Obama supporters don't seem to get the message.

It's gotten very very old.

it would be close to worthless since she'd have generated so much ill-will toward her among Democrats.

In fact, if this campaign undermines their faith in the Democratic party and the sincerity of its commitment to them and their issues, drives them away from the polls, or even out of the party entirely, so what? and good riddance.

That the things that are going to affect Obama the most in the general, the things that the Republicans will most certainly seize on, and use to the greatest impact, are things that are entirely of Obama's own making: his Jeremiah Wright connection, and Bitter-gate.

Once upon a time, Obama supporters might have made a case -- which I also thought was mostly bogus -- that Hillary was doing Obama great and unjust damage over the CiC remarks, and the 3AM ad (though there too, Obama's willingness to jump into the Presidential race with his absurdly limited experience was also entirely of his own doing), but how, given the self-inflicted damage Obama has wrought of late, can they presume to continue to criticize Hillary as if she is the culpable one, and not Obama himself?

I'll do it, because McCain would be an unmitigated disaster on top of the current unmitigated disaster.

BTD, I don't think Obama can get her supporters now, no matter what he does. He would have run a very different campaign if he had wanted unity within the Democratic Party.

oh for the photo-op handshake where Obama and clinton agree to fight as long as they feel they need to, but that in the end either will strongly support the other if their opponent prevails as nominee.  that it's really about defeating the republican nominee and reclaiming the white house for the good of the entire country.

They can come back with "hope you like McCain" all they want. I don't trust Obama to be much better. He speaks of wanting his foreign policy to be like the 1st Bush, and there's his Reagan admiration, promotion of coal and nuclear energy, and his bipartisan (i.e., spineless) ideals.

Don't forget about the MI and FL vote-quashing.  And his supporters, who seem to take their strategy classes from the rightwing?  We'll be seeing their damage, I think, for a long time.

1. But I won't work for Obama, because I won't forgive him for tarring the Clintons as racists, or for the grotesque misogyny of the OFB. (Has anybody thought that one consequence of the Obama Fellows program is that we're going to be subjected to this cr*p for the rest of our lives? Talk about fatigue...)

2. I won't give Obama money, of course.

3. I will work for universal health care and social security, and any legislators that support those policies.

4. I won't give any money to the DNC, and

5. Will look to the Greens from here on out. Maybe something can be made of them. Enough is enough. A party that disenfranchises its own voters is dead on its feet anyhow.

I think you underestimate what a pickle Obama is in however, and it underscores the difficulty in finding a sane ending to all of this. You suggest that Obama should refrain from attacking Hillary, but unilaterally disarming in the face of Hillary's attacks would have their own blowback in the general election in terms of making him look weak and unable to stand up for himself.

By saying that Obama will be the nominee, you are strongly implying that HRC's current run is in vain and offers little to gain for all concerned, since she has, in your opinion, already lost. Asking Obama to unilaterally disarm is therefore an odd stance to take. Usually the loser in a battle is the one who disarms, not the victor. And one would think that, given this opinion, you would be calling on Hillary to disarm, not Obama. I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that if she would stop attacking him, then he would no longer feel the need to attack her back, since it seems to me that most of his jabs have been in response to hers.

My name is Chastity and I'm a 33-year-old African-American woman. I was deeply saddened and disturbed by your comments about Senator Clinton. A woman has a right to defend the 2nd amendment without condescending comparisons that represent your lack of knowledge in regards to the women's suffrage plight.

"Who does she think she is? Annie Oakley?"

I want to answer that question. If you are asking if Senator Clinton is similar to Ms. Oakley in her amazing talent and timely rise to fame which propelled her to become the first American female superstar, then I agree with that depiction.

I must tell you I am deeply offended that you find it humorous that she would defend the right of men or women to bear arms. If it were not for the media's disdain for Senator Clinton, your not-so-humorous comments would be put in their appropriate context.

You expressed regret in regards to your wording of the "bitterness" of small town citizen's economic struggles but, the next day, you disparaged Senator Clinton regarding her defense of constitutional freedoms. I am appalled by the media's lack of outrage. (Women everywhere should also be outraged!)

Senator McCain also referred to your comments as elitism and out-of-touch. So does that mean he's the Lone Ranger?

It is also fair to note you did not make any jokes at Senator McCain's expense.

In a time when we have the possibility of an African-American or female president, to have one of the candidates publicly demean another candidate is unacceptable. I implore you to not only apologize publicly to Senator Clinton but to educate yourself on Ms. Oakley's contributions to society. She broke stereotypes, and she engaged in extensive, albeit quiet, philanthropy for women's rights and other causes.

