7. Clinton supporters can't do basic math. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/please-consider-thissuper-dele.php

Lalo received the Daou email with his marching orders.

Once again a politician and the media assuming the people are stupid.

Lalo,

You are a refreshing dose of fresh air! Thanks.

Let's see, she says one thing by signing a pledge, even tells a few voters on radio programs right before their primaries that she intends to honor that pledge - and then - hey - what pledge...

Her campaign thinks people are too stupid to reject her 'big' state theory is utterly baseless. Yeah, I love being insulted at every trun.

SHE WAS partly or fully responsible for some of the less savory events during 'her husbands' terms. By the way, many many public people have noted that camp Obama has not directly attacked on many things regarding that period that they rightfully could. Things you know damn well Hillary would use if flipped around. Also you can't keep taking credit for the good in that period why disowning the bad.

Taking 875,900 bucks from health care related companies - not from an assortment of their employees, mind you - were talking money directly from the companies or their highest ranking officers. And then wanting us to believe she is going to get us a fair insurance deal. I mean - what do we really even need the insurance companies for in the first place? (and yes, this is something I disagree with Obama on, too)

The 'Toledo Blade' called her for exactly what she is, 'A coldly calculating individual'.

Come on - if you can stand there and tell me her behavior during the Florida/Michigan debacle is anywhere close to respectable, then you are not researching the subject.

Fact: a committee of 28 people made the decision to strip Florida and Michigan, not Howard Dean.

Fact: a commission of 40 people, nine of whom are big time Hillary people, MADE THE RULES. This commission spent months holding meetings and discussing the rules and schedule for 2008, and they finished their work in late 2005. Guess who headed that commission? TERRY McCAULIFFE - if you are a Clintonista - you know who that is!

Fact: The Florida House vote was 118-0 to move their date.

Fact: The Florida Senate vote was 37-2 to move their date.

Fact - several Democratic state lawmakers their bragged about how they were helping Florida after that vote - go read the news from that time frame. Florida new sources, please.

Fact: There are more Registered Democrats in Florida than there are Republicans. You elect representatives to make choices for you. Guess they
can't figure out how to elect more democrats down there in spite of there advantage.

Fact: There were other issues on the ballot that day in both Florida and Michigan. So, it isn't as though the POTUS primary was the only reason to go vote, as Hillary would have you believe.

Fact: More Republican ballots were cast than Democratic - even though there are more Reg. Democrats.

and Hellary wants to keep insulting out intelligence.....

As a former Clinton supporter I have to tell you that some of us have indeed decided to support Obama and I will tell you why.

Before this race for the nomination started and before I had the chance to "get to know" Obama, I was very excited about the prospect of Hillary possibly becoming the first female President of the United States.

Although I may not have found her warm and fuzzy I felt at the time that those were not the characteristics I was looking for in the first female President anyway so I wasn't worried about it. I thought she was tough and knew her stuff and I respected (and still) respect that.

However once I started to hear more about Obama I decided in all fairness to hear him out and have listened to his speeches, reviewed his website, watched the debates and thanks to the research of so many tpm posters have been able to check his legislative record as well.

I became an Obama supporter not because I hate Hillary Clinton. I became an Obama supporter because I think right here, right now, he has the peacemaking qualities that I think the U.S. needs in a leader to help mend bridges with our allies and enemies alike.

Being tough is fine and I do respect those qualities in Hillary but I think there is a difference between toughness and strength and Obama in my opinion shows a restrained and dignified strength that I think is better suited to leading the U.S. forward.

After reading quite a few of the comments at the pro Hillary blogs I am not too concerned about why they will never become Obama supporters. They are now quoting Hannity, Fox news, and other members of the right smear machine to back their point of view. Reason and rational thought are sadly missing.

Can't do it, can you?

Just one clip. I'm waiting, and expect to for a long time.

Oh, and to answer your question. I WAS a Hillary supporter. But I couldn't find a single reason to stick with her once I heard what Obama has to say.

So there's your answer.

Hillary Supporters,

I'm serious, I would like to see one video clip of Hillary speaking that you find to be inspiring, uplifting, and that gives you a sense of hope for the future. Put some money where her mouth is, okay?

Obama supporters, maybe you could repeat this challange on other blogs.

Just one clip! Just one clip!

And suddenly, it gets real quiet.

Maybe because the premise of Lalo35adm's question is completely bogus?

I've spent a lot of time interacting with Hillary Clinton supporters, via her website. From that mind blowing experience, I have gathered three main reasons why people support Hillary Clinton. There are feminists (women and men) who simply believe they are entitled to have a woman president and so back her that. There are many others (older folks in particular) who know and like the Clinton "brand name" and record (what little they actually know of it) and support her based on that. And finally, there are a small cadre of uniformed people who roll with Hillary simply because she is white. (Included in this groups are many "undecideds" who are VERY susceptible to any racist innuendo, and automatically run towards the "safe" white woman rather than chance the "questionable" black guy.

(Mind you, it's a nice safe-looking, clean cut, amiable, Christian white guy with a flag pinned on his lapel, who salutes the flag every chance he gets and covers his chest during every pledge of allegiance -- George Bush -- who is absolutely destroying this country. He is wiping his ass with the Constitution. But that's another matter for another day, I suppose.)

All of their positions however -- and by "their" I mean HRC supporters -- are steeped in a profound ignorance. In fact I believe the more one delves into Hillary Clinton's past and her record, the more uncomfortable one will get. This is NOT to imply that Obama is squeaky clean. But in comparison to Clinton, he certainly is.

If you want to know details, then there's a lot of homework to do. But I want to get to the matter of answering the question of this post directly.

And I mean this sincerely after spending so much time trying to educate Hillary supporters. The reason why many HRC supporters do not move toward Obama is simply this. They are ignorant -- and stuck in their ignorance to boot.

That is why Hillary's supporters are characterized as white, working class, and without a college degree.

Many of them are not on the internet. Many do not read books. Many do not research. Many read only one newspaper a day and take that as gospel. Many will not budge from their adopted position.

This is not saying all Hillary supporters fit this description. There are certainly educated white and black Hillary supporters who are just as ignorant. Many of them -- Black congresspeople for example -- support HRC because they benefited from the Clinton patronage system, and they feel beholdened to the Clintons based solely on that. So in that case it may be a case of obligation.

So it's either ignorance, familiarization, racism, or a sense of obligation that keeps Hillary supporters from embracing Obama.

All are troubling.

Maybe it's just me, a student, but I don't believe anything as credible which doesn't cite sources. However, if the "official" Obama in fact has come out saying that the Clintins would do or say anything to win the nomination... who'd disagree with that statement?

I sympathize. However, I want to point out that negativity is in the eye of the beholder. When Hillary says that red states don't matter, or that Obama can't beat McCain in states that he lost to Hillary, Obama supporters find that in most states Clinton won against Obama, he wins against McCain in about as many states as she does, including big states, including, for example, FL.

I'm sure some of Clinton's supporters will take umbrage at my comments on your list, viewing any criticism or question about their candidate as a "personal attack." But if every statement pointing out that a candidate is better than her/his opponent is a personal attack, we couldn't even talk about issues. Clinton herself has been hammering on Obama's plans, saying his supporters are living in a dreamworld, mocking his oratory and saying his campaign is "all about words. If Obama's question about whether her white house experience counts is a "personal attack," how are these statements about Obama NOT "personal attacks"?

So here's a response to your list:

- Disingenuous
Obama points out that Clinton hasn't filed her tax returns and asks why, and claims her accomplishments in the white house while disclaiming any responsibility for the bad stuff. He leaves it up to voters to come to their own conclusion. If someone in his campaign calls this "disingenuous" (oops, that's a surrogate)

- Too polarizing
It's about electability. Whether the candidate is a "uniter" or a "divider" will be an essential issue in the presidency. It's a subjective judgment on the part of the voters and they should hear each candidate's position. It's a qualification for the presidency. Why not compare and contrast?

