I wish I could rec this 100 times and keep it up for a month.

I am a Republican...Not proud of it, just a fact. I despise what my party has become. My very 1st post here, back in early July was a plea for unity, which, although it got to Reader Rec, was met with mixed reviews.

I have continued to advocate for unity in other posts and in many, many comments.

As the weeks go by I get more and more frightened about what a McCain presidency would do to this country. I went from saying I'd never vote for a ticket that had Hillary on it, to understanding that NOT having McCain was far more important than my dislike for the Clintons.

All of this is besides the fact that I'm not voting for Obama as the lesser of two evils, but because I actually respect and admire the man and WANT him to be my President.

Your post is enormously important, and I hope you will cross post it in as many different places and as often as you can...GOOD STUFF! Thank you for your persistence.

I know this is a bit redundant, and has a slightly pathetic feel of fighting the last (and losing) war. No matter, it must be said - again, and (I guess) again, again.

I am a registered Democrat, because my REAL party affiliation is not found on any voter registration form: CLINTONOCRAT. I unapologetically believe that Bill Clinton was the finest President of the United States of my lifetime, which is long enough to have seen quite a few. Why? Simply this( all statistics and wonky minutia aside): He found it the worst, and left it the best, of any President in either my memory, or in the memory of many others older than I whom I have personally heard say the same thing. The President to which I most often hear him compared among that older group of Americans is FDR. Enough said on that.

Believing as I believe, I'm sure a fair-minded person can understand when I say that I'm deeply convinced the Democratic Party has made a serious mistake in this primary season: We turned-away the living embodiment of of the finest Presidential legacy of our times - a man and his wife with a lifetime of accumulated knowledge, and a whole tool-shed of proven, substantive work - in favor of a relative novice still struggling with his first shop project. Call me crazy, I think that's a big mistake - not TACTICALLY, neccesarily (we might "win", anyway), just in terms of what is in the real best interests of the country and the world. I hope (without being entirely convinced) that the rest of the relatvely nonpartisan, nonpolitical country will forgive us this foolish indulgence.

Doubts aside, I'll try my best to vote for Sen. Obama. I'm not making any promises, but I'll give him any benefit of the doubt I can spare. What I will NOT do, is throw away my own best judgement to go one way or the other on the basis of Bill Clinton or anyone else "TELLING" me I should do this or do that, for the presumed sake of "party unity", or some similarly nebulous, airy concept of doubtful national utility. I'm not made that way, and I suspect that most other Clinton people aren't either. We're hardheaded realists, with few romantic illusions about politics or politicians. We tend to believe in demonstrated PERFORMANCE, and we tend to like those people (whoever they are, of whatever party) who look like they can deliver it.

I'm voting for "Candidate X" --

"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?"

-- I'll take the guy I agree with, and will vote for him because I believe that with my help, together, we can succeed.

Perhaps Biden should step down for the good of the party...

The more gracious Hillary shows herself to be, all the more bitter these voters will become. It is Obama who will have to win them over. Even though Hillary does have their loyal support, even she is in no position to tell them to redirect this support and passion for Obama.

In that sense, I hold little hope for tonight's speech, but I do think time, compounded with Obama's hard work, will make a difference. I suspect that, although not yet registered in the polls, Michelle last night may have begun the process.

Highly, highly, recommended, as always, articleman.

There's a lot I want to say, and in fact typed. But I realized: what's the point? I have no hard feelings for Hillary anymore, nor for her supporters. To be honest? I am tired. I am tired with the division, and the hatred. I am tired with the fact that this is even a debate anymore. It shouldn't be. I am done trying to figure out why it continues. I've heard so many reasons that it's just gotten ridiculous. At this point, I've realized it's just division for the sake of division.

One thing is that I have no doubt that Hillary with deliver tonight, like she did with her concession speech. Like she did in Unity. I was there in Unity. I saw her firsthand, personally saw her stretch an arm out and plead for unity. The burden is not on Hillary's shoulders. It's on her supporters' shoulders.

And though I completely agree with your assessment of the outcome if Obama does not get elected, I do not think the entire burden is on Hillary. She can only do so much. She's been doing more than enough, and I thank her deeply for it. It's time her supporters followed her example.

