An Open letter to Hillary Clinton Supporters

This letter was written by a friend of mine, whose letters I have published several times over the years on TalkLeft. When I first met him, he was a criminal defense lawyer with a very high profile Washington, DC law firm. (I served as local counsel for one of his clients.)

He then became a high ranking official in the Clinton Justice Department. We were on opposing sides then but remained in touch. He's been back in private practice in D.C. for several years since then. During four of those years, we both served on a prominent national legal board that met every three months in various cities. While he's never going to agree with all of my positions on crime issues, I still have tremendous respect for him. He's really one of the good guys -- and a true Democrat.

We've been corresponding throughout this election campaign as he was a strong supporter of Sen. Barack Obama from the beginning. He was unable to convince me that Obama would be a better President or nominee than Hillary. Of course, I agree with him that Obama would be a better President than John McCain.

His letter to Hillary Clinton supporters, sent to me for TalkLeft this morning, is below:

An Open Letter to Unhappy Supporters of Hillary Clinton

As a long-time supporter of Barack Obama – and a former official in the Clinton Administration – I ask you to step back and look at what you are doing.

Every time a Clinton supporter goes on network television and attacks Obama it feeds the story line that the right wing smear machine is
pushing and that the lapdog media is swallowing.

No one denies that you are entitled to deep and personal feelings of disappointment at the outcome of the primary campaign. There’s much to regret not only in the fact that Hillary Clinton lost but in the way she was treated by the media. Believe me, if Barack had been defeated, I and his other supporters would probably have felt the same way.

But every election has a winner and a loser. As deep as her own pain must be Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she can put it behind her. You should do the same – you MUST do the same – for the sake of the Democratic Party and the nation. Work to change the rules; work to lessen the influence of misogyny on our politics; work to keep shattering the glass ceiling. But don’t let John McCain become president.

If you truly believe America would be better off with four or eight more years of a Republican administration, then I suppose you should vote for McCain.

But if you do, or if you sit on your hands in this election, don’t complain about tax breaks for the rich and tax burdens on the poor.

Don’t complain about American servicemen and women dying in Iraq and maybe Iran, Georgia or wherever.

Don’t complain about detention, torture, and surveillance.

Don’t complain about judges who take away a woman’s right to choose and a worker’s right to unionize.

Don’t complain about environmental degradation and giveaways to mining and oil companies.

Don’t complain about an energy policy that takes money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans and gives it to Russian oligarchs and states that finance terrorism.

Don’t complain about a stagnant economy with growing inequality.

Don’t complain about our broken health care system.

Because you will have had your chance to do something about these issues – and walked away from it.

Santayana famously said that those “who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

In 1968 Democrats angry over the war deserted Hubert Humphrey – and we got Richard Nixon.

In 2000, disaffected Democrats voted for Ralph Nader – and we got George W. Bush.

Please – remember the past. Don’t make us repeat it.

Feel free to comment -- without personal attacks on Obama or Hillary.

As for me, my problem is not with Sen. Barack Obama, who got my support the day Hillary suspended her campaign and asked her supporters to support him instead.

My only reservation is with Sen. Joe Biden, so I'm still weighing my options.

(Since my letter-writing friend probably worked hand-in-hand with Joe Biden while in the Clinton Justice Department, he bears some responsibility in my view for all those terrible crime bills Biden drafted and got passed, as well as many more that thankfully didn't pass. So he'll never sell me on Biden, only perhaps that Biden is less dangerous as Vice-President than he is as a Senator. I'm trying hard to believe that, I'm not quite there, but I have two months.)

< Wolfson Rips Tweety And Olbermann | ABC News Reporter Arrested in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I've looked (5.00 / 21) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    Obama is on his own. He can thank the DNC.

    Oh and by the way I still am entitled to complain. Contrary to what the DNC and Obama supporters believe, this is still a democracy,

    Yes, the imperative sentence form (5.00 / 16) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:52:42 PM EST
    is especially known as nonpersuasive.

    I gather this is not a litigator.  They know how to argue persuasively.  The good ones.  

    Here's an imperative to remember:  Don't hire a litigator who uses imperatives.  Juries don't like to be ordered what to do in courts of law, just like voters in the court of public opinion.

    And in the latter, the jury is still out.  And still waiting for persuasive arguments, it seems.


    Indeed. (5.00 / 11) (#83)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    I started to read this letter and stopped as soon as the tone was established.



    what i get from the part (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    i actually read is "bad bad" clinton supporters. been there done that way too long. please come back with a better presentation.

    Shorter "friend letter" (5.00 / 17) (#90)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    "If you don't support Obama, STFU."


    One of the interesting things about these kinds of pleas is that they demand that you vote for Obama unless you think "McCain would be better."  Its the lesser of two evils argument -- and none of them seem to have any argument explaining why Obama would be better than McCain.   How do they know "Obama would be better", given Obama's constantly shifting positions on issues of major importance to progressives?

    None of them address the concerns of those of us who say we won't support Obama -- and its not just Clinton supporters who have those concerns.  

    Its the inability of these people to address the question of the very dangerous combination of inexperience and hubris/willfulness/petulance and utter lack of conviction that makes these letters so unconvincing.


    Your (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:26 PM EST
    last paragraph is spot on.

    I would like to know why the argument is always that Obama is worse. That is a losing argument.


    Heartily agree. (5.00 / 7) (#179)
    by miriam on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    How do we KNOW that Obama would be better than McCain?  I know a lot about McCain and nothing  about Obama except that he has no record of accomplishments.  I don't do too well with people who make promises with not a dot of evidence that the promises mean anything.  How can anyone "know" what Obama will do if he becomes president?  He's never had a leadership position.  My grandmother would call this buying "a pig in a poke."  I call it blind trust...which I'm too old and experienced to indulge in.

    And one of my greatest concerns (5.00 / 8) (#159)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    is the "If you don't support Obama, STFU." mentality that has taken over the Obama half of the party.  

    I do not like what Obama's candidacy has done to the Democratic party and fear what an Obama presidency might do as well.  It is too close to what I know is wrong with the Republican party.  Blind support and faith in a candidate that is going in the wrong direction simply because he is the nominee of the party you prefer gave us 8 years of George Bush.  

    I prefer to do everything within my power to move the candidate in the right direction before shutting up and giving him the keys to the kingdom.  


    Exact.ly (5.00 / 9) (#185)
    by nell on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:51:41 PM EST
    My problem is EXACTLY the problem that Bill Clinton was highlighting. What if you agree with a candidate on most issues, but you do not trust him as a person and you do not believe in his ability to deliver on anything because he takes a stand on nothing? What do you do? Do you vote for the candidate you agree with far less on in the hopes that he will be able to act on the issues you do share? Do you sit on your hands because you aren't even sure you can decide which is the lesser of the two evils?

    And I suppose my even greater fear is that electing Obama will result in not just a do-nothing Congress, but a do-nothing Presidency, that will set the Democratic brand and Democratic ideals back many years. Just look at what happened after Jimmy Carter. I don't want that.

    As of now, I am not voting for McCain, I feel like I disagree with him on too much, but I do not believe he is Bush's 3rd term.

    I wish this letter writer would have 1) explained just why he thinks OBAMA would make a good President, the Democratic name means NOTHING to me anymore, and 2) understand and acknowledge that it wasn't just the media that beat Hillary up, that the Obama campaign engaged in it as well with their vile accusations of racism...Obama's campaign is also responsible for the bad feelings and the unwillingness of Hillary supporters to go out on a limb and trust him just because he is a Democrat.

    He and his campaign lost my trust the day the day Jesse Jackson asked about Hillary's tears for the Victims of Hurricane Katrina, and they have never done anything to win it back. It has all gone downhill from there. Why would I elect a man like that to lead this country?


    I think it's an open question (5.00 / 7) (#150)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    which is better:

    4 years of McCain, coupled with a Democratic Congress, and presumably followed by a real Democratic President in 2012 (as opposed to Obama, who appeals to Republicans and elitists more than to lifelong working class Democrats)?  Sure, McCain will cause some damage in 4 years, but he will be checked by Congress to a large degree;


    2 years of Obama and a Democratic Congress, in which the inexperienced and unprincipled Obama fails to accomplish anything meaningful in response to the myriad of problems facing this country, followed by a potential Republican takeover of the Senate in 2010 or 2012, as well as a likely Republican President in 2012.

    Many of us who haven't drunk the Koolaid really believe that the election of Obama could result in something like the latter, which makes this a tough choice.


    not my fault..... (5.00 / 12) (#151)
    by getagrip on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:41:35 PM EST
    If Obama loses, he has one person to blams:  Barack Obama.

    I will have him and his supporters to blame if McCain gets into office.

    I will have Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Howard Dean and even Donna Brazille to blame.

    I will not be quiet about or not complain about the travesties of the new administration.  I will not have myself to blame.

    If Obama can't get beyond the hate and anger of his own supporters and close the deal with voters, that isn't my fault.


    I'll take "Patronizing" (5.00 / 28) (#2)
    by dws3665 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:38:44 PM EST
    for $400 please, Alex.

    Try not talking to Hillary Clinton supporters as if they are children. You might get better results if you actually tried to explain what's good about Obama rather than tried to frighten us about McCain. How stupid does this guy/these guys think we are? Do they actually believe the "low information voter" bullcrap?


    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by eric on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM EST
    that the letter has a negative, "do this or else" kind of tone that leaves me a bit cold.

    Doesn't matter, though.  Hillary made a great case for supporting Obama last night.


    Exhibit 1 (5.00 / 8) (#160)
    by dissenter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
    This is why they will lose.

    And based on my trip to the salon today, they might lose big in CO. I never thought I would hear a salon full of women bashing Barack Obama but they were..and I didn't even take part lol. I've never even heard anyone in the place talk about politics.

    Welcome to the Denver suburbs Mr. Obama.


    ITA, this kind of letter is infuriatingly (4.88 / 9) (#21)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:48:26 PM EST

    Sorry. But here is another Obama supporter who just doesn't get it. It's annoying to hear this kind of stuff over and over again ...

    just saying


    No offense to your friend (5.00 / 18) (#3)
    by eric on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    but I think Hillary made the case a lot better, and in a lot more positive way, last night.  And if people aren't on-board after that speech, this letter isn't going to help.

    I agree....... (5.00 / 13) (#75)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    ...I really couldn't make it through the whole letter without feeling offended and I plan to vote for Obama. I can only imagine how it makes undecideds feel.

    Respectfully, (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
    your friend doesn't get it IMO. His characterization of the problem is typical of all the Obama supporters we see here and elsewhere on the blogs. And it's still inaccurate.

    Any ideas for how can it be made more clear? (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:42:52 PM EST
    I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall sometimes when I talk to Obama-supporting friends, and they probably think I sound like the teacher on Charlie Brown.

    Can only speak for myself (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    People trying to make these arguments are not being honest about what happened during this primary. I only really respond to honesty.

    Cognitive Dissonance (5.00 / 16) (#81)
    by Oje on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    We are all (Obama and Clinton supporters alike) caught in the cognitive dissonance created by the undemocratic Democratic primary.

    The thing seems to be, we can't have party unity and unity behind presidential nominee at the same time -  unless we betray the values of democracy and social justice to which we purport to adhere as a party.

    So, we have PUMAs, McCain Democrats, Clinton Republicans, "racist" working class, Obamacans, DNC hacks, Stevensonian Democrats (Anglachel), misogynist (faux) progressives, etc., etc., and the kind of Obama supporter like this guy who counsels us to forget and then silence our cognizance of the contradictions.

    If there was an easy option to oppose the party (and the undemocratic party hacks) while supporting the party's nominee, then all of this hand-wringing by the media and the Obama supporters would be superfluous. But, since there is no clear resolution, the media and Obama's true believers endlessly stoke the divisiveness with their dishonest and patronizing missives.


