Thinglish: Dividends for the party? How about voters having their say and carrying the day! The party should serve the voters, not the other way around.

The voters have had their say. That's why Sen. Obama is our nominee.

LJwalker: "I wasn't aware of the press release until your link."

Then don't make sweeping statements such as "Barack Obama is no pro-choice Democrat...Pro-choice, my ass." when [a] you're uninformed and [b] it's readily disprovable. It makes it hard to take you seriously.

LJwalker: "But, hey! Keep it up: Obama apparently thinks he can win the GE without the support of a broad swath of voters in this country - including women, seniors, Catholics, low-income (you know, those uneducated crackers Obama supporters poke so much fun at), Jewish voters."

You're ranting again. Show me an instance where either I or Obama said to write off any of these voter groups. It's generally not good politics to write off any segments of the electorate. (Just ask Mark Penn with his "small states/red states/caucus states/impressionable elites/activist voters don't matter" malarkey -- it killed the Clinton campaign in the end.)

"The merger of right-wing Republican Clinton hatred with liberal Democratic Clinton hatred. What a potent combination...Say, you two groups oughta get together and have a big old party to celebrate. It's your fondest wet dream: no more Clintons."

Straw-man. What enmity I now hold for Sen. Clinton is a product of the campaign she's run and nothing else. There was no conspiracy to derail Sen. Clinton's bid before the fact. And, as I've told you before, I used to be employed full-time in defending Clinton during impeachment, so that dog won't hunt. My fondest wet dreams run a different course.

"In the first place I didn't say I would vote for McCain. But the point certainly seems to have fallen into a black hole between what I wrote and what you inferred."

Good, because that would be tremendously petulant and idiotic. But don't pretend you didn't threaten as much. (To wit, you wrote: "[T]he Democratic Party is toast to me. I now feel completely free to vote my conscience and my choice.")

"Aside from that, it's pissy and shows a real lack of tolerance or acceptance to legitimate concerns and anger on the part of Clinton supporters. It also tells me that you are either completely thick or you really don't care about legitimate grievances and concerns."

As noted above, the "legitimate grievances and concerns" you cited -- that Obama is not pro-choice -- was rooted in a complete and utter falsehood that you chose to perpetuate. So who's the thick one?

"Of course, why should it matter, anyway? We're just a bunch of women...That about sum it up?"

Oh, please. You went on the attack in this thread, and now you're wrapping yourself up in the mantle of victimhood once you get called on it. This has nothing to do with gender solidarity or slights to women at large. It has to do with you [a] threatening to vote McCain and [b] spreading lies about Sen. Obama's record on choice.

I'm sorry your candidate lost. I've been there (Bradley, Edwards), it sucks. But that's no excuse to exercise your wrath with lies and silliness.

Sweet.

At any rate, Borah's suspect assessment of Hitler notwithstanding, he (and his progressive-isolationist contemporaries, such as Hiram Johnson and Burton Wheeler) were the last vestiges of old-school progressivism in the government during the New Deal, and were critical to keeping the fractured movement alive during the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover Twenties. (I spend a lot of time with Borah -- not only in the essay linked to above, but in the dissertation I'm currently writing.) So, comparisons of Borah and Obama, while wrong on this front, aren't entirely misplaced.

http://www.smallrrepublic.com

The fact that he was Republican is really here nor there at this time. Most of the left-leaning congressmen of Borah's day were Republicans. See also: Hiram Johnson, Robert La Follette.

Other than a few notable exceptions (Burton Wheeler, Al Smith) and the circle around Woodrow Wilson (William Gibbs McAdoo, etc.), most progressive-minded folk before FDR were in the Republican camp.

Apologies for the Epic Fail with regard to italics tags in that header.

"This ought to be good for at least 3 or 4 more Salon articles. Quick, somebody call Rebecca Traister!"

Ha! Now, that's funny.

I have a pitch. How 'bout: Young men today are wracked with indecision and can't commit to anything, per Ben Kunkel...except when they do commit to a political candidate, in which case they're overly aggressive sexist trolls, just like mean old John Edwards in NH.

Traister byline imminent.

Congrats to Sen. Obama, and here's looking forward to November.

And now on to November.

And now on to November.

And good riddance.

Also, that was a terrible non-concession concession speech by Clinton...but fully in keeping with what we've come to expect from the Senator from New York.

Frankly, Sen. Clinton embarrassed herself with that graceless speech. On the other hand, she further buried her infinitesimally small chances of being on the ticket. So, we all benefit.

For your own sanity if nothing else, wake up. Sen. Obama is our Democratic nominee.

This has been true since Wisconsin, of course. But, now, you can no longer deny it and remain in the reality-based community.

Keeping his powder dry until well after all the dust had settled. Now, THAT's the hypercautious, vacillating candidate I remember from 2000.

Well, welcome aboard regardless.

I'm not quite sure why this scab needs picking just yet. I have every confidence that you're correct, but that doesn't mean you have to rub it in while the wound's still raw, just to fill a byline.