Alterman is right on point.

As a diehard Clintonite, I am just as disappointed as any other. However, I am baffled by many comments by the Clintonites, and a couple of polls mentioned by Susan Faludi in her August 25 New York Times op-ed, "Second-Place Citizen": "In one poll, 40 percent of Mrs. Clinton's constituency expressed dissatisfaction; in another, more than a quarter favored the clear insanity of voicing their feminist protest by voting for John McCain."

We need to grow up and stand behind the party that has the interests at heart of not only the people living in America but people all around the world--and not behind the party that responds only to the concerns of the Corporate Citizens of the world (the Republicans).

I must share with my fellow disappointed Clintonites a piece of advice from Confucius: "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

We must pay attention to the much larger issue. Another Republican administration would surely bring us closer to being Third World citizens.

Shame on us that Republicans are organizing "Happy Hour for Hillary," the same Republicans who would just as soon hang the Clintons and the Clintonites... and we are supporting them? As Forrest Gump so eloquently put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."

If you can't get behind the Democratic ticket, fine! Just do the world a favor and stay home on the Election Day and try not to sleep with the enemy, it has never yielded any good results.

Ghazi Kazmi

New York City, NY

OK, Mr. Distinguished Professor. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. Furthermore, just because you choose to ignore a story doesn't mean there is no story there. I am a lifelong Democrat who quite frankly is still pissed off. Not so much that Hillary "lost" but that she was passed over the VP slot. I would be equally as upset if the shoe was on the other foot, and she passed over him for VP.

I guess being a racist is no longer OK, but being sexist is just business as usual. Michelle's speech about Hillary "cracking" the ceiling was a hoot, especially considering it is still two men on the ticket. A true game-changing ticket would be a black man and a woman, both qualified by virtue of their performance in the primaries, and the almost 50/50 split in votes.

She lost, I get that, but as a father of two girls I can say that nothing has really changed.

I honestly think comparing us "dead-enders" to the loony Nader folks is pretty god damned insulting. Hillary was screwed. Screwed by the media, screwed by the right, and screwed by the blacks who alined themselves almost in a perfect racial line (much like the O.J. case). Most of all, they were screwed by the Obama loons who stumble around in a fawning daze--like Alterman, who has no objectivity left; perhaps a few years down the line he will see that. While the Republicans realize that some of us Hillary supporters are up for grabs, some because they are racist trolls, and some because they simply think Obama is too inexperienced for the job. Not to mention his caving on... FISA, off-shore drilling etc. to get a vote.

So with all due respect, I will close my two minutes with something you can understand. Fuck you.

Wonder if it will turn out in November like you are so sure it will...

Michael Lacy

Somers Point, NJ

Well put. Two words to die-hard Hillary supporters: Supreme Court. No, make that five words: one vote on Supreme Court.

If you really care about women's rights, get real.

Mary McDevitt

Mountain View, CA

I found Alterman's comparison of Hillary diehards with Nader supporters inappropriate. I voted for Nader in 2000, though I was at that time registered in Massachusetts. I would not have voted for him if I had then been living in a swing state--but I am far from holding those Floridians and Ohioans who did in the contempt Alterman does. Politics involves compromise; it also involves calculation about short- and long-term outcomes. That some in 2000 might have thought it worthwhile to stand against a Democratic Party that had repeatedly abandoned progressive ideals in the pursuit of the "center" may (certainly in retrospect) be judged a tactical error, but it was certainly not idiocy--either moral or political.

In any case, there is a world of difference between Nader supporters then and Hillary diehards now. The former voted for Nader because he advocated policies that were significantly different from those of the Democratic (let alone the Republican) Party and its nominee. The latter are (evidently) contemplating either (a) not voting at all, or (b) voting for someone whose positions on a wide range of issues are diametrically opposed to those of the candidate they claim to support.

In short, voting for Nader is a reasonable choice within the logic of democracy (since it meant voting for the person whose positions were closest to one's own); the position of the Hillary diehards makes no such sense (since it entails either not voting, or voting for someone whose positions are less reflective of your own than that of the Democratic nominee).

Ian A. McFarland

Decatur, GA

Good point--dumbass messenger.

Ms. Kyle Christensen, MSW

Dayton, OH

The hysterical HRC diehards shouldn't be angry about Hillary, they should be angry at Hillary--and husband Bill--for running such a loser of a campaign.

Not unlike the disaster they perpetrated with healthcare insurance.

And now we learn that some of these "diehards" are being financed by the GOP.

Surprise.

R.H. Weber

Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY

As per usual, the obnoxious and insulting tone that Alterman takes with people with whom he disagrees overwhelms what is otherwise accurate, if trivial, observation. While we all understand that a lot of Clinton's former supporters need to move past the primary season and Clinton's loss, when Alterman writes, "Personally, I think that people who are 'still angry' about Hillary Clinton and are considering 'withholding their support' from Obama are moral and political idiots in exactly the same vein as those people who voted for Ralph Nader," he casually insults a lot of people and blithely places himself on a moral pedestal he assuredly will not belong on.

Writing as someone who agrees that "Hillary Diehards" need to accept reality and move on, I find Alterman to be, as far as I can tell by his writing, one of the figures least likely to help bridges be rebuilt or bitter disappointments salved.

Finally, Alterman really needs to quit attacking Ralph Nader's supporters. Alterman appears very much a man who thinks that being in a majority and disagreeing with a minority gives him the right to be obnoxiously insulting to that minority, and he has been over-the-top in his insults of Nader's supporters for years now. With respect to Election 2000, it could be that Hillary's supporters this year do need to move on, but not nearly as much as Eric Alterman, who is himself it would seem a "Gore Diehard."

Sincerely,

A Moral and Political Idiot,

Seymour Friendly

Seattle, WA