i'm having a hard time understanding the anger some Hillary supporters are feeling toward the obama campaign. the primary was fair, the Clinton campaign mismanaged their money and their lead and it seems it was the Clintons that resorted to 'nasty' politics in the end. Obama ended up with more delegates, the end. Truely, its time to let it go and elect our democratic nominee, and maybe look to Hillary's campign for answers instead of haboring resentment for the winner.

Sent by victoria glass | 12:30 PM ET | 08-27-2008

The PUMA people sound unhappy and the unhappiness comes across as a lack of trust for a man of the black race. I didn't see Dean supporters hating Kerry supporters. It's scary that we hide behind issues then mask the truth behind clever word play like PUMA. Come on, you would rather have 4 more years than a dream of MLK?

Sent by jay | 12:34 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Hillary supporters are always crying about how Hillary was done wrong. And they need an apology from Obama. What about the things that she said that offended some afro americans. Let's keep it real this was a race between a Clinton and an afro american. In the end we should be looking at the bigger picture america. We need
change, and we should be looking at our candidates Values and how he or she (black or white) will meet the needs of america.

Sent by Ryan Mims | 12:38 PM ET | 08-27-2008

This is no longer news. This is a tired old story that only plays into partisan hands.

Senator Obama has secured the nomination.

Next week will you run endless stories about how there are millions of Republicans who won't vote for John McCain? What about all of Mitt Romney's supporters? Are they not disillusioned and resentful?

What about all of the people who bought into the smears and lies spread by the Bush campaign in 2000 about John McCain? Where's that story?

I don't know if you are beating this dead horse out of laziness or just can't get over the fact that the Democratic process involves disappointment. I will take my election coverage from another source if I hear more story about how Senator Clinton isn't sincere enough in her support or how her supporters really aren't Democrats.

Sent by Tom McCarthy | 12:58 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I love Bill and like Hill. There is no way I'd vote BO. McCain is getting my vote and Hill will be back in 2012.

Sent by Burned | 1:01 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I now understand RR when he said he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. My vote will be for McCain. I am 60 years old and will vote for my first Republican!

Sent by Tommie J Riddle | 1:29 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Are Hillary supporters missing the big picture? They do not seem to realize that a McCain Democrat is the same as a Bush Democrat, and after eight years of that what are we left with, or are these McCain Democrats just Republicans in sheep's clothing? Many reasons come to mind as to why I would not support a candidate, being a sore looser is not in that list. As put by one of Tuesday's DNC speakers, "Four more months" that's all the Bush/McCain we have to endure. Obama is the candidate that will receive my vote come November.

Sent by Jose De La Luz | 1:30 PM ET | 08-27-2008

(1) Hillary essentially did what she said she would...make it clear that she is supporting "...the need to put a Democrat (read: Obama) in the White House." She also made the compelling, logical case that it makes NO SENSE to say you support her, but you are going to vote for McCain. None whatsoever. Which leads me to point (2): OF COURSE the vitriol spouted by the PUMA-types makes no sense...why would anyone expect it to? Their position, no matter how articulated, is based on passion...emotion...FEELINGS, which are by definition not logical. No one...not Hillary, not Obama...NO ONE can change their feelings but them. So...(3) can we PLEASE stop feeding their emotional flames by talking about/to them ad nauseaum? I, for one, would like the media (all inclusive) to show some gonads and focus on true, real news, NOT the bile of an irrational minority. If someone really doesn't support Obama, that's okay

Sent by FR | 1:31 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I'm one of the 20%. Hillary is the most qualified candidate, McCain is second and Barack.....No Way,No How, Nobama

Sent by Jim | 1:32 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I have a problem with the people who support Hillary but not her agenda. Do they think that a vote for John McCain is a vote for protecting the Court from further skewing right or for universal healthcare or for ending this horrific war? These folks need to stop the temper tantrums, get over their hurt feelings and get on with it. Please don't cut off my nose to spite the DNC's face.

Sent by mary | 1:32 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I wish that Hillary had mentioned that the next president wil nominate at least one Supreme Court justice, and very possibly three. Since these are life time appointments the nature of the Supreme Court will be changed for many years to come.

