Not to throw cold water on Obama's decent and encouraging polling numbers and electoral college lead / post-Clinton-exit-bump, but (considering everything the Democrats should have going for us) he really should be polling better right now.

You can read the whole article, but I pulled out some areas of weakness for Obama where he needs to put some targeted attention.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12132204 8693265737.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Sen. Obama leads Sen. McCain by 47% to 41%, a spread that is twice the edge he had in the previous poll in late April. The poll's margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.

Still, that lead is significantly smaller than Democrats' 16-point advantage, 51% to 35%, when voters are asked which party they want to win the White House, without candidates' names.

-snip-

Sen. Obama continues to do poorly among white-male voters, according to the poll. More ominous is his weakness among white women, particularly suburbanites, who generally are open to Democratic candidates and whose votes could be decisive.

-snip-

The poll of 1,000 registered voters was conducted Friday through Monday, a "propitious time" for Sen. Obama, Mr. Hart noted, as Sen. Clinton conceded and endorsed her rival on Saturday. Despite that timing and an "exceptionally strong" year for Democrats generally, Sens. Obama and McCain are in "a very competitive race for president," he said.

-snip-

White suburban women, who make up 10% of the electorate, prefer a Democrat to be president by 11 points, 47% to 36%, the poll shows. If Sen. Clinton were the nominee and the election were held now, she would beat Sen. McCain by 14 points, 51% to 37%. Yet Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by six points, 44% to 38%, among the same group.

Get to work everyone, don't get complacent / cocky or comfortable. This is not going to be easy. Call your white suburban female friends to say hi and slip how great Obama is into the conversation?

I've been following this writer at Salon, Rebecca Traister, for this entire primary season... since her article "The Witch Ain't Dead, And Chris Matthews Is A Ding-Dong" which I absolutely loved. If you haven't read that one I highly recommend it:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01 09/hillary_nh

Since then, she's written many other articles about Clinton, and they've all resonated with me. I think she's an amazingly smart, astute, funny political writer. I like her irreverence. I like that she belatedly (and rather reluctantly) was as won-over by Clinton as I have been.

Her most recent article really nails it IMHO... I think a lot of you will enjoy it. I like to think Hillary would too actually.

Hillary's Final Curtain
Now that Clinton's campaign is over, I want to remember her as she's truly been -- a pain in the ass, sometimes ill-behaved, and a woman who changed history.

By Rebecca Traister

Hillary Clinton was almost done with her terrific concession speech when she got around to patting herself on the back. The setting was grand, with people hanging over balconies in Washington's National Building Museum waiting to get their final glimpse of what remained of her historic candidacy for president. The massive hall was heavily air conditioned, but it couldn't keep the outside heat -- so sweltering that it prompted speculation that, among other things, Clinton controls the weather -- from seeping in, and the emotional crowd shimmered, their faces slick with perspiration and, here and there, tears.

Clinton had praised Obama, yelled "Yes, we can!" with real feeling, and done her damnedest to start a chant about why her supporters "must help elect Barack Obama our president." It was then that she took a moment -- one of the first since she began her campaign 16 months ago -- to unfurl a little feminist plumage.

"I know there are barriers and biases out there, often unconscious," she said, as the room roared with affirmation. She continued, giving them the girl-power fulfillment they were thirsting for: "You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories," said Clinton, "unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the president of the United States." She paused. People screamed. "And that is truly remarkable."

Clinton was having her moment. Not, as she began the speech by wryly noting, the kind of moment -- or the kind of party -- that she had planned to attend at this stage in the presidential election cycle. But with the magnificently weird and wild primary season over, and Clinton the loser, she was making sure no one forgets that, while she may have missed her goal, she still staked out a giant piece of social history.

"To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all the way -- especially the young people who put so much into this campaign," Clinton said, "it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours." Perhaps most moving was her observation that, while "we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you it's got about 18 million cracks in it."