    There was a clear resolution (5.00 / 9) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    The DNC and the Obama campaign chose not to resolve it because it may or may not have resulted in him losing most favored candidate status. At the end of the day I'll stand with democracy long before, during and after I stand for any party.

    This lawyer has a linear view of politics (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    All politics must be viewed in a linear context, between Left and Right.  Under this view, Obama is more "liberal" than McCain, so the election is a simple binary decision: if you're more "liberal" than Obama, you vote Obama, because he is more "liberal" than McCain.  

    This is an exceedingly stupid view of politics, which is why it's universally accepted by the MSM and the Beltway crowd.


    Let Me Take A Crack At It (5.00 / 9) (#154)
    by daring grace on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:06 PM EST

    As an Obama supporter, I'm reading the reactions on this thread and the 'He just doesn't get it, like so many Obama supporters.' And I'm thinking maybe I still DON'T get it.

    So, let me write what I think 'it' is, and would any and all who are not yet persuaded to Obama, tell me if I'm on the right track to getting 'it'.

    1. It's not just that you see Senator Clinton as the better candidate for president. It's also that you see significant (fatal) deficits in Obama.

    2. It's that Obama and his campaign smeared the Clintons and their supporters as racists.

    3. It's that Obama and the DNC didn't stand up or didn't stand up strongly against the media misogyny that was focused on Senator Clinton.

    4. It's that caucuses are inherently undemocratic, easily corrupted, and unfairly benefited Obama over Clinton.

    5. It's that the DNC 'threw' the election to Obama with its handling of the Michigan/Florida fiasco.

    And, now, since the close of the primary season:

    1. It's that Obama treated Senator Clinton with disrespect in the VP process and/or didn't select her at all. (She's earned it.)

    2. It's the way the plans for the nominating process (Clinton nominated and roll call vote or not) has been (mis) handled.

    3. It's that Obama has never asked you for your vote, shown respect and acted like he knew it was only yours to give and his to earn.

    I've been here at TL listening for a couple months during this campaign and this is what I've heard.

    Am I on the right track? Am I missing something?


    You're definitely on track. (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by dk on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:55:42 PM EST
    Wow! (5.00 / 27) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:40:25 PM EST
    Due respect to your friend, what a misguided, ineffective letter.

    And everybody here knows (5.00 / 18) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:18 PM EST
    I am trying, in my own "gentle" way, to get folks on board.

    This is simply not the way to do it.


    It might help if he (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    stated specific measures a President Obama would take to achieve time-honored Democratic goals. Right now, it's "Vote for Obama--or Jones will come back!"  (for you Animal Farm fans). It's kind of the difference between a carrot and a stick. Obama's supporters have to understand something--at the point, it is not about Clinton. It is not even about McCain. It is about OBAMA.

    Well it is actually both. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:39:11 PM EST
    It is both who the person is that you endorse with a vote and who else you could endorse with a vote - all assuming you intend to vote.  That is what a choice is.  In this case you have two major and a few minor options.  Weighing each in the context of the other is part of the decision-making process.  

    I do not think this letter was particularly helpful or productive or even very persuasive knowing that the audience he seeks to impress is generally smart, informed and tough-minded.  It underestimates and therefore misses entirely.  But I know that my choice was made in favor of "The Democrat" months ago - I favored Hillary Clinton in the end - but I looked at the field of General Election contestants and basically it came down to "The Democrat" for me.

    My enthusiasm about the Democrat who I will vote for this year is lukewarm on a good day, but the alternatives for me are unthinkable.  That's my context.  Other people have other processes through which they make their decisions and different priorities.  

    I thought Senator Clinton did a great job of laying her priorities out - and something she did that was trully special that I loved - she moved on from a position of strength - not fear or weakness - she looked at the choices she had and she mapped out a course through what really was a minefield and she didn't look back - she looked forward with impressive optimism and confidence.  She is pressing on with grace, wisdom and thoughtful intelligence.  I'm joining in voting with her this year and that makes my vote more interesting now - it makes me more enthusiastic than I was before she spoke last night.  


    BTD's approach should be the template (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    for others to follow. Work through the issues. Discuss. Don't judge. Don't be patronizing. Actually try to understand another point of view. Hey, and don't be Obama's worst enemy.

    This letter was simply awful.

    Maybe this will help. OK so choice is kind of important to a lot of dems. But if that's not that important to you, then substitute something that is. Now imagine you have a candidate or a series of candidates that keep wanting to water down that right (and play nice with the other side who's against that). Again, substitute something that's important to you. Imagine you see that happening over and over, and no real effort or alarm in your party to stop that change and shift in proprieties. Then imagine you actually have the imagination to see where that will eventually end up for party policies in the future. Now you can continue to go along with that because well, it's better than the bad man over there in red. Or you can stand up and say enough. We won't enable you to do this any more, and we will vote against you until you get it and make this issue a priority.


    proprieties = priorities n/t (none / 0) (#100)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:47 PM EST
    Then what? (none / 0) (#18)
    by irishdem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    allowing democrats to continue to rip on Obama using right wing smears like Ayers relationship etc. To WHAT END!!

    Allowing? (5.00 / 17) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:48:32 PM EST
    What country do you think you live in?

    He/she thinks that it is... (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by alexei on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:12:52 PM EST
    Obamaland!  Where no ill word canth be spoken against the "One".

    In my opinion (5.00 / 15) (#30)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST
    BTD's approach is better. He does not insult people's intelligence by trying to deny what happened or what is still happening. He just says "Yes, it's real, you're not crazy, it's bad, but still, we are left with these two choices. You have to deal with it and do what's right now, even though what THOSE PEOPLE did was horrible." It's sobering, but it's the truth. I can't stand lies or hypocrisy.

    What I won't do is allow some jerkoff to pretend that I didn't see or hear what I saw and heard.

    And the letter above continues in the tradition of PRETENDING that we didn't see some vile things occur that should never have happened from democrats - at least according to their own stated values.

    What did your parents teach you when you did something wrong? Admit it, own it, promise to do better, get over it.


    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by litigatormom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    I've already decided to vote for Obama.  But letters like that piss me off.  A lot.  Fortunately for Obama, Hillary made the argument a lot better last night.

    Part of what is wrong with that letter, other than the imperative, imperious tone, is that it assumes that the opposition or ambivalence of Hillary supporters about Obama is all about Hillary. Disappointment, anger, resentment.  But it's not.  It's about Obama -- the fear that all his talk of post-partisanship means he won't fight hard enough for Democratic values.

    I think he will fight for Democratic values, in the end. Not as effectively as Hillary would have, perhaps, but I think he will.  Let's remember that Bill Clinton was criticized in his day -- and Hillary punished in this campaign -- for his "triangulation," which people read as a surrender of Democratic values.  But Clinton was a pragmatist; he knew what he could do and what he couldn't, and he did what he could do.  

    Obama is a pragmatist too. I think that if the Dems gain enough ground in the Congress, he will do what needs to be done. He will promote, and not impede, a progressive agenda.  If the Dems in Congress didn't increase, he might not push back against the Republicans obstructionists as much as Hillary would have, but I also don't think he would give in to a right wing agenda imposed by a minority.  

    If McCain is in the White House, even increased Democratic representation in the White House won't do much good, IMO. McCain will impede every progressive initiative, nominate judges who are not just wrong on reproductive freedom, but are also wrong on executive power, privacy, civil rights, gay rights. And he'll push, as much as he is able, a neo-con agenda.  

    Would that kind of gridlock be tolerable?  I don't think so. Divided leadership may have worked back in the Eisenhower era -- it even worked, most of the time, in the Nixon era.  And maybe it will again.  But now now, IMO. We need a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress because we need to get things done.

    I recognize that voting for Obama involves a certain amount of risk.  A leap of faith, if you will.  I'm willing to take a chance on Obama. The country has no chance with McCain.  That's where I end up.

    Obama should have people reading this board.  Maybe if he understood that Hillary's supporters aren't just "bitter," but concerned about his own commitment to a progressive agenda, he would have already won more of us over.


    100% agree (5.00 / 3) (#213)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    If Obama comes out tomorrow night with guns blazing against the inequities foisted upon this country by a culture of greed, embraced by the GOP, and implemented by Big Business and its ideological allies, then hell yes, I support him wholeheartedly (Al Gore also ran a DLC right-center campaign for most of his 2000 run, and then saw the light, so there is precedent for this).  And I suspect if this happens, Obama wins by over 10%.

    But I have not seen one thing yet from Obama suggesting he's got any commitment to any principles, let alone strong progressive ones.  Hey, at least Clinton waited until a Republican Congress took over before he started his policy of triangulation.  Obama's already there.


    besides the little (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM EST
    "free speech" thingy we all supposedly enjoy, many of these people switched their party affiliation are are no longer democrats if that makes you feel any better about it.

    Look (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:06:46 PM EST
    You do not want to go down the road of one candidate's supporters using "right wing smears" against the other.  Heck, you don't even want to go down the road of the candidate himself using "right wing smears."  

    And BTD nails it yet again! (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    'Nuff said.

    He saved himself... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by DET103 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:40:50 PM EST
    with this:

    Work to change the rules; work to lessen the influence of misogyny on our politics; work to keep shattering the glass ceiling.

    as I take this:

    No one denies that you are entitled to deep and personal feelings of disappointment at the outcome of the primary campaign.

    as sour grapes which I do not suffer from. I am not mourning a loss. But I'm not who he is trying to reach, I'm not voting for John McCain.

    But I am wise enough to know that the sore-loser meme misses completely what people are upset about and only infuriates them more, like being called a racist.

    Yes. (5.00 / 12) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    As someone said on one of the many blogs I've read in the past few months, people get over a loss, even a closely fought one.  What they do not 'get over' is a loss that was a result of unfairness.

    In other contexts, liberals call that 'injustice', and we are urged to fight it.


    "unfairness" is putting it mildly (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    When I get my stolen (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    primary vote back, then we'll talk.  Heck, when you acknowledge that my vote was stolen, then we'll talk.

    How many times have I heard this: "Think of the big picture!"  as the Dems scr*wed me over yet  one. more. time. because somebody else's goals and aspirations and needs were "more important" than mine.

    I am looking at the big picture. Mine just looks different than yours -- which none of you "get over it" folks ever seem to want to acknowledge or discuss.  You can't even come that close to meeting me half way.  It's all about what you want.  It's all what you think is important.  This isn't what negotiation looks like.  This is you asking me to give up the only power I have -- my vote -- because you think what I want isn't the least little bit important.

    So then, (none / 0) (#19)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST
    what is it that you want?

    I want (5.00 / 17) (#52)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:03:30 PM EST
    every conversation with everybody who wants me to "get over it" to start with:

    "I acknowledge that your vote for Clinton in the Michigan primary was stolen by the DNC.  That it was given to Obama, who did not earn it and was not entitled to it.  Stealing your vote was wrong and anti-democratic and Obama should not have been given your stolen vote, nor should he have accepted it.  His participation in stealing your vote was wrong and anti-democratic and reflects poorly on him and his campaign.  If it had been done to me, I'd be angry, too.  A condition of my support for Obama is that this unfair and undemocratic system, which he gamed, be changed to ensure that what he wrongly did can never be done again."

    Let's start there.

    As for what I want from Obama?  You have no power to make it happen, so there's no point in discussing it with you.


    yep (5.00 / 10) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:22:39 PM EST
    We've spent eight years with a President who has had no problem manipulating democracy to suit his desires. With all due respect to the DNC and Obama campaign, what they did this primary season was very Bushesque. They took a process and manipulated but somehow I'm supposed to believe that John McCain will be Bush's third term?

    Wow, that's perfect. Nicely done. n/t (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:22:48 PM EST
    I was actually just curious (1.00 / 3) (#197)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    about exactly and in full detail all that it is that you guys want. Like I said above, I am just sincerely interested in knowing this for the sake of knowing, but since I'm not here to argue , I guess I'll retract my initial question so that y'all can continue your witch hunt. Y'all can just pretend that there wasn't an Obama supporter on here who was interested in hearing y'all out ;-)

    Well, I really wanted you to look up that quote (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by camellia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:08:16 PM EST
    and get the attribution right!

