I'm baffled too. Wish you could get a representative sample of Clintonites and draw some conclusions; in practice, people on a blog are not typical supporters.

My guess:

Long, close primary +
Two candidates who are "firsts" +
A media that loves to make demographic generalizations =

A lot of people who perceive this primary as a cruel, unfair loss, not for Hillary, but for their own demographic identity. As a woman, or an older person who feels pushed aside, or a "hard-working white American."

If the primary had ended in February, it wouldn't have become this divisive. It's the media's insistence on defining the race demographically that did it. In their defense, there aren't a lot of really profound policy differences between the candidates, so there wasn't a lot else to talk about!

Because a long time ago, the contest stopped being about electing a democratic nominee and went into electing a specific candidate. It should've been win-win, but people treated the primary season like a general election campaign and now they feel like they're losing so they want to make sure everybody else loses too.

My friends offline who are Clinton supporters are nothing like the Clinton supporters online.

All of them are supporting the democratic nominee. They never even had any intention of NOT voting for Barack Obama.

Personally, I have yet to see one online Hillary supporter present a cohesive explanation for seating all MI and FL and giving Obama zero. I watched the meeting all day today and I still didn't find a reasonable presentation for seating the delegations as is.

Here's your answer (from another post):

The Clinton were always happy to pal around with minorities and treat them like 'junior partners'. They were very patronizing, and would visit communities and mouth some pandering words. the proverbial pat on the head.

But when a minority candidate has the nerve to challenge and beat the Clintons, they can't believe it. All the vile starts spilling. "How dare he!"

They would never have acted like this against someone who they really respected. That's how I would sum up the whole Clinton campaign: Deeply deeply disrespectful.

If Edwards or Biden (or later McCain) had beaten them, it would have been different. You would never have seen them mocking Obama by offering him VP while losing.

Edwards regularly beat up Clinton in the debates and no one cried "sexism". He was harsh, yet Obama calling her "likable enough" set them all off. Heck, McCain has even made some really nasty jokes and remarks about Hillary, with no uproar.

There was a *visceral* reaction against Obama, and the reason for this is obvious.

If you really believe that their platforms are virtually indistinguishable, that tells me your preference and your own thinking is not in policy or substance, but in the personality of a candidate.

Sorry, but for me there is a big difference in their views on what specifically needs to be done in the next 4 years.

I happen to agree with Kash, this election is about me (and you and every american) and I don't buy Obama proposals on my issues at all. Healthcare, income taxes and capital gains taxes are on the top of my list.

I don't think you'll get much of an answer from the Clinton people, because they're not blogging in great numbers tonight.

I know one man and one woman who're strong Clinton supporters. The woman just doesn't trust the idea that Obama can somehow bridge a gap with the Republicans to get things done. In fact, she's so angry with the Republicans she wants a fighter, someone who'll punish and rip Republicans to shreds. The man, I know less of his reasons, but I think it has to do with the Clinton name and the perceived experience she has. That said, both are very much committed to voting for Obama if he's the nominee.

To people who call Obama an empty suit, I say, "Read The Audacity of Hope." It's not the work of an empty suit, and it might actually help you know this candidate instead of simply judging him on appearances and presumed lack of experience.

I'm an Obama supporter and have liked him for a year, so I can't really answer your question. But I can give you my impression of the types of Clinton supporters out there who don't like him.

Some really do believe he's just too young, and they can't believe he's sincere in what he's saying. Maybe they've been burned too many times, but they will not trust him. They prefer the candidate who admits to lying - seriously. Dijamo acknowledges that she doesn't believe everything Clinton says, and she's okay with that. I suspect it's a "devil you know" kind of thing. Most of these people will stick with voting for their party, even if they hold their nose doing it.

Some had just pinned so many hopes on Clinton, they're still caught in a stage of grief. It's like how you simply cannot like the guy who broke your best friend's heart, even when he didn't do anything wrong. Most of these supporters will eventually come to some acceptance.

Then there are some who have a visceral dislike for him, and I honestly believe it's racial. These are the ones who constantly talk about his "arrogance" and how he doesn't have the "right" to do this to Hillary. What they really mean is that he's uppity and doesn't know his place. They won't say it like that, of course, but it's there, and after months and months of reading comments, it comes through loud and strong.

Let me be clear, I do not believe the racists are a majority, or even substantial minority, of Clinton supporters. Their numbers are small, but they will not be swayed, and they will not shut up. They're the ones who will be troublesome from now until Obama's inauguration and beyond.

Thank you, Ms. Joanne, for the post. Although I can only speak as an Obama supporter who KNOWS Clinton supporters, I do think the first step in reuniting our party is understanding, instead of dismissing, the Clinton supporters' real concerns.

And I'm talking about Clinton supporters, not the extremist caricatures we sometimes hear about.

