Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Warhammer]

Are they comparing this to HRC tonight to Regan at the 76 Republican Convention?

[ace1914]

Hillary was awesome and I am very proud of her. I think if Bill closes the deal about being ready to be the man for Barack, its a lock for Obama & Co.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

hmmm, interesting take on CNN...Perhaps she did TOO well? I saw an interview with a Clinton supporter wherein she hung her hat on Clinton's ability based on what 'you saw' in her speech. Is it possible that the speech was so good that it will embolden the Clinton delegates to raise a ruckus?

I think the Hil-Bill duo is meant to give the country a "gee, weren't the 90s so great?" feeling...with Barack getting the relay baton on Thursday night to win the last leg of the race.

I don't think the hype is nearly as big as the AP/CNN/MSM gulag are trying to pass off to us, related to the whole yay Hillary contingent. Obviously November will tell us the truth, but I'm not buying it.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Are they comparing this to HRC tonight to Regan at the 76 Republican Convention?

She mentioned Obama ten times during her speech. Reagan did not mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once during his 1980 speech.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

A couple of things I noticed in Hillary's speech last night...........

1. She talked through the applause A LOT. Perhaps someone told her to make sure the speech didn't run too late, but it was terribly annoying that she gave very few dramatic pauses.

2. Her presentation style was pretty good. I think it was better than anything she had done in the campaign.

3. She didn't give Barack Obama any praise at all. Her lone praise for the ticket was given to Biden. Michele Obama only received a nod as 'someone who would be a good first lady'. Barack didn't even get that. Every comment was that people should support Barack followed by comments about her platform and why it should be supported. That speech was all about Hillary with a few weak nods to unity. All I saw was a lady who was setting herself up for a run in 2012 and using Obama's convention as a way to pave that path.

4. Bill Clinton was borderline smug for most of the speech. He knew exactly what she was doing and was glowing in the thoughts of a run in 2012. Meanwhile, several shots of Michele Obama showed a tense or worried look on her face. I've read several books about non-verbal communication. Michele Obama was not comfortable at all with the situation. I can only imagine the tension in the hall when Bill steps to the podium tonight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

OK, so I wasn't the only one to notice the lack of Obama praise. Noticed this article linked over at Electoral-Vote.com after I put up my thoughts......

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix...-clintons.html

[JPhillips]

She did exactly what Obama needed. She couldn't have been clearer to her supporters that they should support Obama, especially with the what are you in it for section. She also took some good shots at McCain. She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She did exactly what Obama needed. She couldn't have been clearer to her supporters that they should support Obama, especially with the what are you in it for section. She also took some good shots at McCain. She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

She attacked conservative policies more than she attacked McCain, just as she supported liberal policies more than she actually supported Obama. It was all about her, to the point where she even evoked her husband's legacy at one point. Bill remained seated as a weak nod to the fact that it's Obama's convention, but you know he wanted to pop right up and stroke his ego.

You're correct that she told the supporters to support Obama, but she couldn't have done any less to actually define him as a person or as a candidate. After watching that speech last night, all I could think was that if she was the candidate, that speech wouldn't have been nearly as restrained as it was.

[JPhillips]

I guess my ESP isn't as strong as yours.

They're rivals, not friends. She couldn't come out and pretend the primaries didn't happen. I have no idea if it will make a difference in the polls, but she did far more than similar politicians in this situation. One speech can't be everything to every person. Her primary mission was to heal the rift in the party and I think she did that about as well as she could have.

[Young Drachma]

Her job wasn't to define Obama. He needs to do that for himself. If he can't, he doesn't deserve to win. Hillary's job isn't to deliver him to the White House, if it was, he'd have picked her as his running mate. I agree with JPhil, she did far more than was expected of her and was laudable and I think said enough of the right things that his side can't complain about being undermined by Team Clinton anymore, even as the media will pound this angle into the ground because it's more interesting to them than just talking about coronation.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Her primary mission was to heal the rift in the party and I think she did that about as well as she could have.

