dr.e

Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes

I'll choose door #1 because even though neither Obama or Clinton flip my lid, they've worked their tails off – i'm just not sure it's fair re: Gore.

Which is why I have been saying all along that the Obama supporters are deceiving themselves into believing that Obama has a better chance then Clinton against McCain. More Clinton supporters will vote for McCain then Obama while more Obama supporters will vote for Hillary vs. McCain.

Obama wins the nomination and 30 percent of the Hillary supporters abandon Obama for McCain. Those are huge numbers. While only 19 percent of the Obama supporters would abandon Hillary to vote for McCain.

Either way this goes. I see the only way out of this is a brokered convention in Which Bill Richardson and Joe Biden come out of the convention with the Nomination.

Otherwise this party is simply going to hand the presidency to a GOP that heard the cries of anguish and took on a moderate Nominee.

And I don't believe in this particular take – about the divisiveness.

Again, I would be happy to vote for Hillary Clinton. But there are a number of examples of Clinton going very far against Obama.

There's the infamous 3am commercial.

There's the claim that she and McCain, but not Obama, are qualified.

I guess I'll stop there. As for the claim that “it takes two to be divisive”, I'd only agree that it takes two to disagree. Divisiveness is a whole different quality.

Clinton is going very far.

Likewise, people say, in your example – we're all Americans with different views about when to use military force, whether we were in peril and sovereign nations. I do think we have to have some backbone to say it's not the way one side portrays it. But that doesn't mean that the side trying to draw distinctions must be kowtowed to. Does that make any sense (it's okay if it doesn't – I'm at the time of day when my ability to really be logical is quickly declining – I apologize).

You can't just divide people on your own – there has to be someone to split over.

I'm going to have to take exception to this generalization. I think you'll find that history is replete with counter-examples.

Take one from recent history. In the periods before the 2004 and 2006 elections, the Republican party made a concerted effort to paint war opposition as unpatriotic. If you believed them, you'd be more inclined to have strong negative emotions toward the “cut and runners.” If you were part of the war opposition or unsympathetic to Republican agitprop, you would very likely be more than a little ticked off that the “stay the course'ers” would accuse such a large part of the population of being anti-American.

Voila, more divisiveness thanks to the actions of *one* side.

I really feel the push about the campaigns “belnd divisive” all the time is an outgrowth of sound bites. People who run for office are running against not with someone. It's oppositional by nature. Sure, not all candidates run as negatively or as obviously against the other, but still – I'm big on us being responsible for our own beliefs. And I don't believe in this particular take – about the divisiveness.

IMO, only.

But I have to ask, don't more Clinton supporters feel this way because the Clinton campaign is being more explicitly divisive?