What do you think?

misspelled divisive--hate it when I notice after it's already out there.

Just some advice, but you may want to at least paraphrase the comments.  There may not be as much discussion otherwise, because the diary involves an above-average amount of "work."

How people can claim to support the entire Democratic party their entire life, right or wrong, but then this ONE election happens to have things that are just too terrible and require them to turn their back on their life's work.

This is completely illogical, and perhaps it is worth examining more thoroughly 2 weeks after the race ends.

Personally, I subscribe to the 10 day rule Ed Rendell put forth. You have 10 days to get over the loss of your candidate and accept the nominee, or we are kicking your ass :)

AHW--I appreciated your diary yesterday very much. It really helped me understand the personal feelings that the Clinton side has to deal with now and how dissociated from the Obama "movement" that they feel. I am an Obama supporter who thinks the world of Hillary Clinton so for me I have always felt that I had two good choices. I appreciated Hillary and decided that I liked Obama more. If she had ended up winning the nomination I would have been bummed for a few days and then gotten on with supporting her. So for me it has been very instructive to read the thoughts and feelings of Clinton supporters who are so crushed by her impending defeat. So for sharing that, thank you.

In re the poster at Mother Jones, Tony Smith, I take exception to tons of things that he wrote. For instance, he says the media and the party ignored Latino voters. I remember reams and reams of articles about the significance of the Latino vote in CA and TX, why can't Obama win the Latino vote etc.

He also seems to feel that the party as an institution has done some things that they don't have the capacity to do. I mean "the party has invented claims of racial injustice?" What does that mean? Plenty of charges of racial injustice (and sexism for that matter) have been thrown around but not by the "PARTY" itself. This is paranoid thinking. And it was Howard Dean's bad judgement that caused FL and MI to not count? How about blaming the state Dem parties who insisted on jumping the cue.

So, I honestly did appreciate and take to heart your writing yesterday. but this cat in Mother Jones is writing some pretty twisted, paranoid stuff.

I'm confused. When I clicked on the link I got a great article by David Corn with the title "Clinton Camp Flaming Her Supporter's Sense that Obama's Win Is Unfair?" I agree with him wholeheartedly but am VERY surprised if that is an article you would link to. Maybe the link changed?

It's so easy to dismiss someone with, "Aw, he's a troll," and I understand that with regard to obviously divisive/rabble-rousing sorts.  It's not so clear in this case, but even if true, then his points are clever enough to snag me--a lifelong Democrat, and, while I might not be Einstein, I'm not a lightweight either.  Why not discuss 'em?

He seems to generalize a lot, and make claims that are tendentious at best.

Generally, he keeps talking about "the party" doing this, and "the party" doing that.  But he never explains who he means?  Is he talking about individual party members?  The DNC?  Does "the party" mean different things depending on what the accusation is?

As for his substantive claims, here is a good example:

But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment.

I don't remember this.  I remember him being heavily mocked by Joe Scarborough and Maureen Dowd for his bad bowling.  I also recall someone (and here I'm doing the Tony Smith thing of making a non-specific allegation) pointing out that his mockery of Hillary's shot-takin' gun-totin' act rang false when he was doing man-of-the-people photo ops himself.

If this was an essay that I was grading, I would give Tony Smith a D for making assertions without supporting them with evidence.  His rhetorical eloquence is the only thing that would save him from an F.

I think his (or her?) points are not well made at all.

He is saying there are not millions of votes left, but in fact there are (Puerto Rico alone is suppose to have over 1 million voters at least).

He is also implying that it will be her fault if obama doesn't win, or that it's her job to make those of us that hate obama love him.....

She's not a miracle worker - just a candidate.

My belief is that she will be the reason I stay in the democratic party and therefore, Tony - has missed the point entirely.....

by her keeping this going and even fighting to the end (convention) - I remain a faithful democrat.....if she is pushed out or leaves the race and we believe it's not fair - then the party risks losing us altogether.....

Hillary is a fighter - that is why we love her.

She has been consistent since day 1.  "I'm in to win". And that is what she intends to do.....

I don't see her giving up....