Clinton Protest Voters for McCain

I was the first to warn this was coming. Clinton supporters are ticked. I've been getting emails for months. Yesterday, NARAL made it worse.

There is something else that I've been thinking about for quite a while, which came into the forefront with the Edwards endorsement. Immediately upon this event people started talking about Edwards as a vice presidential choice. Talking heads on cable began their projectile analysis that we were now witnessing the political Butch-Sundance team that would lead the working class voters to Democrats and the Party to victory in November.

There's only one problem.

It's huge.

No, gigantic, in fact.

What would an Edwards vice presidency say to all of Hillary's millions and millions of women? I won't print the answer on this blog, but it begins with "f" and ends with you.

Oh, and for the record, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius nor Janet Napolitano will do. Ask a Clinton supporter ready to cast a protest vote for McCain. She'll tell you.

As I've said many times recently, I will work hard to defeat John McCain if Obama is the nominee. If Clinton pulls it out, I will work tirelessly for her. I hope everyone is clear about the distinction. The ideals and principles of the Democratic Party mean too much to me, even if the Party elite are acting like thugs.

However, make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party has sent a signal to women that Hillary's candidacy isn't historic. They're nonchalance over her fight about Michigan and Florida, as well as the undemocratic nature of caucuses, not to mention their breezy attitude about pushing her out before this race is through has wounded a lot of people. Ted Kennedy took his fight to the floor with far less of a case than Hillary Clinton has today, yet she's being screamed at to get out. The Democratic elite seem to be saying that the little women got their play in the political pond, but let's get serious, shall we? With the proclamation that Obama was the "presumptive nominee" ready to declare "victory" on May 20th, the women of the Democratic Party were once again proclaimed invisible and expected to fall in line for The One.

Try winning in November without them.

But taking this further, what does this Butch-Sundance storyline say about the traditional media and the Obamabot world, which obviously doesn't get that if Clinton and her female supporters are not respected, they have the power and could stand up and walk out on the Democratic Party to send a message that will reverberate for months and years to come. That message will result in a McCain presidency.

For anyone who doubts this could happen please start reading the comment sections on the Hillary Clinton blogs. Some are over the top, but most people are coming from thoughtful political perspectives from activists who are very serious about what's now unfolding in the Democratic Party. These Clinton supporters who are threatening a protest vote for John McCain are large in number, many of whom are regulars on my blog and in the comment section, with hundreds of emails from lurkers to me every day saying they will not vote for Obama if he's the nominee. The disrespect for Hillary Clinton has been too wide and too deep in the Democratic Party, and they're not going to support it anymore.

Memo to the Democratic leadership elite: Consider yourselves on notice. Hell hath no fury. Believe it.

Taylor Marsh LIVE! can be heard from 3-4 pm eastern - 12-1 p.m pacific, Mon.-Thurs, with podcasts available.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[vsign]

Obama and his wife think they should be our first family. Why? Because America has offered them such fantastic opportunities and they want more.

Have they sacrificed anything? Have they served this country and its people?

Obama and his supporters need to be rejected for their opportunism and false values.

I will vote for a Democratic Congress and protect the Supreme Court appointees by doing so. That is as far as I go.

[aht772e]

only senators get to approve or reject supremem court nominees, amd only 1/3 of them change every 2 years (which menas that AT LEAST 2/3 of the senators that voted on Roberts and Alito will still be voting on amy McCain nominees), so do your best to elect congresspeople to protect your supreme court rights!

And by the way, LOTS of couples have stated that they should be the first couple, the edwards, the dodds, the clintons, the brownbecks, the romneys, etc... It is what the american people want that counts though, and so far they have narrowed the choice down to the obama's and Mccains. Which couple do you prefer, and what "sacrifice" is worthy of doing the job (what had bill and hillary "sacrificed compared to george h bush's service in WWII to deserve your vote in 92, or bob and eleizabeth dole's in 96)? Because if it is really just sacrifice to your country that makes you worthy, how could you have ever been for ANYONE but McCain, as he has clearly sacrificed more for this country than any of the rest of the contenders. But if "best president" is what you are looking for, then why not vote for the candidate who's positions agree with almost all of HRC's and are separated by nuance only? It seems to me that Obama's values are at least HRC's professed values, and values by definition can not be false, they can only be different than yours.

