As the media starts to recognize that many Clinton supporters are not supporting Obama, the response of the pundits is to portray these people as angry irrational women. There several problem with the media's analysis. First, two of the most common reasons people support Senator McCain and not Senator Obama whether left, right, or center are experience (or lack thereof) and honesty/consistency. Neither of these receive much attention in the press, however, Senator Obama has numerous issues that he has flipped on from guns, to NAFTA, to preconditions, to public financing. People don't like to be played for a fool, and maybe some are even angry about it. Yet the issue that has consistently been ignored throughout the race is experience. Who shows up to a job interview for the most important job in the land with a half page resume? No foreign policy experience in a time of war is extremely troubling to many. Voting for the most inexperienced candidate has a history of not working out. Why is this not a legitimate issue?
There's an irony to the media's myopic punditry. They're insulting the very people they are trying to convince to vote for Obama. You want to know what really angers people? Telling them that their anger is unjustified, then pigeon holing them as irrational, grumpy, or moody. As a woman and a McCain supporter I've heard repeatedly that women won't support McCain (though I've met dozens who are). I've heard that the people who won't support Obama are low class, uneducated, and narrow minded. Yet some how the insults haven't won me over. I still think Senator Obama's complete lack of experience and flip flops are a bad thing, while Senator McCain's experience, bipartisanship, decency, and personal history make him a highly qualified candidate.