Today's roll call will be very telling. Reportedly, the Hillary supporters want a full roll call without any suspension of voting. Anything less won't be acceptable, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary jump to the front of the New York delagates and request a suspension of voting in yet another move to draw more attention to herself.

I disagree that she did anything close to as well as she could have. If she would have spoke at a more personal level about Obama as a candidate, THEN she would have done as well as she could have.

BTW, the video introduction by the DNC was pretty interesting. They didn't paint her as the worthy advisary who nearly won the nomination. Rather, they painted her as a women's rights hero. I have no doubt that she found that a bit condescending. She deserved more than that given her role in the party and this election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Her job wasn't to define Obama.

Your phrasing brought to mind an interesting distinction that I think might be made.

Her job may not have been to define Obama, but doing so very well could be how she would have helped him the most.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Your phrasing brought to mind an interesting distinction that I think might be made.

Her job may not have been to define Obama, but doing so very well could be how she would have helped him the most.

Which is precisely the point that is being discussed. She provided exactly what was asked of her and not a single thing more. It was in her best interest regarding her political future to do that.

[ace1914]

Hillary did a great job. They portrayed Hillary as a larger than life female hero, which is what was necessary to subdue the angry, suburban women who personally identified with Clinton's wins and losses. She was very definitive in her questioning of the motives of these scorned, democratic women voters. What I took out of it is, "if you like the same things that I do, vote Obama, because McCain won't do it."

Now, Bill needs to come on stage and say what qualities he and Obama have in common that will make him a good president and what qualities Bush and McCain have in common that will make McCain a bad president.

[ace1914]

I have another question with the polling. Now I've been out of school for a couple of years now, but how can you call a poll valid if the difference between the candidates is less than or equal to the margin of error?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

Hillary did a great job. They portrayed Hillary as a larger than life female hero, which is what was necessary to subdue the angry, suburban women who personally identified with Clinton's wins and losses. She was very definitive in her questioning of the motives of these scorned, democratic women voters. What I took out of it is, "if you like the same things that I do, vote Obama, because McCain won't do it."

Interesting. My mom is a Hillary supporter and she reacted quite differently. She had said earlier in the year after Obama finally wrapped it up that she would probably vote for McCain. After last night's speech, she sent me an e-mail saying that speech convinced her that the Dems picked the wrong candidate and that she would vote for McCain so that Hillary could run in 2012. Logic is a bit warped IMO, but I'm sure that she's not the only 'scorned' female baby boomer thinking that same thing.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Logic is a bit warped

Must be genetic.

[Passacaglia]

I don't see why Hilary can't just run in 2016 if Obama wins. That seems more amenable than trying to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Must be genetic.

.......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Must be genetic.

Now see, an attack on McCain even close to something like that from Hillary last night would have been much better than what she did, at least from Obama's perspective.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

She went well beyond what Reagan or Kennedy did and all of the analysis that she was secretly damning him is too clever by half.

As I said before, she mentioned Obama ten times during the speech. Ronald Reagan did not even mention Gerald Ford by name in his 1976 speech, and Ted Kennedy mentioned Jimmy Carter once in his 1980 speech. Ted Kennedy never even endorsed Jimmy Carter in 1980.

Her primary was the closest, hardest fought primary in modern history, and she has gone much farther in her endorsement of Obama than past candidates in other hard fought past primaries have done for their nominee.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't see why Hilary can't just run in 2016 if Obama wins. That seems more amenable than trying to run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't McCain said on more than one occasion that he would only be a one-term president?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Today's roll call will be very telling. Reportedly, the Hillary supporters want a full roll call without any suspension of voting. Anything less won't be acceptable, although I wouldn't be surprised to see Hillary jump to the front of the New York delagates and request a suspension of voting in yet another move to draw more attention to herself.

I disagree that she did anything close to as well as she could have. If she would have spoke at a more personal level about Obama as a candidate, THEN she would have done as well as she could have.

