Yep, that Obama is such a sexist bastard that those legendary misogynists NARAL endorsed him.

(and yes, his 12 years of elected office is legit. As to why there's more Governors elected - well it's been said countless times that Governors are elected Prez more because they don't have voting records that can be skewered like Senators...you know that)

This has been a long campaign to determine the nominee. Democrats must unite behind our candidate, Senator Barack Obama regardless of who he chooses as his running mate. The moment is now! We must begin to use every moment to build strength against another eight years of Republican rule to prevent global warming, war with Iran, millions more Americans without health care and housing. There is a reason so many young people have been involved in this election. The past over seven years have established a dark future for our children with an incomprehensible debt as a result of a needless war that even their great granchildren will continue to pay for. Enough with the distractions, we must focus on taking back our country and changing politics in Washington forever.

Thanks.

Here's the relevant excerpt:

"It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

“I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger,” Anita Dunn said. “But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans.”

I take your point here, though it doesn't sound disrespectful so much as pragmatic.

More:

"Another Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified, said that he was not worried that Clinton supporters would stay angry.

“Look at how many switched today to Obama,” he said. “Look at the Clinton supporters, look at Maxine Waters [the congresswoman from California who endorsed Hillary Clinton in late January but switched to Obama on Tuesday], who were passionate advocates for Hillary, but who switched to Obama.”

Ok, I can see how this might sound dismissive, but again, it also seems a realistic assessment of the situation.

“At the end of the day,” he went on, “Hillary supporters will look at John McCain and decide they are not going to vote for a man who will put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.”

Yes, this is dismissive, but as one who campaigned for Nader and considers myself the base of the Democratic party (though I'm not formally a Democrat), I can say that Clinton's bloc is not the first one to be written off as a lock. Both as a leftist and as an educated black person, I've felt taken for granted my entire life as a voter.

Which is to say I understand your grievance on this, but it's hardly unique to the Obama campaign. I'd argue that Clinton took all those right-wing positions (both Clintons, really) on this principle: what are you going to do, vote Republican?

It's a real problem, I agree, and one that might be redressed by substantive electoral reform.

"The easiest way, the Obama campaign has decided, to turn the page away from Clinton is to go at McCain full bore, start the general election campaign immediately and ignore the media chatter about what Hillary does or does not want."

As to turning the page as a strategy, it seems sound to me.

Of course Obama should reach out to everyone, but electorally, choices need to be made, right?

Can Obama simultaneously refight the primary battle and keep on McCain?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do suspect that keeping the focus on McCAin and the future is a more viable strategy than recapitulating the primary.

But your point is taken; believe me, I know what it is to be taken for granted as a voter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTR0s9_PBN0

Get a grip, people. Have your party now while it lasts because he won't win in Nov, that if he hasn't imploded by August or anytime when his wife's whitey tape is out in the media.

You summed up their words as: "General attitude: They'll get over it and we want to reach out to Republicans and Independents anyway, so who cares?"

Reading the article, we find that you are distorting, if not lying, about what they said.

Here's a quote from the article:

“I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger,” Anita Dunn said. “But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans.”

See what she said there? It completely contradicts how you summed up the campaign managers words.

And this:

Another Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified, said that he was not worried that Clinton supporters would stay angry.

“Look at how many switched today to Obama,” he said. “Look at the Clinton supporters, look at Maxine Waters [the congresswoman from California who endorsed Hillary Clinton in late January but switched to Obama on Tuesday], who were passionate advocates for Hillary, but who switched to Obama.”

He's not saying Clinton's supporters should be dismissed. He's pointing out that many Clinton supporters are already moving to support Omaba -- on their own. Since many are already moving toward Obama without having to be wooed, then it's safe to assume that getting Clinton's supporters with effort (as Dunn says the camp will do above) won't be a problem.

Now, some of Clinton's supporters WON'T get behind Obama. You might be one of them. It would be a shame, however, if you or others, don't support Obama because your anger in the moment blinds you from what is actually being said. From your posts it seems to be you seem to be seeking out and nursing grievances. The fact that you so completely mischaracterized the statements of these campaign mangers only lends credence to this point of view.