Oops. Now I'm terribly confused. I was talking about PRE-presidential experience (in response to the silly comment that Obama can't be supported because, ooh, he is too inexperienced)...and you quote Bill's accomplishments POST-election....all while I was making the point that Bill did OK (post election) when in fact he had NO substantial experience with national politics before becomming elected....

Hmmm....now I'm thinking maybe you have difficulting comprehending anything outside your own head..

Having trouble comperhending may be from the confusion you mentioned at the beginning. Sorry,Steve,you asked for that one:o)

Any time there is a negative situation between friends or family (i.e. people on the same side), it can turn into tit for tat and be difficult to determine who started what and why.

BUT THE RACE IS OVER NOW! So it is time for everyone on this 'same side' (that would be Dems) to support the one would won and for the losing side to SHUT UP and support the on one.

To me it looks like YOU would rather make noise than be happy and support Obama. So, while you are being a brat, say hello to President McCain.

PS: Of course some Obama supporters are getting too much joy out of the defeat of HRC. Oh well they are immature but one should look pass that for the common good (defeating McCain).

HRC and her staff ASKED and DEMANDED that the rules be changed but they didn't change the rules (they have NO power to change or make the rules,,,, the DNC does).

Note that Obama's staff and lawyers also ASKED that decisions be made that in the end favor him over HRC.

In otherword BOTH sides were pushing the DNC for rulings that just happened to favor THEIR candidate other the other one. Nothing strange about that of course but it wasn't ONLY HRC side that asked for rulings to go in their favor.

I should of read your post before posting what I did.

I might have just moved a HRC supporter over to the GOP!

My bad! I'll get with the program!

<link>

This describes how many minds work .A really funny read.Thanks. I needed that.

MaryAnne:

Having trouble comperhending may be from the confusion you mentioned at the beginning. Sorry,Steve,you asked for that one:o)

OHHHH. Now I get it. When you look like an idiot--it's all just a silly debating game; when you think you're making debating points--it's all deadly serious.

You, like many rabid Hillary supporters, seemed to find a need not only to support Hillary, but to conjure some "rational" reason to reject Obama--and most chose "experienece." That was silly mostly because there is no need...if you prefer Hillary, that's who you prefer.

The "no experience" defense, PREVIOUSLY, was used to bolster support for Hillary "She's so much more experienced." It always seemed very weak to me--she's had some "teas," and utterly failed to create and sell a health care intiative--between episodes of successfully dodging imaginary sniper fire; otherwise, they've both been senators for less than a single term--more similar than different, in terms of experience.

Anyhoo...NOW what's really pathetic and a lie are the formerly rabid Hillary supporters who support McCain because Obama has "too little experience." It's one thing to make it up to bolster your feelings for Hillary; it's quite another to make it up in defense of voting for someone who stands for the OPPOSITE of everything Hillary stands for (and who, himself, has NO executive experience, other than a consistently FAILING campaign organization--that won mostly because republicans this time really voted "none of the above").

Those former Hillary supporters will vote for McCain because they're petulant and bitter that their candidate didn't get the nomination, not because they're alarmed at Obama's "lack of experience"...and they're too cowardly to simply come out and say so.

Apparently, the Hillary candidacy, SOMEHOW (there's room for psychosocial research and study of this), has INFECTED her followers with many of the same personality and character flaws that she herself exhibits (denial, delusion, victimhood, and, mostly, a loose and contingency-based association with truth).

This has always amused me ;)

It should come as no great shock that I have opinions. Since I work for an op/ed journal, I'm under no obligation to hide them.

Have it your way,Steven.You have read my mind.

Inexperience is only one of the reasons I will not back Obama. I could give you a dozen reasons,but you have already decided what I am thinking.

Oh, wise wizard. I bow to your knowing mind.:o)

This election is all about you...your hurt feelings?

Gee. I thought it was about saving our country from fascist POS like McCain.

So what's your position? Be nice to me, or I'll vote for the bad guy, and that'll sure teach you a lesson!

You're either going to vote to keep McCain out of office, or you're not. If you don't care enough about our country to save it, then you'll have to own up to that.

You don't get to blame your vote on me. Being an adult means you have to take responsibility for your own actions...your own vote.

Grow the fuck up.

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told EllenDiffernt.

Grow the fuck up. If you choose to vote against Obama, thus allowing McCain to select the next USSC Justices and scores of other Federal Judges, you need to take responsibility for that, yourself.

You cannot blame your temper tantrums on others.