"Shame on you." "You should know" that using humor as a vehicle to degrade someone that expressed justified concern about your misrepresentation of small town America as "bitter" -- instead of "ungratified" -- only antagonizes the up-hill battle that women face in the fight for equality.

If elected president, you will not only represent the ungratified small towns, but you will also represent Senator Clinton and her right to protect unalienable rights. To mock her remarks because your statements were "self admittedly inappropriate" is wrong.

You are displaying an antipathy for someone who represents thousands of American women who have been disparaged for centuries. And you abet the continued inappropriate characterization that woman cannot lead a country or defend a nation.

As an African-American, I am "very proud" to have someone of your caliber representing us in the presidential race, but as a woman I am "equally proud" of Senator Clinton for the same reason.

There is nothing funny about that!

Sincerely,

The next group he has to worry about are the undecideds and independents who are looking for reasons to be tipped either into the Hillary camp or over to McCain.  And no, this is not like "cow tipping."

Then there are the "Dems for a Day;" how many of them who voted for Obama in a primary or caucused for him, are now thinking, "hmmm, I knew there was s reason I voted Republican all these years - see ya, Barack!"

I don't see any guarantee that if Obama wins the nomination, he can win the general, national polls notwithstanding; he has spent far too much time with one foot or the other in his mouth of late, and there is no way these things are not going to hurt him in November.

I do not trust him.  Period.  And I know many others who feel the same way.  I do not trust the Blue Dogs like McCaskill and Casey and others like them, nor do I take comfort in the Austan Goolsbee-types.  He's all over the place on too many issues, I see no conviction in him, and no sign that he knows how to actually work his butt off for something that will benefit the people - I see how hard he wants to work for himself and his own ambition, but what comes after the winning is all too reminiscent of the current WH resident.

His weaknesses are showing more and more as he is off the teleprompter and into off-the-cuff.  He's revealing more arrogance, more disdain, more condescension for those who don't buy what he's selling.  The fault is never his.  Again - thanks, but we've had almost 8 years of "it's not my fault."

I have to say that I am impressed by BTDs ability to see clearly through most of these issues. However, as reasonble as it might be to hope that Obama supporters would wake up from their haze and start thinking about a more unifying posture, it is not in the cards until Obama has really won.

I think deep down a lot of Obama supporters, whatever they may say out loud, do not in fact believe that he has won. They know that there is a real chance, even if it is small, that Hillary Clinton can still pull this out.

So the aggressive posture will remain entrenched until such time as it is 100% clear and not 80-90% clear that Obama has the nomination.
If Obama becomes 100% the nominee expect the rhetoric to turn on a dime.

Seriously, the stupidity of that mistake boggles the mind.

He is really good at alienating people who have voted regularly for a long time. This "new politics" coalition better be huge, because a good chunk of what was left of the New Deal coalition is probably pretty angry at this guy right now.

So, the misogynist A list blogger boyz, Olbermann, the guy who has kidnapped Josh Marshall, Matthews, etc  are not real progressives in my view.

They want to push a clearly inferior Obama on me.
Sorry, I've seen underqualified males get jobs over women who trained them, all my life.

I certainly don't have to vote to continue this practice, or even let them think I condone it in any way.  There is a price to be paid for this behavior.

I'll probably write in Hillary - and that's the BEST they can expect from me.

The BEST anyone can expect of me this next time is to write in Hillary Clinton.

Progressivism must include feminism.  The misogynistic A list blogger boyz, Olbermann, Matthews, CNN's Cafferty and "best election coverage team" have totally alienated me.  

All my life I have seen underqualified males get this kind of preferential treatment over clearly superior females.

I don't have to condone it, support it, or certainly vote for it.  

Further, I have no respect for the campaign Obama has waged, and no respect for the man.  

If the Democrats think they can shove this guy down my throat with threats about the Sumpreme Court, etc, they can forget it.

In fact, the reason so many establishment Democrats want her out of the race is because the longer she stays in, and the more support she garners, the more apparent it will be to all when they throw the nomination to Obama anyway.

Obama will be the nominee.

The "creative" class is totally unaware of the racist tone of the term. Everybody else is inferior, uncreative. Farmers, brick layers, janitors, waiters are all uncreative lesser humans. Great statement from a Democratic party.