[paganmist]

Have they sacrificed anything?

Do you know that to become the "first family" for a black family means that their life expectancy shortens dramatically?

Do you think they believe they will waltz in and live in glory and splendor for the next four years? With a KKK grand wizard who's already stepped forth and said that there are bullets with Obama's name on them?

You're insane to believe that Obama is just doing this for glory. Not in a world when white men who are hateful enough will RAPE YOUR WOMEN to teach you to "stay in your place". You view him as power-hungry because those are the motives that would prompt someone from your cultural experience to pursue the presidency.

But I'm black. And Obama's black enough to know that for him, the Presidency represents that constant, CONSTANT, C O N S T A N T danger of being shot, maimed, killed, etcetera.

Make up whatever reasons you want, but this Presidency isn't about glory for a man whose life and whose family will be at risk from now until infinity. These are the actions of a man who is driven to serve his country, and THAT is the BEST reason for running for President.

[patmancando]

It is driven by the "audacity of ambition"

2yrs in Illinois state legislatur­e.......ra­n for US Senate and lost.
6 more yrs in Illinois state legislatur­e.........­ran again for US Senate against Alan Keyes,
another black, TV personality and perennial candidate for office (usually for POTUS)
and won against this no competition candidate. Voted present 126 times in the
state legislature.

1 1/2 yrs in the Senate and ran for POTUS, where he has under 50% voting record and
and he co-sponsored two bills in the 3 years he has been in the US Senate,

You think this man has the ability to run this county and get it out of the mess GWB is leaving? I think he has the arrogant audacious ambition to think he can do it. Think about the oft expressed "there is the urgency of now", and I agree with that, but I think that urgency is to restore our economy, our middle class and our respect in the world.
These are perilous times, and you want to trust it to a man with a limited resume' and unlimited ambition?

[Pieter B]

"Do you know that to become the "first family" for a black family means that their life expectancy shortens dramatically?"

I don't know that, and neither do you, because we've never had a black "first family". Every President and family, white, black, green, purple, male. female or indeterminate becomes a target and is in "constant, CONSTANT, C O N S T A N T danger of being shot, maimed, killed, etcetera." That's why we have a Secret Service.

You may speculate that a black "first family" is in greater danger, but that's all it is -- speculation.

[JavaCityGal]

I've got a few questions. I've heard some Hilary supporters say that they will vote for McSame if Hillary is not the nominee, because they want to punish Obama and the DNC.

Q--the rules that everyone signed up for is that one with the most delegates wins the Dem nomination. This is not determined by Obama or the DNC, it's determined by the voters and the proportional delegates. If Obama is winning the most delegates, by American voters -- why punish Obama or the DNC?

Q-If the winner is determined by delegates, why all the talk about popular vote? Also, why do some Hillary supporters count the popular vote from the states that don't currently count, FL and MI -- even though Obama wasn't on the ballot? And why don't they count the popular vote from caucus states that do count, like Washington state? Why does my state, amongst the other caucus states not important to Hillary in her popular vote count -- I want my vote to count also. Why is it wrong to not count FL or MI, but it's okay to not count caucus states in the popular vote?

Q-If Hillary supporters are complaining of sexism in the DNC, and will in turn vote Republican, can anyone tell me how many Republican female senators or governors are currently in office?

[Zanti]

"Q--If Obama is winning the most delegates, by American voters -- why punish Obama or the DNC?"

To win the primary election, Hillary or Obama need 2024 (regular) delegate votes. The race is too close for either candidate to win those. So, the decision must be made at the Dem convention by the superdelegates.

The media is playing the game of adding the pledged SD votes to determine Obama's delegate edge, with the idea that this edge, as computed, will inform the SDs' decision come the convention. The problem, of course, is that the SD vote has ALREADY been computed into that "metric." They obviously want people to think they're seeing the delegate balance PRIOR to SD input.

Basing a projection on a projection is part of the whole media pattern of jumping the gun and inflating Barack's "metrics." The media's goal has been to subvert the primary election. Since late Feb., we've been hearing that Hill is toast. Imagine the effect on her votes.

"Q-If the winner is determined by delegates, why all the talk about popular vote?"

Because neither candidate can win 2024 (regular) delegates (and with them the primary election), the SDs will have to look at all the so-called "metrics" and make a decision. The popular vote is a major "metric."

