under which Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede the election. She left her name on the ballot in Michigan. Likewise with the nomination: no concessions, all the way to the convention. Clinton is digging in.

It's a nightmare.

Jumping in a little late here but I wanted to address your comment that Obama is a poser on women's issues.

If you go to his actual voting record you can see that he does support women's issues. For instance - a lot of hay has been made about his 'present' votes on pro-life legislation in the IL Senate. But that is exactly how he was advised to vote by Planned Parenthood of IL- that was their strategy to protect pro-choice legislators from repub mud-slinging. Look at his votes in the US Senate- particularly against SCOTUS nominees Roberts and Alito. His 100% rating and endorsement from NARAL. That's just on choice.

Check out his book- where he repeatedly talks about the injustice of the absence of women and minorities in the halls of power. Check out his website too.

I know there is a lot of sexism - some latent and some more outrageously explicit but I don't see that emanating from Obama the candidate or his campaign. I'm sure as the GE campaign goes on he will address these issues more directly but please look to the actual record before dismissing him because some in the media are sexist.

Wow, Talk Left really IS good. Finally a site on the internet where there are actually some HRC supporters. It's like an oasis in the desert that is the media...

Thank you for the warnings against NBC/MSNBC and for recommending Talk Left for daily news (I've put it on my bookmarks to check out later). I will check out CNN as well.

I didn't realize how much the pro-Obama attacks in the comments section mattered to Joan and Co but I guess it must make a difference to them (too much of a difference for my liking).

Thanks again.

No, it's the responsibility and right of voting Americans to vote for the candidate of their choice. The difference between our approach is that I don't engage in the conceit of thinking that my opinion about certain issues is the "right track".

Again, I think we have very different philosophies about voting, and that's okay. To me, the right and responsibility of voting is there to serve the singular purpose of putting the country on the right track, as perceived by the voter. If I didn't feel that my vote was going to provide any benefit, I wouldn't vote. The idea isn't for someone to vote for Alfred E. Neuman because he thinks it would be funny. I've always understood the main point of voting is to express what you think is best for the country. Again, we differ on this point, and that's fine.

No, I never said [that I support Clinton for her personality] but you knew that, and are just trying to be dismissive.

No, I'm not trying to be dismissive. I'm being respectful of your point of view, given that mine is very different, and I'm encouraging you to explain yourself, which it appears you want to do. That's not dismissive.

In fact, from your comment, I understood that you do in fact support Clinton to a fairly large degree because of who she is, not what she stands for.

You are trying to separate the fact that most people support candidates for personal AND political reasons by downplaying the personal and focusing on the political.

If that wasn't what you meant by that, then you might want to restate it if you want your point to be understood. From what you wrote above, I understood that discussing policy points isn't going to shake your preference for Clinton over Obama, which boils down to largely personal reasons. If I was mistaken about that, I invite you to clarify.

"OK, it appears that you and I have a totally different approach to elections. As I understand it, it's our responsibility as voting Americans to help ensure that the country is on the right track."

No, it's the responsibility and right of voting Americans to vote for the candidate of their choice. The difference between our approach is that I don't engage in the conceit of thinking that my opinion about certain issues is the "right track".

"So, okay, you supported Clinton for her personality, something Obama just plain can't provide. I won't try to convince you to change your mind."

No, I never said that but you knew that, and are just trying to be dismissive. Eh....

o I care about more of the same (McCain continuing Bush's policies)? Nope, because it doesn't affect my life in substantial ways.

Remember that when you're paying $5/gallon for gas. (Note: I paid $4.50 yesterday.) You may not be fighting a quagmire in Iraq or locked in Guatanamo, but Bush's disastrous policies have touched most people in the world in one way or another. It's just a matter of seeing them.

"Kstone- Would you happen to know of a site where I can get my daily news that is less partial to Obama?

Thank you."

That's a tough call. Stay far far far away from MSNBC and NBC in general and daily kos and their ilk. Talkleft was great but they will get in line behind the nominee but I think they will be fair. They are worth a look. CNN's tolerable. Fox will be pro-Repub as usual but since McCain isn't a "true conservative" in their eyes so they might not be crazily so but they defnitely will not be partial to Obama.

Salon could be good but it depends how much crap Joan and Co want to take from the pro-Obama attack squad who run rampant through these letters section.

It's up to the nominee, Obama, to ask for the support, it's not to the Clinton voters to come to Obama. He has to make the case. Clinton supporters are not obliged to come to him though the "If you support Clinton's proposals/plans, then you should support Obama" line you're using

OK, it appears that you and I have a totally different approach to elections. As I understand it, it's our responsibility as voting Americans to help ensure that the country is on the right track.

A decent portion of Clinton supporters simply don't like Obama and vice versa and all the position paper arguing isnn't going to change that.

Actually, I totally understand that some people vote on the basis of personality, not policy. Hell, the last 8 years have been a crash course in that. And, in my original comments about why a Clinton supporter should not support McCain, I specifically addressed this idea of "personality politics" when I wrote this: "That is, if Clinton supporters actually believed in Clinton's policy positions and not just her personality, then they clearly would be better served by moving their support for Obama."

So, okay, you supported Clinton for her personality, something Obama just plain can't provide. I won't try to convince you to change your mind.