To run for president is to signal that one is a blazing egomaniac. Which is fine; the trick is in electing the _good_ blazing egomaniacs.

But I do prefer politicians who have the self-awareness to recognize this about themselves, and to see it as a fault to be overcome, or at any rate not mindlessly accentuated in public comments.

So, badly played, Obama. Badly played. It's fine to think the thought. But that's one of those thoughts you don't say out loud. Part of the reason you have people endorse you and speak on your behalf is so that _they_ can say that sort of thing. Which needs to be said: Obama will get every Hillary vote, give or take. But Hillary will not get every Obama vote, not nearly, and it won't just be people staying home. It wasn't Democrats staying home that elected Reagan, after all, and either McCain or Romney will be able to make a much more substantive claim for the interests of moderate voters than the charming but ideologically extreme Reagan ever did. Plus, in a nation suffering from intense fatigue with the status quo, Hillary will look more like the status quo than any Republican now running. That's an important tactical fact to consider when choosing a nominee, but it's the kind if think a candidate needs someone at arm's length to say. You know, like how Bill is to Hillary.

I know an Obama supporter who will stay home in November if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Me.

It never ceases to amaze me how little Hillary's supporters know how much she is hated, even among some Democratic constituencies.

Why won't all that many Obama supporters go to McCain in the event that McCain and Clinton are the major party nominees?  Both Obama and McCain are popular with self-described independent voters.  Obama will have been low-roaded by the Clintons just as McCain was once low-roaded by the Bushies.

Clinton won't get all of Obama votes, especially the independent votes and especially if McCain get the nod. The worst possible situation for the Democrats is a Clinton/McCain race. The electability argument against McCain is the Republican base might not come out for him. However, if Clinton is running their base will come out for any candidate just so Clinton doesn't win. And McCain will appeal to the independents that Clinton cannot.

So in that race, the Republican base is energized and the Republicans have a candidate that appeals to independents, while the Democrats have half their party demoralized from a the highly negative and untruthful campaign run by Clinton. The Republican candidate is also someone who many Democrats still admire, even if he has been saying the wrong things so he can get nominated.

I have always supported Obama during this race, but the last few days have lowered my opinion of Clinton dramatically because of her willingness to say things she must know are not true. The main culprit being her distortion of Obama's statement about Reagan, and then her idiotic follow up today about how she never said anything about Reagan. I will probably still vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination, but if Bloomberg runs, says the right thing, and looks like he has a good chance to win, I might vote for him instead. Before the last debate, I would never have thought about that.

My vote for Clinton will be a negative vote against the Republican. My vote for Obama will be a positive vote for him.

I'm a fairly liberal Obama supporter who would likely  vote for McCain or Bloomberg over Hillary.

What an egotistical thing for Obama to say!!! In thinking this, Obama is once again demonstrating just how self-centered and presumptuous he is. This election is not about him, and it is not about what people say about him.  He really doesn't seem to get that.

By the time we get to November, People will be thinking about health care, the economy, the housing crisis, Iraq, and what ever elso happens between now and then. People will be screaming to replace George Bush and to deliver real, substantial change. TThey will be focused on a future agenda. They won't be thinking about whther Obama got his feelings hurt. It is just astonishing that he would think that and even threaten the democratic party with his hurt feelings.

     "I don't think there are too many of them who would go to McCain,"

Please allow me to retort. I'm an Obama supporter, I'm technically still a democrat, but if you really think that I'd vote for Hillary Clinton you are actually out of your mind. I'll register as an Independent the next day and vote for Bloomberg if he runs  - and if not for John McCain --  assuming he gets the republican nomination.

Why? Because misguided and honorable has to be a safer bet than misguided, immoral and power hungry.  And considering that its pretty obvious that the Clinton's haven't even stopped to consider the party's well-being if she looses in the fall, I don't see how you or anyone else could make an argument for party loyalty with a straight face.

We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable. And moreover, they both consistently and vociferously affirm that the problem here is Republicans. I don’t have the transcripts, but they both must have said as much at least 4 times in last night’s debate alone. We should all grow up and resist the temptation to get caught up in the sporting event that the whole spectacle has taken on. We are in a process here – a very contentious process – to find the person who will best lead the party and the country. At the end of the process we must all get over our particular problems with the chosen candidate and do so with pride. Not voting or voting for McCain is a childish response that strikes me as something my four year old daughter would do when she loses at Candyland. Do people really want to turn the country over to the chief architect of the “Surge” and someone who counts Gerard Bradley and Sam Brownback as his Supreme Court Advisors? When the process is over, Clinton will support Obama, and Obama will support Clinton. While it is a nice campaign trick, for either to suggest otherwise is heretical and is nonsense.

The Obamaites here are amazing. This isn't a sporting event where you don't go to the game if your team isn't playing or has lost in the playoffs. This is actually about people's lives, both in the US and around the world. How many people who are alive tonight will die if McCain is elected? Get over yourselves. I certainly don't see what the excitement was about with Obama. He seems a bit vapid except when he gives a prepared speech to an audience of fans. But if he somehow got the nomination, no matter how "mean" he was to Hillary or how vapid I thought he was, I would certainly vote for him and donate to hm over any republican

Well said pcostello!

“But if he [Senator Obama] somehow got the nomination, no matter how "mean" he was to Hillary or how vapid I thought he was, I would certainly vote for him and donate to him over any republican.” - pccostello

Amen

I've already left a similar comment on Chait's "Jaws of Victory" post, but I am such an Obama supporter very attracted to his positions and his approach.

I voted for the Democratic nominee in every election for which I was eligible (since 1992, though I was a reluctant Clinton vote in '96). I don't know who I'll vote for if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, but it won't be her. (I have many reasons for this, but I won't list them here.) Just based on conversations with my friends and colleagues, I think there are a lot of us out there. My best friend from childhood, who worked on environmental policy stuff in the Clinton White House, is another strong Obama supporter who will not vote for Clinton in the general election. One friend, a Korean-American woman in her late 30s, did fundraising for the Clinton Senate race and absolutely refuses to vote for her in the general election if she's the nominee. (For the record, my friend's not crazy about Obama or Edwards either, but she's said that she'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.)

I live in New England now, but I'm originally from the deep red south. My (white) parents and parents-in-law have voted Republican their entire lives (with the exception of my mom's vote for Gore and Kerry in 2004). All four of them have said they're leaning towards voting for Obama in the general election if he's the nominee. None will consider voting for Clinton. This is all so anecdotal as to be worthless. I find it incredible though (but also unsurprising given the party's recent history) that so many Democrats who are driven mostly by their desire to win (as opposed to their preference for a particular candidate) are breaking more towards Clinton.

So much is made about the Clintons' tenacity and their preparedness to withstand the right wing attack machine and to give as good as they get. But throwing elbows is useless if the other team is spotted too many points for you to catch up. Usually, you hear this chestnut about the Clintons' toughness invoked to contrast it with Obama, whom the cv says is not as tenacious, not as prepared to withstand and to give as good as he gets. But you can't compare the two. In a general election with Obama as the nominee, he's going to have to fight like hell but it will be to win more votes. But in a general election with the Clintons as the nominee, they'll have to fight like hell not to lose votes. (And there's a strong argument to be made that there aren't enough there already.)

If you're an undecided Democrat who's only interested in voting for the candidate most likely to win in the general election, I just don't see how you justify a vote for Clinton.

"We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable. And moreover, they both consistently and vociferously affirm that the problem here is Republicans." Eweiss

Their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable, but the type of untruthful campaign Clinton has been running changes how I think about Clinton. A vote for president is more than just a vote for policy positions, and Clinton recent blatant untruthful statements makes me think twice about her character.

Also, if Clinton and anyone except McCain is nominated, Bloomberg jumps in. While you never know, who that helps I would put the chances at above 50/50 that it hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans.

pccostello, Bukharin, et al  Let me ask you a simple question.

If President Clinton fells that behavior he's evidenced over the last couple of weeks is appropriate for a former president, where was he before the war? I mean, there are only three possibilities ... a) he thought the war was a great idea. b) he's become the victim of a chemical imbalance no one has the heart to tell him about or c) personal aggrandizement is more important to him than the lives of roughly 4,000 American and English soldiers and 160,000 Iraqis.

That said, let me point out that the basic flaw in your reasoning is an assumption that simply isn't supported by available facts, that the bulk of Obama's supporters are dyed blue democrats who should just shut up and fall in line with whomever the party chooses. You need to get over that echo chamber spawned delusion.

This country is pretty much evenly divided between democrats republicans and actual independents. Where do you think all of that Ron Paul money is coming from?

I am a second year law student at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of law in Sacramento, California.  Five students and myself went to Reno last Thursday to help the Obama campaign.  What we witnessed at the Nevada caucuses was extremely uplifting – especially since Obama clearly won the precincts where we worked.  

It needs to be stressed over and over again the generational divide between the Clinton and Obama camps.  Obama’s supporters were youthful, energized, and genuinely proud to stand up and caucus for Obama.  There were plenty of Independents and Republicans who showed up because they believe in Obama’s message.  Also, I’d like to add that these precincts in Reno were in an overwhelmingly affluent and white neighborhood.  

On the other hand, Clinton’s supporters tended to be age sixty and over, quiet, and not too energized for Hillary.  Furthermore, all the supporters for Edwards, and the one supporter for Kucinich, joined Obama once their candidates did not meet viability.  Our biggest fear leaving Nevada was not that Obama lost the popular vote there, but that if Hillary wins the nomination, all this youthful excitement will shut down.  

None of us can imagine being excited for Hillary, and I doubt the Independents and Republicans would come out for her.  It will be truly heartbreaking to see everything we witnessed last weekend come to an end.  If we’re going to beat the Republicans in November, we need that excitement and energy.  Unfortunately, none of us feel too confident we would stand up and be fired up for Hillary.  In fact, John McCain would be given consideration in a McCain/Hillary match up.  And obviously, that would be devastating for Democrats who want to win in November.  

- Joshua Kob

I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, just like I voted for Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry in their losing races to Bush, Bush, and Bush.

As much as I hate to say it, and even though I've been a registered democrat almost since I could vote and voted Democratic in every Presidential election (except for my first - gime a break I was only 18), given substantially to Democratic causes, worked actively on campaigns such as Schumer's first Senate campaign, when I was a New Yorker voted for Clinton for the Senate, and been an ardent supporter of Obama, if this year, it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, I'll likely go to McCain, and if it isn't McCain, I'll likely just not pull that Presidential lever at all.   I don't think I could vote for someone who I have seen become seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to get the nomination, even if that means methods that are completely dishonest and unethical, and who is so utterly divisive as a national candidate.   And sadly, I don't think I'm alone.  If Clinton wins the nomination, and if folks like me do represent a significant portion of the Democratic base, it could be a disaster for the Democratic party.