- Dishonest
I think that's a surrogate, but I can't help myself. "Dishonest is too close to "lying liar", which is playground stuff. It's fair to point out the facts when they're wrong, and Clinton has done as much of this as Obama. But you have to stop short of making a moral judgment. Personally, I think Obama's campaign has stopped shorter of this more often than Clinton, but it's true that Obama has done this.

- Divisive
See "polarizing" above.

- Calculating
Why is that an insult? Both candidates point out each other's strategy and characterize it as cynical. Clinton says that Obama's statement that no worry, PA is one of ten remaining states means that he doesn't care about PA is a characterization, is an insult to PA. Obama says he's won more states and points out that Clinton dismisses state primaries and caucuses she lost as "unimportant."

- Saying and doing whatever it takes to win
A surrogate said that, but isn't it true of both candidates? Obama's sure doing everything he can, right? And we'd all be shocked if she didn't fight like the dickens, trying to leverage any advantage she has with superdelegates and trying to get an advantage with the MI and FL votes (as is Obama). How is pointing that out a bad thing to her supporters? Did she think noone would notice? Is strategy "personal"?

- One of the most secretive politicians in America
That's a surrogate too, right? But I don't like the moral judgment, nonetheless.

- Will do anything to win
See "Staying and doing..." above.

So I agree that both sides have made nasty statements. Clinton has been pretty careful not to get personal (aside from the "as far as I know" thing, where she ought to have been definite). So has Obama. They've criticized each other's campaigns, political backgrounds, experience, and transparency. What do we expect?

I switched from Clinton to Obama because I now realize that Senator Clinton will say and do "whatever it takes to win." I now believe that she feels that, if she can't be president, it may as well be John McCain. I don't want someone with that belief as the head of my party.

It is also disingenuous for Senator Clinton to take credit for the successes of the Clinton Administration and claim no responsibility for the less-than-popular policies.

Um, and in case I was unclear, I was assuming you asked why they don't support Obama. I don't call for Clinton to quit, because the race ain't over yet, despite the "math." I just want Obama to win.

Want to knwo why I won;t vote for Hillary? That's an interesting questions too...

1. Because she blew the campaign. I want a leader who can plan and have some insight. If the allmighty Hillary had a game plan past Super Tuesday... she wouldn't have handed this nomination to Obama.

2. I want a leader who would take the time to read the intelligence report before voting for a trillion dollar war.

3. I want a leader who inspires us, and not one who beats us down with fear tactics.

4. I refuse to vote for a campaign whose major talking point is " It's great that Obama is BLACK. It makes sense that BLACKS would vote for a BLACK candidate. But I win the core constituency of the party (i.e. uneduated whites). My people aren't ready to vote for a BLACK man, so you should vote for me. Barack is Black. BLACK. BLACK. BLACK. Did I mention he's BLACK? Black.

5. I do not want to return to the nightmare Clinton Administration of the 90's: scandals, deception, lies, affairs, impeachment, cigars, fear-mongering. Not appealing for me.

6. Can we afford to lose the House and Senate under a Clinton administration, like last time? NO THANKS!

I will, under no circunstances, vote for her. I have never voted Republican.... but I WILL NOT vote for her. Ever. Not if her campaign was running against Pat Buchanan. EVER.

Stick a fork in her, she's done. She may be able to convince the super delegates to overrule the will of the people and the pledged delegate vote...but she will get whooped in the general election. I have my "Democrats for McCain" button waiting on my desk and my "Anyone but Hillary" bumper sticker ready for my car.

This is what we are worrying about. Obama is promising everything to everybody to be a uniter not a divider but ultiimately he must choose what to do. And when he did this was the result:

February 3, 2008 NYT
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
By MIKE McINTIRE
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.
Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.
“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”
The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Snip

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues.
The Obama campaign said in written responses to questions that Mr. Obama “never discussed this issue or this bill” with Mr. Axelrod. The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill, as had concerned residents, environmentalists and regulators. It said the revisions resulted not from any influence by Exelon, but as a necessary response to a legislative roadblock put up by Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time.
“If Senator Obama had listened to industry demands, he wouldn’t have repeatedly criticized Exelon in the press, introduced the bill and then fought for months to get action on it,” the campaign said. “Since he has over a decade of legislative experience, Senator Obama knows that it’s very difficult to pass a perfect bill.”
Asked why Mr. Obama had cited it as an accomplishment while campaigning for president, the campaign noted that after the senator introduced his bill, nuclear plants started making such reports on a voluntary basis. The campaign did not directly address the question of why Mr. Obama had told Iowa voters that the legislation had passed.
Nuclear safety advocates are divided on whether Mr. Obama’s efforts yielded any lasting benefits.

Others say that turning the whole matter over to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as Mr. Obama’s revised bill would have done, played into the hands of the nuclear power industry, which they say has little to fear from the regulators. Mr. Obama seemed to share those concerns when he told a New Hampshire newspaper last year that the commission “is a moribund agency that needs to be revamped and has become a captive of the industry it regulates.”
Snip

But eventually, Mr. Obama agreed to rewrite the bill, and when the environment committee approved it in September 2006, he and his co-sponsors hailed it as a victory.
In interviews over the past two weeks, Obama aides insisted that the revisions did not substantively alter the bill. In fact, it was left drastically different.
In place of the straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.
By then, the task force had already concluded that “existing reporting requirements for abnormal spills and leaks are at a level that is risk-informed and appropriate.”
The rewritten bill also contained the new wording sought by Exelon making it clear that state and local authorities would have no regulatory oversight of nuclear power plants.
Snip.
The revised bill was never taken up in the full Senate, where partisan parliamentary maneuvering resulted in a number of bills being shelved before the 2006 session ended.
Still, the legislation has come in handy on the campaign trail. Last May, in response to questions about his ties to Exelon, Mr. Obama wrote a letter to a Nevada newspaper citing the bill as evidence that he stands up to powerful interests.
“When I learned that radioactive tritium had leaked out of an Exelon nuclear plant in Illinois,” he wrote, “I led an effort in the Senate to require utilities to notify the public of any unplanned release of radioactive substances.”
Last October, Mr. Obama reintroduced the bill, in its rewritten form.

Lalo35adm: Thanks for your excellent and fair-minded post. I am a former Clinton supporter who switched to Obama just prior to the Washington state caucus, and I am still an enthusiastic Obama supporter. Unfortunately, I am embarrassed by much of the anti-Clinton bias of other Obama supporters. I do not share their disdain of the Clintons and am discouraged because I believe it is so hurtful to Obama, poisonous to the Democratic party, and damaging to the country. Clinton supporters are not immune to an anti-Obama bias, but I've seen far less of this; indeed, as other commenters have pointed out, the trend in the nomination process so far has been for many Clinton supporters to gradually shift towards Obama over time.

That said, let me address directly your question: Why aren't Clinton voters joining Obama, and what can be done about it? First, many are in fact joining Obama's campaign ... in spite of the damaging rhetoric of the Obamabots, many Clinton supporters realize Obama himself is not the problem (nor are many of his more reasonable supporters). Second, I agree with the commenter who said that the process isn't over yet, and Clinton retains a sliver of hope for winning. Therefore, you can't expect Clinton supporters to give up yet. It's quite reasonable for them to hold on until the size-challenged woman sings.

The more pointed question is this: If Obama wins the nomination, as we both expect he will, then what can be done to win over the support of Clinton voters? I think a good deal would be gained if Obama offers Clinton the vice presidency or another juicy role in his future administration. Also if Clinton campaigns enthusiastically for Obama, as I believe wholeheartedly that she will, then gradually the tensions will decline. The party will probably unite. However, I am concerned that because the conventions are in late August/September, there won't be much time for the healing process to happen. It would be best for all if a nominee is decided in June rather than at the convention (i.e., if the loser in the delegate tally and popular vote concedes gracefully after the Puerto Rico caucus).

