People, maybe Hillary supporters, maybe not, are taking a closer look and not really liking what they see.

You must work for every vote, and take no vote for granted.

Barack doesn't believe he has to "earn" anything. He believes it is his by divine right, and he'll destroy anyone who gets in his way, Democrats included.

Oh, and Ted Kennedy is in Denver to "pass the torch" to Obama, according to Politico! Wha? Did I miss something? Wasn't Clinton the last Democratic President?

As a Edwards, then Clinton and now a resigned Obama supporter I remain underwhelmed by the campaign's commitment core Democratic values and their respect for long-time Democratic loyalist.  

Whether it's the repeated message to Clinton's former supporters -- just "get over it" (Can you imagine if any campaign taking that approach regarding other forms of discrimination? )

To the idea that party elders should not have leverage -- how about being mature enough to recognize the value and building on that of their experience?

I was ready and willing to quietly vote straight democratic like I always have, as soon as I set aside my frustration over what I viewed and still view as some gaming of the process by the DNC.  But honestly the nasty 'tude, rolling eyes of Donna Brazille; the Howard Dean inability to convinve me that he has played fair; the bloggers who are the most sore winners I could I imagine, I am no longer sure.

I never disliked Obama but I don't have a lot of confidence in him. However, I could get past that, especially if he had chosen Hillary, the person who tied him.  But apparently the Obamasphere thinks I owe them my vote.  Some of the DNC seem to think so too with their "Where else they gonna go?" nastiness.  

It seems that they don't have a clue on how to campaign against McCain. After all, they cannot call him a racist, their nuclear weapon against Hillary, and they ran out of caucuses they can rig. Despite the collapse of the Bush Republicans and the terible war in Iraq, Obama looks exactly like the similarly clueless Kerry.

I predict that Obama has a very close chance of losing this election and if he does history will show that his pride was the main culprit.   Especially when he knew that if he picked Hilary the GE  would have been a slam dunk

It is the new, first time and usually disaffected voters who came out ONLY because Hillary Clinton was on the ticket, and the many, many, more less committed, more disillusioned voters who didn't vote in the primary but would have voted in the general for the first woman and/or the one candidate with a strong association with better economic times, who present a real problem for Obama.

Now that those two powerful motivations for voting have been eliminated, Obama has to find some equally powerful ways to overcome the disillusionment and apathy that too often keep those (should be naturally Democratic) voters from the polls -- their disillusioned sense that the political system doesn't much represent them and their conviction that there isn't, for them, many significant differences between the parties.

Many of these voters are women, most are working class -- they are not dedicated Democrats, dedicated media watchers or dedicated voters --  and if the Democrats were honest they would recognize that they haven't, over the last 30 years, in terms of policy rather than mere lip service, given them a whole lot of good reasons to be dedicated Democrats. But their lives WERE better under Bill Clinton. And they do believe Hillary Clinton knows who they are and understands their issues.

Obama doesn't have a concrete record to offer them -- and so far he not only hasn't shown he understands them, he and his campaign have been convinced they don't need them.

Obama himself should take the trouble to specifically address Clinton voters and ask them for their help. He needs to show that  he actually values and needs their votes.

Then he needs to tell his surrogates to stop whining about the awful Clinton Democrats who just won't see the light.

What Obama does not seem to grasp is that this isn't - at bottom - about Clinton.  It's about experience, about policy, about commitment, about respect, about trust, about the willingness to work hard.  It's about knowing that, for me, he is the wrong person for the job.  It's about knowing that sometimes the last candidate standing is still not the right candidate - for me.  It's about realizing that neither Obama nor McCain is the right person for the job.  

Yes, I know one of them is going to win, but I don't want to help either one achieve that goal.  I will not enable, and for those who say that not voting for Obama is the same as enabling McCain, I say...baloney.

Back at the beginning of this whole thing, I wanted to like Obama.  I wanted reasons to believe he was right for the country.  I kept listening and watching...and waiting.  Waiting for something besides self-indulgent, quasi-religious revivals that told me nothing about what this man would do for us.  Then, I saw and heard him misrepresent his so-called plans, put out GOP-style Harry and Louise ads that did nothing but put a chill on the goal of universal health care, send out brochures touting his religious background.  Then I saw and heard the bigoted rantings of his 20-years-long pastor and religious mentor, that he attempted to walk away from.  The pattern was - and continues to be - that he didn't know, that so-and-so was just some guy, that it was always someone else's fault.  I've had quite enough of people in high office laying off the blame for things onto others, thank you.

It goes on and on and on.  His penchant for claiming credit for things he hasn't done, glomming onto the hard work of others to make himself seem more engaged.  His failure to take seriously the chairmanship of the sub-committee dealing with NATO and Europe, and then his glib "I was too busy" excuse for not holding a single hearing.  

What little record this man has gave me no confidence that he could apply himself to the excruciatingly hard work on the deadly serious issues that are important to me.  

That's why I cannot just transfer my support - support that was not blind adoration and worship - for Hillary Clinton's candidacy over to Obama.  It isn't a case of "oh, well - Clinton, Obama, no diff" - the differences are huge.

If Barack Obama were, in my opinion, qualified to be president, it's possible that I would not hold the actions of the DNC against him, but since the DNC helped in obvious ways to foist an unqualified candidate on us, not voting for Obama is also a way for me to express my opposition to the manipulation of the process.

In the months since the debates, and then the primaries, started, I have seen no growth in Barack Obama, no rising to the occasion of the office he aspires to - and if this process has not changed him for the better, if he has not learned from the experience, I can only assume that he does not see himself as needing to learn anything.

