I'm an old-fashioned, bleeding-heart, ultra-liberal, atheist, feminist, who has not served the GOP in any way since I learned to think and feel at the same time.

I supported Clinton because, as Paul Krugman documented, she is more liberal than Obama. And, if you're worried about the Democrats' 40 year servitude, incestuous or otherwise, to the GOP you supported the wrong candidate.

Who said the Republicans were the party of ideas over the last decades, that Reagan marked a seminal change? Who voted for FISA, for Dick Cheney's energy bill, took money from Exelon and Goldman-Sachs and oil company executives and a slum landlord named Rezko? Who used the infamous Harry and Louise to criticize a rival's universal health care plan while his own left out millions?

Who claims to want a post-partisan relationship with Republicans to get things done, after making concessions (see above) that so far seem to suggest giving away half the farm before negotiations begin?

Obama is better than McCain on the issues, but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot.

As a composition and literature professor (and one-time speech instructor), I have to say that Obama was better at explaining and exploring the issues (and he was right), but McCain won. Obama was subtle, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and warm and humorous when appropriate. But he was too abstract and too analytical. McCain was funny, brief and to the point, simple instead of complex, and full of stories to illustrate his points--exactly what the average person, who lacks any background information about the issues, wants.

People want someone who is direct, certain, sure, and comes across as a good guy to know; someone who is smart enough but not so smart that the other person feels stupid. Reagan mastered that persona (despite being really ignorant or maybe because of it), Carter didn't. Bush I and Dukakis didn't master that persona, Clinton did (despite being really smart and knowledgeable). Bush II seemed to find that persona, Gore and Kerry didn't. Hillary was getting there with some help from Bubba.

We don't need to guess who won the general elections. I'm worried.

The conventional wisdom that we can tell whether someone is racist by indirect means, ie 5% say they won't vote for a black but 19% say others won't and thus the larger number is a window to the soul of the racist is poppycock. The reasons Joan quotes Somerby advancing are true, but there are also other reasons to discount Blow's analysis. I am a liberal feminist who supports Hillary Clinton; yet when asked I said many wouldn't vote for her because of sexism. That was analysis not hidden sexism. Many who say others wouldn't/won't vote for Obama may well be analyzing the issue not revealing their hidden racism. Some might well be blacks or liberals, who, like me, distrust the ability of others to vote for blacks or women. If so, then the smaller number may well be more accurate and we, hopefully, might be misjudging our fellow citizens.

Monica was immature but not naive. What follows comes from her own testimony to the independent prosecutor: She told her friends when she took off for D.C. for her unpaid internship after college that she was taking her kneepads because she planned to seduce Clinton. The government shutdown gave her the chance because paid employees were put on leave and interns, like Lewinsky, filled in. One day she wangled a way to get to Clinton by delivering pizza. When she entered his office, she pulled her skirt (pants?) part way down and flipped her thong underwear at him. The rest, as they say, is history.

Personally, I think 2 of the major endorsers are useless. Chaffee stayed a Republican, helping them control the Senate and then whined when he lost. Leach pretends to be a moderate Republican, but he is more of an old-fashioned isolationist and a right-winger on economic policy. He represented my district and I was overjoyed to see the last of him. He voted against every liberal economic bill, supporting corporate interests with the fervor of a Bush or Cheney. He hoodwinked a lot of Democrats in Iowa because of public speeches and votes on foreign policy like the war and no one noticed they were getting raked over the coals economically because of his votes. Good riddance.

People know Obama wants, badly, to be president. They know he speaks well. Many know he plays Chicago politics--after all he played the race card against the Clinton's (to pull blacks and white liberals) and convinced the press that the Clinton's were the ones playing the race card. They know he is a good speaker and really smart.

What peole don't know is what is really important to him, what he will stick for come hell or high water. They know it's not standing against FISA or off-shore drilling, but what is he so committed to that he will stand fast even if it costs him votes. That knowledge is crucial for a politician about whom the public knows little because he hasn't been around long, hasn't cast a lot of votes or fought hard for an issue or two.

People know or think they know that about McCain. They knew that about Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II. They may not agree with the politician, but people need to think they know the issue or issues that the candidate will not abandon. Obama has not shown that. In fact, he has repeated abandoned high-profile issues he said he would stick on. He needs to find an issue that he fights for. If he doesn't people won't believe he will fignt for them.