I suspect the truth is that many/most of the true "dead-enders" that avow their intention to vote for McCain are actually not Democrats at all.  I think they are Republicans who never intended to vote for a Democrat and hoped Hillary would win the nomination because she would be easier to beat.

Whether she would actually be easier to beat, I don't know, but I think that is the perception among Republicans.

I think the best thing to do is try to remind people why they are Democrats in the first place.  To remind strong Hillary supporters, such as myself, that Hillary and Obama are on the same side in the long run.  That their differences are slim and that is why this campaign is so different - people couldn't really pick apart the differences that really displayed the divide between them, so instead we got identity politics.

I am not ashamed of my support for Hillary, but I did some soul searching earlier this week - I wrote a couple of diaries this week, one to explain why I will support the Democratic nominee, NO MATTER WHAT, and another to remind people of the Reagan/Bush I years - to remind them that McCain is not to be trusted.

I hope people read the second one.  It didn't get a lot of hits, but it is a sober reminder of what 12 years of republican rule did do this country.

People need to go thru the grieving process.  One poster stated on one of my diaries "The heart wants what it wants".   I am still grieving, but I am strong in my support to make sure a dem gets into the WH this November.

I read with much sadness last night about the new pastor flap-up - I think what that man said was horrible and has no place here in the campaign.  What purpose does it really serve?  And yet, there were Obama supporters stating that it is TRUE.

well, that is their opinion.  And opinions are like assholes, everyone has got one.  If unity is to happen, we shouldn't pile on hurt upon hurt.

I stayed out of the Bobby Kennedy stuff - I stayed out of "finger-gate";  I stayed out, for the most part, the gotcha-shit.  I am not perfect, I am sure I weighed in with some hurtful comments myself.

But know this - please STOP.  Don't ask about the hurt.  If you need to comment on it, just say "I understand what you are going thru" and try to be positive.

Addition:

also, your motives are honorable, but based on past diaries that were similar, this thread will become a shitstorm of "he said, she said", "she did it first, no, HE did it first" and weighing whose comments were worse.

so, please.  Don't go there.

The best thing is to go ahead. HRC will drop out and she will make noises about unity and Bill Clinton thinking about his future will work hard. In a month all off this will be forgotten.

Prehaps, Obama will make a gender speech like he did his race one.

you would already.  You are arguing your point and no amount of dressing it up in nice talk changes that or fools anyone.

Obama is probably going to lose in November.  The people who will swing McCain's way are not reading or posting on this blog or any other.  They do not care, nor will they answer your questions or change their minds.  Arguing these points over and over on tiny little blogs that 99.99 percent of democratic activists have not even heard of, much less the general public, will not change the results.
A better question based on reality is why are you supporting such a truly terrible candidate like Obama?

I believe your questioning is sincere and I appreciate the respectful way you put the questions out there.  My first bit of advice is to remember those who do not respond with an equal amount of balance and respect for both you and your candidate are those attempting to inflame the division -- aka Republican troll snots on some stupid crusade.  Ignore them, even when they get into their staged spitting matches with each other.

For months, I've struggled with voting for Obama in November.  I was enthusiastic about him early on but the more I see of him the less I like the guy on a personal level and the more concerns I have about him in the GE.  The opposite happened for me with Clinton; I wanted her to just go away a year ago, then the more I saw her campaign the more I came to respect and, yes, actually like her on a personal level.  

However, that has nothing to do with who's going to win this thing. Obama led a stronger campaign, although I am afraid he's given too much energy to building his base and not enough to broadening his appeal.

My deepest concern has always been that -- I consider him the weaker candidate in the fall.  I don't blame him for the work of the media but I do feel the media has been peculiarly unfair to Clinton.

This seems like a genuine effort, so I'll try to answer your questions.  Let first say that I will absolutely positive vote for Obama if he is the nominee.  I will never EVER vote for John McCain.  Electing John McCain would be a HUGE mistake.  Let me also say that I don't agree with a lot of these sentiments, but I want to share what I feel and I think my fellow Clintonistas are feeling.