Sent by Janet Peterson | 1:34 PM ET | 08-27-2008

These PUMA folks seem to have a variety of agendas, but voice a common theme: They didn't get their way, so they're going to spoil (soil?) the nest for everyone. "I didn't get my way? OK, I'm going to make sure you don't get yours either." They talk about Obama being the "DNC" candidate as if the millions of people who cast votes for him were/are doing the DNC's bidding and weren't as valid as the votes Hillary got. What their sanctimony is really doing is helping to ensure that no Democrat ever wins. It's amazing that the status quo -- and falling -- of nearly 50 million uninsured, becoming a third-world county, a great economy if you're wealthy, plunging thousands into bankruptcy because of medical and other financial crices, shutting down access to a decent education except for the privileged, a majority regressive Supreme Court -- I could go on, but for the lack of space here -- trumps all because they didn't get their way. Heck, my candidate of choice didn't get the nomination in 2004, but that didn't keep me from working harder than I've ever worked in my life for his election. So, after 4 years of a McCain stint with the economy, education, women's equality, foreign affairs, U.S. infrastructure and individual rights even further in the toilet, these PUMA folks will be able to smile smugly knowing they did their part in let that happen. While they stand on their Nader-esque principles, the country can go to h-e-double hockey sticks?

Sent by Janell Carter | 1:42 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Any Hillary supporter who votes for McCain is voting for the man who once said:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

It's really disappointing that NPR is following the lead of the tabloid media and giving these people so much attention.

Sent by Brian Winkeler | 1:52 PM ET | 08-27-2008

No way, no how, Nobama. Despite the racist talk during the election, the only color at issue in this election is green -- how green Obama is & I'm not referring to what kind of hybrid he drives. Same goes for anti-choice, pro-war McCain -- no way, no how, no McCain. I plan on writing in Hilary's name on Election Day. I hope Hillary's kind words about Biden last nite made him squirm in his seat afer all the awful things he said about her when he QUIT the race. He &
Ted Kennedy are two angry old white men who aren't big enough to wish a woman well who did what they'll never do.

Sent by Mary | 1:59 PM ET | 08-27-2008

In reading all of these entries, I have to agree with a recurring thread, the media - including NPR - should either stop giving these diehard Hillary supporters credence and air time OR the media INCLUDING NPR should 'get in their face' a little bit and challenge the Obama's "not trustworthy", "we don't know him", "he's too young" nonsense and ask them point blank 'do you think Obama controls the DNC?', 'if it was John Edwards would you be acting this way?' 'if he were white would you be acting this way?'

The soft shoe around the issue of race in this campaign is annoying and condescending. Push the ball upfield. Strap on a pair and show us what you've got!

Sent by mitchell swann | 2:07 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I am a 58 year old mother of 2, and voted for Hillary in the primary, but will enthusiastically support Obama for president. With a conservative court, and a vow to overturn Roe v Wade, I don't know how any pro-choice woman could even consider a vote for McCain.

Sent by Nancy O'Neil | 2:08 PM ET | 08-27-2008

How can this be happening? Are there democrats actually playing into the hands of this mess? What citizen that is truly voting their conscience, based on the issues they care about, goes from supporting Hilary Clinton to threatening to vote for McCain?

Here we go - back to ridiculous arguments and a stubborn inability to deal with reality and force change!

If you want to argue that the nominating process was abused or utilized unjustly, then do it! If you want to insist that the democratic candidate address the issue of campaign reform, then do it! If you want to save our country from the fate of the disastrous momentum the last eight years is hurtling us towards, then do it!

If you want to send your message about unjust governmental practices, then spend your time getting people out to vote - McCain supporters WILL be showing up at the poles and I am SURE that every listless, disenfranchised voter that we get to the poles WILL vote against McCain.

Throwing your vote for ONE ISSUE despite THOUSANDS of other important issues will only bring us four more years of this catastrophic momentum, tragedy and shame.

Just as voting for a hopeless third party allowed Bush jr. to steal the election in 2000, splitting the party and bickering will surly lead to a close race that can be lost in the fog of "mis-counts" and no patience for "re-counts". Remember that? Now wasn't that effective?

All I can say at this moment to Hilary supporters threatening to vote for McCain is, "You DO save calories drinking Diet Coke with your pizza", "Two plus two IS four", and "Oh yeah, GORE would have sucked!"