BTW, the video introduction by the DNC was pretty interesting. They didn't paint her as the worthy advisary who nearly won the nomination. Rather, they painted her as a women's rights hero. I have no doubt that she found that a bit condescending. She deserved more than that given her role in the party and this election.

To paraphrase, not all white people have the taint of the Illuminati.

As for the video, you're reaching too far, the Thomason's produced it.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't McCain said on more than one occasion that he would only be a one-term president?

I've heard it talked about that he was going to announce this, but I don't think I ever heard an official announcement. Even so, getting in the way of a Democratic nominee now to try to become the Democratic nominee in 4 years sounds like a terribly risky plan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I've heard it talked about that he was going to announce this, but I don't think I ever heard an official announcement. Even so, getting in the way of a Democratic nominee now to try to become the Democratic nominee in 4 years sounds like a terribly risky plan.

Does she have any other option? She's not getting any younger. She'll be 69 years of age in 2016.

[JPhillips]

The one term talk has largely gone away since McCain's team change. It seems like a terrible plan IMO. Why would you want to start from day one as a lame duck especially given that you'll be fighting a hostile Congress?

[albionmoonlight]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Clinton's numbers only went up when Obama and McCain stopped attacking her and started attacking each other (and Clinton kept attacking Obama). She hasn't been attacked in any real sense since early March.

If she had won the nomination and McCain had been blasting the airwaves with negative stuff about her and Bill and no one had attacked Obama for the last two months and you had all of these young Obama supporters talking to the media saying "I'm just going to stay home on election day because it is the same old shit," we would be having the opposite discussion right now. We would all be saying "How the hell could the Dems have nominated the most divisive Democrat of the last 20 years when they had the chance to nominate the liberal Regan?"

The runner-up in these situations is like a backup quarterback. You forget the flaws when they are not playing and only see the flaws of the starter.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

I am not saying that Clinton would have been a worse choice that Obama in terms of winning. I don't know if we will ever know that. I'm just saying that the media is engaging in a lot of strange hindsight.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Mark this day on your calendar. I NEVER thought that I'd be bringing up the same points as a Maureen Dowd editorial, yet that day has arrived.........

High Anxiety in the Mile High City - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

August 27, 2008
High Anxiety in the Mile High City
By MAUREEN DOWD
DENVER

I’ve been to a lot of conventions, and there’s always something gratifyingly weird that happens.

Dan Quayle acting like a Dancing Hamster. Teresa Heinz Kerry reprising Blanche DuBois. Dick Morris getting nabbed triangulating between a hooker and toes.

But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.

There were a lot of bitter Clinton associates, fund-raisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary’s roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks.

At a press conference with New York reporters on Monday, Hillary looked as if she were straining at the bit to announce her 2012 exploratory committee.

“Remember, 18 million people voted for me, 18 million people, give or take, voted for Barack,” she said, while making a faux pro-Obama point. She keeps acting as if her delegates are out of her control, when she’s been privately egging on people to keep her dream alive as long as possible, no matter what the cost to Obama.

Hillary also said she was happy about the choice of Joe Biden because he added “intensity” to the ticket. Ouch.

She added insult to injury by coming out Tuesday night looking great in a blazing orange pantsuit and teaching the precocious pup Obama something about intensity and message. She thanked her “sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits,” and slyly noted that Obama would enact her health care plan rather than his.

She offered the electrifying fight that the limpid Obama has not — setting off paranoia among some Democrats that they had chosen the wrong nominee or that Obama had chosen the wrong running mate. “It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together in the Twin Cities because these days they are awfully hard to tell apart,” she said.

Afterward, some of her supporters began crying, as they were interviewed by reporters, saying that her speech had proved that she would make a better president than Obama. And, as one said, she would only give him “two months” to prove himself.

Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, compared Obama to the passive-aggressive Adlai Stevenson and told The Washington Post that Obama gives six-minute answers and “is not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with.”

At a meeting of the Democratic women’s caucus Tuesday, 74-year-old Carol Anderson of Vancouver, Wash., a former Hillary volunteer, stood in the back of the room in a Hillary T-shirt and hat signed by Hillary and “Nobama” button and booed every time any of the women speakers mentioned Obama’s name.

