Indeed there are, and I think it's time to hear their concerns and unite the party.

A MUST READ:

A Woman of Independent Thought -- [NanceGreggs] Mon 05.19.08 11:56 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6034239&mesg_id=6034239

Over the course of the primary process, we have been “treated to” the outcries of a number of women (alleged Democrats) who see the inevitable recognition of Barack Obama as our party’s nominee as being unfair, illegitimate, and unconscionable simply because he is not Hillary; i.e. not a female.

And now a number of them are promising to make good on their threat to vote for McCain, or not vote at all (same dif) because their candidate-of-choice will not be the nominee.

The irony of such action cannot be missed. While touting themselves as forward-looking, liberated females, they fail to notice that they are acting the part of the “stereotypical woman” as portrayed in every 50’s sitcom, the sniveling female who packs her bags and “goes home to mother” when it becomes apparent she is not going to get her own way.

... [continues]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6034239&mesg_id=6034239

Well put, kash.

I agree. It's too early for this conversation. Obama needs to get the nomination. Then Hillary's supporters need time to consider how destructive a McCain presidency would be. It wouldn't be punishment--it would be suicide. There's entirely too much petulance in the air at this point.

My bet is for her conceding in the first week of June at the latest.

I would love it such a post were made. The problem is, of course, that there has been no initiative on the part of Clinton supporters to have any kind of rational debate on this issue whatsoever. If Clinton supporters would do exactly as you suggest, and articulate specific reasons why the nomination must be denied to Obama at the convention, why Democrats should vote for McCain in the fall, then we would be one step closer to uniting the party.

And, by the way, I wonder even there can even be such a thing as an "angry" Obama supporter. If "angry" in this context means "angry to the point of not supporting the nominee of the party," then there could only be "angry" Obama supporters if Clinton were the presumptive nominee and Obama supporters were refusing to support her in the fall...

But arent all Obama supporters angry?

No.

Les, sure, it's fair to say that many Clinton supporters have been unfairly accused of racism. (Although I insist that evidence of actual racism in this process is abundant, and that racism is abhorrent, no matter the amount.) Such false accusations are as "non-rational" as false accusations of sexism against Obama supporters, and clearly play no role in uniting the party.

However, most of the burden is on Clinton supporters to convince fellow Democrats why the outcome of the primary process should be overruled. You can't simply say that Obama's "thin resume" is enough reason to overturn his nomination. Explain to me why the results of the primary process should be overruled, or why it makes better sense to vote John McCain in the fall, using a rational argument. My sense is that you can't.

Hmm, I was serving out nation in the US Navy in the 1990s. You are extremely misinformed about the nature of both Barack's supporters and his resume. If anyone should defend a thin resume it is your candidate.

Les,

You ask, "aren't all Obama supporters angry", and then admit that you, a Clinton supporter, is pissed. Your own anger is clouding your thinking.

How arrogant is it for you suppose that if others might don't agree with your thinking then they must be under the influence of right-wing mind control? Doesn't that sound just a little paranoid? Think about it.

I won't ask if all Clinton supporters use the right-wing tactic of accusing your opponent of being guilty of your own sins. I don't believe they ALL are. It seems quite clear that YOU are, however. So I ask YOU to answer your own criticism of Obama but applied to Clinton.

Specifically what makes Hillary's resume not thin? I mean, what exactly has she accomplished that wasn't the direct result of being married to Bill?

(So, no, being first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. doesn't count. It was BILL's accomplishments that made her those things.)

Les,
Seems a little disingenuous (Krugmanesque?) to judge an opposing side's supporters by seizing on the most obnoxious comments submitted in a given thread and treating them as representative. Maybe "hateful screed[s] filled with obscenity and insinuations" are all you're able to see, but that is far from all that's here-- and such comments fall outside the mainstream of what most Obama supporters actually believe.

