Clintonites: Nader redux?

Sure this is anecdotal, and I'm figuring this "Clinton voters not supporting Obama" stuff is just at the margins, but yikes, we really don't need to go through the whole "not gonna vote for the perfectly fine Dem and let another terrible Republican win" junk again. Why can't people sift out the emotion and logically pick the candidate most aligned with the views of the person they voted for in the primary? Vindictiveness just gets us more wars, more death, more job losses and more bad world-y stuff. Hopefully it's just being over-reported in the mainstream.

Like most races, this will be won and lost at the margins. But even at the margins, if this means the Dems lose a smaller, sensibly blue state, like New Hampshire or Connecticut, this will be catastrophic for Obama.

Remember, in 2000, if Gore had simply won New Hampshire (where Nader got 4%, leading to 48%-47% Bush win victory), Gore would have won, Florida would not have meant jack, and there would be no war in Iraq. (hey that rhymes! good times!) Here's hoping Clinton people don't make the Nader mistake. You see where that got us.