Well, Grace, if you thought that was cute, you're wrong. It's a sad day for everyone, frankly. If Hillary looses the nomination to Obama, then we loose the White House to McCain. I can live with Obama but many won't vote for another amateur for the White House this fall. I've been making phone calls for weeks for Hillary and it's not going to be a pretty fall out there for the Dems if they continue down this destructive road. We've already endured 8 years of OJT with Bush. Too many mature voters won't elect another amateur.

Just precisely what are we "hoping" for with Obama? Just exactly what does he want to "change"? Having never heard a word of substance yet from him I remain unconvinced. I'd say if he is going to be the nominee then someone had better start filling in the blanks with more than just rhetoric.

So, he's a great community organizer. For what? What is he organizing for? Hope? Change? There's no substance there. Literally hundreds of phone calls and that was the biggest complaint about Obama. He gathers people, inspires, gets them excited but.....for what? Even your comment above says absolutely nothing about what he intends to do. He'll put people first. How? Doing what? Where? What policies? What experience? I see nothing but fluff there.

When you claim there is nothing of substance to Obama, have you even visited his website?

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

Click on issues and you can read his stance, goals, strategies, on and on. It is detailed with both policy and rationals that go directly to who he is.

Just give it a chance, and read it, and refrain from the ease of parroting Sean Hannity and the like.

And don't vote out of fear. That 3 a.m. phone call ad was the final straw for me. HRC wanted us to be afraid of voting for someone else, and I will not vote out of a fearful paralysis. That's what the Republicans want!

And remember, no matter how tired you are, it is hard to mis-remember getting shot at or not!

There is not longer a comparison. So please everyone, stop poking at Hillary. Just say the positive about Senator Obama. Please respectfully answer the questions. This our people here. Speak as if you are speaking to your best friend, because in many ways you are.

The contest was over quite a while ago, and despite the sharp teeth dug into my ankle I have been attempting - not always successfully - to emulate Obama's gracious tone, which of course is the way to get former Clinton supporters to consider climbing out of muck and get back in the boat. Some will and some won't. I can't force anyone to see it my way.

It's pretty obvious that there's nothing more to be gained by further attacks at this point - on either side. Save it for McCain. I'll try to follow my own advice, and Grace's.

I have to admit that I really couldn't care less what is written on Obama's website. He didn't write it. He has policy advisors who do. I have listened to multiple speeches and seen him in person twice. I am absolutely underwhelmed. Period. If I have to support him to have a Democrat in the White House, I'll do so. Hillary was not my first choice, either, but she is many times better than Obama. But, honestly, the part that really is turning many Hillary supporters off to Obama is his supporters. It's the Deaniac thing all over again.

I would propose that a petition be started. It should be sent to every person in this country who went to the caucuses and primaries and voted for Obama. It certifies that they will each individually ensure that they get registered to vote correctly, find out where their polling location is and actually show up to vote. If so, we might have a prayer of a chance of electing him. If young people do what they always do, we'll have McCain. Senior citizens and blue collar workers always vote. Young people don't. Even with the Deaniac "huge" surge in support of young people the percentage of young voters only rose 1%.

I am unconvinced.

Alec,

Read your post and wonder aloud,....why your attitude just alienated anyone who would possibly have been even willing to listen to you.....

Your an insufferable jerk. With supporters like you, you'll never convert anyone.

WMD says,
"I'd say if he is going to be the nominee then someone had better start filling in the blanks with more than just rhetoric."

----In a completely genuine attempt to do what you asked, we pointed you to Obama's publicly stated positions, which also contain his personal rationale and history with those positions. We tried to do what you asked us to do!

We tried to raise the discourse and honestly answer your questions

----For some reason you did not want an answer to your question, which kind of stifles the discussion. You wanted to know his positions, but don't care what his publicly stated positions are. How does that make any sense?

I pointed out how ignorant this seems.

----You ended the discussion by calling names.

Oh well.

You're right, Alec. You post an exceptionally condescending, arrogant post and put down everyone who doesn't believe Obama walks on water and then when someone calls you on your attitude, you accuse that person of calling names. The most obvious point in this is that you will never convince anyone with that method.

