on this site.  I was all for Hillary till the very end.  Most people realize that its over, and the best thing now is to support the Democratic nominee, even if he is not our first choice.  

The Hillaryis44 crowd jumped into the twilight zone the day after Hillary conceded.  Its truly a revolting site.

You're bordering on HillIs44 territory catfish2.  If all you're going to do is keep bashing Obama, why are you still here?

As John Meacham ably put it, the issue isn't whether the candidate has sufficient experience; the issue is whether the candidate's experiences match the needs of the time.  We make laws to express our values, and our values depend on the times in which we live.

None other than conservative icon George Will has perhaps the best example of why experience isn't always the greatest asset:

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.

Indeed, the man who saw slavery as one of nation's greatest sins was a much better fit in 1860 than the 1856 candidate who was indifferent to slavery.

Today we compare a candidate of the future with a candidate who doesn't even know how to use a computer.  Which candidate do you feel is better for these times?

Obama wasn't my first choice, obviously.  But what you're arguing just doesn't make any sense.  We have two choices: Barack Obama and John McCain. One choice is clearly better than the other.  It's not even close. No matter how you feel about what you call the "frat boy environment unleashed by the Obama campaign", how are you going to feel about 4 more years of Iraq, an invasion of Iran, a continuing recession, even less civil rights than we have now, a Supreme Court that tilted to the right for the next 30 years and back alley abortions?

Catfish,

I would want a president with more experience too, which is why I voted for Clinton.

But now, you have to ask yourself, do you want a president who is going to appoint people like Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, et. al, or do you want someone who is going to appoint people like Jim Webb, Madeline Albright, Al Gore....?  These people all have experience, and I'd prefer OUR TEAM to have power, not the crazies on the other side.  Just my two cents.

Maybe John McCain would do a better job than George Bush, but I still have a feeling he is going to be leading this country in the wrong direction.

Please pray tell.

Obama has the right experience to be president right now.

The polling all looks rosy on the page top here, but I wonder how many people are refusing to answer polls or lying.

My big shock was today, when an old NY friend, who's been a long time Dem & town councilor and his wife said they're voting for McCain.  Neither can remember when they voted for a Republican last.

Already, my 2 sons & my niece and her husband are voting for McCain.  My husband is teetering back and forth.  My neighbor wants to go fishing and come back in Dec. when the election's over.  All these people had no trouble voting for Kerry, except the niece's husband who is a Republican.

Now granted, one son, the niece, & my neighbor are independents, but the others are all Democrats.

The youngest of the group is 42, though.

 When asked about the Supreme Court, they get all uncomfortable and tell you the issues were inexperience and that they expect Obama's tax plan will be very bad for them.

None of these people are well to do.
casino pit boss, lower level manager in a tool company, real estate agent making do working part time in a casino, tech. sales rep, bus driver, doctor's receptionist, 2 retired people.

he tried 400 cases before Illinois Supreme Court. Was elected Whig party leader in Illinois legislature.

I was never in the "I won't vote for Hillary under no circumstances camp," although I was in the "I won't donate, volunteer, etc. for solely her GE candidacy, and will work to elect other Democrats downticket instead" camp.  I really became disenchanted with the way she ran her campaign -- the self-righteous commander in chief test (while saying he was a credible VP nominee pick), the self-righteous "I would never belong to your church," the "bitter" thing, and the gas tax pander (I was an economist in my previous life), etc.

Ultimately, as contradictory as this sounds -- you shouldn't base your vote on what a candidate's supporters -- particularly bloggers, where there is no accountability -- do.  You never know if it's just a Republican troll trying to inflame fellow Democratic bloggers.

known here as Edna Howard. She never missed an opportunity to broadcast her intention not to vote for Hillary under any circumstances in her diaries and comments, and always received heavy mojo for it in agreement.

I don't believe the bullying and abuse that Hillary's supporters endured will cause a significant number of them to vote for McCain, but do think the experience could very well have been a motivation killer in terms of caring about voting at all.

I am voting for Obama.  Not all that happy about it and at this point will do no more than vote for him (as opposed to walking the neighborhoods, knocking on doors, donating as I have before for candidates).