She’s voting for McCain and had nothing nice to say about the Obamas. What about the kids, I asked. “Adorable,” she agreed. Well, I said, Michelle raised them.

“I think her mother does,” Anderson shot back, adding: “I wonder if Michelle would give the Queen one of her little knuckle punches?”

Bill’s pals said he was still gnawing at his many grievances against the younger version of himself he has to praise Wednesday night; the latest one being that the Obama folks, like all winners, wanted control over Bill’s speech, so that he did not give a paean to himself and his economic record, which is what he wanted to do, because he was incensed that Obama said a couple critical things about his administration during a heated campaign.

Finally, Obama had to give in on Monday and say he would allow the ex-president to do exactly as he likes, which is what he usually does anyhow.

Obama’s pacification of Bill made his supporters depressed and anxious that he was going to be a weaker candidate than they had hoped and fearful that, as in Obama’s favorite movie, “The Godfather,” every time Democrats try to get away, the Clintons pull them back in.

And Democrats have begun internalizing the criticisms of Hillary and John McCain about Obama’s rock-star prowess, worrying that the Invesco Field extravaganza Thursday, with Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi, will just add to the celebrity cachet that Democrats have somehow been shamed into seeing as a negative.

So that added to the weird mood at the convention, with some Democrats nitpicking Obama’s appearance, after Michelle’s knock-out speech and the fabulously cute girls, with a reassuring white family in a town he couldn’t remember at one point. They wondered why he wasn’t wearing a tie, fearing he looked too young, and second-guessed Michelle’s green dress, wondering if it clashed with the blue stage, and fretted that there wasn’t a speaker Monday night attacking McCain and yelling about gas prices.

“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Clinton's numbers only went up when Obama and McCain stopped attacking her and started attacking each other (and Clinton kept attacking Obama). She hasn't been attacked in any real sense since early March.

If she had won the nomination and McCain had been blasting the airwaves with negative stuff about her and Bill and no one had attacked Obama for the last two months and you had all of these young Obama supporters talking to the media saying "I'm just going to stay home on election day because it is the same old shit," we would be having the opposite discussion right now. We would all be saying "How the hell could the Dems have nominated the most divisive Democrat of the last 20 years when they had the chance to nominate the liberal Regan?"

The runner-up in these situations is like a backup quarterback. You forget the flaws when they are not playing and only see the flaws of the starter.

Great post. I agree. And I also agree with Mizzou that she did only what she had to but not anything extra. Regardles of the reasons why it sure wasn't what I was hoping from her as an Obama supporter. I also, felt it was 80% "see how great I am and Bill was as a President".When she was speaking I almost forgot that Obama was the nominee. I am assuming it will be even worse. One of the things I have disagreed with is Obama not trying to go out and bury thre hatchet with the Clintons in a public way especially Bill. Bill has an enormous ego from all accounts and he had to have it stroked. Now Obama might have to have Michelle visit Bill to get him to give a sincere speech

[JPhillips]

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

Won't happen. Republicans aren't nearly as good at self-loathing as Democrats.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm really looking forward to all the column inches devoted to disaffected conservatives unhappy with McCain next week.

Barring a pro-choice VP selection, the Republican convention won't be nearly as exciting. It'll be 4 relatively boring days of rah-rah speeches. The only exception would be if Kay Bailey Hutchinson was selected as VP. That would be an interesting turn and could prompt an exodus of Clinton supporters.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ace1914

I have another question with the polling. Now I've been out of school for a couple of years now, but how can you call a poll valid if the difference between the candidates is less than or equal to the margin of error?

That means it's roughly a tie. If the margin of error is 3% and I'm ahead in the poll by 2 points, the range is -1% to 5%.

