Recently I’ve had conversations with people online and offline about troubling encounters with Clinton supporters harboring increasingly pathological-level opposition to an Obama nomination. This in a year where we have two candidates who would be infinitely better stewards of this country than the current White House occupant or John McCain.
I hear stuff all the time — the “it’s time for a woman” mantra, to “it’s time for a black man” to “she deserves it first” to the “we need change, not a Clinton third term” frustrations, but there are people out there so invested in their candidate that they plan to reject the other if that person is nominated.
Not stay home, mind you, but actually vote for McCain. (Just an aside — I’ve personally not yet encountered any Obama supporters who wouldn’t vote for Clinton in the end, though surely they are out there, as you will read below. My guess is that they would sit out the election rather than vote for McCain.)
We’re not talking Log Cabin Republicans who agree with McCain’s overall political tilt, but people who have no ideological reason to vote for a GOP candidate.
McCain’s opposed to:
- Gays and lesbians openly serving in the military (McCain called gay troops “an intolerable risk” to morale, cohesion and discipline in a letter to SLDN.)
- Federal protections for couples
- Civil unions and domestic partnerships
and…
- Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
- Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
About the only “positive” you can point to is that McCain:
* Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) He is fully supportive of states having the right to pass amendments on their own, and promoted passage of the failed one in Arizona.
For any LGBT voter rooting for either Obama or Clinton, it would be insane to throw an electoral tantrum and vote GOP if your candidate doesn’t get the nom. I simply do not understand the logic. Your civil rights and liberties are on the chopping block as the future of the Supreme Court hangs in the balance in this election and instead of not voting as a protest, you’d rather toss the election to someone who has no desire to help advance LGBT rights, and will, in fact, support efforts to curtail them.
More below the fold.
You won’t see the Freepi, who hate McCain with a passion, crossing over and voting Dem because Fred Thompson won’t be celebrating his nomination at the GOP convention. They may stay home, but there’s no way they’ll pull the lever for Clinton or Obama in the end. The religious right has infinite patience — and they knew to focus on SCOTUS. That, in the end, is the one success they have had, and the rightward tilt of the court that will have a profound effect on all of our lives.
The next president is likely to chose one or more Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court may eventually revisit the right to privacy, which is the basis of Roe v Wade as well as Lawrence v Texas, the landmark 2003 decision that decriminalized private sexual acts between consenting adults. Also, eventually the Supreme Court may be called to decide on whether other states need to recognize valid marriages performed in other states, such as Massachusetts.This Pew poll finding is telling, particularly for the “post-racial” fantasists out there:
Although attention has been focused on McCain’s problems with the GOP base, there are indications that some Democrats might defect if Obama is the party’s nominee. Overall, 20% of white Democratic voters say they would vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. That is twice the percentage of white Democrats who say they would support McCain in a Clinton-McCain matchup. Older Democrats (ages 65 and older), lower-income and less educated Democrats also would support McCain at higher levels if Obama rather than Clinton is the party’s nominee.Yes, a sizeable number of people would rather vote for the right-wing Republican than cast a vote for the Democrat more closely aligned with their political views.
Race inevitably plays a factor, but I believe a certain amount of that disconnect in those numbers is this “sore loser” spoiler syndrome, the “my candidate didn’t get the nom so I’m going to punish him/her” reaction. Talk about juvenile shooting yourself in the foot.
I can see blue collar, lunch bucket Dems turning to McCain; those are the Reagan Democrats, the aspirational demographic that has been snowed by the GOP over and over — a group of people who continue to believe that somehow wealth will trickle down to Average Jane/Joe, that the Republican party of low taxes and small government is in their corner (shhhh, don’t talk about corporate welfare), and is in alignment with their political views and best interests.
But for the progressive and LGBT community to have a meltdown that hands the White House to McCain because you can’t get over your candidate didn’t make the cut will only prove why Democrats don’t deserve to be in charge — they can’t see the long-range implications of such an overwrought, emotional, self-destructive political reaction.
181 Responses to “The self-destructive Democrat, 2008 model”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I think (and hope) that some of this is just stupid posturing, especially among people who haven’t yet been reached by the crucially important democratic ground troops explaining just how thoroughly dishonest and corrupt McCain is.
I’m not on fire for either of the democrats this year, but geez. Voting for McCain because your preferred democrat didn’t get the nomination is like saying that no, you wanted lobster, you won’t settle for salmon, you’re going to have a plate of dog vomit instead.
I have experienced more Obama supporters who claim they will not vote if Clinton gets the nod. The Clinton supporters I know are considerably older and more jaded than the Obama supporters and will generally not be shocked or outraged by an Obama victory. The Obama supporters I know (and I am an Obama supporter) are younger, more idealistic and more prone to having their bubble burst.
This is related to a concern I have over whether Obama supporters will stick with him through the thick mud of a general election campaign. At some point will their idealism be challenged by cold, hard and ruthless politics?
The Clinton campaign seems like a drowning pitbull. Flailing, lockjawed on the opponent, both will sink to their demise. Drowning ambition. roiling in fear, unwilling, unable to let go…
Oh look, another jab at the Clinton supporters. Someone must be in a sore loser mode this morning I gather. It’s not like Obama was the one who threatened to take his voters and go home if he didn’t get elected or anything.
There are valid reasons why a lot of lefties are disillusioned with Obama, and Shakes has listed them extensivel at her blog. The audacity of expecting the LGBT community to hold their noses and vote for the guy who gave McClurkin a pass and a tribune to call them liars and crazy on his national campaign is ridiculous, and Pam normally knows better than that.
Why would a woman vote for someone who admits that she should have “some” control over her body? Why would any woman vite for a guy who has ran a deeply mysoginistic campaign? Because the other guy is worse? Bullshit. Looks like women will be screwed either way, so some people might sut not want to be complicit in it.
Why would an older democrat want to vote for a guy who has denigrated even the word “liberal”?
If a lot of Democrats are refusing to vote for Obama, the problem is Obama, not them. he has run a republican lite campaign in which he has thrown under the bus and taken for granted the traditional democratic voters in an absurd hope that he will thus appeal to the republican base more.
It’s not going to happen.
And if Clinton’s “high negatives” are so much touted by the Obama campaign, maybe someone should stand up and ask about Obama’s high negatives as well.
Not that we will see that at pandagon mind you, but one can only hope.
I think (and hope) that some of this is just stupid posturing,
I dunno, I think it’s more about how old people are going to ruin the country again. They just can’t seem to get it; it’s Hilary or nobody for them.
