"Cut off your nose to spite your face."

These disgruntled women—whether they plan to vote for John McCain, sit out the election, or simply gobble up airtime—are tacitly working toward electing McCain; a candidate who claimed last week at a presidential forum at Saddleback Church that life begins "at the moment of conception" and who voted against legislation ensuring equal pay for women. These women must be well aware that a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe. I assume they don't care. But my real problem with the Hillary Harridans—and the media's relentless focus on them—is that they give new life to Paleozoic stereotypes about irrationally destructive older women.

Is it all about Hillary Clinton? Would any woman do? If Sen. Clinton would have won the nomination, would these Hillary fanatics have quietly accepted a similar response from African American supporters of Sen. Obama?

As for me, I'd be very comfortable with a good female candidate. Were she still alive, and willing and able, I'd be a supporter of Barbara Jordan. I'd support Barbara Mikulski

Sen. Obama did not "dis" Sen. Clinton (though Sen. Clinton and her husband continuosly denegrated Sen. Obama).

I must say, I'm amazed at the response of some of Sen. Clinton's supporters.

yawn...more straw men arguments.

keep trying to make it about angry women.

it is about values. values that obama does not represent. you can disagree as you like, but please cut the phony ad hominem attacks.

PUMAs like me have told people like you over and over again why we do not support Obama. And, for those like me, who do not support McCain.

Why is it amazing that some folks do not support a presumptive candidate who is unprepared for the office he is running for? Did you see Saddleback? The man can't think on his feet and he changes his public beliefs constantly. We've had exactly that kind of pResident for 8 years in the Bush White House. We don't need another poorly prepared, awkward, and unknowledgeable puppet.

Obama doesn't think in sound bites. He is much too analytic and nuanced for some people, which apparently includes you.

bnq: You may not support for Obama but please vote for him this November because the alternative is McCain and as I woman, I do not want to live in this country with that man as president!!! Everything the author wrote about McCain is true. Women will take a major step back in this country. Freedom of liberty will take a major step back in this country. Believe me when I say I would have loved to have Clinton as the presidential candidate, but what done is done. Our choice now is Obama and McCain and CLEARLY McCain is not the right choice for women.

AmiBlue:

Obama doesn't think in sound bites. He is much too analytic and nuanced for some people, which apparently includes you.

I agree he's a thinker - he taught Constitutional Law! That might be trouble though if he can't translate thought into action. A senator can debate endlessly, the President has to *act*.

Does Obama think about things more than McCain? Most likely. If the missles were flying towards us though, would he be able to decide what to do, or still be thinking when the White House was vaporized? That's the question.

Some people still want to cast Hillary Clinton as the Ralph Nader of the 2008 election. Almost all of them, IMO, are actually Republicans, continuing Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" into the Fall.

Bondsman:

AmiBlue:

Obama doesn't think in sound bites. He is much too analytic and nuanced for some people, which apparently includes you.

I agree he's a thinker - he taught Constitutional Law! That might be trouble though if he can't translate thought into action. A senator can debate endlessly, the President has to *act*.

Does Obama think about things more than McCain? Most likely. If the missles were flying towards us though, would he be able to decide what to do, or still be thinking when the White House was vaporized? That's the question.

The plus side is a thinker is less likely to give them the missles, or a desire to use them, in the first place.

What are those "values" that Sen. Clinton represents that Sen. Obama does not. Interestingly, almost every reply to a question as to what Sen. Clinton stands for that Sen. Obama does not goes unanswered, except for the unsubstantiated and meritless retort that Sen. Clinton stands for the working people and Sen. Obama does not. Where is the proof of that?

In the primaries I didn't support Obama. I was for one of the other candidates that didn't get the nomination. Obviously, I didn't get the candidate I wanted, so I looked to see if there were other candidates running as Democrats (and liberals) with whom I had agreement and could support. As the field was narrowed to Clinton and Obama, it was Obama's demeanor, as well as integrity, that garnered my support over Clinton. And, it was Sen. Clinton's lack of honesty (Ireland, Bosnia, etc.) and obnoxious and false characterisations of Sen. Obama, as well as his continuing and mostly consistent stand in opposition to the invasion of Iraq,that led me to chose the Illinois Sen. over the Sen. from New York.

So, I do not support Sen. Clinton, but, considering the possiblity of McCain actually winning the election, I would have voted for her in November.

As to phoney attacks: I think that is more a characteristic of your position and arguments than of mine.

I believe that Sen. Obama is as prepared for the Oval Office as is Sen. Clinton. While she has had more years in the Senate, he has state government experience. While she was First Lady, he was a street activist, with a record of accomplishment. Both have been attorneys in high powered law firms. He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law, She is a graduate of Yale Law. There is absolutely no evidence that, but for her being First Lady, she gained any exceptional foriegn policy experience during her husband's administration. (Evidence is that, contrary to her implications and claims, she was not involved in foriegn policy.) Comparing Sen. Clinton's votes and positions on the invasion of Iraq with that of Sen. Obama; she evidences bad judgment, and he evidences good judgment. I did see some of the Obama interview with Pastor Warren, and contrary to your view, believe that Sen. Obama acquited himself quite well. Not perfect; but well.

I don't believe Sen. Obama to be poorly prepared, awkward, unknowledgable, or a puppet. (Of whom would he be a puppet?) I also don't believe that Sen. Clinton has either a record or a character to be better prepared or able to excercise the office of the President, in foriegn or domestic affairs than is Sen. Obama.

Do Sen. McCain or Sen. Clinton present a better picture of ability, judgment, or presence of mind in such a scenerio than does Sen. Obama? I think not.