"We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable."

Just for a moment, let's concede that notion: when it comes to policy Hillary and Obama are very similar.  If that's the case then you should recognize the genuine difference between Obama and Hillary is this: one can build a genuine progressive working majority and one will only lead to deeper partisan warfare.

The choice seems obvious to me.

The Democratic Party Ticket posters here have to remember that in addition to the independents and republicans who are crossing over to support Obama, a good number of Obama supporters are first-time voters--whether because they are young or because they have never felt inspired enough before to bother to support anyone.  There is no reason to think that these supporters will back Hillary Clinton--particularly given the blatantly dishonest campaign she has allowed herself and her people to run against Obama.  

It is amazing to me to see how many Clinton supporters are intent on making sure everyone knows that Obama "threw the first punch" in last night's debate.  YES HE DID, and a darn good thing too, given all the truly ugly tricks that they've been pulling ever since she got trounced in Iowa.  I mean, don't you cringe at all when you hear about her mass mailing on the eve of each primary calling into question Obama's support for abortion rights?  The Clinton campaign is counting on voter ignorance to scare women into voting for Hillary.  That is truly insulting to the concept of democracy that many young and idealistic Obama supporters believe in.  It's practically tragic.

I was never on the fence about the candidates, but at the start of the process, I can tell you that I was truly excited to think that we had two really good candidates on the democratic side, either of whom I'd be willing to vote for in November.  I should also tell you that I'm 43 years old and have voted the democratic ticket in every election for the past 25 years.  If Hillary is our nominee, I am staying home.  And this is notwithstanding the fact that I know Supreme Court seats are at stake.  

When one candidate offers us a credible chance to resurrect the true meaning of democracy from the grave in which partisan politics has buried it, you can't expect those of us who really want democracy back to vote for someone who will ensure that the load of dirt covering the coffin gets piled on even thicker.

The Clintons have made me sick the past few weeks. I used to respect and admire them; not any more. Whether you are for Hillary or Obama, you have to realize Obama is an amazing talent. He should lead our national ticket, if not this year, then in the future. But the Clintons, desperate to get back to the White House, have decided getting Hillary the nomination is all that’s important. So they have sought to destroy Obama with no concern for our party's future.

And people claim it’s Obama who thinks only about himself.

If she’s the nominee, I'll vote for her. And then I’ll go home and cry.  

If Obama isn't the nominee, I won't vote for Clinton.  I won't vote for McCain, seeing as he's spent all of his "independent" credentials pandering to the Liberty University crowd, economic conservatives and of course that whole "Baghdad is safe" nonsense.

Actually, seeing as there is zero chance in hell Roscoe Bartlett will get voted out of here, and no senate seats are up, I might just stay at home and get drunk.  Or maybe I'll go crazy and vote Libertarian just to give those suckers false hope...

If Obama supporters are serious about a new type of politics, then they can't reward this 'anything goes' type of politics from the Clintons. I'm a very liberal Obama supporter and would support Bloomberg over Clinton in the general.

Hillary supporters need to understand that it's not just about policy. I fear that Hillary is so polarizing, and would be such a lightening rod for the GOP, that she'd actually HURT the popularity of the progressive cause with Americans. The last thing liberalism needs is another Carter.  

I've been a yellow dog democrat all my life, and I've had to hold my nose more than a few times because some of our yellow dogs stank to high heaven.  And I remember defending Bill Clinton (and Hillary) time and again through thick and thin and scandal after scandal and embarassing admission after embarassing admission back when we all helped them cling to power even as we lost the oppurtunity to enact the progressive agenda they promised us.  But they have finally lost any claim they may have had on my loyalty, let alone my affection.  Today Hillary accused Barack of using "rehearsed" lines in last nights debate because he referred to Reagan in his response to her citation of his remarks about Republican having ideas, and she didn't even SAY Ronald Reagan.  How deeply silly and juvenile an attack is this?  Somebody on Chris Mathews tonight said that the Clintons are using any brick they can find in the street to hit Obama with.  And that pretty much describes it.  Any fucking brick they can find.

I will happily vote for John McCain if he is the nominee of the Republican party and Hillary is the nominee of the Democrats.  I have policy disagreements with him, but I have no doubt that he is an honorable and decent man who would probably make a good president.  I cannot say the same for Hillary Clinton.  I see little honor or decency in her and I don't think she has the political skill to achieve a governing majority and lead this country in achieving the policy goals she espouses.   And if she can't get these policies passed, and she is unsuited by character, temperment and judgment to be President, and if she loses we can purge the party of this chidlish romance of a Clinton restoration and clear the way for a more experienced Obama with four years to build a bigger and more comprehensive coalition....why not vote for McCain?  I would do it in a heartbeat.

And there are plenty (as the comments above seem to indicate) who are prepared to do the same

So, Pccostello, you might be able to nominate her, but I don't thnk you can elect her.  Enjoy your phyrric victory, if you get it.

Until a couple weeks ago I would have voted for Hillary should she have won the nomination.  Now I will support McCain, as will many of my fellow first time voters.  The campaign she ran in Nevada was unbelievable.  The notion that a democratic candidate would try to inflame voters against Barack Obama by convincing them that he is a Muslim should automatically disqualify them from the presidency.  If you are willing to propagate sensationalist messages that degrade not a single person, but an entire faith for your own political gain, you are unfit to be president, particularly at a time when our enlightened politicians should be making the case to moderate Muslims everywhere that we support them.  For shame.

I can only hope that Obama will pull through.

I'd add that the grand irony here is that Hillary supporters accuse Obama supporters of naiveté in choosing style over substance, yet I can think of no greater denial of reality than to pretend that Hillary Clinton will be able to a) get elected in the first place, and b) have a working coalition behind her to get things accomplished. It's almost as if some are pushing Hillary out of spite for the GOP attacks of 90s. That, I'm afraid, is the real source of naiveté here.

“... the bulk of Obama's supporters are dyed blue democrats ...” - arsonplus

Yes, I believe they are.  I doubt the vast bulk are so fickle as to become weak at the knees simply because they have a crush on Obama whereas they would otherwise be nativist, flag groping, Republicans.

As for Mr. Clinton's purported behavior, how many wives of former Presidents have run for the Presidency?  None!

to all the sanctimonious Obama-ites that respond here, exactly what "blatantly dishonest" campaign has Hillary run? sniping aside, how has this candidate (if her name was not Hillary Clinton) behaved any differently than Obama the all mighty?  or Edwards of the people? Obama and Edwards have sniped at Clinton for months, distorting her record, trying to tag her with the Bush debacle. Is that fair? or is that politics? and then the alternate choice that so many of you espouse, McCain the maverick? if this were 2000 I might have agreed McCain=independent. but this is 8 years later and McCain has more than shown his willingness to grovel (I think he spoke at Bob Jones right?) and flip flop (I think he thought the Bush tax cuts were wrong? no?) and jump on a bandwagon (I think he thought the surge was ill-conceived and too small, right?) so precisely what are your grievances with Hillary? real ones, not all this wordy inconsequential meanness please.

bun

As for Mr. Clinton's purported behavior, how many wives of former Presidents have run for the Presidency?  None!

So that excuses it?

You know what, I forgot about the green party. Are they running a candidate, because I'd vote for them instead of Hillary or McCain.  I wonder if Hillary running would cause them to put a candidate forward.

I was almost resigned to the "hillary aint so bad" point of view until I saw her hateful, vituperative self emerge in Myrtle Beach on Tuesday. I will never vote for her now. She will never be president. Her ceiling is 45% of the Democrats. If Edwards dropped out it would be over for her.

www.gp.org/.../presidential-debates.php

Looks like they are going to put someone on the ballot.  Good, now liberal Obama supporters have a place to go.

"You know what, I forgot about the green party. Are they running a candidate, because I'd vote for them instead of Hillary or McCain.  " oh right, ralph nader, he was ready to be president. such wise judgement. again what has Hillary done to rate such abuse from people who sort of sound like Democrats?

bun

bunhawkins--

You are right.  We sanctimonious obama-ites should not bother trying to express our views to you "true" democrats.  Who cares what we have to say anyway?  Good thinking.

So that excuses it? - adamvaught

All I have seen from Bill Clinton is his ever calculable, if not predictable, combativeness.

Green party?!

[kang]]Go ahead, throw your vote away![/kang]

actually I asked you sanctimonious obama-ites to pony up. tell me something. real. I'm asking you to tell me why you have such an unquestioning adoration of Obama and such a visceral hatred of Hillary. In real terms, factoids. all I ever hear is "blatant dishonesty" (when?) and other smears with no evidence.

bun

Jason,

In the heat of the battle it's hard to say how one feels if we honestly step back from the whole thing.  Once everyone starts hearing the Republican side of the story (more tax cuts for the rich, supply side economics works, privatize social security, picking conservative supreme court judges, in Iraq for another 20 years, your 401k will recover in 30 years don't worry be happy, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Church and the Pope will be appointed Lifetime Viceroy's of God in Office above the President ), voters may feel different.

Declaring a vote for a Bloomberg candidacy, or sitting home if Clinton wins are ways to get around some of that angst now, without having to claim to vote strongly against Hillary.

I think Obama left this statement far too broad. It's clear to me what he's referring to (independents and Republicans who have crossed over to support him), but the generic "supporters" gives the impression that he's talking about Democrats as well.  

As demonstrated in this thread, he's definitely going to have to clarify what he meant.

Green Party! Are you people serious? Maybe you are too young to remember Ralph Nader and how his principled candidacy delivered 8 years of George Bush. People said Gore was no different that Bush in 2000 and voted instead for Nader (out of principle). 7 years later, Al Gore is the darling of the left, Nader has vanished, and George Bush has nearly destroyed our country. Look, no one is saying you should give up on supporting Obama, and God knows he still might win. I have no interest in debating the merits or demerits of the candidates. The point of this blog post was what would the supporters of the specific candidates do in the November, not now. That’s it. Simple question: if Obama wins, do the Hillary supporters vote for Obama and if Hillary wins, do the Obama supporters vote for Hillary? I say the answer is yes both ways. People who say otherwise right now are caught up in the emotion of the campaign and will by November realize that campaigns are tough and sometimes dirty deals. It is a process that continues to devolve, but it is a process. And ultimately, the democrats will choose a great candidate, either way. And I know that true democrats and true progressives will overcome the very real doubts they may have about Obama’s experience or Hillary’s candor to make the right choice in November. No self-respecting progressive can possibly repeat the Nader crime again. Not with so much at stake. Remember, we will most likely have at least two court vacancies in the coming 4 years, and one of them will be Stevens. McCain has said he will pick judges in the model of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, and he is getting advice from Sam Brownback. If the rhetoric about advancing the progressive agenda is real and not just overwrought emotion about the possibility of your guy losing then you will NOT contribute to the establishment of a permanent reactionary bloc on the Supreme Court. We would certainly see Roe overturned. Civil liberties would be decimated, and on and on. I don’t believe people would vote for McCain, not vote (vote for McCain), or vote for the Green Candidate (vote for McCain) so soon after witnessing the Nader effect in 2000. I simply don’t believe it.