[JavaCityGal]

Thanks Zanti, but I still have questions.

According to RCP, Obama is ahead 153 pledged delegates, and 173 total delegates ahead, which doesn't seem close to me. Whenever I see the delegate number reported, MSNBC, CNN, RCP etc -- I always see both the pledged delegate number, and the total delegate number for both Obama and Hillary. I don't see them reporting Obama's numbers in a different way or using a different metric than the way they report on Hillarys. About the media, I think the media's motives are ratings. Although I agree that very early on, the media was easy on Obama, I've seen him crucified by the media 24/7 since March. I also think that after Hillary lost 12 races in a row, it became clear that Hillary mathmatically had a very little chance of catching up in pledged delegates. And yet, the media still followed her narrative -- such as Rocky, fighter, come-back kid etc.

Perhaps the popular vote is one metrics that the SDs may consider, but there are others --delegate numbers, states won, electability etc. I also still question why caucus states are not counted in the popular vote. This seems very unfair, that my vote doesn't count in this metric. If MI (no Obama on the ballot) and FI are counted, why not caucus states? I just think Hillary's popular vote totals should be fair and consistent. It doesn't help her case with voters in caucus states to be disenfranchised by her.

[Mesaywar]

Zanti, you do realize that your post is absolute nonsense, don't you?

[RandyRP]

A vast media conspiracy, now I get it. By reporting the number of Superdelegates (the only metric HRC had in her favor until very recently) on Obama it makes him seem like the winner.

[skidz12]

Hillary lost because of something called resonance. Barack Obama resonated with more voters than she did. You can argue over why he did but the fact is that he did.

Hillary, as smart and accomplished and as powerfull as she is miscalculated big time. She ran in the wrong year. She should have run in 2004 ( i promise she would have won, even I would have been behind her then and I think her and her husband are a scam). She worried about her perception as a woman. Big mistake, quit whining and pointing out the obvious and overcome it with strength and confidence ( as she's done too little too late). She underestimated her opponents and staffed her campaign with icompetents.

Those were her mistakes, nobody else but her to blame. But then Bill Clinton screwed up and turned African Americans completely against her compounding her growing problems..

The only argument you make worthy of attention is the true fact that she is not officially eliminated and has a right to continue voicing her message. Yes Ted Kennedy had less of an argument to go to the convention and Hillary has as good a case as anyone ever but Ted Kennedy was wrong then and she would be wrong now. The stakes are too high in november for too many people for personal ambition and stubborness to get in the way no matter how compelling a case there may be for an argument.

[byteb]

Hillary also lost because of a mismanaged campaign marked by a reliance on the wrong ppl (Mark Penn and Patty S Doyle). Hillary also lost because she squandered vast amounts of money, because she never had any strategy post Super Tuesday, neglected the smaller states and put so much into Iowa, because Bill Clinton imploded, because she became too negative, because she kept finding new voices and finally because ppl voted for Obama over her.

[aht772e]

taylor Marsh,
"of course, I will tirelessly work for the democratic nomineee, but I can't speak for those other passionate clinton supporters­"......as in listen mister, you don't have to pay my company protection, and I surely wouldn't hurt you or your family, but some fo the folks around here are pretty riled up about a newcomer, and I don't know what THEY will do...

grow up, your threats mean nothing, and show the pathetic nature of your crybaby movement. The democratic party does not OWE women ANYTHING!!!!!

Please note that FOURTY EIGHT PERCENT (48%) of american women who voted in 2004 voted for George W Bush . Are we really to believe that that number will be worse if Obama picks a male VP? If more than 48% of women would vote for McBush, then what are the rest of us doing fighting for womens rights? If you are willing to give up supreme court justices as part of a hissy fit ( I know , very sexist, but really, I wasn't talking about you, because YOU will work tirelessly for the democratic nominee), then maybe feminist politics should not be taken seriously. I know that this political season has caused me and many other progressives to rethink the whole feminist movement (which I thought was supposed to bring freedom from sexual politics for all of us)and wonder who told them that any group is ENTITLED to any specific elected office.

[Daisy1111]

To all the Obama supporters:

Do you realize Obama is behind McCai in polls of all the swing states?

Do you relaize it is not a given that Obama wil beat McCain?

Are you ready for the REAL kitchen sink the GOP will throw at Obama?

