It seems to me...

[kentuck]

Now that the primary is over, folks are trying to assimilate the fallout. Hillary supporters were blind to the strong call for change. Obama supporters were blind to the strong drive by some in the women's movement. In the end, the clarion call for change was stronger than the need to put a woman in the White House.

Supporters of both sides are still very defensive after a hard-fought primary. It is my opinion that the best candidate won. However, I do not minimize the efforts or the rationale for voting for Hillary. She was a very, very strong candidate. Unfortunately, she was swimming against the wave of change rather than with the wave. That made it very difficult for her. I do not think a lot of her supporters see that even yet. In a way, some might say it was a lack of judgement by Hillary and her supporters not to see how big was the need for change.

But we now have a nominee. Either we support him or we do not. Our choices are not plentiful. It is not possible to be a Democrat and vote for the continuation of what we have experienced for the last 8 years. Neither anger nor resentment is a legitmate excuse to not support our candidate. The assimilation of the fallout will eventually lead to unification, in my opinion. We cannot put the responsibility for change on the back of one leader. It is up to all of us to help in the process.

[Diamonique]

1. Very well said!

k&r

[Youphemism]

2. People keep trying to distill this race down to one factor...

It isn't race, it isn't gender, it isn't Bill screwing up or the Reverend Wright issue getting too much or not enough traction.

There were hundreds of things involved in this campaign. Individual issues, where to campaign, strategies, messages, money raising, ground troops...

It was so close that any one of those issues could have decided things differently, had they gone the other way. But just because the media wants to try to simplify and point to one issue -- especially gender or race -- don't go along with that sound byte mentality.

One of the reasons we go through all this crap is to have the best overall leader come out on top. The candidate who knows how to work the system best, adapts to the constantly changing landscape of the political battlefield, gets the support of people, uses available resources the best, and crosses the finish line first is, hopefully, the best candidate -- both in representing the voters and in setting and achieving goals.

It's not about men or women, black or white. It's not about any one thing, unless you define that one thing as "getting the job done."

[kentuck]

3. I agree that the candidate must get the "support of the people"...

But the candidate that gets that support is usually the one that has his finger on the pulse of the people. If you misread the diagnosis, you will usually lose the election. Barack Obama got the support of the people. He connected. The one thing that over-rode all other issues was the need for change. People wanted no part of the status quo. That was Hillary's error, in my opinion.

[Youphemism]

5. No.

I mean yes, that's *one* of the reasons Obama won. But he also planned a strategy to eat at the corners by grabbing those caucus states Hillary ignored. He raised money in a way and on a scale that's never been done before. He not only had that message you talked about, he delivered it well.

It was a combination of things, not any one of them. The media has a few minutes and wants to sell a very simple story. Any story that points to one grand thing that won this contest is an oversimplified story, and it also belittles the process.

That process has problems, but it does tend to produce a winning candidate who is a leader, who has that message you talk about, who is good with strategy, who can adapt well, and who has a lot of endurance.

It required all of that to win, not just a finger on someone's pulse.

Of course, if you're McCain, the pulse you probably want to have your finger on is your own.

[kentuck]

6. Yes.

Obama won for all the reasons you state. But the over-arching and primary reason that he won the support of the voters was that he was for change. Change in the direction of the war. Change in the way our tax system works. Change in the way special interests run Washington.

But, he was also a beneficiary of fate in some ways. He had no idea that the Internet would support him with so much money that he would not have to take government funds for his race. But he was flooded with money from the blogosphere. That must have surprised him as much as anyone else? The earth moved under their feet and they did not see what was happening, even as the Republicans were mired in the old ways of talk radio and dependence on Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But talk radio could not keep up with the new medium. This played a huge part in Obama's victory.

[Danger Mouse]

4. Hillary doomed herself by making fun of Obama's 'change' movement.

People are hungry for change after 7 years of hell.

[anonymous171]

7. A win for one side does not mean a rebuke for the other.

Good point.