As the editor of one of the most-read progressive e-zines, do you feel any responsibility at all for trying to aid the healing process that the Democratic party so desperately needs as the general election nears? To use your 'bully pulpit' to comment responsibly on REAL ISSUES and REAL NEWS, not simply continue to parrot MSM distractions disguised as news?

How's this for concern-trolling?: I am deeply concerned that Clinton Supporters for Spiteful Voting are going to hurt the chances of getting the criminals currently occupying the White House out of office. I am an independent, but will vote for the Democratic presidential nominee for only the second time in my life because it's THAT important to me - and to my children, who will suffer for the mess the Republicans have made of this country: my daughters, who need reproductive rights, and my sons, who may end up drafted and dead as I watch the march to more senseless aggression, helplessly from the sidelines, knowing my vote for the Democratic nominee meant NOTHING.

No, this is not concern trolling. I really am worried that Clinton staying in the race until the primary is going to torpedo this election. It's time for her to put this country ahead of her desire to be the first woman president and get her supporters behind the presumptive nominee.

I feel it's time for you to do the right thing, Ms. Walsh, and get behind him as well, by addressing the Spite Voters, not fueling the firestorm. By ignoring the distractions disguised as news and standing up for progressive voters instead.

Thank You,

baby_boomerang

SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States.

green job,

We're talking past each other at this point. It's probably not much of an issue for those "low information" voters we hear so much about. This term *may* apply more to swing voters and undecideds than self-identified independents, I'm not sure. Most independents I know tend to be politically well-informed.

What I do know is that the independents I have had political conversations with are trending heavily Dem. Those same people are quite aware we need to get progressive-thinking judges on to the court or our checks & balances become ever more skewed to conservative and leading us further down a path we've come to see is folly.

You seemed to be trying to convince me that your poll indicated the mood of voters not identifying with one of the two major parties, thus my pointing out the polls you cited are incomplete for this purpose. You opined about a broad group of voters not affiliated with the major parties. I tried to give you insight, albeit anecdotal, gleaned from some of those voters.

Should the Democratic Party use this as a major target issue in the general election? Probably not. Does that mean it's not important to a portion of the populace that isn't a "gimme" for the Dems? Definitely not. It could, however, be another way to ask voters, "Can we really gamble with four more years of the same?"

I'm not sure what your link proves. Yes, we know the economy and Iraq are the top two issues in the current election - not one person here has argued otherwise. Your polls don't list potential SCOTUS nominations as a separate issue, nor do they break down voting statistics by party affiliation or lack thereof.

The past 10 elections took place in different times, with different administrations in office, and different issues at the forefront; thus they are of limited value in assessing what voters of any affiliation think important in 2008.

It's called logic...why not use it to prove your point?

http://www.esquire.com/features/barack-obama-0608-2

GREAT article. Thanks for posting it.

10 elections aren't evidence?

Flimsy evidence, at best.

By the way, When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, his slogan wasn't "It's the Supreme Court, stupid". Which dovetails nicely with current polling, where voters say their number one issue is the economy.

Ok. But that has what to do with what? The Supreme Court looked different then. If most voters are listing the economy as their #1 issue, this means independents/undecideds/swing voters simply don't care about the Corporatocracy overtaking SCOTUS? Does not compute.

By the way, I never claimed to speak for you, any more than I claimed that every person of a particular demographic votes with unanimity.

Yes, but you are making assumptions about a demographic you seem to know nothing about. You bring no supporting numbers to the table. So in a way, you are speaking for me when you say "Independents will/will not..."

And it's a tad disingenuous for you to say things like "Please don't speak for me" and then switch to first person plural.

My intention was to speak from experience rather than imagination or assumption. I know & have discussed the issues with MANY other voters who are much like me. I know Supreme Court nominations are high on their list of reasons for voting against McCain. ReasonS. Once again, you seem to be assuming that I'm saying this issue is the only important one to voters not aligned with a party. And I'm being disingenous?

IN MY EXPERIENCE, independents are overwhelmingly in favor of Obama, but will vote for Clinton if they must.

But, by all means, extrapolate from your personal experience. From now until November, Obama only put out add about how his Supreme Court nominations would be better than McCain's.

What? Once he's confirmed as the Democratic nominee, he should only put out ads about his intended SCOTUS nominations? You really don't know much about independent voters, do you?