I just plain disagree with your conclusions. I don't think it's a given that Obama smeared the Clintons with racism. I defended the Clintons all over the place on this issue and blamed the press, personally, but it's outrageous to claim without any evidence that Obama himself was behind it (Wilentz's article was pure conjecture, and he is a paid Clinton campaigner, so how credible is that?). Why not just look for yourself at how Obama handled some of the race questions. I find it hard to believe that you could impugn his true motives here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lzkJGJaR7bw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vmE1VWUlOD0

I understand that I'm probably wasting my time. Your post sounded bitter and certain that Hillary and her supporters are victims. Step outside that box for a moment and understand that as an Obama supporter I've been vilified. And your distinction between attacks on character vs. experience is just not substantiated by the evidence. Your proof that Obama "attacked" Hillary are his side comments that are completely subject to interpretation? This is so thin-skinned! How is his "probably not" comment in answer to a very hard-pressed question about whether something or other was typical of Hillary's campaigning (and this comment came after a blatant defense of Hillary's motives by him) any different whatsoever than her coy play to Chris Wallace that he snubbed her? She didn't at all disabuse anybody of that notion, and what you are complaining about regarding him is precisely that--that he didn't wholesale disabuse people of the notion that Clinton doesn't use race in her campaign. If his protestations are something less than vociferous, maybe it's because he genuinely wasn't sure! Just as she perhaps genuinely wasn't sure whether she was snubbed? Why do we insist on ascribing certainty to these very human candidates? Perhaps they are both more honest than anybody thinks. Her remark on 60 Minutes that she supposes he's telling the truth about not being a Muslim (not exact words on all these anecdotes, sorry--but we all know the references): How on God's green earth is this not exactly the kind of thing you are holding against him?

I could go on and on, point for point, but I sense you are not open. But why? You should ask yourself. Go look at actual footage of Barack Obama. Don't let his idiotic and sarcastic supporters on salon steer you from who HE is. Sure, he's not perfect. But he's not the monster you make him out to be. I have chosen to give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt on the race thing. There is plenty of "evidence" I could find to fit that profile, or to fit the "win-at-all-costs" Machiavelli storyline, but I choose to look at her performance in debates, watch other footage of her, read her text, and go from there.

I have never had any illusions of winning over Clinton supporters to vote for Obama in any remaining primaries, but I am exhausted from my attempts to prevent them from feeling alienated should we need them in the fall. And if Obama's the candidate, we will most certainly need you.

But how nice to end with your kind words, doc. It's been a pleasure.

I found this piece completely contradictory and self-serving. "We're not suggesting Obama supporters aren't entitled to their own opinions or that there aren't good reasons to vote for him outside of identity politics.......but if you're voting for Obama you've fallen for the sexist tactics of entrenched conservatism."

You can't have it both ways. While I understand and appreciate that you're trying to take the high road by "allowing for" other views than your own, at the end of the day you are doing the opposite: you are blaming women for not voting for a woman.

This

And we are, yes, frustrated by people -- enlightened people! -- who say things like, "I agree with all her policies, I just don't ... like her." Or that she’s "cold." Or "calculating."

is precisely what I hear from my Hillary supporting friends about Obama and his wife. And I mean almost verbatim. They point to many side comments or "snubs" that represent his arrogant personality. They say things like, "I'll support him if I have to, but I just don't like him. He's cold." Now I ask you, how can this same speech be sexist by one but not by the other? Is the criteria simply that one is said about a man and the other about a woman?

And this:

(We all know about "shrill.") (Which to me, for the record, describes John McCain.)

gladdens my heart. The word "shrill" is not independently sexist. I have argued here and elsewhere that it has a precise meaning which may or may not apply to Clinton, depending on your perspective, but may also apply to men everywhere. I happen to think Clinton can seem shrill. I also happen to think that shrillness is a function of frustration, of being right and not being listened to. I know shrill because I am often the shrill one in arguments with my husband or others. I think it's a turnoff to many, but I also think it comes with some complexity that is not all bad. At any rate, if Lynn Harris can think that John McCain is shrill, can we now bring that word back into the lexicon without the attached sexist label? I love words and would rather not limit my pool of choices out of fear of political correctness.

I am glad to see you. (I wrote my response before reading any letters.) Anyway, I noticed that you and I often post long and thoughtful responses to each other after the other one has left!