I'll bet you thought I was going to start off with how women who won't vote for Obama are all now being classified as Angry White Women.

Well, that too.

But what I think is peculiarly simplistic is this assumption that it is all an either/or.

This sports loyalty mentality has turned the election into merely the Superbowl.

Never mind how far more complex and terrifying a future of repairing not just all the damage the Bush League has done, but the consequences of its neglect of all things not petroleum profited.

There is such an obvious third way -- and for me the only way.

I am writing-in Hillary Clinton. It's not at all out of any feminist motivation, but because she is logically the best of the three choices. How is picking the least of two bad ideas supposed to fix anything?

By agreeing to either of two inadequate candidates, you are agreeing to collude in the trivialization of your vote.

I always thought it was absurdly presumptuous, not to mention illogical of the Obamabots, who've spent months labeling anyone who disagreed with them as clueless old racists. Now they think we are all going, merely for party unity, to fall into lockstep behind someone we never believed in to start with.

Why would we? When has the Democratic Party in the past eight years been loyal to us?

How loyal has it been to the Clintons?

Why Hillary would give them a blink, much less ANY future support is beyond me, and simply a very good unanswered question.

For me, as well as for the millions who will not vote for Obama no matter what, the issue is the same as it was on Day One.

NO EXPERIENCE-NO EXPERIENCE-NO EXPERIENCE

Not all the spin ever summoned up can give him any, either.

So it's a page from Mein Karl, the Rove Playbook. Deflect that your candidate has nothing and smear the opponent.

Hypocrisy rules.

If the GOP really wants to Swiftboat Obama among women, what they'll undoubtedly do in this housing market is make it TOO clear to Average Americans precisely how the Obamas bought the house they live in. And exactly what that represents in contrasting entitlement terms of what a fat chance any of us will ever have to get a break like that.

But that's just treading water til November. . You expect Obama from a country that would rather have Bush twice than Dean or Kerry--because they could not relate to them as men, not as candidates?

What demographic is going to carry Obama?

And based on what tangible accomplishments?

As for President McCain, I am not going to be responsible for voting him in as he now stands. Dreadful idea, but not as bad as Obama.

Unless he does something that really would be historic as well as patriotic as well as represent change. As well as make McCain a hero again in his old age.

Really Change.

Give us a Bi-partisan ticket with Hillary Clinton for starters.

Then break with the Neocons. Cleanly and Publicly.

They won't ever co-operate with him anyway.

Tell the Wrong Wing Fundamentalist mullahs to back off. What are they going to do about it? Run Ralph Reed as their answer?

Start making the Republicans look like they are capable fo self-repair instead of self-profit.

And with the Clintons, show that they are all together capable of overcoming division in the interest of a true American Brain Trust.

It is indisputable that we are a country that is hurting.

Women who aren't voting for Obama are not doing it out of animus, no matter how ticked off they are. There doing it, bottom-line, because they are too pragmatic, too honest and too wary of choosing the Wrong Guy. Both of them.

They comprehend ALL of what that means.

So McCain should figure out how to suck it in, be a mensch and give us what we need.

Because Obama's market-spin idea of what we want isn't anything but what gets him elected. Then what?

A Sermon on the Mount of Capitol Hill every Sunday? Like the GOP in Congress is ever going to cooperate with Obama. Dream on.

Most of his supporters are way too new to campaign promises to know that they are only ever kept in the rarest of breaches.

There is less and less of Obama to meet the ear. If his judgement is this bad during the election, I don't even what have to contemplate the end of the sentence. All four years of it.

-gala1

I remember hearing arguments not unlike this about eight years ago as someone who preferred Gore among Nader supporters, who insisted upon a real third way. I didn't have much to say at the time- I wasn't entirely unpersuaded by the argument that Gore and Bush were very similar in that neither was nearly the ideal candidate for president- but it is the damage and neglect imparted upon this country by exactly the people you say that leads me to disagree with your first point. The "Bush League" necessarily includes more than the president by himself, and by comparing Gore to Bush years ago, as many compare Obama to McCain now, I missed the point that a Gore administration would undoubtedly run the government in a fundamentally different way than the Republicans offered to do. In the end, despite the impressive dedication of his supporters, Nader failed even to gain public funding, and liberals went 0 for 2 in 2000.

This is why we even have to look forward to such a complex and terrifying future. I do not make the comparison between then and now because I find any fault in your idea, but because by November, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this endeavor will contribute to even the most marginally favorable outcome.

I certainly can't expect you to vote for Obama, and the assumption that I do- much less the assumption that I haven't produce an argument any more substantial than "you're racist"- is insulting to my intelligence. I very much doubt that I am alone in holding that opinion.

