First of all, Michelle Obama's remarks have to be seen in the context that she is running for First Lady of the United States of America, not prom queen. It is the minimum job requirement for this high position that she have finesse and grace. Her comment on national tv today was well below that minimum.

I have no doubt that she, her husband and his supporters expect all of Hillary's voters to rally to Barack if he is the nominee, without feeling the need to reciprocate should Hillary win. But rallying to the nominee is what anyone who supports Obama's and Clinton's (almost exactly the same) principles and has a grain of integrity would and will do.

Secondly, I could not agree more with billcap that Obama, but not Clinton, supporters over and over and over again threaten to take their marbles and go home if their candidate does not win the nomination....even to vote for a Republican, regardless of how catastrophic that would be for this country that they claim to love. I have seen this on blog after blog, and in person out of the mouths of Obamabot after Obamabot.

As Asher Steinberg says, no way they could hate Hillary so much if they had any dedication at all to Obama's - and Clinton's - principles.

There is something about Obama and his supporters that really chills me, and I think it's their lack of integrity toward Obama's chosen political party, the lack of concern (even knowledge?) among his voters about what he claims to stand for, and the overwhelming sense that they are all that counts. It's scary because it's just not grounded in anything real. A movement? How about a cult?

Unfortunately, overwhelmingly charming, charismatic and manipulative cult - and political - leaders tend to be sociopaths. I just hope that if this is what we have here, and if he gets elected, his goals are benign for us, consistent with ours and truly what is best for the country.

"you originally wrote: "Primaries are play-time. General elections are for the grown-ups. Let's hope the Obama folks realize that if their guy doesn't win rather than sulking in the bedrooms."

By implication, Obama's supporters aren't grown ups."

Those who are saying they won't support the democratic nominee if it isn't their person--yes. And you see that stance much, much, much more often from Obama supporters than Hillary supporters. I do believe that's a childish viewpoint. And I'll stand by that.

"That is their right, and Hillary has to win their vote. I'm not voting for anyone because they have a D by their name. Especially if I don't think they can implement their agenda in Washington."

I'll say again, this makes no sense to me. If you're voting for Obama or Hillary (generic "you" here) based on issues, then since they are democratic issues you are voting for the D by their name. They are a proxy for the D. At the very least, the "D" issues are opposite the "R" issues and so even if the "D" issues don't get implemented, by holding the line against the "R" issues that's a win for anyone who prefers "D" issues.

I think that same argument holds true with your example of Bill Clinton. Let's say Gore wins in 2000 but gets not a single "progressive" item passed. Not one. Do you, as a dem, truly think that would still be a worse case or even an equivalent case of the past 8 years? Would Gore have gone into Iraq? Of course not. Would he have bankrupted the country? Probably not.

"Candidates should inspire people - not make them choose between the lesser of two evils."

I agree. In an ideal world. We should also all live in peace and harmony. I live (and vote) in the real world. This is part of the childishness I see. By all means, vote first for the candidate that inspires you. Then if you have no choice for them, vote against the candidate that most horrifies you.

"I don't believe her campaign is propelled by any hope/ideas. That may be a stupid idea to you, but I call it leadership."

I don't call this stupid, but that isn't what you said-- which was that she had no ideas. I disagree with your characterization of her campaign, but don't consider it a "stupid" view point.

"But Clinton sitting comfortably in her Senate seat voted for the Iraq war. Obama spoke out against it. Clinton voted for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment. Obama did not. Clinton votes with the majority most of the time, as does Obama. But its where you take a stand that makes a difference."

I'd say there's less difference here than you make out (for instance, would Obama have voted against the war were he in the Senate is one of those great "who knows" that will never be answered), but I don't disagree. I've no problem with people finding differences large and small between these two; it's the idea that somehow there's no difference between Hillary and a Republican President that I find stupid. Do you think she'd have nominated an Alito or Roberts? Of course not, and we'll be paying for those two for decades. She may have voted for the war, but would she have taken us to that war? I don't believe for a second she would have. Thus, the silliness of the "not a dime's worth of difference" between a repub and dem in that office (as I see it).

As for "lecturing" people--well, that seems part and parcel of forum speak. Obviously everybody has the "right" to vote for whom they will. People can watch the Bachelor too--doesn't mean I have to recognize it as high art :)

you originally wrote: "Primaries are play-time. General elections are for the grown-ups. Let's hope the Obama folks realize that if their guy doesn't win rather than sulking in the bedrooms."

By implication, Obama's supporters aren't grown ups. They would "sulk in their bedrooms" if they don't get what they want. Those are your words, I didn't put anything in your math. I will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. But I understand people who won't vote for her. That is their right, and Hillary has to win their vote. I'm not voting for anyone because they have a D by their name. Especially if I don't think they can implement their agenda in Washington.

Bill Clinton is seen as good president by most Democrats because he held office for 8 years. No one ever mentions how he lost the house in 94 or failed to get any substantive progressive policy passed. I don't think Hillary will be any better. Elect Hillary and the house will be Republican in '10. And the White House will be back in Republican hands in '12. So I don't want anyone lecturing other Dems on how they have to use their vote. Candidates should inspire people - not make them choose between the lesser of two evils.

Some of the stuff I wrote wasn't all directed at your post. I just believe that the Clinton camp is consumed in negatives - vote her or the Republicans will smear Obama, make fun of our candidate, capture the white house, etc. I don't believe her campaign is propelled by any hope/ideas. That may be a stupid idea to you, but I call it leadership.

Yes, she and Obama showed up in the Senate and said ye or nay to many of the same things. But Clinton sitting comfortably in her Senate seat voted for the Iraq war. Obama spoke out against it. Clinton voted for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment. Obama did not. Clinton votes with the majority most of the time, as does Obama. But its where you take a stand that makes a difference.