Don't confuse the 20 percenters with the campaign itself. Just as there actually are racist supporters of Clinton, there actually are sexist supporters of Obama. Just as there are those who smear Clinton, there are those who smear Obama. Just as there are the "I won't vote for Obama in the general" pouters, there are the "we don't need your votes anyway" gloaters. Don't conflate these people with the campaigns of the candidates they support.

Heck, it seemed that yesterday you were blaming the Obama campaign for how the media was interpreting Bill Clinton's words.

I don't know Ben. But if TPM is pretty much ground zero for Obama supporters then most here would tell us to go do whatever we care to do.....Obama and themselves do not need our votes. Would you disagree with that assessment?

The media was not interpreting Bill Clinton's words when the AP erroneously reported that "campaign sources" confirmed Hillary was conceding last night. I still believe the source of that AP story was the Obama campaign. I still believe the Obama campaign was putting pressure on super dels to declare before voting was over last night - even ones like Jimmy Carter that said they'd have preferred to wait until all the voting is over.

No way. We need Hillary supporters' votes. We need your vote in particular.

There are times when particular Clinton supporters who were threatening to go Republican have been told, "Look, if you want to vote for John McSame, go do it." That happens, generally, when the Clinton advocate has gotten so repetitive that they no longer seem to be listening, or genuinely interacting -- just seeking to cause pain. But I have never felt that was the case with you or dijamo, or with the Clinton supporters I know in daily life.

Thanks Alex, First time a Obama supporter has admitted that he was as hardball as we saw him. My question though is about your 80/20 rule. Look at the right of the page. I think the 80% are really not that kind or forgiving or wanting the help of any of the 18million.

18 million? Is anyone so deluded as to believe that Hillary speaks for every single person who voted for her in the primaries?

Excuse my "your"

Is anyone so deluded as to believe Obama speaks for every single person who voted for him in the primaries?

Wrong Terry Mac said she would not concede until after he had reached the critical number of delegates and they expected to concede this week. the AP story deifnitvely said Tuesday night she will concede sourced by ""campaign officials". Every other story they have sourced say Aides to Clinton or sources within the Hillary campaign or Clinton fundraisers clearly identifying at least the affiliation or camp it was coming from. First time I have ever seen sourcing that ambiguous in reference to Hillary's campaign. But whatever - you say potato, I say bullshit.

It's not that the 80% are all gumdrops and daffodils. It's just that they're not claiming that Hillary is the devil. While I'm arbitrarily breaking things up into 20% chunks, we could take that 80% group and divide them into 4 groups—those who really like both candidates, but thought Obama was better (and/or more electable); those who thought Obama was clearly the superior candidate, but that Hillary wasn't bad; those who saw significant problems with Hillary being the Democratic nominee, but who are also capable of seeing the positive in her (I include myself in this group), and those who don't trust her one whit, but who also don't think she's the devil.

Clearly some of these groups are going to have more to write about (and to recommend) than others.

As one of those 18 million, she speaks for me and my sister and one of my best friends who were all very sad that Hillary for sure. My mom sold out and joined the Obama bandwagon back in May. She tries to deny she voted for Hillary but I know the truth :) 3 out of 4 in my randon social network poll. So she speaks for at almost about 13 million folks. Not a number to be ignored.

And as I said last night, the end to the democratic primary season means one thing above all others:

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR MY PRODUCTIVITY AT WORK!!!

Carry on :)

I can assure you that the Obama campaign isn't going to ignore 13 million voters.

Your central thesis is manufactured, as there is but a dime's worth of difference between the policies of Clinton and Obama, and if anything, Obama may be the more progressive. Whatever your real problem with Obama (gender, charisma, newcomer), it's very probable policies have nothing to do with it. And if you're anything like your militant sisters at the RBC, there may be a bit of man-hating involved, too. If not, I simply can't account for your failure to see the obvious: The fact that Hillary's defeat and Obama's victory coincided is entirely due to Hilalry's decision to push the nomination beyond reason until "the last dog dies." Well, it's dead now. And rather than seeking donations and advice from "18 million" supporter emails no campaign could read through, she might have thought about the FUTURE of those policies you say are dear to you and make damn sure they got advanced beginning today through the Democratic nominee. If you think Obama's not liberal enough, you'll love John McCain's policies.

You say bullshit, I say you're blaming the Obama camp out of wishful spite when it's clear that the Clinton camp was trading mixed signals with itself all day.

The stuff about not rushing to declare victory, I cannot agree with. It's important that there be a moment of victory, and it's very important (for PR reasons) that the moment should coincide with an election, not with Jim Superdelegate having a three-martini lunch.

That would be pretty funny.

Tonight, after 54 hard-fought shots at the National Democratic Club, my liver has finally come to an end

Sure I remember it Ben. What was it that I was supposed to name myself?

It's interesting how these factions seem to have formed. I know only 2 Hillary supporters IRL, one of them was the best man in my wedding, and the other is the SO of one of my wife's co-workers. Charlottesville, where I live, seems to be very strongly an Obama-city. (Of course, VA itself went very strongly towards Obama.) I know much was made about the latte-sippers, etc., but even amongst latte-sippers, it seems that the two groups are somewhat separate from each other in ways that I don't fully comprehend.

The 20% is filing in.

By the way, what a stunning rebuttal of my argument you've made there. Give yourself a cookie.

You made an argument? I didn't see one. All I saw were statements from a sore winner who can't give up the Hate. What I want to know is what the Obamaistas will do now? I actually can't wait to see.