This is not a done deal -- Obama has a long hard road ahead of him to win the White House.

And he could lose by a slim mrgin -- just like Kerry lost by a slim margin thanks to Ohio.

Check your history books -- when was the last time a liberal Dem candidate won the White House?

You have spent so much time an engery beating Hillary into the ground, you seem clueless too the huge numbers of voters likely to vote for McCain.

And if McCain continues to allude to the act he will be a one-term president (as he has lately), it will be even harder for Obama to win.

You heard it here first - after McCain is officially endorsed as the GOP candidate in their convention, he will anounce he'll be a one-term president.

Than watch the game board change.

[aht772e]

just curious, but how far behind Clinton was obama in any poll of any state at this point (6 months) prior to the first primaries? ANd how did those "elections" turn out? polls are meaningless. I'll give you a stat, try this one on for size....re­member the massive bashing Obama took in W. Virginia, with all those hard working white blue collar workers sying that they couldn't vote for him? Well, who got more votes from that state that night, McCain or Obama? If you answered Obama, you would be correct. I am so sick of people telling us why the right candidate can't win, even as he wins delegate after delegate, state after state, poll after poll. If the current conditions persist, the republicans won't be able to win ANYTHING in November, and the ONLY thing that will get them energized, is a Clinton anywhere near the ticket.

and if you think McCain announcing he's a one term president is something you are telling us first, then you don't get around much......

[McFlipFlop]

You say, "Do you realize Obama is behind McCain in polls of all the swing states?"

No, your statement is factually inaccurate. Obama is beating McCain in the polls in the following swing states: Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, and Oregon.

All of these are considered 'purple' states for the election this year.

[itmaybetoolate]

I would urge any HRC supporters to vote their child's interest and not their own. Which candidate will work to create the world that they want their children and grandchildren to live in? Mcinsane? Voting for him under ANY circumstance is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Use your anger to take over your local democratic party and start building a grassroots effort to get more women in the senate, the house, and th white house.

[sffan]

My question is do the women understand math? I know they are apart of my generation
when girls were not encouraged to take advance math classes, but we did get basic
math and ladies the math does not add up for your noble leader Hillary. So since this
is a free country and we can vote or not vote for whom ever we want to I say go forth and
vote for Mccain, or you can set this election out and wait until 2017 when President
Obama has had eights years in the White House and Hillary can run again maybe it
will even be another woman running too, maybe this just was'nt the year of the woman.

[meileen]

"It's the map, not the math."
HRC
May 16, 2008

[McFlipFlop]

I don't understand why you won't admit that Obama has a winning map.

Here's Obama's winning electoral college scenario, which he is winning NOW according to polling, with 274 votes: California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Massachusetts (12), Washington (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), DC (3), and Vermont (3).

Of course, he also may win Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), and who knows what else.

The point is that even with today's polling, Obama wins the general as shown above.

[McFlipFlop]

So you refuse to acknowledge Obama's winning map. Is that your point?

Here's Obama's winning electoral college scenario, which he is winning NOW according to polling, with 274 votes: California (55), New York (31), Pennsylvania (21), Illinois (21), Michigan (17), New Jersey (15), Massachusetts (12), Washington (11), Maryland (10), Minnesota (10), Wisconsin (10), Colorado (9), Oregon (7), Connecticut (7), Iowa (7), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Hawaii (4), Maine (4), Rhode Island (4), Delaware (3), DC (3), and Vermont (3).

Of course, he also may win Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Missouri (11), and who knows what else.

The point is that even with today's polling, Obama wins the general as shown above.

[Gemma08]

She spelt 'math' 'map'... LOL!

[Dap]

Is that like 2+2=3, the Hillary, me, Me, ME, meme, just asking?

[Kane]

John Paul Stevens
Born April 20, 1920 (age 87)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Born March 15, 1933 (age 75)

Antonin Scalia
Born March 11, 1936 (age 72)

Anthony Kennedy
Born July 23, 1936 (age 71)

Stephen Breyer
Born August 15, 1938 (age 69)

David Souter
Born September 17, 1939 (age 68)

Clarence Thomas
Born June 23, 1948 (age 59)

Samuel Alito
Born April 1, 1950 (age 57)

John Roberts
Born January 27, 1955 (age 53)

There's a real possibility that the next president could be appointing six justices to the Supreme Court. That would have a direct impact on your life, your children's lives and their children's lives and well beyond. That is how important this election is. Iraq. Katrina. Torture. Guantanamo. Iran. 100 years of war. Health care. Recession. Do any of these register in your mind at all? It's imperative for all democrats to give their support to the Democratic nominee. Hillary Clinton lost; so what? Boo f-ing hoo. This is the Democratic partry, not the Clinton party. Get over it, and start thinking about the country. Get beyond the pettiness and ego driven arguments!

