I find this shocking, frankly.  I don't have any problem with people supporting candidates for any and every reason, from deeply held personal beliefs to the completely superficial.  I just expect them to be honest about those reasons.

Obama is a grassroots guy when it suits him.  Not so much when it doesn't.  That's true of most politicians with only a few rare exceptions.

The real shame of the situation is that eugene and people like him who put aside their progressive stands - politics of contrast being only one on what I think is a fairly long list - gave up their only opportunity to push the Democratic Leadership - candidates et al - to hang onto at least a few key principles.

As it stands now, real healthcare reform is DOA, the Iraq War is likely going to continue and economic relief will continue to be funneled into corporations rather than people.  The politics of contrast was always much more than a strategy - it was as it happens attached to liberal/progressive policy.

I deeply resent the implication that to NOT be for Obama is to no longer care about empowering people of color. It would be the equivalent of me accusing him of opposing empowering women because he does not support Hillary Clinton.

The democratic party has sent a clear message which rights are more important to them.  Why is sexism so much more acceptable than racism?  Why can't we fight for both, equally, together?  Whatever happened to change and unity?

More importantly, why are people who dissent being made into horrible monsters?  This mob mentality is classic psychology.  What the netroots is seeing is akin to the Stanford prison experiment.  It took only a few hours before the jailers turned into totalitarian monsters.  

"This man had been transformed...It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath away."

I don't agree with this strategy. At all. But I respect it. I understand it. And I made my peace with it long ago when I came around to openly supporting Obama's candidacy at the beginning of the year.

I notice no one ever does when criticizing and insulting me.

elise takes it now on the rec list.

link:

Clinton herself noted she was the only candidate to come, saying it was important "because Kentucky always picks the president." She later said, as she did in West Virginia earlier this week, that Democrats "for too long" have let states like this one "slip out of the Democratic column."

"Too many people felt our party didn't speak to their values and concerns," she said. "Well I believe if you don't stand for hard-working middle-class Americans you don't stand for much. And it's now up to the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee to make that case."

BTD's snide remark? His personal note to add on to Clinton's words?

I am sure Robinson, Herbert and Company are outraged.

Those would be the columnists who called Clinton on her "hard-working Americans, white people" comments. You know what, if they aren't outraged, they should be. What kind of comment is this?

"Too many people felt our party didn't speak to their values and concerns"

Short memories. when Barack Obama said:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

fake phony hypocritical BS

I certainly make no qualms about how inexperienced and unprepared I think Obama is.  He has absolutely nothing in his record that I find commendable.  I stand by everything I have said about him (though I have said I regret calling him an arrogant f-ball).  It is the vilifying of supporters that I take umbrage to, and I defy you to find any single post where I have purposely insulted an Obama supporter (non-troll) on TL who presented him or herself as a fair and honest person.  I have been especially careful with some of the younger supporters-deliberately so.

Why else would they call out a respected friend in such a manner?

Because that was, I thought, the issue.  And I can assure you that Steve Cohen, who made the comment about Clinton for which he later had to apologize, is not my friend.  I try to be as respectful as I can to Obama supporters (non-trolls) on TL with whom I do not agree.

The fact that people can no longer separate vehemently disliking a candidate from vehemently disliking a friend is the issue here.

But, for the zillionth and-yes!-last time, I'm very concerned that I have seemingly upset someone to whom I feel a good amount of respect.  I'm not sure if it's the southern thing (as oculus smartly posits-I had forgotten!) or what, but consider this a continuation of my apology.

squeaky and andgarden are also great.

Look at the MI/FL discussion for crissakes.

Maybe they want me to use all my power for Obama? Patience. I will in the GE.

Right now Unity HAS TO BE the goal.

The fact is Clinton has become a much better candidate and Obama has become a worse one. On electability, it is a toss up now.

But the nomination is basically decided now. Obama is the nominee and I will rally around him. I happen to think that it is best for Obama and the Dem Party that we have a Unity Ticket.

But some hate Hillary too much - I am looking at you Scott Lemieux  - they let THEIR personal animus override political common sense.

At no other point in history would a race this close be deemed over.

They just won't.

I am not willing to accept any nominee's legitimacy without that situation being remedied BEFORE declaring a nominee.

I think that is why I don't accept Obama as the nominee (besides the whole letting every vote count thing, LOL). I just strongly feel he has really gamed the system in terms of those PD and popular vote metrics, and I don't trust that his coalition is nearly as strong as he claims it is. Why is he only doing well in certain demographics? Why isn't he trying to overcome his problems in those demographics?

If he had done as you suggested, BTD, and allowed the MI and FL re-votes to go through, I would feel a lot better about him and his possible nomination. Especially if he managed to pull off a win in either state.

Right now I'm just hoping to be proven wrong and that somehow Obama will change his divisive ways, and that the FL and MI delegates and popular vote will be counted in some fair way.

OBAMA

I really don't get it.

This part was interesting to me:

"In a contest between myself and John McCain," he said, "there is going to be a very clear choice on policy that I don't think is going to have to do with ideology and who theoretically is more liberal or who's more conservative. I think it is going to have to do with who has a plan to provide relief to people when it comes to their gas prices, who has a real plan to make sure that everybody has health insurance, who's got a real plan to deal with college affordability."

"So rather than an abstract set of questions about, 'Is he too liberal, is he too conservative, how do voters handle an African American, et cetera,' I think this is going to be a very concrete contest around very specific plans for how we improve the lives of Americans and our vision for the future," he said.

He's on the right track there. He'd better hope this is how it actually plays out.

And they don't seem to care much about advertising or the corporate media either.

Obama needs unity and 11% of "independents."

Many Obama supporters don't think he needs unity because he already has enough of the "independents" to make it unnecessary.

Obama so far is losing white working-class voters to HRC in droves. These are Clinton Dems. They'll vote for her, but most of them won't vote for him.

What is he going to do about that? Without those voters, Obama loses.

In the meantime, Obama has become less likable as the campaign has worn on.  His radical (and corrupt) roots have been revealed, completing undermining his campaign message.  He's demonstrated a complete inability to connect with average joe's (the biggest weakness Dems have).  And he's revealed a glaring weakness as a campaigner that appears to be a combination of arrogance, thin skin, and lack of stamina.

Have we ever had a campaign where the candidate that gained serious momentum lost to the candidate that had his legs chopped off 3/4 of the way through the race and had to be carried across the finish line by the media, corrupt refs, and a single demographic group?

I am 63 yr old black female Florida voter who began as a Hillary supporter because I did not know Obama or what he stood for.

I have changed my mind but I am not EMOTIONAL about it. If Hillary gets the nomination I would vote for her I vote with my brain.

What is interesting to me is that I posted in a non emotional manner and mentioned that the next POTUS will pick Supreme Court members.  Another poster said...."don't threaten me with the Supreme Court." Weird.  I am confused by that reaction.

I can easily see Pelosi and Co fighting tooth and nail against an anti-choice McCain nominee.  Not so with an ant-choice Obama nominee.

The candidates in either age group could be named Jerome, Beth or Fred or Tonya. This race is not about race or sex despite how hard MSM tries to make it so.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who is elected on the Democratic side as much as it matters that the power of the office is not misused. Most of us want ou