onegoodmove

Oh no. That picture of Obama reading "the Post-American World" is going to fly about the internet tubes with "OMG, he really is a Manchurian Candidate!!1!"

Le Sigh.

don't say you were'nt warned

If the HIllary Clinton supporters weren't so damned vindictive, then Obama's would be doing better.

The majority of Obama supporters have said all along that they would support Hillary.

So we warned that we better for Hillary or else? How stupid. The Hillary supporters prefer McCain over Obama? Really? Well, that says a lot.

Sorry for all of the grammar errors above. I was just so damned irritated that Hillary supporters could be so petty.

And another thing about the "don't say you weren't warned".

I have this awful feeling that Hillary supporters are so determined to prove that Obama supporters were wrong that they're actually willing to vote for McCain, or to vote for someone else, or not vote at all.

Pathetic.

This brings to mind the Monica Lewinsky crap. The Europeans just couldn't understand why Americans were so upset with Bill Clinton and toss him under the bus for this.

And then the Europeans couldn't understand how Americans could vote not once, but twice, for George Bush.

Well, now Americans are prepared to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.

sigh...

@ Hominid Views » Blog Archive » Poll Analysis: Clinton Holds Her Lead Over McCaindon't say you were'nt warned.

The most interesting graph that Hominid shows is the trend graph against mccain. When Hillary is the "frontrunner" in December and January, she'll loose to McCain (according to that graph). Once Obama starts to take the lead in delegates and looks to be the frontrunner, She gets back up above mccain.

Hominid argues that the "momentum" is with clinton lately, but to me, it looks like she's on the peak side of a turnabout.

It should also be noted that this isn't a two person race yet. Putting Clinton Against McCain tells you nothing, because the polls he is using are tainted by the fact that there are still 3 people in the race.

Joann, Cheer up, I really do think that Democrats can win this November, because McCain has no policy, and that will begin to show (as soon as we have a democratic nominee).

Look at how loudly Repugs cried when McCain was becoming the nominee. "Not a true conservative" etc etc.

When people realize that mccain wants to continue this war and potentially overturn Roe V Wade, clinton supporters wont be stupid...

Right?

Joann, Cheer up, I really do think that Democrats can win this November, because McCain has no policy, and that will begin to show (as soon as we have a democratic nominee).

When people realize that mccain wants to continue this war and potentially overturn Roe V Wade, clinton supporters wont be stupid...

Right?

Well, Magnolia, I hope that you're right. But I have this awful feeling that the Hillary supporters are so pissed off and so willing to prove the Obama supporters wrong that they're willing to allow John McCain to win.

It's that pathetic.

I have this awful feeling that Hillary supporters are so determined to prove that Obama supporters were wrong that they're actually willing to vote for McCain, or to vote for someone else, or not vote at all.

I don't think it will be a huge problem, but to the extent that it is it will in part because Barack doesn't reach out to those supporters and that Obama supporters continue to hold them in contempt, calling them racist and uneducated and claiming not to want or need their support. In short to demonstrate they don't deserve the elitist label some of them have earned. So instead of showing a lack of respect by asserting that they will vote for McCain to spite Obama supporters. Those supporters would do better by being more conciliatory and less negative toward those Democrats they so sorely need.

The warning is a warning of the destructive behavior many Obama supporters continue to exhibit. Give it a break your candidate will be the nominee it should be easy to be gracious, but some don't seem able to manage it yet. Funny that, because the candidate seems to be getting it now if he can just convince his supporters to follow.

I don't think it will be a huge problem, but to the extent that it is it will in part because Barack doesn't reach out to those supporters and that Obama supporters continue to hold them in contempt, calling them racist and uneducated and claiming not to want or need their support. In short to demonstrate they don't deserve the elitist label some of them have earned. So instead of showing a lack of respect by asserting that they will vote for McCain to spite Obama supporters. Those supporters would do better by being more conciliatory and less negative toward those Democrats they so sorely need.

Norm, don't you think that this goes both ways? Obama supporters should be gracious and Hillary supporters should be gracious.