The Democratic Party has been loyal to very few of its constituents over the course of the past eight years. I'd imagine that Obama supporters on the whole haven't been any more impressed with the state of party politics than most Clinton supporters, and either candidate would have meant a change in leadership.

The preferred style of that leadership, however, has been in question. For me, as well as for the millions who will vote for Obama, our response to the issue of experience is the same as it was on day one: it doesn't matter. History, at least, is often on our side in making that point: one president who happened to have only one term in Congress and an impressive series of speeches on his resume before being elected was named Abraham Lincoln. I don't remember hearing anyone seriously deride that presidency.

Which leaves leaves us back where we started. This hasn't been the discussion about the future of public policy that this country needs. Why? Because of "Obamabots" and "hipocrisy" and "Swiftboat" and "demographic" and all these other threats and insults that I keep hearing thrown around that prevent us from listening to each other.

Six and a half months ago, I was perfectly happy expecting to vote for Clinton in the general election, but persuaded that Obama was the better candidate. From that standpoint, I hope I can be forgiven for seeing a great deal of animus and very little pragmatism involved in the large majority of opinions expressed here until someone is willing to demonstrate differently.

sigh.

If only I know how to haiku.

For the millionth time.

The reason we who are not voting for Obama are not voting for Obama is that we do not believe in Obama.

The major reason is Obama has NO EXPERIENCE.

Maybe Lincoln didn't either, But a lot more recently, neither did George w Bush.

And here is something I want you to ask yourself . Whoever is reading this if you are voting for Obama.

I don't want to know. I want you to level with yourself before your going into the voting booth.

Why are you doing this? If you can't really honestly believe that he is the best man for the job,no tthe best age, race or party-- then remember that you can write-in whoever you please.

My major comfort when listening to the news these past eight years is I never yet have voted for anyone, especially a Republican that has done so much harm. I 'd hate to know what it must must feel like to have voted for Bush and why anyone could have.

Just remember that with Obama you are voting blind. And with what the Bush League is leaving behind you will be putting in someone who needs on the job training to even find the Oval Office.

Living out here in the Flyover, my only question for the Obamabots is who you think out here is going to vote for him, because your choice is the surest way to have driven whole counties out this way to McCain.

These are people who are traditionalists in the extreme. They look upon change with suspicion, feeling far more reassured by the familiar.

All i can say when I watch Obama is that reassurance is possibly the last thing that comes to mind.

But if that's what you are determined to have, vote for him.

You simply won't be in the majority -- it makes me always wonder how many of you can possibly live in the small towns that make up the Flyover- to be so credulous.

Then you can go blame losing on Hillary Clinton and Dickerson can lead your band. But you will never really see how unrealistic a piece of marketing you are trying to foist on such an enormous number of dubious voters.

Getting him on the ticket is one thing. Voting for him is, as you will find out, so much of another.

-gala1

gala1:

For the millionth time.

The reason we who are not voting for Obama are not voting for Obama is that we do not believe in Obama.

The major reason is Obama has NO EXPERIENCE.

So, then, I will assume by this rationale that you did NOT support Hillary in her first Senatorial run in New York because of her lack of experience. And, please, being First Lady is not the same as a legislative resume.

She was running against a guy who couldn't get elected as head geek at a sideshow.

Given how flimsily run of the mill Obama's legislative resume actually is, I am still till trying to figure out what the criterion for choosing him over any other inexperienced self-promoting two year junior senator might be, I disingenuously might ask.

And it is both question and answer you should really start thinking about.

There is nothing wrong with Obama. But there is nothing worth voting for either.

I am hoping what this dismal choice in candidates really will indicate is the rise of the third option write-in.

Both parties should be embarrassed that of 300 million people this is the best they can come up with .
A pair of self-promoting agendized hucksters.

It's no coincidence Obama has produced this herd of Obamabots. When there is nothing tangible there but faith, you do tend to have to go fundamentalist. And have your true believers peddling Brand Obama.

It just goes to show you can get people to believe in just about anything. It goes to the triumph of hope over pragmatism in thinking some one so insubstantial and cushioned by entitlement will be accepted by a candidate to a nation of stressed blue collar workers who look down at privilege from time immemorial. Precisely how they'll bottom line this is that this true of both candidates but McCain is the one who has paid his dues.

And will get voted in.

Like I said, you can foist Obama onto the ballot. But you can't make us vote for him. And on Election Day you will see exactly by what margin what that means.

Such a bad idea to ignore the drawback of inexperience.