Clinton's campaign is not yet cold (and, I suspect, will probably maintain a reptilian pulse in the months between now and Denver), but the urge to eulogize its place in women's history is powerful. Already there is the beating of breasts and rending of garments from the true-believer Hillary feminists, a wailing wall of second-wave sorrow and swooning celebration of the doors opened to their daughters and granddaughters. (Just think, little Sally Ann, some day you too can live out your life's ambition and be painted an emasculating succubus by a press corps that clings almost erotically to the fantasy of your eventual defeat! Yea!) Now that she no longer poses a threat, there are tributes streaming in from feminist pundits who backed Obama and are now comfortable enough to gingerly pat Clinton on the back and extend some tepid "You go girl" plaudits from a distance safe enough to protect them from her Old White Lady cooties. Then there are those critics sticking to their guns, reminding us that Clinton's loss is no one's fault but her own, that she may have been a lady, but she was no feminist heroine. Maybe if she hadn't voted for the war; maybe if she hadn't been married to Bill; maybe if she hadn't played the gender card; maybe if she'd been more of a feminist icon. Then, maybe, these people could have gotten excited about her as a presidential candidate.

But while we may all wish that our groundbreaking leaders came in prettier packages, and that high butterfat cheese was good for us, the reality is that we get what we get. And we got Hillary Clinton. In no small part, we probably got her thanks to the very reasons so many can't abide her: her ambition, her ruthlessness, her gift for triangulation, her marriage, her centrism, her hawkishness. It's an exceedingly uncommon alchemy; in more than two centuries of American history, no woman has been able to break into the presidential boys club, and I can't think of many women of sterling liberal character who would have succeeded where she failed to satisfy all feminists. Wake me when Barbara Ehrenreich can win Ohio, you know?

Like it or not, Hillary Rodham Clinton was the first female battering ram to rattle the Oval Office door, and while sorrowful Hillary-heads may lyrically and lovingly catalog her many achievements, her bravery and grace, I'd prefer to think of her as she actually has been: a pain in the ass to support, an often inept and ungainly campaigner. She was ill-behaved, she made mistakes, and waged an often dirty and tone-deaf campaign, performing precious few electoral pirouettes. But she also pulverized any quaint notions of what presidential races are supposed to look like and how girls might compete in them.

Language fails us when we say that Clinton "ran for president." Hillary Clinton didn't just run for president. She hustled and jumped and slogged and cried and ate and drank and didn't sleep and put up with her nutty underminer of a husband for president. She lit herself, and everything around her, on fire for president.

Clinton behaved with the kind of naked drive and aggression and mercilessness we revere in, for example, football greats, wrestling stars and military heroes. Her political ambition and ruthlessness are qualities native to anyone putting themselves up for the job of running the country. That includes Barack Obama, who is an inspiring leader I fervently hope will be our next president, but who is not, despite what some of his supporters seem to believe, built entirely of altruism and hope and, I don't know, puppies. One of the great things about our history of ambivalence and resentment toward Clinton was the almost sweet relief we could take in knowing from the start that her raw will to power was going to grate on and enrage us.

And, yes, it's terrific that generations of little girls will grow up knowing that women can run for president. But count me as gratified that those who do so will also know they are not responsible for bearing the highest expectations for their gender's morality and politesse, because one hell of a difficult dame has been there before them and knocked everybody around pretty hard.

But the fact that she did it her way, and still managed to break voting records, recalls another lesson of this campaign: that change is, after all, not so hard to come by. It can happen quickly, almost silently. Remember that stage when Clinton was the presumptive candidate for president? It's a stage she's paid for ever since, but what I intend never to forget is the brief moment when her inevitability wasn't questioned, when I could feel free to prefer other candidates because she -- a woman -- was the status quo choice, and no one was batting an eye about her gender. Sure, it's now clear that, all along, people were seething at her presumption, her gall. But we saw in those months what it might feel like to have a woman lead us. We didn't make it real, but we imagined it -- positively or negatively -- with less kicking and screaming than I ever would have thought possible, and that, by itself, is a step. It's change.

That's what, in part, leaves me unmoved by hand-wringing about where the next female contender will come from. Who knew the name Bill Clinton before 1992? Who knew the name Barack Obama? Who, 10 years ago, could have imagined beleagured first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton would come so close to getting her own intern in the Oval Office?

People come out of nowhere and shape shift and surprise us. Hillary Clinton certainly did. For all those longtime Hillary stalwarts who were won over by Barack Obama, there were others who experienced an unexpected conversion to Hillary. I'm one of them.