The Clinton supporters I know really do fear Obama's lack of experience. Just because I embrace it (how long have we been saying, "We've GOT to change how things are done in DC"--and can we change things with someone already entrenched in DC politics?) doesn't mean I can't aknowledge that it's a legitimate concern. Especially for people who remember Carter, an idealist who was able to accomplish VERY little.

But then I think that Cheney and Rumsfeld had quite a bit of DC experience, so how do Democrats think McCain's "experience" is so important that it trumps even taking the chance of voting for Obama?

Many do think Obama has cut-in-line, and should not be "rewarded" for his rapid rise... but again, at the cost of a President McCain and an even more conservative Supreme Court? There is indeed a kneejerk dislike of him, from some people--the way he tips his head upward when he speaks, the way he dresses, the sense of Other (and while that could be racist for some people, I think we trivialize a lot of good people by saying that's always the underlying issue). But Kerry wasn't Mr. Charisma, and he overcame that.

Finally, on the policy issues--that, I don't get. Say you're a Democrat who scores Clinton's polices at a perfect 100 out of 100. Aren't Obama's at least worth a 70 out of 100? A 60? Compared to McCain, who really does seem, policy-wise, to be a continuation of Bush. He really gets a higher mark, from a Democrat, on his policies?

Huh. In trying to explain the Clinton-side from what people have told me, I've just hit more questions to ask them.

Here's one of the Clinton supporters from today's RBC meeting telling you exactly what she finds so off-putting about Barack Obama.

I’ve heard some say they’re disgusted at how Obama has “played the race card,” but I can’t think of a single instance in which he — not his more rabid online supporters, not the media, but the man himself and his campaign — have done this. If anything, his speeches and comments on race have been efforts to downplay the idea that he’s “the black candidate.” If you think that’s it, please point me to some specific examples, because I’m just not seeing it. If it’s not that, then what?

It's called Good Cop, Bad Cop

Maybe We Can't

The South Carolina Memo

I am an avid Obama supporter. But I was thinking this morning about the origins of my support. First, I had not heard his 2004 DNC convention speech. Second, every time the media mentioned "the Freshman Senator from Illinois," they portrayed him as "the rock star." To be honest, this characterization immediately made me suspicious of him. I assumed that I wouldn't like the guy--that he must be some kind of smooth-talking pol and that people had exaggerated praise for him because he happened to be black.

But then I saw a couple of interviews of him and was immediately impressed by two things: (1) his seriousness; and (2) his directness in answering questions. When asked a question, Barack Obama actually seemed to listen to the question and then answer it. He didn't just use every question to "pivot" to a canned talking point (something that Hillary Clinton seemed to do constantly).

And then I read The Audacity of Hope and was hooked for life. Barack Obama is an incredible person. He is one of those rare people who has actually reflected deeply on who he is, what motivates him and what matters to him. He is the opposite of arrogant. He is humble and has the wisdom to understand that different people hold widely divergent beliefs and hold them with deep sincerity, and that it just doesn't make sense to dismiss anyone just because they see things differently than he does. But he's also pragmatic. He doesn't think you get up there and stridently propound your own personal beliefs until your blue in the face. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar--which doesn't mean you don't want to catch those flies.

But I digress. My point is that when I knew nothing about him except that he had a reputation as a "rock star," I kind of assumed I didn't like him. So I think every Obama supporter should lend his or her copy of The Audacity of Hope to a Clinton diehard.

Like others posting here, I can only speculate. What I've gathered from listening is that there are a number of Clinton supporters who really, truly, honestly believe that Clinton is fully "vetted" and Obama has a much smaller chance of winning the general election... Add that to their conviction that he's a hypocrite for pretending to be all shiny and new and above it all, when he's really just a politician like all the others, and you end up with strong frustration that he's scamming his way into the nomination and is going to cause a third consecutive Bush term during McCain's presidency.

If you want honest answers from Clinton supporters, you'd be more likely to get them over at MyDD.com... Clinton supporters are vocal in larger numbers there, and the tone of discourse is (more or less) relatively mature. TPM is heavily weighted toward Obama supporters. And the Clinton supporters here may not be inclined to read a post that calls them out in the title, since most posts that scream "Look here, Clinton supporters!" have been Obama supporters saying things to the effect of "IN YOUR FACE! Obama has WON and Clinton is an EVIL HAG!" or some similar theme that may not entirely invite rational discourse or unite the party.

Problem as I see it, evidenced by video clip, the coverage in media, etc. is that so many treat campaigns and elections like sports. Who's up, who's down, who am I a "fan" of, will our team win the championship this year?

It's hard as hell to hear any real news about policy, track records, positions. It's all fund raising totals, poll numbers, blah, blah. Recall all the talk of who will a black woman choose in the primary contests as if personal identifcation is all that matters. Sadly it seems that is what matters most. As long as the American electorate continues to vote with emotions instead of reasoning we will continue to see the same ol' s#*!.

