I give it less than that. No "Obambi" or "kool aide" references anywhere. 1/10, at the most.

Polling is showing the " deadenders " are coming around;

- Such humility lol.

basically keeps mentioning he's won! she's completely ignored unless it's something negative. Take a look at the women votes which are the biggest, loyal and reliable bloc of voters and how they feel about this primary:

I read this on a blog which I forgot to write which one nevertheless it will give you an idea of the problem he faces. Women never forget and seldom forgive just ask any of your scorned girlfriends and mothers better yet, ask your father how long your mother' memory last:

Obama's Wealthy and Privileged Women Supporters: More Than Just a Generation Gap! posted by Tony Smith  
05.23.2008 - 7:34 pm  
Only the Democrats would decide to run two attractive presidential candidates from the party's strongest demographic groups in the same year. But things became worse when the party allowed the media to butcher one of the candidates with sexist, racially accusatory, and otherwise hateful rhetoric that inflamed her base of support. Although a line between leading and defending a party and meddling a campaign must exist, if the threat originates outside of the field of candidates, the party should take a role in neutralizing it. The party intervened numerous times, claiming that Clinton campaigned too aggressively against Obama, but it said nothing about the awful treatment of Clinton from the media. This is unacceptable. It means that my party will tolerate sexism either because they hate the individual, or because sexism makes them hate the individual. Either way, that's inappropriate, and it violates fundamental principles that define my own personal ideology and that shape the party's political platform - at least rhetorically.

I do not wish to unify with racist and sexist "liberals." At least the Republicans don't pretend to be egalitarian. Maybe this is why the Democrats have been so ineffective; they don't really support the views they espouse. We need a party that speaks and acts consistently. We can only accomplish this by reforming the mess we already have or by forming a new party, not by compromising fundamental values and electing Obama above all. If we compromise, the party would lack any incentive to change.

Also, I cannot vote with a "generation" that believes its values supercede all others, especially when its members are unpredictable and unappreciative. Before you accuse me of "hating" the youth, I felt the same way about Generation X - which positioned itself in the same elitist "no-it-all" way. In my black southern background, older people are revered for their knowledge and experience. Certainly, I can question people older than I am, but I have learned that their experiences, especially in combating subordination, are meaningful. Whenever I hear young women say that they just don't get "feminists," I want to tell them to drop out of school, ask for 1/2 the average male salary, lay back and "enjoy" rape because they dressed seductively, and forego the right to vote. These young women could understand and appreciate older feminsts, but they do not respect history and are privileged by the activism of older women. Clinton's staunchest women supporters, by contrast, are women, single mothers, and older. Perhaps because they lack economic privilege, they appreciate and are inspired by the idea of a "tough" woman standing up for them. The Huffingtonpost and Daily-Kos "new feminist" crowd cannot relate to this, so they criticize Clinton's female supporters for engaging in "identity politics" (or for being racist). Here's another perspective: These so-called "postmodern" or "post-identity" women do not relate to Clinton's base because of their own social and economic privilege. Compare their position with blacks who overwhelmingly support Obama. Blacks are socially vulnerable, in terms of both race and class. They, like Clinton's socially vulnerable white women supporters have dug in their heels with respect to Obama. Some blacks have threatened to riot or to vote for McCain if Clinton wins. Clearly, Obama gives them hope, pride and a sense of justice, and the "new" feminists have not challenged this whatsoever. Clinton similarly inspires poor and older women. When upper-class women denounce poor and older women's gender loyalty as unwise, they contradict the very message upon which Obama's campaign rests: the importance of hope and inspiration. They also hypocritically chastise white women, but not blacks for engaging in identity politics. We must hold them accountable for their hypocrisy and arrogance.

Finally, a word on Roe -- the ultimate red alert. An abundance of literature criticizes the feminist movement for centralizing Roe as a social movement objective. Mainstream feminists fail to recognize the ways in which economic barriers, not Court rulings, burden women's reproductive autonomy. The Supreme Court has watered down Roe almost to the point of nonexistence. The Court does not even apply the rigorous Roe doctrine anymore; instead, it only looks to see whether a law places an "undue burden" in the path of a woman seeking to abort a nonviable fetus. Since the Court developed this malleable standard in 1992 (Planned Parenthood v. Casey), it has upheld several laws that had previously failed Roe's "strict scrutiny" test. Now states can require women to read literature designed to deter them from seeking abortions. They can require "24-hour waiting periods," which means that patients have to schedule two doctor's appointments, thus exacerbating the cost of the procedure. Even under Roe, the Court had long held that the federal government and states could exclude abortion-related services from coverage under government-sponsored health plans. As a result, abortion is cost-prohibitive for many poor women -- unless they receive assistance from organizations like Planned Parenthood. Most recently, the Court, for the first time, upheld an antiabortion law that lacks a health exception. This federal statute bans partial-birth abortion, which usually takes place in the third trimester. Although heavily maligned by Obama's so-called "progressive" supporters, Bill Clinton vetoed partial-birth legislation two times. As Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, poor women, who often lack money to seek an abortion earlier, disproportionately utilize this procedure. Because the public strongly favors this legislation, do not expect the Supreme Court to reverse course, even under an Obama administration. The Supreme Court follows, rather than dictates, public opinion.

Obama has not stated that he would try to secure federal subsidies for abortion services or to do anything specific to enhance the reproductive choices of poor women. Had he articulated such policies, this would mark a significant change in the abortion debate. Absent such progressive measures, abortion will remain freely open to wealthier women and fairly available to middle-class and poor women - the exact same situation as today. Only policies that recognize the economic constraints on reproduction can disrupt the status quo. Because Obama has not proposed such measures, the Roe argument is merely a scare tactic

An honest question, of course- how d'you think we feel when we see Hillaryis44.org, NoQuarter, and Taylor Marsh? On Taylor Marsh, a Clinton supporter insinuated my daughter deserved to be raped since I supported Obama. I've never seen anything that horrible since, but should I attribute that to Senator Clinton if she's the nominee, when I'm considering voting for her or not?

amen.  I wasn't a fan of either of these two candidates, but the Obama supporters first at Kos and now here have pushed me far away from him.  The smugness, sarcasm, and ludicrous (even childish) belief that Obama represents some new politics--used as an attack on Clinton--have turned me completely off.