Thanks Zola. Excellent post.

I have directed no anger toward Senator Hillary Clinton. I never said nor wrote that she should exit the race any earlier than she deemed appropriate.

That being said, I abhor extortion. I cannot abide the implied threats from Clinton supporters, however muted, that they might not thoroughly support Senator Barack Obama for President against John McCain, that some might even vote for McCain.

My anger is with this game of coercive compliance gaining.

With possibly four Supreme Court nominees on the line (and all the implications for women's rights and everyone's freedom), the war on Iraq, deluded economic policies, and perhaps the fate of the planet in the balance, I leave all the Clinton supporters to their own conscience.

No threats. No promises of appropriate behavior. No pledges of decorum. No bowing and scraping before royalty deposed.

I am convinced, when push comes to shove and the choice is really between John McCain and Barack Obama, the Clinton supporters will do what's right, or they won't and we will all live with the consequences.

Support whom you want. Campaign for whom you want. Vote for whom you want.

Bill, I don't know if you have directed any anger towards Clinton or not because I don't know you. I'll take your word for it.

My post was directed towards those who HAVE directed anger towards Clinton, which according to you, does not include you.

So that I might restate my point, let me put it this way. When someone wants to help get a candidate elected, they should try to convince others of why their candidate is a good candidate and why it would be a good idea for the (unconverted) to go ahead (and convert) in order to vote for the candidate. Persuasion is the order of the day.

Eighteen million of us voted for Clinton and we were persuaded that she is the best candidate. Now that she is out of the race, many of us, if not most of us, are not so sold on Obama that we will feel motivated to get out and vote. Sure, I think Obama is better than McCain, but, at this point, I'm not sure how much better he is and if it's worth it to get involved.

Rather than just assuming that we will join your side because of the supreme court appointees (which have nothing whatsoever to do with my primary concerns which revolve around universal health care) that are allegedly in the balance in the next four year - why not try to explain to us what your candidate will do for us - in the areas of greatest concern for many of us - like health care, jobs, etc?

Is it skin off your back to talk about issues? Are you bowing and scraping when you try to persuade us that your candidate has a good plan for jobs and health care?

Well, if it is, I'm afraid that you will discover that Obama has lackluster turnout at the polls in November. Obama (and his cadre of supporters) needs a plan for speaking to us about OUR issues. He has evidently already spoken to you about your issues. Now, it's our turn. He needs to speak to US about OURS. If you don't want to join him in that effort, that's fine. Your willingness to reach out to us on his behalf is up to you and you alone.

Meanwhile, though, many of us are not liking the anger we see coming from the Obama camp, and like I said, we feel that our issues are not being addressed and we feel alienated.

And, there's 18 million of us.

Zola, I caught the Clinton speech a couple of hours ago. I was very impressed. It was a good speech. I don't have any anger towards any candidate, not towards Clinton or Obama, and not towards any of their supporters. I have a great deal of respect for both Obama and Clinton. I have, nonetheless, witnessed the anger that you are referring to and I know it exists. I can see how it would make you, a Clinton supporter, feel marginalized and alienated. I do hope that the Obama supporters find a way to include you and others like you. I hope you will keep teaching us all about how we might reach out to you. I - for one - want you to feel passionate about the upcoming election and passionate about remaining involved at the grassroots level. We need you and all 18 million of you.

I don't blame you for demanding that your issues be reconsidered and that Obama's priorities and positions be retooled to include you. As 50% of the party, your priorities matter and deserve to be addressed.

If Obama hasn't addressed your issues well, I hope he's agile and alert enough to do that now. Let us know how it goes! Let us know if he (or his "cadre of supporters") are able to gain your confidence.

Would yours and others' health care be better were John McCain elected?

Supreme Court nominees may not matter to health care, but they matter to what this country is and what it is to become. I understand the importance of health care and have already agreed with you on this site. However, single issue decisions risk enormous consequences, especially those that impinge greatly on the very groups of people you wish to help protect with appropriate and deserved health care. The consequences for the economically challenged in this country are far-reaching and potentially disastrous. McCain will devastate our economy and vitiate government care for those who need it most, many of whom are suffering mightily now due to a lack of health care coverage and other corporate welfare schemes. Where do you think McCain will get the money necessary to cut taxes and maintain military spending?

I have no trouble with persuasion and intend to continue my efforts toward that end, on these pages and elsewhere. I reiterate: I find the tactics used in your original post--dictating behavior and threatening repercussions, aimed at me or not--to be underwhelming and offensive. My response was not intended to persuade you about Obama (after all, your health care post explicitly decried any effort to persuade you on that score). Rather, you represented, for me, the entitlement associated with the electorate power of "18 million" voters (a figure fudged with estimated caucus voting and not very far ahead of the nearly 18 million who voted for Obama - see: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html).