    And otherwise, what I want is for people to stop commanding me to not feel the way I feel.   I love languages, and although I won't claim to speak fluently in all of them, I have studied four in addition to my maternal tongue.  In every language I have studied, the imperative verb form allows of no disagreement.  If one has any sensitivity at all to people's feelings, one adds "please".    Achtung!

    I am not a sore loser.  I accept that Obama is the candidate, but now what I want is that He Himself acknowledges the concerns of Hillary's voters and makes some significant gestures to bring us into the fold.  I am waiting and hoping.


    read the first sentence again (4.85 / 7) (#44)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:59:07 PM EST
    acknowledgement of WRONG-DOIN by the Obama campaign and the dem party.

    How much more clear could it be stated.  It's right there and you still don't see it.


    No need to bite my head off. (1.00 / 1) (#186)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:51:57 PM EST
    I'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I'm simply asking a question. I'm sorry for not seeing the part at the bottom.

    But seriously, is that all you guys want, because from the other comments around here, it sounds like there are other deeper issues here and I just want to know from you all what they are.

    But if you're going to assume that I'm here to argue with you all, then I retract my first question so that you can get back to being on the look-out for people who are trying to argue with you.


    More of the same (5.00 / 22) (#11)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    I have only one thing to say in response:


    Fool me once, shame on me... well, you know the rest.

    Anyway, it's not about Clinton. It's about Obama. They still don't get it.

    Badly worded (5.00 / 8) (#12)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    Hillary herself did a much better job.

    I understand the point he's been making, and I agree, but the tone is off.

    You don't use "MUST" when asking people for their vote for your candidate..

    Not even Bush did that--he would ask people for (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    their votes during the first campaign. When he was fooling us as being a Compassionate Conservative and would have a Humble Foreign Policy. Selling points.

    It wasn't until he was in office that his locutions increasingly came out as "you need to" or "you must" or presenting one sided "choices."



    True, of course, but.. (none / 0) (#79)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    That's a flawed comparison, since this is a supporter, not the candidate himself.

    A lot of Hillary's supporters are uncomfortable... (5.00 / 14) (#14)
    by cosbo on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    with Obama's qualifications to be president. They are uncertain about him and his past associations. They are uncertain to what he really believes and seems to be uncomfortable with the thought of him as their president.

    Using logic on an emotional reaction probably  will not work. Especially after 4 years of actually hating Bush...they're supposed to hold their nose and vote for another president that they're going to hate...I don't know how that's going to work out.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Audrey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:13 PM EST
    With all due respect, your friend's letter means nothing to me or to my family.  It's a letter designed to generate guilt among those of us who see what an Obama presidency would be like and among those of us who know what backroom deals took place to destroy Hillary's chances to be the nominee.  The DNC gets no more money from me.

    This year, 2008, is the first year since I turned 30 that I won't be voting in the general election.  

    And if there might have been a hope that I would change my mind about Obama, he squashed it completely when he violated a promise and voted yes on the despicable FISA bill.

    Hillary has to show her support for Obama.  My family and I do not.

    the problem that I have with these (5.00 / 21) (#16)
    by TimNCGuy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:55 PM EST
    pleas made to "get on board" is that they are usually only willing to admit to "media" attacks on Hillary or "rules / process" issues with the dem party.

    But, where is the admission that sexist attacks were made on Clinton by the Obama campaign and not just the media?

    Where is the admission that the rules committee didn't follow it's own rules?

    Where is the admission that caucuses weren't just strategized better buy one candidate, but that there exists real documented evidence that actual violations of the rules were committed at caucuses?

    Your friend is willing to admit that the media treated Clinton unfairly.  But, not admit that Obama did it as well.  But, not admit that the dem party did it as well.

    Where is the admonishment of Jesse Jackson Jr for his race-based threats made against super delegates?

    Where is the admonishment of Donna Brazile and Michelle Obama for their intentional misinterpretation of Bill Clinton's fairytale comment?

    When your friend talks of working to make changes in the processes and the rules, why will there be any incentive at all to make any changes in the future if I reward this year's behavior by voting for Obama and this year's behavior results in a dem win of the white house?


    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM EST
    He lost me right at that paragraph, where I'm sure he thinks he is highmindedly admitting the media was hard on Clinton.

    I already made up my mind to vote for Obama, but everything I read from people who "just don't get it" makes me less likely to do so.


    What fractures (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:49:56 PM EST
    me is that the DNC did nothing about the media. If they made some remark about Obama that might sound racist there were howls but when they attacked Hillary it was crickets. The DNC should act like the RNC in this respect and let the media know that we will accept no smears of ANY of our candidates.

    Howard Dean MUST go no matter what happens in Nov. He is nothing short of a disaster.


    Dear Friend of Jeralyn, (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:47:09 PM EST
    Please keep your list in case Barack is elected President. Then see how many of your wishes you get to check off. I've been asked to support good government by both parties many times. Often, what they offer is not, in my view good government, and my view is, of course and happily, mine.

    But this is the first time since pre-1964 I can recall that prominent democrats feel safe to threaten voters with good government. The right not to vote is as fundamental a right as the right to vote. And should we not get the things you list over the next four years, I am not going to blame McCain who does not really promise them. I am not even going to blame Baarack who at best is asking us to vote for him instead of the other guy but is not promising to do anything for those who need the government to help them.

    I am going to blame Obama supporters like you.

    Enjoy your moral cocoon.



    you know what the most annoying part is? (5.00 / 6) (#202)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:57:10 PM EST
    every time I see this "list" from some Obaman its like they think they invented it.
    like we never heard of thought of it before.
    like their condescending pablum is going to make a little light go on over our low information heads.

    I'm annoyed (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by zyx on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:51:15 PM EST
    with the constant carping to the effect that I must never say anything that is the slightest bit non-adulatory about the chosen Democratic candidate.

    I try to be careful and prudent about what I do say, and make it clear that I am an issues voter and that I so support the Democratic TICKET, as does Hillary Clinton. But I keep getting crap thrown at me, like I'm some kind of idiot, and like I have to be a cheerleader, and "if there is nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all".

    Is that what it means to be a Good Democrat?

    I am fully aware of the damage another Republican (5.00 / 13) (#28)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    in the WH can do.

    I lived through the lefties trashing Hubert Humphrey when he ran against Richard Nixon. I made similar arguments to my friends and acquaintances at the time. Don't let the perfect by the enemy of the good. Nixon far worse, etc., etc.

    But I knew Hubert Humphrey held most Democratic Party values in his heart and mind. His actions for many years had shown me he would govern as a liberal and a protector of people's rights. Yes, he was LBJ's VP; yes, he did not resign or speak out against the Vietnam War while in that office. But I felt I knew with some certainty how he would govern, which principles governed his public life.

    I still don't know about Obama--that is what's holding me back from backing him. I may vote for him, holding my nose, but I can't find enthusiasm for him.

    Amazingly, early on for a short while, I supported him over Hillary--bcz I believed the hype based on his '04 convention speech. While Edwards had me with universal healthcare and the NOLA announcement, I felt I better buckle down and learn more about the most viable contenders. I liked Dodd a lot, also. I never was big on Biden, not for Jerlyn's reasons, but based on what he did with the banking/bankruptcy "reform" bill.

    I actually worked to learn about Obama's legislative and personal history. Learned more about Clinton, as well, including things I would have thought the MCM woudl have covered--but they hadn't. I came out of my search for info thinking Clinton was so much better when I really scrutinized things. And I hadn't even wanted her to run! It didn't help that my exposure to Obama's speaking style was at the debates where his word fogs and inability to make a point drove me crazy.

    Sorry to bore with another recitation of how I came to be a Clinton advocate, but I did look at Obama. I just did not "see the light," and his dependence on that kind of "persuasion" actually scared me off. I'm not a good True Believer--too skeptical.

    This is the first time I've felt I could not count on a Dem nominee to support Dem Party principles. Or what I think those to be.

    Gist of the Letter: Get Over It Already! (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by JimWash08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    Gosh, where have I heard that before?

    Oh wait, everywhere. On TV. On the radio. In newspapers and magazines. Even from 'friends.'

    Get over it already. She lost. Move on. Your whining and bitterness is not a lost vote for Obama. It's a vote for McCain and four more years of Bush policies. Blah blah blah.

    With all due respect to Mr. 'Letter-Writing Friend,' he just doesn't understand the basis of why I, and so many of us, just won't fall automatically behind Barack Obama.

    At least he was truthful and prefaced his lecture to us with "As a long-time supporter of Barack Obama..." That itself prepared me for what to expect.

    The same old talk-points and narratives.

    Now, it's not because Obama's black. It's not because he beat my preferred candidate. It's because he's just not qualified and ready for the job. He did not earn this nomination. He was pushed mightily along the way.

    I've said it before, and I'd love to say it again.

    He'd be a much more effective President if he stuck around in the Senate and completed at least ONE term. He was hardly there for even a year, and in that year, his mind wasn't in it. He didn't accomplish anything meaningful.

    He thinks it's about Clinton (5.00 / 13) (#54)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM EST
    It's not about her. It's about Obama. I am so tired of having people assume that I'm some kind of child who can't accept loss and move on. I don't care if Clinton is the ultimate winner. I would vote Dem if Obama gave up his spot to pretty much anybody. I would consider voting Dem if Obama just came clean and admitted that it was wrong to reverse race-bait during the primary, and he should have done more to stop it. I would have voted for Obama if he had made the kind of hard sacrifice he is asking of us and chosen Clinton as his running mate. I have reasons for not voting for Obama that have nothing to do with Clinton. They're good reasons, and I can't just set them aside. And I'm so tired of people calling me traitor and Republican and PUMA and troll for believing what we believe, no matter how reasonably I try to express myself.

    An open letter back (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:55:25 PM EST
    Dear Obama Supporter:

    I respectfully reject your call for unity. I can not understand why we ignore this one simple point: if Sen Obama and most democrats are so deeply concerned about these issues why did he not simply select Sen Clinton for VP. No matter what his personal views were about the primary and any supposed slights he could have single handedly ended this race and unified the party.

    But he chose not to. So please explain to me: why is this my problem?

    Please stop (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by eric on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:55:43 PM EST
    with the Greek temple links.  We get that you are pushing it, but it's OT and you've posted it about 5 or 6 times.

    did he write a letter (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    to the other Obama supporters who STILL insist on tearing down the Clintons? Or maybe during the primaries to the Dem leaders who were doing all in their power to give the Nomination to Obama, even if it meant painting the Clintons and HER supporters as racists or ignoring what was going on in the caucuses? Did he suggest to anyone maybe they should vet Obama while there was still time, because alot of people will have problems with many of Obama associates?

    Two things (5.00 / 16) (#35)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    That bug me about that letter.  First:

    "Work to change the rules; work to lessen the influence of misogyny on our politics; work to keep shattering the glass ceiling."  

    Wouldn't it be nice if this lawyer, Barack Obama and Obama supporters in general just once expressed they too should stand up to misogyny?  And wouldn't it have been nice if they had done it during the primaries rather than benefit from it?  But I guess protecting women's rights is "women's work."

    Second, I remember being told a million times that we HAD to select Obama because if we didn't all those young people would stay home. So we were bullied during the primaries to cow-tow to people who WEREN'T committed to the party.  Now we're being bullied by those SAME people to follow their line?

    So it's ok if young people and Obama supporters ditch the Dems - so ok we had to give into their demands?  But committed Hillary voters (and long-time Dems) just have to sit down and STFU?


    Very true. (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:13:31 PM EST
    I fear the Obama forces are caught in a trap of their own making.