[meileen]

Obama and his boys club should have thought about that sooner. BHO could have taken the VP slot, learned the ways of Washington, and we would have had 16 years to fix the problems that he laments about the place. Now, we will end up with McCain, and we'll have to wait another 4 years to get a Dem in the White House.

FYI, before you idol fans start crying your typical, "But, but, Clinton," once Obama loses in November, keep in mind (it was his campaign manager who said) you didn't need the white working class vote, didn't need the Latino vote, and from what I saw today (Sam Stein), you don't even need the Jewish vote. You did need Hillary's supporters, and I believe you lost a lot of them this week.

[MNfreeze]

Why should Obama have taken the VP slot? He's freakin' winning!!! This kind of post is so insulting! Let's say Hillary and Joe Biden were the two remaining dems right now, and Biden supporters were on here saying "Oh well, Hillary's run a good race. She's ahead in every metric, but Joe Biden should be President since he has so much more experience than her". HRC supporters would go APESHIT!

Apparently Clinton supporters do not understand the way elections work. The person with the most delegates and most votes (even with MI and FL) WINS.

Quit treating this process like we all owed Hillary a coronation.

If Obama loses in the general...­well that's the way it goes. But he won the nomination FAIR AND SQAURE!

[Noelle]

Why would the candidate with the most delegates and twice as many states won take the VP slot and give his win to somebody else? This makes no sense. What if it came down to Hillary and Joe Biden and Hillary had more delegates and states won. Would you be asking Hillary to give up the nomination to Biden because he was in Washington longer?

[WAstateliberal]

This post is classic because it reveals what is really going on here: Women who are projecting a whole host of issues from their own lives into this campaign. Your post reveals a hatred for men.

You are, at a minimum, a passive aggressive woman who has allowed herself to be defined and limited by the patriarchal paradigm and has no idea how to cope with it. So you project anger onto what you perceive as patriarchy--men. How simplistic. How Second Wave. How Boomer.

We need change.

[feelfree]

Yes the price would be high for the Democratic Party and the country for the disrespect shown toward. parties largest bloc of voters.

Perhaps the Party and country needs to pay a price so that women can gain the respect they deserve. I didn't see on your list that in 2008 women still earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. Men get paid more for the same work. Based on the belittling coverage of the media and the lack of response from Party leadership, I'm not sorry for not being able to get over that.

I think its a price some women would be willing to pay to be heard otherwise women continue to be voters the Democratic Party takes for granted.

[sytgrl]

I'm sorry, but you do know that McCain is against allowing women to sue for pay discrimination, and equal pay for women, right?

[sco8d]

Barack Obama is not the reason women earn 77 cents on the dollar, you are all projecting any wrongs, percieved or real on to the male candidate. The grand poobahs in the Dem party are not the only ones who will pay a price with your protest vote, it will be everyone in the country and a large part of the rest of the world. If you think endless war, lack of reproductive rights, recession and poverty are an acceptable price to pay for a silly protest vote you all are more selfish than anyone thought.

Any of you over the child bearing stage of you life are especially shameless, you had the advantage of the reproductive rights gained in the 70's (and I am sure many of you fought for them) and now that you don't need them you will risk losing them for your children and grandchildren?

Sad, so sad.

Not one of you could ever claim to be a feminist, you are all shameful, selfish and frankly disgusting.

Hillary Clinton is a loyal, clever, ambitious and good Democrat, try following her example.

[aht772e]

48% of women voted for george bush, so what is this largest block stuff!!!!!!!

slightly more than half of women voted democratic, slightly less than half voted republican, what is there to take for granted.

on the other hand, african americans routinely vote more than 80% democratic. Can you imagine your outrage (and mine) if an african american leader demanded an african american VP if Hillary had won or they might not vote! (and they haven't NOT EVER)! I thought she was a candidate for president, NOT JUST A WOMEN'S candidate. When candidates lose, it means they lost. They can use their leverage to get what THEY want. Do you really think Hillary wants some OTHER woman to be Obama's VP? Be Hillary's leverage, let her use you if you like, but don't threaten US with your demands. Let Hillary decide what role she wants to play in the future of the democratic party.