One poll by itself will never give an accurate picture. Watch the moving averages and the overall trends.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Barring a pro-choice VP selection, the Republican convention won't be nearly as exciting. It'll be 4 relatively boring days of rah-rah speeches. The only exception would be if Kay Bailey Hutchinson was selected as VP. That would be an interesting turn and could prompt an exodus of Clinton supporters.

That would be interesting. What's her stance on abortion? This is probably sexist assertion, but being a woman I'd guess pro-choice, right?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

That would be interesting. What's her stance on abortion? This is probably sexist assertion, but being a woman I'd guess pro-choice, right?

Correct. She is pro-choice. So you'd have the Christian right grumbling while some of the Clinton voters may be won over. Somewhat of a trade-off, but it would make the convention very interesting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Correct. She is pro-choice. So you'd have the Christian right grumbling while some of the Clinton voters may be won over. Somewhat of a trade-off, but it would make the convention very interesting.

It'd be a very interesting gamble.

Clinton supporters are extremely compassionate. McCain's already subtly reached out to them in his "passed over" ad (which argues that Clinton was "right" about Obama, with relevant sound bites).

It'd be a gamble that you'd bring over more voters than you'd lose. In a practical sense, who the hell cares what the VP's abortion views are, even if you're the most raging pro-life person in the world? (though I know people don't think practically about these things).

McCain doesn't seem to need a gamble at this point though, so I think he'll be way more conservative.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by molson

It'd be a very interesting gamble.

Clinton supporters are extremely compassionate. McCain's already subtly reached out to them in his "passed over" ad (which argues that Clinton was "right" about Obama, with relevant sound bites).

It'd be a gamble that you'd bring over more voters than you'd lose. In a practical sense, who the hell cares what the VP's abortion views are, even if you're the most raging pro-life person in the world? (though I know people don't think practically about these things).

McCain doesn't seem to need a gamble at this point though, so I think he'll be way more conservative.

I know that Rush Limbaugh has said that the religious right would stay way from the polls if the VP was pro-choice. I don't buy that at all.

I do agree about not needing to gamble. The polling numbers are all going in McCain's direction at this point. Probably not a good idea to change course when everything's going well.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I know that Rush Limbaugh has said that the religious right would stay way from the polls if the VP was pro-choice. I don't buy that at all.

I agree with you. Anyone who cares enough to threaten to not vote cares too much to actually not vote.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another article on the fallout from the Clinton/Obama feud. This one's from the front page of the Washington Post. Looks like many Clinton supporters plan on leaving town before Obama even speaks.......

Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions

Many Clinton Supporters Say Speech Didn't Heal Divisions

By Eli Saslow
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 27, 2008; A01



DENVER, Aug. 26 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton's most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn't erase their frustrations.

Despite Clinton's plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.

There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech's predictability. "It's a tactic," he said. "Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I'm still bitter."

There was JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, who digested Clinton's resounding endorsement of Barack Obama and decided that she, too, will move on and get behind him. "I'll vote for [Obama] in the roll call," she said, "because that's what Hillary wants."

There was Shirley Love, from West Virginia, who smiled at Clinton's composure, waved a button bearing her name and felt a renewed pang of regret that she had lost the nomination. "She deserves it," Love said. "That's the thing that sticks with you. Even if she can move on easily, that's not as easy for everybody else."

Most delegates agreed that Clinton's impassioned speech marked a step toward reconciliation. The crowd in the Pepsi Center stood to applaud almost every time she mentioned Obama by name.

John Burkett, a Pennsylvania delegate and staunch Clinton supporter, attached an Obama button to his shirt. A New Mexico delegate said the "H" on his shirt will be replaced with an "O" come Thursday.

"She hit it right out of the ballpark," said Terie Norelli, New Hampshire's House speaker. "I've never been prouder of a Democrat than I was tonight." Norelli said the speech made her want to work hard for Obama. "She said it better than I ever could have: Everything I worked for and that she worked for would be at risk if we do anything less."

But Clinton's performance fell far short of the panacea the Democratic Party had desperately hoped for, delegates said. Some worried that, after Clinton's public withdrawal, more voters might defect for Republican John McCain or simply stay home.

