Thank you, Hhatchet for your reasoned approach.

Rufus11, you're not helping by calling the Clintons traitors. That's Republican-style name calling. Save your ammo, Clinton is not going to be the nominee and you're only further aggravating Clinton supporters that we need supporting Obama in November. If you don't like the negativity of Clinton's campaign, then present a clear alternative to it in your writings and actions. We're trying to build the party, not tear it down. Throwing rhetorical bombs at Clinton folks (you may argue this, but they ARE Democrats) doesn't help.

I don't disagree with your choice of candidate at all. I just wish that your letters reflected the qualities of that candidate.

Yes, we all have our interpretations of what "should be", but the religious zeal on both sides is ridiculous. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are preferable to John McCain - anyone who says otherwise is too far gone to even bother arguing with. When this primary season is over some Democrats are going to be disappointed and angry. They are still going to be convinced that their candidate "should've won". Some will be irredeemably lost to the dark side, and they will do their best to sabotage the Democratic nominee out of shortsighted anger. We need to minimize the counter-productive anger vote by being reasonable and respectful to our fellow Democrats, no matter what side of the Clinton/Obama divide they are on. If you're unable to let go of your anger at Clinton/Obama, at least try to be productive and redirect it at McCain. Whether we're thrilled or disappointed by the Dem nominee, we're going to have to work together to beat McCain.

I suppose this is indicative of the political climate we live in. Campaign events don't represent actual dialogue (if they ever did). "Participants" are expected to ask questions that aren't really questions, but cues for the speaker to begin a monologue relating to a pre-approved topic. Audience members are more props than actual participants. Within this climate, true participation (i.e., an honest question) is perceived as heckling.

There's plenty of blame to go around for the failure of the Clinton campaign, but "the system" should be the least of their concerns. The storyline has come full circle, all the way from "Clinton is inevitable" to "Clinton never really had a chance because the system was stacked against her". It goes without saying that when you support a candidate you believe that candidate "should" win. However, if Barack Obama had lost, I would be disappointed, but wouldn't be re-shaping reality to fit my belief. It's disappointing when your candidate loses - just acknowledge the disappointment and let's move forward.

We differ in that your primary objective seems to be electing a female President and mine is electing the best Democrat possible. Consider the possibility that there is some phenomenal female candidate for President (around the corner in 2016, 2020, 2024, or whenever), that isn't on the national political radar yet. How many of us knew who Barack Obama was prior to his 2004 convention speech? None of us should vote for a candidate primarily because of that candidate's race or gender, right? For most of us, Hillary Clinton is not our "last chance" to vote for a female candidate, nor should that be the deciding factor in our decision-making process.

I can't speak for John, but as an Obama supporter, I reject and denounce sexist language being used against anyone. Sexism and racism are both disgraceful and neither has anything to do with my support of Barack Obama (and resulting opposition to Hillary Clinton). Sexism is just one more aspect of the "politics as usual" that we're trying to move beyond.

As many have already pointed out, it is impossible for survey respondents to disassociate themselves from the present context and answer questions about a nameless "black candidate" and nameless "woman candidate". The differential success of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has much more to do with the campaigns they have run, their message, and who they are as individuals than race or gender.

My hope is that the "unelectable" myth does not become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where Clinton zealots (and by this I mean those who continue to fight after the war is over, instead of focusing on John McCain) do everything in their power to prevent Barack Obama's election, then throw up their hands and say "See, we told you so, he was unelectable". As a fellow Democrat, I respect your opinion that Clinton is more electable than Obama, much as I may disagree with it. I only ask that if Obama is our nominee you do not MAKE him unelectable, i.e., please don't sabotage a team member just to prove a point.

"I've Advised Before

And I herewith advise again. Treat Hillary nice or she damn well may scrap the kitchen sink, go grab the toilet and dump it on all of you". --The Notorious W.E.S.

Is this supposed to make Senator Clinton more appealing as a candidate? Man, Clinton sure is good at inspiring FEAR in people - kind of the opposite of that other guy. You know, the hope-monger. Given the vengeful nature of the Clintons, it's amazing that people like Bill Richardson have the courage to stand up to them. Thankfully, online letter writers like us don't have to worry about Hillary Clinton going into a rage and dumping toilets on us.

Hillary Clinton is kind of like the New York Yankees; no matter how many games they may lose, it's hard to think of them as "underdogs" considering the many advantages they begin a season with. As a previous poster noted, there is a big difference between losing and being an underdog. No matter how many contests, superdelegates, or public approval points she loses, Clinton will always be the Goliath in this David and Goliath scenario.