1.  There is widespread agreement among Clinton supporters that the Obama campaign played the race card to turn the African-American community (and the media) against the Clintons.  Many also believe that some of Obama's comments and behavior--"likeable enough," "holding teas," and pulling out the chair for Hillary at a debate--were sexist.  I agree with the first assertion, but not the second.  To many Clinton supporters, the race card was a low-ball tactic that cannot be forgiven.

2.  A lot of Clinton supporters believe that the DNC, especially Howard Dean, did not work hard enough to push for re-votes in FL & MI.  (I put the blame on Obama).  There is also anger directed at Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazille, both who claimed to be unbiased, but seemed to be putting their thumbs on the scale for Obama.  According to the rules of the DNC, SD's can make their choice according to whatever criteria they felt appropriate.  Nancy Pelosi early on said the SD's should support the pledged delegate leader, regardless of the popular vote and Donna Brazille said the same.

3.  The MSM.  The MSM has been really dismissive of Hillary since OH & TX.  Obama has received a lot of negative coverage about Rev. Wright.  (As a normal, rational human being, I think it was too much because a) I agree with Rev. Wright on a lot of things and b) it has nothing to do with Obama's fitness to lead this country.)  The Pew study said that Obama had more negative coverage after the Wright stuff came out, but the media was very dismissive of Hillary.  How can she win?  She can't win.  It's over.  It's only gotten worse the last few weeks.  KO said somebody should take her into a room.  A couple of commentators have compared her to the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction.  A few days ago, a guy on CNN called her a "white bitch."  And Tucker Carlson said that she was like "drunken party guest" who did know when to leave and that getting her out of the race was like putting a "cat in a box."  I live overseas so its hard for me to judge the media, but I don't recall such nasty things being said about Obama.  It's really been like that for her since the beginning.  You can say anything about Hillary--say that she reminds you of an ex-wife or a wife nagging you to take out the garbage.  She had three or four debates where the commentator really went after her and/or her opponents piled on, but Obama only had one.  And after that, there were days/weeks of debate about whether ABC had crossed the line.  To us, there has been a media bias.

So there you have it.  I don't agree with my fellow Clintonistas on all of these things.  I think that Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazille have the right to support whomever they want and say whatever they want.  I think their bias was obvious and I wish that they had just been upfront from the beginning.  There are a bunch of great people that endorsed Barack Obama--John Edwards, for example--and I don't resent that.

I hope this doesn't turn nasty.  I was just trying to answer your question.  I am not in total agreement with my fellow Clintonistas on this stuff.  And like I said, Obama has my vote if he is the nominee.  Absolutely.  I would do ANYTHING to defeat John McCain.  John McCain is a good man and I admire him for his service to my country, but John McCain is not the man to lead America.

I find it easy to understand the anger. So many people were hoping Hillary would win in 2008 and invested so much time and energy, and she lost the primary. Personally I don't understand the excitement surrounding her, I mean I want to see a woman president like many other women do, but not particularily fond of Hillary.

But I understand the anger and frustration. I don't, however, understand the desire for 4 more years of Republican rule after Bush simply because Hillary won't be the nominee.

I have not commented or diaried in two weeks.  My anger was so intense I needed to get away from the blogs.
Why the anger?
Before I answer that, let me say this. I have said it here, on the dailyObama (formerly known as dailykos) from the beginning: I WILL VOTE FOR WHOMEVER THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINESS IS; I WILL NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A RIGHT WINGER......

That said, here's why.  I am a woman, 62 years old;  I have worked for democratic/liberal causes all my life.  I have lived thru sexism, remember it as strongly back in the 60s with the left wing radicals were every bit as sexist as the right wing men are now.  During meetings, political discourse, the women were barely given a chance to speak, and when we were, we pretty much were given that pat on the head, "that's nice dear" treatment.

My experience in the democratic party has been this: the women did the hard work; pounded the pavement...the men had all the leadership roles.  
But we continued to work for democratic causes.  

