Let it go. Certain people have gotten it in their heads that young people are: 1) hopeless, 2) have nothing to add to society and 3) will never vote in large numbers. People like this will never change their minds. Numbers mean nothing to them. Proving it means nothing to them. They'll go to their graves complaining about young people and insisting the youth never do anything.

One prime example of this is Cokie Roberts who was on Charlie Rose as late as May still saying there was no discernable uptick in younger voters. That they weren't voting and never did. Another is Bill O'Reilly who had several young, female Republican strategists on last night who tried to explain to him the effective message Obama was sending to young people and why the Republican Party was in trouble if it didn't start finding a way to appeal to the youth. They told him the internet, from ads to raising money, is the future, and O'Reilly simply refused to believe it.

But thank you for providing facts. And of course the young vote can and does matter. Look at the pivotal states you listed where it could swing the election: Nevada, Colorado and Virginia. Those 3 states will most likely decide the election. And these are the 3 people seized on when they were pressed to the wall to explain how Obama could win the election without being strong in Ohio. Coincidence? No. A large segment of people have a vested interest in making sure: 1) the youth vote does not gain any real power and 2) the system remains as it is now. Obama's candidacy poses a threat to both. Which is why it's been attacked so harshly.

because I doubt it. Something tells me some of them are crouched down in that bunker to stay forever. Regardless of whether or not Obama wins. It'll be 2016 and they'll still be in that bunker, stuck in May of 2008, still talking about how Hillary was robbed of the nomination. Oh well.

but the point remains the same. I hope these joint-ticket fundraisers do something. But not holding my breath.

It just seems that there's nothing Obama can do to win over some of these die-hards. Hence, he's got to go on and win. There's only so much time that can be spent appealing to Harriet Christian. Some of these more die-hard HRC supporters have already left the Democratic Party over this. Nothing much we can do about that.

Time to draw some more independents, sign up unregistered AAs and Latinos, and bring in young voters. We can't spend all of our time arguing over what kind of voters the Democratic nominee's going to get. We just have to get him enough voters to win. And if he does that by taking Colorado, New Mexico and Virginia rather than Ohio I'm just as happy.

You've made that clear over literally hundreds of posts. Many of us have tried to reason with you, pleaded with you, and tried to talk sensibly with you. It has been to no avail.

My point remains: Obama's simply not getting some Clinton supporters. He's been complimentary of Hillary Clinton at every speech known to humankind. It is still not enough.

Vote your conscience. I'm not going to beg you. No one is. You must decide what you think is best. Based on your posts I can only conclude it's John McCain, but who knows I could be wrong. Many of us think that's a huge mistake but, again, it's a free country. People can vote as they want.

Of course Obama needs Clinton supporters. As many as he can get. And the 61% he is getting now, while good, is nowhere near enough. He must find more. But I stand by my statement: he must also be realistic. Harriet Christian is never voting for him. Likely 75% of the people who post on Hillaryis44.org aren't voting for him. Maybe 80% of those who post on NoQuarter aren't voting for him. And a certain percentage of VERY angry Clinton supporters will NEVER vote for Senator Obama.

Hence, after he is done winning those Clinton supporters whom he can, and giving every spare second to those whom he still MIGHT win, he must then move on to the areas where he can make up the difference with those he CANNOT win. This is no insult to anyone. I don't know why some people insist on taking it as such. Any sane candidate MUST work the margin. That's where elections are all too often won or lost. I have no idea why anyone would hold this against Barack Obama. Unless, like many of us suspect, a certain percentage of the electorate wants merely to be catered to while they continually kvetch and complain endlessly about the same thing (the fact that their candidate, whose initals are HC, lost). Obama is spending, easily, 70% of his time trying to listen to them and explain why he would be their best option.

Alas, some of them STILL don't seem to want to listen. They threaten to vote for McCain, then, when the rest of us say enough, suddenly try to hint they MIGHT vote for Obama. You will have to forgive me. I've always been one of those people who says my piece, does my bit and moves on. I've often been ignored. I still go ahead and do what I think is in the greater interest. It is now clear many of you, who would like to lecture the rest of us on maturity of all things, are incapable of doing that. Duly noted.