    Work to change the rules (5.00 / 9) (#148)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:40:08 PM EST
    You don't achieve positive change by rewarding negative behavior.   So the first part of "working to change the rules" is making sure that you don't encourage the status quo to continue.

    While there are certain aspects of the rules that are a problem, the big problem wasn't the rules themselves, but how the were enforced/not enforced.  Changing the rules con't matter if political hacks twist and ignore the rules completely out of shape to achieve their personal goals.

    In order to change the rules -- and have the rules enforced without bias for any particular candidate -- a massive housecleaning is needed -- we're talking Augean Stables here, and it means not just in the DNC itself, but the Democratic congressional leadership as well.  

    Want me to vote for Obama?  Make Russ Feingold Senate Majority Leader, Charles Rangel Speaker of the House, and prohibit pelosi, rahm, steny, and the rest of that group from any party leadership positions at all.  Oh, and get rid of Donna Brazile, James Roosevelt, Alice Germond, and the rest of the corrupt factotums on the RBC for good measure -- Dean has to go, as does that homophobic woman who is "Convention CEO" or whatever.

    That's your work to do -- and if you get it done before the election, I promise to hold my nose and vote for Obama, because then I'll know that change is possible in the Party even if Obama wins.

    But don't tell me to reward these people, and then "work for change" -- that's not how nayone, especially political hacks, operates in the real world.


    I love this part: (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by pmj6 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST

    Don't complain about detention, torture, and surveillance.

    Because, I guess, the Obama administration will not complain about it either? He certainly has not been vocal on any of these things as a US Senator.

    If anything, I have more faith that McCain will do something about it, given that it is a personal issue for him, and that he's not nearly as vulnerable to criticism as Obama will be.

    Ha! (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by CST on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:00:41 PM EST
    McCain voted against banning torture in the CIA.  Obama voted for it.  So much for having "faith in McCain on a personal issue".  It's already come up and he failed, big time.

    Also, did you see their responses to the supreme court case on Habeus Corpus?  Who was it that called it "the worst decision in history"???  I'll give you a hint, it wasn't Obama.  I think it's pretty clear where they stand on these issues.

    FISA was a bad call and stupid.  On both their parts.


    In the interest of accuracy... (none / 0) (#113)
    by tree on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST
    McCain didn't vote on the FISA amendment.

    Yea (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    Because he hasn't voted for anything since he started running.  Even when his primary was over and the Dems were still fighting it out, he couldn't make it back to vote.  Obama and Hillary have both voted more than McCain despite their hard-fought primary.  

    But he did very publicly support it.  And when you don't show up to vote, that's what you have to go on.


    I liked this one (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:07:30 PM EST
    Don't complain about our broken health care system.

    Fear mongering (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by davnee on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    I'm tired of it.  If you have to resort to fear-mongering and/or pronouncements of entitlement to strong-arm votes, then that doesn't say much for your candidate.  I grant that Obama's policies as a whole are far preferable to McCain's policies.  But I want a compelling, positive case to be made for me to vote for Obama, preferably from Obama himself.  Haven't heard it yet.  And nothing from his campaign to date suggests I ever will.  He's got two months left.

    fear (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    well put.  the Obamans are starting to stink of it.
    about time, I would say.

    I remember the past (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    I remember Rove's lies - and Axelrod's copying of his methods. I remember Bush's lack of leadership skills. I remember Reagan's moving speeches without substance. I remember hearing Bill Clinton being smeared as a racist. I remember Obama's turnaround on FISA. I remember McCain standing up to Bush on a number of issues, then suddenly turning around and becoming a neocon in the last 2 years. I remember a lot of things. What I can't do is forget.

    I posted this in another thread (5.00 / 11) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    but it seems to fit here.  one more time:
    there are those of us who believe the best way to  help those invisible people and righteous causes Hillary spoke so eloquently about might be by not letting the Obama brigades take over the party and turn it into Demopublican Lite.
    it is totally possible to believe that could be true AND agree every word Hillary said AND not vote for Obama.
    just sayin.

    Welcome to MiddleMush, that political party for (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    people with no real political objectives except going along to get along.

    Its my Party (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:01:03 PM EST
    and I'll complain if I want to (apologies to Lesley Gore)

    Biden (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TChris on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:02:18 PM EST
    Biden is not good on criminal justice issues, but neither was Bill Clinton. Clinton was nonetheless much better overall than the Republican alternative. And Biden, if elected, will be only a VP.  His policy preferences will be secondary to Obama's, who has shown himself to be quite progressive on criminal issues (FISA excepted), both in the Senate and in the Illinois state legislature.  As Hillary said last night, the only option is to do what's best for the country -- and that means keeping John McCain from continuing the Bush policies that Jeralyn's letter writing friend detailed.

    Dear Obama Supporter unhappy with (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    unhappy Clinton supporters,

    Don't give up your day job.


    Standingup and complaining

    Consequences (5.00 / 11) (#51)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    I have raised 4 kids to (great heavens!) middle age, and I continue to train dogs (current one is going to be a service dog).  One thing that has been dinned into my head is the necessity of letting the 'trainee' (dog or kid) suffer the consequences of actions.  That is, if you do not want the wrong action to continue!  (Dogs are actually a bit smarter: they will work for treats, instead of trying to tee off their handlers.)

    You cover up for your child, or pat the dog and tell him he's good while he's chewing on your shoe, there is no lesson learned.  I want the DNC to remember what that 'D' stands for--not just for a candidate on a ballot, but a for system that administers justice to all and tries to offer all citizens that right to pursue happiness.

    I have come to the conclusion that the DNC has to experience a consequence--maybe not the loss of the WH (that is out of my hands), but a greatly reduced popular vote.  So, that--not my truly heartfelt sorrow that a wonderful candidate has been discarded--shall determine what I do this fall.

    thank you (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    that's exactly how I feel.  If they succeed having done what they did, it emboldens them to ignore us in the future and ASSUME they will have our votes regardless.  

    It's akin to being a mindless robot with a Kick Me sign on it's back.  Oh, and an open wallet with an invitation to take as much as they want.

    I will only vote for a Democratic Party I can be proud of.  And, so far, it's MIA this year, save for the much-maligned but still fantastic Hillary.

    But she's not on the ballot.  The One is and he's not getting my vote.


    I appreciate the heartfelt plea (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:03:42 PM EST
    but, like many of those pleas, it assumes that Barack Obama will not do the things John McCain would. It makes the case that he is good and his opponent is bad. I wish it were so. They both have supported things which I don't and they have both taken money from sources they shouldn't be influenced by. Politics is a dirty business and no one succeeds untouched. Obama obtained the nomination in a way that tarnished his message. He did not unify the party with his VP choice. He is the one who must make his case now.

    I guess we can all still complain.... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    about the drug war regardless of who we vote for, no mention of that critical issue in the letter.

    Amazing how democrats always forget that one.

    'every election has a winner and a loser' ... (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    ... turns a blind eye to the grievances and reservation that stand between here and Unity.

    Just another coathanger letter.

    Another coathanger letter. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    Yes. And the Obama camp's version of the 3 a.m. ad.

    Fear, fear, fear.


    This is insulting (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Xeno on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:07:18 PM EST
    As the proprietors of this site have noted repeatedly, Obama's biggest supporters are also his greatest enemies. This letter substantiates that assertion.

    I have two reactions (5.00 / 13) (#65)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:08:44 PM EST
    First, I get a little tired of people saying "stop reinforcing right-wing talking points" when the talking points are, in fact, true.  There really are some Clinton supporters from the primary who aren't on board with Obama yet.  Yes, the GOP wants to play up those divisions as much as possible, but that doesn't mean they're inventing the divisions out of nothing.

    Second, while I'm personally on board with Obama, I'm confident this letter is 100% "more of the same" to anyone who isn't.  You know, as a lawyer, if I know the judge has rejected my best argument a dozen times already from other litigants, I'm going to find a different way of making the argument even if in my heart I think it's totally persuasive.  Everyone who can be won over by SGBTRvW has already been won over.  So while it's an eloquent letter, I really don't know what purpose the author expected it to serve.

    Jeralyn, I don't know if your friend had much personal contact with Hillary Clinton in connection with his position.  But while it's fine either way for him to feel Obama is a better nominee than Hillary, I have to wonder what he did during the primary to help diffuse some of the harshest anti-Hillary criticisms that were spread around by the Obama campaign and its adherents.  I mean, talk about feeding a right-wing story line.

    Please (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:14:35 PM EST
    Criticism of Obama was equally harsh, and it still is.  99% of Obama "supporters" hold no ill-will against Hillary - just her counter-productive, die-hard "supporters.

    Now that it has come down to some Hillary supporters not supporting Hillary's specific pleas and urgings, we're entering the Twilight Zone.


    Talk about a fairy tale... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    Criticism of Obama was equally harsh,

    that is because we are driven (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    by policies. not personalities.
    not something we would expect you to understand.
    its a democrat thing.

    Well isn't it amazing (5.00 / 9) (#153)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    that the tiny 1% of Obama supporters who have something personal against Hillary Clinton all seem to post on blogs and hold jobs in the media where they can rail about what a horrible person she is.  Isn't it just amazing.

    If you sleep better at night clinging to your little teddy bear that says "both sides were equally harsh," far be it from me to disturb your night's rest.  From where I sit, I don't know a single Clinton supporter who had a negative opinion of Barack Obama - that bright, inspiring future of the party - before he started attacking Hillary's character with the "she'll say and do anything to be elected" (straight out of the GOP talking points, that one) and, of course, the narrative that the Clinton campaign was trying to race-bait.

    Here's what you fail to understand, Mr. I'm Unhelpful And I Don't Care Who Knows It.  Hillary did a great thing for the Democratic Party by giving that speech.  She did not do it, however, so that people like you could have a rhetorical club to come here and browbeat her supporters with.  If she were here, she'd tell you to your face that you're not helping.  So just buzz off already before you lose your candidate even more votes.


    Compared to the attacks on Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    Obama has had no criticism.

    It's not now that the Twilight Zone is being entered, and it's not by us.


    OWE (Obama's worst enemy) efforts (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:32:28 PM EST
    are quite interesting. Maybe you're a republican trying to keep reluctant democrats from voting for Obama. If not, then maybe you should talk to them because I'd bet you could get paid for this.

    The bitter-enders, eh? (none / 0) (#163)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:44:25 PM EST
    also (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:09:56 PM EST
    You also have to respect the rights of people who are dead-set against voting for OBAMA.

    that is there right as voters.  

    Same goes for someone pounding me for voting for OBAMA .. It isnt going to make me pull the lever for McCain..that will never happen and will just anger me.  So i know how the anti-Obama's feel in that regard. I respect thier views 100%

    Respect is the only way

    I mean we could all live somewhere where we are told who to vote for  or get shot.

    A note on the "don't complain" schtick (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by tree on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    I always like to analyze things from multiple angles (assumng of course that I notice the multiple angles).

      Here's a big problem with the "don't complain" list. If its true that by not voting for Obama, I forfeit any right to complain about any future  McCain actions, then the corollary must be that if I don't vote for McCain, then I forfeit any right to complain about any possible Obama actions. It can't just be applied one way.  

    I strongly reject both versions of this anti-democratic idea. Regardless of how anyone votes, I want people to complain when they see something they think is wrong. I want them to do it in a McCain Presidency, and I want them to do it in an Obama Presidency. If I end up voting for Obama, I fully intend to hold him responsible for his actions, and not let him off the hook just because I voted for him. I'm not voting for McCain, but if I don't vote for Obama, I don't see how that gives McCain the right to do whatever he wants without criticism from me.  

      I can't truly believe that someone would honesty advocate that voting for a candidate, or failing to vote for their major opponent, relieves you of the right to criticize, or even that its good policy to advocate such a thing. I suspect that its simply a ploy to guilt me into a vote that I don't feel comfortable making. Its a bogus argument.