I started as hillary supporter and shifted to an Obama supporter as Hillary's campaign tragically and sadly blew off course...lack of message, lack of focus, lack of direction. I couldn't imagine what her White House would be like if her campaign was this messy. (And Bill's campaigns were NEVER that messy)

I had me heart set on an Obama/Clinton pairing as I suspected it would be an unstoppable combination. Obama is more level-headed and even tempered. He could create the agenda....and Hillary could use her power and influence to move that agenda. However, Seeing Bill Clinton today and reading his bullshit "If Candidate X is blah blah blah" crap....it is painfully clear why Hillary was never going to be Vice President. Bill has literally lost it. During the Primary....other than Hillary's "Bosnia" fiasco....EVERY SINGLE CLINTON meltdown came from Bill. He couldn;t be controlled. He couldn;t be managed. He couldn't stay on message. He couldn't allow Hillary to be the star and the candidate. I am sorry if that offends...but that is the truth. Obama COULD NOT take the risk of bringing Bill's crap into his administration. Bill is a loose cannon.

Sadly, and I am sure this will infuriate Hillary supporters further. I firmly believe if Hillary had been a powerhouse femail senator from New York with star power and the backing of her base....and had NOT also been Mrs. Bill Clinton, It would be a Barack/Hillary ticket. Bill has sabotaged (whether intentionally or unintentionally) Hillary at every corner. It takes the air right out of my tires. Half of the time I can't believe the crap that is coming out of his mouth.

I will always look back fondly on the economic achievements of the Clinton administrations. But I will also remember the failures: bungled attorney general searches, scandals, waco, somalia, losing Congress, affairs, perjury, impeachment. In my heart I know if Bill had kept it in his pants...Al Gore would be finishing up his 2nd term as President (and there would have been no 9-11 tragedy as Gore would never have dropped the ball on watching terrorist activity)

I will not bow down to Bill Clinton. Was he a better President than Bushie #2. Hell Yes. But he was a disater sometimes too... AND he has been a disaster for Hillary and now for Obama.

I don't blame Hillary. I blame Bill. And frankly....their political futures are linked to the success of Barack Obama. Like it or not..... they will be blamed for an Obama loss. Their tepid (tepid is being GENEROUS) support thus far has been greatly lacking. If Obama loses.....I have a feeling Obama's 18,000,000+ voters will develop a quick taste for two term Virginia Governor and first term Senator Mark Warner. And you know those deep south voters who OVERWHELMINGLY supported Hillary against Barack Obama? Let's keep it real. Who are they voting for in a race between Hillary and a white southern male? Hmmmmmmm Sounds like a slam dunk for a candidate like Warner.

Like it or not....if Obama loses, it doesn;t mean Hillary is the candidate in 2012. In fact....I think 2012 is essentially off the table for Hillary. She ran a dreadful campaign against a historical candidate in 2008...and blew her chance for the White House. Elvis has left the building.

Democrats in 2008

Articleman: Echoing Dijamo above, methinks you ascribe far too much power and yes, blame (should it come to that) to Hillary. To her comments I would add what I believe to be a flaw underlying your argument: that the Hillary supporters are Obama's natural constituents willing to sell out their own interests in a fit of pique at what they perceive to be the mistreatment of their candidate. Sure, there are examples of this out there, much hyped by the commentariat. I would venture that more of these voters are motivated less by ideology than by identification. Whether it is identification with the themes Hillary struck in her campaign (too little, too late, I'm afraid), identification with the Clintons' record of good governance, or failure to identify with Obama as a person (fairly or unfairly) or the themes raised in his campaign, it is not a sure thing that all of Hillary's supporters would gravitate toward Obama rather than a perceived independent (mistakenly perceived, in my view), known commodity (insufficiently known, again in my view) such as McCain, Roe v. Wade and party affiliation notwithstanding.

So, again I agree with Dijamo that it's not up to Hillary alone to bring her supporters along. Already in her concession speech, she made a forceful case for an Obama presidency. I expect her to continue to do that tonight, and hopefully, to begin the long-awaited assault on McCain's much ballyhooed "straight talk."

Unity is a two way street, however, and Obama's job must be to broaden his appeal. One way to start would be finally embracing Bill Clinton's legacy as President. With the economy emerging as the most significant issue in the election, it can only help the Democrats to contrast the eight year run of prosperity with the disaster of the past eight years. Despite his personal failings, most Americans still believe Clinton, despite his personal failings, to have been an outstanding executive. Tying himself to the Clinton record on economics would not only help to ease the rift that you point to, but would also alleviate the concerns (again, unwarranted in my view) among voters concerned that they "don't know what Obama stands for." Establishing a connection to the most successful Democratic administration in most of our lifetimes would seem a no brainer.