Pretty simple. He is just another slick politician.

You can't get Obama supporters to engage in a discussion of issues. They don't seem to actually know his position on any.

On most issues (such as Iraq, healthcare, the military, foreign relations), he is to the right of Clinton.

He's morally if not literally dishonest. I absolutely do not believe he did not know or understand Jeremiah Wright's theology. So, he lied straightfaced about that. Worse, he put his ambition to be president ahead of his commitment to God, first by publicly repudiating his "friend and mentor" of 20 years; and now by quitting his church. This man is a weathervane! "Any way the wind blows, that's alright by me."

He played the race card.

He ran ads in PA and IN, falsely claiming that HRC would force everyone to buy health insurance even if they didn't want to do so. This from a guy who trumpets his commitment to "universal healthcare," while offering a plan that will leave 20 million Americans uninsured.

He supports the use of private military contractors.

I don't see or hear the moral commitment, I just see and hear an ambitious politician who'll say and do what he thinks will get him elected. Once in office, his actions will be driven by political expediency, not by moral vision. That's not "change I can believe in."

The difference between him and Clinton is, I believe, that she does have the moral commitment.

Thanks.

mp

In all seriousness, I believe that many of these extreme Clinton supporters may not, in reality, be Democrats. How can they possibly throw away everything that Democrats believe in just because their candidate,a woman, most likely won't be the Democratic nominee?

If Hillary is really interested in her party and this country, she will immediately accept the results of the committee and demand that her supporters stop these divisive comments.

Short version: Absolute 100% total failure to connect or appeal to me in any way.

I could literally write for hours on this topic, but here are a few points.

Obama reminds me of the inspirational speakers corporate America used to bring in just before they told us they were RIFFING us or there would be no raises AGAIN in a year of "historic profits." Whatever it is that inspires others, it's just not there for me. It sort of makes me wonder where the next screwing will be coming from.

Beyond that, being called everything from racist (DOUBLE YAWN) to the less savory epithets for women to "stupid and uneducated" and "bitter old woman." None of these apply to me.

Sorry Louisev, but his skin shade makes absolutely no difference to me. I've never seen blacks, as a group, as inferior to whites (or anyone else) in any way. Individually, there have been blacks I have seen as jerks, just as there have been whites. The drunken man who verbally abused me, physically threatened me, and refused to leave a business after closing -- thereby making my already long, hard day more so -- and called me a "racist bitch" will win no awards for accurate perceptions of the world. (No, it wasn't a bar) I had done literally everything within my power to help him. It just wasn't within my power to make the business owner return to the premises nor to do what the man wished.

On the whole however, my lifetime interactions with Black America have been positive experiences, leaving me with a deep appreciation for a culture I do not always completely understand but am delighted to have in my world -- just like the other many cultures I have the honor of sharing my city with. I saw way too much of the hard lives of the men who worked with my father and the women who cleaned houses for a living -- many of whom were smart, hard-working, honest, and should have had better opportunities than they were afforded -- better educational opportunities and more career opportunities. Today's world, while still not perfectly equal, is a long, long way from the world I was born into. For that I am grateful.

I have never been afraid of someone because of their skin color. I'm certainly not afraid of having Obama in the White House. I do think he has been a bit too intellectual about his policies, and I don't think his are progressive in some cases as Hillary Clinton's. I do not think his twenty years since college compare to her four decades of public service.

I do relate to the notion of being shoved aside after working hard and yearning for appreciation, for someone younger. Someone who never lived through what we worked so hard to change. I found his race speech somewhat condescending. I was THERE. I don't need a review of race relations in America. Where his speech fell flat, to me, was that it should have STARTED with almost its end. Rev Wright does belong to another time. We still have challenges to face. One of those challenges will be to quit assuming it's race when it's not. One little anecdote to illustrate this. A few years back, I was rolling up the window to my car so we could turn on the a/c. In turning to do that, I hurt my arthritic shoulder, and I screwed up my face in pain. As the window rolled through the final inch of open space, I heard some voices "honky bitch....dissing the black boys with her face" (their words not mine) I looked up to see 3-4 young black males about 13-15 shooting me the bird. My facial expression was not only NOT about race, it wasn't about them at ALL. Now I know the teenage conceit is to think the world revolves around itself. However, these young men undoubtedly walked away from that encounter having reinforced their own views that white folks hate them. Time to stop that kind of thinking, as well as the racism from the other side.

At this point, I feel that my vote is being taken for granted (when not outright being bullied for it), on behalf of someone I think does not represent my interests in any way. Shoot! His "feedback survey" didn't even list women below the question "Which of these groups do you identify with?"