No one impressed me as much as Hillary Clinton did  in my lifetime.  Here she was, constantly trashed and insulted by the media, the right wing. Yet she had the mental and emotional fortitude to stand up to the Chinese government, despite her husband's state department, despite the UN all warning against.
"Women's rights are human rights."

During this campaign, my anger has been mostly at the Media and the blogs.  The only thing that angered me at the Obama campaign was their nasty implying that "Hillary" and her generation of supporters are racist. Unfair, untrue.  
But my anger at my party is deep right now.  They did not stand up to the media and confront the blatant sexism.  My anger at the bloggers who have all of a sudden decided to be progressive activists is deep.  These upscale yuppie men, thirty and forty something, who suddenly after years of ignoring the process, show up.  Perhaps their egos needed stroking.  Perhaps they fear a loss of power for men in general.  I don't know.  But they were nowhere to be seen when we were warning about George W.  in 1999.  Where was their anger when Al Gore was being scorched with lies;, when Kerry was being labeled a coward?  
And this morning when I saw that priest mocking Hillary Clinton, mocking her emotions, I saw red again.
I was out the other day with some friends. Four women, three over 50, one in her 30's.   The three  over 50 included myself (caucasian), an African American woman, a Hispanic woman.  The younger woman is Native American.  The three of us are all firmly behind Hillary.  The younger one is for Obama.  She does not see sexism as an issue.  It amazes the three of us.  
I think the real winner is the male dominated media machine.

I will vote for the democratic nominee. I will not ever understand a democratic party who does not find offense at the blatant sexism.

Ok, let's address your questions.  Your first question is somewhat irrelevant. "What he has done," may be a blanket statement some people who oppose Obama use, but similar to those who use the "what she has done" argument, I think you're attempting to lead with any empty bucket here.  

2.  The DNC has abandoned the people, the elite decided this contest.  I can't support the Democratic party anymore.

Well, this one isn't difficult to observe given a little perspective and life experience. This question actually covers a great deal of ground and is not isolated within the impotent garden of DNC rules committee. This covers the DNC leadership lack of response to the rampant sexism/misogyny directed towards one of their own through the media, within the party, and as a side of course always displayed in republican talking points.  What was quite apparent was the DNC made a decision to back a particular candidate within the party, whom was coddled by the press and treated with Christlike adoration without proper vetting. The DNC has made a choice, albeit they would suggest otherwise, but as we recall Donna Brazille suggest on CNN, the face of the party is changing and political demographics will guide their decisions.  The choice was made that the demographic loss sustained by embracing one of the two candidates, was the lessor of the losses, thus with brilliant and calculating clarity or I should say transparency, those hoping to bring an end to the primary season, or I should say, those attempting to prematurely end the facade of an election measured by people voting for delegates, once again highlights, the shall we say overt attempts to control who is anointed.

3.  The MSM has tried to destroy Hillary, therefore I won't support Sen. Obama.  

Instead of arguing the points I really want to try and understand your perspective.  I'm going to post a few questions about the points above and would really like to hear your thoughts.  I am not posting to argue but for understanding.  

3.  The MSM  
     a.  Do you think the MSM has been unfair to Sen. Clinton?

Yes. (unfair, sexist)

    b.  Do you think Rev Wright got more or less coverage than it deserved?

There's an error in your question. Your question is attempting to lead in a specific direction.  You should have posed Linkert-types scales or simply more optional choices.

    c.  Do you think Bosnia got more or less coverage than it deserved?

See above

    d.  Do you think the MSM accurately characterized Sen. Clinton's chance of winning after Sen. Obama took a 171 delegate lead on March 19th?

No.  Simply because the MSM DID NOT equally address Obama's chances of winning without SD support. In other words, both were on a path which was headed towards a SD showdown, yet the media, in general chose to contend, Hillary would not be able to win the necessary delegate votes.

I have not diaried or posted here since the Indiana and North Carolina primaries.  And for those who got to know how verbose I am, they can appreciate how much restraint it has taken not to post.