As I wrote in my post last Tuesday night and will repeat, I agree with your assessment of the flaws in Obama's health care proposal, but the book is not closed there and I believe he will be willing to alter it as appropriate.

Not sure how much better Obama is than McCain? C'mon! The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are not that large, though admittedly important on some issues. The differences between McCain and Obama,, however are monumental.

Yes, Pam, Obama is agile and alert enough to sway many of these alienated Clinton voters, in my humble, and will demonstrate extraordinary political acumen during the next five months.

Zola, I do not know you either, only having read a few posts from you, but as I said, I am convinced most Clinton supporters will do the right thing in November, irrespective of whether they vote for Obama. However, I fear that some of the "18 million" were on board for reasons other than policy and will vote or not vote based on less honorable reasons.

So be it. One's vote is one's vote and nobody else's. One votes as one votes and no one has the right to disrespect that right, a most intimate and, ironically, most public one employed by anyone, even if another disagrees with their reasons.

Persuade, we shall.

I think that in Zola's original health care post, she's explaining to Obama that she wants Obama to significantly alter his health care platform in order to gain her support.

Then, in her subsequent post, it seems to me that she's saying that - while she awaits Obama's platform changes - she is offput by the anger towards Clinton supporters. I get it. I get both points she is making - and it's not blackmail for her to talk about 18 million voters and what those 18 million deserve.

Look at it this way. When George W. Bush took over the White House, he won by about 50% (or less) of the popular vote. Bush has an opportunity to acknowledge that other 50% and reconcile with the other 50% by talking about some of their issues. You see this done all the time in other democracies. It's something that I have admired about Canada and Germany in recent years, for example. But, no, George Bush pushed ahead with an agenda that only served the less than 50% that voted for him.

Obama has an opportunity to prove that Democrats are not like George Bush. Obama DOES NEED TO ADJUST his platform for the Clinton supporters in order to create unity. He cannot expect the Clinton supporters to just jump on his ship because they are Democrats any more than Bush could expect the 50% that didn't vote for him to jump on his ship just because they are Americans.

Zola is right - the 18 million need to be listened to and - Obama needs to adjust his priorities for them. Meanwhile, derogatory remarks (not made by you Bill - I'm not talking about you Bill!) made by Obama supporters about Clinton could cause Clinton supporters to stay away from the polls out of discouragement. We don't want them to be discouraged.

Bill, I like your last sentence the best! :-)

Nora T.

PS. Not voting is a normal human reaction to a feeling of not being heard by powerful politicians. We may chide people that don't vote, but statistics show that most Americans don't vote and - by percentage - more Democrats don't vote than Republicans - meaning that we (Democrats) have to work harder at being a party that keeps our people motivated and with a sense of being heard and represented - as primary motivators for going to the poll.

You guys are having dialogue. It's fantastic. I too admire the governments of other democracies that seek to adjust their priorities according to percentages of voters - in hopes of gaining greater support from the larger population. I think it's wise for Obama to adjust his priorities in concrete ways in order to gain the support of the eighteen million Democrats that voted for Clinton. They cannot be expected to behave like sheep. Obama needs to make changes to secure their votes.

Zola, I too watched the Clinton speech earlier today. I have been a long time supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, but I have chosen to support Senator Barack Obama in this election. Although she did a great job, I don't think she did our party any favors by presenting this speech today instead of Thursday night. Fruthermore, I can't believe that any democrat would consider voting for McBush or not voting at all, because the primary did not go their way.

I have said from the beginning that I will vote for the democrat that wins the primary. Lets all put this primary behind us, because we the democrats can't afford to screw up another election.

Great post Zola, and thank you for bluntly expressing how many Clinton backers feel. I have many friends who supported Hillary who felt slighted like you do from Obama supporters. I think Clinton did Obama a favor by staying in the race and showing his weaknesses among white blue collar workers, older women and hispanics. Obama found out about his weaknesses early enough in the year so he could work on them, rather in September or October, when he might not have enough time to work on those weaknesses.

I went for Biden originally, but when he dropped out, I threw my support to Hillary. After the way Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry were unable to fight back against Republican attack ads in previous elections, I voted for Hillary because she's tough and I liked that she's a fighter. I like Obama and think he's intelligent and a great speaker, but I worried about his inexperience. Jimmy Carter is an intelligent man too, but his lack of experience really hurt him when he became President. The question for me was does Obama have the political skills to make up for his lack of experience, or will he be another Jimmy Carter? I think he may have those political skills after seeing how well he handled the Reverend Wright controversy. I think those political skills will help him persuade the 18 million Hillary supporters to support him in November.

Zola - your posts are outstanding. Thank you for summarizing how many of us feel today.