      If your friend really wants to make some inroads with people like me, I suggest he play up the fact that a Democratic Administration is so much more than just a President. Point out the advantages of having honest Democrats in charge of government agencies. I have a few qualms about whether all those Democrats will be honest, given the gaming of the primary, the heavy-handed enforcement of the takeover of the DNC, the open embrace of Republicans and their talking points, as well as Obama's Chicago machine background, but if there is a positive argument to be made to voters like me for an Obama Presidency, it is that a Democratic Executive branch will be far superior to a Republican one, regardless of whether the Democratic candidate himself is one that I can feel comfortable with, and trust to make good   Democratic policy decisions.      

    Wow. That was not helpful at all. (5.00 / 13) (#73)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    Your friend just doesn't get it and it doesn't say much that you thought that letter was helpful and front page worthy.

    As a long-time supporter of Barack Obama - and a former official in the Clinton Administration - I ask you to step back and look at what you are doing.

    Of course it is my fault for running into the fist of the DNC. I've thought about what I'm doing and what I did. I enabled a party that has proven they don't really care about me and what is happening to me. They've proven the only thing they care about is achieving power and maintaining it.

    Every time a Clinton supporter goes on network television and attacks Obama it feeds the story line that the right wing smear machine is pushing and that the lapdog media is swallowing.

    Since I've never been on television and the vast majority of Clinton supporters have never going on network television I'm not sure what this has to do with me or the price of beans.

    But every election has a winner and a loser. As deep as her own pain must be Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she can put it behind her. You should do the same - you MUST do the same - for the sake of the Democratic Party and the nation. Work to change the rules; work to lessen the influence of misogyny on our politics; work to keep shattering the glass ceiling. But don't let John McCain become president.

    How funny that I must do something for the good of the party and nation. Yet the party didn't decided to step in while my candidate was assaulted over and over. They didn't deem it necessary to call foul for the good of the party and nation but I must now put party and nation first when they hung me and my candidate out to dry.

    Even if we worked to change the rules they would be ignored just like we all saw with the RBC.

    ...Please - remember the past. Don't make us repeat it.

    Two words: Dukakis, McGovern. It seems you forgot the past and are the one now repeating it. It would do you a world of good to follow your own advice.

    As a resident of the community that Barack "organized," as someone who already voted for Barack and saw the hope and change he brought to us here. I'm pretty confident in the fact that I know more about Barack than any of his supporters could tell me. I know what he is and I know what he isn't. Maybe the Obama supporters should have thought of the good of the party and nation before pushing him onto the rest of us.

    How do you think he will govern as prez, based on (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    what you know and experienced? I just don't know.

    Would really appreciate your input. Thnx much.


    It depends on which Barack (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    shows up. The one that seems to long for a lost opportunity to be a Republican or the one that becomes uninterested in doing his job and keeping those campaign promises.

    Both would be bad one would be dangerous.


    Not a persuasive letter ... (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    Sorry, Jeralyn, I'm sure he's a nice guy and a good friend, but a superior political advocate he is not.

    I intend to vote for Obama.

    But every time I read something like that it makes rethink my support.

    Here's a suggestion to Obama supporters.  Don't try to bully a Clinton supporter into voting for Obama by telling us that the all manner of horrors will happen if we don't.  It doesn't work.

    Hillary gave the best model for convincing her supporters.  Variations on that are the only thing that's going to work.

    The rest is up to Obama.

    Good grief. (5.00 / 10) (#88)
    by jes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:16:13 PM EST
    As I recall many of the Obama fans thought the Clintons weren't worth fighting with the right-wing smear machine and the lapdog media. They dumped her in part because they were tired of defense. Many became smear mongers themselves.

    And now they want us to help them fight what they refused to do for her.

    How rich.

    Wow! Ya'll are fired up today. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    Take it easy on Jeralyn's friend or she won't bring anyone new to meet us. : )

    hee hee, good point (none / 0) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    OK, Jeralyn's friend. We like you anyway. Just think about the issues we're dealing with a little more, and try not to frame things in a way that guarantee's will run the other way. The important thing is dealing with the injustice. For example, did you become a good American and get on board to support our new president Bush in 2000. Or did you hold a grudge and have trouble accepting him as your president. The other thing to keep in mind is political parties are gangs. We like the blue gang more than the red gang. But gang membership doesn't necessarily mean particular polices will be followed. Sometimes you need to mix and match them.

    Try a Better Argument, (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:18:05 PM EST
    by picking up on Mrs. Clinton's theme of moving ahead, building on the Democratic party's history with examples from former presidents from FDR through Bill Clinton and comparing and contrasting Republican administrations, with, of course, the need for change--from the Bush policies to American ones.   An emphasis on party and de-emphasis on cultic personality may be a more winning stance. In marriage, you get not only the spouse, but the in-laws, and so too, in this political wedding,  with Obama you get the Democrats and with McCain the, ugh, Republicans.   The statement that this was a Democratic primary contest and there was a winner is true, and I am ready to support that winner for reasons along these lines.  

    Cabinet appointments (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:06 PM EST
    will matter greatly...

    Who will be the Attorney General.  Who will head the EPA.  And here in the West, who heads the Interior Department is very, very important.  Bruce Babbitt was Bill's Secretary of the Interior.  With him, we got the re-introuction of gray wolves in Yellowstone and protection of the millions of acres of federally owned forests and BLM land.

    With Republicans you get those who will ignore the environment.  McCain is no environmentalist.  His actual record is not good, and he is running away from what little support for environmental causes he used to have.

      Political appointees make a big difference.  Under Bush, we have an assault on Yellowstone with the gray wolves close to being hunted again, and with snowmobiles belching exhaust and noise throughout a National Park.....Other lands not so well-known face all kinds of environmental degradation from industrial users....That is just one example.  

    Another example is the decision on whether to build a freeway through a state park here in California that dead ends at one of the best all-time surfing beaches.  The forces opposing the tollway have won every battle over more than a decade, with the California Coastal Commission recently voting thumbs down (leading Ahnold to fire Clint Eastwood from the Commission.)  But now the final, end-all decision lies with the head of Bush's Agriculture Department, who will decide this year during Bush's administration.

    Or the FDA.  Rulings from the FDA on birth control.

    Judges.  It is not just the Surpreme Court but all the District Court Judges who are appointed for life.  These are the ones who impose criminal sentences and interpret Federal statutes and regulations....

    It is the entire Federal apparatus.....It does matter who controls it.....and another four years of damage may be irreparable...  


    Open Letter to Obama Supporter (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:09 PM EST
    I appreciate you taking the time to write this, to share your thoughts and to urge those of us still reluctant to do so to support or at least vote for Barack Obama.

    A constant theme of entreaties like this is their constant demand for US to do something for HIM eg. get over it, vote for him, ignore our principles and doubts, etc and so on.  

    But we never hear what HE will do for US in exchange.

    Publicly apologizing for those associated with his campaign staff for the blatant, unnecessary smearing of the Clintons as racist would be a start.

    And then firing those people from his staff and promising, as he did at one point during his campaign, that if he saw or heard anyone doing anything like that again, they wouldn't be with his staff.

    He could also admit to and reject the blatant favoritism of those at the DNC (namely Brazile and Dean) who sat on the scales for him and STILL found themselves having to drag him across the finish line despite the clear message from those stalwart Democratic Primary voters who voted for his Opponent in historic numbers.

    Furthermore, admitting that he allowed a disgusting level of sexism to emerge from those who support him in the Media without taking one step to correct it or speak out against it (because it benefited him) would not only be necessary, but healthy for us, as a Nation, to begin seeing clearly how far our Media has fallen.

    And, just to finish off this Wish List, he could incorporate staff from the most recent Democratic winning ticket for President who actually know how to run a successful race and eschew the "advice" of those Chicago based pols he's so enamored of.  Advice which seems to be losing him support on not only a State-by-State level, but on a National one as well.

    If Barack Obama can do all that, perhaps we can then talk about where he stands on the Issues and how he can move closer to becoming a True Democrat before November 4th.

    But as this appears to be, in the truest sense of the word, a Wish List, I don't expect your Candidate to come through for me.  So why should I come through for him?

    Thank you.

    You're kidding, right? (4.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    And, just to finish off this Wish List, he could incorporate staff from the most recent Democratic winning ticket for President who actually know how to run a successful race

    Hillary lost the nomination in large part because her campaign organization was divided and dysfunctional.


    seriously, McCain will pay you (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:34:25 PM EST
    for this if you just ask.

    I think he was actually talking (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:37:32 PM EST
    about her husband.  you know, President Clinton.
    8 years.  budget surpluses.  23 million jobs.
    ring a bell?

    There's no greater fan of Bill than me (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    ....and Hillary....but it's a fact that the recent Clinton campaign was divided and dysfunctional.  It's been documented by former staffers.

    There's no greater fan of Bill than me (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:25 PM EST
    ....and Hillary....but it's a fact that the recent Clinton campaign was divided and dysfunctional.  It's been documented by former staffers, and that's why I bailed out in February.

    Ennis, dear.... (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:56:04 PM EST
    you misread it.

    The suggestion was about PRESIDENT Clinton's winning campaign people.



    As "disfunctional" (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    as you said her campaign was, she sure got 18,000,000, was wrested fairly-won delegates from her to give them to him, disregarded all the caucus violations perpetrated by the O camp, Brazile, Dean and company dragged him to the finish line, the list is endless and you know that it all was underhanded to favor him.

    Paternalistic/Constructive (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    What is the difference between the letter and Hillary's speech.  Tone.  He scolds and threatens.  She cajoled and seduced.  

    My open letter to your friend (5.00 / 14) (#107)
    by herb the verb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    An open letter your friend:

    Dear friend and fellow Democrat;

    I need to comment on some of your statements.

    To whit:

    But if you do, or if you sit on your hands in this election, don't complain about tax breaks for the rich and tax burdens on the poor.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to pass tax laws?

    Don't complain about American servicemen and women dying in Iraq and maybe Iran, Georgia or wherever.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to cut off funding for war, or prevent money from being spent on future wars?

    Don't complain about detention, torture, and surveillance.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to shut down Gitmo, pass laws ending torture or let any of these laws with sunset provisions to expire?

    Don't complain about judges who take away a woman's right to choose and a worker's right to unionize.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to pass labor laws, or to deny confirmation to judges?

    Don't complain about environmental degradation and giveaways to mining and oil companies.

    Because the Democratic Congress is too powerless to prevent passing these giveaways or prevent erosion of current environmental laws?

    Don't complain about an energy policy that takes money out of the pockets of hard-working Americans and gives it to Russian oligarchs and states that finance terrorism.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to enact any energy policy, these things are all done by presidential fiat?

    Don't complain about a stagnant economy with growing inequality.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to (see above regarding fiscal and spending policies)?

    Don't complain about our broken health care system.

    Because the Democratic Congress is powerless to pass even the most meager reforms on a bi-partisan basis (isn't that what Obama is saying we must do)?

    Because you will have had your chance to do something about these issues - and walked away from it.

    Just like the Democratic Congress has for the last two years. Except they had an excuse, they are in power and we are not?

    Santayana famously said that those "who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

    Don't we know it!

    In 1968 Democrats angry over the war deserted Hubert Humphrey - and we got Richard Nixon.

    In 2000, disaffected Democrats voted for Ralph Nader - and we got George W. Bush.

    And in 2008, the Democrats still disaffected by Bill Clinton's blow jobs in 1997 - got us Barack Obama, who seems determined at this point to run as an unapologetic Republican-lite.

    Please - remember the past. Don't make us repeat it.

    Yeah, I'm remembering it right now. It's not pleasant that supposed Democrats have decided to ignore the past and are running afraid of our legacy as a progressive party. Do you not read polls? It's not working!