Please, please, please meditate, pray, insist and persist that these people pull their heads out!

Sent by Cynthia Evans | 2:09 PM ET | 08-27-2008

These folks (PUMAs) must be what folks are talking about when they say that this election is the Democrats to lose.

Sent by JR Hayslett | 2:12 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I think one of the things the PUMAs also think is "It was Sen. Clinton's turn. HER turn, not some upstart 2 year Senator. Better Obama lose now, and Sen. Clinton can win in 2012!"

Sent by Paul Weimer | 2:24 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I'm with Tom McCarthy who said,"This is no longer news. This is a tired old story that only plays into partisan hands.

Senator Obama has secured the nomination.

Next week will you run endless stories about how there are millions of Republicans who won't vote for John McCain? " If I hear ONE MORE STORY about Hillary supporters' tantrums, I'm turning off public radio...why should I pay my money to a ClearChannel clone?

Sent by UtahOwl | 2:30 PM ET | 08-27-2008

These Hillary Clinton supports who refuse to vote for Obama are behaving like spoiled children. Grow up! Stop taking the results of this election so personally. The DNC isn't solely responsible for Obama getting chosen over Clinton. Millions of democrats across the country preferred him to Clinton. I think Clinton has done an amazing thing. The campaign she ran was historical and we will look back on it as a ground breaking time for women. Now it's time to come together, defeat the republicans, and change the regime that has run this country into the ground over the past 8 years. Let's not lose perspective (or the election) here please!

Sent by Alison | 2:38 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Micky Kaus made some interesting points of what Clinton "didn't say", but, to riff with Micky's analogy, people not showing up to your party actually rarely has anything to do with you, the party thrower and one need not take it personally. That after the party (or speech) analysis is interesting but rarely accurate. I'd say it was wise the Clinton didn't bring up the past and blasted forward with her support of Obama (PERIOD). Don't belabor subtext or context. The division that exists is not between Obama, Clinton OR McCain, it's human's notion of leadership characteristics and the characterization (archetyping) of the challenges. Do are nation's challenges need to be destroyed/overpowered or figured out or overcome? All three people are warriors but Obama is the calm self-possessed warrior, McCain and Clinton have old school warrior qualities. Those who prefer old school or fear the new school will not be embraced enough, may choose Clinton or McCain. I say Obama must show his warrior spirit in his way all(many) can understand. Clinton did fine. She put the support issue to rest for me.

Sent by Michael D'Angelo | 2:43 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I'm sorry, but when did it become Hillary Clinton's right to be the Democratic Nominee? I was disappointed in her speech because the first half was all about her and what she did. She wasn't trying to unify the party...she is still looking for one last ditch effort to secure the nomination. Those folks who will vote for McCain out of spite, are not true Dems and are willing to have 4 more years of Republican ruin. The Reps are having a field day on the "rift". Why does Obama need to continue to fight on two fronts...beating back Hillary and taking on McCain? He won by the numbers, which is how the nomination gets secured. Let's move on to the bigger issue...Nov 4th and getting our country back!

Sent by ES | 2:44 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I smell racism in all their comments.

Sent by CG | 2:46 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I agree that the media is continuing to flag the flames of discontent among the Hillary Hold-outs.
I have yet to hear a single Hill die-hard express PRECISELY and factually HOW the Obama campaign cheated or stole or lied to get the delegates, or treated Hillary in a sexist manner or how the process was flawed. I have yet to hear a single media person press these malcontents when they give vague answers like "she was treated badly."
My sense is that Hillary and many of her depressed and unhappy supporters felt it was her turn as a woman and that she was "entitled." They weren't prepared for Barack's fierce and better run campaign that resulted in his "earning" and WINNING more delegates. He beat her fair and square but now they want to suggest something nefarious was at work! BULL!
The Clinton camp wants a do-over! No deal! And I am sure there is a element of "hating" going on based on the race issue. Face it: Many white Americans have a hard time giving up their privelege and status simply because they've never even acknowledged that they have privelege and status as white people. The Obama win is a brutal reality check on them.