Where one stands depends upon where one sits. Right?

When people realize that mccain wants to continue this war

Um, no. Actually McCain is just stating the truth that this war will continue, while the Democratic candidates (including the one who voted for the war) just keep lying and pretending they'll magically bring the troops home. So it boils down to whether you're a child who wants to hear fairy tales or a grownup who wants to hear the truth.

potentially overturn Roe V Wade

Does the left ever get tired of this bogeyman? Every Republican candidate has this nonsense trotted out against them. You might be better served studying how our government works, chief, and realize that no one person can 'overturn' a law of the land.

The fact is that the left has no real argument against McCain, which is why they have to keep making up BS charges - he's a warmonger! He's just another Bush! He hates women! Et cetera, et cetera. In reality he's a relatively moderate, middle-ground conservative which is a pretty good compromise.

And it amuses me to hear anybody who supports Obama claim someone else has 'no policy'. Saying the word 'change' over and over isn't policy, it's pandering. Obama actually had the gall to recently stand up in front of a crowd of people and say "I know every four years somebody comes up here and tells you they care about you, they understand your pain, they will bring about change. And then nothing happens. But I'm here to tell you I care about you. I understand your pain. I will bring about change!" and everybody cheered. It's embarrassing how gullible people can be while thinking they're smart.

Well, Norm, at least you can now agree with Calligraph as concerns Obama.

lol

Obama supporters continue to hold them in contempt, calling them racist and uneducated and claiming not to want or need their support. In short to demonstrate they don't deserve the elitist label some of them have earned.

We're not all like that, so don't fall for the media's attempts to sow divisions. I like Obama. I would vote for Clinton. I would rather have Kucinich, but I guess he's too short. Anyone is better than McCain, and I really hope we can put this pathetic fighting behind us and try to heal our country.

Hillary lost me when she authorized the invasion of Iraq.

More to the point, I would be gracious towards Hillary if she's stop trying to win by cheating. Is anyone buying her comparing the delegate seating of Florida and Michigan to the great United States suffrage struggles? It's pathetic, but I'd still vote for her over McCain. It's insane for any Obama or Clinton supporters to go to the voting booths and vote for spite.

I am petty and pathetic, well that only serves to harden my resolve. I'll see John McCain President before I see Obama anywhere near the White House.

Fury doesn't begin to describe how I feel right now after reading JoAnn's assault on Clinton's supporters. You misunderstand what drives us. At least 30% or more of us won't vote for Obama. Ask yourselves why? It's the same reason many didn't vote for John Kerry. Obama is an effete liberal who is out of touch with my values and we are sick and tired of the Democratic Party making the same mistake over and over again that we have had enough.

Well, here's an Asian third-world view from me. Clinton and large sections of the Democratic party have shown themselves to be so unprincipled (I refer to the bizarrely blatant attempt to cheat in Michigan and Florida) that some hapless third-world country is sure to be attacked by America every time President Clinton's ratings fall. Democrats are no more principled than the Republicans.

Actually McCain is just stating the truth that this war will continue, while the Democratic candidates (including the one who voted for the war) just keep lying and pretending they'll magically bring the troops home. So it boils down to whether you're a child who wants to hear fairy tales or a grownup who wants to hear the truth.

You mean like the fairy tale that we're going to achieve "victory" in the midst of a civil war driven by sectarian and intra-sectarian strife? Or the fairy tale that John McCain prefers to think of the opposing sides in those conflicts, Sunni and Shiite, under the broad category of "the transcendent challenge of Islamic radicalism." I'm sorry, but if you thinking McCain is giving it to you straight on 'We'll achieve victory by 2013', you have probably not been following the news about the war.

The issue is not whether to 'continue' the war or not, but whether it makes sense to use military solutions to political problems (although, granted, ones we ourselves in part help create).

Does the left ever get tired of this bogeyman?

Two words. Roberts, Alito. Not a boogeyman, since indeed one man through the powers of appointment accord to the president, can indirectly overturn the law (that is, precedent).