When you asked us a legitimate question, and we sincerely tried to answer, and then you told us you didn't care about the answer, that came off as rude. Why did you ask? Do you really want to know his positions or not?

My comment on being ignorant was the idea that you could criticize his positons or lack there-of, without ever reading his positions. That is like a movie critic who reviews a movie they have never seen, and refuses to even watch the trailer!

If you read Obama's positions, and still think he stinks, I will say amen to you and thank you. I do not think disagreeing with Obama is ignorant at all. I think disagreeing with something you have never even read, is totally ignorant.

All we wanted was for you to read his positions, and get the information you asked for. If you still disagree, then fabulous.

So, if you honestly do want to fill in the blanks, like you said, then do so. Then we can have an informed, reasonable discussion.

Thanks,
Alec

Also, it is kind of easy to throw out the name calling when you use an anonymous moniker.

Please note, Alec, that I am the only HRC supporter even willing to come here to "discuss" Obama with you. Trust me, I am not alone. There are many others out here - in contact with each other - the majority of which will not venture into such obnoxious waters.

Look, there is no advantage in making people who you want to vote on your side mad. Even though Hillary is still going on for two weeks, her supporters are perfectly aware of the situation. Being nice is Politics 101.

I just have to point this out:

For those of you who are Hillary supporters, and also Franken supporters, please understand the irony of supporting Clinton's quixotic candidacy while decrying the legitimacy of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer's candidacy and suggesting he move aside so that Al can focus on Norm.

If this doesn't apply to you, then there is no need for you to reply. If it does, think about it for a minute.

K, I guess I hadn't really thought about the two contests that way. It is an interesting thought. But I am somewhat hoping that there has actually been less acrimony between the Franken folks and the JNP crew.

To me, last week was a good sign. Jack himself absolutely refused to comment on the attacks concerning Franken's taxes. My letter to the editor got published, identifying myself as a Jack supporter, but slamming the smears against Franken. I have been hanging around Jack's campaign office most evenings, and I have heard not one word against Franken for his supposed tax woes, neither to delegates we are phoning, nor even to each other.

Yesterday I got the sweetest note from Franken himself, thanking me the Strib letter. On Sunday at the Mayday parade, Franni Franken said the same thing.

I am hugely optimistic about Jack's prospects at the Rochester convention. I am also very glad that I don't need to tear down a fellow Democrat in order to promote a candidate that I still think is unique and remarkable.

Actually, rohnjay, not one youth has voted yet. No one has. The last two cycles we read article after article about how the youth vote was going to go through the roof. Remember how Howard Dean "energized" and "engaged" the youth and they were going to come out for him in force? Didn't happen. The system is set up to discourage actual voting. When someone caucuses they appear, sign in, swear they'll only vote in one caucus, and then caucus. No one checked their registration, no one checked to see if they had valid proof that they lived in that district. There were no required voter roles and registration cards with utility bills or student id's. There were lines.....but not longer than on election day.

As long as we (nationally) have many Republican Secretaries of State in charge of the voting apparatus college campuses will not have streamlined voting processes and lines will be very long. When that happens many students don't vote. Additionally the Democratic party has not done a good job with absentee voting for youth. The GOP, on the other hand, does. I've been an election judge for years. When we count the absentee ballots at the end of the night they are almost all for GOP candidates.

I hope you are right on your "once in a lifetime realignment" but I remain totally unconvinced.

WMD - Your point that the caucuses are not run as general elections or primaries are is well taken. However, it would be a mistake to assume that all of the interest on the part of younger voters that was demonstrated during the caucuses will completely dissolve come November.

In the case of Minnesota, we are fortunate to have same day registration, which helps students get their vote counted. It's true that retrograde disenfranchising rules elsewhere can depress voter turnout among younger voters.

However, I also think it is fair to say that interest in the election is much higher than any other recent presidential election, many of these younger voters are energized by Obama's message, and that the turnout will be higher in this age group in November than it has historically. I do think that the claim of "as high a percentage as seniors" is overblown, though, since this group has a very high turnout.

It looks like Hillary's long streak of winning primaries has finally ended!

WOW, talk about momentum!

Grace, I will submit that WMD is just one of those women who are not looking for reconciliation. Cheryl is not looking to for reasons to get on board with Obama. She is taking the opportunity to practice the kind of politics you're standing against.
She also left out the African American vote. I'm starting to think 'blue collar' is another word for white.

