MUST-READ POST OF THE DAY

What scary-smart Anglachel said.

UPDATE: The ever-alert Charles Lemos spots a provocative post by Edwards' campaign manager Joe Trippi, who says that Dems should take the McCain/Palin ticket seriously.

WOMAN'S WORK IS NEVER DONE

Oh, that Marie Cocco. Read it all.

It is not lost on them that in selecting Joe Biden to be the vice presidential nominee, Obama has chosen a Washington insider who voted in favor of the Iraq War -- two of the sustained attacks on Clinton that Obama used to devastating effect during the primaries.

The television cameras will linger on angry and tearful Clinton delegates in the convention crowd. The commentators will no doubt take this as a demonstration of disunity -- and not a few will, of course, blame Clinton.

But it is usually the job of the party nominee to build unity once a vanquished rival has conceded and made the right gestures. Unless the loser happens to be a woman. Then it's just like high school, and she must do the work.

"FALL IN LINE, YOU WHINERS!"

It would have been so much quicker for them simply to write "Either you're with us or you're against us." Because certainly, the Democrats' best chance to win the White House is to act just as patronizing, high-handed, dismissive, and sneeringly autocratic as the Republican administration our nation has grown to love so dearly.

I love that comment from Shakesville's post on the letter sent to Democratic fund-raisers and office holders by officials of the DNC. It sums up in a nutshell what is tormenting so many of us about the current leadership of our party and the direction in which they are taking it.

Go read Melissa's whole post.

LATE NIGHT MUSINGS IN THE NATION'S CAPITOL

I'm finally sitting in my hotel in Washington, D.C. after a loooonnnnggg day of meetings and a business dinner and reflecting on what I feel for this city. I travel here several times a year for work, which has always been a kind of thrill since it's the center of our government and the hub of our political system, and because it fills me with pride to look around at so many memorials and distinguished, even famous, edifices my company has built and contributed to the skyline of our capitol city.

But this trip I'm reminded of my visit during the 2004 presidential election, when one of my priorities was to make it to DNC headquarters and collect all the Kerry paraphernalia I could to take with me back to Dallas. Kerry was not my first (or second) choice for Democratic presidential nominee, but I had no problem throwing my wholehearted support to him. I have no such inclination now. I still haven't decided if I can even bring myself to vote for Obama, who of ALL those running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, wasn't on my list at all. At first I assumed that Barack was simply attempting to raise his recognition level in order to support a run in 2012 or 2016. It just wasn't credible to me that someone with such limited experience, thin resume and practically non-existent list of accomplishments (apart from two well-selling and self-serving personal journals) could be a viable candidate for the presidency at one of the most critical times in our nation's history.

But thanks to a venal DNC, cynical party leaders, and a once-again complicit and trivial media, we have what is perhaps the most unqualified candidate of a major party ever. Jiminy cricket, even the totally inept Ulysses S. Grant had better credentials!

I feel like I'm moving through a fog of unreality. At every juncture I see shades of W's campaigns in 2000 and 2004. The fact that we're talking about a Democrat now instead of a Republican doesn't change anything. Lack of governing, executive or legislative inexperience, ignorance of public policy issues, and personal arrogance and sense of entitlement are just as worrisome to me in a Democrat as in a Republican (even W had more experience than BO, though I think it's fairly obvious that Obama bests him in the arrogance sweepstakes). Nothing matters except that the media is fascinated and charmed by The Chosen One (whether W or BO) and despises the alternative (Al then, Hillary now), and when the victor gets the spoils the media revels in its power and the glory of Access. Too bad for the rest of us.

I've voted nearly straight Democratic (two exceptions that I can remember) for more decades than I like to admit, not as a knee-jerk reaction but because the values of our party were, to me, vastly preferable to those of the opposition party. I can't say that anymore. I just plain don't trust that those time-honored Democratic values are shared by Obama or our current party leadership. And I'm unwilling to associate myself with a candidate in whom I can find no compelling vision for the nation, no core principles, no new solutions for the many, varied and critical problems we face, and no burning desire to advance the well-being of the common people that can compare with his burning ambition to elevate his own status (don't get me started on the faux presidential seal, the Invesco Field convention acceptance speech, the Brandenburg Gate rally, oh my!).