Obama is an effete liberal who is out of touch with my values

You've got to be kidding me. His policies are fractionally different than Clinton's. His voting record is fractionally different than Clinton's. If Obama doesn't share your 'values', then neither does Clinton. Unless you are talking about the imaginary 'values' such as whether a black man who was raised in a single parent home and who just finished paying off his student loans within the last 5 years is actually an effete, silver spoon in the mouth dandy, or secret muslim.

I'm also unclear what putatively 'destructive' behavior either Obama or his supporters are allegedly exhibiting. Obama has used his latest victory speeches to praise Clinton and is now (wisely, given that he's already won) consistently avoiding criticizing her. Perhaps you mean resistance to the idea of Clinton as VP, but I think a lot of Obama supporters are either neutral on that (like me) or support it for the sake of party unity (like Joann). But that is not going to happen in any case:

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

So that is why all this comparison between Zimbabwee and FL and MI. And what the floor fight come Convention will be all about--not who gets the presidency, but whether HRC will get the VP spot:

She could be grafted onto the ticket. The pro-Clinton blog, My DD, ran a post by Andre Walker that revealed that party rules say, "It takes the signatures of not less than 300 and no more than 600 delegate votes" plus the proposed nominee's written approval to place a candidate's name into nomination for vice president.

If her delegates come to the convention determined to leave with a parting gift of Clinton on the ticket, and she agrees, can Obama stop her?

I am reluctantly beginning to hear the music Joann appears to have been listening to for a long time--the democratic party has a remarkable gift for destroying itself. It's pathetic.

Lemos Says:

"I am petty and pathetic, well that only serves to harden my resolve. I'll see John McCain President before I see Obama anywhere near the White House."

With all do respect, listen to what your actually saying Charles: "I'll see Row vs Wade overturned, the war in Iraq continued, and all of the policies that both are candidates almost equally support abolished rather than see Obama in the White House."

I think you need a little perspective here Charles, what are you trying to prove?

You might be better served studying how our government works, chief, and realize that no one person can 'overturn' a law of the land.

Yes, but Courts can rule a law unconstitutional. Why do you think it's called Roe V. Wade instead of "the abortion rights law". Listen, child, this is no "moderate" when it comes to women.

"He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances — that was about violence against women in clinics," Keenan says, adding, "He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme."

"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned," the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states. McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench."

"I don’t claim to be a theologian, but I have my moral beliefs." If Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion outlawed, McCain said he believes doctors who performed abortions would be prosecuted.

And we all love when Politicians use the Bible/God to justify Laws...

It's embarrassing how gullible people can be while thinking they're smart.

Yeah, like believing mccain is a moderate. So moderate, he can't even vote to support Webb's bill to help veterans. What a Maverick!

Joann: "I have this awful feeling that Hillary supporters are so determined to prove that Obama supporters were wrong that they're actually willing to vote for McCain, or to vote for someone else, or not vote at all."

Charles: "I am petty and pathetic, well that only serves to harden my resolve. I'll see John McCain President before I see Obama anywhere near the White House. Fury doesn't begin to describe how I feel right now after reading JoAnn's assault on Clinton's supporters. You misunderstand what drives us."

I really hope you were being sarcastic there Charles...

we are sick and tired of the Democratic Party making the same mistake over and over again that we have had enough.

So what makes Hillary so Different, sir? I honestly don't see what you mean.

Awww, McCain's friends are mad that he's such a moderate...

from the politco

It was a small band of loyal lobbyists who stood by presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain last August when his campaign went broke and his White House aspirations seemed doomed. They raised money for him under impossible odds and kept him company in budget hotels during his darkest days. Now they are under siege as McCain purges active lobbyists from his campaign team in a quest to wrest the reformist title from Democrat Barack Obama, his likely opponent in this fall’s general election.

And it amuses me to hear anybody who supports Obama claim someone else has 'no policy'. Saying the word 'change' over and over isn't policy, it's pandering.

Elections are about EMOTIONS. He is a skill full politician who his rallying people.

You want to hear his policy over and over again: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ There is the link. Print it out, and put it with the bathroom magazines so you can read it daily. Being right on the issues is only half the battle. Hearts AND minds, remember?

