Jameka:

As to how Clinton must feel if she believes, as I do, that Obama privately detests her, I would hope that she would shrug it off as just politics. I'm sure she does.

As to Obama supporters criticizing her as racist, there was some unfair criticism of her (though Bill Clinton was rightly criticised for, in effect, dismissing Obama as just the black candidate after South Carolina), but, as I said, she was far from kind herself. She, and not just her supporters, made an issue out of his association with the Weathermen people, accused him of plagiarism, implied he was unfit to be Commander in Chief, attacked him for suggesting that some people were bitter, played up a non-existent association with Louis Farrakan and so on. In politics, you get unfairly criticized. What is new?

As to Obama's flip-flopping and pandering, sure, I'd like to see less of it but I don't see that Hillary is any better. She has flip-flopped on NAFTA and Iraq and even supported a ban on flag burning. She is highly prone to Hawkish statements, supporting a listing of part of the Iranian military as a terrorist organization and threatening to obliterate the whole of Iran. She did a 180 degree turn on the issue of Florida and Michigan delegates being seated once it became clear where her interests lay.

AKA Smith:

You don't need to guess at what I am suggesting. I said it explicitly.

"It is hard to feel positive toward people who claim they will act against their interests [i.e., vote for McCain] out of spite, hurt or whatever."

This whole "women are taken for granted" thing is nonsense. You take someone for granted when you expect their support without offering anything to earn it. The reason why people expect Clinton supporters to generally vote for Obama is because Democratic Party policies are more pro-women than Republican Party policies. Supporting pro-women policies is the opposite from taking women for granted. And voting for the Republican Party and their policies is against the interests of women. Don't believe me. Ask Hillary Clinton who she thinks is the more pro-women candidate in this election.

You have elevated supporting Clinton to being synonymous with being pro-women. In fact, over all women (young, old, black, white) Clinton's margin wasn't all that great and there are a lot of other issues of relevance to women in addition to the gender of the Democratic candidate.

After every primary contest, the supporters of losing candidates are asked to support the winner. All of them are asked to support a "lesser candidate" in their eyes. There is nothing different about that this year. The reason most of them do it is because the Republican candidate is lesser still.

Have you noticed how many women have been raised to prominent positions by Republicans? Senators? Governors? High level public officials?

I have noticed that there are currently 11 Democratic Senators and only 5 Republican. I have also noticed that there are 5 Democratic Governors and only 3 Republican. Have you noticed that?

let's not pretend that Republicans are completely incapable of recognizing that women are capable human beings. Can we stop pretending that all Republican women are barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

Can we stop dishonest straw man arguments. Here is what I said: "Democratic Party policies are more pro-women than Republican Party policies."

News flash: After November, either Barack Obama or John McCain will be President. Make your choice because you don't have any other. Hillary isn't in the race.

And no: no third party candidate has any chance, so voting for one is just throwing away your vote.

My point is simply that neither group has made women's rights a priority, and it's time that changed. My not voting Democratic this year will send them a message that I need them to hear.

Did Hillary Clinton make women's issues a focus of her campaign in any sense other that asking people to vote for her? I must have missed all those speeches about pay discrimination, domestic violence and so on.

More fundamentally, you are wildly optimistic if you think that not voting for Obama is going to cause Democrats to draw the conclusion: "Ah, I can see where we went wrong: not enough attention to women't issues." The link between a bad showing for Obama and that conclusion is just way too tenuous. More likely by far is that people will conclude that the country is too racist or Obama too inexperienced or that there were missteps in the campaign or...

Contributing to a win by a guy who is much less sympathetic on women's issues than Obama is a really lousy way to send a signal that you care about women's issues.

I don't think that the left can really criticise McCain for looking back to who was in favour of the surge, when the left is so keen to look further back to who was in favour of starting the war in the first place. I think Obama is right to emphasise that the Sunni "awakening" preceded the surge.

As for why the race is so close, it puzzles me a little. I suspect the fact that Obama is black may have something to do with it, plus the lingering effect of various negatives aired during the primary: Jeremiah Wright, the "bitter" controversy, "unpatriotic" Michelle...

From where I am sitting, McCain looks like a lying, doddering old man who shouldn't be within 20 points of Obama. But I guess I am in a bubble too.