So, yet another article that argues that if you are a woman who would rather see Clinton than Obama on the presidential ticket, you must be a mental case.

It will be interesting to see how the author of this article sizes up the rest of America on election day when Obama loses.

Somehow she has overlooked that it was almost half the a party that did not want Obama nominated, that Obama's interests were heavily represented by superdelegates to whom he had given financial contributions:

<link>

and then there are all those voters who were ignored, insulted or condescended to since Day One when they plainly stated they not wish to vote for anyone with no experience and no tangible accomplishments. And haven't changed their minds.

Go ahead and foist a paint by numbers hologram onto the ticket. Then show the country that you have divided the Democrats into two warring camps.

Bullying hasn't worked. Genuflecting to the King of Pop hasn't worked. Trying to give a lightweight marketing concept the ballast of substance and credibility hasn't worked.

And then you think blaming older women for the fact that America isn't buying a bad idea is going to make it all logical?

My dear. What we really have learned from this election is that there is far more residual misogyny in the American cultural makeup than we could have ever suspected. And most surprising of all, much of it is coming from other women.

I have never heard of this author. But I rate her credibility in the same discounted wave it away I have learned to regard Dowd in the past few elections and Huffington in this one. Hell of a creepy way to make a buck.

All I have learned from them is that part of being a Party geisha is cannibalizing and refuting the respect one should have for other women. And then for some reason fully expecting those same derided women to go along with them..

Funny, it's not something you can imagine other men doing to each other. You don't read about male political factions calling each other bitter old men and looney old Mr. Havishams locked away in attics because they prefer different choices.

We may have come a long way, but, boy , do we way too obviously ever have a far longer road ahead of us if some unelectable mediocrity can so quickly reduce each other to attacking our own.

I can't wait to read how it's all Hillary's fault that we didn't follow orders and somehow found ourselves liberated enough in 2008 to vote the way we just might want to. How very unenlightened of us older women to follow our own minds rather than political pressures from some ninny who seriously thinks that accepting the least of two bad ideas in times of political crisis is going to solve much.

The reason we are not voting for Obama is that he has not shown us much of any reason why we should. He has done a lousy job so far with the messianic endowment ascribed to him.

Disrupt the convention? I'm not even planning on watching it. I'll be writing in Hillary Clinton because I have to vote for someone for president.

I can't give my self one logical reason why I would vote for Obama and I can't give myself one moral reason why I'd ever vote for McCain.

I've been a realist and a businesswoman all my life. Why wouldn't I vote for a Hillary Clinton if I consider her to be the best suited of the three for the job?

It' s all moot anyway. In times of crisis voters inevitably skew to the familiar. Which means at least a few years of McCain.

Our future most likely lies with whoever McCain chooses as VP, since the country would rather entrust itself to an elderly man obviously not in the best to health and who may be unable to finish out his term, to yet another Democrat no older demographic can possibly relate to.

When you can read articles about a Democratic candidate actually being considered by some in the religious right as the embodiment of the Antichrist, this is not exactly a good omen for an incipient democratic win.

There always has to be someone to blame in politics. It's not keening old ladies that are going to lose the Democrats yet another election. It is the Obama- bribed superdelegate count that does not accurately represent the wishes of the country. Karl Rove and Donna Brazile made sure of that.

Suckers.

-gala1

Well Said!

I had forgotten I could write in a candidate's name. I don't have to not vote for President, or vote for McCain, I'm perfectly able to write in Hillary's. Thanks for reminding me of that.

So you'll throw your vote away as if to make some sort of "statement."

Surely you remember the idealists who voted for Nader in 2000, mouthing the canard "There's no difference between the two major parties."

Well, I have an Iraq War to put up against that argument.

And you claim to be a realist?

You are nagging me with the same tired old fear monger of an argument and you want ME to consider YOU a realist?

Do you realistically think the same people who told you that they would not vote for an inexperienced candidate without any tangible accomplishment and then got ignored, insulted and condescended to are going to change their mind just to please you ?

McCain is far more familiar to what they can relate to than a candidate that mirrors the same entitled insular True-Believer retinued arrogance of the past eight years

It's because I am realistic that I am aware aware that in a crisis voters skew to the familiar .

Realistically you'll just have to find out seeing what couldn't possibly be more obvious on election day.

You can foist whoever onto the ticket buy stacking bribed superdelegates. Read this link:

<link>

But you can't make a majority that is dubious and increasingly disinclined well before the election vote your way by being snide, bullying or telling them not to believewaht little they witness with their own eyes and ears.

You may want to be suckered for the third time by Karl Rove. And so you will be.

_gala1

You make one very large, untrue assumption: that I care whether you vote for Obama. (You also make another about Karl Rove's alleged magic powers, but that is another matter).

No, I think that if you feel voting for McCain because it's in your interest to do so, you absolutely should. There is no better reason to cast a vote. The argument which centers on Obama's inexperience is absolutely a legitimate one. So unless your vote centers on, say, reproductive rights, its not so great a stretch for me to see why one might go from Hillary to McCain. (It is arguable, no doubt, but I understand it). And if the goal is to "send a message," that is the effective way to do it.