The warning is a warning of the destructive behavior many Obama supporters continue to exhibit.

I really need to see examples of this. My partisan blinders are solidly on, I rarely go beyond this blog for public ranting, and in my personal life I keep good company with respectful friends of both camps. The way you have characterized a "core" group of non-campaign affiliated Obama supporters has not been my experience at all.

I think I have been a well balanced Obama supporter. Are you counting me among their ranks? Please show us what you're dealing with. Where are you seeing the hostility? Are you being taunted as you drive home from work with a Hillary 08 bumper sticker? Are you talking about blog posts? Random comments on blogs? Where is this perceived hostility that you can rationally link to a core group of Obama supporters? Where is the distructive behavior beyond zealous support for a candidate typical of election candidates for the last 200 years?

Re: Hominid Blog

Another good blog for data analysis is: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Currently showing both Obama and Hillary beating McCain in popular and electoral college votes. Hillary is shown as winning with greater margins. I believe, polling data has consistently supported her argument of greater electability.

Charles Lemos said:

Fury doesn't begin to describe how I feel right now after reading JoAnn's assault on Clinton's supporters. You misunderstand what drives us. At least 30% or more of us won't vote for Obama. Ask yourselves why? It's the same reason many didn't vote for John Kerry. Obama is an effete liberal who is out of touch with my values and we are sick and tired of the Democratic Party making the same mistake over and over again that we have had enough.

So you make up your mind vis-à-vis who you would vote for as president of the United States of America for the next four years based upon what I say? Or based upon other Obama supporters? Sad. So sad. Oh wait.. You then say that this has nothing to do with Obama supporters. You say that Obama is an "effete liberal who is out of touch with my values". Really"? What do you have against Liberals? What, are you some kind of gun-toting redneck from Colombia who worries about expensive types of bread as every non-effete American worries about? Really? lol

So, you, Charles Lemos, would rather have John McCain run our country instead of Barack Obama? Really?! Wow...

Norm said:

I don't think it will be a huge problem, but to the extent that it is it will in part because Barack doesn't reach out to those supporters and that Obama supporters continue to hold them in contempt, calling them racist and uneducated and claiming not to want or need their support. In short to demonstrate they don't deserve the elitist label some of them have earned. So instead of showing a lack of respect by asserting that they will vote for McCain to spite Obama supporters. Those supporters would do better by being more conciliatory and less negative toward those Democrats they so sorely need.

The warning is a warning of the destructive behavior many Obama supporters continue to exhibit. Give it a break your candidate will be the nominee it should be easy to be gracious, but some don't seem able to manage it yet. Funny that, because the candidate seems to be getting it now if he can just convince his supporters to follow.

So Hillary Supporters will not be responsible for electing John McCain. It's Obama's fault and the fault of Obama supporters? Really?!

So now you believe that roughly 50 percent of the Democratic party are elitists? Really? Norm, you and Charles Lemos believe that the more liberal half of the Democratic party are effetes? Really? You sound more and more like Calligraph and his ilk!

Should not those supporters of Hillary Clinton also be conciliatory and less negative towards the so-called "elitist" half of the Democratic party? Or do you prefer the non-elitist Republicans?

If it should be so easy to be gracious, then why can't you be gracious towards the Obama supporters? And Obama will beat McCain in the general election only if Hillary and her supporters can just convince themselves to vote for Obama instead of McCain.

Anyway, if the likes of Norm and Charles Lemos and the over-fifty year old women in the U.S. refuse to support Obama, we liberal Democrats are fucked.

Get used to saying it. President John McCain.

Get used to saying it. President John McCain.

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Syngas said: Get used to saying it. President John McCain.

YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!

Yes, we can deny rights to homosexuals! Yes we can!

Yes, we can engage in war mongering instead of diplomacy! Yes we can! Yes, we can continue to waste our money on an endless war in Iraq! Yes, we can!

Yes, we can outlaw abortion! Yes, we can!