So it's a sad visit compared to four years ago. I so remember the elation The Sage and I felt in 1992 when Bill Clinton was, against all odds, elected president. We've been waiting a very long time to once more have that kind of confidence in our national leadership, and we surely thought that this would be the year that was.
And as much as I admire, appreciate and support Hillary, it just ain't about her. It's about Obama. And if I hear or read one more implication that if I don't support him I'm a racist, I'll be more than tempted to throw a really, really big wad of money John McCain's way.

Has anyone else ever observed that hotel toilet bowls seem to be much smaller and lower to the ground than those in our homes? Been meaning to ask that question for about 30 years.

TOO LATE THE INDIGNATION

Digby is miffed because McCain tells a story wrong and the press doesn't blow it up into a big story.

Sorry, Digby, but it's hard to work up a good mad-on, when Obama has gotten away with the same kind of thing over and over -- from his talking about being conceived after the Selma march (it happened after he was born) to the Auschwitz thing, to the Kennedys bringing his father to the USA to study, the errors and misrememberings and embellishments in his two books, the list is long. He's a kind of Forrest Gump, who loves to associate himself with great historic moments, only he makes the sh*t up. In the case you cite, the only McCain falsity was in the identity of the NFL team.

But yes, you're right, if Hillary had made a comparable mistake she'd have been pilloried (maybe we should change that word to Hilloried?) by the media and her political opposition. Since Obama's gotten pretty much the same pass from them as McCain in this regard, your indignation, at this point anyway, is IMHO misplaced.

As much as I have loved Digby since Hullaballoo began, I sure wish she'd aired a little more of her righteous anger while HRC was being belittled in the primaries. It's a little late for me to work up any heat against the media for their treatment of Obama now when he was so obviously the beneficiary of their regard and favoritism during the primary -- and none of the Obamacrats were crying foul then.

HE TOLD YOU SO (AND SO DID I)

Today on Morning Joe, Scarborough asked columnist Gail Collins if she was surprised that Obama had moved so sharply and quickly to the center. Collins expressed surprise at the question. I'll try to paraphrase from memory.

Haven't you been listening to him all along? she replied. How exactly did you think he was going to get all this "unity" without compromising with the Republicans?

The unity shtick has never worked for me, not from the beginning. It's smacked of more and better capitulation to the forces of darkness, and we've had enough of that from Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer and the like. What we Democrats needed at this point in time was a FIGHTER, not an appeaser. What did you THINK post-partisan meant, anyway? You can't have an after-partisanship candidate until there's no partisanship! The Rethuglicans certainly have no intentions of making nice with the Dems, so the only logical conclusion is that Obama has been advocating unilateral Democratic disarmament.

But BO's "transcendence," his oratory, his manly maleness, and most of all the fact that he isn't a Clinton, bamboozled the media, the DNC, and the Blogger Boyz to the extent that they ignored (or maybe they were just crossing their fingers) all the signs that he is a typical politician and opportunist extraordinaire who can show no evidence of actually doing any good for anyone in his entire life and career.

I am quite sure now that once the Democratic National Convention takes place, I will be checking out of the blogging world. The only reason I'm still around at this point is that I harbor an infinitesimal hope that something will shake out that will, after all, bring Hillary the nomination. Lacking that, I have no intention of or interest in being an active spectator of the mess that will follow.

The DNC and all too many Democratic/liberal leaders have betrayed the party and precisely half of its voting base. I never thought I'd live to see the day when Democrats would adopt Republican/right-wing tactics and talking points, and I have no intention of rewarding that bad behavior with my vote.

WISHIN' AND HOPIN'

Well, well. Bob Herbert is feeling the pain.

Mr. Obama is betting that in the long run none of this will matter, that the most important thing is winning the White House, that his staunchest supporters (horrified at the very idea of a President McCain) will be there when he needs them.

He seems to believe that his shifts and twists and clever panders — as opposed to bold, principled leadership on important matters — will entice large numbers of independent and conservative voters to climb off the fence and run into his yard.

Maybe. But that’s a very dangerous game for a man who first turned voters on by presenting himself as someone who was different, who wouldn’t engage in the terminal emptiness of politics as usual.

Time flies and the Iowa caucuses seem a very long time ago.

Is it really too late to do something about this? Is there even the remotest possibility that party leaders could wake up, throw open the nominating convention, and enough superdelegates change their minds and throw their support to HRC, securing her the nomination?