Actually, my kids were playing t-ball in the early 90s. They are in college now. And my husband is a Viet Nam vet who supports Obama. So don't play the game that all Obama supporters are young, stupid, naive people. That's the entitlement, patronizing crap that comes from Clinton supporters that makes Obama supporters angry. I can understand why someone might have supported HRC at the onset of her campaign but I have a hard time seeing how they could stick with her after her tactics became ugly, divisive, and Rovian. As for experience, she has less than Obama when it comes to the 40-hour work week and she has spent most of her life living in public housing. Sorry, first lady doesn't count for me as experience in the public policy arena. In the past, I have asked Clinton supporters on this site to explain to me what it is they find so appealing in her, because I am honestly curious, and the silence is deafening.

Nope, probably most of us aren't angry, unless you're talking about angry at what's been done to this country. I'm plenty angry about that. We've been screwed, blued and tattooed. About other things? Not so much.

Oh, please, give it a rest.

Well stated, Steve.

I've noticed that the new excuse is that the she was somehow cheated out of the nomination - although, I've yet to hear how, exactly. What can you do with such a notion?

Perhaps, more puzzling, are those male HRC supporters who express similar feelings about her candidacy.

I've just recently had this exact same realization. I think it was after reading a piece by Erica Jong on Huffington.

Here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-jong/electing-sweetie_b_102081.html

Steve,

I've been aware of this for a very long time. And I think it really is Senator Clinton's fault, literally. In all of her fuzzy math, in all of her protestations that she was going to win this because of Michigan, Florida, and popular vote, she has been dangling a carrot of subvertive and delusional qualities. She has made her supporters "believe". The mind-fuck that we thought was for Superdelegates actually worked on all of these women. It is Psy-Ops at a very high level. Love to know who really promoted this turn of the screw. Bill, Hillary, Mark Penn? Since they are going to lose, we may never find out - unless Patti Solis Doyle really unloads one in her upcoming book.

"It was difficult but I decided to place my country's future above my own desire to have a woman president".

I find the main post to be presumptuous and condescending, two requirements perhaps for recommended prose around here. There are many angry Clinton supporters, but the vast majority of us who will without question support Senator Obama in November. As I said, most real Democrats will vote for Senator Obama despite and not because of what the poster or his like-minded thinkers write as they take yet another "sore winner" victory lap around the blogospheric track. Let me state that in the long run, I will have little to no sympathy for anyone who chooses not to vote for Obama solely because of what happened during the campaign. But my lack of sympathy doesn't mean I don't understand where millions of angry Clinton supporters are coming from.

Your particular comment had me going until the second paragraph when you wrote what I quote above. So you are reaching out to supporters of Hillary Clinton, yet you presume that supporters of Hillary Clinton, unlike supporters of Senator Obama, have placed loyalty to person over loyalty to country. And so I stopped reading your post, because why bother? So be it.

Relax folks. It hurts to lose an election. I feel lots of pain and unresolved anger. But if you want unity, most of you frankly should just shut up, with all due respect, and/or focus your ire on the Republicans. Real Democrats will come home for the most part. But please don't think that mocking angry Clinton supporters or opening up a counseling post does anything except to create more hostility (and a recommended post).

Of course, my sense is that some of you are having so much fun with Hillary hatred that you can't let go, and so you will break the cardinal rule I taught to my three voting age Obama supporters when they were young--that the only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. And that's really OK, because those who will continue the battle against Hillary Clinton even after they've won will be, except in places like the Cafe, consigned to the dustbin of anger and irrelevancy.

In the meantime, most of us will do what we always do, and that is that we'll work hard to elect a Democrat in November, because that's what we do. We know no other way.

Jester,
When you say the kitchen sink was thrown at Obama do you mean the 3 AM ad? Do you mean mentioning Senator Obama and Jesse Jackson in the same sentence. As to the latter, anyone who thinks that is some kind of slur better look at their own creds. Jesse Jackson is a great American. It seems the Obama crowd is hypersensitive to just about anything other than someone expressing their complete adulation for Him. Sorry, but the 3 AM ad was not fear mongering. The Steve Kroft interview was hectoring and Bill Clinton is the greatest Democratic president in 50 years.