I have to say I'm astounded a the vehemence of the mutual loathing between the Hillary and Barack female supporters! I can certainly understand that there would be some bitterness and disappointment and even some smugness from the winners, but the sheer amount of it is appalling!

Firstly, I'm *not* going to make the same mistake I see shot through nearly all these threads by tarring everyone with the same brush. Is this really how more than a small minority of female Democratic voters feel? I thought the media was overblowing it, as they do so many things, but if it's truly widespread, I think I'm going to be really depressed.

Let's face it folks, the Democrats has 2 *excellent* candidates in this primary. How rare is that? Most years they can't even summon one. Neither candidate was perfect, both made gaffes, both stooped to a low blow or a blatant pander at one point or another. Unfortunately, in this day and age, that is the cost of competing in politics these days, as much as I dislike it.

For background, my wife and I are both Democrats, I was an Obama supporter from the near the beginning (mostly because I thought at the time that he was the better shot to win the Presidency due to hostility towards Hillary, and slightly because I thought HRC a bit too Hawkish), my wife was for Hillary. We each respected each other's favorite, and would've been perfectly happy if either candidate won. My wife grew slightly more disillusioned with Hillary over some of the more blatant pandering (the touting of gun proficiency, the "Crown Royal" shot). I was disappointed with Obama's "Cling to religion" quote (no matter how he meant it, it was demeaning and antagonizing). But Hillary's comments about staying in the race because, you know, RFK got assassinated, was it for my wife. Either Hillary was incredibly stupid or incredibly cold and calculating for saying it, neither option really says much for the choice of words. After that she was, reluctantly, an Obama supporter (through no urging or persuasion from me).

(And for the record, the media, or portions of it, treated Hillary abhorrently, particularly Matthews. But I saw no sign that Obama's campaign never stooped to that)

But these are single incidents that reflect errors in judgment during an extremely hard fought primary. They don't make either candidate less historic or admirable, they just show them to be fallible. That's ok, you know? As long as they admit it, we'll be better off then the last 8 years with a leader who won't admit any personal failings, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What sends a sinking feeling to my gut is the threats from disillusioned Hillary supporters to refuse to vote, or even vote for McCain. Even in the most optimistically liberal view of McCain, Hillary's policies and goals are light-years closer to Obama's then to McCain. Why would anyone want to hamstring their own country out of what seems like pure bitterness to me? Is it because some Obama supporter's have been ungracious? Don't punish the rest of us Democrats because of a few smug A-holes, please, please, please!

Please tell me that we can put personal feelings of hurt and bitterness and disappointment aside and look a the larger picture. If some folks need some time to nurse the wounds (I'm hoping that's what it is!), then feel free, express your disappointment, vent your outrage, but then relax and think more clearly afterward. Obama may not be your favorite candidate, but, for a Democrat, he's a heck of a lot better than the alternative!

I mean given that the alternative is John McCain ..surely even an inexperienced democrat is better..

Exhibit A

From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann
MIAMI, FL – The question of whether or not President Bush overstepped his constitutional power by authorizing warrantless checks of Americans' international communications after 9/11 is "ambiguous," McCain said yesterday. But, he added, he hopes not to dwell on the issue.

"It's ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority or not," McCain told reporters at a press conference in the Florida Everglades yesterday.

The question of presidential authority has been a hot topic in past weeks, as key surveillance legislation has been gummed up in Congress. A sticking point has been the question of whether telecommunications companies can be prosecuted retroactively for participating in the post-9/11 surveillance. McCain, who believes that they should not face such penalties, called for the quick passage of that legislation, saying of the wiretapping debate that "the whole issue can be resolved by passing the FISA bill."

A New York Times story yesterday described McCain's views on warrantless wiretapping as increasingly aligned with those of the Bush Administration, according to the writing of a key adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin. Holtz-Eakin wrote in a letter to the National Review that Sen. McCain believes that the president did not overreach when he empowered the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls and emails without issuing warrants after 9/11.

McCain said today that, in his own presidency, he would abide by laws passed by Congress; he has criticized the Bush Administration in the past for its use of presidential "signing statements," for example, that permit non-enforcement of Congressional action.