Actually, I'm referring to the way the two groups don't seem to interact much in the real world. Maybe I'm reading too much into anecdotal evidence, but it seems that most Obama supporters here (myself included) know an awful lot more other Obama supporters than they do Clinton supporters, and that most Clinton supporters know an awful lot more Clinton supporters than they do Obama supporters. I'm not talking about people they've met during organizing, either, but family members, etc. Even the exceptions are telling—like the Obama supporter who is surrounded by Clinton supporters. I don't think I've heard from a single person who knows approximately equal numbers of both, although perhaps there's a selection bias at work in that such a thing might not seem noteworthy to the person in that situation.

So now you are reduced to calling your own Mother a liar, but you are upset at what some strangers say about Senator Clinton. Shame on you. Go apologize to your Mother. She knows who she voted for , and you do not, so stop calling her a liar.

C'mon, liam, it's a joke!

Well said, read upwards. I think the worm has turned.

That's the funny thing—I also know a lot of Republicans, but very, very few Clinton supporters! (Two, to be exact.)

I took your previous "three women in my immediate household and I will have to do some Politiking myself to get them turned around" to mean they were Clinton supporters. It didn't occur to me that they might have been Republicans!

Anyways, good luck with that! I've been slowly trying to wear down my father, although I can't admit that I have much hope. The best I'm hoping for is that he'll be able to dispel some of the misinformation that's been going his way. (Just last night he told me that he'd heard that Obama had been sworn in using the Koran. I'm afraid he believed it, too. I told him that he needs to correct the person who told him that.)

No, all people in my family are Democrats. My father , god rest his soul, would haunt us the rest of our days if we didn't vote and play a role. My girls were all HillBots.....to the Nth degree. I would not even let them close to this blog. They would have been banned within hours.

Get some eyeglasses, or perhaps adjust your ethics. That may help you discern the real hatred in a post that ostensibly discusses unity but begins with faulting Obama for not being Hillary-liberal enough, goes on to fault Obama for not having sense enough to make himself scarce while Hillary gave a speech the night he clinched the nomination, and continues the boilerplate bullshit about Obama's "Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack ... has left many Hillary supporters angry that the candidate we believed could win and bring the best progressive policies to the table was being unfairly attacked not on substance or policies but on is she likeable enough and is she member of the Klan. The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling."

Then you cap it with "Obamaistas." Like Sandinistas?

You were calling my argument hateful? Oh, you're too funny. ROFTLMAO!

Thanks louisville :) I'll hang around of course but it won't be as much fun. TPMs an echo chamber already. Can you imagine the threads once it's general election time?

McCain sucks sucks sucks all day long. With the random Hillary is the devil thrown in.

Who are you talking to?

Obama may be the more progressive.

Hers are certainly more progressive.

At the risk of getting all mathy, we're talking about reducing a multi-dimensional space to a single dimension, and a fairly subjective one at that. I always this reduction as using an intuitive version of the principle components analysis, but it really depends on what you consider to be the more important dimensions! There are some ways that Obama is the more progressive candidate, and there are others in which Clinton is.

Really, I think all either of you two are doing is substituting the phrase "more progressive" for the word "better". :)

Repost from yesterday-

Breaking news: proof that Obama campaign was behind the AP story that Hillary would concede last night:

Axelrod: Pssst HRC promised to concede tonight. Spread the news.

AP Reporter: Great news! I am so excited. Obama rocks! Let me rush this to press with no journalistic standards whatsoever and then I'll do my happy dance!

Axelrod: They can't know it's from us - how can we deflect attention

AP reporter: I know! How about "Campaign Official". Just shady enough so it can be misinterpreted as from the hillary camp while not being an outright lie to save my last shred of journalistic dignity.

Axelrod - Perfect! sounds like a deal.

AP Reporter: Let me just verify over with HRC campaign

Axelrod: Why you wanna do that? Trust don't verify. Run with it.

AP Reporter: How could I ever doubt you? I apologize for having offended Obama. Your wish is my command.

I have no idea what I was thinking when I typed their's. There's is what I meant.

I was talking to you.

I think I referenced before that I am a Yankee fan and I HATE Roger Clemens. Despise the man - always have. When he became a Yankee, I rooted for him to win. Did I buy a Clemens jersey? Of course not. But when he was on the mound I rooted for him as much as any other Yankee we had because he's got skills (that were likely artifically enhanced, but that's besides the point) and those skills that I hated seeing on display against the Yankees, I loved seeing when he was in pinstripes.

Same with Obama. I despised the Rovian tactics his campaign used against Hillary, but I recognize that same skill in smear and slime will be to our advantage when it's being used against McCain. Why? Because he'll be on my team idiot and what I want is a democrat in the White house.

You my friend need to try the new Unity Kool-Aid and quick.

If the new Unity Kool-Aid is fortified with your smears and the minimum daily requirement of "idiot" I think I'll stick with the old flavor. It's called: Obama won, get used to it and quit knocking the nominee.

Nope. Got it. Your point is that applies equally to both sides of this petty tiff, but I would draw your attention to the use of "unity" in the same post that rehashes Clinton's Resentspeak talking points.

Point of clarification please. Is Obamawon pronounced OBAMA ONE or Obama-Wan (Like Obi-Wan)?

I vote for Obama-Wan.

Oh no, I was right about your statements. They are Hateful. Mine are well reasoned and thought out. I thought you understood that by now.