    Look Hillary Clinton last night gave Barack Obama the best excuse he could ever have to find his uh, his, huh, "inner courage" and run as a Democrat. The ball is in his court now. Will he or won't he take the mantle as head of the Democratic Party and its history of fighting for progressive causes? If he does, you will find me in his corner (I believe like Hillary does in "deathbed conversions"). If he is going to continue to run against the Democratic party and its historic principles and ideals and instead on some kind of messianic, "post-partisan" dog and pony show, then count me out.

    All the best,

    Herb the verb

    (Verbs stand for ACTION)

    I give you a (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by chel2551 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    100 for that comment.  (Loved the one you posted about the speech this morning, too!)

    Please - remember the past. Don't make us repeat i (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
    "Please - remember the past. Don't make us repeat it."

    Don't worry! I am not about to forget the rampant sexism and misogyny in this primary EVER. But those in their eagerness to Ignore and Move On without doing any kind of work here will ....

    Looks to me like nobody wants to talk about this issue anymore. Certainly not the leadership of the Dem party. Bet Pelosi and Dean don't even give this a second thought. Other women closer to power than I could ever wish to be, ignored the problems as well. For many of us that was a huge disappointment AND Betrayal.

    Ignore and move on without taking time to solve the misogyny problem .... and in four or eight years, should Hillary run again for President, we will experience the exact same travesty again.

    I wrote a long post about this just now but it got lost on the way to the blog ;-)

    So this will have to do. :)


    Pure thuggery (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by Nike on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    This kind of letter is precisely what is wrong with the O-camp supporters.

    I am very sorry you posted this letter. It does not help get voters to Obama. It does not help define Obama as a Democrat; instead, it just says if you do not vote for Obama YOU are NOT a democrat, and whatever he does or does not do will be ALL your fault.

    Dear Obama Supporter, (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    It's the DNC, stupid!

    It's the cavalier treatment of voters by the Rules and Bylaws Committee who shifted votes around like so many chess pieces.  Just try to imagine for one second if the roles were reversed and Obama found himself robbed of earned votes....

    The media played a cameo role, but the DNC and the party honchos were the stars, lining up for Obama when the voters in their own districts clearly preferred Hillary.   It was the party leaders who told Clinton to step aside, who tried to prevent her name from being put into nomination.

    Instead of lecturing Clinton supporters about their duty, it would behoove Obama and his faithful to speak out against the anti-democratic primary process that disenfranchises voters and turns the nomination over to superdelegates.  

    I don't need no lecture to tell me what to do, thank you very much.

    I will say to this person (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    as I say to everyone else....

    Don't BLAME the voters if they can't vote for the candidate.

    The BLAME lies with the candidate.  He is the one who shouldn't sleep at night if he loses....this was supposed to be a Democrat's year.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    I appreciate what you are trying to do here but this really moves me more away from Obama. The letter writer fails to realize that it isn't about Hillary losing, it's the way the party has treated her for months, the way they tried to force her out of the primaries, all the shenanigans that went on. It's about the way we have been treated by the Obama campaign. And the main issue is Obama himself. I have absolutely zero faith that Obama will hold up any of these issues. He has shown a talent for constantly caving. Can you promise that Obama won't compromise any and all of these issues away?

    He says he would feel as we do if..... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:28 PM EST
    ...Obama had lost. But he doesn't say if Obama had lost in the same way that Hillary lost. That was to me a tip off that he didn't quite get it and still thinks Hillary voters are just mad because she lost. I'll say it again, I am voting for Obama, but I am still mad. After this is over, I may or may not decide that want to work to reform this party. I am seriously considering changing my registration to Independent. And if Obama wins, in 2012 he better not take my vote for granted. One free pass cause you're the Dem is all you get from me.

    It's the race bating, stupid (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Left of center on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:36:12 PM EST
    That's all i have to say to Obama supporters who are upset that as of now, i (and millions like myself) don't intend to vote for Obama. Without the race baiting, Hillary would be the Dem nominee and be at least 10 points ahead of McCain.

    Or maybe not.... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    ...without the racist accusations from his supporters against the Clintons it is very possible that Obama might have won resoundingly in February. The trend was going his way. I think it hurt him more than it hurt Clinton.

    Before the racism accusations, (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Left of center on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    Hillary led amongst black voters 80-20. After the BS racism accusations, Obama led amongst blacks 92-8. That's the only trend i needed to see. Race baiting cost us the Whitehouse. Way to go Axelrod.

    I've now read his letter three times (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:36:41 PM EST
    It just gets worse with each reading. It really does.

    Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by stxabuela on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    Former TX State Chair, Bob Slagle, sent out an email message to TX Clinton delegates (must be national delegates, I was a state delegate and didn't get it.)  The title of the email was, "Thoughts of a Hillary Superdelegate," dated 8-23-08.  Quoting part of Slagle's letter:

    "In 1968 we lost to Nixon because disgruntled liberals refused to back Humphrey.

    "In 1980 we lost because many disaffected Kennedy supporters refused to help Carter and we got Reagan.

    "In 2000 we lost Al Gore and got Bush because disaffected liberals sat it out or voted for Nader."

    Maybe it's just two people thinking alike.      

    My anger is not personal it is based on fairness (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by mexboy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:36 PM EST

    I'm sure you understand that.

    How can I reward Barak Obama and the DNC with my vote when they have gamed the system to select him? it would only encourage them to do it again.

    He blocked the revote in MI and Fl. His petty gestures brushing Hillary of his shoulder. (watch music videos much?) his vote for FISA granting telecos immunity...what are you talking about?

    Don't complain about detention, torture, and surveillance.

    Barak is already supporting surveillance and has demonstrated an olympic ability to capitulate and triangulate to get elected. He voted for Cheney's energy bill, he's cozying up to the evangelical right wing, praised Reagan while stepping all over Bill Clinton, the president who brought prosperity in the 90's.

    Barak Obama does not represent the Democratic ideals I grew up with. He has made the Democratic party Republican like.

    If we have to win by becoming like them, we lost!

    You know what? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:39:06 PM EST
    I'm tired of the complaining on all sides. I'm tired of Obama supporters complaining about the racism (that which existed and that which didn't) and that Hillary supporters won't get over it, I'm tired of Hillary supporters complaining about the DNC and the sexism (that which existed and that which didn't) from the DNC.

    I'm tired of the conspiracy theories that the Clintons wake up in the mornings, twirl their evil mustaches and plot how they're going to take over the White House for good. I'm tired of the conspiracy theories that the Obamas and his supporters (who, by some stretch of the imagination, are all male misogynists) wake up in the mornings, twirl their evil mustaches, and plot how they're going to be sexist towards Hillary and her supporters (who, by some stretch of the imagination, are all female feminists).

    I'm tired of the labeling that the Clintons are racists/selfish/kitchen-sink-throwing/immoral. I'm tired of the labeling that the Obamas are reverse-racists/sexists/black panthers/anti-Christ.

    What I'm mostly tired of is the, "Out of [insert number of years] of voting Democratic, I don't know who I'm going to vote for/ I'm going to vote Republican/ I'm not going to vote/ etc." What the h-e-double hockey sticks are you telling me for?! If something in the party has changed (no pun intended) and you don't like it, guess what! Vote for a different party! If you don't like any of the options presented, guess what! Stay home! If you want to punish your party by voting for its absolute anti-thesis, guess what! Go ahead and punish them! It's a free country, no one's stopping you, no one has a gun to your head demanding that you vote this or that way, or even vote at all! State your intentions, do it, and then go about living!

    I'm sure that all of the energy put into telling as many people as you possibly can how your upset about whatever problem and how your going to solve the problem by voting for someone else can be used for more important purposes, such as conducting demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise, that the media must absolutely stop all forms of discrimination; or demand that any person who runs for president must have a minimum of 35 years in political/public service which must be approved by such and such committee, and that if that person is allowed to run, that person should be subject to immediate disqualification from running or continuing a campaign if he/she displays any forms of verbal, physical, intellectual, or systematic discrimination, any ties with convicted felons, or if they make any promise or statement that they break, change their mind on, or that proves to be false; or demand that our entire nominating system is complete and utter garbage and should be overhauled, nominating leaders as they should be nominated, being that the one with the most votes from the people wins.

    If it is that much of a heart-wrenching action to vote for someone you don't like, then don't vote for him/her. Vote for someone else and go about your business. If experience counts, and candidate A has experience and candidate B doesn't, vote for candidate A. Period. If candidate B makes you sick every time you turn on the TV, guess what! Don't vote for candidate B! It's a free country and you can vote for whoever you want to.

    However, if one absolutely knows, without a doubt in their mind, that candidate A is going to bring about negative results in the future, but one doesn't know for sure if candidate B will bring about all/any of the positive results that one wants in the future, and one still votes for candidate A, then there's no real basis for complaint when candidate A wins and delivers on what one expects. One should actually be satisfied because candidate A delivered exactly on what one expected, regardless of whether or not one approves of said result. That would be like someone having the option to vote for an illegal war, knowing exactly what will happen if the war were approved and executed, and then voting for it, and then complaining about the war, even though it went/is going exactly as they predicted it would go. What sense does that make?

    I've had it up to (pointing to neck) here with all of the complaining and the whining and the crying and the moaning and the groaning and the noses being held and the senseless arguing and the conspiracies and the blanket accusations and the blanket assumptions and the blanket stereotyping and the pouting and the condescension and the disrespect and the threatening and the apathy. Make up your mind about whether or not your going to vote. If you decide to vote, decide who you think will do the best job and vote for that person. If you're not satisfied with anyone who's being presented, then don't vote. It's as simple as that. Once you've made that decision, you can focus on more pressing matters, whatever those may be.


    Yes! Finally! (5.00 / 8) (#198)
    by herb the verb on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:55:55 PM EST
    You are right. People have no right expressing their feelings about politics and what they are going to or not going to do with their vote or politically on a post that is about politics. How rude, boring and boring of them! Wake up you people and stop commenting about politics on political posts!

    Wow, I feel better already!


    Jeralyn: I am always curious (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:45:30 PM EST
    why a Clinton inisder would support an unknown.  Did he ever say why he crossed over?

    While I trully appreciate all (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Radix on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    the folks trying to persuade me to vote for Obama, perhaps he, Obama, might like to take a stab at it?

    Yes, well, Obama has already said (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:40 PM EST
    he doesn't need us.

    I thought he was just joshing about (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Radix on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:59:00 PM EST

    Nothing new here (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    And still no argument aside from 'Obama is 2% less evil than McCain.'

    Everything I won't have a 'right' to complain about if Obama loses (again, nothing is ever Obama's responsibility, is it?) is something that either Obama himself, or his more ardent Congressional supporters, could have been fighting for in the last 2, 4 or 8 years.  They have not.  The premise of your friend's argument is faulty.

    You are making a case based on a Democratic candidate that does not exist (in Obama) and a Democratic Party that does not exist.  It used to exist, but Obama has disclaimed all connection with it.  Dean, Pelosi, Brazile et al, have quite clearly stated their intentions that it shall never exist again, if they get their way.

    I'm not voting for McCain.  I simply can't.  But the same part of me -- my principles -- that won't let me vote for McCain is the part of me that can't vote for Obama.  And those are what they are.  They aren't swayed by cajoling, whining, or bullying, or threats.

    I can't, alone, stop the Democratic Party from abandoning the bread-and-butter Democrats from its ranks, from trying to purge the working class who they should be championing, from standing silently if not laughingly by while some of their members and the media spewed misogynist vitriol and race-baited to win a nomination, but I d*mn well don't have to help it.

    If any of those dire threats come true, it is the fault of the Democratic Congress who could stop them for not doing so.  It's the fault of Obama supporters for insisting on the less electable candidate.  It's the fault of the CDS-faction of Obama supporters for peddling their very not-Democratic sexist, hateful, deranged vitriol across the msm and web.  And it's the fault of the SDs and their handlers for not standing up when they could to the overblown claims of Obama's magnificent transcendence.  But it won't be mine.

