As I see it, the job of every voter is to carefully consider the issues at hand and then vote for the candidate he/she decides is most qualified.

When we consider the issues at hand, it's important to realize that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are not interchangeable in spite of the fact that both of them hold similar views on many of the issues we're considering this election year.

When I consider the issues at hand how I vote boils down to what I consider to be the two most important issues our nation is facing right now. And those two most important issues are not abortion rights or equal pay...they're the economy and national security...issues that affect our nation as a whole.

Hillary Clinton clearly made the point that Barak Obama is not the most qualified candidate to deal with these issues. But...I'm a lifetime Democrat. So, how can I possibly vote for McCain? My God, he's a (gasp!) Republican. But at the same time, how can I possibly vote for Barak Obama? In my opinion, he's not the most qualified candidate.

Telling me to shut up, suck it up, get over it and vote like a good little Democratic automaton really pisses me off. Clearly Ms. Lithwick has absolutely no idea how disrespectful and condescending she is to women who are not her clones. Explain to me exactly why I should vote for Barak Obama when his supporters think I'm some sort of mad harridan?

Excellent! Well Said.

rock on sister!

I totally agree! And we're not victims, either!

"And those two most important issues are not abortion rights or equal pay...they're the economy and national security...issues that affect our nation as a whole."

Ok, lets talk about those. How can you think McCain is more qualified? He wants to stay in Iraq until we "win" but can't identify what that means, his diplomatic approach continues Bush's bluster and big talk over dialogue, in short he's stuck in a cold war mentality. On the economy, he has admitted he doesn't know much, one main advisor called us all whiners, his other run hewlett packard into the ground then got a sweet bonus. Obama on the other hand wants to get us out of Iraq so we can refocus on the real fronts in the war on terror and wants to get rid of Bush tax cuts so we can afford to make some real investments in America.

The issue is that we don't believe it. Taking your examples--economy and national security--as poster blueshift suggests, it's just hard for Obama supporters to understand the following argument:

• These policy issues are the basis for your vote
• You are aligned with Senator Clinton on these policy issues, and
• You therefore prefer McCain to Obama.

Obama people view that as disingenuous, since it is simply not reconciliable with the stated policy positions of Obama and McCain. By any reasonable measure, Obama is far closer to Clinton on policy issues than McCain is. Both candidates acknowledge that.

Since the position doesn't seem to make sense, people infer that your real rationale is different. (By analogy, this is how proof works in employment discrimination cases--the employer's purported rationale is not credible, so you infer improper motive.) The media-created alternatives are that you are racists or mad harridans. The racist meme has faded, so guess what's left.

As an alternative, why not just say you don't like the guy/he's too young/whatever? It's when it the policy-based rationalizations come in that the credibility falls away and the mad harridan caricature takes over.

It is not condescending or disrespectful to say, as Dahlia does, that by continuing to carry the torch for Hillary or overtly supporting McCain, Hillary supporters are reinforcing negative historical stereotypes of women, to their own detriment and that of everyone who has had enough of Republican misrule.

OMG, blueshift stop regurgitating the braindead liberal talking points and activate your brain for a minute. It won't hurt, promise.

First of all Obama's so inexperienced (read: loudmouthed dumbass) that once his advisors educated him to the fact that his "let's cut and run from Iraq right this minute" plan would end in disaster (Iraq would become West Iran overnight, or possibly fragment into warring Islamofascist states) he was forced to adopt a new plan (flip flop, again,) a plan which closely resembles... yeah, you guessed it, McCain's plan!

If you had ever cracked open a history book you would know that the victors in a war have two choices to maintain control in a defeated adversary nation. Choice 1: Kill everybody. Effective, but too barbaric for civilized nations. This doesn't fly too well in the 21st century. Choice 2: Occupy the nation for quite some time. Difficult, but necessary. Reference: Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc.

If you really need to find someone to blame for the Hillary flameout, blame Hillary and her campaign advisors. Anybody that can blow that much of a lead with that much money in a war chest has to be a questionable candidate to be the leader of the 'free world.'

Thanks for the history lesson raven, I think I'll stick with published authors.

Your characterization of Obama's stance on Iraq is just sad. The consistent stance has been to withdraw over about 16 months after becoming CIC with consultation with the generals. It's McCain that had to begin adopting Obama's plan after the government of Iraq (that Bush put in place) demanded a timeline for withdrawal.

Here's a great article providing a sort of autopsy of the clinton campaign, based on memos, emails etc from the campaign itself.

Hillary's Campaign

"When we consider the issues at hand, it's important to realize that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are not interchangeable..."

Granted. But are you suggesting that Clinton and McClain are?. Clinton's expressed policies on the economy and national security (your pivotal issues) are much closer to Obama's.

There's only one horse in this race who thinks we should stay "for 100 years" or that bombing Iran (or another villian of the moment) is the solution for all foreign policy problems. It's the same candidate who confessed to his ignorance of economics and hint: It wasn't Obama.

Clinton was defeated. Deal with it. Voting for someone whose positions on the economy, security, and yes, personal liberties are demonstrably different from the candidate you initially supported is not just spiteful. It's stupid.

If you really were a thoughtful democrat who wanted to vote on issues, you would understand the huge and irreconcilable differences between the republican and the democratic policies and visions on the economy and national security. It is completely true, that McCain has a lot more experience. Vast experience in his wrong (from a democratic point) ways, in the policies that you shouldn’t approve if you really were a thoughtful democrat. And more than a zero experience in the policies that you should approve.

So cut the crap.

What younger women fail to realize regarding the PUMA's is that they are extremely self-absorbed, self-centered and post-menopausal.

They don't really give a damn about reproductive rights because they are no longer capable of reproduction.

When we consider the issues at hand, it's important to realize that Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are not interchangeable

I'm not going to get into the merits of Obama v. Clinton. But I think the question right now is: are Obama and McCain interchangeable? Because that's the choice we have right now.

If Clinton supporters really think that and Obama administration would be no better than a McCain administration, then I think that's a justifiable position for sitting out the election. But if one thinks that they are not the same on energy policy, on tax policy, on Supreme Court appointments, and on Iraq, then I don't see how sitting out is really an option, at least if one lives in a battleground state.

And I think the record is clear that McCain and Obama are not interchangeable on these issues. And if they're not interchangeable, then I don't get why one would fail to vote for the less-bad outcome.