I think it's ironic that how often have we heard the media deride and whine about the lack of participation among young people in politics? Constantly over the years -- and finally, a candidate comes along who even his critics should concede has got the interest, attention, and enthusiasm of many hundreds of thousands of young people, and what do they do? They complain about that, too, because those young voters aren't supporting Clinton. Boo hoo.

No doubt these same complainers would prefer to complain about young voter apathy again than have the "complaint" of hundreds of thousands of idealistic young voters energized and campaigning for a Democratic candidate. It's all how you look at it. And something else to consider: if Clinton's lost the young vote in this campaign, the GOP's lost the young vote WORSE -- the majority of young people are in line with progressive ideals, not reactionary ones. That's great news for Democrats, whether Clintonites can stand good news like that or not.

Please find any post of mine that indicates that I am in anyway racist. Are you now charging that Clinton supporters are racist? I suggest that you start posting evidence. You might start by reading Cary Tennis' SYA thread about the couple who wanted to hang on to their racist friend. Read my posts there. I said it was not acceptable. Among "white" people, I was in the minority there. Many people thought it was just fine to hang out with racists.

If you are going to make a serious charge of racism against me I suggest that you start searching my posts. You will find nothing supporting your statement.

Also, just so you know, according to my cousin who is searching the family tree, I ain't so pure white.

I disagree with the idea that Obama and Clinton agree on so much that it shouldn't matter which one wins, and that all Democrats should line up behind the candidate. I will not. I hold the Clintons partially responsible for the Bush disaster.

Everyone knew the Republicans were (and are) petty and would look for any way to derail the Clinton agenda in the 1990’s. Bill's need for sexual and ego gratification gave the GOP exactly what they needed. The GOP may be a group of closet peepers, but our president provided the show. If he could have put public service above his need for extra-marital gratification, just for 8 years. The Bush nightmare never would have happened. In 2000 Democrats will be painted as hedonistic, amoral, and incapable of telling the truth, and it was enough to stop Al Gore; who I always (and still do) felt was a decent guy.

Bill Clinton's presidency was always about Bill Clinton and not a higher calling to public service, which is why he did not feel the need to focus on the mission, the mission was accomplished.

I feel the same way about Hillary. I feel she will say or do anything to be president, so she can be president, not for some greater cause. I also believe the GOP hate machine will be fired up nonstop should she be elected, and when she left office, once again Democrats will be painted as hedonistic, amoral, and incapable of telling the truth. This will pave the way for an idiot worse than Bush (if there is such a thing).

I could be wrong, and I listen intently to try and convince myself otherwise, but it is not happening. I don't get this feeling from Obama. So I don't see them as the same. I am not willing to let another Clinton destroy the party I care about for the next 8 years and leave it in shambles as she walks from the wreckage to build a new library.

I am not intolerant, feel free to think differently, but if Hillary is the candidate, I will stay home or vote for a third party candidate, then work to unseat the Republican in 4 years.

GS

Also, I have never heard a Clinton supporter make the absurd claim that if Obamm is nominated they would vote for McCain.

Really? I read that claim by a Clinton supporter in a letter to Salon less than 24 hours ago. If you read some of the letters in response to the election results you will see many examples of Clinton supporters making just this assertion.

Look at some of the comments here in these pages in Salon.

If Hillary is polarizing: it is Hillary's fault.

If Obama is polarizing: it is Hillary's fault.

If Obama attacks Hillary: it is Hillary's fault.

When Obama signed up Kennedy, Kennedy made viscious attacks on the Clintons. Those attacks are Hillary's or Bill's fault.

With Obama, never have a scene get so far on so little substance. That is Hillary's fault.

Don't you know that yet?

I appreciate your so kindly providing context. I'll admit, your explanation makes a lot of sense.

My difficulty is a claim such as "And you know what? I don't care if the Supreme Court DOES overturn Roe v. Wade" really carries a hefty weight in terms of tone.

Similarly, I'd wince if someone wrote "I don't care if we ARE in Iraq for 100 years" or "I don't care if climate change IS ignored for another four years". I think the reason is that after that sentence, I read "...because that's someone else's problem." It's the same gut reaction I get when (usually) young, white, middle-class libertarians discuss how if the indigent, ill, or disabled would simply just work harder they might overcome their difficulty.

Essentially, I'm hearing the common Republican argument that if something doesn't absolutely directly affect you, then it's someone else's problem.

I think one thing Senator Obama would want is for us to care more, not less. I'd hope that he does want us to care about Roe v. Wade, about Iraq, about climate change, et cetera.

To somewhat embarrassingly ape The Wire, it matters. It all matters.

Identity politics is unavoidable, but it's the issues that matter. There's a human cost to the issues, and directly or indirectly, we're all going to pay.