At 33, I don't fall into the second-wave demographic, and I am not a hip young Obama girl. I am not sure what drove me, on Super Tuesday, to finally pull the lever for Hillary. Maybe it was the fact that I thought she'd be better on healthcare and the economy. Maybe it was that my equally torn boyfriend voted Obama, and I figured we would split our votes. Maybe it was that I cover women in politics, and I wanted to keep my beat's prize pig alive. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I'm a feminist, and as ambivalent as I was, I figured this was my chance to throw my electoral lot behind a pro-choice woman. Whatever the factors, I didn't want to pick them apart: to have voted for Hillary was a stain. I deviated from what became the normative Democratic choice in media circles, and at times I felt like I wore a big red H on my chest -- not just among those who knew I'd voted for her, but also among those who simply assumed I was a Clintonite because I was a woman, or a feminist, or was writing stories about the gendered language of the race and undercurrents of sexism among some Obama enthusiasts. I wanted to tell all these people how much I liked Obama, how I'd deliberated in the booth, how I'd pressed the lever for her, then for him, then for her again, how Clinton frustrated and sometimes enraged me. But the more aggressive the characterizations of Clinton and her voters as old, shrill, humorless and racist became, the more galvanized I became in my personal interest in her. Learning to embrace Hillary -- despite my still-real criticisms, and in part because I felt somehow thrown in her boat as soon as I cast my nearly accidental vote for her -- has been an extraordinarily formative political experience.

As each primary approached -- from New Hampshire to Super Tuesday to Ohio to Pennsylvania -- I was sure that Clinton was toast. But Tuesday after Tuesday, there came the vertiginous thrill of watching the pundits collapse into paroxysms of frustration at this goddamn woman who would not quit and, even worse, kept winning in unexpected places and by unexpected margins, even when they said it was impossible, even when they were hollering for her to get out of the race. I think memories of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann going apoplectic will make me smile for years to come. Male pundits from Jonathan Alter to Howard Fineman to Carl Bernstein to Matthews and Olbermann were licking their lips, salivating for the moment at which she would lay prostrate and beg their forgiveness for her sins of ambition -- and she never gave it to them! I wasn't alone in my giddiness. After one particularly wild election night, perhaps it was Ohio, I got an e-mail from a cousin, a Clinton skeptic who had come to appreciate the senator's dazzling ability to piss off jerks. "I hope she never stops running," the e-mail read. "Even after he's elected." I knew what she meant. It had nothing to do with Obama. It was about the sheer fun of watching a woman refuse to concede to anyone's expectations.

Clinton was such a hard-ass that she turned her butchest male critics into the hysterical harpies they accused her of being. What fun, during that final debate, to hear Obama grouse (justifiably) about the ludicrous questions he was facing, while next to him, the broad who had, in an earlier debate, been asked about the fact that nobody liked her cheerily removed the shiv from her thigh and used it as a toothpick. Sure, many people moved quickly from the thrill of having two historic candidates to the hair-pulling headache about how much damage their contest was doing to the party, but get over it! When was the last time we had so much fun in an election year?

Even my Obama-loving friends -- those who were not sitting at home attempting to burn Hillary in effigy -- had to tip their hats, or give a laugh, at the way she entertained and maddened the chattering classes, so used to being correct. At the party after the Pennsylvania primary, I bumped into a New York Times journalist. She said, with great weariness, "Well, see you in Guam." But a little smile played across her lips. This was funny. Actually, it was hilarious.

Clinton's tenacity was inspired. When commentators and Obama devotees were being driven round the twist by her refusal to give up the ghost, I heard more than one person compare her to that Seinfeld character who simply refused to accept George's breakup. Actually, likening her to fictional characters became a favored pastime for many people, especially when her relentlessness brought to mind infelicitous comparisons: to the Terminator, to Jason or Freddy, or, most insidiously, to Glenn Close's terrifying bunny boiler from "Fatal Attraction." At her un-concession speech on Tuesday in New York, Clinton thanked supporters by saying, "You brought me back, again and again." I wrote in my notebook, "Like the undead!"

The truth is, whether you have a life-size poster of her on the wall or the Hillary nutcracker sitting on your bedside table, you cannot help admitting: Clinton and her ever-lovin' husband are figures too delicious to resist, their story a must-read. They are our great American characters: Shakespearean in their marriage, Fitzgeraldian in their striving, Chandler-esque in their noirish cronyism. They can't stop writing their own compelling narratives; they just can't help themselves.