All the Obama supporters I’ve heard from think Obama’s the best choice, obviously, but I haven’t heard any Obama democrats say that they wouldn’t also support Clinton if she wins the nomination. I think that, largely, the idea of the uncompromising all-or-nothing Obama voter is a myth created by the media for symmetry. The people who will vote McCain over Hilary if she wins are the people for whom McCain was the second choice anyway; that is, disillusioned Republicans.
I have seen far, far, far, FAAAAAAR more Obama supporters whine that they’ll take their ball and go home (by not voting or voting for a non-Dem) if Obama doesn’t get the nomination.
I guess it just depends on which circles one runs in. *shrug*. Personally, I *very* slightly favor Clinton, but in the end could care less who wins and will vote for either (and most Clinton supporters I’ve spoken with will gladly vote for either candidate).
Either of them will have a tough race against Saint McCain (it’s naive to think otherwise) and both will need all the support they can get if they win the nomination.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of Democrats have bought into the media spin surrounding McCain. He’s a radical! He’s not your typical Republican! He’s a straight talker! He’s a man of integrity! I remember way back in 2000, talking to a very liberal Democrat who said he would have voted for McCain over Gore. He had nothing against Gore, he just really admired McCain. I think there’s still a lot of that among Democrats who get their news from the mainstream media rather than from progressive websites. And all the hand-wringing from the right about what a horrible disaster of a candidate McCain is only reinforces that notion.
Just yesterday I decided that spending any more time reading DailyKos was going to leave me with chromosomal damage, but up to now I’ve been a habitual reader. I still read the forums on Talking Points Memo. Both places are dominated by Obama supporters, many of whom like to act out, and the take-the-ball-and-go-home attitude is _plentiful_ among them. I’ve seen very little of it among Clinton supporters in any of the places I frequent (though I’m told that there are blogs with a comparable level of pro-Hillary intensity), and what little there is seems to me to be a reaction against the Obama folks: i.e., don’t think that you’re the only ones who can make threats about sitting it out if your candidate doesn’t win.
Countdown to explosion in 10-9-8….
I should add that I appreciate the level-headed reminder about the stakes in this one, and that we can’t afford to let bruised feelings curtail our support for a Democratic president.
Everyone needs to remember that the policies pursued by a President Obama will be very much like the policies pursued by a President Clinton.
When it comes to appointing advisers, cabinet members and justices (supreme, appellate and district) both Clinton and Obama will pull from the same pool of candidates. The short lists for each position will likely be identical. Sure the appointment might be a bit different but the pool will be the same.
Both Clinton and Obama are on the conservative end of the Democratic party and will likely govern as Conservative Democrats. Yes, I would much rather have a liberal Democrat as the candidate but that is just not going to happen this year.
The Republicans have been more successful in electing presidents over the last 40 years than have the Democrats. I think part of this success is due to their understanding that it doesn’t matter who is at the top of the ticket. The idea is to nominate someone who can win. Once a candidate is president he (or she) will appoint 100s (if not thousands) of like-minded people to executive posts. Bush’s Administration has been a disaster. At least 70% of a McCain administration will be identical to Bush’s administration.
There are thousands of political jobs in the executive branch. Obama and Clinton will appoint the same people to those jobs. Don’t get so caught up in the politics of the primaries that you forget both remaining Democratic candidates are virtually identical in policy.
I think it will be easier for Obama in November and also think he will provide bigger coattails. That does not mean I will not campaign for (volunteer to make phone calls and canvass) Clinton.
George W. Bush did not destroy the country by himself. There are thousands of hard-right Republicans in the Administration and I want every one of them to be unemployed on Jan 20th, 2009.
I agree that Obama is not entitled to anybody’s vote. But it’s one thing to abstain from voting or vote Green or write in Clinton. It’s another to vote McCain, which is what Pam was talking about in this post. There’s certainly no reason to think McCain would be a better president for women than Obama, and at least a few reasons to believe he’d be a worse one.
I saw a poll on dailykos showing something like 20 or 30% of the Obama supporters there wouldn’t support Clinton if she got the nomination. It’s possible that some people (on both sides) will change their mind when actually confronted with the possibility of a McCain president though.
Didn’t Michelle Obama state that she would have to think about supporting Clinton if she won the nomination? I haven’t heard any of these sentiments coming out of the Clinton camp. Also I’ve heard far more Obama supporters stating that they wouldn’t vote or would vote for McCain if Clinton won the nomination, but that could just be my experience. I’ll vote for whoever wins the nomination, personally I think an Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket would be great.
(Hmm, I had an earlier comment — guess it went into the Black Box of moderation.)
The consenus among my Democratic friends here in Texas is that they won’t vote for Clinton. Sure, they’ll vote for the down ballot candidates, but not in the Prez race. The reasoning is that Clinton is a ruthless narcissist who’ll do anything to win and would run her administration as incompetently and as viciously as she runs her campaign. If she’s the nominee, she won’t win Texas, so a vote for her is meaningless in terms of facilitating her election. Therefore, we can keep our consciences clear by not pressing the touchscreen next to her name. Easy.
Thanks for posting this! I have a friend who is normally pretty cool and level-headed, but for some reason is buying into the whole “Clinton is a harpy/hysterical woman” thing, and also will cut the male candidates slack for “playing hardball” but not when Clinton does it (then, she’s showing that she doesn’t have “integrity”). And, yes, he’s said that if Clinton gets the nomination, he plans on voting for McCain. So I’ve been collecting all the concrete little factoids I can to point out to him why he shouldn’t vote for McCain - thanks for giving me yet more!
I think I can speak to this. A month ago, I was an Obama supporter but I would have happily voted for Clinton if she got the nomination.
After a month of watching her take-no-prisoners, screw-the-democratic-process, insult-the-voters, and tear-apart-the- Democratic party campaign strategies, I would sooner throttle her than vote for her. She has pissed me off and insulted me to the point of fury.
What’s worse is that I don’t think she’s electable. All I have to do around my office is mention her name and people of all political orientations rally around in a united effort to bash her. Her nomination will give the now fractured Republican party a common enemy and they will turn out in record numbers to vote her down.
Will I vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination? Reluctantly, because she’s better (on some issues) than McCain. But I will not work for her campaign, which I have done and will continue to do for Obama. A vote for Clinton is a vote for politics as usual. It’s a vote for the same negative, big business B.S. we’ve seen for the last …. oh, decades.
Additionally, I know of several former Clinton supporters who are now backing and sending money to Obama due to her campaign tactics. When we say that we’re voting for change, we mean it.
You know, I might vote for a 3rd party if and only if the Democratic nominee is chosen in a manner so crooked that I just can’t stomach the vote. Say, if Michigan delegates are seated based on the original primary or if the superdelegates vote way out of whack with the popular vote. Not the delegate count, but the popular vote simpliciter.