"I'm not going to vote for Obama. I'm not going to vote for McCain, either," said Blanche Darley, 65, a Texas delegate for Clinton. Darley wore a button saying "Obamination Scares the Hell Out of Me."

"We love her, but it's our vote if we don't trust him or don't like him," said Darley, who was a superdelegate for Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Weeping, Dawn Yingling, a 44-year-old single mother from Indianapolis, said that the speech was "fabulous" but that she still isn't going to work for the Obama campaign. "She was fabulous, nothing less than I expected. It's hard to sit here and think about she would have accomplished. We're not stupid -- we're not going to vote for John McCain," she said. But she'll limit her campaigning to a House candidate. "It will take a Congress as well as a president. That's what I can do and be true to who I am."

For Clinton's supporters, it was difficult to accept her speech as the public finale of her campaign, because this moment once held such tremendous potential. Shelby Leary, a delegate from West Virginia, stood to watch a video tribute to Clinton's success as a trailblazer and then chanted "Hillary" for 30 seconds with the rest of the crowd. Anne Price, from Washington state, wore a dozen Clinton buttons and wiped tears from her eyes.

It seemed a particularly resonant moment Tuesday night, which marked both Women's Equality Day and the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage.

"There's no way this night couldn't be emotional," Leary said. "A lot of us loved campaigning for her, and it's hard to watch it end. But after something like this, you have to have an emotional end for people to come to terms with things."

Clinton said Tuesday night that it is Obama's convention. But many of her supporters came here exclusively to honor her. One group traveled from New York and built an impromptu museum commemorating Clinton's historic campaign. Another lighted thousands of candles in a park to symbolize her widespread support.

On Tuesday morning, hundreds of loyalists formed a 200-yard parade and marched through downtown. They shouted into loudspeakers and beat drums, creating a cacophony that echoed across the blocks. As they began marching, some of the supporters chanted, "We want a roll call." Many of them wore their opinions on T-shirts: Country Over Party. Damn, We Wish You Were President. Still Making History. Democrats Left Behind.

At the front of the parade route, one banner summarized their message: Hillary. Who Else?

"A lot of people came here just because they wanted to celebrate Hillary," said Elizabeth Fiechter, a New York City lawyer who helped organize the parade. "We get criticism because there's this idea that the election should move on and just leave her behind. We're not going down that quietly."

The week of festivities for Clinton delegates and supporters started Monday with a meet-and-greet, where some supporters learned that they differ from one another more than they originally thought. The most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that only 42 percent of Clinton voters classify themselves as "solidly behind" Obama, and that 20 percent plan to vote for McCain. But in Denver, Clinton supporters sometimes classified themselves as belonging to one of two categories: the sad and the angry.

"It just makes me upset because Hillary would have been the perfect woman to do this job," said Katherine Vincent, from Colorado. "I'm a Democrat first, but it's just difficult to get over."

"I hate Obama so much that I'm going to devote as much time to McCain as I did to Hillary," said Adita Blanco, a Democrat from Edward, Okla., who has never voted for a Republican. "Obama has nothing. He has no experience. The Democratic Party doesn't care about us. You couldn't treat [Clinton] any worse."

Perhaps the best example of the persistent divide in the Democratic Party came after Clinton's speech Tuesday night. The lights went down in the Pepsi Center, and some influential Democrats left downtown for good. They planned to head for the airport and fly home, long before Obama accepts the nomination in a speech at Invesco Field on Thursday night.

Clinton will hold a private meeting with her top financial advisers Wednesday, and many donors plan to leave immediately afterward. Terence R. McAuliffe, Clinton's campaign chairman and the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, also plans to leave before Obama's speech. Many of the women from 18 Million Voices, Fiechter's pro-Clinton group, booked tickets for Wednesday and Thursday because "we really are taking a position of being indifferent to Obama," Fiechter said.

Clinton's delegates inside the Pepsi Center had no choice but to stick around, at least until the end of Wednesday's roll call.