At the end of the day, I hope they can remember that this election is not just about Obama. It's about the Supreme Court. So if they waste their vote out of spite--I hope they can live with the much longer term consequences of a Right Wing Court!

Sent by Yvette Jankowski | 2:57 PM ET | 08-27-2008

The irony of this whole Obama versus Clinton issue is that if Clinton would have waited just two years to run for the Senate in Illinois (her home town), there would be no Barack Obama presidential candidate in 2008. Isn't it interesting how her ambition: taking a Senate seat in a state where she few tenable roots, to wait out for the next available presidential democratic nomination not against the incumbent president, lead to the rise of Barack Obama. Just an interesting observation.

Sent by Anna Nesbitt | 3:16 PM ET | 08-27-2008

The DNC rigged the nomination process in collusion with the Obama campaign. Voting for Obama sets a clear precedent that it's OK for the DNC to take away the voters' right to choose the nominee. I will not let either the DNC or the media to decide who I will vote for in November. I'm not sure who it will be, but it won't be Obama. And I'm an Independent, so party loyalty means nothing to me.

BTW, I think it's a fallacy to assume that Nader swung the election to Bush. People who vote for a 3rd party overwhelming would not have voted for a Democrat or Republican anyway, even if there were no other candidates on the ballot.

Sent by Michael | 3:21 PM ET | 08-27-2008

All process is imperfect.
How can anyone consider electing any Republican to the White House for sustaining an administration for four more years of destructive and divisive government?

Sent by SV | 3:24 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I find it very confusing when I hear that Obama does not have the experience to handle international issues. What experience did former presidents have when they were elected to office? What experience did Bush have? Reagon? etc.

Sent by Sharon Greenberg | 3:26 PM ET | 08-27-2008

What's Hillary doing on election day? Will she stay home and sulk? Or will she go to the polls and vote for McCain?
Neither. Her followers should take her cue and vote for O.

Sent by ak | 3:27 PM ET | 08-27-2008

As a woman, a feminist, a mother and community activist I am at such a complete loss to understand how any woman could believe that she does American families or women a favor in voting for McCain, seemingly out of spite. I think Clinton is a brilliant, powerful, courageous woman, and, like her, I believe this election is bigger than one person and bigger than a "statement." This is about healthcare for our kids, paid family leave for mothers and fathers, schools that support and nurture our children, a Supreme Court that doesn't look first to the Bible in interpreting our Constitution, foreign policy that doesn't rob families in the Middle East and in the US of mothers, fathers, safety, and wholeness. The people who are suffering the most in our country right now are children and single women with children. I implore someone to explain to me how electing a Republican--because that is what you are doing--who will plunge these vulnerable people further into poverty, while forever branding the US as an imperialist bully abroad, is a feminist act. Shame on you.

Sent by Leslie Miller | 3:29 PM ET | 08-27-2008

It does not matter if the media covers this or not, if if Obama supporters or the DNC find Hillary supporters to be cutting off their nose despite their face, etc. What matters is what people will do when they go in that voting booth in November.

The issue remains. Hillary is ready. McCain is ready. Obama is questionable. That is not negative or offensive as many people like to claim. It is a valid question that many people have. Why shouldn't we ask the question? Because we are democrats? Because Obama is such a great guy? Isn't that what everyone did for GW Bush.

Voters are much smarter this time around. The stakes are very high. Should one vote for a person who is questionably unqualified who carries our party banner? Or should one vote for a person who is qualified but against our party banner?

Oh yeah, and for those who automatically say choose the "party." What exactly has our party done since they won the majority in Congress? What did they do after 9/11? Become Repulicans I would say.

For many Hillary supporters, many of whom are women, we were offended to the core by Obama, the DNC and the media. Some of us will "get over it" some will not. Women tend not to vote as a block so therefore, it shouldn't really matter right. Or should it?

That does not take away from the main issue. Is Obama ready to be president of the United States? For many Democrats, Independants and Republicans alike, the answer often is "we don't know?" Again, the stakes are very high. What is one to do?

Obama knew who he was running against, knew his own resume and still decided to run. He won! He now has to win over enough American voters. That includes all the Hillary supporters who he pissed off. It is NOT up to Hillary Clinton to do that for him.