This is enough for now.....I am a very very very bad loser. You've no idea.

Like hell I have no idea!

I think we all have a pretty good idea about that ...

An 'A' for effort and 'recs' if you were to deign to post ...

With all due respect (and in your case it's not very much), idiot is kind compared to what I have been called (and many Clinton supporters have been called) on these threads. Not to mention what has actually been said about HRC. My criticisms of Obama are based on issues and policies and campaign attacks, not personal. "get used to it" is not the most compelling argument for an HRC supporter that needs to be convinced Obama's better than McCain. I'm not one of them. But your assaciousness may drive some HRC supporters to feel they are not respected or part of the party. Not something I'd want to do - but that's just me.

That's my crazy ass conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

"self-righteous demands for an immediate concession would be counterproductive?"

what is self-righteous about demanding that the winning candidate be appropriately acknowledged on the day that he sewed up the nomination? you say that there is no rush, and i would agree. she has had months to deal with this reality, to come to terms with her political mortality. this wasn't a surprise. nobody (with a grip on reality)thought that she was going to pull out a surprise victory on tuesday evening.

i find it incredibly disingenuous the way that obama supporters are bending over backward to accomodate this woman's burdensome ego. this final period of her insincere simle, the backhanded attempts at extortion with her assumed legions of zombie followers, is so over-the-top as to remind one of the cult of personality that has been built around her. now we get to read posts like this from other disillusioned and ill-informed clinton supporters who slyly (they think) make ridiculous claims about obama and his supporters (they're so mean to us... everyone picks on hillary) and see how far they can push our patience and the limits of reality.

if get used to it is not the best way to respond to clinton diehards like dijamoron, then try this: life sucks.

get used to it.

Nice avatar.

What happened to the name change? I thought it was pretty funny.

Look at the time-stamp of the comment you're responding to. :)

Barack Obama 2008: Get Used To It!

It's kind of catchy! Great campaign slogan for Obama to unify the democratic party and turnout the vote to take back the presidency in November. It encompasses the entitlement Barack displayed when he so pompously declared he could get all of Hillary's voters, but the question was could she get his. It says eff you! Your opinions and concerns matter not a whit to me. Your vote matters not in the least so just get used to it. I am the nominee and you can submit or be out.

Inspirational! Really trademark that and put it on a bumper sticker.

So you grant yourself the right to often get pissed and make nasty attacks, while at the same time you keep on complaining about some Obama supporters getting pissed, and making nasty attacks. Well isn't that special!.

It's all part of her coy but sassy assaciousness.

Excuse me but I've trademarked assaciousness so back off. Can you get some wit of your own? Because you are sorely lacking in it which is why you resort to perjorative terms like bitch.

Posted

Right, let's all come together, asshat.

Dude, seriously. Do you have to?

I've got Terry on video.

I guess the argument is what "magic number" you want to use.

It's a farce to compare her not conceding to Jesse Jackson in 84, or Kennedy in 80. WE LOST THOSE ELECTIONS!!! And that's exactly the point - history very well proves that contesting a nomination will result in the party losing in November. That's what everyone has been up in arms about - that's what is meant by 'party unity.'

It's also a farce to compare her candidacy to that of her husband's who didn't become the nominee officially in 1992 until the California primary in June. Everyone knew that Bill Clinton would be the nominee in 1992 by April 7. Jerry Brown, the only real contender left in the race, sent emissaries from his campaign to let Clinton know that he would not even run TV ads against him in CA, though he would still campaign. He also pledged not to go negative on him, in CA. Again, that's called keeping the respect of your candidacy and not letting your supporters down, but acting in the interests of party unity.

It's like a math problem. Like in a 7 game series when one team wins 4 games, the series is over - you know the winner. In sports they don't even bother to continue at that point. But you could keep playing til the end - maybe you get a 4-3 split. Closer than 4-1, but the team that won 4 out of 7 still wins. This nomination was over a long time ago and Clinton has had plenty of time to adjust and thank her supporters and blah blah blah.

No one forced superdels to Obama's side yesterday - they saw the train comin' and decided to get on. There are many, many superdels who have wanted to support Obama but haven't either out of fear or loyalty or respect to Clinton. Now they can.

I'M SO HAPPY I COULD SHRIEK!!!! THE CLINTONS HAVE BEEN THE ROVIAN MASTERMINDS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR 15 YEARS NOW AND IT'S BEEN DEADLY FOR US! FINALLY THE YOKE OF POLITICAL DYNASTY IS LOOSENED!

. . . and we can breathe again . . . .

Why not? Certainly wouldn't be the first time.

Sorry,
When I wrote that I thought the name change would be reflected in all of the profile's posts, like an avatar change is.

I later saw that this is not true.

Perhaps, in the interest of party unity, you'll quit posting inflammatory, intentionally insulting posts someday soon. Spreading manure on top of bile is hardly the way to end the rancor. Or perhaps you'll vote for John McCain.

I like what you're saying. I hope Hillary stays far away from the Obama ticket as well.

And this is exactly why I think we need members from the corresponding 80% of Hillary supporters to work on their 20 percenters.

Demanding concession?

I don't see Obama doing that at all. Nor his campaign. I do think it is important on both sides not to conflate supporters and followers with candidates. Or to confuse media with candidates. Although I actually saw quite a few media types and pundits arguing that she did deserve some space, that she had earned it.

