She can't win at this point, she can only ruin us.

Any advice for a TEXAS Democrat who voted for Obama?

What do I do if Hillary somehow wins the election?

I can't stand Nader, and McCain is going to win Texas anyway.

Should I vote for Ron Paul as a protest vote?

God, how I hate the General election and the "Winner takes all system." I can't help thinking how much better off America would with a popular vote winning the election...

We'd be celebrating our 8 year of Democratic rule under the best candidate to ever win the nomination: Al Gore.

Sigh.

Oops, my comment above contains an error

Finally, I realize that there are Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters who are White and laborers "advanced" degrees who cannot bring themselves to vote for an African-American.

Should read..............

Finally, I realize that there are Democratic Hillary Clinton supporters who are White and laborers WITHOUT "advanced" degrees who cannot bring themselves to vote for an African-American.

Obviously, the Supreme Court alone is enough to vote for Hillary.

But my point, and I think the point of many others posting her, is that Obama is NOT just drawing the party faithful.

He's pulling independents and Republicans who would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

That's why we are so upset: of course hard-core Democrats will vote for Hillary, but after the damage she's done, that's ALL that will vote for her.

JCC,
Good points. This is nonsense and reminds me of the piling on that the press seems to enjoy. I am with you. I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she may be. Period. Their policies are so close, if you close your eyes you couldnt tell the difference. If this is the type of voter Senator Obama has brought into the party, I question the value of it. This wonderful blog has become a circle jerk of hatred. Grow up people.

I hear the Supreme court reason all of the time. You know what would be really great? To have a former Constitutional Law Proffessor appointing those justices. We get that with Barack Obama.

One thing is for certain, the Clintons are really good at weakening the Democratic Party and de-energizing our grassroots base! As a Precinct Committee Person, I would quit the party if Hillary were to take the nomination by any means short of the will of the people. That means winning the pledged delegates and the popular vote - without breaking the rules. Short of that, I see the mass destruction of an entire organization that so many of us have been working very hard to build. It would be a sad day for Democrats everywhere. I would feel especially sad for our local, state and other down-ticket candidates who would be utterly screwed by the mass chaos that will be caused by the broken grassroots dis-organization. But that just brings me back to my original point - when have the Clintons ever cared about the Democrats down ticket?

The more we hear about Hillary from outside the MSM, the more apparent her strategy is. Mark Penn, and McCain's campaign manager come from essentially the same company (Penn's company owns the other). Clinton is pretending to be a candidate of change, but she a subscriber to the status quo. She won't change a thing. I believe that in her eyes, she would be happy if either her or McCain won, because frankly Obama

IS

Anyway, let me get off my Obama soapbox for the moment...

I honestly believe that she is trying to poison the Democratic primary process. It's a "if I can't have it, no one can" mentality that she seems to have. It's scorched earth and it's toxic. I think she is ultimately trying to protect the "old way" of politics rather than support the Democratic party.

It's Zell Miller all over again! Yeah, that's a bold statement, but when you claim that the other party's candidate is better than the current front-runner of your party, I don't think that speaks well of your intentions.

I would like the DNC to step in and stop these disgusting actions of hers. If she isn't stopped, she will cause the Democrats to lose the election.

"I honestly believe that she is trying to poison the Democratic primary process. It's a "if I can't have it, no one can" mentality that she seems to have. It's scorched earth and it's toxic. I think she is ultimately trying to protect the "old way" of politics rather than support the Democratic party. "

McClinton is destroying the party.

She is a traitor.

The turn in the tone that the primary election has taken is troubling. I think we are definitely in a place now where the messages and infighting are starting to hurt Democrats chances of winning in November, whereas there has certainly been a benefit having the campaigns in almost every state to this point.

I will support Hillary if she is the nominee but I won't donate to her campaign, volunteer, or put a yard sign out. A democrat in the White House with a Dem controlled congress would mean that we could make some huge leaps forward in domestic policy like health care and the environment. On domestic issues, Hillary will be as good as Obama. On foreign policy - she'll be hawkish because of who she surrounds herself with.

I will say though that the anti-Hillary crowd is larger and more diverse than many people may realize. I have a pro-life friend who votes GOP most of the time but is an independent and who is excited about Obama. He says he refuses to vote for Clinton. My brother has only voted Dem his entire life and says he;ll vote mcCain if Hillary is the nominee. I know people who are opposed to voting for any candidate who voted for the Iraq war.

I live in North Carolina and I can tell you that in states like NC, a Clinton campaign will have disasterous consequences down the ticket. We've been able to maintain control of the state legislature for years and years, but just barely. Hillary will mobilize the right like never before and these down ticket losses will pile up.

But let's just let this primary play itself out first and then decide how we all feel about the ticket...

I'm not looking for an angel. I'm looking for "notstupid" or better.

I don't for a moment doubt Clinton's intellect, but besides smearing the candidate who has, at the very least, as good a shot as she does at being the Dem nominee, she's dumbing down the debate on virtually every issue. When the lowest common denominator is catered to, as she's doing, Democrats do not benefit. Her own stupid shite will blow up in her face if she gets the nomination.
Not smart. And she needs to stop it. Now.

She won't.

Are you a current Obama supporter who (for any reason) will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination for President?
Then please take a moment to sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html

Forget about who McCain would appoint on the court. The American people would not stand for the court overturning Roe v.Wade. I feel that if the democrats somehow steal the election from Obama,he should mount a third party candidacy for the President. In a three way race, he could beat McCain & Clinton.

"Forget about who McCain would appoint on the court. The American people would not stand for the court overturning Roe v.Wade. "

You misread the country. With FoxNews propagandizing, and the rest of the MSM bending over backwards to accomodate the right, it could easily happen.

Wouldn't that be the greatest irony:

All of these slash-and-burn HRC feminists destroying the party, resulting in president McCain creating a Court that overturns Roe.

I wonder if their "win at all costs" takes into account that cost.