Sent by Sara Bitter | 3:29 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I've realized something quite ironic and tragic about the Hillary Campaign. When I was casting my vote in the primary, one of the reasons that I did not seriously consider Hillary is that I am very familiar with this illogical hatred that a lot of people have for her and I didn't think she would really have a chance of winning. And now its the Hillary supporters who have an illogical hatred for Obama. The platform that they ran on was almost identical! Were all of these people voting for a face and not for the issues because if they decide to vote for McCain they clearly are not paying attention to what these candidates stand for or they never really cared.

And what is up with them saying that they want Obama to apologies for the way he treated Hillary when clearly, even if he does, they will still demand more from him and continue to threaten abandoning the party. Give me a break...

Sent by Educated Youth Vote | 3:30 PM ET | 08-27-2008

the folks who supported Hillary Clinton and are now so disappointed that they will vote for McCain are not Democrats in their hearts and souls. they have not considered what a McCain presidency will be for future generations! if you consider only one issue: the appointment of Supreme Court Justices over the next four years, it is HUGE! these appointments have the potential to serve 40+ years, well into my 12 year old granddaughter's entire life! i am not willing to do that to her future. i am a 3rd generation Democrat and although Obama was not my candidate in the primary caucuses, he is the candidate that will work for my issues: education, union membership, woman's right to choose, modernizing national infrastructure, and ending the terrible travesty of the war in Iraq.

Sent by valerie mittelstead | 3:30 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I'm not so mad at Obama and his team "stealing" the election, I'm mad at the Democratic Party for the screwy caucus system - particularly here in Texas. Like, didn't we learn anything since the Bush/Gore debacle? And here it is again -- Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hillary win with the majority of popular votes (particularly in the bigger states), but the way the caucus worked, with the averages and percentages, Obama won? How does that make sense. So I feel slapped twice now by my party!

Something I've always heard and believe in myself is, "I don't like liars and thieves." The Democratic Party, and Obama and his team, are the thieves.

I don't know what I'm going to do when it's time to vote in November! I want to write in Hillary for President and Obama for Veep, then vote democratic the rest of the way down the list.

I feel pain and anger even still. Seeing Hillary last night just stirred the pot for me!

Sent by Linda Mrosko | 3:34 PM ET | 08-27-2008

The irony of this is that Hillary was considered the establishment candidate--th frontrunner who was all but assured of the nomination. Go back to what the pundits were saying early in 2007. But after underestimating the importance of the caucus states (and I am a resident of Washington and attended my caucus happily) and assuming that it would all be over on Super Tuesday, she lost. Fair and square. There were also seven or eight other people who lost before her as well. That's how the process goes.
I hope that Hillary's supporters consider that they are potentially sabotaging her political future. I'm sure they'd like to see her run again(and here's hoping that's in 2016). But if McCain does win, the DNC will blame the Clintons--rightly or wrongly--and Hillary will have lost all credibility. So whaddya say guys? Is it worth it to destroy her political prospects?
And yes, it sucks when your candidate loses. Four years ago I was a Dean delegate to my county party convention and was very disappointed that he lost to Kerry. But again, that's how politics works. Only one person gets to win.

Sent by Lara | 3:36 PM ET | 08-27-2008

PUMAs saying that they will vote for McCain should be stripped of Democratic party membership. We kicked Lieberman out we should do the same to these people who refuse to do whatever it takes to defeat the Republicans.

Sent by Tired of these posers | 4:06 PM ET | 08-27-2008

It doesn't matter what the DNC or the Obama campaign does, the likes of PUMA and other hardcore Hillary supporters have made up their minds purely on emotion. They may try to rationalize their decisions to make them more palatable but in the end, no logic or reason will change the way they feel.

I agree with many previous posts -there is a whiff of racism. There is nothing more racist than calling a black man a thief.

Sent by Julie Krehan | 4:08 PM ET | 08-27-2008

as i listen to the reactions of clinton supporters, it saddens me greatly. as a black man in america, sure maybe the obvious chose would be to support obama, however initially it was not. i did my research on both candidates & realized he reflected the ideologies i believe in. not that sen. clinton did not but sen obama's life & struggles reflected more of my life. sen clinton & sen obama's political views vary on a very small scale. they espouse the same desires for the future of this country, just have different avenues of reaching them. to not vote for obama, after he won the primaries, fair & square, would be turning your back on the beliefs you had when supporting sen clinton; it would go against the principles our country was founded on. we as americans, as democrats, need to put aside our egos & do what's best for our children, our parents, ourselves & move to elect sen obama as our next president. allow yourselves to move past the myopia of the primaries & see the future is now & change is inevitable. obama as president restores hope to those where hope is nothing but a fading dream, at best.

