If you watched the entire speech John Edwards gave in endorsing Barack Obama, you might have been struck by the first five or six minutes, which sounded almost like a nominating speech for Sen. Hillary Clinton. This was neither incidental nor accidental.

With the nomination all but wrapped up—despite the protestations from the Clinton camp—one of Obama’s top priorities is to reach out, embrace and win over the votes of Clinton’s key constituencies.

As all the polls showed, following every primary a large cluster of Clinton voters said they would be unhappy if she didn’t get nominated. They threatened to vote for John McCain or sit out the election. Obama voters make similar vows, while history shows that eventually most Democrats come together—but sometimes not all do, as witness 1968.

A key demographic among Clinton voters is, of course, late middle-aged and older women who spent decades awaiting a woman president. These are often designated first- and second-generation feminists, though many of them eschew the term.

Many of them feel angry—maybe even bitter—and perhaps cheated out of what seemed a year ago to be their rightful heritage. Some acknowledge Obama’s positive qualities; others find ways of picking him apart.

The point is, where will this constituency wind up in November?

There is an irrevocable logic that says they should come home to the Democratic Party—especially in this year of potentially tidal change. But it won’t happen automatically and they should not be taken for granted.

There is, however, a powerful homecoming argument, based on the core beliefs of this important constituency.

In addition to a belief in gender equity, there are several key tenets:

—This group is overwhelmingly pro-choice
—They are against the war in Iraq
—They are in favor of national health care
—They are opposed to the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy

These, of course, are tenets to which not only Clinton and Obama subscribe, but all the Democrats who ran this year did as well. The differences among them were relatively minor, when you compare them to the Republican candidates.

McCain, as has been made very clear, is anti-abortion. Furthermore, he has in effect pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices in the Roberts-Alito-Scalia mold. The next president is very likely to have occasion to replace one or more of the pro-choice justices, which would totally tip the balance of the court to the “pro life” position.

Can Clinton-supporting women (or men, for that matter) really be so angry at her defeat that they will risk installing a McCain and thereby assure the overthrow of Roe v. Wade sometime in the next four years?

McCain promises us at least five more years of warfare in Iraq—though even that seems a number snatched out of a lottery-ball machine. Why not three? Why not ten? He has no better idea of the real number than your pet cocker spaniel.

He does know for sure that he does not support national health care—and even questions some of the Medicare prescription drug benefits currently in place.

He first opposed Bush’s tax cuts, but reversed himself and now offers us only a carbon copy.

Clinton’s constituents, irked as they may be, have a lot to think about. The Obama people are fully aware of this and wisely are trying to make the transition as easy as possible.

Back in 1968 I was one of those so turned off at Hubert Humphrey’s support of the Vietnam War that I voted for a third party. As a reward I got Richard Milhous Nixon.

Shouldn’t happen twice in one guy’s lifetime.

________________________________________

Don Rose, a regular columnist for The Chicago Daily Observer, is a veteran strategist and organizer for liberal and progressive candidates and was press secretary to Martin Luther King during King’s campaign in Chicago.