But about on the matter of the president's past actions in the wake of the 2001 attacks, he urged a look to the future. "I'm not interested in going back," he said. "I'm interested in addressing the challenge we face today of trying to everything we can to counter organizations and individuals that want to destroy this country."

"So, there's ambiguity about it," he later added. "Let's move forward."

------------------------------­--------------------------

He's ambiguous..about spying on the American public?

He's ambiguous about...the constitutional right to freedom from unlawful search and siezure?

He's ambiguous about...the idea that Bush's "executive orders" and "imperial presidency" needs to be overturned and made illegal.

This guy's not a republican..he's a closet fascist.

A very good,honest post from a man is a rarity on these boards.

I have been unhappy with all the candidates.Will now take some time to think and decide what my next move will be.

I will not argue with the vehemenent Obama supporters any more.

The DNC needs to be abollished.No one can change my mind on that. Howard Dean and Donna Brazile broke their own rules so that nullifies the fact that Hillary and Obama signed the agreement.

I do not blame each candidate for fighting for what was best for them.I blame Party Leaders for making such a mess.

I just can't stomach the idea he's not supporting the new GI Bill for veterans of the 1990 Gulf war and the little fun ride we have going on right now in Iraq. McCain is spouting what he claims is the Pentagon "concern" that too many people would join for the college money and quit after a first enlistment.

I went to college on the "old" GI Bill and McCain's attitude really, really, really pisses me off. I don't get truly upset about much, but this is disloyalty of the highest order. To deny decent benefits to military personnel in order to force them to re-enlist is absolutely disgusting. I don't know if this fits in with your description of him as a closet fascist, but it makes him a heartless sonofabitch, that's for sure.

Whatever else McCain does, unless he changes his tune on the GI Bill, he's unfit to be president.

racerx:

Let's face it folks, the Democrats has 2 *excellent* candidates in this primary. How rare is that?

But Hillary's comments about staying in the race because, you know, RFK got assassinated, was it for my wife. Either Hillary was incredibly stupid or incredibly cold and calculating for saying it, neither option really says much for the choice of words. After that she was, reluctantly, an Obama supporter (through no urging or persuasion from me).

Here's the deal with me.

(FYI, not attacking your wife or casual, normal Clinton supporters, but explaining the serious disagreement I have with hardcore Clinton supporters.)

I honestly believe that the only reason the Clintons have survived in politics for as long as they have is because americans are forgiving, have short term memories, and are mostly uninformed politcs-wise because they're so busy.

That being said, if you look at the totality of Hillary's political life you will see nothing but cold, calculating, ruthless, power-hungry, and patholigically dishonest behavior.

From denying Nixon the right to counsel, to cattle futures, to hiring PIs to intimidate and smear her husbands mistresses into silence, to cattle futures, to favors for her felon brother, to pardons done to get her votes in her senate seat, and now to pandering, assasination comments and Bosnia Sniper Fire, you see someone who is a complete, total, and utter liar.

So if a normal voter supports Hillary, like your wife, who may not remember or know all of these things or is just really unhappy with Obama, so be it.

But for a very well-informed, politically savvy, hardcore supporter, it bothers me. Are they willfully ignorant, naiive, what? How could you *not* know about all the Clinton scandals of the past few decades; just do a friggin google search!

Or mayby, they also just have really, really short memories like most americans.

I'd read articles about people who were shocked, SHOCKED that Hillary was playing dirty, lying, and pandering. Excuse my French, but no shit sherlock, where have you been for the past 3 decades? Were you on Mars for Clinton's 8 years in office?

How can anyone be *suprised* when the Clintons pander, fight dirty and lie their asses off? It's what they've done their entire political career.

Remember Charlie Brown; how he kept falling for Lucy pulling the football away at the last second? After a while, it stopped being funny and it made Charlie Brown look pathetic, naiive, and stupid.

That's why I got annoyed not at all Hillary supporters, but at the hardcore, near-fanatical ones who were gushing and in extacy about how great their "excellent" candidate was who's nothing but a power-hungry, ruthless, shameless liar and has the track record to prove it via a simple google or amazon.com search.

If they don't at least understand why people don't like her after the Bosnia sniper lie, lying multiple times while *real* soldiers are under *real* sniper fire, they never will.