    What breathtaking condescension. (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by eleanora on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    My "deep and personal feelings of disappointment" are not why I didn't support your candidate in the primaries nor are they why I hesitate to support him now. His paper-thin resume, limited experience, and on-the-record jettisoning of core Democratic principles made me support a candidate that I believed quite rationally would be a better fighter for the Democratic cause and a better President.

    Implying that all Clinton supporters who don't jump on the Obama/Biden train are irrational, stupid, uneducated, ill-informed about current events, and/or too short-sighted to consider the future when they vote is insulting and counterproductive to your long-term goal. And I consider using the "Emotional Hillary-ites" meme as feeding a negative lapdog media, right-wing storyline as well.

    Hillary Clinton keeps talking me into voting for your guy. Now if only Obama supporters would stop trying to talk me back out of it.

    Obama supporters always make the same mistake (5.00 / 8) (#182)
    by esmense on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:50:23 PM EST
    "Work to change the rules; work to lessen the influence of misogyny on our politics; work to keep shattering the glass ceiling."

    Don't tell me that I should be doing the work outlined above -- I've been doing it all my life. Not just in terms of politics, but in my personal and professional life. And not just self-interestedly and exclusively in terms of misogyny. I've marched and voted and campaigned to advance civil and labor rights (in many instances long before I ever heard the word "feminist.") I've broken barriers of gender and class for myself -- and used the power and authority I was able to obtain while working for others, as well as in my own business, to encourage and create new opportunites for younger women, minorities, and both young men and women from disadvantaged backgrounds. I've been committed to protecting the rights of and expanding the opportunities available to others -- all the while thinking that I was part of a "progressive" community of people who, although they might not share my gender, or race, generation or economic class, were as equally committed to me; to respectful treatment and political and economic equality and justice for women, and working class Americans, like me.

    But in this primary the Obama campaign, Obama supporters and representatives of the Democratic party too often spoke and acted in ways that told me that women like me, and people from working class backgrounds like mine, were not respected members of that community. Were not people whose rights and interests they were ready to treat with respect much less fight for.

    So what I want to hear, need to be convinced of, is that YOU, as an Obama supporter, and the Obama movement, are committed to that work. Because it is Obama and his supporters whose commitment to those values were found wanting in the primary.

    Instead of telling me what I must do to fight misogyny, demonstrate how you will fight misogyny.

    Here's a suggestion for one should-be-easy place to start; admit to, condemn, insist on apologies for and vow to work to ensure that no Democrat EVER again indulges in the low and blatant exploitation of gender bias displayed in Obama campaign gambits like Jesse Jackson's "she didn't cry for Katrina" and Michelle Obama's "a woman who can't take care of her own house doesn't belong in the White House."  

    More (5.00 / 8) (#195)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    1. He has a "let them eat cake" U. Chicago approach to real families' economic issues.

    2. He has consistently preferred the company and votes of Republicans and evangelicals over the party's base, which may explain why Obama has done so remarkably poorly among, you know, actual Democrats (can anyone think of another candidate in history who has done so poorly among his own party's registered voters?  take away the folks who just became Democrat for this one election, and Obama's support among Dems is downright pitiable).

    3. We are on the verge of an historic opportunity for true progressive change.  And we have a clueless right-center free market anti-FDR as our candidate.  Electing Obama most likely will squander this opportunity for a new New Deal.  It may be preferable to endure 4 years of McCain for a chance at a real liberal (you know, someone who actually stands up for working families and provides them with meaningful policy changes instead of just Hope and a handful of incremental differences from the Republicans, which he feels free to later backtrack on).

    I guess I considered (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by dk on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    those to be some of the significant (fatal) flaws that Daring Grace alluded to in his point 1.  I think if wanted to outline all the flaws, we might need a separate list.

    Open Response to Whoever (5.00 / 9) (#199)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    I owe you nothing.  I owe Obama nothing.  I owe the DNC nothing.  Loyalty is a two way street, or it's nothing but exploitation.  I will not consent to that.

    I owe the country a great deal, and I will honor that obligation by not voting for Barack Obama.

    Open letter to Hillary Supporters (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Hadrianus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:57:46 PM EST
    Be afraid, be very afraid!!

    So, we should reward Obama the presidency because scary McCain will ruin us?

    How in the world could anyone, anywhere, and of any persuation draw the conclusion that this crook Obama will do any the things he promises--given that he has caved on every issue that Democrats have always held sacrosanct.  Issues that lie deep and are embedded in our Constitution. Issues that he has trashed even as the presumptive nominee,such as his vote for FISA, his intention of enhancing faith based initiatives, his pro vote on the Cheny energy bill, etc.

    It's not about Hillary loosing. It's not about McCain winning.  It's about the fact that many of us harbor a visceral loathing for Obama, what he represents, and what he has done to this party.

    This kills me.... (5.00 / 8) (#207)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    Every time a Clinton supporter goes on network television and attacks Obama it feeds the story line that the right wing smear machine is pushing and that the lapdog media is swallowing.

    good.  That means that although the DNC didn't want to hear us, our voices are being heard.

    Your friends had the chance to listen to us.  They chose not to -- and we aren't interested in being silent to benefit people who treated us with contempt.

    "Don't complain about ... surveillance" (5.00 / 7) (#209)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    Er, FISA.

    The problem with the letter is that I know all this stuff. What I don't know is whether OBAMA knows all this stuff.  Because Pelosi and Reid's Congress sure didn't.

    I've got 'til November to figure it out. Let him show me something, and then I'll decide.

    Fixing his broken health care plan -- using clear, explicit, and above all FREE FROM PARSING language would be a really good start.

    Ditto gay rights.

    Thursday's speech would be a really great start.

    Warped worldview (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    As one of those bitter holdouts, I can tell you that we are not angry.  We are also not responsible for what happens after this.  It is the superdelegates who are responsible for this fiasco.  They could give us Hillary and a winning ticket.  They would make it easy for us to vote our conscience.  But they insist on pushing Obama on us and his unscrupulous, unethical campaign organization.  If he doesn't care about voters now, he won't care about them after the nomination.  
    Obama is a losing proposition in every conceivable way.  It won't matter if I voted for him or not, he will still lose.  
    But when the dust settles, blame the superdelegates.

    Obama supporters barking up the wrong tree (5.00 / 2) (#254)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:32:53 PM EST
    HRC supporters experienced a candidate that was forced to give up her pretenses and airs and fight like hell with honesty and policies in order to stay in the race, i.e., HRC supporters saw the real thing.

    Obama on the other hand hasn't not only never given up pretenses and airs, but since June has increased them. This is the problem Obama supporters have - NOT HRC supporters.  

    Obama supporters need to focus on Obama. They need to make him be a leader that people can believe in. If Obama were to do that, HRC supporters would be right there with them. Instead all Obama supporters do is rag on HRC supporters - that will never bring them around the way they should be brought around.

    The failure so far is all Obama's and his supporters - they should stop looking to blame others and start making Obama be the leader he should be - just like HRC did.  

    This is sad. (5.00 / 2) (#255)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:39:56 PM EST
    The letter writer doesn't seem to realize that if Obama was clear on the issues he mentions, there wouldn't be any discussion necessary.

    Obama voted for the patriot act.
    Obama voted for FISA.
    On Iraq, he campaigned for Lieberman - and now he had named Biden as his running mate - an active advocate of the war.
    He has rattled the saber with respect to Iran and now Russia.
    On health care - Obama's plan is a mess. He is against single-payer - the plan most Americans favor.
    What has he had to say about torture?
    He changed his position on allowing off-shore oil drilling.
    He has repeatedly proclaimed his Christianity... his version thereof which he says makes him oppose the right of gay people to marry.
    (I am completely repelled by someone wearing their religion on their sleave. Jesus said that people who do this are hypocrites. I agree with Jesus.)

    All this, you might notice has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

    I will admit that I preferred her. I think she is more intelligent, more mature, and has more heart. I think the Obama campaign smeared her as a racist - while Obama stood by.

    But that is not the point.
    If Obama wants my vote, he has to act like a democrat.
    More than that, he has to act and talk like a progressive democrat. I don't want to hear about his admiration for Ronald Reagan.

    Blaming Obama's slide in the polls on Clinton or "disgruntled Clinton supporters" is truly pathetic. If you are sincerely interested in electing Obama - you should be encouraging him to wake up and start behaving like a man.

    Someone should have said this ... (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:20:45 PM EST
    As a long-time supporter of Barack Obama - and a former official in the Clinton Administration - I ask you to step back and look at what you are doing.

    ... to JJJr, Representative  Clyburn, Obama Campaign HQ, and about 90% of the Obama Fan Base back in January.

    Open Letter to Obama Supporters Trying To Get Clinton Supporters To Vote For Obama -

    Just STFU and let Hillary do it.  


    Dear Friend of Jeralyn's: (4.88 / 17) (#93)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    On second, thought, let me just turn the question around to you:  How do you personally reconcile supporting a campaign that racebaited, gaybaited, and genderbaited on it's way to victory? And also stood by while a decent person like Hillary Clinton was demeaned daily?

    I'd sincerely like to know because I think a lot of people are struggling to reconcile that with what they thought the values of the Democratic Party were.

    Hillary had me convinced last night (4.85 / 7) (#24)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    An anonymous lecture on what I can complain about makes me go the other way.

    I don't like Obama - I got troll-rated on  DKos over a year ago for mentioning that the DLC loves him and diarying about the aggressive tactics of his fundraisers. Even then, he didn't seem progressive to me.

    Now it's confirmed (not progressive) and my complaints include the Democratic Party machine. I hoped in vain for a Congress with a spine. I hoped Pelosi would keep her promise to end the war and hold Bushies accountable.

    I can complain that if we had Democratic leadership who led with democratic values we wouldn't be where we are now.

    I trust Hillary to fight and fight effectively for us. I will vote for Obama because I generally believe a Democratic Administration is preferable. But I will hold my nose and I will complain that we could have actually had a democratic leader.

    I agree with what you say, except the part ... (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    about voting for Obama. I will not vote for him! No way no how no Obama.

    Why "complain that we could have actually had a democratic leader" We could make it so. I know it won't happen but I surely wish the roll call would favor Hillary. All those who call for "unity" now have blood in their hands for destroying the Democratic party just because they fell in love with the idea of having this man become the candidate for the presidency.

    Can't help but feel that this nomination of "The One" will be the beginning of the demise of the Democratic party in an election that was taylor-made for us to get back into the WH.  


    actually (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:33:01 PM EST
    No way, no how, no Barack sounds better.



    while i agree with the letter (4.71 / 7) (#37)
    by MrPope on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    this line of telling anti-Obama Hillary supporters what will happen if they dont vote for Obama isnt going to work.  They know what will happen.  They are disgusted enough with how Hillary was treated to let it happen.  They want the ills of the primary  season recognized , corrected and apologized for...then maybe ..just maybe  they will come on in for the big win.

    and i am 100% on Hillary is getting way too much weight to go out for OBAMA...she lost a close primary...let the woman relax and reflect and recharge... i am sure she will work hard for OBAMA and she has been... but dont expect her to carry the whole campaign..thats not her job

    It's all they have (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by dianem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    They can't counter the rational arguments about Obama's reverse race-baiting campaign, and his inexperience, and how Dems didn't oppose the sexism during the primary. Their only argument is "Obama is better than McCain". He probably is, politically, maybe even morally, but ... his political methods are too much like those of the Republican Party for me to vote for them. Nader voters voted the way they did because they thought Democrats were like Republican. I'm voting the way I am (or not voting) because I believe that Democrats are better than Republicans, and I want them to stay that way.

    Hey MrPope..... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    You listened and learned. Good post!

    Does it matter to anyone here that John McCain (1.50 / 2) (#41)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    is a dangerous warmonger who is likely to get many more people killed?

    Is this even an issue for discussion?