I do not demand that Hillary do anything. I actually think taking some time to sort next moves is okay. My issue with what she did yesterday was that she then didn't follow through with that, she began the VP pressure cooker strategy immediately, even before the evening.

Even though I think it is okay for her not to concede, I do think doing that would have been better given the VP thing. If she hadn't done that (and had actually taken the space), my response would have been different. She not only didn't take the space, she began pushing into Obama's territory, directly and through surrogates in a way that I think was unprecedented in its timing.

In general, not conceding under the circumstance is unusual in politics, as it is part of the job, and you earn respect by doing it well, although I don't think you should be vilified for not doing it well. So that is why it became news, that she chose to avoid part of the job. If she were to do that for some larger ultimately purpose that served the Democrat Party for the fall, that would be completely okay. Jury still out on that.

I have been struck by that same observation myself several times recently. It occured to me the other day that I do not know any Clinton supporters in "real life." My aunt in Florida started off as a Clinton supporter, but ended up switching to Richardson by the time of the election and is now firmly on the Obama bandwagon. I tend to suspect that some of my aunts and uncles probably voted for Clinton, but they have no bumper-stickers or yard signs or suchlike to indicate as much and they have not said anything to me in favor of Clinton. Among the folks that I know who take an interest in politics, I have a lot of Obama supporting friends and acquaintences, a few Edwards supporters (all of whom have since switched to Obama) and a few Huckabee supporters (some of whom have taken the plunge to support McCain and some of whom have not). Admittedly, Obama took my part of Missouri by more than 2 to 1, so it stands to reason that there are more Obama supporters for me to know around here than Clinton supporters, but it is still somewhat curious that I do not know any Clinton supporters.

I don't want her reduced to VP when she can have MUCH more impact elsewhere.

That is largely my own thinking. It would be a waste of talent and intelligence to let her languish in the VP's mansion. Towards what end?

Alex, you're confusing ad hominem attack with pointing out the obvious petulance of the poster and her uncanny echoing of sore-loser Clintonites.

Funny is subjective. Thanks for your opinion.

Lil to much captain already?

time to move on

It seems Hillary really only wants one thing now: For McCain to win. And it would seem a large percentage of Hillary supporters want that as well. I'd love to revel in it and paint everyone with the same brush as you do with Obama supporters, but I know there are some reasonable Hillary supporters who will not vote (explicitly or implicitly) for McCain. But many will out of sad, childish spite.

If you had left out the misguided comments about 'Rovian' tactics this post would have been much more balanced and good. But it's tainted. To pretend that Hillary did not take any 'Rovian' tactics while proclaiming that Obama was the master of them is quite a statement of absolute blindness and stubborn bias that is difficult to overcome.

You can give your complaints about the way you perceive Obama ran the campaign, real or imagined, but don't pretend Hillary didn't do similar.

Reading his fundamental. I didn't say Obama was Rovian. I said his CAMPIAGN used Rovian tactics. Guess what? Rovian tactics work. How else did Bush get reelected in 2004 with his saggy approval rating. Get some perpective.

And of course that's a fake picture. Like all Hillary supporters I am an 92 year old white woman. I wanted to post my real picture, but Hallmark has the shoebox greeting lady trademarked.

http://www.hallmark.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/category3%7C10001%7C10051%7C11443%7C147551;-102001;11443%7Cecards%7CFavorite%20Characters

When did I say Hillary has NOT used Rovian tactics? All political campaigns do. Obama's campaign did it better and were able to pretend that he's above all that old politics while sending out the Clinton smear memos.

Let me guess. Reconciliation is only possible if Clinton supporters acknowledge Barack's and his campaign are perfect. Anything else is blasphemy. If that's your position, you're leaving half this party out in the cold.

Come visit greg....though...you are a Michiganer and you guys don't come here unless your going to Cedar Point.

Have at it. Don't let me get in your way bitterman.

Is ok. Explains the original statement. Didn't make a whole lot of sense with that one.

You are in denial. HRC ran her campaign in a way that would make the GOP proud. To get back into the contest she deliberately defined the electorate in terms of race and class. That tactic alsone showed that she didn't care about anything but her personal agenda to get elected come hell or high water. After losing the nomination, instead of being gracious in defeat, she wants to strong arm the VP slot.

I doubt that her tactic will work which makes me wonder what is her real motivation. Is it to continue to inflict damage to Obama in hopes of further marginalizing his candidacy.

My guess is that her strategy will only work if independents, African-Americans and the youth vote stays home in November. All indications are that this base of voters will only become more excited and more numerous by November.

So note to Obama, pick the VP of your choice,and know that you can depend on your coaliation of voters to support you in November. Let Hillary continue to work on her plan whatever it may be!

I agree with you here. Clinton had a strategy to deal with the race issue, and so did Obama. Neither candidate had completely clean hands. Clinton used surrogates to do the dirtiest work. So did Obama.

But, frankly, don't you see a little difference between the two situations? It's not quite a level playing field, is it? Because -- newsflash -- there are more white people in the US than black people. So any time the debate gets onto race, it's inherently a tricky thing for Obama to handle, without coming across as angry or blameful.

So isn't it kind of impressive that Obama beat the Clintons at this particular game? And isn't it kind of strange to waste time feeling sorry for HRC -- on this particular point?

What is your opinion of how the GOP are eagerly re-using Hillary's talking points and video of her to hit Obama? What is your opinion of Hillary fawning all over Fox News? What is your opinion of Hillary putting McCain on a level above Obama? What about "as far as I know"? What about the long list of other straight-from-the-GOP-book actions/words on her part?