I simply will not reward that sort of bad behavior. Don’t talk to me about the courts or the agencies either. I don’t care, because this sort of bullshit will not end until we stand up and say no. What sort of bullshit you ask? The sort where Ned Lamont wins the Democratic primary and the Dem Establishment either backs Lieberman anyway or turns its back on Lamont.
But there is no way in Samsara that I’d vote for McCain either and anybody who would is brain dead.
Note: this goes for Obama or Clinton.
There are valid reasons why a lot of lefties are disillusioned with Obama, and Shakes has listed them extensivel at her blog. The audacity of expecting the LGBT community to hold their noses and vote for the guy who gave McClurkin a pass and a tribune to call them liars and crazy on his national campaign is ridiculous, and Pam normally knows better than that.
No one should make Obama a saint — and please point to where I ever gave Obama a pass on McClurkin. I can’t tell you how much hate mail I received from Obama supporters about my criticism of that saga.
Also, Clinton is not the devil — I think she represents the continuation of the tired, myopic DC establishment consultancy rule. That’s not healthy for the country, IMHO.
That said, I plan to vote for the Dem nominee because McCain is staunchly anti-gay, anti-choice and will put the Supreme Court firmly rightward.
It’s not about who you prefer out of who’s left on the Dem slate, this post is about the fact that people out there are so angry and wound up that they are willing to stay home, throw their vote away, or actually support a McCain candidacy and all it represents.
I prefer Obama, but I will have no problem voting Clinton should she get the nomination.
Allow me to go on the record and say, as an Obama supporter, I will DEFINITELY vote Clinton if she gets the nomination. I know Obama’s not perfect, but at present he is the only one left in the race with a semblance of my views in his platform. And even a cursory look at his record and campaign positions shows that they are not radically different from Clinton’s.
I agree with Pam: Think SUPREME COURT.
We’re lucky that the wizened old Justice Stevens hasn’t already kicked it and given George another whack at the ball. The next president will nominate at least one justice, and likely more, since left-leaners like Ginsberg are no spring chickens either.
As much as Clinton uninspires me, there is very little likelihood that she would nominate an anti-choicer for the bench, especially if Dems retain their Congressional majority. Whereas St. McCain, in his continuing campaign to embrace the wingnutjob branch of the party, would almost certainly use a SCOTUS pick to please the Christer contingent.
Arresting the rightward shift in the Supreme Court is quite possibly the most important thing progressives can focus on in this election, and in that regard, McCain is absolutely radioactive.
I have never wanted Hillary, and long before this election cycle claimed I would never vote for her.
I still don’t want her, but if I’m faced with a choice between Republican-lite and Crazy Grampa, I’ve got to choose Hillary.
I understand the folks who Nader-ed us in the past, but things are far too fucked up to continue in this direction unless we really want the republic to fail.
I’ll hold my nose and vote for the most progressive choice out there.
I’ve heard some Obama reporters say that, if Clinton uses the superdelegates to overrule the voters to get the nomination, they’ll stay home.
I’ve got very strong suspicions that most strong Clinton supporters will stay home rather than vote for Obama.
And of course, lots of folks who get all their news from the networks think that McCain is a liberal straight-talker, instead of an extremely conservative liar.
That’s why I’m no longer expecting a Democrat to win in November — superior spin control on the GOP’s side and the Dems’ pathological love of shooting themselves in the foot. :/
I think a lot of this is just whining and sour grapes that it isn’t “over” yet - and not “over” in a way that favors *my* preferred candidate. “I’m gonna take my vote and go home” is pretty lame. Never mind that it may be in the best interest of the country to continue to have huge turnouts in primaries in states that previously had little or no voice in the contest.
I honestly feel that the competition is good. It keeps the country focussed on the Democratic contest and it will be hard for McCain to keep the limelight while there is still an undecided situation going on.
“I agree with Pam: Think SUPREME COURT.”
While I agree with this sentiment to an extent, the matthew show, I am tired of hearing it. It pretty much amounts to “ignore all else or you get a court packed with Scalias - booga, booga!” I am just tired of the “vote for me or bad thing x will happen” mentality.
If either candidate were to get the Dem nomination because super delegates or weird delegate apportioning systems were way out of whack with the popular vote then that just strikes me as crooked and corrupt. If we vote for a candidate who wins the nomination that way because of the “Courts! Booga booga!” mentality, then we are telling the high ups in the party that they can run roughshod over the choice of the rank and file as long as they throw up a “Booga Booga”.
If Obama’s drawing support from Republicans and independents, why would this be surprising?
I have only heard rabidness on the Obama side myself. I have enlightened (harrumph) friends who say things like “It was hers [Clinton] to lose and she lost me” No reason. Nothing but hatred of herself (this voter is an aging woman, who doesn’t want to be reminded that Clinton is her).
Anyway, I would rather suffocate in Obama “hope” than face another 4 years under Rethugs. Geez - either one would be 100 x better than McBUsh.
I don’t want to see either candidate win because of 1) superdelegates or 2) the voters of Michigan and Florida not getting a fair say. Either scenario will be a disaster.
off beat/cynical opinion. I always thought LGBT community really doesn’t matter when right come down to it. Too small and divided.
so..
1. It’s about larger mass media (what reaction they are going to say. so for generating homophobia reaction in public)
2. The community itself is so marginalized it has no analytical ability to develop coherent decision to protect its own interest.
or maybe I just haven’t met really charismatic leader yet.
Nixon to Reagan to Bush. Notice a pattern? Each one more conservative than the last.
It took 30 years but a series of electoral successes at the presidential level have moved the discourse so far to the right that Goldwater would now be a moderate.
Rumsfeld and Cheney, cut their chops in the Nixon Administration.
Alito, Roberts, Rice? They all got their careers started during Reagan’s administration.
See a pattern?
Would you like a progressive Attorney General in 2038?
Would you like a liberal dominated Supreme Court in 2050?
It is funny 30 years from now seems a long time to wait. But 30 years ago seems as though it was yesterday.
Neither Obama or Clinton are perfect. Their administration will be more liberal than Bill’s. Twelve or 16 years from now A Democratic president will have a more liberal administration because of the Obama or Clinton Administration.
“The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Isn’t it ironic that the Republicans understand Lao Tzu more than liberals do.
Sheesh, Florida probably did have a fair say since both Obama and Clinton were on the ballot, but Michigan was FUBARed by having only Clinton (and Kucinich) on the ballot and the strong showing for “none of the above” (how do you apportion those delegates)?
I think Florida should probably be in as is and Michigan should revote.
I’ve said it here before and I’ll say it again: supporters on both sides who are threatening to take their ball and go home if their favored candidate doesn’t win the nomination need to grow the fuck up.