-gala1

Such a bad idea to cloak hypocracy in superficial logic.

Some thoughts:

1. Hillary is no more experienced than Obama. This "experience" bs is just a way to spin frustration into rightousness. Nobody is fooled. Hillary is the junior senator from NY state - her expertise starts and stops there. I don't see the vastness of the experience advantage you imply in two senate terms. 12 years in an arkansas governor's house are not experience. 8 years in the white house as first lady is not experience. Experience is not based on location, it is based on what you've done - and she hasn't done anything of consequence up until the senate.

2. Blue collar flyovers. I guess you are attempting to speak for all of them when you summerize them as distrustful paranoids. I disagree - the country as a whole - coasts and flyovers and deep south is varied, and much more nuanced than the simplistic drivel you are peddling. The reality, is that more people are likely to see some familiarty to their own lives in Obama's single-mother hardscrabble heritage, than in Hillary's entitled life. Do you seriously believe that the average voter has ANYTHING in common with a woman who has spent the last 28 years living in mansions of varying multi-million worth, did not work for 20 years before the senate, and enjoy's a lifestyle that is sustained by $10m+ in annual income?

3. Lastly, and most importantly - don't let your own narcissism fool you into believing that you matter. There aren't "millions" of you. Like with any fringe/angry constituency you are certianly one of the loudest, but that doesn't make you any more relevant. AT best there a few hundred of you, eeking out there last minute in the 15-minute fame cycle that fuels the news. In a month you will be forgotten, the news will have moved on. The reality is that most rational voters who truly care about Hillary's agenda will vote for Obama - and not just the man, but the administration he will build and the people he will surround himself with.

By insisting that you will write in "Hillary" on the ballot, you are simply wasting your vote, which is your choice. But by the same logic, I can write in "Dodd" or "Biden" or even "Gore"... if the only qualification is experience and a pencil then the sky is the limit.

On the other hand, if you vote for McCain... well, that just makes you a Republican, and you should stop pretending and spinning it as some protest vote.

My vote this year is less FOR the democrats, then it is AGAINST the republicans. They could nominate Jesus Christ himself and I would vote against him, because the only way we have of holding our governemnt even marginally accountable for the quality of the job they are doing, is by voting every 4 years. If I did even 1/10 the bad job the Republicans have done I would have lost my job years ago. And for me, Obama is certainly good enough to vote against the republicans for...

-Placeholder

1 Hillary is experienced. l have watched her daily, as her consttiuent, be experienced for 8 years. Any way you want to slice that baloney Obama is still not experienced.

2. The Flyover. I'm in it. And too obviously you aren't.. You can't give Obama away here with a tank of Super-test. True, you can foist him on the ballot here . But all you will do is make a lot of people who don't normally vote republican do so. And you'll make the republicans here ecstatic. As far as what Hillary has in common with Blue Collar workers. Go ask them in NY state. I wasn't alone watching how she truly benefited all of us up there.

3. My narcissism is not what is going to make Obama lose. Somehow in all your hilariously presumoptive analyzing my many shortcomings you seem to ignore the great big number one reason Obama is going to lose. He has no experience.

And somehow you think this matters only to embittered narcissists..

Dream on. Believe it. Don't.

You couldn't have picked a better way to lose an election than deciding that such an inappropriate time would be right for such an inadequate candidate.

So let me just say to you in advance of Election Day, I told you so.

I've spent too long around these people to know what they won't ever consider. And re-packaging all the entitlement and cluelessness and in ability to relate of Kerry into Obama fools none of them.

You want to lose an election, go ahead. Bu then don't tell us we were at fault for not believing in an inappropriate and inexperienced candidate. That's your problem in forcing him on us, not ours.

I am writing in Hillary Clinton-- not out of bitterness or stubbornness but because I have no reason at alll to believe in Obama now any more than I did when I said on
Day One he has no experience.

You wantot ignore that, knock yourself out.

But it will be exactly what makes Obama lose.

The only way I could see voting for McCain is if he sees the really visionary opportunity he has to make this more than another stale old-fart GOP candidacy and make it an historic Bi-partisan ticket. Healing the divisions in this country means more to me than placating a bunch of party hacks, you included.

And a Brain Trust giving both the Clintons their due is what I could see as the best of what could come out of this sorry mess.

Both parties should be ashamed of the crappy candidates they've managd to dredge up out of 300 million people . It's actually kind of insulting when I stop and think about that's what you think I am expected to vote for.

I am not a fringe voter, I am not an angry voter, I am simply not a Stepford Voter either.