    And I'm not trying to do a guilt thing, I just think that, for me, this issue is more important than anything else.

    it looks to me as if (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:07:39 PM EST
    the Iraquis may just tell us it is time to go!  One hundred years of occupation is maybe not an option for the US.

    He loves saber rattling.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:10:48 PM EST
    Iran, Syria, Georgia/Russia.

    It's not Iraq I'm so much worried about, it's what his neo-con advisors/lobbyists have in mind next.


    I suppose rational is agreeing with (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    YOUR viewpoint.

    I actually don't believe that, (none / 0) (#85)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    so I'm going to keep on trying.

    Um, and Obama, who has (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by dk on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    now hedged Iraqi withdrawal plans with Bush-like "conditions on the ground" language, and who is advocating transferring those troops that might be widrawn from Iraq over to Afghanistan, which historically is known as a quagmire in and of itself, is not going to get people killed?  

    Sorry, Obama will also get people killed.  As he has already done by voting repeatedly to fund the war.

    In 2002 Obama spoke out against a war, but once he had a vote, he made a flip-flop that has helped lead to many, many deaths.  If he went back on his words then, what's to say he won't again now?

    Are you willing to have that discussion?  Or are you only capable of having the McCain-is-2%-more-evil discussion, because if so you can just save your breath because everyone here agrees with you that McCain is 2% more evil.  


    Many many senators voted for funding and (none / 0) (#102)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    I think when it comes to the issue of warmongering vs diplomacy, your 2% might be off by a factor of 100 or more.

    So what if many many senators (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by dk on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    do.  They were all wrong.  You are sitting here saying that with Obama there will be no more death in wars.  That is patently untrue, as Obama's vote is one of the reasons we have been witnessing death, and his own campaign promises indicate that there will be more death to come.

    Come on, let's have the discussion of Obama's votes causing death?  Or are not even willing to admit the truth?

    When Obama explicitly renounces his "conditions on the ground" language, when he repudiates his own campaign promise that he will simply replace the war in Iraq with a war in Afghanistan, then we can have look to him as someone who might reduce the death counts.  

    People who vote for McCain or Obama will have blood on their hands, so please spare us the moral superiority.


    With all due respect (1.50 / 2) (#66)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters need to make the case about OBAMA.

    They have.

    If one cannot see that Obama is a much better choice than McCain, then he or she hasn't bothered listening to the case.

    If the jury doesn't buy it, (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by theybannedmeinboston on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    then you haven't made your case.

    The jury is buying it (2.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    Obama has been leading the race ever since he captured the nomination.

    until, you know, now (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    which happens, Labor Day, to be when most of us have been saying the $hit would hit the fan.

    Not the past few days (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    He's been tied with McCain several times since June, is polling lower than McCain in key states, and been behind several times in the past couple of weeks.



    No (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    he's now fallen behind McCain in both the EC and national polls.

    I listened (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:39:54 PM EST
    The case was weak.

    Your candidate rolled on FISA and has pandered to evangelicals(including allowing one to use a bullypulpit to call homosexuality a disease). He's voted "present" on choice(for strategic reasons of course), used the argument that providing every American health care would require poor Americans to choose between rent and that care, denigrated Democrats that support regulation and denigrated Clinton for wanting to do more than give bonus checks to Americans to stimulate the economy. His policy on energy conveniently benefitted his special interest donors(all while decrying lobbying and spurning any other Democrat that did likewise).

    I could go on but I think you get the idea.

    He are supposed to be making a case for how he shares my values. Well I have yet to see demonstration of how that is the case. He is too busy making schmoozy noises at the GOP base and the evangelicals.


    The case? (5.00 / 5) (#149)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    Because this is what I heard during the primary:

    Social Security is in crisis
    Mandated health care is bad
    we should listen to anti-gays and anti-choice proponents and find "common ground"
    Both Republicans and Democrats are bad
    Trade is bad (no!  it's good

    here's what I've heard since:

    FISA is good
    pubic financing of campaigns is bad

    And given the Biden pick, I've got no idea on the war, the economy or the courts

    and please don't tell me to go to the website.  because that gets contradicted about every time Obama opens his mouth.


    Good advice. (1.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:07:17 PM EST
    Since Hillary's speech last night, there are no more "Hillary Supporters" among liberal/progressives.  

    There are Obama supporters, and there are McCain supporters - either by choice or by default.

    Really? (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:17:13 PM EST
    We get less than 24 hours to make up our minds?  We shouldn't wait to hear from Obama in his acceptance speech on Thursday?  Thanks, didn't realize there was a time limit for me to crawl out from under the bus and find a unity pony.  

    You get all the time you need (1.50 / 2) (#99)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Do what you want from here on, but not in the name or spirit of Hillary or the Democratic Party.

    Well thank you (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:30:57 PM EST
    for your permission.  I was really just sitting around waiting for it before I made a decision.  Do I send my voter registration change to you too?  Do I make all contributions to retire Hillary's debt in your name now?  And who do I complain to for leaving you in charge of the Democratic party and the "spirit of Hillary?"

    In case you haven't figured it out yet, people with the attitude you display really tick me off.  


    No permission offered or required (1.25 / 4) (#138)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    You've always had the full right to do whatever you wish, but now you can't do it as a Hillary supporter or Democrat.  Hillary sez so.

    unlike you (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    we don't blindly follow "our" Leader off a cliff.  We see the dangerous drop and change course.

    But, please, keep marching forward, if you must.  Please.


    You don't get it (1.33 / 3) (#192)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:29 PM EST
    I respect your right to do whatever you want, but following last night's speech, you can't honestly do it as a Hillary supporter or Democrat.  You've willingly become something else.  Call it Independent or whatever.

    you do not have the right (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    to question my being a Democrat or not, got it?  So back the f*ck off.

    I'm pretty darn sure you've broken a site rule with this and I may ask Jeralyn or another moderator to look into it.

    But how DARE you so flippantly and arrogantly label me as something other than a Democrat!

    It's Obama Supporters like YOU who make me run far, FAR away from EVER voting for him.  The arrogance, the snide condescension, the utter stupidity and ... grrrrrrrr, there just aren't enough adjectives.

    Seriously.  You've stepped over a line here.

    Back off.


    I am just (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    quaking.in.my.boots. that Hillary will send me to go sit in the corner.

    You're not helping yourself or your candidate any.
    Pity, that.


    Are you really an Obama supporter? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by lucky leftie on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:25:13 PM EST
    Because your overbearing comments seem designed to provoke.  It's almost as if you're TRYING to stir up animosity.  

    I'm a Democrat (2.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Ennis on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:49:36 PM EST
    I would have supported any nomineee selected by the party.  I preferred Hillary up to the point it became clear TO ME that she couldn't win and further competition was bad for the party.  When her campaign degenerated to a primary focus of attacking Obama instead of addressing the issues and - I bailed out.

    So, we're with him or agin him, eh? Just like Bush (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by jawbone on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    sees the world.

    Oh my.


    if obama can't close the deal now, (1.00 / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    how can we expect to successfully talk for us with other governments. the aura of obama has no impact with world leaders i think, especially those who don't care for us. yeah, i know you can argue this and that, but the fact remains.

    He's reading your comments (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    I'll post any response later tonight.

    Jeralyn, in my opinion, you are (1.00 / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    on the wrong track here, as you were in your comments last night trying to steer commenters to support Obama and stifle their criticism.  Won't work.

    As penance (none / 0) (#92)
    by Redshoes on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    if Obama fails to win in November all his supporters should plaster a Hillary 2012 sticker on their bumpers for the next 4 years.

    As VP, Biden (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 03:32:31 PM EST
    would not be introducing crime bills in the Senate....

    Obama has shown no interest in introducing any crime bills at all....

    Well if McCain wins Let the (none / 0) (#214)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:01:15 PM EST
    finger pointing will begin. Cause it surely will. Neither side will give an inch. Neither side will take any responsibility for anything.

    If you don't want to vote for him, (none / 0) (#250)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    then don't. No one's forcing you. No one has a gun to your head. The DNC is pushing Obama on somebody. If you don't want to be a part of that group, then leave. If you don't want to be subjected to it, then don't. If you don't want to reward the DNC for so-called despicable actions, then guess what people! Don't! Vote for someone else, punish the DNC, and get on with your lives! And in four years, you'll get to vote for Hillary. End of story.

    comments are closed (none / 0) (#253)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST

    The final word (none / 0) (#257)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:33:59 PM EST
    We are over 200 comments and the thread is closed. The letter writer emailed me this response after reading your comments. I was at the Pepsi Center and CNN Grill so I didn't have a chance to post it earlier. He gets the last word.

    Whew.  Thanks to Jeralyn for giving me the opportunity to respond.

    I'll try to choose my words carefully in the hopes of not ticking people off on a personal level any more than I already have; it really is my intent to engage in a serious way, not to patronize, demean or hector anyone.  (And please don't take my flaws out on Jeralyn).

    It seems to me that the comments pretty much fall into two categories - forward-looking and backward-looking.

    I understand the forward-looking comments - the people who are concerned with Barack Obama's qualifications and his policies.  I think the criticism that Obama needs to be more clear and specific about what he will do is a fair one - I worry that he is succumbing to the traditional Democratic candidate's disease of listening too    much to consultants (a disease that probably hurt Hillary as well) and I hope that tomorrow night he starts to fix that problem.

    I can only say to this first group that I hope that over the next couple of months you come to agree with me that whatever doubts you have about Obama, John McCain will be worse in almost every    conceivable respect.  Given the issues that you say concern you, I hope you conclude that he and the people he is likely to surround  himself with (thanks, "tree," for making that point) are going to be better than McCain and his plutocratic mob - even if you think that Hillary might have been better yet.  There's no doubt of that in my mind.  Obama's not perfect - but he's got to be better than McCain.

    But if on Election Day you genuinely believe that John McCain will be a better president than Barack Obama, that he will do more to further the goals that you think are important - well, I may    disagree vehemently but I respect that choice.

    And I hope no one succumbs to the revolutionary's fantasy that if we just get four years of McCain, things will be so bad that the Democrats will be sure to win in 2012.  That's never worked in the    past.  Let's win now.

    At the risk of exposing myself to more flame, however, I do have a problem with the  backward-looking comments - the people who say, "I
    am so angry about the way Hillary was treated during the campaign that I'm not going to support Obama now."  This is the position I find troubling.

    Believe me, I'm not disputing that you have genuine grievances.  I may disagree on the merits of some (not all) of them but I understand that my view on these issues is not yours.  But I do ask
    you to consider what is the best thing to do about those grievances.  Is it to go out and try to make sure that it doesn't happen again?  Or is it to take your ball and going home?

    I particularly want to respond to the suggestion by "Molly Pitcher" that the DNC needs to suffer the consequences of its bad behavior. That's a great philosophy for child-rearing - the one I followed with my kids.  But the difference here is the externalities involved. It's not only the DNC that will suffer - it's the entire country.  It's as if you punish your child for staying out late at the movies by blowing up the movie theatre.  I am not suggesting that you "get over it" - I am suggesting that you fight it on its own terms, in its own arena.

    I can't speak for the DNC; I can't speak for Obama.  I can only speak for myself.  I'd like to see both misogyny AND racism eliminated from our political discourse and indeed from the nation at large.  I'd like to see a fairer and more transparent nomination  process, though I'm damned if I can figure out the best way to do it.

    But I also don't want to live in this country for four or eight more years of a Republican Administration.  I don't want my three    daughters to have to live with the consequences of that any more than I want them to live in a world where people choose who to vote for on the basis of gender or skin color - or where politicians    think that they can gain an advantage by appealing to those prejudices.  The choice we have now is between Barack Obama and John McCain, not anyone else.  I know which one I think will be  better for me and for my children - for all the reasons I
    enumerated originally.  And I hope that those of you who are feeling this disappointment and rage come to the same conclusion.

    Thanks to all for your thoughts.