While I don't disagree with many of your points in your post about Obama's criticisms of Clinton being awfully personal, consider this contraviewpoint. Democrats have an instinctive reflex to defend the Clintons from negative attacks, because we've been doing it since 1992. We know they've done great things (I believe they've done more good for this country than any other White House occupants of my lifetime). We distrust those who attack them. Nevertheless, Obama has come a long way in the process by winning over Democrats, and not just those handful of folks who are Hillary haters or easily swayed by the Andrew Sullivan-style propagandists. We support Obama because we are willing to let go of the divisions of the past, move on from defending the Clintons, and focus on the important issues at hand and tackling them with fresh energy.

Clinton will be a great vice president, Senate Majority Leader, or Supreme Court Justice. But Obama is the right person to lead our party in November. I hope you'll come around sooner or later, though I don't expect you to do so until (and unless) Obama wins fair and square. The game isn't over yet, despite what you might hear from the Obamabots on TPM.

- an Obama supporter, not an Obamabot

If these are the reasons I think you are holding Obama to a higher standard than you are willing to hold Clinton.

You said you didn't want to talk about surrogates but you bring up the "Monster" fiasco.

Your 1st point is something Hilary brought on herself. She is the candidate that claims she has already been vetted. There is no way to counter that claim without what you would consider "character assassination." So Obama didn't really have a choice there.

2. I think Obama has been extremely gracious in letting Clinton take credit for her First Lady Experience. Most Democrats like President Clinton but it is unfair to other nominees for her to run on his record. So again Obama didn't have a choice if she is going to bring up all the good that President Clinton has done. He has to bring up the bad stuff as well. It is clear that the good outweighed the bad but Obama is in a tough spot as well.

3. The problem with that is it was said by Bill Clinton. He was in a tough spot but at that time he wasn't acting like a former president he was acting like a campaign surrogate. Again you said that you didn't want to talk about surrogates but you bring this up.

4. The President is not a roll where you need a fighter. A fighter is generally an underdog and the President of the United States always negotiates from a position of strength because he has the power of the veto. What you need as president is someone who can bring people together to pass legislation that you will want to be sign. A fighter is good for the Senate but not the presidency. Hilary can talk about mandates for healthcare all she wants. However she had a chance to fight for healthcare and it almost cost Bill Clinton his second term in office. Just my opinion.

5. Your opinion of the 3 am ad is very bias. Everyone saw it for what it was saying that Obama wasn't prepared to answer the 3 am call. Second she followed that statement by claiming that only she and John McCain have past the commander and chief threshold. If this isn't an attack on Obama I don't know what is.

6. Clinton has made a ton of errors in judgment. From Health Care, to the vote on Iraq, to Kyle/Lieberman amendment, to the way she has ran her campaign. Obama didn't do anything illegal or immoral when it came to Rezko. So to question his judgment concerning the people he knows is just guilt by association. Second the NAFTA thing never happened. It was Hilary's campaign that contacted the Canadians. Some how that got twisted into an Obama problem right before Texas and Ohio which is extremely dirty politics.

Finally the main part of my problem with Hilary is that she can't win. Given the poll numbers and delegate count. The best thing for her is a brokered convention. Now if she does somehow get the nomination it will tear the Democratic Party apart. Black people and some young people will just give up on the process. Most black Obama supporter expected Obama to lose and if that was the case we would willing vote for Clinton. However at this junction Hilary can't win the election she can only steal it. That would personally shake my confidence with the Democratic Party to the core.

At the outset of the campaign I was pretty much neutral.

I admired Obama's ability to speak articulately: very poetic prose. I liked some of his early addresses when he stressed themes like taking responsibility.

As a great admirer of President Clinton, I thought Hillary was very smart, but I doubted that she could make the case as a leader, speaker and politician in her own right.

I thought the candidate with the best chance to be elected was John Edwards. He is a gifted, gifted speaker, and I thought Elizabeth Edwards was a terrific asset.

Then things began to change, and it was not change for the better for Sen Obama. His campaign started attacking Sen Clinton, using so many of the discredited lies that the Republicans used against President Clinton. For those of you are interested in history, read a book called THE Hunting of the President. These attacks were doubly disingenous: 1. these are untrue charges as far as Hillary is concerned (Kenneth Starr could not find any dirt on Hillary despite his best outragesously expensive efforts in digging); 2. what relevance did Prsident Clinton's possible mistakes have in this campaign, since it isn't fair to charge Hillary with his mistakes?

Soon, Sen. Obama's campaign started accusing Bill and Hillary of being racists. This is truly an outrageous lie. If Bill and Hillary are racists, who among us is not?

And, of course, John Edwards ran out of money and had to drop out, for whatever reason.

The most important change, though, was that Hillary began to emerge as a likable and strong candidate in her own right. As she said after the NH primary, she began to find her own voice. Yes, I agree. If you listen to her and give her the respect she deserves, you will find there a person who could become a very successful and beloved President.

Point by point response to your putative non-attacking explanation of your reasons for not switching from Clinton to Obama: 1. The Obama camp is attacking Clinton as a person. He once called something she said “whiney,” but that’s about it. His statements ought to be the ones we judge, not any of his lieutenants or surrogates, whether they be deemed “official” or not. By the way, all of the attacks you list are valid. Take only the most egregious of her sins, signing a pledge to not “participate” in the Fla and Mi primaries and then arguing for including the votes from their primaries. That move fits all of the personal criticisms leveled against her, and the legions of people who actually have switched from her cite those kinds of dishonest maneuvers as their reasons for switching. I’m a therapist, and I’m used to noticing that both sides in a marital fight think they’re not fighting, not being accusatory, only fact oriented, and so on. That’s human nature, and your obliviousness to Hillary’s transgressions just seems, well, all too human. Last word re. number one, it ain’t a character assassination if it’s true, and there’s no hate in me against her—I just think that her character rules her out when it comes to creating unity, peace.

Number 2: Hillary’s experience factor is like Bush’s experience factor. It’s almost irrelevant unless it’s accompanied by good judgment and character. She ain’t got enough of either of these two qualities.

Number 3: Everybody is racially and gender-wise insensitive, including Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary and Bill Clinton. Incidentally, Obama said in public that he didn’t think Ferrraro was a racist. Good luck telling the friends from the foes at the level of insensitivity you’re talking about.

Number 4: The idea that Obama does not believe in fighting and that he’s a compromiser goes up against the fact that he had the most liberal voting record in Congress. He took what was then a radical position against the war while engaged in his political campaign. His health plan is much more like Clinton’s than different from it. Moreover, his ability to disagree without being disagreeable contrasts sharply with Clinton’s handling of health care in ’92. Her “fighting” doomed her plan. She totally degraded rather than respectfully disagreed with the opposition. In this campaign, she hasn’t seemed to have learned from that debacle. She conceived as Obama as less qualified than McCain. This is an intrinsically self-serving move that damaged the party irreparably, as Pelosi noted.

You are satirizing Obama’s sophisticated techniques for creating unity. He’s not simply nice. He understands, as many prominent experts in the social sciences argue, that “realistic empathy” for one’s opponents is an absolute precondition of making substantial changes, of moving beyond Clintonian style stalemates.