Please read back over your defenses of former President Clinton. (once finished return to this statement) That's why the independents  -- which is to say the majority -- of Senator Obama's supporters want none of either him nor his wife.

If they are ok with you, that's great, this is America. Vote your hearts out. I'd rather vote for someone I disagree with and respect than for someone I neither believe nor respect.  Have fun on election night.

I will still vote for Hillary come November. I will never vote for anyone from the GOP, no matter how reasonable they sound, as long as the party platform is based on homophobia, blastocysts, torture, creationism, patriot-baiting, and tax cuts for the rich,

But the Hillary-Cheney analogies keep hitting me over the head. Every day Hillary delivers a new canard, a new character assassination, and yet another bridge burned behind her.

And from the looks of things on this thread, Hillary is creating enemies faster than she will be able to handle them.

"actually I asked you sanctimonious obama-ites to pony up. tell me something. real. I'm asking you to tell me why you have such an unquestioning adoration of Obama and such a visceral hatred of Hillary. In real terms, factoids. all I ever hear is "blatant dishonesty" (when?) and other smears with no evidence."

Go to Borders pick up a copy of the U.S. army counter insurgency manual, turn it over, Google the name of the quoted individual. Remember that said manual has been needed since Bill Clinton's first term. That's why I'm an Obama supporter.

This is a very interesting thread and it's great to see the passion on all sides. But isn't the discussion wholly academic? I mean if Hillary is the candidate (as I hope she is), then won't Barack summon all his rhetorical genius to fire up his supporters, help them overcome their disappointment and rally to the overall cause  of winning the White House? And if Barack wins (as he well might), doesn't the legendary Clinton Machine execute its infamous skills of getting out the vote, etc.?

I mean, that's what happens, right? If the man tells you to join ranks, you proceed acccordingly, right Obama folks? Right??

And if either side answers the question "no", you have no right to call yourself a Democrat. Period. End of discussion. Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter And I'm also the proud uncle of a USAF F-16 pilot sitting in the cockpit of his fighter somewhere overseas right now. And to think that any of you---Obama, Clinton or Edwards supporter as the case may be---would leave the White House in the hands of the party in power to nurse the wounds to your tender egos make me sick.

Barack, Hillary or John, let the best and toughest one win---and then let's go win the whole thing. All of us.  

Did you read my previous post about Clinton's pre-NH campaign flyers that implied that Obama was weak on abortion rights? It's a prime example of real dishonesties we're talking about.  EVEN IF Hillary really doesn't believe Obama's (or Illinois Planned Parenthood's explanation of the present votes), she knows full well that no woman's right to choose would be in jeapardy if Obama were president.  But she was counting on the fact that a lot of NH women might not know that and, one day before the vote, wouldn't likely have a chance to find out.  (Apparently, this same flyer was sent out on the eve of each primary/caucus so far.)

A link to an article describing this and some of theother strategies follows.  

www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/0/FRONTPAGE

Abortion is a hot-button issue--particularly for women.  I think many women, if they are led to believe that a candidate will not support their right to choose, will change their mind about voting for that candidate just on that one issue.

It's one thing to know what the record is and choose Hillary. It's quite another thing to choose Hillary after you've been lied to about what the other guy's record is (in ways intended to really SCARE you).

sorry.  my previous post was addressed to bunhawkins.

"It never ceases to amaze me how little Hillary's supporters know how much she is hated, even among some Democratic constituencies".

Here Here

If you're that worried about that potential, I guess you should support Obama so this will remain a what if scenario.

previous post addressed to eweiss my bad

This discussion is quite depressing. I treminds me of McCarthy supporters who wouldn't vote for Humphrey over Nixon, Anderson supporters who wouldn't vote for Carter over Reagan, and Nader supporters who wouldn't vote for Gore over Bush. In each case they told me it wouldn't make any difference which of the two major-party candidates won.

Eweiss: But again, you're assuming that all the Obamaites are true-blue progressives. Some of them are, some of them ain't; a lot of his support is coming from genuine independents, many of whom honestly don't believe the stakes are quite so apocalyptic as you make out. Speaking for myself (a conservative, mostly), I've been hoping Hillary wins because A: she's a much weaker nominee for you guys in the general, and B: she'd be a more moderate president. But I've been so disgusted by her campaign's tactics, especially over the past couple weeks (Bob Johnson's remarks, which she did not repudiate, the Muslim smears in Nevada, the constant readiness to proclaim herself some kind of victim, etc) that I'm starting to hope Obama wins anyway, even though it would mean we're screwed, just because it would be a more just outcome. I'm obviously not an Obamaite myself, but I can see where they're coming from, and I might vote for him in the general, if the Repub is Anyone-Not-McCain. All of which is to say: there's an awfully wide spectrum of people whom Obama could potentially attract, and there's no reason to assume that they'll automatically go to Hillary otherwise.

schrek2000

I think I've stipulated that I don't exactly consider myself a democrat, which was my point as to the eventual electoral disposition of many of Senator Obama's supporters.

More importantly, this is not a matter for argument. It's simply a fact that the majority of Obama's votes came form 3 groups. Independents, Republicans and 18 -29 year olds.

Now the fist two speak for themselves so I'll just point out what any pollster would tell you. It takes THREE election cycles for political identification to set (as if it were concrete) meaning that those 18 - 29 year olds aren't democrats yet.

Counting on them to turn out for Clinton is so foolish it's just plain silly.

Thank you Arsonplus

"Counting on them to turn out for Clinton is so foolish it's just plain silly".

The bottom line is this: if you think voting on pure principle over direct outcome is stupid, fine you're probably right.  But If you feel that way you have no business supporting Hillary because its abundantly clear that she is the weaker general election candidate. Just use your common sense!  All HRC supporters would vote for Obama, he can capture independents and get out the youth and African American vote.  The only argument for her I hear now besides her false allegations about Barack is that her healthcare plan has a mandate and his doesn't.  If you're going to vote for her because of that, ignoring the well being of the democratic party in the upcoming election, then you have no business saying that liberals shouldn't look at alternatives come November.

why? why do you think Obama is so much stronger?  why do you think Hillary is so much weaker?

bun

I am not assuming anything about moderates, Republicans or Independents. I happen to think Obama would draw more support from those groups than Clinton. That is clear. I also happen to think that she would be a better President and would be plenty electable, but that is not the issue here. All I have been saying is that the folks around here who claim to be true progressives who would vote for McCain (or stay home) rather than vote for Clinton are probably caught up in the emotion of a very heated campaign. I know. I was there two weeks ago when I absurdly said to a friend that I would vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama. I was wrong and was motivated by a stubborn allegiance to my candidate. The truth is I would vote for Obama in the general and am sure that most (not all) of his progressive supporters would vote for Hillary (when push comes to shove).  

maxblum:

The question is about whether or not to support the candidate that wins. I know I won't change your mind about voting for Clinton over Obama. I won't try. But if she wins, will you really vote for McCain?

truce eweiss, I recognize that i was doing the same thing.  I would most likely vote for Hillary.  I will say I don't think independents would.

Bun- this is why Hillary is a terrible GE candidate:  Her negative ratings are at 47% already.  Now Hillary supporters are going to claim that she has already been harassed by the GOP so much that her negatives have already plateaued.  I don't think this is the case, especially given how strongly people are reacting to her campaign's current theatrics against Obama.  If she follows through on her promise to carry this kind of campaign into the general, she is going to have absurdly high negatives.  even if she does win a close general, this affect will probably limit whatever gains democrats can make in congress during the election.  Obama meanwhile, has demonstrated that he is capable of fending off swiftboat style poltics (Just check out the email John Kerry just sent to Obama supporters)  

This has been hashed and rehashed, but Obama tends to garner the support of Independents, who value his fresh face, charisma and acceptance of those of different ideological persuasions for the purpose of passing legislation.  He has substantial support within the African American community, and he has the support of liberals like me, who love to see independents duped into voting for one of our guys.  There is no doubt whether Hillary supporters would support Obama. The inverse isn't so certain.  Oh yea, and young people might actually come out to vote for him.

On the issues the candidates differ on very little.  Hillary is stronger on health care with her mandate (although this could be a detriment come November, and its all irrelevant until a plan is submitted to congress, which will be full of concessions etc.).  I think Obama has been stronger on the Sudanese Genocide Issue, and in general most Darfur activists here at UCLA agree with me.

On the issue of experience, I think Hillary has somewhat of an advantage, although I think its overblown and I think a lot of voters realize that.  I mean who better to fix the constitutional mess Bush has left us than a constitutional law professor.    

Question:  I'm not a true progressive, I'm a liberal.  Being "progressive" is the most lily-livered bit of political posturing I've ever seen.  "Oh no!  Those mean Right Wingers took our name, the proud term of FDR, and made it bad!  Let's run back to the Wilson Administration and get a new one!"  

I'm a liberal and proud of it, and I wouldn't vote for Hillary, now or in the General.  If we want real liberal change in this country, universal health care, a humanitarian foreign policy, and a reasonable executive branch, you need a new type of politics.  Real change in Washington happens with realignments and big majorities, not combative 51% Presidents.  Reagan, FDR, and LBJ's Great Society Congress were able to enact meaningful change.  Presidents like Clinton or Eisenhower weren't able to have great accomplishments at all, they simply fought the tide swinging in the other way.  A Clinton nomination or Presidency would be bad for the party and the country.  Even with a Democratic Congress, we won't have 60 votes in the Senate.  Even with Clinton and 2 houses of Congress, we'll get nothing done, and have nothing to show for our seats, because no Republican will sign up with the "President Hillary Health Care Plan," the "President Hillary Education Bill," or the "President Hillary Energy Bill."  Nothing will get done in Washington for two more years, and then in 2010 we lose Congress, again, just like 1994.  Hillary as President faces a huge problem.  She's too politically radioactive to triangulate successfully, so she'll run to the "center" even more than Bill did.  These are the "progressive" results?  The Clintons have proven to be fighters for one thing: The Clintons.  When the chips are down, they head to the middle and attack those they fight against.  The one thing they don't do, is build a long term consensus for their plans, or a broader outline.  Listen to a Kennedy or FDR speech, and listen to one of Bill's "brilliant" State of the Unions from 1998 or 1999.  Theirs are coherent thoughts, and his are laundry lists.  I want a President with character and ideas, not political survivalists with small bore dreams.