As a white man , i am pretty sure that the supreme court is not going to rule against the freedoms I have over my body, of my rights to earn comparable pay for comparable work, but I want those things for my daughters, and for all americans. But you can't run on a campaign of change, and then invite the past to be your VP.

[McFlipFlop]

You say, "Perhaps the Party and country needs to pay a price so that women can gain the respect they deserve."

This is so wrong in so many ways. I do hope you don't expect my niece to die in Iraq because you think the country needs to 'pay a price'. Very sad commentary.

[Daisy1111]

Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

All we have to do is vote in democrat congressmen and senators who will say "nay" to any anti-abortion Justice nominated by McCain.

[aht772e]

just as a lark picture this, if hillary supporters, I am assuming a majority women, spitefully withold voting for obama, why would obama supporters , THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC VOTERS, pressure senators ( according to our constitution congressmen don't get a vote, and only 1/3 of senators are up for election every 2 years) that would say "nay" to a McCain "pro-life" judge? After all, his election would confirm that americans don't care enough about the issue, or that they agree that abortion law should be left to the states, that roe v wade should be overturned.

Can you people get it through your head that a political party AGREES on common goals, and works to achieve them, even when they might not agree with every result. It is called co operation, something that a lot of progressives have spent a lot of their energy on feminist issues among others these past 40 years in order to get a more perfect union.

[WAstateliberal]

You see, there is no point talking about this anymore. You actually believe that the Dems will just let several seats on the Court sit vacant? You don't believe they would worry about political repercussion? You should try college, perhaps some poli-sci courses. The Dem controlled legislative branch confirmed Mukasey as AG. He is a feckless thug. Better than leaving it vacant, they figured...­less mess and all.

The broader point is that this is petty bullshit. You are acting like a baby. When my candidate, Dean, lost, did I punish Kerry by voting for Bush? No, because that would make me a fucking idiot.

Grow up.

p.s. to you and Taylor Marsh--Hillary is not the candidate, Bill is. The fact that you don't see that speaks volumes about the intellectual level on which you are operating.

[McFlipFlop]

And how many nominees will McCain go through before he provides one that we like? It will never happen. And the Dems will have to agree to one of his nominees.

And what about the other issues mentioned? What are your priorities, for the rest of your life? These are life long appointments.

[ErinOK]

You and Hillary supporters have the right to vote for whomever you chose. However, it is my belief that this election is bigger than either party and certainly bigger than the candidates. We have two candidates that want us to leave war and promote peace and one that wants to stay at war and possibly start another. One pro-peace candidate has lost and because of this people are willing to vote out of spite instead of for the good of our children, our country and ourselves. Sorry...I find this to be very selfish and hope that you can live with yourselves when another 4000 die in Iraq because they voted for McCain. That is a very conservative number because even more could die in Iran. Vote out of spite. The next time you have to look at another woman that lost her child in this war (that we shouldn't even be in) will you be able to feel jusified by your actions?

[Zanti]

"You and Hillary supporters have the right to vote for whomever you chose."

Why, thank you. That's very kind.

[strifeknot]

Don't get your panties in a bunch, sweetie.

[NYC80]

This still a free country right?, somethings its better to vote for dignity and respect than over economic problems and that is my friends lol will seal Obambi defeat in November.

[byteb]

I think it's better if you don't vote for Obama. He'll win without you.

[John333]

In 1998, at a Republican fundraiser, McCain told this joke: “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

How any woman who claims to support Hillary Clinton could justify voting for this ahole, just because they're angry at those of us who support Obama, is beyond me.

And I'm getting a little tired of the criticism of "Democratic Elite" who are calling for Clinton to get out of the race. I know of no politician other than McGovern who has called for her to get out. Who are these "elite" who are calling for her to leave? I've only read it from rude bloggers - hardly the elite.

[feelfree]

I'm leaning toward leaving that section of the ballot unmarked. I believe that may be an option for voters who think both Obama and McCain are bad ideas.

[sco8d]

McGovern was in her corner until he realized that it was over. It is her friends not Obama's that have called for her to drop out.