Number 5: Clinton likes to ridicule Obama’s judgment on Iraq, calling it a speech he made in 2002. She can’t really discuss that speech or its context, as she tried to in the early part of the campaign, because he retorted that the context was his Illinois Senate campaign. She tried to imply that there was nothing at stake for him. But he put himself on the line, and he accurately predicted the consequences of the war. She also tries to equivalize their positions on Iraq now, saying that their votes are identical. But he rightly points out that there are only so many ways to get the bus out of the ditch. There aren’t any good options. The main difference between them on Iraq now is his willingness to talk to the principals in the area. She’s old school; she’s Madeline Albright. She wants underlings to secure agreements before they talk; it’s like AA telling you that you have to stop drinking before they’ll help you. That’s the condescending, arm twisting school of international relations. As in all Obama’s dealings with opponents, he wants to lay groundwork by creating mutual and personal understanding, as Bill sometimes did. That’s analogous to the harm reduction school of addiction treatment; if a drunk is out under a bridge, go meet them and see what your spirit of outreach and your profound respect and caring can accomplish. That’s not her strong suit; she doesn’t even know about it.

In conclusion, let me just add that everyone who has known Obama for a long time knows that he is by far the most genuine politician they have ever known. He’s the real deal, and Clinton is not. People who have known her for a long time say that she actually is basically monstrous when she’s in a tight spot, as she has demonstrated in many of the debates, most notably, the one in Ohio, and in her relations with staff. She will say anything, as she recently did when she reiterated the fully disproved claim that Obama was duplicitous on NAFTA.

I identify with your attempt to be fair and balanced, but I don’t think you come close. You are fighting (being accusatory and defensive) while claiming not to be.

And another thing (who wants to get any work done, anyway?):

One thing Clinton does to exaggerate her chances of winning is to say Obama can't win the big blue states in the GE that she won in the primaries. Every reliably blue state has Obama beating McCain, usually by a large margin, and often by a larger margin than Clinton. She says the same about western red states, despite their contribution to Obama's popular-vote lead and polls showing that they favor Obama over McCain.

I can see why she wants to portray him as a loser; most of the voting public aren't going to distinguish between a Democratic party nomination contest and a McCain-Obama or. McCain-Clinton contest.

We think that Sen. Clinton, despite having no portfolio and security clearance, managed to do more for this country than any other first lady in history. Even her worst critics acknowledge her role in foreign and domestic policy, albeit behind the scenes and without an explicit official role.

So what exactly did she manage to do?? I've heard this said a couple times, but never with any specifics.

Who are these critics that acknowledge her role and what do they say that role was?

Why hasn't Barack closed the deal with Hillary voters?

I'm pretty confident in two atomic phenomena which have been noted before - because they are true: the cultural calculus of older women and of blue-collar 'Reagan Democrats'.

Many older women are emotionally invested in Hillary's candidacy because of the powerful social symbolism or identity politics at stake (in the same sort of way that many African-Americans found they simply had to back Obama since he became genuinely viable).

On the blue-collar front there is the 'Pat Buchanan phenomenon': like Pat, the 'Joe Six-pack' Reagan Democrats are culturally conservative and tend to be driven by racially tense exurban politics in diverse states that make it harder to see Obama as post-racial (even to conceive "post-racial") as free from serving his ethnicity with a special preference.

This is why Pat Buchanan has become such a defender of Hillary Clinton - he senses Democratic Party victory next fall and just can't wrap his head around the concept of a young, black president. I say this because I myself come from a Republican-voting 'Reagan Democrat'-type of blue-collar family in the exurbs of New York State.

They are not hard-core racists. They could warm up to Obama. But as long as Hillary seems viable they're going to stick with her.

They're not reactionary, just rear-guard.

My answer is: why switch to Obama when the campaign is still going on? If I'm going to become an Obama supporter it'll have to be after he's nominated. Why should I switch so long as my candidate is in the race and has a shot at the nomination?

Lalo, thank you for the thoughtful post. I would like to address your first two points from a personal point of view. I'm sure that I don't speak for all Obama supporters, but I think that a number of posters on this site share my philosophy.

I did not used to be a Hillary hater. The visceral antipathy that she inspired in some people struck me as irrational, bizarre, and probably sexist. I admired her as First Lady and supported her Senate campaigns. I live in New York and feel that she's been an excellent representative for the state. To this day, I think that she's intelligent and capable. I have often argued with people who think that she's unelectable. Nor am I a "kool-aid" drinker (and I have come to despise that cliche). I'm excited about Obama and think that he has great potential, but I have serious concerns. In particular, I worry that he won't be able to deliver what he promises. I am not a "joiner". I always hated pep rallies, and the passion of some Obama supporters disturbs me. I try to objective, and when I feel that my opinions are colored by bias, I make a point of acknowledging that. I value integrity. I recognize that all politicians must compromise their integrities in order to be elected, but I think that the extent to which they compromise is telling. I take some pride in the Democratic Party because we are not a party of Tom Delays, Karl Roves, and George Bush's, people who will say and do whatever they deem necessary to advance the goals of the party.

I have been an Obama supporter since the outset of the campaigns, but my support was tepid at first. My primary concern with Hillary was my principled objection to political dynasties. My enthusiasm for Obama has grown as I have come to know him, but my disdain for Hillary has grown at an even faster pace.

It started with Iraq. I'm actually sympathetic with Clinton's poor judgment in voting for military authorization. Many people in the country made the same mistake of allowing the action to proceed. But I have no respect for her unwillingness to take public responsibility for the vote, to admit error, as Edwards did. Call me innocent, but I believe that the ability to say I'm sorry and to accept responsibility is one of the core elements of human integrity. I'm sick to my own stomach that I myself was so complacent during the build-up to the war. I would expect shame and contrition from someone who had much more power than me to interfere and yet who did not.

That said, I had no other serious questions about Clinton's integrity until after the NH primary. That's when it started to get ugly. The first example was NV, when Clinton supported the lawsuit against at-large caucuses near the casinos. The timing of the lawsuit, filed immediately after the hotel & casino worker's union endorsed Obama, suggests to me that it was about politics, not about fair voting, yet there was Clinton saying that the at-large caucuses were unfair to the teacher's union.

After NV, the gotcha attacks began. The campaign started grabbing hold of anything that could embarrass Obama and misrepresenting him to make it seem worse. Before SC, there was Obama's Reagan praise and the "party of ideas" comment. Hillary Clinton is plenty smart of enough to understand that Obama was not advocating Reagan's policies, and she has herself praised Reagan, and yet she, Bill, and others pounced on these statements in an ugly, disingenuous appeal to party loyalty. They also misrepresented Obama's position on Iraq--the famous fairy tale comment. It was only after these attacks that Obama, clearly frustrated by the way the Clinton campaign twisted his words, pushed the line that Clinton "will do anything to win" in an ad. After that, they arranged a sort of truce, and Obama pulled the ad.

After SC, the campaign launched the strategy of minimizing Obama's successes. Caucus states, black states, small states, red states, latte-drinking states. Anyway they could spin it to show that Obama's wins were meaningless, they did. Surely you've played games with people like this, people who rather than give you credit for anything, blame your every success on some unfair advantage. That is not integrity.

Then there were was the cynical MI, FL strategy. Clinton became the great defender of counting those primaries only when she realized that she needed them to beat Obama. This is the logical extension of the NV lawsuit--sanctimoniously challenging only when it is to your advantage to do so.

But nothing that she has done has enraged me more than the "commander-in-chief" threshold line, and the 3am call ad. I feel that it's inaccurate, but that's not what angers me. Throughout the primary, the Democratic candidates were careful to call themselves "more qualified" than their opponents without calling them "unqualified". There is a very, very important reason for that. If Dem candidates start calling one another unqualified, voters will start to think that all the Dems are unqualified. It's the same reason why commercial ads tend to avoid trashing the competition by name. When you get a negative "Coke-Pepsi" war, consumers form negative opinions of both sides. In the primary, it's critical that Dems do not escalate attacks to the point that the winner of the nomination suffers in the general election. Clinton crossed that line, and the only reason that the exchanged didn't turn into a complete mudfight is that the Obama showed some sense and avoided saying that Clinton was unqualified.