So that's my script for the convention. Hill and Bill must do their part and I trust they will. In the end, the election is Obama's to win or lose. If, god forbid, it's the latter, there will be plenty of blame to go around, and no one will come off well. If Hillary harbors any further aspiration to the Presidency (unlikely though it may seem), she will shoulder a good deal of blame if Obama loses. For the same reasons, I don't foresee the great schism you envision should the Democrats blow this one.

A final tangential point: I strongly, even vehemently, take issue with your assertion that remaining in office after 1998 was some sort of vanity project for Bill Clinton that is at least partially responsible for Al Gore's defeat. So vehemently, in fact, that I scarcely know where to begin. So I'll just leave it at that.

Here's to hoping none of your dire predictions come true.

I keep reading that Obama needs to do more to 'reach out' to disaffected Clinton supporters -- that he needs to stop insulting the Clintons, stop insulting Bill's legacy, give Hillary the respect she is due, etc. etc.

Is that what the Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain rather than Obama want? If not, exactly what is it that they want? I read what many of them have written, and continue to write -- and honestly, I'm stumped. They're angry, and they want something... but I can't figure out what. What exactly can Obama do to win their support?

Whew. Great work by Hillary.

Tonight reminded me of the early days of the primary, when it seemed like a *good* thing that we had two great candidates.

There's been a lot of drama on the Democratic side. But maybe drama is a good thing, if it gets people to tune in to the convention, and gives them the sense that we're grappling with real issues.

I can't imagine a lot of people are going to want to tune in next week, to watch Bush, Giuliani, and McCain repeat the same lying BS they've been repeating for eight years.

Yay Hillary!

Go Obama!

Your conclusions in this post are being proved to be just plain wrong. They seem to me to come direct from reading months of passionate Obama and Hillary partisans on the net. The blogosphere is not the electorate, it does not represent it well at all. I think you need to beware the effects of the blog echo chamber, and the campaign supporter echo chamber, which is no better for accuracy than the TV echo chamber.

Frank Rich, today:

...His campaign, unlike TV’s fantasists, knew the simple truth. The New York Times/CBS News poll conducted on the eve of the convention found that the Democrats were no more divided than the G.O.P.: In both parties, 79 percent of voters supported their respective nominees. The simultaneous Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll also found that 79 percent of Democrats support Obama — which, as Amy Walter of National Journal alone noticed, is slightly higher than either John Kerry and Al Gore fared on that same question (77 percent) in that same poll just before their conventions.

But empirical evidence can’t compete with a favorite golden oldie like the Clinton soap opera. So when Hillary Clinton said a month ago that her delegates needed a “catharsis,” surely she had to be laying the groundwork for convention mischief. But it was never in either Clinton’s interest to sabotage Obama. Hillary Clinton’s Tuesday speech, arguably the best of her career, was as much about her own desire to reconcile with the alienated Obama Democrats she might need someday as it was about releasing her supporters to Obama. The Clintons never do stop thinking about tomorrow.

The latest good luck for the Democrats is that the McCain campaign was just as bamboozled as the press by the false Hillary narrative....The main reason McCain knuckled under to the religious right by picking Palin is that he actually believes there’s a large army of embittered Hillary loyalists who will vote for a hard-line conservative simply because she’s a woman. That’s what happens when you listen to the TV news echo chamber...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/opinion/31rich.html

Those in play were never party regulars, i.e., devoted party members. They are just people who vote, often with a preference for a certain party line, but don't get so hepped up about loyalty to individual politicians or parties or identity politics as to blog about it or attend political conventions. To come out in a late, close primary to vote for a Clinton over a relative newcomer to the national scene is not necessarily to be a faithful Clinton fan who will listen to anything she or her hubby tells them to do, or even a faithful Democrat. It's really dangerous to being reality based to equate people in polls with people on blogs or convention delegates or even people that watch convention coverage. The future of the party, it was always in the hands of Obama once he won the nomination. "Puma's" and bitter feminists who passionately wanted a woman to be president this time are a tiny minority. Those who think the Clinton era was better than Bush (yes, just better, as in: not diehard fans of, as in: can be convinced of another person doing just as well or better) and are not sure about Obama (riskier--is he really going to help me and mine?) are a much bigger minority.