I am working to get female colleagues and relatives to vote for him.  Many are still ANGRY as H*LL.  To dismiss that anger, to talk down to that anger, to not engage with understanding is every bit as bad as the bullying.

Already on this site, I have been told to F*CK off twice because I expressed my anger at the media. I have NEVER EVEN ONCE blamed Obama for the sexism I saw and I felt affected the race.  And yet, that "frat boy" mentality, the "get over it b*tch" mentality still persists.

Sorry but if the bullies continue playing that game you will not only fail to get back some of the very angry women, you will lose some, like me.

I do not think Obama is a bad candidate, nor do I think McCain can or should beat him....and certainly not with my help.  But some of the bloggers, seemingly young and male, are turning women off.  I went through this in 2006.  My candidate, the only dem running in our conservative district, was a good guy.  Yes, he was somewhat centrist, and was ex military.  But when compared to the neocons he would be running against, it seemingly would be a no brainer.  Yet, when I tried to talk with some of the anti war, extreme left of our community I was dismissed, treated nastily and talked down to.  I was angry as h*ll.  These guys egos were so enormous they would rather not vote to make a point than get in a congressman who would vote against Bush.

When people I used to respect at dkos wrote horrid and imo sanctimonious diaries, painting Hillary Clinton as a war monger and sell out they would NEVER vote for, I was livid again.

Sorry but the holier than thou sanctimony does not work.  Nor does bullying.  If the Obama supporters don't get that, then it is to the detriment of all.

"In fact, there was a rash of I won't vote for Clinton diaries. Well the harm was done. That is part of how party unity died. It is a done deal."

I was following DKos at the time, and the "I won't vote for Obama"s came out before the "I won't vote for Clinton"s.  There was a period of a few weeks when Nobama sentiment was pretty intense in the comments; I remarked on it at the time.  Of course, No-Clinton sentiment arose quickly thereafter.

I feel as though there is no way I can subdue a blogger like you.

First of all, I hate to tell you this, but ending her campaign with $30 million of unpaid vendors, hotels, etc., Hillary Clinton is going to have a hard time being a viable candidate at the Presidential level or any other office besides the Senate, where her chances of being elected are extremely high.  Based on her campaign finances of this campaign, every vendor, hotel, etc. is going to demand cash upfront because they don't want to be the last in line for a campaign that could go massively into debt and not win (which helps pay off those debts).

Second, the DNC itself encouraged candidates to take his/her names off the Michigan ballot because the jurisdiction broke its rules.  Al Gore and Bill Bradley did so in 2000 when Michigan scheduled it's primary in violation of DNC rules.  [Please let me know if you need links for this.]

IA, NH, NV, and SC asked the DNC for waivers, and recieved them; FL and MI did not.  The DNC wanted small states to go first in order to give lesser-known, underfinanced candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson -- with the ability to connect with the voters -- a chance at making a breakthrough.  Otherwise, if large states go first, money and television dominate, and candidates such as the ones I mentioned have no chance of making a breakthrough.

As far as caucuses, I see no problem with having them.  Some states, i.e., FL and PA, choose to exclude all voters but Democrats.  Why shouldn't members of the party have more say in choosing their party's nominee than the general electorate?  Is it undemocratic for a private party to exclude members of other political party's in its nomination process?  Caucuses follow a similar rationale:  why shouldn't the people who are willing to volunteer for several hours have more say than the people who merely put up a sign on their lawn, and vote for the candidate?  We need volunteers to get out the vote, and we don't want a candidate for whom nobody is willing to donate his/her time.

Nobody ever said Bill and Hillary Clinton were racist.  Now some of their comments, i.e., "Jesse Jackson won SC twice" and "I have the votes of hardworking Americans, white Americans," were offensive.

As far as judgement, Barack Obama had the judgement to oppose the Iraq War -- the most important issue of our time -- from the start.  Hillary Clinton cast her vote in favor of the war, and never owned up to that vote.

Please let me know what else I can do -- if anything -- to persuade you to vote for our party's nominee.