But I'm sorry, there is no way you can paint a write-in for Hillary as "pragmatic;" you have not made your case for that. Such a vote can only be called "idealistic." It is throwing your vote away for all intents and purposes (she has no chance of winning, and you know this). It is, as I said, the equivalent of the Nader vote.

And McCain is experienced at what, exactly? Enlisting our troops in an unnecessary war? Letting Bin Laden get away as the Taliban regroups in Afghanistan? Bringing back the bad old days of the Cold War? Eviscerating everything from equal pay protections to constitutional rights for ideological reasons?

That kind of experience we can all do without, quite frankly.

well, you can squander your vote your way and I 'll spend mine as I please. Nader, my foot. I need you rationalizations even less than I need your permission.

The thing I find most repugnant about the Obama or Die control-freak bunch is the assumption that we are commiting some sort of heresy against their patron saint and are traitors to our country if we aren't forced to make their choices and vote our conscience freely. Can this really be what the democrats have sunk to? How mortifying.

No wonder so many of us now redefine ourselves as independents.

Do I care about your vote either? Why would I? It's not about you, it's about demographics. And Obama is incrementally losing the minority he has.

It's not me who is going to vote against Obama. It is just about every one in just about every shop on Main Street here and in every congregation that is being encouraged to do so.

Both of us can easily be canceled out by just ttwo of my landlord's burgeoning extended family, all who want to be first in line on polling day to vote for McCain.

It is pragmatic for me to vote for the person I feel is best suited to the job. Of the three candidates we've had to pick from Obama would come in as a distant third in my professional and ethical estimation, so it is not about idealism. It is pure pragmatism on my part that I will write- in Hillary.

If you would read the link,

<link>

you would see that Karl Rove doesn't at all need magical powers. Just a fellow manipulator.

Rove's been at his own game long enough to realize that the ONLY way a GOP candidate can win this election is to serve up an unelectable Democratic candidate that would divide the party. And such a coincidence that with Donna Brazile, quoted lots about her recent friendship with Rove, all this is happening.

gala1

Gala1

What majority? If you were the majority then Hillary would be the candidate.

How were you ignored? Because people didn't do what you wanted them to do? Because they believed that the other candidate was better than your candidate?

Your link is nothing more than sour grapes.

Listen, I don't begrudge you your vote, though I still question your portrayal of voting for Clinton, who is not the candidate, "pragmatic."

And yes--this is how far the democrats have sunken!

Your statement above about the GOP winning when democrat is unelectable holds equally true in reverse (and is probably too obvious).

Why? Because every Republican--to a person--will agree on two things: lower taxes and smaller government. Now, they may be naive to think the GOP will give them either of those things. Or, they may not know it may not be in their interest hold such a view. But the fact that to a person they agree on those two things alone, lets face it, makes one hell of a base. What do the democrats have that can compare?

There are other reasons for the GOP's electoral success than duplicity and confusion.

Nope, I'm not the majority.

My neighbors and townspeople are.

They're the ones saying they've been ignored when they told their local democratic leadership how they felt. They're the ones who won't be voting for Obama no way no how. As the response here goes if you ask.

Sour grapes or not, you are about to pick another democratic candidate that can't carry a majority vote. I am so resigned to the idea of four years of President McCain that I have come to regard most of what Obamabots write as Swiftian exercises in folly.

You can foist this guy onto the ticket, but there is no way the demographics that matter will choose to vote for him.

If you have to wait til November to find that out, then you will. But let me be the first to say I told you so.

-gala1

the caucus system works or you are purposely lying. 18 states used caucuses which are undemocratic. You obviously need to go back and take civics again.

That last part, gala1, I agree with. And I remember, now that you reminded me, how Obama played the race card when Hillary said she was electable. She was right, she was. Against the Republicans. Hence the Sean Hannity 'Stop Hillary Express" (it wasn't stop obama!) A lot of republican women would have voted for the first female presidential candidate. And the privacy of the ballot would have allowed alot of men-who-are-ridiculed-if-they-­like-Hillary to vote for her too. Experience counts. And I too, despaired at John Kerry as candidate, even though I voted for him. At least I knew him, and he had the experience. So did Gore. So Did Clinton. So did Carter. Obama has zero experience. And, after outspending 5-1 (as I read today) he's DOWN in the polls and McCain is UP??? leads me to believe that as people do get to know Obama, they will like him less. Nice is fine, smart is fine, but with no track record, we just can't afford to 'hope' that 'change' will suffice. And, in addition, Obama is relying on the most undependable demographic bracket there is. It's the older people that vote. But, hey, that's only experience talking.

Clinton isn't running for president anymore. Have you read?

Sour grapes or not, you are about to pick another democratic candidate that can't carry a majority vote.

Any candidate in the general election needs a majority of the electoral vote. What is your guarantee that Hillary would have gotten the majority? Are there the same number of people out there that would never vote for Clinton?

Clinton carrying a majority vote is s no longer the issue, dear.

It's McCain vs Obama and where I am in the Flyover it's a McCain given.

The way they see it, no matter what, McCain has paid his dues. And Obama has merely fast-tracked his fare on the government gravy train, paid for by taxpayers, for most of his life. They are not about to make the presidency another entitlement grant.

Let me be clear on this. It's not me that has distilled this to a conclusion. It's what their view is from out here.

I think there is a basis of truth in it. But it doesn't have much to do with how I vote myself.

-gala1