I am speaking to these supporters, please, please, check out his website and positions and then check out John McCain's. If you come to the conclusion that McCain will better represent you than, fine, I bear no ill will.

I do bear a great deal of ill will toward those who would rather wallow in their anger, shoving that anger in people's faces then complaining about the anger and emotionalism that comes back at them. I bear ill will towards people who want to hurt not just Obama, but want Hillary to kill her own career just to give that irrational anger a “catharsis” and then get ticked off when people think they are being irrational.

Hillary supporters, the Democratic party is a big tent, there is a very important place for you. If Barack loses but the party is unified, then I think Hillary has a good shot at 2012, I might even be persuaded to join you in that support. If her supporters continue to take Bill Clinton's lead and Obama loses, she is finished.

As to what Obama needs to do, I'll restate what I've said in past threads. I don't think that a direct appeal would work or be trusted. There's nothing he can say to put these voters at ease with him as a person that won't sound like snake oil. What he needs is to re-present, in detail, his policy positions. He's got to tell them not only what he stands for but gain trust by saying how he's going to do it. McCain's appeals to that block will be necessarily vague and focused on the past primary rather than his policy positions because he has promises to make to the evangelicals re: Choice and to big business re: equal pay and family/work issues.

What we need to do is leave the Primary behind. I understand that people are still hurting over it, but the only way to fix it is to build a time machine and deliver a memo to the Clinton camp about caucuses. At this point, there is nothing but negativity coming from that place and what we need to somehow do (and this won't be possible for all 18 million) is share what's exciting about this moment and our opportunity to get a Dem back in the White House. Again, this won't work for all 18 million, but Americans are optimistic as a people, and I believe that the majority of Clinton's voters would love to be part of a movement (with a chance of getting into thew White House).

It's trivial and merely irritating, but it is leftie playpen idiocy. I hope McCain uses it in campaign ads or exploits it in the GOP convention. (”OK, he's not the Britney Spears or Paris Hilton candidate, but the Dixie Chicks and Madonna candidate — that's my opponent”…though I doubt McCain would do this)

Representative news article with reader remarks:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/08/25/mccain...

Apparently, this is my silly day.

The media is being very irresponsible by highlighting the ill-behaved PUMAS while basically ignoring the others. I in fact do see a sexism involved in this, an attempt to portray all Clinton supporters (especially female ones) as hysterical and bitter (like the PUMAS) and generally personifying the worst of the stereotypical female traits. This has the (unintended?) effect of perhaps offending actual reasonable people who are simply not sure yet, driving them away entirely.

Seriously though – watch HER say what you are reading others write about – I've written before that I don't find her very convincing at times and I think it's a real problem for her – people do not know when she is being real and when she isn't – but one of the biggest skeptics I know thought Clinton was very serious and sincere in this clip – and I agree.

I'm actually looking forward to her speech tonight. (This convention is worth it.)

She's achieved a lot. Even those of us who didn't like her farther-left early-1990s behavior (and other behavior to rival or surpass that of Nixon or Cheney) respect her competence and were ready to be saying “President Clinton” again. (Cracks in the glass ceiling, indeed. And maybe she can say that McCain's view of working women is Hooters. [grin])

And yes, she should jettison non-booster, largely-dead-weight-and-toxic-baggage Bill. (Note it's been argued, though I don't believe conclusively, that he may have made her campaign falter.)

by Blue Stockings | Right. I am going to vote for Obama. Suck on that, Obama-haters. I support Obama because McCain’s an unthinkable option. But after struggling to come to terms with many, many things I don’t like about him,

As for the future, I hope the first thing she does once Obama is elected is divorce Bill. Seriously.

What role for her, I wonder, in an Obama administration other than remaining a Senator? Secretary of State, perhaps, or some other Cabinet position? If she chooses to remain a Senator, it may indicate she's hopeful for a 2012 run, though she'd be even more “past history” by then and wouldn't be accepted by most Dems if Obama were seeking re-election.

Her best earlier chance was in 2004, but she likely didn't run because she knew it was a poor chance for any Dem that year.

I stand by my assertion that journalists like Matthews who seem to relish aggressive inquiry into such phenoms suffer precisely from Marie Wilson's observation about men getting scared when women congregate.

The behavior of these voters may be founded in genuine and organic anger and upsetment. But the choices they are making are illogical, to quote Doctor Spock – the Leonard Nimoy one.

I tend to agree with you above statement DLS. I've wondered since the end of the Dem primary season would black folks who supported Obama 93+% would have had a “temper tantum” (as you say), if Hillary Clinton would have won. Personally I feel they would have just moved over to the Clinton side because of historic party loyalty.

Nevertheless, my respect for Hillary Clinton has grown because she is doing the right thing. An Obama Presidency is a Democratic Party presidency. Which means that party plans and bills won't face the veto. It makes no sense for a Clinton supporter to vote for McCain when he is SO opposite of their views.

Proceed with care.

Clinton ran too late and lost the Feel-Good contest to another, younger PC darling and better marketer this year. Admittedly neither she nor any other Dem would have been likely to have beaten Bush in 2004. (2004 was not 2006 — or 2008.)

That's just the way it goes. It's no different than Teddy Kennedy losing to Carter in 1980.