1. What the heck is the "creative class"? Is this supposed to be a smear of some kind? And why are all people who support Obama lumped into this term? This is a vague and useless term and I suggest we either define it or cease using it.

2. Let's be clear, here: Hillary, not Obama, is the one who day after day attacks her fellow Democrat. Obama's hands, to be sure, aren't totally clean. But he mostly spends his time responding to the smears already waged by the Clinton marketing team.

All native-born, gun-owning, God-fearing, pro-immigration enforcement, pro-sovereignty Pennsylvanians are grateful to you

Maybe this rant was written before that bomb was dropped Friday -- and by an Obama backer, not by Clinton or McCain, and based on Obama's own words, not those of his former spiritual advisor and mentor now demoted to only his pastor, etc.  All this could begin to have a cumulative impact of his campaign.  So even if written Friday, this column ought to have been pulled and redone before publication.  It just makes NR and media look more clueless and lacking in balance and objectivity.

Why?  Because when candidates essentially are split, and either can win, the possibility of just such a campaign-ender for either candidate is exactly why it's only early days in the primary season, with months to go exactly so that Dems have time  and more primaries in more states to see how all of this (and maybe more) plays out.  

This is an example of the possibilities from human frailty that are far more important than any probabilities from "the math" -- but only that -- based on delegate counts.  Those still are only projections by the impatient chattering class of media, anyway, not from the Democratic party, which still ought to be in charge of this choice.

Basically, let's not let the media's impatience move this along or close out possibilities too soon.  That's what happened in 2000 to pressure Gore to give up the good fight, and look where that got us -- as Dems and as a country.  The basic rule of politics appears to be to remember that candidates are only politicians but actually more to be trusted for their serious intent than  media, which are just playing politics as a game -- with the public, not candidates, as the pawns.

that sounds to me that Hillary supporters are going to make a fuss and throw a tantrum and its on us to unify the party? no its on ALL democrats, its JUST as much on Hillary AND her supporters to unify the party as it is on the other side.

there is no 1 side has to worry about it and since the other side won't have their nominee they can take their ball and go home and we are suppose to convince them otherwise.

if someone labels themself a democrat they are just as responsible as the next democrat to unify the party.

if anyone tells me they are taking their ball and going home and expects me to stop them? well then you are probably not someone I feel like playing ball with anyways, someone was ALWAYS going to lose, they don't need to be pandered too because they can't deal with it.

yeah probably Obama will pander and try and unify the party, and its a dame shame that he has to in the first place.

or i bet if Hillary did pull of a win, everyone agrees she should have to spend 2 months pandering to Obama supporters to get them back right?

Would there have been a different nominee?  Would Kerry have been better prepared for the same attacks in the general election?  Or would Kerry have been weakened and lost by a larger margin?

Hillary is the only Democrat I will support.

He is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Why would I want to be associated with low lifes like him, let alone vote for him?

And I do believe that this is something that 100% of the commenters here would agree on, whether Obama or Clinton supporters. While many have expressed concern about the potential alienation of Obama supporters and potential damage to Obama himself, NONE have expressed concern about the same for Clinton's supporters or to her.

I guess this is the next step from something I've been seeing all along on Kos - it wasn't enough to win over the other candidates, it's that one needed to push their supporters out of the public sphere of discussion altogether. They're just trolls; and that's the voters, not the candidates.

After thirty years of watching these futile campaigns (the exception being Bill Clinton, who really was from the working class and really did "get it" in many respects), it's finally dawned on me that maybe, just maybe, the Democrats really DON'T want to win. Maybe it's better to always be pining for that Promised Land of universal health care, a Manhattan Project for alternative energy, quality public education, etc. A distant and noble  utopia is better than the real and messy attempts to make policies that create genuine progress for the working people of this country.

Whatever, I'm done with the Democratic party. I'll probably still vote Democrat because I'm a sucker for a populist plank, but the minute after I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton in the PA primary, I'm switching my registration to independent--after being a Democrat for 32 years. I'll vote for Obama in the general election, but I'll be voting for him as an Independent. I want no part of a party that can't resolve the Michigan and Florida revotes and that seems to be pressing its thumb on the scale for the candidate who will surely not win in November, despite what his devout followers believe.

This nominating process has shown me that there isn't a bit of difference between Markos and Rush Limbaugh, between Obamites and dittoheads. And the DNC apparently has decided that even though there is no way in hell Obama can win in November, it will be better for the party's "brand" to run him instead of Hillary.

NO

(Copping from Atrios) `This has been another episode of simple answers to  simple questions'