To those worrying about a McCain Supreme Court, I'm not too worried,  McCain's biggest legislative baby is McCain-Feingold.  Given its precipitous status in the face of the Roberts Court, I doubt he'll stick another Right Wing Ideologue on the bench.  McCain, plus a Democratic Congress, might actually get something done, with each checking the others worst instincts.  Finally, this isn't "let's back the boring, uninspring Dem vs. the evil GOP man" like 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004.  Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale were all decent men who had some sort of plan for America beyond measuring the drapes for the Oval.  Hillary's boring, but she's also disingenuous in a way the others are not, and not someone I would want in the Situation Room, in the Oval, or being welcomed in my living room for four years.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but after what I've seen coming from the Clinton campaign since Iowa, I've actually considered voting for McCain.  And I come from a lifelong family history of progressive Democrats. I've never even considered voting for Republican before, except McCain back in 2000, and that's only because I could see Al Gore was going to blow it, and I thought about switching over to the Republican Party to support McCain over Bush.

I'm angry now, angry at the out and out falsehoods spewing forth from Hillary Clinton's mouth, as we saw in the debate last night.  The ignorant masses and lower income less educated folks of this country who hardly take an interest in politics will see that kind of thing and believe it, and vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary based on her lies.  I find her politics unacceptable on a number of levels, I reject the politics of fear, division and deception.  

But I'm a realist, so I understand that when you have the three major networks and CNN almost openly backing the Clinton campaign, and they've been anointed by the Democratic establishment, as well as the Republican establishment, when creeps like Newt Gingrich and those within the Bush administration expressed their comfort with handing over the reins of this country to Hillary Clinton, then I must face the realization that the odds are heavily stacked against Obama.  South Carolina will be used as a wedge by the Clinton campaign to push white and Hispanic voters her way. I think the Clintons would start a race war if they thought it would ensure their return to power.  

Perhaps when the anger wears off, I'll find other reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but at this point I can only think of one overriding motivation that will get me to push the button for her in November, and that is the face of the federal and SUPREME COURT.  Because I understand the consequences to this nation and the entire court system, if we get another Republican in the White House who starts pushing in these third and fourth-rate pseudo conservative hacks like Clarence Thomas and that worm masquerading as the Chief Justice John Roberts on to the Supreme Court, or lobbyists like William G. Myers III who was repeatedly nominated to the Ninth Circuit but didn't make it thankfully.

The last thing we want are more CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL OPERATIVES on the Supreme Court who will drag this country back to the 1950s with their JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.  They've already set about undermining Brown vs. Board of Education, the next thing they'll do is go after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  Were talking about people who would tear down everything this country stands for and force us back to an almost post-Civil War interpretation of the Constitution.

So to prevent this DEGRADATION and REGRESSION I'll vote for Clinton, but I sure won't like it.  And I have little doubt that the Republicans and the conservative movement will find new life through their opposition to the Clintons.  The Democrats will begin losing seats in the House and Senate, perhaps losing the majority under a Clinton presidency, and after eight years we'll wind up with another Republican president, after Clinton fails to get anything done, makes the excuse that the Republicans are obstructing her, much the way they did her husband.  We'll be reliving the 90s all over again.

I remember a time when I had at least some semblance of respect for the Clintons, but after what I've seen coming from their supporters and themselves, I've begun to understand the Republican perception of them.  I've seen people that I once had respect for in the blogging world, people like Jeralyn Merritt and the HACK Armando Llorens destroy the credibility of the once great legal and political blog Talkleft ( http://www.talkleft.com/ ), which has been transformed into a two-bit Obama smear site for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  I can only speculate upon their motives for this, but as someone who's read the blog for years, I believe their motives are of the lowest most un-defendable sort, I see nothing honorable or redeeming in them whatsoever.  That's the opinion of one longtime reader.

Hillary could redeem herself if she chose Barack Obama as her running mate, but I don't even think she has the character to do that, because I believe that she ultimately does not respect the will of the people or democracy any longer, if she ever did.  I believe her ego will force her to choose someone who is much more subservient to her will, that's the same Clinton ego that helped undermined the Gore campaign and handed this country over to George W. Bush.

I suppose that this country needs to do some more suffering, watch people go without health care, and the continued collapse of our broader economic interests, as well as continued ongoing war around the world that sinks us trillions more in debt.  That's America for you, always the hard way.  We eventually come around, but it always seems to take an enormous amount of blood and suffering to get their.  

I'll tell y'all one thing, Bill and Hillary better play their dirty politics with the Republicans, stuff the ballot boxes and fix the voting machines if necessary, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, to get themselves in the White House, because if they give this country over to the totally compromised and corrupted Republican Party yet again, God help them, because no one else will.

So just as the establishment had planned, this election will come down to a choice between BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Republicans, and BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Democrats.  I suppose the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but why is this nation always reduced to living out the establishments wet dream time and again.  It's because the game is fixed, and the American populace can be manipulated and deceived into falling for the same con over and over again until one day we will look around and the Republic will have ceased to exist altogether, and hardly anyone will even notice.

I'm a fairly liberal Obama supporter who voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000 because I thought he would bring decency to a party that sorely lacked it.

This time I'm watching Hillary Clinton and her husband besmirch the decency of the Democratic Party, and I'm disgusted by the spectacle.

I imagine I would end up holding my nose and voting for Hillary. But I would be tempted by a Bloomberg candidacy - a prospect I would in other circumstances find ridiculous. And I would give McCain some serious thought, though I doubt in the end I could get past his overzealous militarism and apparent ignorance of all things economic.

I imagine there are a lot of other moderately liberal people who feel similarly but who won't, in the end, let policy preferences determine their votes and will instead simply vote for the more decent candidate - and in a McCain v. Hillary match up, that would be McCain.

I am with many other people. Before this campaign started, I would have been happy with whoever the dem nominee was, except obvious also-rans like Kucinich or Gravel. But after seeing Clinton and her operatives in action, I have to say, I understand why the CLintons are so disliked. I'll never vote for a Republican. But I do have scruples. And eventually, people do things that will prevent me, morally, from voting for them. What Clinton is doing comes very close to that.

of course, as a practical matter, if Clinton gets the nomination, my vote wouldn't matter anyway, because she'll lose, and lose badly.

what dechanta said - I'm not sure Democrats are even capable of grasping that the vast majority of people vote for who they like more, period.  

If we're stupid enough to nominate someone who half the country hates, especially when there are very attractive (not perfect, but who is) alternatives, we deserve to lose.  

Thanks to the younger posters for continuing to try and bang through our idiot generation's head that they are sick and tired of us.  Keep it up.

I think the Obama supporters here have largely shown their true colors.  All that stuff about Bush the last 7 years?  They didn't really mean it.  Because if the Dems nominate a candidate who hold most of the same basic policy positions as Obama it won't matter -- they'll either vote for a solid (if honorable) conservative (Supreme Court cemented to the right for a generation) or, if the nominee is Romney or Huckabee, go the Ralph Nader, er, Bloomberg 3rd party route.

Supreme Court, universal health care, progressive tax policy, the environment -- to heck with it.  Just no Hillary.  And you wonder why some of us, even who aren't thrilled with Hillary, viscerally can't stand the Obama crowd. This is why.  

Shame on Obama and shame on his supporters who would not vote for the democratic nominee. The self-preoccupation is incredible. You remind me of the Naderites, who gave us Bush instead of Gore for the past 7 years. How many hundreds of thousands of people would now be alive and whole if Nader had withdrawn from the race and Gore had won?

But this whole argument is an emblem of a dying Obama campaign. No one talks like this when they are winning. More than Hillary's wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, and more than the current state and national polls, this whole discussion convinces me that Obama is done. But shame on him.

Lymon1,

Well said.

It's been said before, but I gotta repeat it. It's not about "liberal / progressive" voters. Most of us will probably hold our noses and vote for Hillary regardless of our level of disgust. (although I gotta say, my level of disgust is higher now than its ever been for a Democratic candidate in my adult life, and I'm close to 50). But there are millions of moderates out there who are horribly distraught at the direction the Bush administration has taken us but who would NEVER vote for Hillary. I know quite a few myself, who I was SHOCKED to find out actually like Obama. And say they would vote for him. These are some of the most knee jerk Clinton hating people I know. Couldn't stop talking trash about Bill when he was president and can't stop talking trash about Hillary now. Would NEVER vote for a Clinton. Not to mention the young people just getting pulled into politics.

This is about more than getting elected. Hillary might be able to pull out another 51-49 win and for some of you "progressives", that would be fine. Kick a little ass. Take names. Feel good about winning. But she wouldn't be able to assemble a coalition to actually GOVERN with those numbers. And as long as republican members of congress see a political benefit to taking her on, they'd never work with her. Obama could win by enough to actually put together a working coalition. He would get input from moderate republicans, probably incorporate SOME of their ideas (and, no, self-righteous ones, this would NOT be a terrible sell out and horrible thing), and actually get some things done. That matters. We're facing an environmental catastrophe that we can't even frickin' imagine the scope of yet and a related energy crisis that is likely to have an impact on all areas of our lives. A tight partisan victory is gonna be hollow indeed, in these times. We actually need someone to govern. Obama might have a shot at this. Hillary won't.

It's increasingly obvious to a lot of us that McCain would be the toughest Republican general election candidate and we rightly worry about him getting the nomination. He's a good man with some baaaad ideas. Kind of like Reagan. But Republicans can't seem to quite figure it out yet - that he's their best shot. Similarly, it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS to every republican I've talked to that Obama would be the best deomodrat in a general election, BY FAR. We decline to figure that one out at our own peril.

-Ray

"I think the Obama supporters here have largely shown their true colors.  All that stuff about Bush the last 7 years?  They didn't really mean it.  Because if the Dems nominate a candidate who hold most of the same basic policy positions as Obama it won't matter ..."