Nah. But a girl can dream.

EASY TO BE HARD

Here's a Guardian tale of how the Left took pleasure in smearing Hillary during the primary by using right-wing talking points.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as "wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn't matter we swear." The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts "who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of" her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. "Hitlery," "Hildebeast," and "Billary" - staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it's only directed at a candidate they don't like.

In a spectacular ballet of aggressive misogyny, attacks on Clinton's femaleness masquerading as critiques of Clinton's policies and campaign failures (separate altogether from legitimate critiques of Clinton's policies and campaign failures), and indifference to the former, the liberal blogosphere - once a proud conglomeration of feisty challengers to Republican memes - embraced as its own one of the most pernicious strategies of the 1990s anti-Clinton conservatives.

And they didn't stop there.

But no, Nancy P., no sexism here except the upside. Nothing to see, move on.

UPDATE: Here's Part Two.

THE TRANSCENDENT ONE

I don't think I've ever seen anything more ridiculous than Obamabot and Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL) on Morning Joe today when Scarborough asked him point blank if it isn't true that BO is a liberal. Wexler nearly wet himself exclaiming that The One "transcends labels." Joe kept saying, if you're a liberal and proud of it (Wexler's just published a book titled Fire-Breathing Liberal or something to that effect), what's wrong with saying Obama is a liberal? But Wexler wouldn't HAVE it. You simply can't pin a label on a man so "transcendent." Here's how the dictionary defines it:

1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc. Compare immanent (def. 3).
4. Philosophy.
a. Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
b. Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience. Compare transcendental (defs. 5a, c).
c. (in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

Yep, the word fits. It fits Obama's surpassing ego and the near-worship his supporters demonstrate.

Here's Mister Transcendent in action. He doesn't just flip-flop, he blows with the wind. What, exactly, does he care enough about to stand up for?

Last night it was obvious to me that The Sage is ready to throw in the towel. If it's a choice between Obama and McCain, he'll take Obama. I told him, I wish I didn't feel this way. I've never had a problem throwing my support to the Dem nominee, and I've NEVER had my first choice win the nomination.

It just ain't happening. And it's got nothing to do with Hillary -- I would like to fall in line with her wishes, but I Own My Vote, and so far Obama's not offered the right price -- principles.

WHERE I'M AT

Like some other pro-Hillary bloggers, I've posted very little since Hillary's concession speech as I sort out my thoughts and feelings and determine where I go from here.

As to my vote for POTUS, well, that will never go to John McCain. The only question now is whether I support Obama or sit out the presidential race while voting for down-ticket Dems.

There is one other certainty, however. I will continue to protest the DNC's actions in permitting itself (perhaps even engineering the whole thing) to become a party built around a single individual, for the benefit of a small group of political insiders, and devaluing its traditional base of working-class Americans, minorities (other than AA) and women. The big tent has shrunk to a pup tent, and the progressive agenda, which appeared to have such a promising future at the beginning of this election cycle, seems to be in the hands of those who would dismiss or amend it so as to seem unrecognizable by traditional liberals.

DNC actions since Hillary conceded, including Howard Dean's efforts to keep her off the convention ballot, suggest to me that there is indeed an insiders' desire to diminish or destroy the Clinton legacy and to curtail any influence Bill and Hill might exert in the future.

There is an ugliness here that continues to disturb hardcore Hillary supporters, even those who have already pledged to back Obama. And while polls may indicate that women in general are voicing support for BO, the party and the Blogger Boyz are still "not getting it" -- the women and men who are most vocal in their refusenik status are activists, volunteers, and donors, the kind of people the party has relied on for generations to stuff the envelopes, man the polling places, and turn out the vote. While our numbers may not demonstrate voting power (and I question even that), we are not so expendable as they seem to think. We are informed and we are influencers, people who will continue to talk politics with our friends and coworkers, and our dissatisfaction with the nominee and the party will be heard and have repercussions beyond our single votes.

So to my options:

Do I continue as a Democrat and work to "change" the current direction of the party from the inside? Or do I change my registration to Independent in protest, as I currently favor? And do I fall in line with a candidate I mistrust and dislike as much as I do Obama? I don't give a flip about party unity; I'm not exactly thrilled with the Democratic Party leadership these days OR their idea of "unity" (read: caving in to the opposition Bushies and Rethugs, and including giving comfort to the Clinton-haters). If party leaders had really been all that desirous of unity, we would have seen fairer treatment of HRC and her voters, and she'd now be our nominee. After all, poll after poll during the primaries showed that Obama voters would be satisfied with Hillary, but the reverse? not so much.

