I am an Obama supporter, but female_ engineer's post was one of the first explanations of the virulence of anti-Obama feeling that at least made sense to me. I don't think it's correct, but as someone in her demographic, I at least understand it. I, too, have seen men claim credit for my work and receive the promotions. But I don't think Obama fits in that category.

She's no longer on this string, and probably not reading it, but nonetheless I'd like to reply.

In my opnion, Obama started off with the fewest aces of the 3 last candidates -- essentially a working class family, no Dad present. He had a phenomenal mother and innate intelligence. Those brains got him scholarships to private schools, up to and including Harvard Law.

But despite his "white" upbringing, this country has always seen him as black -- so he learned early on to be utterly controlled, and not threatening despite his intelligence and discipline.

He was willing to spend three years as a community organizer. Many organizers wash out after a few months, because if you're good, you find other folks to take the credit, and you never get any recognition.

Engineer, I passed the DC bar around the time Hillary flunked it (sorry, it's the truth), so please take my word for it that graduating from Harvard Law with honors and running the Harvard Law Review is a considerable achievement.

Teaching constitutional law -- our version of rocket science -- at a premier law school is a considerable achievement.

Passing reforms in the Illinois legislature to tape interrogations in order to deter coerced confessions and endless appeals based on claims of coercion, after Illinois was compelled to release dozens of convicts on death row because of flaws in its procedures, is a considerable achievement.

Shepherding ethical reforms through the US Congress as a freshman Senator is a considerable achievement.

Running a campaign that took him from "Barak who?" to the nomination, against a heavily financed and incredibly connected front-runner, is a considerable achievement.

I suspect that you and I would differ on the weight to give to Hillary's claims of achievement -- and perhaps you reject my arguments here.

But think about one thing: Obama is the candidate, when many others with legitimate claims of experience, including Biden, Dodd, and -- if this really is your measure -- Mitt Romney -- did not prevail.

An independent review of the press by the Pew Center concluded that Obama and Clinton were treated roughly equally in the press-- I guess they presume that the sexism and racism washed each other out? -- until Hillary began complaining. Then he got significantly worse press. And he still won.

This, to me, is evidence that he is anything but an empty suit. The NY Times called him inscrutable. I think this is the manifestation of his iron self-control and focus, and really an indicator of his significant depth.

Bravo - beautiful post.

I can't speak for women, since I'm a man. But perhaps what disturbs me about Mr. Obama's campaign is what disturbs women, working class white men, and others who have chosen to vote for a candidate they were told had no chance of winning the nomination rather than vote for Obama. Perhaps it helps to say that I am not a Clinton supporter but a neutral observer.

It speaks volumes that Obama supporters still don't understand that their candidate lost the popular vote of their own party, and only won the nomination by the grace of the very super delegates they had previously said should not be the ones to determine the winner. The media was so focused on the idea that Hillary Clinton acted as if the nomination was hers by right, that they failed to see the arrogance and obnoxiousness of her opponent's campaign. That elitism (for lack of a better word) was not lost on the rest of us.

Even tonight, I watched an analysis of Mrs. Clinton's campaign with Keith Olbermann and a guest on his show that served no other purpose than to endlessly attack her campaign with sarcasm and derision. This is supposed to be a news program. In the 40 years I have followed American politics, never have I seen a candidate (and her supporters) treated with such disrespect by the media. Switching the channel to the more conventional CNN, I found one spokesperson for the Obama campaign saying on the Larry King Show that, yes, the two candidates agree on most issues, but, for example, Mr. Obama's position on the Iraq War is deeper, more complex, more significant than Mrs. Clinton's. The spokesperson actually said, "You don't understand," and threw in a quote from Carl Jung.

Oh, dear...! Even though I was reading Carl Jung when this woman was in diapers, I don't think I've ever quoted Jung in the company of friends or colleagues or in any public forum whatsoever. Mr. Obama will probably win the election-- because John McCain is simply unacceptable-- but this elitism-- the idea that the people who support Obama are in a superior class and the rest of us ordinary mortals cannot possibly understand the complexities of his policies-- will stifle and eventually bring down his presidency. It can be traced back to early in the campaign when Mr. Obama refused to respond to Mrs. Clinton, who had extended her hand to him on the floor of the Senate. It goes back to Michelle Obama's statement that the only time she has ever been proud of her country is when her husban was able to win some primaries. It is a fatal flaw and will take major soul searching and redirection to fix it.

John:

Senator Clinton's actions and scorched earth campaign caused the reaction that she received from the press. When a candidate makes as many outrageous claims and egregiously transforms their character and narrative throughout the campaign, the press pounces on it. One can claim that the media was harder on her, but that's just not true (as many have pointed, the pew study shows). She brought all of that criticism upon herself. Obama ran a much less inflammatory and inclusive campaign, therefore he appealed to the press' sentiments.