Sent by ramesus stewart-johnson | 4:19 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I am a HUGE Hillary fan; I cried during her speech last night -- she is an incredible, strong, smart woman! I still think that of ANY of the candidates, Hillary would be the best president by far. That being said, since she did not win the Democratic nomination, I am firmly backing Barack Obama. Is there any other choice, I have to ask?? If McCain wins our country is doomed!

Sent by Cindy Gotlib | 4:40 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I certainly agree with what the last gentleman on Day To Day said. There were a great deal of things that WEREN'T said by Hillary which shows that she's being a good sport, but not ready to back down from any rightful convictions that occurred during the primary. I would hope that if she came forward, more of her die-hard supporters would see the passion as opposed to the cold shouldered approach.

-Stacey
http://triplefrog.com

Sent by Stacey | 4:40 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I guess I just don't get it! I sat in my car listening to Kaus from Slate whine on about how Hillary should have apologized for campaign rhetoric. Then was shocked to hear the Day to Day host comment that Clinton should have given speeches like this all along, things might have been different. Well, sure, if I wanted to win an election, the first thing I'd do is talk about how GREAT the oposition is!!!!! Do I smell a wee bit of double standard here? SHE should apologize for saying mean things?! The operative word here, I guess, being SHE. If SHE were HE, would there be complaints about nice-ness, apologies, etc? Shall we, for a moment, see Hillary as a contender for the White House, a politician! For 18 months we've listened to reports about Hillary's pantsuits, whether Hillary cried, whether Hillary was nice. I'm sorry, but in my 50 years I don't seem to recall any groveling apologies for saying something mean during the campaign by ANYONE else competing for office. Grow up, people!

And if you're foolish enough to go on an election tantrum and vote for a guy old enough to be MY FATHER, you've made Karl Rove and the other Bush minions very happy indeed for another 4 years of employment. Just remember your decision when you kiss your kids and grandkids good night - 100 year is a LONG time!

Sent by Donna Madsen | 5:09 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Sour grapes in politics is not only unattractive, it's potentially dangerous. This seeming sense of entitlement to the presidency is one of the reasons Hillary turned off a great many voters, male and female. Now to see it in her supporters is alarming and sad.

The elusive quality of 'leadership' does not always follow from experience; it is more an innate characteristic, a combination of personality and conviction. The right glorified Reagan for it, yet bashes Obama for the same thing. Call it charm, call it the ability to unify, Obama has it. Our great presidents weren't the most experienced, they were the best leaders. A fellow named Lincoln had less experience than Obama yet led us through our worst conflict ever; how? He inspired, he spoke to our hearts and hopes, and knew how to calm our fears. If Mrs Clinton had had that quality in addition to experience, as perceived by the majority of voters, she'd be where Barack is now.

You Hillary-or-die types, think for a moment, would you really rather have McCain, with endless war (profiteering), a toothless EPA, back-alley abortions, health insurance only for the rich, policy without science, the list never ends...in short, government by ideology? And not even his, as he seems oddly flexible lately as to what he really believes in, but the ideology of the (men) who put him in the White House?

Here's one more to consider: sorry, but in politics the race barrier in this country is a lot higher than the gender barrier. Women are already more familiar in government than black folk. Once the color line is crossed in the presidency, the gender line won't even register on the public psyche. With Hillary as pres, it might have been another 50 years before a black man gets this close. With Obama at the top, there'll be a woman there in the next few cycles. That's not a reason to nominate anyone, but now that we're past that, it should assuage some of the hurt feelings so in evidence at PUMA.

Sent by David C. Randall | 5:17 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I am having a hard time understanding Hillary supports opposition to voting for Barrak. I have followed the race very closely. There is no reasonable reason for their positions. It is as if there is a secret reason for their position that they will (or dare) not speak.

