I've been saying the same thing since March, but apparently nobody's been in the mood for common sense.  When it comes to elections, the only kind of "support" that signifies is dropped in the ballot box in November, not expressed to pollsters in August.  The whole PUMA issue is just soap-opera crap and a flimsy excuse to endlessly rehash the media's Clinton obsession, which has a lot more to do with their urge to create a story than cover one.

Respectfully, your analysis of the first group misses the point. As a Liberal Democratic activist from California, I know quite a few people who are ardently insistent on writing Hillary's name in on Election Day (granted, since our electoral votes are going to Obama no matter what, it's purely a symbolic statement). In fact, I myself am planning on doing so as well knowing full well that Obama will win CA by over a million votes.

But it's a mistake (Classic, actually) that the Democrats always make: assuming people will vote solely on the issues. There is a lot of undying and fanatical loyalty to Hillary and Bill that was only strengthened by the primaries. It is out of loyalty to Hillary, and the conviction that she is the finest candidate in a generation that we will be casting our votes for her. It has little to do with policy and everything to do with personality--put simply, Senator Obama strikes many as an out of touch, arrogant elitist who ran a two-faced campaign against Senator Clinton and has subsequently treated her--and by extension, her supporters--with nothing but thinly veiled contempt.

Rational? Not entirely, but it's ludicrous to think that people vote based soley off rational impulses. To many people, Hillary was robbed (I'm a little more sanguine--I just think she was out-hustled). And they will vent that frustration by voting for her in November (or McCain, or none of the above).

And also, it's impossible to discuss Senator Clinton's supporters who are genuinely motivated by the feeling that Obama is simply not experienced enough to be President. Put in that context, what is the logical choice: voting for the candidate who reflects your views but whom you feel isn't ready/able to be President (especially in the middle of a war) or voting for a candidate who's ready for any crisis but bad on the issues.

Basically, this is the situation vis a vis Hillary loyalists--I agree, the ones that can be moved will be moved by election day. But deconstructing us into these two groups is futile, because Hillary supporters, like HRC herself, are complicated, with many different motivations. Obama needs them to win, and he must address the outstanding concerns. Hillary can't do it tonight--too many of us realize that this is what is expected of her (and granted, being a 26 year old male hardly qualifies me to offer insights into the mind of women voters of a certain age) which means that for many of her loyalists, tonight is only going to further alienate them.

The Washington Post ran a great article today about how Hillary can't win for losing. Can't find the link, but it is far and away the best insight into how a great many Hillary voters will view tonight's speech.

Bottom line, ignoring the deep, deep dissafection that exists among one of the most loyal of Democratic constituencies, or papering them over, isn't going to work.

Unconvincing.

Noam - you're spot on except for older Democrats. They hate the war, hate Bush, and hate Republicans. Some of them even worked in the Civil rights movement in some small way! But their latant racism allows them to believe some of the more extreme slurs against Obama. It's not about Hillary for these people (though most of them worshiped Bill). It's about their bias against Obama's race - a bias that is buried deep inside of them, but that makes it easier for them to believe character assaults on Obama and to see Hillary's loss as the worst kind of affirmative action. John Mccain is just moderate enough that these folks can hold their noses and vote for him.

So while you're right about most Democrats, I don't think Obama will ever reach some of these older white folks.

governorohn writes:

--  It is out of loyalty to Hillary, and the conviction that she is the finest candidate in a generation that we will be casting our votes for her.

This sentence almost defines delusional.

They think politics is the mirror in the batthroom.

Senator Clinton's task tonight is simple.  She needs to thank her supporters for the great effort they made in ALMOST winning the nomination for her but REMIND them that she lost and that they MUST support the Democratic candidate for the general election Barack Obama.

ndmackenzie, thanks. Delusional was exactly the word I was searching for.

governorjohn - Thanks for this.  This is the most rational defense I have seen for the position of HRC supporters.  I agree that voters do not vote based on logic especially in a national campaign and that thinking that they do is a common mistake made by Democrats.

I can perfectly accept a write-in vote for HRC.  If you think she is the best candidate, then that is who you should vote for.  What I cannot fathom is a vote for McCain who you readily admit is bad on the issues.

In your construction "what is the logical choice: voting for the candidate who reflects your views but whom you feel isn't ready/able to be President (especially in the middle of a war) or voting for a candidate who's ready for any crisis but bad on the issues" to me the logic is to vote for the candidate that reflects your views.

I cannot understand how anyone would willingly vote for someone that will take actions which they do not want and do not support (e.g., further cutting taxes for the top 1%, invading Iran, etc.).

what virginiacentrist said - we have some of this latent racism on these boards too.  

Well what motivates Hillary defect(or)s? Is it McCain's sterling character and record? Is it because he finished 5th to last in his Annapolis class? is it having crash landed two multi-million dollar jet figihters? is it his running around on his wife for five years after his return, even though she had stuck with him for five years while he was a POW? is it divorcng his wife of 15 yrs for a woman 20 yrs younger and 40 million dollars richer? is it his boosting of Charles Keating in Arizona? is it his 95% voting record in support of George Bush? is it his unequivocal support for US involvement in the Iraqi civil war? is it his anti-Choice, anti-abortion stance? is it his denial of basic civil liberties to gay couples? is it his desire to "Bomb Bomb Iran?" is it his desire to end government support for Social Security? is it his support against CHIP health insurance for children? is it his opposition to educational and medical support for veterans, because it's "too expensive?" is it his support for continued tax cuts for the super-wealthy, while the national debt balloons to an unsustainable level? is it for continuing to allow billionaire hedge-fund managers to pay a lower percentage of their incomes than any except those near or below the poverty line?

Or is it smething else ... ?

"To my supporters, to my champions -- to my sisterhood of the traveling pant suits -- (cheers, applause) --...