It is eight months until November. To decide at this point in the process that the entire country is so doomed if Clinton/Obama wins that you’re not going to stay home, you’re not going to vote third party, you’re going to vote for the Republican over the Democrat is cutting your own throat.
It’s not like Obama was the one who threatened to take his voters and go home if he didn’t get elected or anything.
Please link to this citation, because I haven’t seen anything from Obama saying that he will tell people to not vote at all in November if he doesn’t get the nomination.
The moderate Democrats who think McCain is appealing should be reminded of two things: He wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, and he’s likely got zero interest in universal health care.
Yes, he does things that piss off his fellow Republicans, but that doesn’t mean he’s secretly liberal. Look at his votes on reproductive rights, for example. On the majority of political issues, he votes in lockstep with the GOP.
To be clear, I’ll still vote for a drowned pitbull over McCain.
Personally, I don’t think it’s time to drag McCain down from his pedestal just yet, but when that time comes it won’t be pretty and the same media that decided to stop “going easy on Obama” will turn on Uncle John. The media likes to call a horse race, a close horse race, so they’ll do their best, out of a misguided sense of fairness, to rein in the leader and keep it close for a photo finish.
You’ve just got to hope against hope that whichever candidate loses the primaries will have the decency to come out and tell their supporters to still vote for the Democrats, and to point out how odious the alternative is.
Surely both of them have enough principle for that?
I am tired of hearing it. It pretty much amounts to “ignore all else or you get a court packed with Scalias - booga, booga!” I am just tired of the “vote for me or bad thing x will happen” mentality.
Perhaps it’s not important to you, but if you think a rollback on your civil rights and freedoms is not plausible if McCain adds two justices to the court, you’re smoking something strong and toxic.
Amusing (albeit fucked-up) fracas, or melee, in a Dallas precinct. First, as it broke on a local blog
http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2008/03/04/precinct-3549-indian-hills-a-rogue-precinct-chair/
and then as reported by the local press
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/DN-crenshaw_06pol.ART.State.Edition2.4607828.html
Not sure my html is working, cut n paste if interested.
clinton can’t beat mccain. Period.
if she manages to wrangle the nomination by hook, crook or otherwise, i will be joining the popcorn crowd election day.
i am sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for the least repulsive candidate.
her voting record is a clear indicator of how she would differ from bush as president: not at all.
so, IF there is an election in november (i think the economy will collapse long beforehand and Executive Order 51 will be invoked just in time to cancel the election) i will be staying home cleaning out my sock drawer.
I lean Clinton, but I will happily vote Obama in the general election if he cinches the nod.
I had the priv. of voting on Tuesday, I actually contemplated requesting the republican ballot and voting Huckabee — just to spoil, under the thought process that Huckabee is the least electable of the Repubs. But these last eight years have brought home the lesson not to play with fire.
Which is why anyone who would vote for McCain over the Dem just because their candidate of choice didn’t take the primary is a friggin’ idiot. And I would be happy to let them remain an idiot except that this ‘08 election will impact all of us and I’m not looking forward to Bush III.
Why would younger voters– they aren’t solid Democrats yet, which should be taken into consideration by anybody who cares about the party’s future, assuming anyone does– want to vote for a woman who denigrates the very concepts of hope and change?
It’d be nice if Democrats would eventually learn, after more than a quarter-century run of losses, that a political party has to have something to recommend it other than a list of policies and a minor-league marketing campaign. And it is nothing but sheer, desperate cowardice to keep whining that we can’t afford to think about that stuff because it’s too risky and the Republicans are too eeeevil.
I don’t have to vote for Clinton and won’t should she win the nomination, because I’m in a state that McCain could claim right now. The irony is that I actually don’t believe in the targeted, swing-state, 50%+1 strategy of the Clintonites, but if they win, I’ll use it as a justification to withhold moral support (that’s all my vote will be worth, after all). Funny how that works.
if there was any desire to bring justice and balance to this country, SCOTUS would be EXPANDED to include 25 judges.
That way NO SINGLE PRESIDENT COULD EVER materially affect the composition of the court.
However, the corruption and shrinking of civil liberties at this point has almost fucking NOTHING to do with SCOTUS and EVERYTHING to do with the bottom-up total corruption of the entire federal goverment.
Everyone in it should be purged.
Yes…let’s hope everyone calms down before November. I for one will vote for the Democratic candidate, and I think most of these other people throwing threats around will too. I’m optimistic enough to believe that it’s a tactical maneuver to make the other candidate appear less viable.
In the meantime, for those who have only seen threat-making supporters from one side : plenty of “I won’t vote for Clinton” comments can be found at DailyKos.com. Plenty of “I won’t vote for Obama” comments can be found at MyDD.com or HillaryIs44.com. Warning : may increase blood pressure regardless of affiliation.
Getaclue, kindly getaclue.
After the last eight years of Bush, I have a hard time with the idea that any sensible person would pretend that Clinton=Bush. Why not just come out and say “I haven’t paid a bit of attention to current events in the past decade and prefer to loyally parrot whatever Ralph Nader said back in 2000″?
Colorado Dave says
“When it comes to appointing advisers, cabinet members and justices (supreme, appellate and district) both Clinton and Obama will pull from the same pool of candidates. The short lists for each position will likely be identical. Sure the appointment might be a bit different but the pool will be the same.”
Barack Obama however disagrees
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4283
Pam Spaulding, it is important to me who is on the Court. I work for a public interest organization that litigates in federal court. I understand the issue all too well.
But I refuse to be cowed into voting for a candidate because someone claims bad thing x will happen otherwise. If you are willing to so vote, then you are just giving license to every bad Democratic politician out there to shout “Courts!” and get your vote.
Someone like Chuckie Schumer could shout “Courts!” until he was blue in the face and I would still have a hard time voting for him if I still lived in New York. His other BS just smells too bad to knee-jerk vote for him.
So how would you handle very bad behavior on the part of Democratic politicians? Bad behavior like voting for telecom immunity? Voting for cloture for Alito, or Roberts? Voting to confirm our lovely new Attorney General who refuses to follow the law (thanks Chuck). Supporting Lieberman after Lamont won the primary (thanks again Chuck). And please don’t say via the primary. I believed that up until the Lieberman debacle, but no more.
It’s not about Obama. It’s about his supporters.
I went into this with a slight preference for Clinton but a perfect willingness to support Obama if that was the way the party broke.
And then I found that simply being insufficiently rabid, declining to be blindfolded and baptized into the church of Barack, was enough to be classed as variously a traitor (paid and otherwise), a cryptoRepublican, a fascist, a neocon, a mindless shill (paid or otherwise), and a dozen other things I won’t post for reasons of not sending my own blood pressure past its already unsafe level.