Yes, we can continue to ignore the poor and cut taxes for the rich. Yes, we can continue to deny health care to those who can't afford it! Yes, we can!

Youpee! Go Syngas!

Just kidding JoAnn. If McCain wins, it won't be because of Hillary supporters. It'll be because of promised tax increases, no practical solutions to high fuel prices and continued flubs like saying 10,000 people died in a tornado when only 12 did, and insisting all the military interpreters are in Iraq so there aren't enough in Afghanistan when Afghanis don't speak arabic or kurdish.

"Yes, we can deny rights to homosexuals! Yes we can!"

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals do.

"Yes, we can engage in war mongering instead of diplomacy! Yes we can! Yes, we can continue to waste our money on an endless war in Iraq! Yes, we can!"

The waste would be to leave Iraq before we help fix it. I'm sure Iran would love to take over for us.

"Yes, we can outlaw abortion! Yes, we can!"

Reversing Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion. I'm sure there are plenty of states that would keep it legal. They could even promote it to citizens of neighboring states. It would be like a little tourist industry!

"Yes, we can continue to ignore the poor and cut taxes for the rich."

You do know that tax revenue has increased since the 'tax cuts' don't you?

"Yes, we can continue to deny health care to those who can't afford it!"

Or we could set up a system that is equally crappy for everyone!

McCain said it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate." A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate's ear. McCain then said: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

In light of the vote yesterday on a modernized, bipartisan GI Bill for U.S. troops, John McCain was forced to defend his position against general benefits for veterans

McCain wants to send them to war, but doesn't want to take care of them once they return.

Syngas said:

Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals do.

How would you like to have the following "rights"?:

WHEREFORE, because self-identified homosexual people are deprived of significant public benefits on the basis of their sexual orientation, including in some states the right to adopt and foster children;

WHEREFORE, because they are denied the right to marry legally in all 50 states, homosexual people are deprived of the legal rights and responsibilities attendant to marriage, including access to death benefits under public pension programs and the federal social security system;

WHEREFORE, because homosexual persons in committed relationships are forced to expend their personal resources to create inheritance protections for their partners and children rather than relying on state laws applying to inheritance, intestacy, parenting, and domestic relations;

WHEREFORE, because self-identified homosexual people are denied the right to serve in the United States Armed Forces, and thus denied a host of benefits associated with such service (including access to government programs conferring educational and economic benefits for the veteran and his or her family, along with hiring preferences in federal government);

WHEREFORE, because homosexual persons pay state and federal taxes, of all kinds and classes, at a rate equal to their heterosexual peers, while being denied access to thousands of public benefits that are paid with public dollars;

WE THE UNDERSIGNED therefore petition the government of the United States of America to recognize this inequity and address it by an appropriate reduction in annual income taxes for persons who self-identify as homosexual on their annual income tax form. The reduction should be calculated to reasonably apportion the amount of public dollars which are used to support programs and benefits to which homosexual persons are denied access.

"because they are denied the right to marry legally"

Sure they can. Same as me.

"forced to expend their personal resources to create inheritance protections"

You mean they have to write a will or a trust? Woe is me!

"because self-identified homosexual people are denied the right to serve in the United States Armed Forces, and thus denied a host of benefits"

So was I.

"because homosexual persons pay state and federal taxes, of all kinds and classes, at a rate equal to their heterosexual peers, while being denied access to thousands of public benefits that are paid with public dollars;"

Thousands? Really? Name a few.

Sure they can. Same as me.

Huh?

You mean they have to write a will or a trust? Woe is me!

If you die, your wife inherets the communal property. No will necessary.

So was I

You were denied this right although you're physically qualified? Really?

Thousands? Really? Name a few

Well, I just linked to an article. I've done my best to stick up for the homosexuals here. It's up to someone else now to answer this. It's a beautiful day and I've caused enough trouble for one day! ;)

Anyway, if the likes of Norm and Charles Lemos and the over-fifty year old women in the U.S. refuse to support Obama

You know it would be really nice if you would quit lumping me in with Charles. Although I think Hillary would make the better candidate, I have never said Democrats shouldn't support the Democratic candidate, in fact, unless they live somewhere where it doesn't matter, that they are idiots if they don't. That includes Charles if it looks close in California. What you did in including me is part of what I'm talking about Obama supporters who insult those who can make a difference. Don't worry you can insult me all you want and it won't change my view that Democrats ought to support the Democratic candidate, but I can see some getting angry over the continued abuse and just saying fuck it, I'm staying home.