I'm still considering.

THE LEVERAGE THEY WANT US TO SURRENDER

Violet speaks, you listen.

I've said repeatedly on this blog that one of my greatest disappointments and sources of anger of late has been the insistence of the DNC and party leaders that we Hillary supporters just give in, buckle under and unite the party, despite the treatment we and our candidate have received. Hillary is virtuous enough, and loyal enough to the party, to do just that. Many of us are not. We have waited a very long time for women (a majority of Democratic voters and of U.S. citizens in general) to have some leverage within the Party, only to be asked to take it in the a** as usual while we and our standard-bearer continue to be demonized and discredited. Sorry, folks. If Obama wants my vote, he has to earn it. I say again, I will never vote for John McCain, but I desperately hope that millions of Hillary supporters will continue to say, "Convince me" before surrendering their vote to someone so arrogant as to believe it's his due and prizes the votes of Rethuglicans and Indies over loyal Democrats. Anyone who disparages my vote, I assume, just plain doesn't want it.

And that's the bottom line. I'm convinced that party leaders want to rid us of any vestige of Clintonism -- and that surely includes us Hillary voters.

You know, I was actually excited about Obama's candidacy at one point. It takes a lot to alienate a party loyalist like me.

Now my friend Sally opines that it's the media and the bloggers who are at fault, and that Obama didn't contribute to the fray. I don't buy it. Obama is every bit as responsible -- it's HIS campaign that says he's not going to waste time courting Hillary voters. It's HIS campaign that spread the lies about the Clintons' alleged racism and contacted the media to accuse Hillary of wishing for his assassination (her RFK remark). It's Barack himself who said, "You're likable enough, Hillary" and repeatedly conflated the failures of the Bush administrations with the Clinton years. Obama benefited from the media's misogynistic flaying of Hillary and her women voters, and he NEVER SAID A WORD.

No, Obama HAS to come courting if he expects my vote. I want a good, solid reason why I should reward him and the DNC for their bad behavior.

And the John-McCain-as-the-alternative scare tactic ain't it. That dodge has been successful too many times. It's lost its punch for me.

PUMA. PUMA. PUMA.

WHERE'S OBAMA'S PASSION? HIS CENTER?

This is the kind of thing that has made me absolutely nuts this primary cycle.

Kevin Drum:

Obama has been consistently good on domestic issues, but he's also been thoroughly mainstream. There's never been anything boldly innovative or risky about his domestic proposals.

But that's OK. It's not 1932 and the public isn't calling out for a complete re-ordering of the political system. What's more important than Obama's general direction, I think, is understanding what his priorities are. What's he going to fight for starting on Day 1? And I have to confess that I don't have much of a handle on that.

If, for example, Obama successfully withdraws from Iraq, passes a climate plan that looks something like his campaign proposal, and implements his healthcare plan, that would constitute a stunningly successful first term even if you think he's too much of a milquetoast in every one of these areas. But are these the three things he's most likely to fight hardest for? I don't know. He's consistently solid in almost everything, but that very consistency makes it hard to figure out what he's really passionate about. Now that the primary is over, maybe we'll start to find out.

How, I ask, can an intelligent, insightful person such as Kevin Drum used to be, justify supporting a candidate who, he admits, hasn't made it clear what he's passionate about, what he would fight for? "Consistently solid in almost everything," while not "boldly innovative"? You bet. He's solid because in almost every instance he's taken Hillary Clinton's or John Edwards' policy positions and tweaked them to make them LESS innovative, LESS risky -- and less effective. He's advanced not a single original idea or concrete plan to meet the challenges that we face. And that inspires the kind of devotion to his cause that Obama has reaped?

I just don't get it. But then, I'm one of those "old politics," "old Democratic coalition" types that actually value a candidate who can think for her/himself and offer solutions, not just recycle other people's ideas. I just spoke with a lifelong Dem friend who supports Obama, and his response to that thought was, well, that's what appeals about Obama. He may not have the original ideas, but he has the charm and postpartisan support to enact policy that a Hillary wouldn't be able to achieve because of her unlikeability.