Would Obama have come out full square for Hillary just days after the final primary, pledging to support her with every ounce of energy, to work as hard for her as he had worked for himself, to do whatever was asked of him by her? Would he have told his voters to back Hillary, long before the convention? Would he have claimed his right to have his name placed in nomination?

I don't think he would have released his voters; indeed, I think that if he had he would be reviled as a traitor, possibly called a traitor to his race, for giving up what would have been a historical opportunity to show that a black candidate could and nearly did achieve the nomination of the Democratic Party.

I'm not sure he would have given up his campaigning as early as Hillary did; probably, he would have said that he would await the judgement of the Democratic delegates to the convention, all of them, pleged and super. Because to not do so would have indicated weakness and would have disappointed his many, many supporters. And he would be looking forward to the future when he would run again, being only 46, soon to turn 47.

I believe he would have given a great Axelrod speech prior to the vote--he would have praised his supporters for sticking with him and would have told them to vote their pledge and their beliefs. He would have begun his next campaign at that moment.

After the first vote, then and only then would he have released them and urge them to vote unanimously for Hillary Clinton as the party nominee.

But, amazingly, Hillary Clinton is being told to be the good little woman and get in line and get out of contention.

Her supporters, especially her female supporters, are being told "get in line" and "where ya gonna go, sweetie?"

I might be wrong--this is purely conjecture. I just got angry listening to Carolyn Maloney (D-CD 14), a pledged NY super delegate, just now saying on WNYC that of course she would vote for Obama on the first ballot, it's all over for Hillary's campaign, that Hillary was backing Obama, and, she added, wisely I think, that Hillary can do more for the country and the state as the US senator from NY than as the VP.

What really angered me is she then justifed her change of pledged vote by saying Obama's nomination was a historical first.

As if Hillary's is not?

He would never have said that Clinton was "entitled" to his and his supporters' votes. He would have made demands, some publicly, more in private, and leveraged every bit of power he had accrued.

Clinton was not permitted by the DNC, the pundits, the MCM to do that.

Grrrrrrrr.

As a life long Democrat, I never envisioned a time when I wouldn't vote for anyone, let alone the presidential nominee. I never envisioned a time when I'd be so disgusted with the DNC's antics in general and their pick of a candidate that I'd leave the party. Both have happened, and the blame is squarely on Obama's shoulders.

"Some people" refused to give us respect.  They gave us abuse instead.

They picked the fight, not us.  

We can only hope now that we are lucky enough to overcome the Obama camp's immaturity, naivety, and arrogance and still win in November due to the public's widespread dissatisfaction with the cult of republicanism. But with republican control of the media and their voter suppression campaign, there exists substantial doubt as to whether or not that luck will grace us.

We've never had your respect so we have nothing to lose.

I came to trust Clinton not to perfectly coincide with my ideals, but generally to be true to the cause more often than not, and to be a hard worker, working with facts and reality as well as with inspiration. Whether I now support Obama is not a matter of resentment over what happened in the primaries, but I am grateful that Obama showed himself the way he did during that process.

Would Obama really be a better advocate for progressive ideals than McCain? I used to think the question was preposterous, but I have been getting less and less certain of the real differences between the two candidates. Obama's pitch these days seems to be that he is not so different than McCain on most issues, just a different image. The selection of Biden really takes the cake.

Unfortunately I still feel Obama is fighting the Clinton legacy more than he's fighting McCain.  I chalk it up to an inferiority complex that is kind of sad because there's no reason why the world can't have two great Dem presidents over the last 20 years.  

It's no surprise that Bill and Hillary have done virtually squat to boost Obama's candidacy. Narcissists (Bill in particular) have a notoriously tough time yielding the spotlight. But playtime is over. For Obama's sake, Bill needs to park his snit and make a persuasive case at the convention for why he believes (or at least is willing to say he believes) that Obama is ready to be president.

Obama has already pandered to them enough, giving Bill the mike on one night and Hillary the mike on another night, so it would greatly help the Democratic ticket if they deigned to educate Hillary's bitter-enders on the facts of life: namely, that sitting on their duffs in November would enhance the election prospects of John McCain, and thus imperil the very issues (universal health care, abortion rights, and many more) they profess to hold dear.

Presumably, the Clintons will keep their followers in check during the "catharsis" episode, when Hillary's name is symbolically placed in nomination. It is in their self-interest to do so. If the images on TV are dominated by angry Hillary fans screaming about sexism, some folks at home might well conclude that this Obama guy is too weak to control his own convention, thus imperiling him further. Hillary, mindful of her own career, would prefer not to be blamed in November if the Democrats lose this race in a cliffhanger.

If Obama is getting and following advice like this, he deserves to lose.

Obama wasn't there because, while I liked what he stood for and what he was promoting, I really didn't think the country was ready for him, and also most people wouldn't even take him seriously, or treat him like a toddler because he isn't old and grey-haired.

Interestingly enough, Clinton wasn't there because I felt that she was acting like she was entitled to the nomination. This put me off very quickly. Since I didn't have any opinion of her either way, this put off didn't sit to well with me. Unlike many people I have heard who had supported her in the primaries, I treated her as a completely different person from her husband (which is the way it should be, of course). I liked her husband. She, so far, was kind of a "meh" on my list.

It is on Obama to clearly state why his policies are far preferable to McCain's on issues that are important to Clinton voters.

It is on Hillary to emphasize that those policies are far more important than the anger and disappointment her supporters feel.

McCain or Obama?