You have the nerve to say that Obama is the one who used Rovian tactics? This is why I say you are blind to your bias. We all are, but some can at least recognize it and try to be balanced.

I dislike some of the things Obama did during the campaign, I think he said some dumb things. But he didn't cross the line in the way Hillary did MULTIPLE times.

And then now it's all nothing but victim-hood...please. She is simply trying to lock in hardcore supporters who will blindly follow her in whatever direction she says. Once she has a mass of disaffected misled voters who won't blink without her approval, she thinks then she'll have the leverage to get whatever megalomanic thing it is she is wanting.

No I think we can objectively say that you're not funny.

It seems the only justification Clinton supporters can offer for her outrageous non-concession speech is that Hillary & co. "needs time" before she can act with class and dignity and that "she needed a night" to thank her supporters.

Earth to Hillary:

Guess what? You could have thanked your supporters profusely AND endorsed Obama. Yes, a twofer! These 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

AND

Adults - barring Hillary and co. - know that grown ups often have to do things they don't want to do when they don't want to do them. This is one of the first lessons we teach our children.

How is she helping Party unity when everyone knows Obama's the nominee but she's still in the race?

HAHAHA!

Did Jesse Jackson lack class and dignity when he didn't concede because he wanted his issues on the table? Did Teddy Kennedy lack class and dignity when he took it to the convention? Jesse Jackson didn't concede until the convention because he wanted the issues he was fighting for on the table for the democratic party. I don't recall him being accused of being "ungracious" at the time. If what you are fighting for is so important to you, then yes you will make damn sure your issues and concerns are heard. Hillary has said all along she will back the nominee and campaign on his behalf this whole NOW NOW NOW movement is really unbecoming. Why is it that Hillary must submit now as soon as he gets over the hump?

If you actually paid attention to Hillary's speech instead of just waiting for the words "I CONCEDE," you got some real insight into what matters to Hillary supporters. I don't begrudge her the right to make sure those issues are addressed on behalf of her supporters before conceding and moving on the general election where she will campaign for him.

"Hillary supporters made at Obama supporters for not letting her have that moment in the spotlight, then objective accomplished."

That is my issue with Hillary and whey she should NOT be the nominee. It was NOT her moment to be in the spotlight, because all it did was egg on the dead-enders. She lost! Get over it!

I find it hilarious that Obama is supposed to come crawling to her, hat in hand. And why? Because her feelings will be hurt if he doesn't? Boo-friggin-hoo! All of this "acknowledge how she is feeling" b.s. is getting pretty tiresome. Especially when it come from people who refuse the acknowledge the polarization that they encouraged. So I say to Hillary "Good bye and good luck." Go figure out how to be the best senator you can be. Because after all this crap (not to mention BC's Gina Gershon problem), Obama, if he is smart "Thanks Hillary, but I think the Vice Presidency woudl not be a suitable use of your skills."

I bow to your bitchy humor.

"Did Jesse Jackson lack class and dignity when he didn't concede because he wanted his issues on the table? Did Teddy Kennedy lack class and dignity when he took it to the convention?"

Yes. The Democrats lost all three times.

Teddy Kennedy - maybe. Jesse Jackson, come on! You can't blame Jesse for Dukakis. And please note that both they took it to the convention. Hillary's campaign gave every indication that she was wrapping it up this week. To say she must concede the very second Obama crosses the threshold or the evening he crossed the threshold is an unfair standard that has not been applied to other candidates.

Really? Do you think you are being helpful when you keep calling Hillary a Republican. What in that speech last night sounded anything near Republican? Barack's the one using Republican talking points against universal healthcare! Can we not acknowledge there is a diversity of views in the democratic party and we are all still part of one family. Hillary is more moderate on the foreign policy issues and Barack is more moderate on the economic issues. That said we are closer to each other than McCain - unless you keep telling Clinton supporters that they are not welcome in the party.

Again I do not see the logic in saying to borderline HRC supporters go to McCain. It's like the GWB "Bring it on!" comment to the insurgents in Iraq. It's asinine machismo and you might just get enough folks to take you up on your offer that we lose in November. If that's the outcome you want, carry on. I'll be on the opposite side saying I heart Hillary too, but Barack is the next best thing. Harder to convince folks when they are being pushed away on the other side.

Tell that to all the Hillary supporters who vow to vote for McCain or stay home. Tell that to all the Clinton supporters who are chanting "Denver" and pledging to fight against Obama any way they can.

As one of those folks who thought she got screwed by the RBC committee with Michigan, I was one of those saying "See you In Denver :)" Cooler heads prevail. It's about what do we want in November versus Hillary getting shafted by the RBC committee. Eventually we need to come together and we don't get there by playing the blame game.

That said I have ALWAYS said as a Hillary supporter I will outreach to other Hillary supporters and encourage them to support Barack. This election is much more important than Hillary or Barack. It's about Not McCain.

"those oh so unifying Obama supporters"

Just as there are Obama supporters who are gloating and not being very unifying, please don't tell me you believe all Clinton supporters are being great Democrats...Reference your own statement "It will take a miracle of all miracles for me to pull the lever".

"you will need quite few of those votes to even have the slightest chance of winning in November"

Is the game today "Take the party hostage" or "Blackmail"? Hillary's ready to play either and she has a large number of supporters who are more interested in their own ego than anything else.