And, Clinton did not win the popular vote, unless you count Florida and Michigan and discount all the caucus states. Which is not the way things work.

What is the elitism that you're talking about? Arrogance? Honestly. This claim gets thrown around so much, but I see no evidence of it. Obama continuously talks about we, and how this campaign is not about him. Clinton calls his supporters delusional. Says his message is "pie-in-the-sky," and claims that she's the one who's ready on day one. That sounds more like arrogance to me.

Most Obama supporters don't consider themselves elitists, I certainly don't. I have a degree, but I also work two jobs and make 30k per year. What does bother them, is being constantly--and broadly--labeled as elitist, with impunity and without evidence from Hillary supporters who seem to think they have the moral high-ground in this election.

Clinton extended her hand once on the Senate/House floor and Obama did not greet her (he was talking to someone else). That was also just after her "Shame on you Barack Obama" incident. Should he have been so gracious? But, regardless of that lone incident, Obama has consistently congratulated Clinton on her victories and praised her character and the historic nature of her campaign. Did you not hear his speech the other night? In contrast, Clinton has only ever mildly given the same to him. She begrudgingly congratulated him the other night as a preamble to her "I'll continue to fight" speech. Not to mention when she said McCain was more qualified to be Commander in Chief, whereas he's said several times that he believes Clinton is qualified and would be a good leader.

Have you always been proud of your country? I sure haven't. Patriotism does mean unconditional love for one's country.

"that Obama supporters still don't understand that their candidate lost the popular vote of their own party"

No SHE DID NOT..I'm from Washington State and we're the 15th largest state in the Union...and he STOMPED HER BUTT HERE.

Neither you nor Senator "I could have had the rules changed any time in the 16 years I controlled the party" Clinton, gets to tell me that I'm not a VOTER in the United States. Or that somehow she "discovered" suddenly that the rules were just so unfair. Her campaign strategist Harold Ickes WROTE THEM.

only won the nomination by the grace of the very super delegates they had previously said should not be the ones to determine the winner

Really dumb argument since that was exactly what Clinton supporters were hoping for, huh? And at a certain point superdelegates were going to have going to have to decide it for either candidate since there simply weren't enough delegates left for either candidate to reach the "magic number" du jour.

I mostly get upset at this point because if superdelegates picked Hillary they were"there for a purpose" and "wiser heads" and "protecting the party". But if they were going for Obama they were" rigged" or "betraying Hillary", or " the DNC disrespecting HRC".

Now, I do understand that HRC supporters do have their own opinions, but it's kinda disrespectful of Obama to conclude:

That it was IMPOSSIBLE that "wiser heads" "were there for a purpose" to be "protecting the party" BY CHOOSING OBAMA.

That elitism (for lack of a better word) was not lost on the rest of us.

This is also really frustrating..I don't think anyone who is using this word even knows what it means. (Now MY statement was elitist)..None of Obama's were. Arugula makes you an elitist...what, lettuce is upper-crusty now???

I am not a Hillary Supporter, but I would imagine that it is because they can see the evil under Obama’s smile and pretty speeches. They can see the fact that he has spent most of his life as a member of a church that teaches a twisted version of Christianity where racism, hatred, dissension, subversion, and the idea of overthrowing your government are acceptable and encouraged. They can see that he picked the pastor of this church as his spiritual mentor. Anyone that regularly attends church or even can understand the concept knows that nobody would ever do this unless they agree with these values. They can understand that doing so is against human nature and therefore his pretty speeches are obviously bullshit. They’re not fooled by the words, but rather have taken the time to look deeper. His long list of horrific friends, associates and supporters from 60’s radicals that tried to overthrow the government, racists that hate anyone that isn’t black, and people who actively support Islamic terrorism against the united states simply underlines this fact.

When you know that someone is evil you do not want him or her in control of your country. While McCain isn’t perfect, only a fool would question his loyalty to the United States. It is simply a matter of picking the lesser of two evils and if they cant stomach the idea of picking McCain then they’ll either pick nobody or they will write in who they wanted to win. The vast majority of McCain and Clinton supporters are shocked and amazed that Obama supporters can’t see the man they’re supporting for what he is.

I don’t think Michelle Obama is all that attractive, but what she looks like is irrelevant.

Yes McCain laughed with a female supporter called Clinton a Bitch. What’s your point? What difference does that make? In what way does that have anything to do with Obama, his complete lack of experience, and his questionable friendships? Maybe McCain agrees with the woman? Or maybe it was a nervous laugh in order to be polite to supporter? I’m not sure how it matters anyway. Are you really that sensitive to the idea of a woman being a bitch? In my personal experience I have found that those women that are the most offended by the word are the ones that are the most concerned that the description of the word might actually apply to them. Are we so sensitive to political correctness that we cant describe how we feel someone is behaving?