"I wish I could leave," said Straughan, the professor from California. "To be honest, that would make this whole thing a lot easier."

[molson]

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

[ace1914]

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

Because Bill and Hillary were hoping for Clinton/Obama.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ace1914

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

I don't think it's necessarily a "protest vote", or that Obama "did anything". I think a lot of Clinton supporters are generally afraid of an Obama presidency (based on that article and many others like it). I think they'd legitmately think McCain is the better option '08-'12, and then they'll support Clinton again after that.

You also touched on something that I wish people would actually talk about.

What will the US be like the next 4 years with McCain?
What will the US be like the next 4 years with Obama?
Will there be any difference at all?

That's the essence of this election, and where I wish more of the discussion was. It's not about the "issues", everybody knows where people theoretically stand at this point. I want to hear arguments about what's actually going to happen.

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012. So his views on Iraq don't really matter much, since there's no practical difference there. Will the economy be better? Why? How exactly will he pull that off? They're both saying pretty much the same stuff about energy, I don't believe either will be bold enough to do what really needs to be done there either. How will my life be better with Obama in charge? How long do I have to wait for that to happen?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ace1914

What I don't get is what Obama did to Clinton to make people act like this. If Obama lost I would have voted for Hilary. All these stupid asses that don't vote, whether its a non-vote for McCain or Obama, can't complain about shit the next 4 years.

I don't think Obama did much of anything to be honest. The Clintons started this feud and it's become apparant that they plan to be the ones to win it as well. Obama has halted the Clinton family's second ascension to the throne and they're none too happy about it. This kind of reaction from the Clinton's honestly isn't that surprising to most people.

[Big Fo]

I just don't understand how any Clinton supporters would choose McCain over Obama. Clinton's and Obama's viewpoints and the policies they would try to enact are more similar than Clinton's and McCain's. Racism is about the only thing that comes to mind.

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think I quite ever understood why Obama/Clinton wasn't the right ticket for the Dems.

Would she even have accepted the VP nomination?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So, Republicans who say they won't vote if the VP is pro-choice will actually vote, but Democrats who say they won't vote if Hillary doesn't get the nomination are serious?

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

On the other hand, the religious right has much more at stake in the form of judicial nominations. An unchecked Democrat majority in Congress in coordination with a Democrat president could push through as many as 3 Supreme Court nominations along with numerous Circuit court nominations. They could put the judicial system squarely against the religious right for years to come. Failing to vote in the upcoming election would prove disasterous for them.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think it's necessarily a "protest vote", or that Obama "did anything". I think a lot of Clinton supporters are generally afraid of an Obama presidency (based on that article and many others like it). I think they'd legitmately think McCain is the better option '08-'12, and then they'll support Clinton again after that.

You also touched on something that I wish people would actually talk about.

What will the US be like the next 4 years with McCain?
What will the US be like the next 4 years with Obama?
Will there be any difference at all?

That's the essence of this election, and where I wish more of the discussion was. It's not about the "issues", everybody knows where people theoretically stand at this point. I want to hear arguments about what's actually going to happen.

Obama's not going to be able to "bring the troops home" before 2012. So his views on Iraq don't really matter much, since there's no practical difference there. Will the economy be better? Why? How exactly will he pull that off?

Wait a second, Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, with whom they disagree on nearly everything? That's ridiculous.

While Obama and McCain differ, neither one of them is going to change the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Wait a second, Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain, with whom they disagree on nearly everything? That's ridiculous.

While Obama and McCain differ, neither one of them is going to change the direction of the country in any meaningful way.

It's not about viewpoints or issues. Jimmy Bob down the street has great viewpoints. Doesn't mean he'd be a good president.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

A Democrat voting for McCain doesn't have nearly the effect of the opposite situation. If McCain is elected, he'll still face a major check of power in the form of a Democrat majority (and possibly super-majority) in one or both houses of Congress. He'll have his hands tied and won't be able to make any major policy changes or judicial nominations.

Yeah because the Democrats have really stood up to Bush. They really oppose his policies!