My only wish is that polls several months in advance of an election were true, but they're not. I think Kerry was up v. Bush going into the final months and he ended up losing.

So Hillary, or Obama, beating McCain right now in polls is meaningless, and thus undercuts Hillary's own argument for choosing her over Obama. If polls were constant, Hillary would have crushed Obama, because she was well ahead in Dec. '07. I agree with others that one should choose a candidate based not on electability, but rather how well that candidate would do on the job. Choosing someone based on how others would choose is pretty fucking mindless. "Oh, I guess I'll vote for Hillary because she is the first choice of everyone else." Americans need to grow some neurons.

Really, I think if a candidate really wanted the job, she wouldn't say so publicly. I think Hillary is trying to influence the election as best she knows how, and putting pressure on Obama, whether for power, money, appointments, etc., is the real aim here. Honestly, I cannot see this woman doing anything solely for the good of the party, she just isn't made of that type of moral fiber. Therefore, I don't believe her claim that she'll do anything to get a Democrat elected.

Oh, this is all politics, for sure; I would prefer Hillary just come out and tell Obama "You know, I have almost as many delegates as you, and therefore I have a lot of ardent supporters. Let's talk...here's what I want..." It would be so much more refreshing and honest, and believable.

But even so, in both of the last two states, Obama is already doing better among Clinton's supporters than he did in places like West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania. In those elections, nearly half of Clinton's voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.

That's because Republicans have been voting in these primaries.

I second the post that for her, it's about Hillary. To hell with the party. I never believed the crap Hillary allegedly said yesterday that she'll do whatever it take for a Democrat to win. She wants her followers to be RESPECTED? What the fuck does that mean?

I find it strange that when I see Walsh on TV, she reminds me of Clinton: it's all about her, her career, her righteousness. It looks like Hillary's ardent supporters identify with her because they're all cut from the same cloth.

I haven't read or heard anything from you about what Obama should do, in the way of POLICIES to attract white, working class, women (or whatever you want to call Hillary supporters). And why on Earth is Obama responsible for the way Hillary has been treated (or perceived to have been treated?) I've asked this question to you before but you have nothing, concerning his PLATFORM or his POLICIES or his POSITIONS, written or even pointed out concrete examples how Obama's policies leave women behind. Policy-wise, and even Bill Clinton pointed this out, Hillary and Barack are nearly the same, so I'm completely baffled as to why women are "pissed" or angry at Barack for winning. And I'm aghast that some are threatening to vote for McCain. To me, they couldn't have believe in what Hillary was fighting for if they would do that.

Really, I COMPLETELY don't get it, it's as if you and I are leaving on different planets. Please explain.

Where and how did OBAMA mistreat Hillary? What specific policies of Obama's are anti-woman? What anti-woman speeches has he given? When did he call Hillary "old"? ETC.

I'm trying to get Joan to see that what she is writing about, the perceived disrespect, the name-calling, whatever, wasn't due to Obama himself, so I really don't understand why Obama has some moral responsibility to correct a wrong here. Yes, I'm sure he wants to heal the party and win-over Hillary's supporters, that's the only smart thing to do. BUT, I don't get Joan's anger at Obama, and don't understand why all of this is hanging around his neck as the awful albatross.

No, it doesn't appear that Joan is thinking about what she is typing at all. It's as if she's foaming-at-the-mouth angry, and it's clouding her reasoning ability.

Yes, it's ALL Obama's fault. It's Obama's fault that Keith Olbermann is such a sexist, and so is Chris Matthews, and it's Obama's fault that Chris Matthews chooses such awful male chauvinist pigs to shill for Obama, and every slight, every crude comment directed at Hillary or her white, older, female supporters, is also Obama's fault.

She really gives the guy so much power!

This is pretty much what she is writing, and has been doing it for a while, all without any examples of Obama's actions to support her claim.

After eight long years of watching conservatives and the religious right fawn over their messianic leader, it makes me sick to read how adamantly Obama's supporters refuse to think critically about Obama or his campaign. Instead of considering any of Joan's points, they are simply dismissed outright.

I am an Obama supporter and I have thought critically about his campaign. I've asked Joan no fewer than four times to cite the examples when/where/how Obama himself dismissed Hillary or her campaign. I have not read any responses from her. I've also asked Joan to explain how Obama's policy proposals are dismissive of women, and why Hillary's proposals are so stellar for women.

In her piece, she did not cite any examples, only complained about sexism in media and others who support Obama.

To me, voting for a candidate based on how others react is the height of idiocy.

YOU are so funny! That is a good one...giving Blacks and women the right to vote. I love the irony...