You want to be in lock step and go for the loser, what do I care? You picked the wrong guy and that's not my problem. Now you can go and lose.

-gala1

1. Not sure how living in upstate New York makes you part of the Flyover. And again - what makes you the official spokesperson for all of "them" as you keep referring to everyone between the coasts. You have about as much in common with a voter in kansas as you do with a chilean seabass. You are speaking only for yourself, the fact that your neighbors agree with you makes you representative of exactly two households. You keep speaking as a collective - stop deluding yourself. I am actually part of the Flyover, and a middle class white voter... but I guess that doesn't fit into your spin on this so ignore it.

2. You have witnessed Hillary's experience? really? How? Have you sat with her on legislative sessions? walked the halls of the senate with her? Of course not. What exactly are her specific accomplishments that make her experienced? Cite two....ok, cite one.

3. She has nothing in common with the people she represents. Nothing. She's a wealthy. entitled, elitist byproduct of a political dynasty. That's a demographic with very few people in it.

Obama won't lose in November because the vast majority of voters don't agree with you, and because experience has rarely been a deciding factor in presidential races. If you can't wait to unleash the "I told you so's" come November, you'll be vastly disappointed.

I no longer living in the russet of in Upstate NY , but am in a much more scarlet part of the Flyover these days.

If I were only speaking for myself I wouldn't be writing about the Flyover, since that isn't my native mentality. The minute I turn my key from the door all I see in this town are people who aren't going to vote for Obama. Ever.

Tough luck and not my problem. He's not my candidate, He''s yours.

Although I am writing in Hillary because I don't see how the least of two really Bad ideas is going to fix anything, I'm pretty much resigned to McCain since people like you have given us no one we can vote for against him. And I am not t about to vote for anyone with no experience.

2. Well, dear, I have seen a lot more of the results of the benefits of being Hillary;s constituent that you have, even when you are walking the senate halls with Obama.

If you need to see it recorded in writing, Google should keep you busy for a much longer time than what you'd get from contrasting whatever is in question with Obama's many tangible accomplishments

3. I am sure that Obama got the funding for that house and the rest of none of his perks from exactly the way you would if you asked for a mortgage or any of the other advantages he just coincidentally got to have..

And Michelle Obama's salary doubling to a quarter of a million a year just as her husband went to Washington was merely another of his many coincidences. Especially since she had been working so very long at a non-profit hospital as community affairs director. And we all know how costly those services are to come by. And everybody's salary doubles when they get a raise.

November? Oh sweetie, One of us us is SO not going to be disappointed. After Dean and Kerry It will hardly come as a surprise, so just remember I told you so.

Hold on to that delusion. It should make the summer a bit more interesting

-gala1

1. The field of vision from your house has no bearing on this election. We all see what we want to see. The reality is that more people want obama to be the democratic nominee. period, end of story.

2. The fact that you can't name a single hillary accomplishment off-hand is telling. Google is a sad cop-out of an intellectually bankrupt argument. I'd imagine you'd at least know one...you know, just for a situation like this. But that's ok - you can Google it, and come back to me later on it.

3. You really want to go down THAT road? With the Clintons of all people? The most compromised couple in politics today? All you have is innuendo (and zero facts) about mortgage rates, or Michelle's salary. I don't really have to go beyond whitewater... pardons...foster.... oh i don't know...let's throw some presidential library underwriters in there, you know, like saudi arabia... Jeez, just because all of this is known already and "vetted" doesn't make it any less acceptable.

Here's where experience plays a role... perhaps Obama is not the most experienced, but that also makes him far less damaged, and far less compromised that Hillary. And the fact that this is the road you choose to go down only underscores how truly bankrupt your arguement is...

I am in one of the vaunted 'flyover' places...

There is a very good chance this chunk of 'cherry red flyover' will go blue come Nov.

18 million Democrats was damned impressive. No doubt.

But the steady bleed off of her supporters says it all. The big states are mine argument is sinking like the Titanic. 12 point lead in PA and Obama hasn't even campaigned there yet. Huge lead in Hispanics - yeah the ones he wasn't supposed to be able to get.

Write her in tho - I'll be interested in the numbers. Obama will still win - in a landslide.

Hillary as president would have been ok - she would have fought her ass off to get one or two of her plans passed into legislation in her 1st term. She'd have to fight Congress for everything though. Congress will pass Obama's plans with much less friction - he'll have the mandate. More legislation with less fighting. That is the point isn't it? No president can succeed without the full backing of Congress. Why settle?

Hillary has lots of accomplishments - start at Yale and work your way forward - pre Bill. Experience shapes, so they say.