I have become very afraid of the young hip and white Barackites; there’s absolutely no significant difference between them and the Bushites. Yes, there are ostensibly ideological differences, but the “Thou Shalt Not Disagree With Us” is the most important factor. Power corrupts and it’s amazing how many leftists suddenly become adamantly authoritarian rightists as soon as they get a taste of it. I’ve seen leftist police states; they’re no improvement over rightist ones.
I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee. If it’s Hillary, I’ll vote on my way to work. If it’s Obama, I’ll vote on my way to the border.
Regarding the importance of SCOTUS, it’s already possible the current SCOTUS will just roll over and accept Cheney/Bush’s assaults on the Constitution.
Roberts seems to get his instructions from the same kind of borg-like black box on his back that Bush did during the debates.
Alito/Scalia/Thomas seem ready to usher in the Gilead the FundNuts have been begging to have for the last 30+ years.
Privacy? What privacy? If you have nothing to hide, you’ll have nothing to fear…unless you’ve actually made any phone calls, sent or received email, used the internet, left your house, had a job, paid taxes, earned a salary, etc.
These things might not make a noticeable difference in the short term (5-10 years), but over the long term, the SCOTUS largely determines exactly the kind of nation we will be…
… they are willing to stay home, throw their vote away, or actually support a McCain candidacy and all it represents.
You know, rhetoric like this doesn’t really garner you any non-democrats. A well educated, well researched, deeply thought out vote is not a vote thrown away. This sort of thing makes me less likely to vote for a Dem since it shows that my beliefs, positions and opinions are not respected one tiny little bit by that party. I voted for Kerry last time around. My first vote for a Dem in at least 12 years and, boy, do I regret it. I’m seriously considering voting D this year, but the more I’m told that I don’t matter, the less inclined I am to do so.
Although I’ve never stayed home for an election in my life, I’ve begun to understand why so many do. I’m not staying home this year, either, but I’m becoming more and more sympathetic to that button slogan of yore, “Don’t vote. It only encourages them.”
You know what? If McCain were to put CFR at the top of his campaign agenda, I would seriously consider voting for him. Nothing about politics in the US can really be different until we have CFR and, for that reason, I’d put up w/ a lot of crap if I thought we’d actually wind up w/ truly publicly financed campaigns available to those who don’t have millions.
Getaclue, your purge idea is similar to what I was thinking when I saw the video of the Grand Canyon getting a good scrubbing yesterday. What a shame we couldn’t wash out DC of all of the politicos, lobbyists, etc in a similar fashion and start over.
A few weeks back Obama did imply that if Hillary got the nomination that he wouldn’t endorse her or tell his supporters to vote for her, which made me nervous. When Edwards dropped out he had the grace to say “we really need to get behind whoever does get the nomination.”
Thank you for the fear mongering Pam.
Democrats who run/comment on political blogs are highly, highly unrepresentative of the general populace when it comes to voting for the other primary candidate in the general election. It’s a tempest in a teapot, not to be extrapolated onto most voters.
Now, when it comes to anti-war Republicans and independents gladly voting for McCain in swing states and/or turnout being depressed by a highly improbably Clinton nomination, that concerns me, and I’ve said as much in places like Shakespeare’s Sister and other reasonable sites (TalkLeft notably exempted).
Stevens is what, 90 (wikipedia sez: nearly 88)? HE’S THE FIFTH VOTE THAT WOULD UPHOLD ROE. If you’re in a pro-choice state, then it’s all good. The rest of us…?
Wow, that’s weird. The number of “if Clinton wins it, I’ll vote McCain”-posts I’ve seen probably number in the hundreds by now. I’ve NEVER seen it the other way around. That’s definitely due to the circles one runs in, of course, but I can’t imagine that many Clinton supporters saying the same.
Of course, I should add that I don’t really trust all these Obama-supporters to actually keep the high level of support when he’s running against the Republican smear-machine. I’m leaning Clinton, but it feels like in September, I’ll stand there supporting Obama while too many former Obama-fans say “well, I just don’t trust him…”
Thank you for the fear mongering Pam.
Who’s the fear-mongerer? Not me, I’m laying out facts - McCain will take SCOTUS in the wrong direction. The Pew poll — is that org fearmongering?
The people fear-mongering are those who are Obama or Clinton supporters who feel the other Dem is the anti-Christ because their candidate may not be the nom.
I love the fact that raising the topic itself gets people so riled up. You think not discussing the sentiment I’ve experienced out there (note I refer to my own encounters) is preferable, to open discussion about what others have encountered as well? It sounds an awful like the whole third rail/bury the head in the sand syndrome.
For better or worse, the primary cycle has taken out the progressive candidates many might have supported. What, exactly are we supposed to do about that? Pout and take our ball home?
Obviously to effect change in the system is going to take time, and it’s occurring, albeit not quickly enough for many.
Barack Obama however disagrees
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4283
What, you don’t think Hagel is on Hillary’s short list for Secretary of Defense?
“I simply do not understand the logic.”
……….aaaaaaaaaand CUE the naderite rationalizations.
I am leaning Obama (caucused for him on STuesday) but I also fear many of his supporters will not stick around for the long haul.
There is a political term for a candidate who depends on the Youth Vote to win an election.
That term?
Looser.
getaclue March 6, 2008 at 11:22 am
if there was any desire to bring justice and balance to this country, SCOTUS would be EXPANDED to include 25 judges.”
Yeah I agree. On top of that, the supreme court is too weak and can’t keep up with changing technology either. for eg. the justices simply doesn’t understand what technology is (they say IP tracking is the same as phone number pen tracking.) That to me, the very least they have no concept what database and data mining can do.
They are just friggin senile. I for one think there should be mandatory retirement for supreme court justice. (at the age of 70-74, they can decide when to retire. If they can’t decide, at the age of 75, forcefully remove them period) The supreme court isn’t retirement community on government dime. They don’t have the mental capacity to process information, they are useless and should be terminated form their position. Florida is nice place to retire. Give ‘em a mansion or something.
I for one don’t understand why people think have this image as high priest in some holy temple. I for one they operate exactly as other government employees. Once too comfortable and secure, they gonna start doing funny things.
getaclue
“her voting record is a clear indicator of how she would differ from bush as president: not at all.”
Interesting since her and Holy Barack have almost identical voting records (except for those nasty times when Holy Barack just couldn’t be arsed to show up and vote, as in, ya know, do the fucking job the American citizens pay him to do).
Orange
“The moderate Democrats who think McCain is appealing should be reminded of two things: He wants to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, …”
So does Barack Obama
In his own words
“… .. For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry Amendment; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.
But having visited Iraq, I’m also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by Congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this Administration. It could compound them.
It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.
We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.