"she got screwed by the RBC committee with Michigan"

Her own people screwed her when they voted to punish Michigan? She screwed herself when she agreed to not campaign there and that the election wouldn't count? Oh, no, it was all Obama and his supporters! She talks about counting every vote, but actually not any vote that isn't for her. Talk about counting all the votes, but ignoring all the states that had caucuses.

No reasonable person not blinded by bias believes that her Michigan demand was fair. All votes for her, none for anyone else? In a contest that she originally agreed wouldn't count? PLEASE!

Do you at least recognize that Obama supporters HAD the votes to make it 50-50 but didn't? In the name of sanity you have to recognize that.

Right. Every loser in an election should get some "time" to adjust to that. In November, the election results should be put off for at least "a day" so that the loser can have some time to get over the sadness of trying so hard, but then LOSING!

Do you want to start a new tradition? Did Gore get a day or two to get over the fact that he won but SOTUS gave the election to Bush? How about Kerry?

Why do you think Hillary should get this "day?" I have never heard this whine about any other candidate in history! Gore actually won the popular vote of the whole freaking country, and not by "Hillary math" -- he actually won, but the Supremes accepted a fraudulent vote from Florida and didn't want to take the time to validate it, and so it was over.

Why should she get an extra day or two? Because she is a girl? You djiamo, Hillary, and your ilk have set the clock back for feminism for at least a decade with this victimhood crap. I am sick of it.

What is your point? That certain people need to get extra time to admit they lost when they lost? What certain people -- women? As a 60 year-old woman, I demand that you just stop this shit!

Hillary has to stand up and take it like a woman! She is doing our cause no favors! The only bright side to this, is that I can rest easy that she will not get the VP slot! (How could he run WITH someone who is still running AGAINST him?)

It is not obvious to me that VP is a really great position from which to run for the presidency. It was no great help to Nixon, or Mondale, or Gore. It worked well for the first Bush, that seems more like the exception than the rule. If Clinton wants another shot at the presidency, it is not at all clear to me that her odds would be improved any if she were to run as Vice President Clinton instead of as Senator Clinton.

Did you teach YOUR kids that when they lose they should stomp their feet and ask rhetorically, "Who should really be the winner?" and deny that the winner, um.......won?

Hillary needs time. She is a WOMAN, after all! Thanks for setting us back a couple of decades!

I'm not going to respond to you any more; you are just a troll and it is a waste of my time. YOu never respond specifically, you just repeat yourself. I did put something at the end of this thread, but you are so unworthy of response because you are deaf and blind to actual comments.

You make me wish we had an "ignore" feature, but I am starting my own for you. Enjoy your vote in November...I will enjoy mine!

I will be a part of our country's future and you will be a part of all the victims who love being victims...you will have no responsibility for the good that Obama will accomplish, but I have no doubt that you will claim it as your own.

PS -- Who would YOU like to be VEEP?

Teddy Kennedy lost and did not concede - took it to the convention. Jesse Jackson lost and did not concede. Was there all this outrage about them not conceding the nanosecond their opposition got the nomination. NO Why are the standards different for Hillary? Gore did not concede as soon as the Supreme court decision came down - he took a day so check your history.

I am not saying she should get extra time because she's a girl. I am saying all this focus on bow out gracefully and with dignity is bullshit and she's been subjected to it at a much larger degree than any male candidate perhaps because hse's a woman and she should be ladylike, stand aside and sweep the dust in front of him as he proceeds to the nomination? Politics is hard business and not for the faint of heart. She's fought a hard campaign and she is entitled to take time to have her concerns brought to the table.

I don't think either one of them came to the stage after an introduction as "The Next President of the United States".

As I follow the conversation, dijamo is planning to vote for Barack. She says that Hillary's speech inspired her to take that leap.

Great. Good news. So what exactly do we have to be unhappy about?

Instead of beating up on dijamo, we ought to try to convince her to work on her sister, who isn't quite there yet.

Teddy Kennedy lost and did not concede - took it to the convention.

Yes, he didn't until he got some time at the 1980 Convention and gave what is considered the best speech of his life (personally I think that was at the funeral of RFK, but whatever).

However, let's tell the rest of the story: Kennedy didn't help Carter campaign afterwards (despite promises to do so) and while the Iran situation is ultimately what did Carter in, Kennedy didn't help.

I wouldn't go using him as an example for your thesis, unless you are keen on having McCain elected.

"As for the "take the party hostage" dramatics i guess that's fitting since Hillary got her votes in Michigan and Florida hijacked"

And the people who stayed home because Hillary and the rest who had agreed the votes wouldn't count only to have Hillary turn around and change the game for her own ego also had their votes hijacked. Hillary DOESN'T CARE about any of those people, just the vote for her. What about all those people? All the people who voted uncommitted only to have her do her best to have all those stay uncounted while she got all of hers? Be smart.

ummm errr I am a NYer so if I write in for Hilalry and don't actively vote for Obama it's going to have zero impact on the election. I have the privilege of voting my conscience versus knowing my non-vote for him might equal President McCain. Will Barack convince me to actively vote for him? Maybe. Universal healthcare, liberal up that foreclosure prevention policy etc and I could concieveable vote for him. But I've found in the general election candidates move to the center which is why Obama's moving towards the center on that meeting with dictators stuff. I don't think there's a chance in hell his economic policies will become more liberal unless HRC actively uses her "leverage" to push for it as much as she can.