Nobody is coming here picking on Hillary but, if you're going to make condescending and wrong statements about Obama, expect Obama supporters to correct you. We've got a party to re-build and election to win, no thanks to some selfish Dems, and I need to know who is willing to work and who just wants to bellyache.

Growing the ranks of young voters, African Americans, upper middle class voters (like the ones out in Eden Prairie with you) will not only help deliver states for Obama, but districts for Congressional candidates like Madia.

Let's face it, some people who supported Clinton will not vote for Obama no matter what. They will blame inexperience, his supporters or his associations. They will remain silent on race but, any of those reasons are just excuse for sour grapes for the most part. I say, the hell with them. There are millions of others we need to focus on and bring back into the circle.

Regarding the African American vote in the general election. Just how many African Americans are there in the independents and Republicans to push Obama over the top? I may be wrong but I think JC Watts may be the only one.....that constituency alone will not elect Obama. He is not going to win over seniors (of which I am not one), blue collars (again, not one), Latinos (not one there either), non college educated (again, not one) voters unless he seriously changes his tune. Please, explain to me how a Democrat can be elected without these constituencies and for heaven's sake, don't tell me kiddies 18-24 are going to do it. I (and obviously millions of others) remain unconvinced that he can win. Otherwise Hillary would not be winning votes and he'd have it all sewn up. The sour grapes are on the Obama supporters side. Obama-ites just can't fathom why all of us ignorant idiots won't see how perfect he is and climb on the bandwagon.

Well, you got it all wrapped up.

Though in a country that is almost 50-50, I'd wager that the African American vote is very important for any Democrat. Obama is winning all of those catagories you named, Hillary just is winning more of them. The vast majority will come over to Obama, the other will sulk like you're doing. However, Hillary is not carry one single group at the rate Obama is carrying African Americans, young voters and suburban educated voters- maybe elderly women make the cut.

We can't win. Let's just stay at home and let McCain win. You think he's moderate?
Chioce?- say goodbye.
Supreme Court Appointments?-More Alitos.
Iraq?- Never leaving.
Economy? - More tax cuts for the rich.

There you have it. So, stay your selfish butt at home and keep your mouth shut when your prediction of a McCain victory comes true. Except when you look to blame us for endorsing Obama, look at the many posts on here and Publius you put forth never giving him a chance and more than likely won't lift a finger to help. Actually you're doing a great job of regurgitating Republican speaking points.

David,

Reread your post and just ask why Hillary supporters are not flocking to Obama. It's your attitude. It's a huge turnoff, needless to say. All of those whom you would throw out with the "old politics" have worked for over 30 years to elect Democrats. You're right. It's meaningless because we're not young energetic cute little puppies in love with your candidate. Obviously you know best. If you would just think about it, you'd realize many have been working since before you were born to elect Democrats - successfully sometimes and not successfully others - but still working hard. Will I work for Obama? Yes. If he's the nominee but he's not my second or third or fourth choice. Most will. The point still remains. It's going to be much tougher to win in November with him as the candidate and the items you mention are in danger.....more war in Iraq, potential war in Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, Russia, as well as the economy, jobs, equality, education access, housing issues, and women's rights.

WMD,
My comments are for the Hillary supporters like you. You will never come back to support Obama. You won't open your eyes or your mind to even the possibility. You seem obsessed with Obama supporters and what they do. How about the redneck Hillary voters that were interviewed in PA? You can accept them over the immature Obama supporters? You can accept the consequence of a McCain presidency because some people who will not hold office, influence policy or ever talk to Obama pissed you off?
Sounds like an excuse especially for someone I know who didn't support John Kerry first or second last time around but, seem to come around to him after the nomination.

The vast majority of Hillary supporters will be willing to work honestly with and for an Obama ticket. We need to focus our energy on them and not the negative sour grapes of the WMDs. I do believe there is a Hillary vote that is in the mindset of WMD (Obama is not deserving, his supporters are naive, he can't win), again, those people are worth a minimal of time. The vast majority are for stopping BushIII.

You have no clue what you are talking about and couldn't be more wrong. End of subject.