I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry Amendment. We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won’t be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counter-insurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support. ”
“and he’s likely got zero interest in universal health care”
Orange, Obama trusts the HMOs to regulate the costs of healthcare. Same HMOs who created the current problem.
Of course him having a coupla pharma lobbyists on his campaign has nothing to do with that.
Colorado Dave
Nope, I don’t. I have no reason to believe that. Any reason why you think she would make that choice?
To those who doubt the existence of “Clinton or McCain” voters: here you go (make sure to read the comments, like “My number one choice is Hillary, McCain is my second choice. BO is nowhere on my list”). There’s a lot more where that came from, and if you stray outside the world of political blogs and, say, onto the comments on ABC’s website, you’ll see Obama supporters citing the Clinton Body Count and Clinton supporters referring to “Hussein Obama.” It’s a jungle out there, folks.
Logic.
Because like Obama she is a conservative Democrat.
Because she will not have large enough coattails to break a 50-50 tie in the Senate.
Because Hagel is a Conservative Republican who wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Do I think either one will actually nominate him? NO.
I am I surprised that one or both of them are considering him? Not at all.
If you don’t want to know what is in the sausage don’t watch it being made.
I will preface this by saying that I have not read all of the comments to this post.
I am a Clinton supporter but I have not encountered any other Clinton supporters who have said they would not vote for Obama. I have encountered some very anti-Clinton Obama supporters, but none of them have said they would vote for McCain. I do live in DC though, and this is a very blue town.
I was registered as “Independent” for 25 years or so. I switched to the Democrats so I could vote for Clinton in the primaries. When I did so,the registrar told me I was the 10th woman to switch that day. I was there at 930AM. If Clinton doesn’t win the nomination,I might do a write-in vote. I have always voted for women over men-no matter what the party. Male ideas have too much power in our country. I have been offended by the media coverage of Clinton.
I have met a ton of people who are Obama supporters and won’t vote for Hillary, but not because of their obsession with Obama, but because they just plain don’t like Hillary.
Most that I have spoken to thought Bill way “okay” and obviously better than Bush but they also remember the scandals, etc and don’t want to go through that again.
This has been driving me nuts. I am an Obama supporter, but I don’t dislike Hillary. After Edwards dropped out I did some research and came to the decision to vote for Obama.
I would vote for Hillary if she was the candidate, but I personally feel that she would have a harder time beating McCain, which worries me.
Overall, I can’t believe people aren’t more concerned with the big picture.
Djur, it’s not a jungle out there…it’s a pot of crabs.
Hmmm.
I have become very afraid of the young hip and white Barackites; there’s absolutely no significant difference between them and the Bushites.
is then followed by
Yes, there are ostensibly ideological differences, but the “Thou Shalt Not Disagree With Us” is the most important factor.
I can’t decide which is dumber: the idea that there’s no significant difference between Obama and Bush supporters, or the breezy acknowledgment and dismissal of their significant ideological differences.
I will not vote for Clinton, period.
NAFTA cost my parents their jobs. Innovative programmers created the tech boom and Clinton had nothing to do with its rise or fall. The job retraining program that passed for welfare reform was a fucking joke - training people for careers that did not exist. The much vaunted health care initiative was a massive failure, watching it was like watching a train wreck.
The Republicans and impeachment made them looks better, but Mr. Clinton was massively sleazy in office and remains massively out of office, unless you really like Central Asian dictators. I’ve been a political junkie long enough to remember the Clinton governing style as lived day to day. They were conservatives who felt your pain while shipping your jobs to China.
Clinton Part Deux only looks rosy because Bush is such a massive failure. I voted for Gore, but I was not sorry to see the Clinton era end. I’m not a huge Obama fan - I think his supporters are far more progressive than he is - but he at least seems faintly disgusted by Washington. Clinton is just another functionary in our modern Politburo.
I’ve voted in every election that I’ve been eligible, since Clinton v. Bush. I’ve voted Democratic each time. If Clinton wins, I’ll use the day to go grocery shopping instead. Clinton and McCain will both sell out - hell, they sold out a long, long time ago - but at least I won’t have to feel the disgust of partially owning McCain’s failures.
I registered to vote as soon as I became eligible, during the Clinton v. Bush I race. I’ve voted every time since, picking the Democratic candidate each time. I will not vote for Clinton.
NAFTA sent my parents’ jobs to China and Honduras. “Welfare” reform cut their benefits in favor of training for jobs that didn’t exist. Maybe it was a golden age for the yuppie set, but that era was a big “fuck you” to anyone who was not part of the knowledge economy. A decade later, we’re learning that - thanks to the fact that the Chinese and Indians are not magically dumber than Americans - their policies have matured into a “fuck you” to even the college-educated creative class.
I lived through the day-to-day governance of the Clintons. Bush II makes it look a lot rosier than it was. The Clintons and their Republican-lite policies broke the back of the Democratic Party.
And don’t tell me how much worse McCain will be. The Clintons were as likely to put a conservative on the court as any Republican. Even at the height of the Gingritch revolution and the impeachment trials, Bill was still trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
If that’s the direction the Democrats want to follow into the future, they can do so without me. I’ll be at home washing my hair on election day. The Democrats are not entitle to my vote, or anyone else’s.
“I was registered as “Independent” for 25 years or so. I switched to the Democrats so I could vote for Clinton in the primaries. When I did so,the registrar told me I was the 10th woman to switch that day. I was there at 930AM. If Clinton doesn’t win the nomination,I might do a write-in vote. I have always voted for women over men-no matter what the party. Male ideas have too much power in our country. I have been offended by the media coverage of Clinton.”
Replace “woman” with “white” and you’d sound like a happy little Neo-Nazi.
Recently I’ve had conversations with people online and offline about troubling encounters with Clinton supporters harboring increasingly pathological-level opposition to an Obama nomination. This in a year where we have two candidates who would be infinitely better stewards of this country than the current White House occupant or John McCain.
I’d be curious to see your sources, Pam. I haven’t seen much evidence of supporters of either candidate saying they’ll vote for McCain if their nominee doesn’t get the nod, other than this feature in Salon, which says a lot more about male anxieties about voting for a woman than it does about taking your ball and going home. I have, however, seen a number of people say that they couldn’t vote at all in November, or would pull the lever for a third-party candidate, but they usually have a rationale based on the behavior of one or the other during the primary.
I don’t see any sourcing in the statement from your post that I quoted. Do you have any verified reports, or is this all stuff you’ve heard?
Fuckit, let’s have them both. President and Vice. We’d have at least four (by marriage) smart people to deal with water shortages, re-emergence of the dustbowl, coastal flooding, and the NAU.
And to continue ranting, this comment system kinda sucks. It tells me that my post doesn’t go through, makes me rewrite and then puts both up anyway.
