My colleague Morgan Felchner got a torrent of response to her blog posting of last Friday asking, "Hillary Clinton supporters: Are you happy now?"
I also posted on Sen. Barack Obama's decision (yes, the DNC was part of the negotiating team, but the Obama campaign in essence runs the DNC these days) to allow Clinton's delegates to vote for her when her name is placed in nomination at the Democratic convention next week.
But I would like to respectfully report on the perspective of former Hillary supporters who disagree with the tone of the question: "Are you happy now?"
No one can report on how all 18 million Clinton voters reacted to the decision. Clearly, overall they must have been at least somewhat pleased with the decision. But to ask, "Are you happy now?" carries with it an implication that Clinton supporters are a complaining bunch who won't be happy no matter what the DNC or the Obama campaign does to try to please them. I am in close touch with the PUMA folks and other Democratic anti-Obama bloggers as I will be covering their activities in Denver next week. To ask the question, "Are you happy now?" is to dismiss the seriousness of their concerns.
From where many of them sit, the Democratic Party blew a perfectly good opportunity to nominate a moderate (instead of liberal), seasoned (instead of inexperienced) party leader (instead of Senate newcomer) with a long track record in international relations. Clinton's "3 a.m. call" commercial is still resounding in blogs and media reports because when Russia invaded Georgia, Obama at first issued an appeasement statement, then the next day did a 180-degree turn, pressuring Russia to withdraw quickly. Such flip-flops on war policy are unacceptable but typical of what the party should have expected from a newbie. They also help explain why Obama is now tied with McCain in daily presidential tracking polls, rather than winning by double digits.
So instead of asking, "Are you happy now?" I'd ask y'all to respond to the question: "Why should we be?"