Finally, there's the race thing. I definitely don't think that Hillary is racist, I repeatedly cautioned the Obama supporters on this site who charged racism. I blew off the initial comments by Shaheen and Cuomo. But when Bill made the Jesse Jackson comment, followed by the comments by Rendell and now Ferraro, I find myself thinking, "What the hell is going on?" I don't think that any of them are racist (well, maybe Ferraro), and Bill and Rendell's statements were factually correct. But all these statements have unnecessarily injected race into the primary. I find it hard to believe that members of the campaign, if not Hillary herself, are not trying to exploit racial divisions to Hillary's advantage. But even it is not intentional, why haven't these comments been shut down. Five comments accompanied by significantly press over a period of two months? Why hasn't Clinton laid down the law with her people and told them shut the f-ck up about race? Obviously, Clinton got Ferraro to shut up eventually, Why did it take three days? Racially divisive comments like these, if not encourage, have been tolerated by the campaign, and that is, for me, the final mark against her integrity.

Those more cynical than me will likely dismiss these criticisms as politics-as-usual. Perhaps they will condescend to me as naive. They are entitled to their opinion. But I have always believed that there are better politicians and worse politicians. My perception of Hillary Clinton has slipped from better to worse over the course of this campaign. I haven't said anything about Obama, and he's certainly not a saint. But I'm trying to help you understand how my anger at Clinton was not due to an inherent Clinton-hating disposition nor to a matter of being duped by the media or the Obama campaign. As another poster wrote last week, she earned it.

As an Obama partisan and true "believer", I have been unable to understand how thinking Democrats (including good friends and family members) can continue to support Senator Clinton. At times over the past couple of weeks, I have been so emotional in my own support for Obama and so furious with the tactics of the Clinton campaign that I have found it difficult to speak to (for example) my father (Clinton partisan) and even been known to declare that I will not support the Clinton campaign with $, time, or even my vote should she end up as the nominee.

At the same time, the more rational corner of my brain has nagged me to attempt an understanding of alternative points of view. In fact, I actually have grown frustrated reading endless blogs mirroring my own beliefs and opinions. (Is there a website somewhere where all the Clinton supporters go to blog?!)

We all would benefit from a respectful debate on these pages, based on fact and argument. Maybe then we all will be better able to throw our enthusiastic support behind the eventual Democratic nominee. So THANK YOU to Lalo and to those who have contributed to the refreshing and illuminating(portions of the)exchange above.

I think there's a very simple explanation for why Clinton supporters haven't jumped to Obama. They think Clinton is a better candidate. Clinton can still win the nomination. It's not a lot more complex than that. Why abandon your candidate when they can still win? If the positions were reversed, I wouldn't jump from Obama to Clinton.

The choice here is obvious. If you think the federal government country is in basically good shape, but just needs competent leadership instead of Bush-league political hackery, go with Clinton. If you think the federal government is pretty much dysfunction, and things really need to be run a totally different way, go with Obama. If you think the American people are pampered babies who need more misery, not less, vote McCain.

There's no need to make this more complicated than it is.

Genghis:

"But nothing that she has done has enraged me more than the "commander-in-chief" threshold line, and the 3am call ad. I feel that it's inaccurate, but that's not what angers me. Throughout the primary, the Democratic candidates were careful to call themselves "more qualified" than their opponents without calling them "unqualified"."

I'm an Obama supporter too, but I can't let this falsehood stand. Hillary's 3 a.m. ad doesn't call Obama unqualified. Nor has Hillary used that particular word in any of her interviews that I've seen. If you know otherwise, please provide the exact citation. What she says is that SHE IS QUALIFIED, MACAIN IS QUALIFIED, AND OBAMA AND HIS SUPPORTERS WILL HAVE TO ANSWER THAT FOR THEMSELVES.

My answer, as an Obama supporter: Yes, he's qualified. But she's entitled to press her case. Frankly, a lot of Americans will answer in the negative, judging for polls showing that many Americans have doubts about Obama in this area. Hillary is reinforcing those doubts, but without crossing the line of calling Obama unqualified. That's totally fair.

And plus I'm just sick of other Obama supporters trashing Hillary for the stupidest of reasons. And spreading dishonest memes too. My pet peeve.

Barack Obama is a politician, like any other politician. When it served him in his campaign to be a State Legislator he joined the Trinity Church of Rev. Wright. Now it no longer serves him in his campaign for President and he is now distancing himself from church/pastor. He's quite disingenuous in saying that he never heard the sermons making their way onto the airwaves in the last week. He knew of them. I see his claims of ignorance as a lack of judgment on his part.

When it served him to cozy up to Rezko he did; now it no longer serves his purpose. He claims a 'boneheaded' mistake in soliciting Rezko's help. I see it as a lack of judgment on his part.

What else will show up in the campaign between now and June in Puerto Rico? We shall see.

One thing is for sure.....Barack Obama is a politician first and foremost and he will do or say whatever it takes to get elected. Just like someone else we all know.

- Disingenuous

softball

- Too polarizing

softball

- Dishonest

that's not nice

- Divisive

softball

- Calculating

criticism or complement?

- Saying and doing whatever it takes to win

borderline

- One of the most secretive politicians in America

hardball, but definitely in bounds

- Will do anything to win

borderline

---------

The only thing over the line is "dishonest", and the "will do anything to win" is right on the edge.

Everything else is pretty fair intra party banter, I'd say.

I hear the sound of a sinking ship called Clinton.

The 3:00 am ad promoted Hillary's ability to deal with situations. It's not Hillary's job to do that for Barack. He often seems to me like the little brother to her big sister. She has a universal health care plan and he says "me too!"; she has a plan to get out of Iraq, he says "me too!"; she has an energy plan for the future, he says "me too!". I have a big sister and I let her take most of the heat for me growing up. It's an easy maneuver to recognize.

The 3:00 am ad promoted Hillary's ability to deal with situations.

Actually it was full of coded anti-black messages and relied on an absurd premise... as pointed out today in the NY times.... Presidents don't have to make critical decisions at 3 am, and have not done so historically.

========
She has a universal health care plan and he says "me too!";

Every democrat who had a plan like that was saying "me too!"? Because she advanced a failed plan in the 90s, she's the only one who gets to take credit for a plan? Could you be more silly?

============
she has a plan to get out of Iraq, he says "me too!";

You've got to be kidding! He had a plan for not getting into Iraq in the first place! Which person is playing "me too!"?

===============

she has an energy plan for the future, he says "me too!".

Yeah, he and every other candidate in the race... and she gets to be the only one who claims one? How could a candidate not have such a plan?

================

I have a big sister and I let her take most of the heat for me growing up. It's an easy maneuver to recognize.

Your own private psychodrama doesn't necessarily ring true for others.

Gosh, I thought the logic of an Obama supporter was easy: Clinton voted for the Iraq war. McCain voted for the Iraq war. Obama opposed it from the get-go. Obama was right. That by itself qualifies him for commander in chief and disqualifies the other two.

The invasion of Iraq was and remains a criminal, immoral act that is the shame of our great nation. Its supporters were either liars, dupes, or something worse. Obama understands this. Clinton and McCain either don't or won't admit it. As a patriot, I will not give anyone my vote who doesn't get this. It is the overriding issue in this campaign.

As for all the media squabbles--don't believe the hype. Vote your conscience. And while you're at it -- it's spelled "judgment."

quote "On a more emotional level, I also don't like the fact that Obama presents himself as the post-racial candidate, yet race has been at the center of his political life and candidacy."

I don't know if Obama has ever personally claimed to be "post-racial" so it is hardly fair to hang that on him (if he has not.) Fact is, when he's trying to get a cab he get's the black man treatment, not the "half black man" treatment.