Down with Wordpress! Viva la revolucion!
Am I the only one who remembers all of the talk about how Bush was going to appoint Democrats to his cabinet because he was such a Uniter, Not a Divider? And, yes, he did appoint one (1) Democrat — Norman Mineta to Transportation.
There’s always talk that there will be cross-party appointments and there’s never any significant ones. People who are convinced that Obama is a Republican in disguise really need to look at his actual voting history. Haven’t we learned by now that we should pay attention to what politicians do and not what they say?
When we talk about support, we place far too much importance on voting. If my preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination, I might or might not vote for the other Dem, but that’s a private action that doesn’t really matter that much (especially since McCain will win my state either way).
But the bigger question is, how will I conduct myself publicly between the convention and the election? Will I enthusiastically encourage people I talk with (in person and online) to vote for candidate B? Will I put up a yard sign or a bumper sticker for candidate B? Will I volunteer, make phone calls, write letters? Will I send contributions? In short, will I try to influence other voters to vote for this candidate?
That’s where I suspect Clinton has a disadvantage. I bet Obama can turn a few Clinton activists into Obama activists; I really have doubts that Clinton will have as much success with the “new voters” that have hitched onto the Obama bandwagon. But I really have nothing other than impressions and intuition to back that up.
We’d have at least four (by marriage) smart people to deal with water shortages, re-emergence of the dustbowl, coastal flooding, and the NAU.
Totally! A woman’s basically an extension of her husband, and the best part of expecting Michelle to do half of Barack’s P or VP job is you don’t have to pay her or give her a title of her own! Boy, why didn’t Hillary see how good the Wife slot was when she had it? She didn’t have to waste all these years on “the Senate” and “her own qualifications.”
I think that this question of who will vote for whom is slightly poisoned by the current delegate situation.
If neither candidate has a majority in pledged delegates, and Obama doesn’t have a commanding lead (I believe Clinton *can’t* get a lead barring complete blowouts that just don’t make any sense), then there’s going to be some bitterness over who didn’t get picked, and someone is going to feel cheated, unless it’s an O/C or C/O ticket. (And even then, there’ll be some bitterness over the top spot.)
I think this will go away because I don’t think either candidate is willing to throw the party under the bus, and I think they’ll both end up campaigning heavily for the other.
I urge everyone who is worrying about this to remember that everything feels immediate and dire right now, but it won’t once this issue is resolved. People are saying things now that they’ll change their minds about later.
For people who think that all of the vitriol is coming solely from one side, scan through this comment thread at Washington Monthly where the commenters seem to be pretty evenly divided between Hillary and Obama.
Nobody’s hands are clean in this, and to declare that you just can’t vote for the candidate whose supporters are so very mean is ignoring the stuff that your candidate’s supporters are saying at the same time.
The longer this goes on and the more divided people become over the nomination, the more I fear a McCain presidency.
I do have a democratic candidate I prefer, but I prefer them both to McCain.
Please, fellow democrats, let’s not throw away this election.
Two dings on William for one illogical statement (neither China nor Honduras are part of NAFTA) and one invocation of Godwin’s law…
I hope that once we’re past “primary hell” that Democratic voters will remember that there’s no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate, and that imperfect is always better than horrible.
I don’t see any sourcing in the statement from your post that I quoted. Do you have any verified reports, or is this all stuff you’ve heard?
There’s nothing needed to source, I’m certainly not going to name people who’ve spoken to me personally in private conversations. I am merely discussing my own personal encounters with this issue, as well as people I know who have told me of their first-hand accounts. As I said, I’ve not encountered Obama supporters who have expressed this, but I didn’t say it isn’t occurring.
As a result of this post, I have received private email describing similar experiences, btw, so it’s not isolated to my experiences. You’re seeing others in this thread mention it as well. I’m not declaring some sort of specific trend with empirical evidence, it’s simply my observation that self-destructive thinking of this nature exists and is being voiced. Normally people would keep this nonsense to themselves but the fever pitch of the Dem contest clearly has people agitated enough to vocalize it.
I also found this information in the same Pew research cited in my post interesting as well.
and this:A lot of blue collar workers have been fooled into thinking that corporate welfare is good for them, because it allegedly creates jobs. Just look at the outrage over Boeing recently getting passed over on a defense contract. The company didn’t have the plane the Pentagon needed, and it couldn’t offer a competitive price. But blue collar Boeing workers are convinced that they are entitled to the government wasting money on planes it doesn’t need just to keep themselves employed.
I’m not convinced that corporate welfare helps at all. It seems like the more corporate welfare that gets handed out, the more money winds up in executives’ pockets. I’ll believe that it helps workers when I see some hard evidence.
Pandagon is getting to be a really tough place for a Clinton supporter. Visiting Pandagon, turning on the TV to mainstream news, or surfing most all news website these days all you get is a lot of uncritical Obama love and tons of Clinton hatin.’
Yes, this vibrant, engaging race is splitting the party. I am a supporter of Clinton and hope I get to cast my vote for her in December. If not, I will sure as hell not be voting for John McCain, and I will be voting.
I agree with the person who called Obama “republican lite.” For the life of me I don’t see why educated liberals are so in love with this guy. Why can’t people see behind this empty “hope and change” nonsense? Obama, if elected, is not going to change one damn thing. He will serve the interests of big business first and foremost. He is a conservative, or a moderate at best. I also can’t understand why former John Edwards supporters (and I was one, as were many on this blog) are now casting their lot with Obama. Do you really believe Obama cares about the working class? Hell no. Clinton is the only one left in the race who speaks to populist issues. She can be moved to the left easier than Obama, and she will work for the most vulnerable in society - racial minorities, the working-class, women, queers, and the environment (which Obama never even mentions) Obama will not. And Clinton can beat McCain.
So, yes, we are split and tensions are rising. I see and hear it everywhere. And in all this talk about one candidate stepping down so as to put the party above their own self-interest, why is Hillary getting all the pressure to do that, and not Obama? Why would a senator with 8 years of experience, and not to mention former white house experience, be pressured to step down against an upstart opponent who has only been in the senate for what, 3 years? Obama can’t even handle his senate sub-committee work right now because he’s so busy with the campaign. Have you noticed that Clinton is mangaging to keep up with both simultaneously?
puh-leez Obama lovers.
Yeah, like that right-wing radical, Ruth Bader Ginsburg of NOW and the ACLU. William, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Having said that, I’ll vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but internal party politics–the increased power of the DLC under a Clinton administration and Clinton’s insistence on seating Michigan and Florida at the risk of causing a brokered convention or worse–push my support overwhelmingly to Obama.