Just reading these posts alienates me from many of the posters. Clintonistas is insulting. Some of the other comments here have been worse.

I honestly do not know what I will do in November. It really doesn't much matter because I live in one of those "IT WILL BE RED" states. So I don't have a lot of guilt about writing in Hillary Clinton, or in not voting in the Presidential race. I could NOT vote for McCain under any circumstances -- his comment that women doing the SAME job "need more education and training" to get the SAME pay is enough to cross him off my list, even if he wasn't carrying all the other baggage of the GOP.

I have been told repeatedly Obama doesn't need my vote or want my vote. And, so far, his actions and rhetoric have simply conveyed to me the attitude that he will get it, without making any effort to win it. So I do have a bit of "ok so you won't get it" attitude. At this point, I am so disheartened by having my dream annihilated, that frankly my dear, I don't much give a ____ any more.

There is something disgusting to me about the whole atmosphere. I have no problem with the notion of Black America being excited about seeing a dream fulfilled, a milestone reached, and supporting Obama. I DO have a problem that I was scorned for "just wanting a woman." Oh no! I wanted THIS woman. I wanted HER in 1992 & 1996 when I voted for her husband. I see her less as "riding his coattails" than as finally getting a chance to stand in her own light instead of having him block the sunshine from her accomplishments -- which folks like louisev discount. Instead, I am told "we will get a better woman some day." Looking out at the field of Democratic women, I don't see many that I think I could feel so excited about. I also find the ignorance and resentment of this generation of women extremely off-putting. I never said about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton "oh they're just bitter old men with a chip on their shoulder who cannot get past thinking all whites are racists." For one thing, I have actually listened to and respect these men over the last 45 years or so. Sure, both made some mistakes. So have Obama and Clinton both. But NEWSFLASH! If Jesse had still been on the ballot by the time MY state held its primary in 1976, I'd have voted for him with enthusiasm -- despite THEIR "high negatives" and "unlikability." Unfortunately, social change doesn't happen that quickly.

I have listened to the GOP Clinton hating talking points come out of the mouths of Democrats in stunned sense of being in bizarroworld. I have even heard Obama supporters talking as if beating Hillary Clinton for the nomination is insufficient -- she should be run out of the party, concerted efforts to make her lose her Senate seat should be undertaken, she is unworthy of any place in Obama's administration. I can't help remembering what I was taught -- you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Here I am referring to the GOP crossovers and independents, many of whom I am sure will NOT be supporting Democrats in November. They never intended to --they just wanted to beat "the bitch." The rest will try to change this party to suit them -- or they will flit back to the GOP in the next election. I am saddened that these people are more important to Obama's coalition than those of us who SHOW up to vote Democratic, make phone calls, get out the vote, drive others to the polls, support the down ballot candidates, work at the polls as clerks, precinct judges, poll watchers, precinct captains for the party, ad infinitum. I am even more saddened by the Democrats who have refused to consider that the GOP had this strategy.

As to "online supporters" and "offline supporters" I agree that people are more vicious online than offline. However, I suspect the thoughts are there offline. I do think the Obama campaign has NOT connected with large segments of the population, and I do fear that this will mean a loss in November. I don't think they are all racists, although assuredly some are. Some have seen his campaign as self-centered and snobby -- understandable for a voter making $36K a year in OH listening to Mrs. Obama talk about her struggles to find $10K for music and ballet and then CAMP on top of that. These people are thinking "Lady, if I had YOUR income, I could manage, and you have NO idea what my life is like at ALL." One voter in PA was cited in a newspaper as saying "he talks about *I* all the time. He isn't interested in our lives." To ignore these kinds of disconnects from voters and chalk it all up to "racism" is a strategic error. To chalk my disaffection for the man up to being "bitter" is another.

So thank you MsJoanne for asking your question.

Thanks to zebra @12:43 AM for stating so clearly my own sentiments about the difference between Obama and Clinton when we get the chance to see them being interviewed. I noticed this distinction again last night when I saw the live video of Obama responding to questions regarding his decision to leave his church community but lacked the clarity to express it the way zebra did.

I also appreciate the opportunity to participate in what appears to me to be a serious effort to understand how people are making decisions at this critical time in our history. To that end, my thoughts herein can be tallied in the " white, female, 60+ years of age" category.

I was just stunned when I read an opinion piece published in the Boston Globe by Geraldine Ferraro. I submitted a "letter to the editor" yesterday (as yet unpublished) which stated, in part:

"It should be noted that I'm registered Independent so I am always prepared to vote for the candidate that I judge to be most qualified, regardless of party affiliation. My primary concerns are the war and the economy so my focus was on the Democratic candidates. All of them had points I did ponder. Then, there were two. Early on, Clinton and Obama were of equal interest to me.