However his rhetoric is clearly on the side of moving beyond race.

He has a Black wife, Black children, and his life and his family's life is obviously bound up with being a Black American. But what he is clearly saying is that "being Black" and "being White" have the potential to mean new and less constricting things in the future.

You can choose to live that, or you can choose to confine him and make him beholden to older members of his community who see things in more starkly racial terms. That's your choice. But he is clearly offering a different vision, and his relationship with the UCC and his pastor is completely consistent with having one foot in the past and the present of the Black community and church... but also having one foot in the common future of Black and White America.

His "bi-racial" background is a nice symbol of that potential... nothing more.

Interestingly, of course, gender is a much harder category to be "post" because, transgendered individuals excepted, most of us are permanently on one side of that line or the other. Obama is able to represent and live a synthesis of two historical opposites. But it isn't about his genetic heritage... it's about the ideas of post-racialism that he speaks and embodies.

Contrast Ferraro's essentialist argument... "he wins because he is Black" (absurd on so many levels) with the reality which is that he wins because he both is and is not Black.

That is the new reality of America.... blurring boundaries between hard and fast categories. Clinton and her allies are still locked there, but the ground of the American consciousness is shifting beneath them.

To Mike2:

Women are the backbone of the home, of the workforce, and of each and every society on earth.
Hillary is where she is because of her--not Bill.
She would have been senator/governor/president long ago had she not done what the vast majority of women in the world do--prop up the men that surround them. Bill knows this, says this and believes this. And he's a smart guy!

Your patronizing attitude towards Hillary is tired.

Clinton came with her own negatives, Obama didn't add to them. When 46% of the country despises you for whatever reason, it's pretty hard to overcome. The reason she's running a big states campaign is because she cannot expand the Democratic base because we all remember the Clinton years when everything was a fight. I am tired of things not getting done in Washington because the Republicans and Democrats can't agree. The reason I support Obama is because he's willing to work with others. I am not ready for another George Bush who'll veto anything he doesn't like and Congress is stuck in a deadlock. Unlike Clinton, I don't believe Obama hates the Republicans and I believe that deep down, the Republicans also want to get stuff done in this country to get it on the right path. A vote for Clinton is a vote for getting nothing done in Washington.

I can only offer counterpoints.

1. Many Clinton voters, myself included, feel strongly that the Obama campaign strategy has been to amplify the "Clinton negatives".

There are two things to consider about this: first and foremost, the standard must always be whether an accusation is true, not whether it is a "Republican talking point," a statement that in all honesty is losing all its impact from overuse. If we try to quantify the qualities you listed objectively, though, a site such as FactCheck is extremely useful and shows, rather starkly, that some of the attributes are indeed earned.

You really should provide specific examples of such quotes for credibility. In this case--while I still urge you to post some so that they may be discussed--I will certainly agree that the Obama campaign has portrayed Clinton as the "say anything, do anything" candidate although most of these have been implicit through, for example, showing two different policy positions rather than explicitly saying so. The supporters have been much more vocal in the latter sense.

The second notable thing is that if you research press releases from the campaigns throughout the last year, the more directly adverse comments toward Clinton have been a rather recent development on the Obama side. I would peg it just after Iowa. The Clinton campaign has used the standard attack tactics throughout the campaign although it was directed more towards Edwards at first (it all started with Kerry in 2006.)

2. Many Clinton supporters feel that Clinton-haters make a large block in the Obama campaign. We think that Obama keeps them by holding Hillary Clinton responsible for the problems and/or decisions of her husband.

2a. Many Clinton supporters feel that Clinton-haters make a large block in the Obama campaign. We think that Obama keeps them by holding Hillary Clinton responsible for the problems and/or decisions of her husband.

2b. We think that Obama keeps them by holding Hillary Clinton responsible for the problems and/or decisions of her husband.

Emphasis is mine. The problem here is that Hillary herself has offered no disclosure on those eight years. She has "35 years of experience" which (I would hope) include Bill's presidency. But she has never said which parts she agrees or disagrees with, nor which parts she can and cannot take credit for. Do you know how Hillary felt about the Brady law? Or DoMA?

Thus far it has seemed to me and many others that she is cherry-picking. She may well have been privately against NAFTA, for example, but it looks very opportunistic and rather suspicious to only say that after it becomes an issue in the campaign.

If she could produce a list of all the initiatives, laws etc. that occurred during Bill's presidency and how she stood on them it would reduce this.

Many Clinton supporters feel that Obama himself made comments about Sen. Clinton that were blatantly sexist, without any consequences ("When Sen. Clinton periodically feels down and depressed, etc....")

It would do you well to give some more examples instead of an "etc." Otherwise it looks a lot like he made a comment that could arguably be read as sexist--and that is quite arguable even if we forget the context in which the remark was made. I personally feel that assuming "periodical" to mean anything but "from time to time" is as huge a stretch as reading something racist into "fairy tale" in particular since we are talking about a post-menopausal individual here.

Now, the context in which Obama said this referenced a question about the pattern of Clinton going from positive to negative like clockwork in relation to election days.

I do recall that Obama once said that Hillary was "skirting" an issue. I do hope that that is not one of your examples.

4. Many supporters of Clinton feel that Sen. Obama himself is not and does not believe in being tough and fighting for the Democratic programs. We feel that in his search for unity, he is prepared to compromise with the Republicans on some of the most important issues for our party.

But the old-style concession and rolling over is not what Obama means when he talks about solving problems together. The most straightforward clarification is that Obama feels that he is able to convince a substantial number of our "enemies," that is, Republican voters (NOT Republican politicians) of the virtues of progressive ideas--probably incremental at first to break down some of the knee-jerk defensive barriers people have built over the past decades--which allows him to claim a sufficient mandate to really make some changes. The coattails effect is not to be marginalised, either.

Obama also listens to both sides. It is remarkable to hear, but almost without exception his opponents always comment on his ability to really hear them out respectfully and honestly consider their input instead of offering the tired platitudes of "reaching across the aisle."

And, if I may add in a completely non-snarky manner, the time of Bill Clinton's presidency was emblematic of the Democratic rolling over tactic. You do surely realise that both Clintons are still DLC members, too?

I am piecing #5 in parts, too:

5a. Much has been made about the "3 am" ad. In my view, the ad spoke about the strengths of Sen. Clinton, not the weaknesses of Sen. Obama, but I understand how and why it was interpreted as it was.

5b. I know Obama's claim of having had a better judgement on Iraq. I know that we will continue to disagree on that.

Do you, in fact, disagree that it was in retrospect a poor decision to authorize the war?

Should Sen. Clinton have read the NIE?

Why did she not vote for the Levin amendment if she was truly for diplomacy? In the debate she said that it would have "ceded decisions to the U.N." which it most definitely did not do. Is this just a case where Sen. Clinton did not read the Levin amendment either? Unfortunately she does not really have the track record of doing the work on that particular vote.

For me, his track record on Iraq actually undermines his claim to judgement.

5d. The fact of Rezko and the latest admission on Rezko.

There is no "latest admission," unless I missed something. Obama just put the whole deal to rest with the Tribune and he said pretty much exactly the same thing he has been saying all along.

5e. The inconsitencies in his current and past claims about Rev. Wright.

Please provide quotes, I have no idea what you are talking about. Then please explain what Mr. Wright has to do with this.

5f. In my view, the fact that NAFTA and "monster" incident happened at all is proof that Obama judgement is not better or worse than the judgement of the majority of politicians.

I do not follow your logic. Sure, politically Power's comment was extremely bad but Obama did not bring her on for her skill in politics. She is one of the most respected people in what she does. So is Susan Rice. And I freely admit that Obama's campaign is not nearly as savvy as the Clinton side in day-to-day politics--but in my view that is if anything a bonus.