All that said, I will encourage the Hillary supporters in close blue states, red states, purple sates, magenta states, crimson states to get a post it called NOT MCCAIN if that's what they need for Obama and put it over his name and vote for him. I encourage them not to stay home and get out and vote for our congressional delegation - we're going to need to increase our majority.

Even on healthcare, Obama's position is much closer to Hillary's than McCain's is.

Dijamo has kicked everyone's ass so many times I tremble whenever her black smiley face comes over the hill. And that's from kicking your ass, not mine. Hate to imagine her pissed at me.

Your opinion is respected, but simple common courtesy says when you lose, be gracious in defeat. If you win, acknowledge your opponent, praise them lavishly.

She didn't do that. Top to bottom, her event was the exemplar in what not to do. From Terry McAuliffe introducing her as the "next" President when Obama had already clinched the nomination, to her not so veiled swipes at Obama, to the clear threat of going to Denver, to the inability of the campaign to control the 300 or 600 who were in the tiny sub-basement gym, not instructing them to be gracious also, to the glum faces of Bill and Chelsea standing on the sidelines.

Everything she did said "defiance" and also showed she could not be trusted to be the number two. Number two is not number one. Number two does not steal the spotlight from number one.

So sadly, Hillary miscalculated. She thought this was all about her, when it was all about Barack and the Democratic Party, of which Hillary is a part. But last night should have been about Barack and a very historic achievement for our nation. Instead, it showed the true nature of the Clintons: narcissistic grandstanding, self-centered whining, backstabbing and arm-twisting.

Overlay last night, with all of the speeches you heard during the Ken Starr years about the scandals. The are nearly identical in tenor and tone, only changing in subject matter.

That is why people are angry and disappointed in the behavior of Hillary Clinton today. Let us hope that if she concedes on Friday, as is being reported widely this evening, that takes a page from Leticia Baldridge, chief of protocol for Jacqueline Kennedy, and does it with the grace and elegance befitting a former First Lady.

Teddy waited until after the convention and didn't campaign in the general election. You are telling me that Hillary doesn't deserve until the end of the week to concede, have her issues heard and move forward? That's what her campaign officially said. I certainly don't think it's fair that she's being treated differently.

I really doubt that. I think you're so full of bluster and outrage and SHE MUST CONCEDE NOW that you never even saw the speech or read it. You're just parroting the talking points of others. Which is fine. Do that. Continue to be angry and outraged that she did not immediately concede.

But I think that you should know as an African American and a woman I was proud to have two candidates with the potential to break barriers for President. But hey whatever - because I'm a Hillary supporter I'm against Obama because of * race * gasp. That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard and I've heard a lot of stupid shit at TPM.

In terms of personality and character, I choose Hillary. She's smart and well informed and tough yet she genuionely cares and has passion for her goals and vision and the people who are impacted by them. Lawyers who work in public interest for law guardians for women and children don't particularly strike me as selfishly motivated. I admire that Hillary speaks her mind publicly even when it's unpopular. While Barack has his campaign do the dirty work for him and send out memos saying the Clinton's are racist, he himself says no such thing and will only publicly say my campaign would do no such thing. Hillary will say I would have left Trinity Church. She'll say things like I can win the hard working white blue collar vote herself. She doesn't leave the dirty work to others. She's raised an intelligent and thoughtful daughter in the spotlight of the media glare that by all accounts is as normal can be.

There's many reasons I choose Hillary and I would hope there's many that you chose Barack. I'd reccomend not assuming that just because you don't see everyone's motivations that they don't exist and they are just voting on *gasp* race.

Please stop following me around now.

I am so baffled by people's wishes contrary to that sentiment. They sound like they drank too much caffeine or something.

Winning this fall is my priority, not reordering dijamo's belief system to match mine precisely. Voting for Obama and urging others to do so is all I ask of any Democrat.

Hillary is fake and a liar who is concerned only about her own power. Plus, as she showed in this primary, actually a poor leader and organizer. Politics as usual with her.

She changed positions as it fit her immediate circumstance. She doesn't *actually* care about people or many issues. See the whole Michigan/Florida thing. When she was talking about how it would be over Feb 5th, she didn't care at all to 'let every vote be heard'. Only when she needed those votes. Not the people, the votes.

If that's what you want to believe...I don't think so.

Ever read hillaryis44.org? You are ok with them?

I don't agree with extremists on either side.

Frankly, as long as this isn't a discussion pointing toward "Hillary or else" then I'm fine. I call out how I see her (not as a great person) as I go. Pointing out that "Obama did this or that" and feigning that Hillary didn't take part in similar or worse tactics and all of the talking points she either handed to or got from the GOP is deceitful. That's all.

Of course, as very few of you probably know, Armchair Guerilla has posted his belated and not highly coveted concession and endorsement of the Senator from Illinois. I tried to refrain from mentioning my erstwhile candidate as I believed the focus should rightfully be on the nominee and not the also ran. Still, I was fairly disgusted with the bloviating asses on CNN last night savaging Hillary for her self-centerdness, blah blah blah. I would not expect her to concede at a rally of her supporters just because he reached the magic number. She will concede and endorse him. I must say, though, the longer she draws this out the more it plays into the nasty stereotypes that have been bandied about here, and even I will begin to question her character.

So you're saying that your viewpoint echo's the hillaryis44 crowd?

Are you on house arrest. You're been at the computer all day. Are you a paid staffer for Hillary? We need to know.