All seemed well, both campaigns running issues based forums. Then came the first hint that it might not be a lock for Hillary and the beginning of what I now view as a dishonest, low-level, hysterical Clinton campaign. If my recollection serves, every sarcastic or personal attack exchange between the Obama and Clinton campaigns began with a Clinton foray. If he responded, he was attacked further or mocked. I began leaning toward Obama because I admired his demeanor, eloquence, and restraint in his responses. Soon, I became angry. Silly season in politics, indeed, when we began linking flag pins to patriotism and Hillary jumped on that bandwagon despite that fact that she never wears one herself. The issues are too vital to have a divided party that could enable a victory to a war candidate.

My specific grievances lie in: 1) Hillary praising McCain as a way to disparage Obama - a real head-scratcher, 2) Hillary's deliberate vagueness when asked about Obama's religion - doing so fueling controversy, 3) the 3 AM ad - showing me that she would use fear as a tool, 4) the Bosnia incident - how, exactly, does one "misremember" about being under sniper fire so she just plain lied, 5) her manipulation of the metrics every time the numbers didn't favor her - I take this as an insult to my intelligence, 6) the never-ending blaming for her lack of success, now "sexism" - the very fact that she has been a contender for the highest office in the land speaks to the lessening of sexist attitudes , and, finally, 7) her comments about the assassination of RFK - if she has the experience she claims (personally, I don't buy that being the spouse of an elected official is "experience"), she knows full well about word choice and code-speak and giving permission slips for others to voice their dark thoughts. Just imagine how Obama would have fared if his words or actions had provided me with this list. Hillary has been given a pass on all of these things and, sadly, doesn't even seem aware or appreciative since she never directly apologizes for her misdeeds when confronted. Twist, turn, lie, mislead, no apologies, specious logic, and excuses. Add that all up and I don't see many distinctions between Hillary's campaign (a window to how her presidency might be) and the way George Bush has run his administration."

I am horrified by the words and actions of women who are making a mockery of what the so-called feminist movement started out to accomplish. We were looking for equal pay, equal respect, equal opportunity. As one who was an early activist in those endeavors, I can tell you that on numerous occaisions, I and many others vowed to break down the barriers while being mindful of not erecting new ones. Equal means just that - equal; men and women alike. Watching the protests yesterday at the DNC meeting, seeing those rabid women who probably have benefited from the efforts of women like me who took up the challenge and did have successful careers in previously male-dominated fields (myself, academia and later business), left me bewildered. As I further wrote in my letter to the Globe: "My take on those women is that they have created a "girls club" like the "boys club" I and those of my generation had to deal with. They have become what they decry. That was not the spirit of the movement. I decided not to support HRC based solely on her conduct and behavior during this campaign. Her gender has nothing to do with it. And neither should mine."

I will vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee in the fall. I was an Edwards backer originally. Now I have mixed feelings. Obama is obviously a very smart and inspirational guy but I don't know what, beyond change, he really believes in. And frankly, I find him and many of his supporters a little too determined to shove people off the stage.

Hillary's campaign has made me cringe. But just because you don't support Obama or you wonder whether some Americans will never vote for a black man (or a woman, in many cases) doesn't make that person a racist. And hurling that accusation the moment the discussion starts is yet another example of the sense of crazed devotion to Obama I get when I read through the blogs on this site--a relentless, fired-up attack on Clinton and a take-no-prisoners devotion to Obama that allows no questions. Here's one for you: does Obama really believe that those Republicans he keeps trying to bring into the fold will really stand by him in the fall? Are all the bloggers who rave about Obama REALLY Democrats?

Which of my own views do you propose I am confirming? That I do not feel connected to Obama and his supporters in any way? Well honeychild, that is the way it is. MsJoanne asked a question. I answered it. You aren't listening, which I don't find surprising.

What I find most disconcerting about the more vehement HRC supporters (or those who pose as such) is the seeming ease with which they slip into disaffected defeat. They seem as comfortable with dejection and loss as an oldtime country clubber might be with a dry martini and Wall Street Journal.

There may be any number of valid historical reasons why this is so, but it is not a recipe for political victory. I believe this to be one of the Democratic Party's more unfortunate characteristics, and most noticeable among those who suffered through the trauma of the 1980s and what came afterward.

Now, with the Obama campaign, we finally have an outfit that's smart, quick on its feet, loaded with cash, willing to throw elbows, and wanting above all to win. Count this as one campaign that isn't haunted by the ghost of Ronald Reagan. It's a new type of Democrat, and one that I'm willing to get behind as a lifelong independent.

Obama is the best chance our country has had to elect a true liberal to the presidency in over four decades. I do hope that Clinton supporters who still retain a viable number of progressive blood cells don't lose sight of this.

Like other posters here, I understand why Clinton supporters would support her to Obama, but don't understand why they'd vote McCain over Obama. Except that, sometimes I think her positions (except for healthcare) are closer to McCain's than Obama's. But then why be a democrat at all?

