Since when have working class voters, feminists or hispanics ever been a part of Senator Clintons base? Clinton served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart despite the company's anti discrimination against women employees which have resulted in a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart by one million women employees. Feminists in the Democratic party have no more reason to support Clinton then they do to support Condoleeza Rice for president. When did Hispanics become a base for Clinton. The NAFTA agreement devastated Mexico's economy and in Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign she denounced her husbands pardon of 16 Puerto Rican nationalists despite the fact that these were political prisoners who had commited no violent acts and who had already served at least 15 years in prison.

Many obama supporters and others criticized Clinton for not withdrawing because her nomination had become statistically improbable since at least Obama's victory in the North Carolina Primary. Also, since when has the working class either white or black been a part of Hillary's base? Her husbands NAFTA agreement was devastating for the working class in the U.S. Obama has done well in mostly white states such as Montana and Oregon. In Oregon Obama won the union vote by a two to one margin and many unions have endorsed Obama. It was Hillary the "populist" who told her husband in 1995 to screw white Southern working class voters. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

Hillary would not have done so well in the primaries if not for Limbaugh's Operation Chaos which called for Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Democratic Primary in order to keep the Democratic Party divided. The main reason that Clinton probably won in Ohio was the fake memo claiming that Obama was lying about his position on NAFTA which caused many people who opposed NAFTA to vote for Clinton despit Clinton being a long time suppporter of NAFTa. http://eatthestate.org/12-14/DidClintonWin.htm It is also rich for Clinton supporters to accuse obama of ignoring the millions of Democrats who voted for Clinton when previously Clinton had said that super delegates should support her against Obama despite Obama winning more primaries.

I agree with much of what you said. And it's refreshing to hear a level-headed voice in here. I guess I’ve been lurking on here in attempt to truly understand the mindset of some of the people Joan describes - which has been both enlightening and scary as hell. I don't doubt that Joan’s intentions in writing this article were empathetic in nature. And everyone makes mistakes, but I do think that this article raises serious questions about her own objectivity and qualifications for her position.

This article attempts to legitimize the anger and blame expressed by some of Hillary's supporters (and some are clearly racist) despite the fact that their anger and blame is misplaced. Sure, she calls the remark that Obama is "an inadequate black male" deplorable -- but her article brushes that off. The article isn't about that, it's about how this woman's voice needs to be heard. But why?

Joan suggests that these supporters represent Hillary Clinton’s core supporters (they don’t) and that they are a powerful segment representing "The Other 18 Million" (they aren’t) and that Obama has a problem attracting women voters to his campaign (he doesn’t). Joan also charged that it's Barack Obama's responsibility to try to convert these people to support him, regardless of the fact that they have no desire to be converted and see him as the enemy. The truth is, Hillary created this - she cultivated this – if there’s something to be "fixed" here it’s her responsibility.

That being said, Hillary Clinton's loss is a shame. I was leaning toward supporting her early on in this race (but not in the end). Maybe if she had campaigned more consistently with tone of her concession speech today, which I believe was her authentic self, instead of resorting to divisive, dirty campaigning (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what it was) - maybe she would have won.

When I watched her speech today I wanted to hear her talk to me...to regain my support. She is my senator. I had supported her and defended her for a long time, and in my eyes she needed to do that. I have lost a lot of respect for her because of the way she campaigned, and some of that will never be restored. And she did redeem herself in some way today - it was definitely a step forward. I give her credit for that.

"I think that Joan Walsh will defend Obama from these attacks with the same passion that she has defended Clinton."

I don't believe Walsh will do this. I think that every time Obama is attacked unfairly by the right-wing or the media, Walsh will be here and on television, telling us we had a choice and we made the wrong one, and tut-tutting that he's such a horrible person and why, oh why didn't we vote for the sainted Hillary?

If she did as you suggested, she'd earn the wrath of the Harriets, and it's obvious she's thrown her lot in with them.

I wonder how many Salon staffers will quit in protest of her continued association with the dead-enders, and her commitment of Salon to them. I imagine the Salon board is loaded with Hillary people, so she probably has nothing to worry about from that side.

I saw your post earlier (wow..what a long comments thread) and of course you should come to the imaginary obnoxious Obama supporters party. That would be fabulous.

cheers!

You are right in that they are threatening to leave...or hell, leaving. I understand being angry and disappointed about that. I feel like that too.

I just think that trying to show some compassion for the "vanquished" side helps Obama and his "progressive movement" to be stronger in the long run. That's all I know.

I was raised by truly conservative people. And I think all good people have their imperfect sides, all bad people some bit of the angel in them.

Human nature isn't as uncomplicated as ideologies sometimes seem to insist. I once had a history professor who inspired me deeply by saying "people are always more than their ideology..." And I believe this. All Americans are tainted by our historical legacies, interwoven of sexism, racism...none of us is perfect.

I just think we should focus on what most progressives have in common which is a desire to see the world evolve and grow better.

And trying to see some humanity even in deeply flawed humanity (as I think Joan Walsh was trying to do with Harriet Christian) isn't the same as acting as an apologist for it. These boards are filled with Obama-supporters, and we wouldn't be here if Joan Walsh was truly anti-Obama. We can disagree with her approach, or argue with her overly generous assessments of clinton and clinton surrogates...but she has also been harassed and attacked personally on these boards, so maybe her empathy for what Clinton is going through has been more first-hand.

And honestly, I think that things are about to get worse for Obama in terms of the media. I expect there to be vicious and racist attacks that are on a bigger scale than what we've seen so far in the primary (I've already heard rumors about tee shirts in georgia), and I think that Joan Walsh will defend Obama from these attacks with the same passion that she has defended Clinton.

Let's keep watching. Keep an open mind. And those stray writers on these boards threatening to vote for McCain in June is not the same thing as them doing it in November. (A few will, of course, but I hope not the majority).

I'm watching the news now and I think the media is going to try to play up the fact that Obama might have been playing golf during her speech. I hope not. Oh will the silly season never end?

Peace. To party unity. Keep your eye on the ball.

I think we can win, the Democrats, this election for Obama and for liberals in November. But the "burden" of this historic and amazing victory is being generous, and trying to read the good intentions of those you disagree with, even when you don't agree with everything they do or say....