That Ass-tute comment hurts my feelings.

I have surfed hillaryis44. Some of the winning comments there include comparisons of Obama to Stalin, with no objections from the crowd.

From what I have gathered from your posts, you're a few steps above the 44 crowd in terms of intelligence. But my feeling is that you have still reached the wrong conclusion.

Sentimental hogwash.

Virtually everybody in the media agreed that she showed extremely bad character, as has become her character, by not stepping aside, not trying to rally her troops on with a veiled threat to take it to "Denver, Denver..," or not congratulating Senator Obama and giving him his due.

I wouldn't expect anymore from a Clinton apologist. If Charlie Rangel's great quote today is any indicator, I'm sure Democratic leaders had perhaps more subtle things to tell her when she asked what she should do now.

"We pledged to support her to the end," Representative Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat who has been a patron of Mrs. Clinton since she first ran for the Senate, said in an interview "Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is."-Rep Rangel, NYT and on TPM front page.

Thank God she's finally heading out the door, and thank God she won't be VP. Hopefully, you come around and join the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. We'd love to have you. Watch John McCain's speech and ask youself if you want that zombie as POTUS.

Christ. Unlike yourself I've actually been working all day and didn't get a chance to notice your asisnine bloviating until now. Hopefully, now that your candidate is gone we can look forward to the same from you. Oh, and don't forget, you don't need to report to work after Friday and your last paycheck is June 14th. You might want to email that resume off to the McCain campaign - it looks like they could use someone that can actually put a sentence together. (And like your posts here, it doesn't have to make any sense.)

Sorry-now that your candidate has won, your blogging subsidy is being cut off. They only need bloggers now who can spell and compose something other than hate-filled spews. They especially do not need bloggers who encourage the former competition to join the current competition.

I will say this for Obama - his campaign knows how to play harball and has done it to stunning effect. They've demonstrated the Rovian skill to smear and slur and attack without appearing to get their hands dirty (who me sending out memos about the Clinton's being a racist? ...

Pot, kettle on line 1!

The one distinction I'll grant here is that the media called out Clinton as slinging mud, so her hands did get dirty. Obama may have found some of Ronald Reagan's teflon.

The way she has been treated by the Obama campaign and the media has been appalling.

I agree with the latter half of that statement, but not the former. It's politics, and we're all far more sensitive to the perceived slurs aimed at our candidate than to those aimed at the opposition. To my observation, Hillary took far more undeserved abuse from the media than she did from Obama's campaign.

The media coverage played up sexist stereotypes in ways they never would have considered with racist ones: harping on the "cackle", her cleavage, the pundit on CNN saying some people really are bitches, the "pimping out" line, and Chris Matthews's denigration that she only won her senate seat because Bill cheated on her are just a few examples where the media demeaned and attacked her simply because she was a woman. And certainly all of that was appalling.

To my eyes, Obama never tried to make Hillary's sex an issue, while Clinton did try to make Obama's race an issue.

IMO (biased though it is), "... as far as I know..." was more scurrilous than "... you're likable enough...", but I could see where a Hillary supporter might view things differently. I've drunk the kool-aid, but I can't see anything Obama said that was comparable to Clinton implying he hadn't crossed the Commander-in-chief threshold, but McCain "certainly" had. But I could have missed something.

If you were honestly appalled by Obama's treatment of Clinton in this campaign, take a look again at Clinton's campaign from a pro-Obama perspective. There's plenty of material one could be appalled at.

I will note (and I sent an e-mail to Josh Marshall about this at the time) that I thought Bill was unfairly denounced for his Jesse Jackson comparison. His comments and delivery were nothing but complimentary to both men, yet by mentioning both he conflates the two in listeners' minds. To me, that wasn't dirty - Bill knew exactly where the line was, and while he came close to it, he never crossed it, IMO. He effectively made his point without actually doing anything wrong, and it was vintage Bill (and I mean that as a compliment).

I thought Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, and Geraldine Ferraro all crossed the line, however, so the backlash Hillary's camp took for that was, to me, deserved.

As the saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. Undoubtedly the Obama camp played hard - but so did Hillary. Which side you think was dirtier is most likely predicted by which candidate you prefer. Obviously the opposition must have been worse.

From skimming the other comments, though, I do see (and very much appreciate) that you're backing Obama in the fall. As I've said elsewhere, we don't need to convince Hillary supporters that Obama is actually a stronger candidate than she is, but we do need to convince them that he's stronger than McCain.

Everyone in the media denouncing Hillary? Yup that petty much happens no matter what she does if you haven't noticed. Of course I will join the nominee, but that doesn't mean denounicing my candidate of choice. I still heart Hillary and I deserve one sentimental hogwash post to pour a little Crown Royal out for the candidate that is no longer with us. And hopefully explain to Obama supporters that now is a critical time where people will be either driven away from the party or brought closer together. Reading the comments at TPM recently that continue to be all about Hillary sucks does not add to the unity. Some respect for Senator Clinton might be too much for many of you I understand, but some respect for her supporters and some appreciation of their viewpoints is what we need to try to bring the party together.

I live in Oregon and am surrounded by Obama supporters. I know of one Clinton supporter. Of course, people have been accosted on the street for wearing a Clinton pin and yelled and screamed at.

I was discussing the election last night with someone blithely assuming I was in the Obama camp. It was actually hard to stop the flow of vitueration long enough to say, just so you know....

HAHA maybe the gov't can take over and become the grammar police too.