But this most recent act for Hillary has been exhilarating, mostly in that it has given her a chance to be a diva. I was charmed last week that Meghan O'Rourke's Hillary kiss-off in Slate began with a quote from "All About Eve," the one about how Karen Richards acquired her cynicism the day she learned she was different from little boys. I've also thought about "All About Eve," my favorite Bette Davis movie, with regard to Clinton -- the diva who pays for her age and experience by watching her younger (and arguably more talented) protégée take her spotlight. The line I would have chosen to gift Clinton with is, "Lloyd, honey, be a playwright with guts. Write me one about a nice normal woman who just shoots her husband." But never mind that.

Clinton has been spectacular, evoking the ball-busting divas of yore as she chewed through the scenery of all 50 states, chugging beers and hugging elderly ladies born before women could vote. She was half Norma Rae, half Norma Desmond, also bringing to mind "Gypsy," Jule Styne and Stephen Sondheim's musical about the hardest-working stage mother in vaudeville. Especially in these last two months, when loss was so close at her heels but she was still out there, ripping up the stage, her name in lights, unapologetic in her self-celebration, she reminded me of no one more than Mama Rose performing her grand finale, "Rose's Turn": Here she is, boys! Here she is, world! Ready or not, here comes Hillary! It makes me happy to think of her this way, creating a gut-bustingly awful, memorably wonderful spectacle, training a spotlight on the end of a crucial chapter in American history.

And now, Mama's gotta let go.

As a disclaimer... many people will disagree with this diary. I know that. I also know that it explores one tiny facet of a much larger, more complex issue.

Second disclaimer... I am an ardent Clinton supporter... but I am also an ardent, lifelong Democrat. I will absolutely vote for Barack Obama. I am a mother... I held my infant twin sons as I watched GWB win a 2nd term as POTUS. Never have I felt more angry, hopeless, helpless. I do not want that feeling again. This country cannot afford another day of a Republican President.

I take Hillary Clinton's words very much to heart:
"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort."  

McCain must lose. Obama must win.

That said, I thought that this article / OpEd was an excellent summation of how I (and I assume MANY other Clinton supporters) are feeling at the moment.

I thought perhaps it might help Obama's most ardent supporters to understand the vibe out there... the "why" of the anger, the disappointment, the feeling that history has been snatched from our clutches at the moment when we had it within our grasps.

This is not intended as an Obama smear at all. It is intended as an honest look... and, in an odd way, a step towards unity. I can absolutely understand the anger which is out there... at the media, at the DNC, at Democratic leadership and yes, at Obama.

Read with an open mind and try to understand?

http://www.thestar.com/News/USElection/a rticle/439575

Beaten By The Protégé  
Obama vs Clinton race as eerily similar to the movie "All About Eve". Once, she was his mentor.
June 09, 2008
Judy Gerstel

She was highly regarded and well-connected, an illustrious, mature woman recognized and admired for her commitment, her talent, her tenacity. Granted, she was somewhat mercurial, a woman who played different roles. But she was generous with her colleagues and a tireless, consummate performer at the peak of her powers.

Along came a young admirer, fresh-faced and ambitious, new to the scene but with enormous appeal, beguiling and winning over the older woman's supporters. Ostensibly eager, at first, to learn the ropes from her and to emulate her, the neophyte quickly found the cracks in her armour and exploited them, undermining her, weakening her position and, sensing that she could be toppled, strategizing successfully to surpass her, to bring her down, to take on her role.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?

No. Margo Channing and Eve Harrington.

What happened to Clinton on the way to the Democratic nomination may ring a bell with anyone who's seen the 1950 film, All About Eve.

All that was missing, as the results came in at the close of the Iowa caucus in January, when the young, inexperienced but engaging rival outstripped the knowing, hard-edged professional, was someone delivering that memorable line in the movie: "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!"

It's a classic plot - and one that resonates profoundly with older women, in both their professional and personal lives.

Granted, men also have to contend with smart, ambitious, competitive, charming young whippersnappers determined to overtake them in corporate life, in athletics and, sometimes, in the bedroom.