But for this diary I could not keep quiet.

Seeing an Obama supporter write about not being able to understand "the anger" was absolutely stunning to me.  Where have you been during this primary, which has been driven nearly 100% by an irrational anger toward Hillary Clinton?

I sometimes wonder what the Obama "movement" will look like if it becomes deprived of its primary fuel - an unrelenting and nearly baseless hatred of HRC, and anger so all-consuming that it has lead them to hold positions such as: a mandate for universal healthcare would be bad, counting votes is wrong, and using nuclear deterrance can be right or wrong, depending on what my leader told me that day.

who become emotionally invested in a team, and they lose, you get angry and frustrated.  

But since your mind is clouded by emotion, you can't admit to yourself that they got outplayed.  So you look for reasons why it was unfair and for something to blame.  So you have people blaming the referees (the DNC and the media) and the opponent for cheating ("blocking" the Michigan re-vote, false caucus fraud allegations like Pacific John's).

Not much more to it than an emotional tantrum.  

I don't want to write a book here, but in a nutshell - to answer all your questions:

Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Point 1 & 2 - most of us believe that Hillary WON this thing because she has received the most votes and that the DNC leadership, who has been in the bag for BO from the beginning don't care and dismiss her. I think the pdf in this particular diary really sums it up well:

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/ 05/27/984/

I urge you to read the PDF regarding the results from caucuses vs primaries.

Point 3 - well that should be obvious to everyone. the way the media (again) just jumped down her throat for RFK comments that BO campaign promoted.

It is well documented that the media (and several leaders in the DNC) have called for Hillary to drop out ever since Iowa.

In most of our opinions, it is the BO campaign that tried to make hillary (and bill) racists and that they injected race into the campaign as far back as Nov '07.

Just a few things that have fueled the anger.

There is alot more, but these are some basic points.

I sometimes wonder what the Obama "movement" will look like if it becomes deprived of its primary fuel - an unrelenting and nearly baseless hatred of HRC, and anger so all-consuming that it has lead them to hold positions such as: a mandate for universal healthcare would be bad, counting votes is wrong, and using nuclear deterrance can be right or wrong, depending on what my leader told me that day.--bobbank

Very insightful comment Mr. bobbank. It is curious how Obama, in the starring role of the-Hillary-dragon-slayer and having done the deed and rid us of the Clintons, seems curiously lacking in stature even now. Its all very anti-climatic, like learning Paul Revere came in on an MSNBC-sponsored SUV instead of that trusty steed. The problem is, deep down everyone knows the fight has not been fair, so Obama can never claim the hero status. All the Democratic party is hoping for is that a wounded Hillary will be dragged off the scene, the blood stains will be scrupulously scrubbed and then a patched-up Hillary will be trotted out to tell us how really, really fair the fight was.  Its all down to Hillary Clinton, even in the end, she must be the greater hero for the lesser "hero."

Strangely too, there seems to be no heart or passion in battling McCain with the same virulence for fighting fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have raised more ire than Republican McCain seems capable of provoking. There seems to be more energy being devoted to driving a stake through the heart of Clinton (you know, to make sure they are really dead) than going after McCain. Maybe they are waiting to get Hillary out of the way, but what I've seen so far is weak. With all but the empty cheers of Obama supporter's and the MSM, I find the lack of enthusiasm for Obama, the would be victor, ominous to say the least.

I think that at least part of the unfair thing is that two or three things coincided, a woman candidate plus a lot of women who have long worked without adequate recognition and recompense and finally found someone, not probably perfect but in fact 'there' in place to run, whose victory might ratify their own much-battered hopes and thwarted ambitions. Some of us mutter about the appropriateness  of  the woman in place this year to bear this burden/benefit, but the bottom line is there was only one. The First One. Finally. She starts off well, and people come to believe she will get it and those who use her as a symbol will be vindicated without a huge brawl. Others think about 'baggage' but baggage, right or wrong, don't address the initial, press-supported enthusiasm.