I am a Clinton supporter and I value experience and know how over someone's promises. Hillary and Bill ran as a team in 92 and had a very successful presidency. Maybe a lot of Obama supporters are too young to remember how nice it was in the ninties. The country is in avery bad way right now and we need a president who has been there and done that. Obama has not done anything but say what he will do. I can't vote for someone because they give a good speech. This job is too important. McCain may be a republican, but he is a moderate republican. I am a moderate democrat and black. I have more confidence in him than I do Obama. There is nothing to judge Obama by. He hasn't done anything yet. I also feel that the media and the far left of the democratic party have been beyond cruel to the Clintons, so much so that I feel that I may need to become an independant. I don't recognize my party anymore. You would think Hillary was worse than any republican the way democrats have treated her and Bill. That's some thanks for being the only dems elected to two terms since FDR in the 1930's. They have been great democrats and they are being run down and called racists, when everyone knows that they are anything but. I really feel that we need someone with real proven results to clean up this mess we are in, not someone who only OFFERS hope.

I'm not vehemently anti-Obama, but I have real problems with his campaing and its behavior

1) I find the inexperience and lack of discipline among his supporters and staff troublesome. I don't think we have much of a chance in November with him as the nominee, if for no other reason than I can't see 50%+1 of American's being all right witha First Lady who says she is "only recently proud" of her country. Her remarks may have merit, but you don't say them on the campaign trail. To me, it's a representation of the campaign as a whole.
2) I think his campaign has been the epitome of say one thing and do another. For all his talk of unity from the candidate, the campaign has worked hard to be divisive. For example, the cries of racism in SC from the Clintons. You may feel it a racist remark (I don't) to say that it took Lyndon Johnson to inact the Great Society. You may consider the comment inaccurate, but calling it racist seems like a stretch to this white, southern male. Just like saying Bill's "fairy tale" comments were racist, or that his Jesse Jackson ones were either. It has been my experience that white males react poorly to what they consider bogus charges of racism, and we need them to win in November. The Obama campaign has worked hard to promote these versions of the Clintons and its campaign, and I resent it.
Likewise, after HC's comments about RFK, there was an assumption made that she was expecting -- even calling for or hoping for -- Obama's assasination. Loud inferences were made to this point -- it was the Obama campaign that sent out the first notices of the comment -- at the same time the candidate say he would "take her at her word" that she did not call for his murder. C'mon. Does anyone really think -- politics aside -- that she publicly said she's waiting for a bullet to take him out? Seriously? In the end, the candidate's talk of unity is just a talking point while his campaign does all it can to be divisive. And if that's how he campaigns, how will he govern?
3) I don't know what he wants to do other than change. But change takes a lot of people to help, and if you are going to reform Washington, you need the help of the other party. So when they say "no thank you, we're okay with the way things are now' what happens then? he doesn't talk about specific policises -- he talks in broader concepts. Which is great until he's in office and I don't know what he really stands for. You can debate HC's role in the Clinton administration, but it would be unreasonable to think her style/philosopies vary too far from his, and I thought the country did pretty well during those eight years.
4) I don't think he can win. I'm not sure she could, either, but I don't see an electoral map he wins. The talk of carrying Colorado (my current state) or Georgia, or Mississippi or Virginia or Montana or Idaho or the Daktoas -- the states that have given him the nomination -- are pipe dreams, so he's going to have to carry some of these states hs lost to her by double digits> i Hope he can. but I don't see a map thate makes him president.
All that being said, I'll vote for him and hope. Edwards was my candidate in this race because I liked his policies and he was a fighter who was unafraid to fight. But when he dropped out, it left me with the lessor of two unelectable candidates. I chose her for those reasons.
Thanks, Joanne, for asking.

I would be surprised if a lot of Clinton supporters went over to McCain when November comes. There's a small, noisy, partisan group of her supporters getting a lot of attention but it's going to go away, I believe.

I hope, really, really hope, that Obama is all he's cracked up to be. After eight years of that criminal and criminally inarticulate bozo we have now, Obama would be am amazing change, and a grand face to show the rest of the world. Heaven help us, it's going to take a generation to wipe away the stain of the current administration.

When I wondered earlier about whether Obama was too trusting of Republicans, I meant the ones in Washington, where it counts most. The Republican Party is a train wreck right now but its members still have a lot of control in the Senate, with the 60-vote rule. I want to see a real Democrat is office, to govern like a real Democrat, with concern for the poor and middle class, determination to fix the tax structure and a commitment to more jobs, infrastructure, etc. I find it odd that Obama supporters don't see what seems clear to me--some Republicans want to play nice now because they've lost power. So we are supposed to take them in after all these years of their crapping on the ordinary, working-class people of this country. Play nice. Yeah, that will work real well for people who've been screwed by the banks, their employers and their insurance companies.