Obama doesn’t have any feminist aspirations. I’m sure he wants his daughters to succeed, but that doesn’t count as feminism.

Obama is the candidate that nobody in his or her right mind would ever want.

Cassandra

bananaboat - you wrote: "Obama is the candidate that nobody in his or her right mind would ever want." Unnecessary bullshit. Since you're not a Hillary supporter, but an avowed conservative with no support for any o fhte issues that Hillary and Obama agree upon, your "commentary" is not insightful into the dynamic of disappointment.

“What I don't understand is why the angry Clintonites don't see how getting a minority into the Whitehouse for the first time in history opens the door for other minorities.”

That would be fine if the man was actually qualified for the job, which he clearly isn’t. He has the thinnest resume of any presidential candidate in the history of the United States.

“I can't think of any that have elected a black President/Prime Minister.”

This is mainly because Europeans are far more xenophobic and culturally insular than Americans. They still care about the differences between English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, French, Italian, Greek, German, Austrian, Swedish, and others while here in the United States all those groups are considered “White”. In addition none of the European countries have a black population as large as the 12% found here in the United States.

Obama is very charismatic and he uses this to great effect to fool the simple, blind, and easily led.

“Hopefully he'll win and excel as a President.”

Hopefully he gets trounced and never gets the opportunity to exercise his complete lack of experience.

Cassandra

It is my opinion that nobody in his or her right mind would ever want Obama as president considering who and what he represents. Since this is an opinion forum I consider it relevant.

I am an avowed conservative and I do support many of the issues that Hillary and Obama say they agree upon. I just don’t agree with many of their positions. Whereas they’re uber liberal (him more than her) I look at the same issues from a conservative to moderate point of view. Do you feel that my conservative or moderate positions should nullify my voice?

I understand that Clinton supporters are disappointed. I saw that same disappointment in their faces in 2004 when John Kerry lost. I would agree with that disappointment if Clinton were actually qualified for the job. As a racial minority and a woman I would love to vote for either, but only if they’re qualified for the job. As it is we have yet to have either. The apparent loser is this Democratic primary turned out to be the more qualified of the two.

Cassandra

"I believe there are many Dem women that are most qualified than HRC but they were ignored because their HUSBAND wasn't the former President."

Can you name any?

Cassandra

banana boat -

I'm not attempting to "nullify your voice" but I will strongly and vocally disagree with your attempt to classify someone who supports Obama as out of their minds.

That is the beauty of this country, that you're free to view and say what you like about anyone and any party and any subject (for the most part).

I'm just unwilling at this point to let your characterization go unchallenged and without dissent.

I have no doubt that Obama will be an excellent President.

like yourself, seemingly intelligent, articulate - yet you actually believe something so blatantly distorted and taken out of context as the statement attributed to Michelle Obama? If you're at all politically aware, you know the elitism charge is hurled in every Presidential election. I for one, think it would be only in our best interest to have a President and First Lady who are both Harvard educated, seasoned intellectuals. You may call that "elitism" but in all seriousness, you want a common man? You've had one for the past eight years.

JohnHeartfield -

You reveal your own deep-seated, and arrogant elitism when you suggest that the young woman on LKL was somehow condescending in quoting Carl Jung.

Jung has become widely read and understood and embraced by a whole new generation of AMericans. His psychological understanding of archetype, the collective unconscious and structure of the psyche are just now being validated by quantum physics and cutting edge science.

Jung IS mainstream now. You're the one who is missing this boat.

People ARE educated. Technology is bringing information and knowledge right into the homes and more and more people are able to read, hear and discuss a broad array of subjects - including Jung.

Just like the way this forum works, millions and millions of people are accustomed to having nuanced and complex opinions - similar to the one Michelle Obama voiced. It is only a handful of older people who live by the jingoistic trivia of past campaigns who cannot understand what she was saying.

The last 8 years of our National political scene have given MANY patriotic and passionate Americans pause. We have not been able to "be proud" of our country when our President and Vice President have been so lacking in compassion, constitutional fortitude and so heavy-handed with their arrogance.

Being educated and willing to take on the hard issues of understanding where the problems are and developing ways of fixing them is NOT elitism. It is what this country needs.

So, Cassandra, you'd rather have McCain put some anti-choice supreme court judges up there then trust a man with ten years in elected office (compared with Hillary's 6)?

I haven't been convinced by his speeches as much as by his policy statements on his website, which are long, detailed and free of any charisma.

This is obviously an emotional thing for you, but I haven't heard any facts connected to reasons that have led you to this opposition of him. Could you provide any criticism of his policy statements or examples of bad governing in his 10 years in elected office?

Thanks!

Thank you, this is brilliantly written, and I'll be quoting you in the future, I'm sure.