For women over 50, however, it's an ongoing, daily struggle to defend against being sidelined because of age, to avoid giving way to somebody younger, fresher, more attractive - and often, it's the strength, power and confidence of the older woman and her insistence on standing her ground that makes her seem even less attractive.

But is it really fair to cast Obama in the role of Eve Harrington to Clinton's Margo Channing, a character played by Bette Davis in one of her most remarkable performances?

Consider this observation printed in the Hamilton Spectator on May 28, 2005, about the newbie senator:

"Obama is keeping a determinedly low profile. His model is Hillary Clinton ..."

The article refers to his "protests of humility" and quotes him: "I don't want to be fabricated into some great hope for the Democratic party just because I am flavour of the month now ... after the people have seen my work, hopefully they will feel I can make a contribution."

It would seem Hillary Clinton had nothing to worry about in the next couple of years as Obama was starting to make his "contribution." Clearly, he regarded her as a mentor, not a rival. No wonder Clinton was lulled into the confidence many critics deemed a sense of entitlement - just as Margo Channing was at first lulled into regarding Eve Harrington as a harmless sycophant instead of a threat.

And when, on Aug. 3, 2007, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny wrote about the increasing tension between Clinton and Obama, he noted, "It wasn't always this way."

It had to have been inconceivable to the Clintons a mere two years ago that by the spring of 2008 Obama would be branding them racists and usurping their devoted constituency of African-American voters.

Zeleny writes, "When Mr. Obama was running for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton waited out a lightning storm on a tarmac to fly to Chicago for a fundraiser on his behalf. After he arrived in Washington in 2005, he studied her first year in office and worked to keep a similarly studious - yet low - profile.

"After Hurricane Katrina, he joined Mrs. Clinton and former president Bill Clinton as they visited storm evacuees in Houston, with Mr. Obama walking a few paces behind out of deference to the leading names of the Democratic party."

The relationship began to change, reports Zeleny, when Obama began musing aloud on a presidential bid.

And yet, in 2005, newly arrived in Washington from the Illinois state senate, he revealed an unintended "glimpse into his own competitiveness, " writes Zeleny, "when a Chicago television reporter who had come to Washington to interview Mr. Obama informed him that he had snagged a hallway interview with Mrs. Clinton.

"`I outpoll her in Illinois,' Mr. Obama said. After realizing his remark had been overheard, he said: `That was a joke.'"

Eve Harrington couldn't have handled it better.

And Clinton may not be the first woman in the role of Margo Channing to Obama's Eve.

His mentor in the Illinois state senate was Alice Palmer, a respected black activist who'd picked Obama as her successor in the mid-'90s. "When she tried to reclaim her spot," according to a Los Angeles Times political blog posting by a reporter in the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau, "Obama got her booted from the ballot."

The narrative of the Democratic nomination is not just that of neophyte scheming to replace the mentor, of youth shoving maturity out of the way, a story as old as time. It's more complicated because, in this case, it involves misogyny and sexism both blatant and subtle.

For many women bereft by Clinton's loss, "it was not just a matter of politics but of identity," Leslie Wayne observed on the New York Times politics blog. "Many said her struggle to gain the nomination - and the insults they believe Mrs. Clinton has endured along the way - mirrors their own struggles in life and in the corporate world."

One woman who sees it that way is Sheila Copps, the former deputy prime minister who endured her own insults and struggle along the way and admits to being, "totally depressed" about Clinton being overtaken by Obama.

"She was supplanted," Copps says, speaking by phone from Mexico. "We were sideswiped on the way to the White House."

Now, citing the "blatant" sexism in the media coverage of Clinton, she says, "What's even sadder is that people can't even see it."

Then there is this video from fall of 2004... when Obama was a newly elected US Senator. Even he admits that he is under-qualified to run for President in 2008. Clearly, he changed his mind... or colleagues in the Senate and in IL urged him on to go-for-it. The rest is history.

I have to admit... as a woman (and a small-business-owning working mother) who fiercely supported Hillary Clinton, worked hard for her campaign and will always believe her to be the superior, most qualified, most experienced candidate whom the Democrats had this year... this stings a LOT... and it goes far beyond just her loss. There are so many examples I can think of in my own life and career... where women work twice as hard to earn half as much credit. I've seen this scenario play itself out over-and-over again in my own life and the lives of my friends and family... where a highly qualified older woman loses-out to a handsome, younger, charismatic man. That is where the anger stems from.