But it's not about policy positions. If it were, nobody would support Hillary in the first place. Kucinich and Edwards have stronger liberal policy positions on most of the important issues, as did Dodd. Hillary was for the war from the start, and now lies about it. She has lately promised both to end the war in a year and to "end the war the right way" by staying in Iraq indefinitely. She's been the most belligerent Democrat in Congress on Iran. She supports President Bush's basic attitude toward diplomacy with unfriendly nations. Unlike most Democratic candidates, she has an actual record on the health care issue, and that record is one of disastrous failure. On policy alone, no anti-war, pro-international-engagement, pro-health-care liberal can possibly support Hillary. Period.

So please, enough with this "they're all the same on policy" garbage.

I gritted my teeth and got behind Kerry last time, even though I didn't think he was capable of winning the election, and even though I was sure (and still am) that he would be a poor president if elected. I'm just not willing to do that again, not this time. Unlike any other candidate from either party, Hillary has already had a chance to perform in the White House, and she was an unmitigated disaster. When she had a substantive role in the Clinton administration in 1993 and '94, her procedural approach was worse than Cheney and her competence in achieving results was in line with Bush on a bad day. So we have a pretty good idea that, as a president, she has a very low floor and a very low ceiling.

Read her memoir, "Living History." She shows no sign of being aware of the degree to which her poor performance nearly scuttled her husband's presidency. She blames others; she was the victim of unfair attacks and blah blah blah. And she was the subject of unfair attacks -- just like every other public figure in American history has been -- but it wasn't unfair attacks that caused her mismanagement of major transitions staffing issues. It wasn't unfair attacks that caused her to lie to investigators after her mismanagement turned those staffing issues into scandals. It wasn't unfair attacks that led her to push her husband to squander his early political capital on gay integration in the military, and then to lose the fight. It wasn't unfair attacks that led her to run White House health care policy in Cheneyesque secrecy, and it wasn't unfair attacks that prevented Democratic majorities in Congress from passing a health care bill. In every case, it was Hillary's own incompetence and duplicitousness that caused the failure. But in her book, she stands by that record of failure and all but promises to give us more of the same if we make her president.

Simply put, I am not willing to vote twice in a row for a candidate I believe would be a bad president. No matter how much she pretends to agree with the rest of her party on policy details.

This sounds like the worst of the 1950's junior high school -- "who do you like the best."

Presidential candidates say strong and even misleading things during campaigns.  That's national politics.  The issue is not what do they say during a primary but what will they do after being elected.  Do you want -- another Scalia on the Supreme Court, permanent Bush tax cuts, more years in Iraq, war with Iran, weak support for health and education, 140 million uninsured, vetoes of any and all "progressive" legislation, etc.?  If so, vote for McCain.

Yes, I think that Obama would probably be a stronger candidate than Clinton, and probably a better president (but that is only a hope).  But anyone who thinks that McCain or Romney would be a better president than Clinton is deluded.

By the way, how bad were the Bill Clinton years:  we had steady economic growth, expansion of the middle class, and no major wars.  Compare that with the Bush years (both).

Remember, McCain is a Bush supporter.  That should be argument enough to not vote for him.

Luckily, most of the country is more reasonable than the far too sensitive souls who post here.

I hate to say it, but I might consider Bloomberg or Santa Clause if Hillary wins the nomination. And if I'm considering a not supporting the Democrat, then you know something is deeply flawed with the nominee; afterall, I voted for John Kerry. The fact is, Clinton voted to give Bush an authorization to invade Iraq because she thought it was the right decision for her political career, not the country. What could be worse than that?

I've absolutely hated every moment of the Bush Presidency and don't think I could bear a Republican victory in November. But I think I'd bite the bullet and write in Obama, hoping the Republican wins, if Clinton gets the nomination. This is a deeply urgent moment, and liberalism needs to assert itself to meet the challenges of global warming, globalization and a possible economic collapse, and health care reform. We can't afford for the less benighted of the two parties to remain in the hands of the smearing, compromising, disgusting Clintons. I write this as someone who actually idolized Bill Clinton the last four years.

I live in Virginia.

Hillary has no chance in hell in this state. She is LOATHED downstate.

I might vote for McCain just out of spite. But I generally favor Hillary's policies...

As someone in one of the blogs I read recently said, Hillary Clinton sold her marriage out for power. I lost all respect for her when she did the "stand by your man" thing. Here is one Democrat who is not "infatuated" with Barack Obama who will NEVER cast a vote for HRC in a primary or general election. And my position has much less to do with anything specific she's said or done during her run for the nomination (except inasmuch as her words/actions illustrate her moral bankruptcy) than with the sum total of her words/actions over the past decade and a half of her public life. You HRC supporters really don't get how deep the animosity toward her goes, even among Dems. I will vote for McCain/Bloomberg or not vote - as a principled stand against HRC.

I could live off spite and water for like 20 days!

To Rhubarbs -- try reading Bob Woodward's "The Agenda" and after you do come back dismissing Hillary Clinton's role in the White House.  Yes, she deserves a lot of blame on health care, but to put it all on her lap is ridiculous. I agree there are some policy differences (health care is one of them), but mostly they are similar.  Even you don't challenge the fact that the GOP, even McCain, would cement a reactionary Supreme Court for a generation.  

But again, the truth is coming out here.  I haven't heard any Clinton supporters say they won't hold their nose and vote Obama (and no, that's not because they like him).  I'm sure there are some, but they sure don't wear it as a badge of honor.  It's 2000 all over again: a bunch of rich white whiney so-called liberals happy to put a right wing conservative in office on the principle "I won't vote the lesser of two evils" or some such garbage.  

I think I need to take a break from TNR for a while.

I am not the hugest Hillary supporter.  I think that Obama is more electable, even if I think her grasp of policy is better.  And yes, I have found her recent attacks on Obama unseemly.

But for people who support Obama to say that, if she gets the nomination, they are voting for McCain...do you people realize the vast, vast difference between Obama's positions on essentially every matter of policy and John McCain's?  You would allow John McCain to appoint Supreme Court justices before you would vote for Hillary?  (And a vote for Bloomberg, should his ego get him into the race, is a vote for McCain.)  You seriously think that makes sense?

I find that flabbergasting in the extreme.  You may hate her with a seething (and unsettling) hatred, but look at her policy ideas, look at Obama's and look at McCain's.  Which of these things is not like the other?

drdannyu:

99% of these folks will calm down by november and do the right thing. The ones who won't probably aren't liberal democrats anyway.

I live overseas and vote absentee in Texas.  That just about makes my vote in a presidential election the most worthless ever, and  usually this pisses me off to no end.  But if Hillary gets the nomination, it will finally be of some value.  To me, anyway.  I can leave the presidential candidate box unticked, since the state will go Republican no matter what.  The electoral college has screwed me over so badly in the past, it's about time it started giving back.  

If HRC somehow gets enough blue and purple states to usher in some dysfunctional one-term administration, good luck to her.  But she won't get my vote.  She doesn't need it anyway.  Too many votes from the red states would probably tarnish her new liberal base, street-fighting image.

"99% of these folks will calm down by november and do the right thing. The ones who won't probably aren't liberal democrats anyway."

Do you NOT see that this is precisely the PROBLEM? If you want a candidate that just 'liberal democrats' will vote for, Hillary will work. So will Kucinich or maybe even Gravel. Will that be enough to get her elected? Maybe / maybe not. Will it be enough to allow her to govern effectively? Absolutely not.

I see this as a problem. If your "liberal democrat" allegiance matters more to you than actual effectiveness, have fun out there. But I'd like to see someone in office who actually stands a chance of getting something done.

-Ray

I guess Hillary supporters just don’t get it. I’m a liberal Democrat. If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for her, but I probably won’t like it.  

A lot of Obama’s supporters, however, are independent and moderate. They don’t necessarily dislike the Bush policies, they are just sick of Bush. They are supporting Obama because of who he is, not the policies he is peddling. Under no circumstances would they consider voting for Hillary because of who she is. Add those Obama independents to Democrats and liberals who want the policies the Democrats are offering, and Obama offers a large majority of support. Hillary just does not.

If Hillary supporters are so concerned with making sure the Democrats take the White House in November, why don’t you reconsider who you are supporting in the primary. To Obama supporters, it seems Hillary supporters would rather hand the keys to McCain instead of voting for Obama.    

Doc and Virginia:

I agree with Doc and disagree with Virginiacentrist-- a lot of these people are serious.  As I said, look at 2000 -- and there wasn't this kind of hatred against either Al Gore or the Clintons.  The Obama supporters here show far more venom towards Hillary Clinton than they do towards George Bush or the Republicans.  They'll justify it in their minds that they need to "teach the system" a lesson.  I actually suspect that this time African-AMericans are going to be more forgiving of her than the (I'll bet dollars to donuts) mostly white upper middle class TNR crowd that posts here.  

If Clinton gets the nomination I really can not see myself voting for her for  a number of reasons. Nor I do I think I would vote for any republican. I will probably ended up voting third party. Obama wasn't my first pick but I can certainly support him. I don't have the same feelings for Hillary though and I don't see that changing with in the next year.

Virginiacentrist is dead on about Virginia. If Obama wins the nomination, he might just have a shot at barely winning Virginia (with Warner on the ballot for Senate; this would be a case of a president riding congressional coattails).

But if Hillary wins the nomination? I'm not sure she even wins Fairfax County. The City of Alexandria might be the only jurisdiction in the entire commonwealth Hillary could carry.

It's easy to tick off a list of 12 or so key states that Democrats will simply write off by choosing Hillary. Which isn't always a bad thing -- it would be worth losing the 11 states of the Confederacy if by doing so you could assure victory everywhere else. But that ain't the calculus Hillary brings to the table. With Hillary, it's all subtraction, all the time. A Hillary nomination, for example, probably puts Minnesota into play for Republicans. Tennessee, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Maine -- they all probably go Republican if Hillary is the nominee. Missouri becomes a tough state to win. Michigan is already looking hard for Dems. And I'd be interested to know what the situation is in Pennsylvania -- can Hillary win there? Take these states away, and what's left, California, New York, Wisconsin, and Washington, DC? Throw in the handful of yellow-dog states, and Hillary is looking at a floor of 163 electoral votes to a Republican floor of 190. It will be much easier for any Republican to pick up 80 additional electoral votes than for Hillary to pick up 107.

A challenge to Hillary supporters: List the states you expect Hillary to win to achieve an electoral college majority.

ramboorider

Good argument that I agree with, governing will be extremely hard if not impossible for Clinton without a greater consensus, though I guess it could be argued that with all the additional executive power that the Bush administration has seized, if Clinton is willing to operate in a similar manner, then she can ride roughshod over the Congress as well.  Whether she is capable of doing this remains to be seen.  Executive power has taken on frightening proportions, and there are huge temptations for abuse that the next president will have to face.  I don't wanna live in a country that is ruled by a quasi king such as we have today.