"The NAFTA incident" I do not understand. You must explain to me how it reflects on Obama's judgement? An advisor to Obama's campaign was invited to an informal talk specifically in his role as a professor, not an Obama advisor and that during the talk, Prof. Golsbee did in fact NOT say anything remotely like what CTV reported? An overzealous conservative activist in the Canadian government misrepresented the meeting as the facts now show and this is Obama's fault?

It is these types of accusations that dig the earth from under Clinton. She sure beat that horse until it was demonstrated false--and of course failed to provide any type of apology or "happy that was all straightened out."

Why Obama voters are not joining Clinton

1. we've been cultists who need to "Get Real"
2. HRC supporters have been frothing at the mouth for weeks shouting REZCO!!!!!!! But it turns out there is real story there but some bad judgement on a land deal. The clintons know a lot about land deals.
3. A volunteer for the Clinton campaign, a friend of mine, insists that Obama must believe everything Wright says despite no evidence that he does.
4.HRC supporters keep saying how "vetted" she is. But we've not gotten access to her white house papers, her past tax returns since leaving the white house, or her list of earmarks. All things which she could suppply at the drop of a hat.

As for the list cited above. I'll quote americablog.com:

"Disingenuous" - uh, yeah

"Too polarizing to win" - uh, YEAH. Biggest negatives of any candidate, nearly half the country has said they will refuse to vote for her, the only candidate that can rejuvenate the dispirited right-wing and send our candidates in red states down the drain.

'Divisive' - Yeah, she certainly hasn't caused any division amongst Democrats, including the 25% of her supporters who now say they won't vote for our party's candidate in the fall, and her donors who are now extorting the DNC.

"Untruthful" - Peace in Ireland, anyone?

"Dishonest" - She created the children's health insurance program after she opposed it.

'Calculating' - Does anyone really believe that Hillary is a hawk?

"Saying and doing whatever it takes to win" - I hear that John McCain would make a great president, especially compared to that black guy.

"Attempting to deceive the American people" - See Norther Ireland, SCHIP, and the death-defying USO tour in Kosovo with Sinbad, Cheryl Crow and Chelsea.

"One of the most secretive politicians in America" - Tax returns are for the little people.

"Literally willing to do anything to win" - Delegate counts are for the little people.

"Playing politics with war" - Unlike you and me, Hillary lived through September 11.

Yes, there are blogs with Hillary supporters. But, I find myself flabbergasted at the simplicity, and incongruity of their statement. Below is an example of some of the statements. I haven't changed a thing.

From Sante:
Clinton , Like her or not , she is the best solution for now! Obama- politician, hwo exploits the most touchy place in peoples soul and very experienced to run from office to office. That what he has done .. There are NO doubts , that Clinton is a persistent doer /guess what: she should be condemned for it ??!!/ and he is the gifted calculator: now or never; 1/5 of the democrats hate Clintons, Republicans are not in a winning position, brainwash the youngsters and voiala!!

and from Neverobama

I think Hillary can do better (than Obama as Vice President)! I myself do not like the fact that Obama would be on the ticket. Our whole point is that he is inexperienced. I think her match up with John Edwards would be unstoppable! All my best to Hillary! GOD LOVES AMERICAN AND HILLARY CLINTON!

Wow...hypocritical much?

Lalo, the answer is because we are polarized! When you're polarized anything the "opposition" does represents evil or fraudulent intent.

This goes both ways in this campaign, and is not one candidate's fault, it's just the way it is these days. And honestly, the blogosphere makes it worse, with our echo-chambers and user names that act exactly like the impersonal car from which we feel safe to commit road rage.

It is very difficult to overcome this inability to empathize with the other, but I believe it's crucial to moving the progressive agenda forward.

Even though he and his campaign may fall victim to polarization with regard to Hillary, Obama at least talks about the need to overcome this polarization, this "empathy gap". That's why he's got my vote. To the extent that he can't get Hillary supporters to believe in that message, he won't get their votes.

If he doesn't and loses in November, then I guess the message and the messenger weren't up to the challenge. IMO he needs to get back to talking about this message, rather than just responding tit for tat with the HRC campaign.

Provide one example where Mrs. Clinton has said she would not support the nominee. That can not be said of Mrs.Obama. I know it's really difficult for Obama supporters to check facts but try once in awhile.

Monday :: Feb 4, 2008 GMA

GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination?

MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.

GMA: That's not a given?

MICHELLE OBAMA: You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think that we're all working for the same thing. and, you know, I think our goal is to make sure that the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe that Barack is the only person who can really do that.

Why don't Clinton supporters flock to Obama?

Um, could it be because Obama is more interested in reaching out to Republicans, not Democrats?

As I've said before: Good luck with that, Barack!!

I am African American, and was a supporter of Senator Clinton. The Senators do not have many policy differences; rather, the reason I have switched to Senator Obama, reluctantly at first, is not because of some sort of racial solidarity, but because I have become appalled at the way Senator Clinton has conducted a sort of "Southern Strategy"-lite campaign.

In essence, it is not the color of Senator Clinton's skin (or Senator Obama's, for that matter), it is the content of her character, or at least that of her campaign which has made me shun her, her husband and their legacy like a colony of lepers.

For me, the first nail in the coffin of my Clinton infatuation was Shaheen and Penn stressing Sen Obama's use of cocaine, and further insinuating he was a dealer. That raised my hackles, but was mitigated by HRC demanding and getting his resignation.

Former Senator Kerrey employing the VRWC talking point of stressing "Hussein" was the second. Not terrible, but definitely inappropriate.

Lest we forget, Andew Cuomo's "shuckin' and jivin'" comments definitely did not clear the increasingly poisoned air.

Bob Johnson, Mr. "BET Booty Shaker", just added fuel to the fire. By this time, my wife and I were having intense discussions about what sort of good ole boy was running the Clinton campaign.

The final straw, and I wrote about it on TPM, was Bill Clinton. The President who would have been impeached had not AA's turned out for the midterm elections had the unmitigated gall to dismiss and denigrate the SC voters black and white who turned out en masse to vote for the AA guy. I wrote about the tidal wave that was going to sweep the Clintons into the dustbin of history.

The common thread in the above examples is the mealy mouthed way her surrogates or co-Presidents or whatever, tried to deny and evade any question of racial impropriety. To many AA's the cover up was worse than the crime.

Which brings us to Geraldine Ferraro, racist and proud of it.

Geraldine Ferraro. Archie in a skirt. Senator Clinton and/or her campaign managers have obviously been influenced by WWII era kamikaze pilots. The insanity of the comments, the refusal to immediately disassociate with that sort of thinking, and the ultimate insult, trottng out a clown in blackface, oops, I mean Maggie Williams to attempt some Rovian ju-jitsu, well, I can not imagine how Senator Clinton has any African American supporters willing to show their face in public.

Whatever slings and arrows the Obama campaign has thrown at Senator Clinton, her campaign's conduct has been beyond the pale. She and her campaign have betrayed the most loyal bloc of Democratic voters for the past 40 odd years. She has betrayed her legacy with this behavior, and has shown herself to have very little content of character. That, in a nutshell, is why I switched to Senator Obama.

"In 1992 this country was focused on health care reform. Harris Wofford's term as governor and special election as senator fueled the nation's desire for reform. This was probably the number 2 issue, right after the economy. I recall Bob Dole, then Senate republican leader, conceding in public that some sort of health care reform was inevitable.

Clinton's only formal service in her husband's administration was to take the enthusiasm for reform and channel it into a proposal the country could rally around. Reports about that time show that her secretive and controlling ways led to a laughable proposal that was easily attacked by republicans. She was the primary reason we didn't have health care reform then, including universal insurance. 18,000 or so people die each year because they lack sufficient health insurance. Her judgment then had real consequences.