And Norm, I feel that you and other Hillary supporters have been very condescending to Obama supporters. You continue to be critical of Obama on just about everything he does, and forgiving of Hillary no matter what she does, notwithstanding the fact that Obama will no doubt be the Democratic nominee.

I have no desire to insult you. I am just frustrated with how you have treated the Obama supporters and how you have treated Obama. If you had been as critical of HIllary and her supporters, I'd feel differtly about it, particulary after it was clear that Obama was clearly the likely nominee. And this attitude of yours started with a guest post from Lemos, followed by many other guest posts, and then a number of links to his blog. I could only reasonable assume that you support his comments because of your strong endoresment of his views as evidenced above and as you never contradict what he says. When something that someone says really annoys you, you speak up.

I'm truly sorry that it has come to this. I have to say what I really feel, though.

I am very angry at most Hillary supporters and their continued insults towards Obama and his supporters, and their attitude overall. But I would never just say "fuck it, I'm staying home". Hell no.

You know it would be really nice if you would quit lumping me in with Charles.

Granted, it is not fair to lump you with Charles. However, even with the caveat that you don't agree with everything you post, there are still a lot--although significantly fewer lately--of attacks on Obama. Perhaps you consider this a 'vetting' process, but, given that you want a democrat to win, what is to be gained from discussing such non-issues as whether Obama's putative Muslim background will cripple his foreign policy credentials in the Middle East, because supposedly they will regard him as an apostate? Or attacking Wright (who is not Obama, and I'm pretty sure your own view is that the two cannot be assimilated).

More to the point: if it is the case that you want a democrat to win, what is especially admirable about Clinton's fighting it out at this point? By my own lights, the nomination process is not about bargains and negotiations, but picking a candidate. If you lose, you gracefully withdrawal, and get behind the party; you don't send overtures to the winner demanding the VP spot, and parading a non-issue such as how 'undemocratic' it is that she cannot have ALL the delegates (included 'undecided') for states where Obama didn't campaign and wasn't on the ballot. (Unless the 'undecideds' come out on her side of the tally, seating MI and FL will not help her, and will not put her any closer to the nomination).

Obama is not criticizing Clinton. In fact, he's pretty much just ignoring her, when he's not praising, because she already lost. If anyone is dividing the party, it's her divisive remarks absurdingly comparing FL and MI to Zimbabwee, and supporters of both candidates in response to that issue. But there are reasons for resentment on both sides I feel neither is willing to acknowledge. All Obama's supporters want is for her to campaign with grace and not bring up smear and non-issues: if she can do that, and is willing to get behind whomever wins, without conditions or manipulation, then she can drop out whenever she wants, or campaign through November, for all I care. Finally:

That includes Charles if it looks close in California.

It does not sound to me like Charles is talking only about his own vote with regard to the Californian context. It sounds to me a lot like he's actively campaigning against Obama and saying he'd rather see McCain win. However much I strain for hermeneutic generosity, I frankly see no other way of reading "I'll see John McCain President before I see Obama anywhere near the White House".

Wow,

I have been thinking of the personality issues of elections recently. People (not just Obamafans) are really worked up. They are all emotionally involved in the issue more than just intellectually involved. I have been victim to this phenomena too, I was really pissed at one of Charles's Posts (ages ago) i think it was the baiting crowd one. (i became convinced that Charles was the baiter, baiting the Obamafans (ie me) into attacking him), obviously not true, but i got enraged.