I don't, by the way, think Obama's elitist in any way though I don't know why neither he nor Edwards could effectively dispense with this label by simply talking their talent lifting them up, because that's what it is.

There is only one thing that would keep me from voting for Obama and that is if he considered, for even one minute, putting a Republican or a fake Democrat on the ticket. And yes, I have voted for Republicans, back in the day when a fairly large number of them were known as liberal Republicans and before the insane people took ove their party.

I think it's impossible to answer your question, MsJoanne. I simply do not see Obama through your eyes, much as I wish I could.

1) Obama will not fight for universal health care. 2) Obama does not have the experience or knowledge necessary to oversee a safe withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. 3) Obama's racial identity politics are divisive. 4) Obama's arrogance will undermine any good "judgment" he theoretically possesses. 5) Obama's political movement is predicated on compromise. 6) Michelle Obama is unpleasant. 7) After making a speech in opposition to the Iraq war, Obama provided zero follow-through when he got to the Senate. 8) Obama's supporters will get behind anything he does, no matter how many Democratic and progressive principles he trashes. 9) Obama cannot beat John McCain. 10) Instead of respecting the voters of Florida and Michigan by facilitating revotes, Obama tried to game the system because he was afraid he would lose the new elections.

This list is not comprehensive.

PEOPLE!!! PAY ATTENTION!!! If you keep spewing this discontent for such selfish reasons, we move backwards. CUT IT OUT. Let's move forward and take the White House in November.

Just in case you ARE interested, the post above dropped part of the url. It ends with anger-at-th.php

Unfortunately, there are some Dems, who happen to have fallen prey to the same crap the GOP uses on their women.
Fear of the resultant personal failure.
If women start getting political, they will ruin their marriages, the kids will turn gay, and they will wind up alone, broke and no fertile eggs to bargain a new man with, unless they have money.
See Cindy McCain for $$$ and Laura Ingram for sperm-free motherhood.

Because they started out as Dems, they claim they no longer are....they watched FoxNews to see if gender bias was real...and they got what they wanted. OReilly and Hannity made sure they were unworthy sluts, and backing Hillary made them terrorists.
The GOP's respect for women is $200 per hour and a diaper.

We have had women run for President before, many times.
I don't think these angry Hillary Demzillas know this.
Only stupid Republican women would think no woman could, or should run again.
The Dems have no Phyllis Shafelys', Laura Ingrams who stay in thier place and let the men do the real work.

What the Clinto Demzillas need to do is take a deep breath and read this.
Vote for every Dem you can, especially in Congress in Nov.
The GOp will lose at least 6-10 seats, which means the Dems Seniority advances, and hillary may sit as Chairman of the Armed Services or Judiciary Committees.
That would be a real advantage for the nation.
Clinton is not stupid, her campaign people certainly are, like Ickes and Mcauliffe.
Clinton will advance in the Senates senority and that is where these angry women must focus their efforts.
Make sure more women are elected in November.
Leave the spite for Michelle Malkin and Bill OReilly.
You women are far better than to stoop to that level.

Raider99 and MsJoanne,

I have been to Obama's website. I have listened to hours of his speeches, and his wife's on C-Span. I have not read The Audacity of Hope simply because I have not yet gotten access to a free copy.

It's not policy that separates me. Like Aboutoblowagasket, I just don't see him through your eyes. Or I don't feel him through your emotions. Something less tangible than simply policy. A feeling of trust or confidence that he can back up his ideals?

Maybe I "spent" my anti-war, full of hope, change the world, on McGovern in 1972 and I no longer believe it's that simple. People have to do the hard work of changing themselves and reaching out to others -- something I have done all my life -- from it was registering Hispanic voters in Austin with Hillary in 1972, or tutoring inner city kids in math, starting a battered women's shelter, or any of the other community service activities I have been involved with since I was a kid. I'm not impressed by three years of community activism followed by 12 years of self-promotion.

Let me also address the oft repeated "under educated white Clinton base." I guess my six years of graduate education in two master's and a Phd program makes me an "undereducated white." Do not get locked into any stereotype, or you aren't changing anything.

Telling me to "get over and get on with beating McCain" when I am grieving the loss of my dream is sort of like slapping a widow at graveside. Utterly lacking in human decency.

I am left with the same kind outrage I felt when Clayton Williams told my late friend Ann Richards that "When rape is inevitable, you just lay back and enjoy it."

Maybe what I'm looking for is some of that work of actually reaching out, some of kind of actual WORK on that unity from the Obama side. He's made a couple of pretty speeches about Hillary, but they leave me feeling hollow. I'm still looking for him, his surrogates, and his supporters to show me some respect. I suspect many Hillary supporters are in the same boat.