----------------------------------------

Rhubarbs

Excellent argument that I think reveals who Hillary Clinton really is, and she's not about bringing people together, she's about divisiveness and autocratic control with a Democratic face, her way or the highway.  She strikes me as a bitter woman on a personal level, with a number of scores to settle.  I don't think she'll be able to resist the temptation to pursue her personal vendettas on the people's time. And I think that if she goes down that road it will galvanize divisions within this country and energize the Republican base all over again.

----------------------------------------------

PeteBeck

I can't disagree with your assessment, but I also realized that if we keep going down this road, settling for the candidate who is least objectionable, the United States of America will become a third-rate nation.  In fact I think it can be asserted that under the this administration we have sunk to lows that were all but unthinkable for most Americans before the the George W. Bush regime, at least that's how I feel.  

If we keep compromising our principles in this way, rest assured we will watch as those who care nothing for this country dismantle the Republic a piece at a time, our own actions will assure this eventuality.  Ultimately it is WE THE PEOPLE who are responsible for everything that happens in America, and it is WE THE PEOPLE who are paying the price right now, and our children who will pay the price in the future for the actions of this president.  If we keep reaching for the low branches in the hopes of keeping ourselves from falling any further, before you know it we'll be on the ground looking up at a once great country with no way back, a country that we've lost control of because instead of reaching for something better, we kept lowering our expectations until there wasn't anything left worth reaching for at all anymore.  

Adam: read through these posts -- at least half are from people identifying themselves as staunchly liberal.  

As to electability, that was the rationale for voting Kerry -- but one example doesn't disprove it.  I just don't buy that it's a non-issue.  Obama apparently loses you the Latino vote to McCain -- I suspect for ugly reasons, but if we're talking realpolitiks it's there.  I also think against McCain Hillary gets more elderly support than Obama, and they are the ones who traditionally show up.  Jewish support seems to go her way too.  On the other hand, if the GOP nominates Romney, they'll have their own base problems.  

Regardless, that's not the point of the thread.  You simply can't read most of the Obama comments above (the centrists/non-liberals aside) and not hear the echoes of 2000 Naderites.  The Supreme Court alone should make this question a no-brainer for liberals.  

Ray -

No, I get it. Hillary doesn't do well amongst independents.

All I'm saying is that in the heat of a campaign, inflamed passions almost always make people behave like this.

Well said drdan.  I do not like Hillary Clinton.  I find her calculating and cold, and while, in my case, it comes nowhere near that point, I grew up in the conservative heartland, and I can understand a lot of the visceral loathing.  But I have to hand it to her.  For eight years, she withstood every filthy attack, from lesbianism to Vince Foster, to being publicly shamed by her husband's behavior on a national stage.   She ran for Senate in 2000:  people said she would lose.  She was wooden, a mediocre campaigner.  And as Chait pointed out elsewhere, she ran 10 points behind Al Gore.  But she went to the Senate, she put her head down, she went to work, and she earned people's respect.  She has a total mastery of policy, and as a candidate, she's grown -- exponentially.  She had a runaway victory in her '06 Senate race.  She's won almost every debate, and has proven extremely adept at managing expectations.  I think she has a good shot in the GE.

I like Barrack Obama, and I believe one day he will be President.  Just not this day.  He's brilliant, good-looking, extraordinarily eloquent.  But he's raw and inexperienced, and that inexperience shows.  He's not a great debater.  He keeps making stupid blunders that open him up to attack.  Reagan.  Will meet with any leader.  Even in the debate the other night:  the only thing he got on Hillary was Wal-Mart.  She hit him with Rezko, with liking Republicans, with health care, with present votes, with Iraq.  It was brutal.  If he were facing a Republican, it would have been worse.  He's not ready.

If Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or even Kucinich were to win the nomination, I would vote for them, because it's not about the person -- it's about the serious policy goals Democrats have been fighting for nigh-on 20 years.  This is where TNR's campagin coverage has let me down:  it becomes personality, personality, personality.  I like John McCain, and I deeply respect his service and sacrifice for our country.  But I cannot vote for him, or for any other Republican, for that matter.  Democrats will, must close ranks.  And Obama voters who claim they'll vote for McCain or Nader -- seriously:  what kind of change is it you're fighting for?

People are focusing on the fact that some Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary and are ignoring the more improtant fact. It won't matter how many Obama supporters vote for Hillary.

She'll get the loyal democrats and little else.

If she wins the nomination, she will lose the general election. Even if every single poster to TNR voted for her, it would not change that outcome. We have a shot at winning with Obama. We don't with Clinton. The Clinton supporters can harangue people with comparisons to Nader and the like. But that's beside the point. Clinton will activate the GOP base and not win any moderates. She'll lose. She's the GOP's best hope.

Well, speaking as an Obama partisan, and a partisan Democrat, I'll absolutely vote Clinton if she's the nominee.  But I won't be able to spin, defend, or pitch her during the general, because I believe many of the criticisms about her are, well, true.  

And I certainly won't enjoy casting the vote; nor do I see Hillary getting to 271 Electoral College votes.  The Clintons are despised in the west, which is where we need to gain.  I can't think of any state other than Iowa that Clinton is likely to carry where John Kerry lost.

It will be a sad testament to the sclerosis of the Democratic Party if we nominate John Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008.  

lymon,

If Romney wins the nomination this conversation is irrelevant: even Kucinich could beat him. (Kidding. Kinda.)

I don't deny Hillary some strengths. Overall though, Obama is a much stronger general election candidate. And yes, the Supreme Court is exceptionally important. If a Republican wins, goodbye Roe. Although, that may be a blessing in disguise.  

The Iraq war is Clinton's war.  It is Edwards' war.  I resolved last year not to vote for anyone for president that enabled this war.  Sure, Clinton could deliver on a lot of important issues as president, especially compared to any of the Republicans running.  But on the biggest questions of our time (Iraq, Iran, etc.), Clinton has been there to help Bush on everything he's asked for.  Anyone who has made such devasting mistakes on the most important and fundamental issues they were faced with does not deserve the biggest job promotion in the world.  This is not a popularity contest for me.  It's not even about the Clintons' voter suppression lawsuits and mischaracterizations of candidates' records.  It's about judgment.

If we nominate Clinton, I'll show up and vote the local issues only.

lymon1: "Regardless, that's not the point of the thread.  You simply can't read most of the Obama comments above (the centrists/non-liberals aside) and not hear the echoes of 2000 Naderites."

Like Obama supported Reagan!  So if I vote  for him, it's like I'm not really a Democrat, I'm something else, something worse, and I should be ashamed of myself?!

It may take me a long time to get over the ridiculousness of a Hillary Clinton supporter invoking shame as a reason to vote for this person.  I owe her nothing.  That's the point for me, one of them anyway.  Hillary really ought to change her motto to "Eat this crap!  Or what are you... Republican???"

I am against Hillary Clinton because I believe her candidacy, and presidency, will set back the Democratic pary for years.  I really shudder to think sometimes, if it might mean the end of the Democratic party, at least as an effective political force.  Because a bad Hillary candidacy, or presidency, reflects badly on the Bill Clinton presidency.  All things considered, the 1990s were pretty good years, but history can rewrite all that, enough to help Republicans convince the general public that there has never been a good Democratic president in their parents' lifetimes or in theirs.  We are, let's not kid ourselves, attempting to rewrite the past with Hillary, as the Republicans did with the younger Bush to rid themselves of the stink of  defeat left by his father.  Now that Bush II has also been rejected by most of the populace, Democrats have a chance to get the ball back in our court with someone who has no ties to the politics of the past.  Obama may not be the best candidate we could choose, but his particular talents are formidable, and he's the only one who can stop the Clinton family's rather large appetites.  Look at the math as laid out by Rhubarbs above.  Hillary cannot make it happen!  And just as importantly, I'm not sure we'd be better off if she could.

And so I will not vote for her, in the primary or the general election.  This does not make me a Reagan-lover, a Naderite, a sexist, an unsophisticated bumpkin, a sore loser, or any other label the Clinton campaign wishes to throw at me.  I'm a Democrat, so I have had silly labels thrown at me before.  The Clinton candidacy was a mistake from the start, and this is the reason I do not support it.  I believe her advancement diminishes our party.  So I won't vote for her.  Label me as you will.

Adam,

I agree about Roe -- the Dems can never say it, but they'd like nothing more for it to be overturned.  Of course, the Supreme Court affects so much more.  

But the point of this thread isn't which Dem makes the better candidate.  It's *if* the other loses (leaving Edwards or a brokered convention aside), who will you vote for.  I'm hearing two things: "I'll vote GOP because I hate Hillary," which I've commented on, and "I'll vote GOP as part of a machiavellian game theory: if we Obama voters threaten to bolt, you have to vote for us or else you'll lose any hope of winning anyway."  

FWIW, I don't find it impossible that HRC want Obama to be on the ticket if she wins -- kind of an JFK/LBJ thing.  I don't think Obama would take it.

Anyone who says unless I vote for Hillary I have no right to call myself a Democrat: piss off. I am an American first and will vote for the candidate whom I believe is best for America. I am a Reagan Democrat, fairly socially conservative, on foreign policy conservative, and economically a little Liberal (I support free trade but a progressive income tax). I voted for Reagan over Mondale because I thought Mondale was a dinosaur politically, as did so many that Reagan got 49 states. There is much that appeals to me about McCain, only he can realistically extricate us out of Iraq (Nixon to China) because only he has real credibility on that issue. He supports free trade, campaign finance reform, and has integrity and honor. Plus, he will only be a one term president so he can be free from his Republican straightjacket, no matter what he does Republicans will always say "well, he ain't Hillary" and go along with it.

In addition there will be a Dem House and Senate so no chance of overreach. America has done best when government was divided. In short, there are plenty of reasons for me to vote for McCain already, without regard to who the Democrat is. That said I will choose Obama because he is Reaganesque in his transformative nature. If Obama wins I will be happy but shed a tear for McCain and thank him for his service to our country. If McCain wins, I will be disappointed but not devastated. McCain is not Bush and we can't spin him as such. If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for McCain, as will millions of Reagan Dems and independents, because I think he is better for the country than Hillary.

Independents will swing the election. McCain will win the Independents. Why the hell don't Hillary supporters realize the Dem base won't win the election.

The only hope for Hillary that I see is if in the privacy of the voting booth women flock to her out of solidarity and spite against men. If his were to happen, then my vote for McCain will be irrelevant, so quit your bitching Dems. But this is Hillary's only shot. I am dubious of it.