Sent by Andre | 5:23 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I am so phenomenally disturbed by the Clinton supporters that have reportedly chosen to vote for McCain before Obama. In listening to NPR.org, one such voter explained that his rationale for a McCain vote was to "restore the Democratic party". Wow. So, the restoration of the Democratic Party is to vote Republican. Such voters have exclaimed that they are not really voting for McCain, but are actively NOT voting for Obama. Is this a reasonable logic to place the future of our nation upon? Rather than continuing to fight for a series of similar policies that bind Clinton, Obama, and the Democratic Party together, they are choosing a reactionary form of voter retaliation. These are not votes, they are tantrums. Of those that place the future of our country in the realm of self-destructive revenge, how many can feel comfortable with the McCain policies they are voting for. How many disgruntled female (and male) Clinton supporters will be voting for a Pro-Life candidate simply because their preferred candidate lost in the primaries?

This election has degraded from underhanded sexist/racist remarks amongst the Democratic Party, to an even greater display of ignorant and irrational behavior. If one needs a reason to vote for McCain, they need look no further than the mirror.

It has never been so embarrassing to be a Democrat. Shame on us all.

Sent by Aaron Young | 5:33 PM ET | 08-27-2008

To Linda Mrosko:
The American political way is that STATE parties decide how they will select delegates. One thing you can do with your anger is - change your caucus sytem in Texas to primaries; get busy with your Texas state Democratic Party and change it. You CAN organize folks and make changes on the state level.
OTOH, national elections (the "Bush/Gore debacle") are a whole different process from the candidate selection. I agree with you, I don't think we've taken care of making our national election process more fair and democratic.

Sent by UtahOwl | 5:44 PM ET | 08-27-2008

The puma's need to listen again to Hillary's speech. This is not about Her, it's about the future of the country and critical issues such as health care and women's rights. Do they care about the issues that Hillary cares about, or is this just a fan club? I believe this is a problem in how we vote--not on issues, but on whether have some amorphous liking for the candidate. Vote the issues!!

Sent by Sarah Shriver | 6:18 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Anyone who understands what Hillary Clinton is about and what is at stake across a large range of issues: Supreme Court appointments, tax and economic policy, foreign policy, military involvement, etc. ought to know that they should not take one second to consider voting for McCain over Obama. If you don't believe me, come down to Mississippi or check out the hateful comments on the website of Mississippi's largest newspaper: www.clarionledger.com

Sent by Jon Altman | 6:25 PM ET | 08-27-2008

"People who vote for a 3rd party overwhelming would not have voted for a Democrat or Republican anyway, even if there were no other candidates on the ballot." - Sent by Michael | 3:21 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Not necessarily so... at all. I know plenty of Independents, Libertarians, et al who would never vote for someone as diametrically opposed to so many of their views, opinions and beliefs as McCain or Bush jr.

To recognize that we live in a country with a two-party system and make choices accordingly is, to me, a sign of intelligence and reason. The time to turn your back on our current system and insist on "miraculous campaign reform" is NOT during an election -- especially not an election with so much at stake. You cannot reasonably ask a marathon runner to change shoes mid-race or your grandmother to change the ingredients she used after the cake is in the oven. It's just ludicrous.

Demanding answers from the candidates to questions on these issues, pressing for their promise to support changes in these areas and focusing on getting a higher percentage of Americans out to vote is far more responsible, reasonable and, in the end, will be far more effective.

Although I do admit stubbornly refusing to vote for Obama -- even if it means writing in "Kermit the Frog" or not voting at all -- will certainly be very effective, at ensuring that McCain is elected.

I repeat, "Oh yeah, GORE would have sucked!"

Please think about what you're doing/saying/suggesting. Please.

Sent by Cynthia Evans | 6:43 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I was a Hillary supporter. When Obama was elected, I knew very little about him.

So I started doing my homework. And I found that he is uniquely American.

I have friends who say, "I just can't vote for him. Something about him bothers me."

So . . . I compiled what I found into a digital scrapbook called Obama Scrapbook, and posted it at http://obamascrapbook.com.

The purpose is for people to view Obama's life in a format simular to what they would see sitting down at their sister's kitchen table and going through a family scrapbook.