[WAstateliberal]

Exactly. It's a straw man argument.

[Zanti]

Watch any TV? Read any newspapers? Any magazines?

The calls for Hillary to leave have been coming from these three sources for months. And you've been where? I'm starting to think you're putting everybody on.

[byteb]

McCain reportedly called his wife a most obscene name in front of two reporters. Any woman who votes for him should apologize to other women who try to live their lives with dignity.

[Gma11]

"However, make no mistake about it, the Democratic Party has sent a signal to women that Hillary's candidacy isn't historic."

My father was an artificial inseminator - and one thing I learned to recognize early in life was bulls*it. This is so incredibly stupid it's hard to believe you are adult women.

I'm 60 - white - and supporting Obama. It has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with sex. It's about effectiveness, process, and ethics. I've had to work too damn hard all my life to have the luxury of playing the self-righteous victim.

How disgusting that if you don't get your way you pick up all your marbles and go home whining your threats. You want to keep playing the same games the boys you grew up with played. While some of us just don't want to play those games anymore.

[forsmokey]

Gather round my fellow ladies and look who's on the march. It's Kimberly Myers, Cynthia Ruccia, and Taylor Marsh heading up the huffy, pseudo feminist, I Am Entitled Woman - Hear Me Roar, blackmail/boycott , anti-Obama, finger wagging Bill Clinton - seat all the delegates - All Star Band.

[meileen]

And proud of it!

[WAstateliberal]

So you love women--as long as it isn't Kathleen Wiley, right? She is a lying c*** who doesn't get to be part of your club, right?

I forgot about the memo we women got in the late 90s: Women who defy or tell the truth about Bill Clinton are whores, liars, sluts, and opportunists. Women who fall in line get approval (because that's Second Wave feminism is really about, right?).

[SayonaraSnot]

And they act as if it's a club any self-respecting woman would want to be a part of! Count me out.

[Zanti]

"Count me out."

Done, most likely. I'm sure they had you pegged long ago.

[FogCityJohn]

Your complaints about the allegedly poor treatment of Hillary Clinton would have far more force if you hadn't been cheering every one of Clinton's gutter campaign tactics.

And why don't you just be honest about the "women" supporting Clinton? You really mean "white women." Obama is getting the support of the overwhelming majority of African-American women, but I guess they don't count as "women" to you. There are good reasons black women have had a rocky relationship with the white-dominated feminist movement in this country. Your post is a perfect illustration. Black women are just supposed to allow themselves to be led by their much better informed white sisters like you. I'm not surprised they're saying, "no thanks."

Your post is also unclear. Women will vote for McCain unless Hillary . . . what? Is the nominee? Gets tapped for VP? Please tell us what sort of genuflection Obama must make before the great Hillary Clinton to mollify Her Imperial Majesty's supporters. His winning the election by following the rules of the Democratic Party has outraged you and Hillary. Please let us know what he can do to repent for such a grave sin.

[meileen]

"And why don't you just be honest about the "women" supporting Clinton? You really mean "white women."

Uh, did you watch the video?

[SayonaraSnot]

What does the fact that the video features ONE black woman have to do with the fact, stated above, that Obama is getting the support of the overwhelming majority of African-American women?

How does the presence of that one woman in the video negate that fact, as well as the commenter's overarching point - that Marsh's "women" supporting Clinton are overwhelmingly white, and that she seems content to dismiss the opinions of women of color?

[sco8d]

Don't you understand? Black women have not had to deal with half as much sexism as the suburban, upper middle class, educated white women like Taylor Marsh that are up in arms and ar thus more likely to vote for a man.

Don't you get it? Black women are just not smart enough to understand!

I have worked with a ton of black women and the best way to describe most of them is they just don't take any shit! If someone says or does something they don't like they tell them, right to their face.

Start acting like black women and stick up for yourself and stop asking Hillary to fight your battles for you.

[milo9]

Marsh, you forgot to mention the Clinton campaign trading in coded rascism. It would seem to me that should balance out any slights that Clintonistas feel.

On the other hand if these offended woman vote McCain in, the nation as a whole will suffer. Hardly the actions of a political faction seeking validation. Of course one could argue considering the undercurrent of rascism in the country, a disastrous McCain presidency would be what we deserve, maybe we haven't hit bottom yet.