If that's the case, where's his legislative record to prove it?

DNC RBC VIOLATED RULES IN IOWA, NH AND SC

Today's must-read.

For anyone who still doubted that we wuz robbed.

MOVE ON FEELING THE PINCH?

I just responded to an email from MoveOn asking me to participate in a bake sale for Obama (more sweeties?). I finally (should have done it long ago) sent back a reply asking to be removed from the mailing list and spelling out my reasons for doing so.

What I got back was an automated reply headlined, "Don't Go!" It included a comments box and asked for the reason I'm quitting. The "reason" box was a drop-down menu, where one of the options was, "MoveOn's endorsement of Obama."

Think they've lost more than a few subscribers/members because of that?

DON'T STOP THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW

I'm doing almost nothing but. I'm ready to switch my registration from Democrat to Independent, but I believe I may wait until after the convention JUST IN CASE.

No, I don't harbor any illusions that by some miracle Hillary will become the nominee. But I somehow sense that this thing has not totally played out yet.

"They also serve who only sit and wait."

THANK YOU, HILLARY

Struggling to articulate my feelings about what's happened this week, I stumbled across this:

The president of NOW sends a thank-you to Hillary Clinton.

Yes, Hillary Clinton persevered to win contest after contest, despite the ridicule, scorn and derision that was heaped on her by the frat-boy commentariat, and we salute her courage and determination not to allow the self-important pundit class to drum her out of the race with their endless name-calling. But will that treatment be the norm for women who run in the future? Has it become acceptable?

Television commentary on her voice, her laugh, her clapping, her clothing, even her ankles - not to mention calling her a bitch and a she-devil, and comparing her to a crazed murderer, a hated ex-wife or a scolding mother - became so commonplace that we came to expect it. And Hillary rose above it, as we knew she would, but it took a toll on her campaign and on all of us. We should vow today, here and now, that we will not allow the media to do it to any woman ever again.
...
Until then, a salute to Hillary Clinton, who said on Tuesday: "I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life."

Hillary, you have made a mark on history for eternity, giving little girls and little boys the full knowledge that women can compete, take risks, take the heat, make hard decisions, and be strong leaders. Whether you are President, Vice President, on the Supreme Court, serving as the Senate Majority Leader or just plain being the best-ever senator for New York and for ALL of us, we will be with you -- as we work together for equality for all, and a better, safer, more peaceful world for everyone, not just the privileged few. Yes, we will. Thank you, Hillary.

OBAMA WON'T WOO HILLARY SUPPORTERS?

If more Obama supporters (and the Obamas themselves) would take this seriously, there might be a chance for the Democratic Party to unite in common cause going into the GE. Problem is, they're not showing any eagerness to do it.

By winning the nomination, Obama supporters may feel that they have gained the upper hand in debates with Hillary supporters, but this is a false perception. This campaign is not over until the race is over. Political campaigns can never afford the luxury of feeling superior to anyone. Obama may have won the nomination but it will mean nothing if he does not win the General Election in November, and to do that he needs the votes and even the enthusiastic support of Hillary and her supporters. Clinton's supporters cannot be insulted, bullied, or guilted into enthusiastic support in the fall. Like any other key voting bloc, Obama and his supporters can only gain these votes by understanding Clinton's supporters' real concerns, making a connection with them and making a compelling case for their support.
...
First, stop labeling Clinton and her supporters as the politics of the past.
...
Second, Democrats need to reclaim the luster of the Clinton years.
...
Third, embrace feminism as one of the indispensable pillars of the Democratic coalition.
...
In victory or defeat, Clinton and her supporters deserve to be heard regarding their views about the sexist climate of this campaign. The sexism that just as much as racism persists in our culture, and consciously or unconsciously in our political campaigns must be "denounced and rejected." The Chinese proverb, "women hold up half the sky" does not even fully describe the Democratic Party where numerically, women account for substantially more than half of the votes we will need to win in November and this core group of Democrats deserves real respect from the Democratic Party and its new presidential nominee.

Problem is, few Obamatrons show any willingness to go there. And they need to, fast and furiously. Those Democrats-for-life among us who have been fixtures in local party politics, the volunteers who stuff and stamp envelopes and man voting booths, have been told in no uncertain terms that the party no longer needs us, that we're witchy old broads and relics of "old politics." So it's going to take a lot to win us over. And this kind of approach won't get it done:

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.”