So this is my theory, in this election people really care. More people than ever (since the 60's) have "Joined" a club, a following, found something they believe in. Somehow in this process they are becoming overly attached to the club they have joined. So Obama who wants to take down the divides, may have helped create some (as have all the other candidates). I wonder if the Obamafans seem more strident (you have to agree that there are guilty folks from all the various camps) They likely are the worse as this may be the first campaign they have been involved in. They are younger and more likely to be less cynical, more empassioned and may have never ever supported anything before. Many Clintonites are also first time primary voters, maybe not as young, but new to the process of getting involved, volunteering etc. So in the democrats we have gotten a lot of people to care, to take sides, to become educated, interested and involved. The downside is that we have become so invested in our 'Team" or "club" that we cannot see the greater picture, Blame Hillary(Obama/ McCain) for the damage to our candidate. " I won't votefor Hillary cause she is racist" " i won't vote for Obama cause he is sexist or just too charasmatic", or worse a Muslim, and McCain is evil cause he is a republican.

So I wonder if what certain folks here see from the Obamafans is nothing to do with Obamafans per say, but the somewhat crazed overenthusiasm of folks that suddenly have taken the time to actually car? I remember stuffing envelopes for a democrat when I was well 14? I still have the campaign buttons I wore to school in my braided hair. I was so passionate about my candidate. Charles you would have hated it. But you should not blame the candidate for that. It was youthful enthusiam.

I also think that people are taking attacks on their candidates and supporters as personal attacks. I have been offended personally about the comments about Obamafans ( I drink coolaid), i realise that is stupid, but people in general are kind of stupid and most act on emotional reactions rather than logical ones.

As a psychiatrist, people really do not make decisions on logic alone and this includes all of us. Once you actually care about something it becomes more like a relationship, than a logical thought process.

Therefore emotions in the campaign will matter and how the different supporters act, will matter in peoples decisions. But before you blame the candidates for their supporters actions, think about the supporters as folks who are just smitten with their guy or gal.

"If anyone is dividing the party, it's her divisive remarks absurdingly comparing FL and MI to Zimbabwee..."

Yes that sure isn't helping...but there is a new gaff on the loose, I take it many of you have already heard about by now. Hillary Clinton just used Bobby Kennedy's June Assasination in the 60s as a strange justification for somehow staying in the campaign threw out the month of June.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/23/clinton.comments/index.html

I don't know if she is just tiered or what at this point, because I would like to give her the benifit of the doubt on this one...but how can you spin that?? I don't even know what to make of it...I think she is just done.

Very, VERY interesting post K!

Thanks, but it is getting rather personal, even in this blog with pretty well informed readers. I have read Joannes amazingly well researched and interesting posts for a while, she makes a great case for supporting Obama, but now they seem so angry and upset, getting mad at Norm for basically having opinions that are different than the mainly pro Obama forces on his blog.

Now these are emotions from folks that likely they have never met, don't even know their names.

Read Charles blog (by the fault) he seems mad as hell about Obama and all us supporters.

So things are getting personal, even though none of us even know each other. Guess this uniting the country stuff may not be working so well.

"Guess this uniting the country stuff may not be working so well."

Yeah, it's a strange thing to see...a whole community of extremely intelligent, highly informed, reasonably open minded individuals, who seem to agree on almost all of the same major issues of the day...yet we still find our selves bickering and squabbling like children over what are essentially two different figure-heads that both represent the exact same agenda, policies, and point of view. If you really think about it were ALL on the same team here, were merely squabbling over what Mascot we want to go with before we start the Big game. We need to remind our selves here that the important thing here is that we WIN THE GAME, not weather our Mascot is the "Experienced White Lady", or the "Inspirational Black Man", because they both agree on virtually EVERY, SINGLE important issue of the day!
I mean COME ON people, were about to go into the first Quarter here, it's time we start acting like a Team!!

Whoops:

My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.

I don't know if she is just tiered or what at this point, because I would like to give her the benifit of the doubt on this one...but how can you spin that??

I think she's just tired and slipped. Context differs too, as she made exactly the same remark back in March to Time magazine, not within days of the saddening Ted Kennedy diagnosis and on the cusp of June, but it didn't seem to attract much attention back then.

Oh, and I agree: a very interesting post, K.