Hither comes Obama, who doesn't quite fit in the paradigms, and the perfect storm arises, two 'first's who bear the similar weight for different groups. He doesn't start out looking like much, almost a 'token,' but turns out to be very competent as a campaigner and organizer of a campaign. Unlike the other seven or eight, most of whom vanished before February 5, while she did not.  If he had not been in the race, the other seven or eight would still be gone and it would be over. He becomes anointed as a spoiler because of that. And because of the nature of his 'first', race, that loads in, and everyone handles both firsts  and the implication of two firsts badly. All sorts of people say all sorts of stupid things, because they like the theoretical idea of two 'firsts' but don't stop to figure out how to handle that doubly tender situation out in the real world in a contest inherently partisan and bare-knuckle where only one can 'win'. Obama's solution, don't bring either up and try to play by both of them, does not work, although that is not realized soon enough. The best example of that is floating of the dream ticket where each of the two is not prepared to give up and be VP.

Then the feeling began to arise that this icon for the dreams of many was being robbed, cheated, treated unfairly.  Not later than the crying incident in New Hampshire, hammered in by what happened in South Carolina. Unfairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and older women, like me, have seen lots of it, although younger women have had a taste of the watered down version that the all out battles of the old have produced in their generation. But the old don't forget how it was for them, even if the young don't understand it because it is not good, but different for them. We all said that about Wright, but did not take into account how history would not only affect older AA voters, but also older woman voters as to whom it was ignored entirely.

Naturally, neither candidate does the Philadelphia race speech for gender bias - it would have been better, but it's so logical that it couldn't, and it didn't, happen. Apparently he thought he couldn't because he was a guy, and she felt she couldn't either, for her own reasons although it was considered early. This failure early in the campaign does a lot of damage, since it suggests that women voters' hopes and resentments  in a 'first' year, are not being given equal weight, no matter how real.

Having Bill Clinton out there is not helpful either, as he becomes a lightning rod for problems of various kinds, and attempts to fix that fail, as he keeps creating problems tied into first-ism and dredges up historical issues which this campaign would have been better for not being forced to include. Not the least of which is that she is a stand-in for him and has to defend him as his wife, not a candidate in her own right with independent competencies and goals which he might not share. As long as he's in it, he is part of the weight she carries.

And then disasters hit. February 5 and eleven or twelve primaries after that. And in the course of a few weeks she is 28 states behind.

Once she was so far behind so fast, the need for an explanation arose. Failure of organization did not speak to the hurts and the perceived disrespect caused by that Februry catastrophe.

So out came other tactics, whose fairness or unfairness is also in the eye of the beholder, but the thread began to include the premise that "the boys" were beating up on her as she said on ELLEN, without an explanation of how exactly they were doing it unfairly in a highly competitive race which had for two centuries run on hard-nosed guy rules. There was no way to sort out what the candidate had tried to do to comply with 'guy' rules, what she had to do to show she could run a government as well and national defense as strongly as any guy, or the mistakes she may have made in trying to demonstrate that or why, perhaps, she should not have been required to make precisely that demonstration in that way. There was no sensible discussion about how manners differ in face to face relationships as against media-operated national confrontations. After Wright, race was also in it, big time since that was what Wright was really about.

These tactics for both, but mostly for her, cause their own problems. A lot of words said that never should have been. "as far as I know" and so on.

And all of the indirect ways race is used in this society against some, which were invited to be discussed, but never have been. What was or was not inappropriate about the various elements of the kitchen sink strategy, and why, never got sorted. How problems with the 'experience' and 'unqualified' arguments hit AA stereotypes and why avoiding them or dealing with them differently might have been advisable. Only the weight of having adopted the strategy as something that, together with the defense against it, fed into anti-female stereotypes which were also not discussed openly. But the anti-female stereotypes also started running around. Classically unfair.

This bore its own child, the failure to address gender once the stereotypes were openly out and running. Neglect personified. And that has now ma