There is the opposite question. Will Hillary supporters vote for Obama over McCain.? I expect that many will not, because of his youth and inexperience. Lots of old fogeys like me in this country.

I think hewstino is the only one who's really put the issue into perspective.

It doesn't matter if Obama supporters vote for Clinton or not.  Chances are, they live in very strong blue states, where the GOP candidate has no chance, or in very red states where the Democrat doesn't stand a chance.  A Hillary nomination or not, this election is still going to be decided by a handful of people in states most of us don't live in.

To see so many Obama "supporters" willingly dismiss Hillary if she gets the nomination is both heartwarming and scary.  Heartwarming that they feel so strongly about Obama, scary in that they'd jump ship to something loony (MCain, THE GREEN PARTY?!?!) so quickly in the event they couldn't give him their vote.

Seriously, Obama and Hillary don't differ enough in terms of policy for Hillary supporters to condemn Obama, and for Obama supporters to forgo voting for Hillary if she becomes the nominee.  What this comes down to is an issue of electability.  I support Obama over Hillary for one reason and one reason only: He is NOT the polarizing figure that Hillary is.  Clinton will mobilize votes both for and against her (The "Rush Limbaugh" factor).  Obama isn't likely to mobilize many people to vote against him, and he's shown he can mobilize far more people FOR him.  

Obama is the more viable candidate come November.  That's why everyone who has been sick after eight years of Bush & Co. should throw their weight behind him.  I don't care if you like Hillary more.  The sad fact is, you might, but the nation doesn't.

lymon, historically, the Supreme Court has never gotten far to the right of the electorate. At most Roe V. Wade will be overturned (and I would be delighted) and a lot more rights will be kicked back to the states (I also will be delighted at that, I don't have to live in Texas) by and large, I am not so afraid of a conservative court (one that claims will not make law). Besides, no candidate has ever won based on the future makeup of the Supreme Court. It is almost a non-issue for the average voter.

Lymon,

You are, of course, correct that the Supreme Court effects so much more than Roe; 30 years of decisions like Seattle is a disturbing thought. But I don't know if I'd mourn the passing of the Roe albatros.

I think Hillary may be stuck with Obama as VP, were she to win. I'm sure she doesn't want him, but she may have to offer it to "heal" the party. And he would have to take it for the same reason.  

I'm puzzled.  There are over 80 posts on this thread, and they seem to be divided between (a) Obama fans saying that Obama's prediction is right and that they themselves would not vote for Clinton if she's nominated, and (b) folks (some Clinton fans, and some Obama fans) saying that Obama's prediction is right but that Obama fans _ought_ to vote for Clinton if she's nominated.

Where are the voices (r-ennis's post a few minutes ago is the exception) saying that Obama is wrong?  Yes, there are some of his fans (particularly independents, as some posters have noted, but also some solidly liberal Dems) who would oppose Clinton in a general election, and even vote for McCain.  But there are also Clinton fans who, even though traditionally Democratic, and even though admiring Obama, would vote for McCain against Obama.  If foreign affairs and national security remain salient issues in the general election campaign (and aren't pushed aside in favor of the economy), there are Democrats and independents, some of them domestic policy liberals, who would have enough concern about Obama's lack of experience and judgment that they would vote for McCain.  

Another question: Just how would a Republican victory in November "cement a reactionary Supreme Court for a generation"? We already have a well-cemented reactionary Supreme Court majority, and none of the likely retirements in the coming four years threaten to undo the radical conservative majority on the court. We lost the Supreme Court in 2000 and 2004. That's a large part of why I was willing to work hard for the Kerry campaign last time around despite my strong reservations about him as a potential president.

The 2012 and 2016 elections will be the next chance to break the conservative lock on the Supreme Court. But it's just not a real issue this time around, especially when we're talking about Hillary, whose genius for appointments gave us Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood for attorney general in 1993.

tarfon, the reason why people don't make that argument is because Obama has won far more independent votes than Hillary. Hillary has the support of the base, some might stay home (but I doubt it) but I don't see any voting for McCain. And Southern Democrats are just as unlikely to vote for a woman as a black if prejudice comes into play.

I live in NYC, and therefore NYS. The dems will win here. I will happily go cast my vote for Barack Obama if he is the nominee.

If its Clinton, not worth it, I'm staying home. I originally was going to go that way, but I have become truly disgusted with her and her husbands behavior. They are the old generation, they need to step aside. if not, its President McCain for the next 4 years.

I am not alone.

Look, I think the democrats are going to absolutely hammer the republicans in the next election. There is no doubt that voters will drop responsibility on Bush, and by deault, his republican cronies. Still, Hillary is nothing short of an anchor hanging around our necks, bound to drag down moderates in the general. Putting aside the practical aspects, she's just awful, and everyone knows it. She voted with the credit card companies, she voted with Bush on the war, she stuck with Bill through Jennifer Flowers and Lewinsky - all for her political career. And in the one instance she was given a free hand during her husband's presidency, she botched it botched it so bad that universal healthcare was radioacitve for 15 years. And she deserves to be president? This is a nightmare scenario for the party.

Actually blackton I'd say you have no right to call yourself a liberal and I suspect you'd agree: "fairly socially conservative, foreign policy concervative, an economically a little liberal."  You should vote for McCain whether Obama or Clinton wins.   As for the Supreme Court being out of step with the electorate: 1) happened in the FDR era and 2) I don't think Alito/Thomas/Scalia/Roberts give a flip.   Regardless, you aren't the type of Obama supporter I'm talking about -- I'm talking abou the one who claims to yearn for universal health care, decries the continuing Iraq War, claims to be a strong environmentalist and abortion rights advocate, etc.  THe difference between a McCain and Clinton in office (esp., as you note, with a Dem congress) in the potential for change is striking.  I'd say the same thing to a GOP-base type who would sacrifice the Supreme Court and the "war that we cannot lose" because they didn't like McCain's immigration reform bill or thinks his campaign finance reform is an unconstitutional attack on free speech and cast a protest bill for Obama -- it's objectively a betrayal of what you claimed to hold dear, no matter how much one protests it isn't.

Wow. McGovernite...Deanomaniac...Obamaroons?  If he wins the nomination, I vote McCain.  As do most of the Latinos polled.  On immigration alone.  Get out of the cult of personality already.

Mmm... Obamaroons.  Those are the ones with M&Ms in the middle, right?

Longest non-Ron Paul thread!

blackton, thanks for the honesty.  You value integrity over policy, and I suspect there are a number of voters who do the same.  But I think for every white male socially conservative Dem who's turned off by Hillary, or nearly, there's a female socially moderate Republican who will turn out for her.  Yes, she will lose the South.  So would Obama.  But I think she'll be surprisingly competitive in the Midwest and West.  And her machine, whether you like it or not, is a force that no Republican candidate, with the possible exception of Huckabee, will be able to counter.

Now, I find Billary's ethical lapses troubling.  They do stupid things in their personal lives, and yes, they play for keeps.  But none of it even remotely compares to the manure this country's been shoveling after 8 years of a Rebublican administration.  End of the day, policy is paramount:  I want universal health care, I want a competent administration, a leftward tilt to the court, a sense of security and focus in our diplomacy.  No Republican candidate will give me that -- none.

You folks who think we wouldn't vote for HRC in the GE because of some Obama cult of personality or because of our bruised egos are missing the point. I like Obama fine but am not a hardcore supporter. Although I will vote for him in our primary (Georgia), I have vague doubts about whether he has the experience to be POTUS. No - this is about HILLARY CLINTON. I'm unapologetic about this - I will NOT go to the polls in November with a taste of s**t in my mouth and pull the lever (again) for a Dem whom I cannot stand and isn't electable anyway. Here's a test - ask if we Obama supporters would pull the lever for Edwards if he won the nomination. The answer would be YES, YES, YES! Am I less a Democrat than the HRC supporters are? I think Blackton (in a post above) said it best:

"Anyone who says unless I vote for Hillary I have no right to call myself a Democrat: piss off."

I AM A FLORIDA DEMOCRAT WHO WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN OVER HILLARY. THERE ARE MANY OF US DEMOCRAT OBAMA VOTERS WHO WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY.

THE CLINTONS BAD BEHAVIOR SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED.

THEIR LEGACY IS FOREVER  TARNISHED AS ARE THEIR CHANCES OF WINNING A GENERAL ELECTION.

MOREOVER, OBAMA IS HERE TO STAY LONG AFTER ANY ELECTION AND SO ARE HIS SUPPORTERS WHO VALUE HONESTY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS AS AN INDISPENSABLE LEADERSHIP QUALITY.

NO WAY WILL I EVER VOTE FOR HILLARY. SORRY.

Roberts?  Obama and Clinton, nay.  McCain, yea.  Alito?  Obama and Clinton, nay.  McCain, yea.  Alberto Gonzalez, the single greatest disgrace of the administration in a sea of disgraces?  Obama and Clinton, nay.  McCain, yea.

Like universal health care?  Both Hillary and Obama have made it a cardinal issue.  McCain?  Not a chance.

Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on, among other things, feminists and gays.  Who swallowed his scruples and donned a cap and gown to sit with him on a dais?  McCain.

And, lest you think that McCain is some kind of GOP leviathan, figures on the right like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum openly oppose the man.  (Which is, admittedly, a point in his favor.)  He's not some unstoppable juggernaut.

Hate Hillary's tactics?  I understand.  I am no great fan.  But there is no way I would switch my allegiance from Obama to McCain.  Not when I stop to think about it.

I'm with Dr Dan -- I'll vote for any Democrat before I would give John "1,000 years in Iraq" McCain my vote.  

Neil

blackton -- what lymon said.  If you're somewhat conservative, I can understand a vote for McCain.  But if you're not, going from Obama to McCain makes no policy sense at all.

I've said all this on other posts, but it seems to be relevant here:

Unlike most of you, from what I can tell, I'm actually a very moderate Republican--well, mostly a Democrat except in California. I watch politics as entertainment, without too much skin in the game.

I will only vote Dem if the nominee is Hillary. No way in the world would I ever vote for Obama.  He's vapidity with a pretty voice. So if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Obama, I'm voting for whoever the Republican is, even if it's Mitt.

I might not be a majority of my ilk, but I'm certainly not fringe.

However, there is a large group out there whose thoughts aren't represented on any blog, and that's the  huge swaths of middle and working class white and Asian American. If Obama wins the nomination--incredibly unlikely, I hope--there is no way that race stays out of the race. And then, just as now,  every sound bite of black people fulminating about some invented outrage to "their" candidate Obama will of a certainty drive this group to the Republicans, particularly if McCain wins that nomination.