I've had a lot of people visiting the site, and I sincerely hope it helps the cause.

I would not have been able to reach 15,000 people in three weeks any other way. And many of these people are outside of my Ruby Red home state of Oklahoma where we all know we're just spinning our wheels on this campaign.

So help me get the word out. Obama is uniquely American. His story is a GREAT AMERICAN STORY!

Please share: http://obamascrapbook. com. Thank you.

Sent by Carole Greene | 7:09 PM ET | 08-27-2008

"People who vote for a 3rd party overwhelming would not have voted for a Democrat or Republican anyway, even if there were no other candidates on the ballot." - Sent by Michael | 3:21 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Not necessarily so... at all. I know plenty of Independents, Libertarians, et al who would never vote for someone as diametrically opposed to so many of their views, opinions and beliefs as McCain or Bush jr.

To recognize that we live in a country with a two-party system and make choices accordingly is, to me, a sign of intelligence and reason. The time to turn your back on our current system and insist on "miraculous campaign reform" is NOT during an election -- especially not an election with so much at stake. You cannot reasonably ask a marathon runner to change shoes mid-race or your grandmother to change the ingredients she used after the cake is in the oven. It's just ludicrous.

Demanding answers from the candidates to questions on these issues, pressing for their promise to support changes in these areas and focusing on getting a higher percentage of Americans out to vote is far more responsible, reasonable and, in the end, will be far more effective.

Although I do admit stubbornly refusing to vote for Obama -- even if it means writing in "Kermit the Frog" or not voting at all -- will certainly be very effective, at ensuring that McCain is elected.

I repeat, "Oh yeah, GORE would have sucked!"

Please think about what you're doing/saying/suggesting. Please.

Sent by Cynthia | 7:57 PM ET | 08-27-2008

I'm fairly certain that Day to Day interviewed a Hillary Clinton delegate named William Bower(?) He is insane. He is not a true Democrat if he decides to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama and he is deluding himself if he thinks McCain winning the presidency will allow the Democratic Party to reconstitute itself somehow. If that happens, the Democratic Party will remain deeply divided and will not be able to win for decades to come. The Democratic primary was long and bitter and some of Hillary Clinton's tactics were cynical and tasteless. Yet if she had won the nomination I would have voted for her election to presidency without a thought. McCain? Mr. Bower, you need some Prozac and psychotherapy.

Sent by Jennifer Hill | 10:27 PM ET | 08-27-2008

Hillary made some errors in the campaign, notably, underestimating her opponent. Obama won because he fought for every caucus vote and made sure he played by the letter of the rules. Anybody who watched the Supreme Court in 2004 knows that 'democracy isn't in the voting, it's in the counting' isn't just a Soviet sentiment, it's at work here too. Fighting for those votes and living by those rules may yet save the democrats. BTW, I personally feel that the media has forced this thing into a horserace so that candidates are forced to spend a bajillion dollars on ads, but I'm not sure how to prove it.

Sent by Liam Carter | 1:27 AM ET | 08-28-2008

Let me say off the bat, I love Bill and Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I worked for his campaign once. I was torn between Obama and Clinton. I voted for Obama, but have no doubt, had he lost to Hillary I would have voted for Hillary in a heartbeat, no question. The people who can turn from Hillary's vision of America to Candidate McCain's vision of America have an agenda. Now why would they choose not to vote for someone whose views are so alligned with their chosen candidate's views? Hmmmmmmmm, what could it be that makes him so distasteful that they would vote against a women's right to choose, equal pay for women, and tax breaks for the middle class? What could it possably be, I wonder?

Sent by Tonya | 3:17 PM ET | 08-28-2008

Tonya, good question, what is the problem?

Maybe folks just can't see the forest for the trees. Maybe Americans just don't want to be happy. It's interesting to look back when Bill left office with a about a sixty percent approval rating and yet we still insisted on punishing ourselves by letting a yahoo and his luntic fringe dismantle all that was gained. Go figure. Anyway, I'm convinced these same people who'd vote McCain are the same who tipped the cart in favor of Bush eight years ago. What I don't understand is why they just don't call themselves republicans? The gall to think otherwise...who are they kidding.

Sent by george | 6:51 PM ET | 08-30-2008