I'm jumping in here and haven't read far back in the threads--but I'm curious. You write

"I think this particular fight is important. " Why is it important? For personal reasons? For political reasons?

I'm not sure I understand why it is as important to Clinton's supporters why that fight is important to return to. Maybe if I understood that I could stop dreading the next few months and possibly few years.

And where we could get lost is when the battle is for a particular person rather than a particular cause (yes Obama supporters may suffer here too!)? Also, I think that not all of the problems with Hillary and with Bill by the right wingers had to do with mysogeny. For example, I think many of the right wingers were jealous of Bill's charisma and appeal. How many right wingers (ones who I know) talk about Hillary when they say they don't "like" her--its not because they don't like any women or her as a liberated woman--it has more I think to do with the fact that she is complex and difficult to understand. She has an opaque public image. And maybe it makes me a terrible person to say this, but I'm not sure if I understand her either. Or because I find her difficult to understand (particularly certain votes she's made in the senate etc.) it's also hard for me to like her.

Yes, we can elect a person that we don't like. And maybe with time in power people could grow to like her more. But what if that doesn't happen? And I'm not sure I know any more or know now why this fight has to go on. Or if pushing ourselves against instinct to elect someone who we wouldn't normally elect is worth the trouble in the long run. Is there a symbolic battle at stake only--or is there something tangible that matters about this fight?

Just some thoughts.

what about Clinton supporters reading Hillary, Inc

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

I've read both articles, and considered both, and the article on Mark Penn et al bothered me as much if not more.

I will write back to your post last night. I went to bed before I read it and today I have three generations of relatives in town visiting and I must run. But I have thought about what you say and will write again soon.

also, good point about Rashomon SocsandTwigs!

1. According to Newsweek in an article on McCain, his campaign manager has vowed not to run negative campaign ads on Obama if he is the nominee. It doesn't mean that McCain won't try to win, but he's not going to do it the down and dirty ad way (at least not with Obama--or so he has said).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/107581

2. Re Obama's much talked about drug use. Did you read the article in the New York Times that stated that they have investigated and asked Obama's friends from high school and college and none of them ever remembers him taking serious drugs? One friend from Hawaii remembers convincing him to drink beer on occasion...but other than a drag on a joint passed around at a party, occasionally, Obama had no reputation for drug use. He was too cool for that according to one friend who remembered him jogging.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/08cnd-obama.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Just thought you should know....

have you been reading about the vote tallies? I'm from Washington state and it is a very WHITE place for the most part...and Asian. And guess who they voted for? The glamorous black man.

As for Nader--unless Clinton or Barack decides to run as an independent, only one of them will be running against McCain, so that's not going to be a problem, unless people get pessimistic or bitter and refuse to vote for the person who they think "can't" win.

Some people on these boards say that people "won't vote for a woman." Others, like yourself, say that white voters "won't vote for a black man." But what has been great about this election is how wrong the pessimists have been. We have a glamorous celebrity woman running and a glamorous celebrity black man. People aren't just voting for "a woman" or "a black man" but these two specific human beings who are also strong candidates. And both of them bring talent and energy to this presidential year that we've never seen before. Just think, last year we were just voting for white men. Now maybe every year there will be more of a push for diversity. (Look at the fundraising Obama has done with a lot of small donations). Nothing changes overnight and I can understand your hesitation to think so, but this year so far your predictions (in Iowa, Washington, Nebraska, etc. etc.) have been wrong.

P.S. For the record, if you wanted to know, I'm white, and I voted for him.

And P.S.2 For the record I'm getting tired of the fact that anyone who doesn't like Barack seems to reach for one of three analogous candidates (not necessarily in this order) Nader, Bush or Hitler. And I want to let you know that although I don't think he resembles any of these candidates in his potential or in his desire, the most flattering of the three comparisons is to Nader, so thank-you for at least not evoking the other dreaded two.

Peace.