I honestly don't understand how anyone can seriously believe Obama has a shot in the general. It's positively delusional.

"I can't think of any state other than Iowa that Clinton is likely to carry where John Kerry lost."

Armadorsky, I respectfully disagree. I think Hillary has a solid shot at gaining Ohio (especially if as predicted Strickland is her running mate) and a good shot at gaining Florida, Nevada and possibly New Mexico. I'm actually not so sure about Iowa because it's so quirky and may have a sufficent number of mournful Obama supporters/independents to make a difference. And also, I think it would take a lot to hold Wisconsin which Kerry won by maybe 14,000 votes.  

And let's keep in mind it really is all about the map and the same dozen or maybe fifteen states that are always in play. (I see no reason to believe that general dynamic changes by this fall.) And I like how the map works for Hillary, a relative few number of outliers who will remain ticked off notwithstanding. And yes, by the way, if Barack wins the nomination he is definitely my guy to the full tune of $4,600 and anything else I can do to regain the White House for the right party, whomever the nominee might be.

Well drdannyu, you're right of course.

Although I've said I'll vote for Senator Clinton if I have to, I understand the threat to vote for McCain. The whole thing feels like Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry all over again and it's traumatizing - like "Groundhog Day" only not funny and no Bill Murray, just more Republicans everywhere.

The irony, drdannyu, is that if someone is really backing Hillary on policy grounds, then that person should have an easier time voting for McCain than for Obama. I don't care about the white papers Hillary posts online, or the crap she promises in debates. The fact is she has a record in office, and her actual record is closer to Lieberman and McCain than it is to Kucinich or Wellstone on the issues that matter most to real liberals.

I'm still waiting to hear from Hillary supporters who back her because they approve of the Iraq war, want to escalate the confrontation with Iran, approve of the Patriot Act, oppose diplomacy with Syria and Iran, favor punitive bankruptcy laws, and approve of the defeat of health-care reform in 1994. On pure policy grounds, such people should be Hillary's only supporters. Something _other_ than policy preference is at work with Hillary's support, so for her supporters to expect other voters to consider only policy promises in November is a bit rich.

I told my Republican friends in '99 and 2000 that, were I a conservative Republican, I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush. Better a mediocre president from the other party than a bad legacy president from my own. I won't make a liar of myself for Hillary's sake. I mean, Democrats can still fight a Republican president's policy agenda and court appointments -- presuming we elect senators with more backbone than Hillary. But there is nothing anyone can do to improve a president's bad judgment on the most critical executive issues.

drdanny, as a self professed middle of the roader the fact that there is such an intramural battle on the left with so many diehard Dems professing to never vote for Hillary, the Dems have their work more than cut of for them. Beyond that, I have seen no compelling arguments from Hillary supporters how they can win the center. So far it has been McCain= Bush. Republicans are bad ad hominem attacks. We got 3 legs here on our stool. National Security (McCain wins, hands down and people are deluded if they think otherwise) Social issues (A wash I guess) And economics (the Dems win this). So it is 1-1-1. Granted, I agree the Dem economics issue is bigger, maybe a 1 1/2 so the Republicans do have their work cut out for them. However, Hillary has squandered that 1/2 point advantage by being so Goddamn divisive.

And, of course, people are ignoring geography. the Republicans have a built in advantage in the electoral college. I just don't see Hillary winning the swing states, no matter how high her margin is in California or New Jersey.

The best thing is, is after super tuesday it should be pretty clear who will win the nomination and I can choose to ignore Hillary gloating in the follow up  states or I can enjoy Obama doing the same. At the very least this shit will be over.

I don't greatly care for either HRC or BHO-- they're both passable, decent libs, no better or worse than Dukakis or Hart would have been. I can respect all of the above views, there's merit in all of them. Anyway, voting is personal, idiosyncratic, less than 100% rational.

Me, I'm more interested in the tally from our little survey.

If someone shows me SOLID evidence that candidate A or B will ensure four more years of GOP rule, I'll support his/her rival. Yet to see that evidence.

I have a challenge for Hillary supporters. As a more independent type person, how can you convince me to vote for Hillary over McCain? I am afraid a sudden withdrawal out of Iraq would be a disaster, and I am also afraid that Hillary will blow a hole in the budget during the time of a recession to finance her campaign promises. Can you present an argument to suit my tastes that Hillary is better than a moderate fiscal conservative and national security expert in McCain? And please do it without saying what Bill did in 1992 or 93. Times have changed. Points will be deducted for bringing up Bush as the main reason. His name is not on the ballot and repeating it won't make it so.

blackton, the primary thing I care about when I vote for president is who he or she will appoint to the Supreme Court.  It is, if not the most lasting legacy of a president's time in office, then near the top.  Congress can go a long way toward thwarting a lot of a president's policy (that is, a Congress with a spine), but the president has sway over the direction of the third branch of government for years and years and years.  There is a narrow conservative majority on the bench right now, but Stevens and Ginsburg aren't getting any younger.  I dread to see what the Court does to workplace protections, civil liberties, etc. if it goes any more to the right.  

I also think that universal health care is a pressing need.  I think it is a consummate disgrace that we lack it, and I see the effects of its lack on a daily basis in my practice.  I have no hope that this will come to pass under a McCain presidency.

I think he is a man of incredible courage, who has served this country with honor.  If he were to win the presidency, I think we would do fine as a nation.  But he knows which side his bread is buttered on, and I don't trust him with the Court, and I don't think he will touch an issue that is of paramount importance to me.

This thread has been helpful to me.  I mentioned above that I would not vote for Clinton in the general because anyone who voted for the Iraq war doesn't deserve a promotion to the presidency.  Many of the more temperate posts here have helped me see that this election shouldn't be about what any of the candadates deserve.  Instead, it should be about what we deserve.  

Though I would be unhappy if Clinton won the nomination, I'm now closer to saying I might vote for her in the general election for the sake of health care, drawing down the war, etc.  I'm still not convinced Clinton can be trusted to swear off politically expedient war-mongering.  I can be probably be convinced over the next ten months.  

It's hard to remember that at this stage, we are reacting to Clinton and Obama as compared to each other.  I would think, though, that after seeing either of them debating the Republican candate for the next several months, both will look much more appealing.

Please contribute to REPUBLICANS FOR HILLARY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

It's a big organization and attracting donations at a record rate.

williedeford, if you are calculating that Hillary will withdraw all the troops quickly from Iraq, I believe you are miscalculating.

Only if there is a heavy public outcry for that would it be the case.  Moveon types would not be enough.

Notch up another left-leaning independent who enthusiastically supports Obama but who will probably vote McCain over Clinton.

drdanny, yeah, Health care and the Supreme court are two good reasons to hold your nose and vote for Hillary. Sadly, with the recession I doubt it will pass and pretty much nobody but us wonks vote based on Supreme Court considerations.

I don't know, part of me is ambivilent about the election. It is like choosing the Captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. I suppose we are left arguing about who can get more people in the life rafts safely.

blackton, I don't expect to sway many people with these arguments.  But, that's why I personally will vote for whichever candidate the Democrats nominate.

Yes, Chan, I'm sure there are just scads of Republicans who think a Hillary candidacy would be grand.  There are also scads of Republicans that hate John McCain, so let's just call it even, shall we?

What I find fascinating is that the people calling the race have been saying that it would be heavily favored for the Democrats for, what, a year?  Most of that time, Hillary was the presumptive nominee.  Suddenly, after Iowa, the sky will fall and the Republicans will rout us if Hillary is the nominee.  Well, it may well come to pass, but it won't happen because of my vote.

this is exacly what I predicted would happen. And, if no one breaks out on SuperTuesday, it's not going to get any better: it will only get worse as Obama and HIllary get ever deeper into the mud.

In the meantime, there remains a candidate--John Edwards--who alienates no section of the party to any great extent. He can firm up those of us on the left (and attract a lot of Greens). He doesn't alienate the moderate Republicans like Hillary does.

He's nobody's first choice--including mine. I'd far rather elect Dennis Kucinich, but, let's be honest, there just aren't enough intelligent Americans to give him a majority. Edwards is my second choice...he's probably, at this point, the Clintonistas second choice, and he's certainly the Obamaites second choice over HIillary.

When your first choice can't cobble together the electoral majority necessary to win, because others are just as stuck on their first choices, then doesn't it make sense to look at the second choice, who can unite all factions, and who can cobble together that electoral majority?

Please do NOT underestimate John McCain. He is strongest where we need most to win--in the purple states. McCain does appeal to non-party regulars on both sides. He will make inroads into Hillary's latino vote because of his position on immigration.

Democrats have a responsibility to put their best candidate forward. That's not the person you like the most: it's the person ENOUGH Americans find acceptable to give an electoral college majority.

Obama will lose the southwest to McCain and probably a few purple states to the Bradley effect. Hillary will lose, period.

John Edwards can win.

Do the electoral math, as someone above suggested. Give us the states Hillary can win to get to 271. Do the same for Obama.

And when you do, you realize that John Edwards is the Dems best, and, really, only, chance to win in November.

Edwards/Obama '08

Blackton,

I think you are right with the Titanic analogy, but I think we haven’t hit the iceburg yet. Here’s how I see the candidates running for captain.

Hillary: You know, back in the 90’s, we were heading in this direction, and that direction worked pretty well. But I’ve got 35 years of changing direction.

Edwards: My father, who’s in the crowd tonight, worked in the engine room for 37 years. It’s the cause of my life to make sure the people who are in the engine room have the opportunity to see first class.

McCain: You can trust me to tell you straight that we are going to go in the exact same direction; just in an honest, straight talking way. Did I mention straight talk?

Rudy: I was there when the last iceberg hit, and I know everything there is about them. See, if you just push the boat faster, they’ll run in fear.

Huckabee: Jesus will guide our way. And if we have any trouble, Chuck Norris will roundhouse kick any iceberg that causes problems.

Romney: I’ve always said we should go north by northeast because I believe south by southwest is clearly the best way to go.

Paul: We never should have left port.

Obama: I know I’m new at this, but people want a change in direction. And if one voice can change a cabin, then maybe we can change a deck, and if we can change a deck, then maybe we can change a class, and if we can change a class, then maybe we can change a whole boat, and if we can change a whole boat, and if we can change a boat, then we can change the ocean. Let me be that voice!

Everyone who has a problem with Obama saying this is angry at him for saying something that is absolutely true.  If Hillary is nominated I will either not vote for the first time since 88 when I wasn't old enough, or if her opponent is McCain I will probably vote for him.