The country, not Clinton, paid a heavy price for her health care reform efforts."

This is what makes me nuts about a certain line of argument popular among Obama supporters: I feel like I'm listening to Republican talking points. I can't think of a good way to say this, but... this is simply *wrong*. Bob Dole and the Republican Party made a decision to kill health care reform. The latter to hurt the Democrats, the former because, in no small part, of his Presidential ambitions (they were joined by a number of conservative Democrats pushing alternative plans--many of whom lost their seats in 1994 anyway). The Republicans attacked the Administration and Hilary herself in every conceivable way imaginable. They got significant aid from middle-tier health care insurance companies in the form of the infamous "Harry and Louise" adds.

There are ways in which Hilary contributed to the failure, but they were simply not decisive.

I think Josh captured some of the ambivalence I feel well. There's a sense in which it seems like the last 12 years have been about holding the line against a very strong, very concerted Republican attack. The line has often bent and broken, and the cause has been pushed back further and further. Now Obama comes along and says the problem is generic "Washington" (which may be right, but still feels like a betrayal) and his blog-land supporters (but not, I should stress, Obama) start using the same language, rhetoric, and examples of Clinton's perfidy that we've been hearing from the Republicans since 1992, and, well, it feels wrong and sounds bizarre.

From my perspective, what makes it even worse is that I look at these two candidates and I think that I will happily and enthusiastically support either of them after the convention. They both seem great. I find it hard to understand the ferocity among the blog-land camps.

PS: And, yeah, they're lobbying b.s. arguments and doing all the stuff you do in a stalemated campaign. So what? Very few of the core attacks have crossed the line, and they're all bloody nerf balls compared to what we're going to see. So I have difficulty getting outraged (but I do groan a lot, roll my eyes, and even wring my hands once and while).

Why are Clinton voters not enthusiastic about Obama?

Because Clinton voters think it's necessary to fight and Obama, as you say in item 4, is not "fighting".

Quite honestly, his shoulders must be black and blue from all the attacks he's shrugged off them in the last 3 months.

People who think we're going to solve problems in this country by fighting for our ideas of how to solve them are not attractive to people who cleave to Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama has been completely up front about his philosophy that fighting is counterproductive. He's said it so many ways, and so many times, that surely most of those listening can repeat it in their sleep at this point.

If the Clintonians believe either that Mr. Obama is untruthful or that he's he's naive then it seems quite obvious to me that they're not going to switch comfortably.

And when the Clintonians attack Mr. Obama with 3am ads, and plaints that he's too inexperienced, wasn't in the Senate when it was time to vote on the Iraq authorization, that he didn't mean what he was saying about NAFTA, that his church approved of Louis Farrakhan, or that his pastor is full of hate, then the people who are attracted to Mr. Obama's message about seeking resolution across diverse groups don't find Mrs. Clinton's message very attractive.

Because many Clinton supporters are closet racists? You know, that "middle" part of PA that Eddie Rendell likes to talk about.

35 years experience? 35 years experience and this is all the better she can do against an upstart freshman Senator. Has she learned nothing in those 35 years? What will it take for Mrs. Clinton to get enough experience to deal with someone like Putin, 135 years. Pathetic.

I hope Obama rethinks comparing himself to Kennedy and King. They died young.

Wow. It's really true. The power of Barack to end the old-style politics and bring the country together is just irrepressible.

"Why Clinton voters are not joining Obama"

Could it be because they are still fighting for Clinton?

I will never switch from Hillary to Obama for the simple reason that I do not trust him. There are too many unknowns about him. I've read and studied about Hillary for almost 20 years. We all know her dirty laundry and there is nothing new the Republicans can use against her while there seems to be something new every day that could be used against obama in the general. He would get creamed by the Republicans if he was the candidate. So I am one of the Hillary voters who would NEVER vote for obama. I would probably give my vote to McCain.

What I see here - in the first post (by a Clinton supporter) is control Asking the question and before anyone has a chance to answer - providing the answers themselves is as clear a symptom of that as any. (This kind of control is what draws so many posters here to intuitvely resists the attempt to frame and limit their responses to what looks to me like a false premise - ie the idea that Clinton supporters are Not switching to Obama) And people who loose control (of being on top) don't like to be reminded of it. Answer #1.

Hillary entered this race as the favorite and she has had a much longer time to make party connections - so she most likely drew the people who were most interested in winning and jumped on the first bandwagon that looked like it could take out the Republicans - - - and now that she is not (winning) - that she has actually lost ground - they are defensive about switching over. Answer #2.

I must be reading the wrong blogs because the charges against Obama listed here strike me as hysterical rather than factual or balanced or fair. It reminds me of the people in 2004 who argued for Kerry, not because they liked his policies but because they thought he would be most likely to win - but that being based not on character or issues or charisma but on what they read in newspapers. They made similar emotional complaints about Dean. Answer #3

I think the candidates influence their followers and the poll that showed that Obama supporters would vote for Hillarry in GE in a much, much higher ratio than the other way around shows that she is drawing/retaining divisive/polarizing supporters. That's answer #4

As an early Edwards supporter the factors that swayed me to the Obama camp are that he hired better people for his campaign (he is winning while starting from behind) and that he is following similar organizational pattern as Dean, which supports the party and the candidate and which has already been proven to work in strengthening the party in 2006..

I would propose that those Should be the reasons for Clinton supporters to switch to Obama's camp.

e x c a l i b u r

My sister, 15 years my junior, suggests this: it is time for old women to step aside... she finds no inspiration in the old Ferraro's or the lalo's of the world... Melissa really prefers the 21st century over the 1960s

I was on the fence with Hillary around the time of NH, and I still didn't know for whom to vote until South Carolina. The close-up image of Bill Clinton arguing into the camera and his being-everywhere and being-eveything in the SC campaign took my breath away....in that important state, the one that came on the heels of a super comeback for Hillary, she suddenly took a back seat to her husband and let him spout off for her, and I figured if that's the way she plans to run the White House, to hell with her. The thought of Bill opening up a cot in the Oval Office and wandering the halls of the White House made me pause big-time.

She "lost" her voice, and Obama's frank speech about how he didn't see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina, but South Carolina, made me realize he was the future and Bill and Hillary - the team they represented, once again, then and there for all to see - are the past.

I think it has been said several times, but why would Clinton supporters switch before the race is over?

If the election results were reversed, I still wouldn't switch to Hillary until Obama officially dropped out. I think the drawn-out nature of this battle has caused very strong loyalties on both sides. It is an inescapable feature of a close race.

This could become a much more interesting question after Obama wins the nomination IF people are still squawking about voting for crazy old McCain. After we've reminded ourselves HOW temperamental, inconsistent, manipulatable, old-school, close-minded and similar to Bush McCain is.

I highly doubt this will be an issue in a few months.

"This could become a much more interesting question after Obama wins the nomination IF people are still squawking about voting for crazy old McCain. After we've reminded ourselves HOW temperamental, inconsistent, manipulatable, old-school, close-minded and similar to Bush McCain is. "

Hillary IS her health care plan. She is all abotu policy, not personality.

So an HRC supporter who votes for McCain -- who is OPPOSED to ANY national health plan -- just proves that they were disingenuous about their motives. It would seem to prove the Archie Bunker / racism meme about some of HRC's lower class and lesser educated supporters.

Surely, feminist HRC supporters couldn't in good conscience vote for McCain who will almost certainly appoint the next SC justice and overturn Roe v. Wade! If Hillary inadvertantly overturns Roe, now THAT would be ironic.

The Hillary supporters are lynching Obama on every website I've visited. It makes me sick to the stomach. I will NEVER vote Hillary as long as I live and I'm gong to contribute to her democratic opponent in the Senate after she loses this Fall to McCain.