Many people ask... what can Obama do? Personally I don't think he can do anything. I think that he's simply got to win big and then be a great POTUS. The protégé must now prove himself.

A Positive Call To Action

I got an email that her supporters are starting a campaign to blanket her Senate office with 18 million "thank you" cards.

Here's the message:

We are trying to get a "thank you card campaign" started. We want to flood Senator Clinton's DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing "WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION". We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective.

THE ADDRESS:

THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

UNITED STATES SENATE

476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON

DC 20510-3202

Hillary fought for us. So let's send a card to Senator Clinton. Then tell your friends to send one. Then get them to get their friends to send one.

Pass it on.

This diary is just for some dumb fun... but I'm very dubious about Obama's "date with my wife" line for tomorrow.

I totally think he is going to make a surprise appearance at Hillary Clinton's Washington DC event tomorrow, once she is done celebrating and thanking her supporters, he will get out on stage with her, big show of unity, hugs all around etc.

I think it could be the whole Clinton clan and all the Obama's.

That's the "date" if you ask me.

Answer my poll below with your opinion.

I hear people asking all the time... Where's the Sexism? I don't see Sexism? What are you talking about?

Well, this is one of the MAIN headline articles that pops up right now in Google / News / Politics:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/0 5/earlyshow/main4156325.shtml

Hillary Is "A Tortured Person"
June 5, 2008(CBS) In the wake of Hillary Clinton's decision to end her long, historic campaign for the presidency and throw her support behind now presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, speculation about Clinton's desired political future has been rampant.

Does she want to be Obama's running mate? A spot on the Supreme Court, should he win? Another crack at the White House, should he fall short this fall? The post of Senate majority leader? Something else?

The subject was raised with Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn on The Early Show Thursday by co-anchor Harry Smith, and Quinn minced no words, saying, "I've been intrigued by the questions in the last couple of weeks, 'What does Hillary really want?' And I think that the answer is that Hillary, up until now, has wanted what she thinks she should want. And what I think is that Hillary doesn't know what she wants. And she doesn't know who she really is.

"From the very beginning, when she married Bill Clinton, when she moved to Arkansas, she gave up her lucrative career, she changed her name during the campaign, 'I'll stand by my man' -- her personality changed. You remember when she first came into the White House and she had a different hairdo and a different outfit? She looked completely different. And people kept saying, 'Who is she?'

"And, even during the campaign this time -- during the Monica (Lewinsky) thing, when she stood by Bill Clinton, she was the health care maven. She was the strong one and the weak one.

And, during this campaign, she allowed him to, on some levels, sabotage her. She was feisty at some point and even shrill, and then she would cry.

"And then ... she said (after winning the New Hampshire primary), 'I found my voice.' But I don't think that she ever did find her voice.

"And I think that what she needs to do now -- and I know this sounds really strange, but -- if I were Hillary Clinton, I would go off to a retreat somewhere. ... A silent retreat. And I would stay there, I would take a sabbatical and stay there for three months, and not talk, and meditate, and think, and try to figure out who I really was and what I really wanted. I'm serious.

"I think that this is a tortured person who has run and run and run and gone for it and gone for it, and it's power, and it's this and it's that, 'I've got to be there.' There's never a moment where you see her relaxing, where you see her really stopping to smell the roses, stopping to say, 'Who am I and what is it that I want?'

"Maybe what she really needs is a wonderful, loving relationship with somebody instead of just going after power and being this ambitious person that I think she thinks she oughta be."

Never would the postmortum media analysis of a MALE candidate for POTUS who ran as successful a campaign and achieved the level of support which Clinton did be defined by this kind of ammature-hour psychobabble crap.

Hillary Clinton is a powerful, ambitious, strong, brilliant woman who has accomplished a great deal in her life (and will continue to do so)... she knows exactly who she is and what she "wants" and she has the support of MILLIONS of people on that journey. There were several men in this race who also failed in their quest to become the nominee... did we hear one word of analysis of their emotional states?