I am late to the party, and having scrolled the thread, will probably be repeating points made by others, but of course, in my own inimitable style.

First off, I don't find Obama the candidate off-putting and will fully support him in November. So perhaps I am not the intended audience. Many here have explained the reasons for their preference for Clinton. I don't need to repeat those. Put simply, I believed (and continued to believe, but appear destined to never learn the answer) that she would make a better candidate and President. That is not to say that Obama doesn't have great potential. He obviously does, and I hope he fulfills it. But based upon her lengthier record in public life, her grasp of policy and politics and her affiliation with the most successful Democratic administration of my lifetime, I believed she is a safer bet.

So that brings me to my first trouble with Obama. I believe experience counts for something. And I am not convinced that a state assemblyman from Illinois without even a full term in the Senate is a good bet to solve the multitude of problems we face - both large and small. I initially thought he would make a great VP candidate for just that reason. And yes, there was a bit of resentment that someone with such thin experience could leapfrog to the top (a criticism which also applies, though to a lesser degree, to Hillary).

I also did not appreciate his running away from the Clinton administration successes and attempt to lump together Dems and Republicans as part of the system that needs to be changed. I think this gives up one of the strongest campaign arguments we have. It's also disingenuous. Hillary Clinton, as much as Obama, would represent a sea change from the current administration. Yet the central message of his campaign has been that only he embodies change. It's the same BS that Ralph Nader pulled in 2000 - Gore and Bush are two sides of the same coin. We've seen what that nonsense got us. It has helped him in the primary. We'll see if he changes his tune in the general.

On a similar note, I agree with the poster above who says that the whole message of "reform" and being against lobbyists does not move me in the slightest. This is a theme that has always done well with the so-called liberal intellectual wing of the party (i.e., Bradley, Dukakis, Tsongas), but I don't believe resonates with most Americans who just want to see their government functioning well and getting things done. Being against lobbyists is not a platform, it's a phony stance.

In terms of policy, I am troubled by his acceptance of Republican talking points on social security and health care mandates. I believe Hillary has taken a more progressive stand on most issues, where there are differences (which I concede are not many).

I have been bothered by the way his campaign and his supporters have used race - though I marvel at their at doing so. It pains me that the Clintons, who whatever their myriad faults, have always recognized and attempted to bridge the racial divide in this country have been somehow branded racist. I have looked at the examples hundreds of times: "fairy tale," the LBJ comment, Bill's comments after South Carolina, Hillary's hard working white Americans, and what I see is how an awkward but innocuous comments can be twisted to some nefarious purpose. The Obama campaign has certainly fanned these flames, which I believe do far more damage to the Democratic Party and to the cause of racial unity than anything Hillary Clinton has ever said. That this comes from a campaign that professes to disdain the old politics is further irony. I recognize that Obama himself has tried to remain above the fray, but his campaign, while professing to take the high road, has in my view taken the lowest.

Finally, I find the zeal of his supporters off-putting. I appreciate getting behind a candidate, but the ferocity with which any criticism of him, or any statement of support for Clinton, has been met causes me pause. Call me cynical, but I am not that inspired by politics or politicians, particularly one who really doesn't have a long track record to back it up.

Finally, I am just not sure of his ability to attract the broad based coalition necessary to win in November. I still think the "swing" states matter.

That's all I can think of for now. But let me add that I find Obama very appealing in a number of ways. I appreciate the way he speaks directly when answering questions. I find him to be reasonable and obviously very smart. I believe he might make a great president some day. I just think Hillary has a better chance of being a really good president right now.

What is off-putting about Obama - more specificly

1) Elevating the role of religion in public life. I don't want freedom of religion, I want freedom from religion.
2) Belittling nonbelievers by saying no one was every harmed by saying "under God"
3) Blaming the ill effects of Republican maladministration on partisanship - as though Democrats are equally prone to appointing hacks.
4) Blaming partisanship instead of antipathy to government regulation.
5) Blaming partisanship instead of corrupt tax policies.
6) Blaming partisanship instead of fear-mongering xenophobia.

OBama is wrong, wrong wrong to blame partisanship. IF anything, the Democrats have been too bipartisan - not too little.

Obama is succeeding by adopting right wing memes about partisanship (as though the Democrats are equally responsible), liberal antipathy to religion, and so on. He is attacking the Democrats and saying a pox on both, I will save you.

I think he is naive about the Republicans and their antipathy to government and governance. He makes the mistake of thinking elected Republicans would put country over party in numbers great enough to matter.

He gets credit for being liberal because he's against the war, but that is not a liberal conservative position nor a Republican-Democrat position. There are pro-war liberals and conservativea as there are anti-war liberals and conservatives. It is beyond frustrating that people think he's liberal because of that.

I could go on, but that should be enough.