If only you had spent a fraction of the energy you seem to have for Clinton loathing, on researching Senator Obama's past, perhaps you wouldn't feel so superior. Perhaps, if you could have seen this primary campaign through something other than the Panglossian lens you have applied to Senator Obama, you again may not feel so superior.

Despite your feelings to the contrary, the Democratic primary consisted of a choice between two human politicians, each with their own flaws and foibles.

"Whatever else McCain does, unless he changes his tune on the GI Bill, he's unfit to be president."

Arlington, I agree. A vet is a vet is a vet. I don't care if they served in Vietnam, the first Gulf War, or Iraq. They all deserve the same benefits.

If we can't offer an Iraq war veteran comparable benefits to those that were offered to WWII vets, what are we doing wrong?

I just do not understand McCain's position on why he won't support this bill.

"and has the track record to prove it via a simple google or amazon.com search."

Not everything you read on the internet is true. I've debunked quite a few of those google searches with more research of my own. I supported HRC because my first choice dropped out early, and I am far from a rabid suporter of hers.

But here's the thing: ALL politicians lie, they have to in order to get anywhere.Yes that would also include Obama. He just has such a short career (yep, the whole inexperience thing he's blessed with) that he hasn't been caught in many.

The Wright church thing was a lie. And he deflected it by denouncing and leaving the church he was in with is whole family for over twenty years. Convenient timing on that one, no? All of a sudden, he chooses to leave that church...hmmmmm.

I'll vote for Obama over McCain in a hot minute. But to say he's not a liar is a laugh.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

A) All politicians lie, not even because they're BAD people, but right now we have a system in place for electing people and a general inattention to policy in this country that will crucify someone who is trying to get elected,but will allow someone who has been elected to associate with Karl Rove.

Seriously, who is worse..Reverend Wright who is an angry old man that upset some people, or Karl Rove, a man who deliberately lied and cheated in order to frighten Americans into a completely useless war that cost over 4000 lives?

B) Hillary Clinton is not the enemy of democrats. She never was. It felt like that, as if Obama and Clinton were "fighting" and we should "fight" too. But that's over, now. We're all democrats, and further "fighting" is useless. If you're still mad..go get John McCain. He's the enemy now.

Shucks, I'm blushing, ;-)

And I really hope all this anger from alienated HRC-supporting women is short term, after some good old fashioned venting (you should have seen me vent after the '04 election!). That's not to say everything should be forgotten, some of the side actors were pretty bad. *Some* group ought to set their sights on Matthews and his ilk on TV and get them to clean up their act. It was embarassing (I won't even discuss anybody from Fox News, I've long ago ceased to expect decent human behavior from them). And Anne Applebaum's Sunday post was horrid, the fray was right to take her to task for it (I hope it gets a mention in Fraywatch)

I agree the DNC was ridiculous. I live in Florida (albeit in a liberal bastion), so I have an upfront view of the shenanigans that go on here. The Florida Dems had the Primary dragged to the earlier date by a Republican legislature. And despite what Slate has said, the Dems gave in because they knew there was nothing they could do about it. There was serious talk about a separate Primary date, but there was a very important Amendment on the ballot that they didn't want to let pass (though it did anyway, have I mentioned that Florida voters have got to be those *most* likely to vote against their own interests?) from voters staying home. Despite the fact that the DNC watched the RNC only dock their delegates 50%, they stripped *all* of theirs anyway? What were they thinking? What possible good could come from that? And since they screwed it up in the first place, it made sure that *nobody* would be happy in the end. It's beyond belief, and, while I don't believe that the DNC had it in for Hillary, I'm at a loss at how they could be so dumb.

Fortunately Dean is essentially meaningless now, the Party has a new leader. He may be inexperienced (though I seem to recall many of our best years were during Presidential terms of relative novices), but I think and I hope that he's big enough and inclusive enough to include *all* Democratic voters concerns, Women, African-American, Hispanic, etc. At least he's talked the talk pretty well so far.

If I were a woman (my loss, I'm sure ;-) ), I might view this moment as an opportunity. Obama *needs* your vote to win in November. Make him *earn* it. Make sure that Women's issues have a significant place in the party platform. Equal pay for equal work. Child care, parental leave. Whatever issue is important to YOU, along with those issues that are a priority for all of us. Make sure that HRC gets an influential position, whether as VP (which I doubt), or as a cabinet member, Attorney General (my choice), or a Judge.