But since we are apparently obsessed with Hillary Clinton's emotional well-being, let me add this personal aside...

I was at Clinton's Tuesday night rally here in NYC. It was a very candid setting after the speech, everyone mingling... I watched Hillary, Bill and Chelsea interact with each other and their closest advisors, supporters, staffers and endorsers for well over an hour.

The love, mutual respect and pride between the Clintons (and Hillary and Chelsea especially) is palpable... as is the sincere respect and admiration which exudes from those closest to her. I felt that on the conference call I was on yesterday when she was thanking her staff and supporters as well.

Why do we as a society allow this nonsense? All Democrats who care about sexism and equal rights and opportunities for women should be appalled by this. Why is this acceptable?

This video has always been my favorite "love letter to Hillary"... so I wanted to share it with everyone here at MyDD.

I want (and NEED) to take a moment to CELEBRATE what Hillary Clinton has accomplished. The first woman to ever be a truly viable candidate for POTUS... and we almost made it! Obama has won the nomination, but we made history as well!

18,046,007 Americans pulled a lever, marked a ballot, stood up to caucus and made their voices heard loud-and-clear in their support for Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee and next President of the United States.

The following states went into her column:
(putting aside MI/FL)

New Hampshire (by 3%)
Nevada (by 6%)
Tennessee (by 14%)
Oklahoma (by 18%)
New York (by 17%)
New Mexico (by 1%)
New Jersey (by 10%)
Massachusetts (by 15%)
California (by 8%)
Arkansas (by 43%)
Arizona (by 8%)
American Samoa (by 15%)
Texas Primary (by 5%)
Rhode Island (by 18%)
Ohio (by 10%)
Pennsylvania (by 10%)
Indiana (by 2%)
West Virginia (by 41%)
Kentucky (by 35%)
Puerto Rico (by 36%)
South Dakota (by 10%)

She has inspired millions to become involved in politics, in primaries and caucuses and in the Democratic Party.

Please join me in celebrating Hillary Rodham Clinton... for what she has accomplished in her career to this point and what she will continue to accomplish as a leading Democrat... and for her staff, her supporters, her endorsers who have been with her every step of the way.

This one is for you Hillary... Thank you. You will always be my Superwoman.

UNITY!

These maps are taken from electoral-vote.com. You can click on the links to see the polling info which generated them. Most of the battleground/swing state polls are recent (May polls). The information is updated daily. Clinton has consistently beaten McCain soundly in the past month while Obama shows a much tighter race. These are today's maps where he is ahead of McCain, unless he loses the ties.

Clinton's Map (Clinton 327 / McCain 194 / Ties 17)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl inton/Maps/May28.html

Obama's Map (Obama 266 / McCain 248 / Ties 24)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob ama/Maps/May28.html

I know that Obama supporters will say not to worry... that Obama will show a big spike once he sews up the nomination... and that the reason why he is faring worse than Clinton against McCain is because the nomination fight has been so protracted and bruising for him. That argument is dubious to me since Clinton has also been significantly battered by the process (and by her years in the public eye). She is also polling so well despite the fact that she has (by all accounts) lost the nomination? That makes little sense to me. To me, it shows her strength and resilience as a candidate... and Obama's weaknesses.

If Clinton is not the nominee, these maps represent a lost opportunity for Democrats... one which we all should be looking at with regret for what should have been. Obama's promise at the start of this primary season was his much-touted ability to turn red states blue and redraw the electoral map and put purple states into play. A major argument I heard from his supporters was that Clinton was too "divisive" and "hated" to do that... only Obama could do it. Ironically, the reality is that he has consistently shown himself as much less able to do that than Clinton. Perhaps he can still do it in the coming months... but it is clearly a gamble we are taking when we could have had a sure thing.

Democrats went into this election poised to deliver a sweeping mandate for Progressive policies and programs. That was the change that I and millions of other Democrats were looking for. It wasn't vague or undefined or based in soaring rhetoric, it was all clearly laid out in Hillary Clinton's platform.

If we had achieved the Clinton map, there would have been nothing we Progressives couldn't have achieved... the power and momentum of that type of sweeping win would have been unstoppable as a force for positive change. With Obama as the nominee, we are looking at a race which is a squeaker... a country which remains divided and (worst case scenario) an electoral college defeat.