Freditor_G:

At least to the first part of your question - why would Obama supporters seek to drive Clinton supporters out of the Democratic party?

I do think a huge part of this contest is about the soul and the future of the Democratic Party. The ranks of the Democratic Party have swollen in the last eight years, largely in response to George Bush. I've long been an ambivalent Democrat and ardently anti-Clinton. I voted Nader in '96 and '00. But the Bush Administration drove me into the arms of the Democratic Party, and I began looking for candidates who promised a new direction to fund and support.

In '04, it was Howard Dean who was promising a new direction. I was disappointed to watch his campaign flounder, but voted for Kerry with deep reluctance. In '08, Obama inherited the energy and finances of Dean's voters. There's undeniably an element of messianism among some Obama supporters, and Obama undeniably posseses a political charisma that wins him support in unlikely places. But there are also a lot of people like myself, who are behind Obama because he represents an institutional reform of the Democratic Party itself. And those numbers have only grown over the last four years.

Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic Party I never wanted to join. Had she won the nomination, I'd have voted John McCain, because he comes from the Republican Party I can live with (I grew up in O.C., and have a high tolerance for Western conservatism (as opposed to Southern)). In the end, the party that Hillary Clinton, and the Clintons represent - short-term thinking, political expedience, and pre-emptive compromise - isn't a party I'd willingly join. If the stakes for the nation were less, I'd probably still barely be a part of it.

To the extent Clinton supporters represent a vision of the Democratic Party that I find obsolete and detrimental to the national interest, I do hope to see them persuaded... or supplanted. The Party's gotten a lot bigger in the last eight years, and the newcomers have a very different taste in music. While there will soon be peace between the candidates, I think the larger and deeper contest has only just begun.

I completely disagree with all of these positions, and I and the enviroment have long wanted to tell a Nader voter "thanks" for your handing the presidency to GWB.

This race was practically a dead heat, meaning there are a lot of Clinton supporters out there, and we don't consider ourselves to be"obsolete."

I'm an Obama supporter and I don't consider any American obsolete.

That said, the democratic party..and even the republican, party are not a static laundry list of cherished beliefs which a supporter left or right MUST become signatory to in order to have a voice.

Our culture and our society evolves and changes all the time. Even someone that is 100 years old does not hold to all of the beliefs of their parents, most older people don't even hold to all of the belliefs of their own youth.

Our society constantly changes to accomodate the newest incarnation of very old ideals, like freedom, and equality, and common sense. And our gov't must also change for the same reasons. I do not want a whig or a tory in office, I doubt anyone does. And I don't want the Republican part of Nixon, or the Democratic party of Carter, either.

I want a Democrat (preferably!) or a Republican of MY time, who understand the global nature of MY world, and the political complexity of terrorism, that it is a whole new type of war and what it means in MY time, and who understands the successes, failures, and complexities of an economy that has gone truly GLOBAL in the last three decades.

Clinton Democrats collectively, can make or break Obama, that is a fact.

scully:

without Hillary supporters, then we are stuck with McSame. I don't understand why the DNC have been so nasty to Hillary.

I am very disappointed with the DNC, Jimmy Carter, Donna Brazile, etc..

MaryAnne:

So...what did you think of Bill Clinton's experience: Governor of a small, hillbilly state--spending most of his time cruising for chicks with his State Police posse? Experience enough for you?

******************************­*************************

Steve,you just proved my point. A republican talking point coming from you.

That's one thing that really disappointed me about this primary and our democratic party in general. It didn't take long for loyal democrats to start using the language of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to trash Hillary. At some point, an Obama supporter even 'reminded' me about all the stuff Hillary and Bill stole from the White House when they left!

For eight years (and afterwards) the rightwing nutjobs lied about and slandered the Clintons with everything from murder to rape to theft, etc, etc. It was grossly unfair and served only to hinder an extremely successful presidency which, in spite of everything, was an 8-year island of peace and prosperity floating in a 12-year ocean of crap.

It was bad enough hearing the lies from rightwing media, but it was really maddening to hear it from democrats.

So, maybe it's time to stop listening for awhile. To his great credit, Barack Obama has never used any of that rhetoric. By now, I'm certain, Obama has made sure that none of his surrogates and advisors do anything but lavish praise on Hillary Clinton. Soon enough, I suppose, his supporters will follow. Except for a select few who uncomfortably find themselves in company with the most vile of rightwing Clinton critics.

So, I think I'll leave the fray for awhile. I'll listen to Obama and give him a chance to win me over - after all, Hillary has asked me to give him my vote.