So he wants independents and Republicans and not the Democratic constituency groups he lost, eh? Careful what you wish for. That kind of attitude could convert a lot of Dems into (I)s and (R)s. Would that then make us more palatable to The Precious?

ATRIOS JOINS THE CLASSLESS

He couldn't help himself.

MSNBC sez AP reporting that Clinton campaign officials say that (MSNBC CHYRON): "Clinton will admit tonight that Obama has nomination."

And then the deranged harpy will bite down on his jugular, suck the blood out of him, and screech BUT NOW IT'S MINE ALL MINE!*


*In case you weren't sure, this is satire.

I hope someone's making a list and checking it twice for all the so-called progressive and/or Democratic blogs that have demonstrated overt sexism and unseemly, classless, graceless remarks about candidate Clinton and her supporters.

LIE BACK AND ENJOY IT

This op-ed in HuffPost is the most arrogant, repulsive bit of nonsense I've read in the past couple of days. The author claims that because Hillary ran such a divisive campaign during the last, "quixotic" phase, it is her responsibility to heal the wounds in the party that she, and only she, has created. Therefore, in order to be forgiven by the more noble of the party, she must definitively declare in a concession speech and often thereafter:

1. That she was treated fairly in all ways (ed. note: all evidence to the contrary).
2. Her loss was due to her own poor choices.
3. She'll be fine and will continue to fight the good fight for women's causes.
4. The campaign demonstrated that women can do anything, that there are no more glass ceilings.
5. She wouldn't have won no matter what the DNC rules were, and her name recognition was more powerful that actual campaigning.
6. She MUSN'T say the party rules should be changed; and it would be helpful if she would actually say outright that the rules were actually designed to help people like her.
7. Neither she nor her supporters are owed anything by Obama or the party, and they'll be delighted to bow down and take another one you-know-where for the privilege.

And if she does all this, she should be invited to keynote the convention.

I'm speechless.

THE END OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

It may still be called by the same name, but it's not the party I've been voting for since I cast my first vote in 1968. It's no longer the party of the working man and woman; it says it doesn't need us any longer. It's not the party of equal rights; it's the party of misogyny and sexism. It's not the party of the "one person, one vote" principle; it's the party of elite insiders awarding unearned votes to their chosen candidate and favoring undemocratic caucases over primaries. It's not the party of political courage; it's the party of words without substance and consequences.

Riverdaughter calls yesterday "a day that will live in infamy," and I completely agree. In every other race over the past 40 years where my favored candidate was defeated, I was able to rally loyally around the Democratic banner, assured that our standard-bearer would be an immense improvement over the Republican. I cannot and will not do this in the GE this year. The only slightly legitimate arguments for Obama over McCain concern Supreme Court appointments and ending the war in Iraq. Obama himself has delegitimized them by voicing support for the John Roberts appointment, and his own advisers have said that he won't end the war anytime soon. We've not heard the breath of a plan for withdrawing our troops, and Obama has demonstrated an ignorance of foreign and domestic policy that equals McCain's. So where's the advantage in our sucking it up once again for a party that disdains us, our contributions, our experience and our judgment?

Movement conservatives have flirted with the idea of withholding their votes from McCain to prove to Republican party leaders that their votes are essential to Republican victories. Democratic insiders appear to believe that that won't happen with Clinton backers, but they're simply, once again, not listening to voters. This is not a case of first-choice, second-choice. We do not accept Obama as our leader, and will not no matter who he selects as his running mate. The extent of party leaders' tone-deafness (and include the media in this as well!) is the popular meme that choosing a female such as McCaskill, Napolitano or Sibelius will placate Clintonistas and cause us to fall in line behind BO. Are they kidding? McCaskill is such an idiot that she openly declares that her CHILDREN persuaded her to support Obama. In fact, I've been appalled all season by the number of otherwise-seemingly-intelligent Dems who have set aside their own judgment in favor of that of their adolescent and young adult children. Some leadership! I listen to, and respect, my own adult children's views, but as a parent I exert a little more leadership in my own family.

Get this, Dem leaders: Hillary is not interchangeable with "any woman." We support her because of her specific policies, her resume, her history, her character. We reject Obama for the same reasons. And we are now rejecting our party because it first rejected us.