“Two dings on William for one illogical statement (neither China nor Honduras are part of NAFTA) and one invocation of Godwin’s law…
I hope that once we’re past “primary hell” that Democratic voters will remember that there’s no such thing as a perfect presidential candidate, and that imperfect is always better than horrible.”
Or maybe Democrats will remember that you can’t fuck over your historic constituencies to make nice with corporate America and then expect them to come back out of loyalty. The Clinton resurrection represents a return failed ideas and, frankly, makes the Democratic Party look increasingly incapable of reforming itself.
NAFTA works mighty well as short-hand for the idea that we can export high-paying manufacturing jobs and replace them with “service” jobs at Wal-Mart and “knowledge” jobs at Microsoft. Globalism only works for Americans if you believe that we have some special well of skill and knowledge that other countries can’t match.
The Clinton are not just polarizing because the Republicans don’t like them and the media are against them. They made and are continuing to make a lot of enemies all on their own. It’s, at best, silly and, at worst, creepily totalitarian to expect people to support The Party when continues to act against their best interests.
That’s no less true for the Democrats than the Republicans.
And you are right about Godwin’s. When someone says that they will only vote for their own sex, race or religion, it’s more accurate to compare them to the Klan.
Spencer, I can’t believe that you’re dumb enough to think that the ideological differences matter when a group of fanatics, of any stripe, get their hooks into real power.
Authoritarian Fanatics of the “nobody can possibly disagree with me on the merits” stripe can start from the left, or they can start from the right, but as soon as they get actual authority they will inevitably, usually within days if not hours, shift to an ideology which dictates that the MOST important thing is to keep and increase their power, eliminate or negate anyone who disagrees, reward their friends and punish their enemies..
And THOSE people, regardless of where they start from, are indistinguishable from all the other authoritarians. Stalin = Hitler = Batista = the Khmer Rouge = Pol Pot = Somoza = Pinochet = Rios Montt.
I’m not sure about the Shrubberies; they have the instincts but so far haven’t brought it home on a massive scale that we know of. (Yet. There’s still some months, at least, left.) Authoritarians and mob rule ALWAYS are disasters.
You see ideological differences as significant when dealing with the power-hungry. From what I’ve seen, history doesn’t agree. Fanatics with power are ALWAYS dangerous, and it never matters which side they started from. And there are never fond memories at the end.
and ALL of our lives…
just think a bit long-term.
Redmountain:
Obama is not Kucinich, and neither is Clinton, but by any fair reading, Clinton is a solid centrist with Obama slightly to the left of her. My concern with Clinton is that her continued support of and from the DLC will make it harder for other, more liberal candidates to be elected because the party apparatus will be–once again–turned for the benefit of DLC members, such as Harold Ford, whom James Carville wants to take Dean’s place as chairman of the party. Other general electoral concerns push me toward the candidate who beats McCain by the largest margin,
There’s much more at play than “hope and change” nonsense if you’d give your opponents the courtesy of trusting they’re not mindlessly infatuated or foolishly idealistic.
If we vote for a candidate who wins the nomination that way because of the “Courts! Booga booga!” mentality, then we are telling the high ups in the party that they can run roughshod over the choice of the rank and file as long as they throw up a “Booga Booga”.
So when this particular Booga-booga arrives, and overturns Roe v. Wade, guts all rights to privacy, declares unlimited domestic wiretapping constitutional, ends all campaign finance reform, and rubber stamps every right-wing ideological lawsuit that wingnut welfare cash can push all the way to their bench…
…you will be able to raise you head high and say, “well, I’m still pure! I stuck it to the man! I didn’t fear their booga-booga! Power to teh people! OK!11!1!!!”
Idiots.
Though I’m far more enthusiastic about the prospect of voting for Obama in November than Clinton, I will certainly throw my support behind her if she should become the nominee, with a caveat on that point…
I don’t want Clinton to win the nomination by being “appointed” the nominee despite a strong popular win by Obama. Conventional wisdom at this point says she won’t carry the pledged delegate lead, but I think the issue is about how far off she is. If she’s within 50 pledged delegates and 1% of the overall popular vote, I could accept her winning the nomination on the strength of superdelegate support.
However, if Obama enters the convention the clear winner of the primaries in terms of both pledged delegates and overall popular vote, I will not be happy with my party should they choose to “appoint” Clinton the nominee…
All that said, I will not vote for McCain, under any circumstances. I will, however, write in Barack Obama should he emerge as the true people’s candidate based on the results of the primaries, but doesn’t get the nomination.
William-you vindicate me. You disagree with me and feel that you have the right to call me a name. I did not replace “woman” with “white”. You did. I vote for women of all races/ethnicities.
“So when this particular Booga-booga arrives, and overturns Roe v. Wade, guts all rights to privacy, declares unlimited domestic wiretapping constitutional, ends all campaign finance reform, and rubber stamps every right-wing ideological lawsuit that wingnut welfare cash can push all the way to their bench…
…you will be able to raise you head high and say, “well, I’m still pure! I stuck it to the man! I didn’t fear their booga-booga! Power to teh people! OK!11!1!!!”
Idiots.”
Entitlement and fear-mongering doesn’t look any better on Democrats than it does on Republicans. And while I’ll give you Roe v. Wade, I haven’t really seen Clinton come out strongly against any of these issues. I suspect she’s got way too much corporate cash in her coffers to rock any of those boats.
“William-you vindicate me. You disagree with me and feel that you have the right to call me a name. I did not replace “woman” with “white”. You did. I vote for women of all races/ethnicities.”
I’m glad you are vindicated. I’ll go even further and call you another name:
Bigot.
Thom:
I’m well aware that neither Clinton nor Obama are not Kucinich or even remotely left. Not so long ago I used to vote third party during presidential elections because (being a progressive) I was so frustrated with our two-party system, seeing that both republicans and democrats ultimately serve the interests of capital and the state above all else.
After George Bush’s presidency I came back to mainstream American politics, still fully aware of its supreme limitations. I now participate again in our two-party system and vote for democratic candidates. But I came back this year - a year where it looks like the bottom is falling out on the democratic party. So, I understand your DLC rationale for voting for Obama up to a point, but I still don’t see how you think he is more leftist than Clinton. His position on NAFTA for example isn’t exactly left-leaning……
Estampa wrote:
“Didn’t Michelle Obama state that she would have to think about supporting Clinton if she won the nomination? I haven’t heard any of these sentiments coming out of the Clinton camp.”
Hillary Clinton said:
“I have experience. McCain has experience. Obama has a speech.”
Just sayin’…
redmountain March 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm
for voting for Obama up to a point, but I still don’t see how you think he is more leftist than Clinton. His position on NAFTA for example isn’t exactly left-leaning……”
.
I don’t know if the Iraq war is left or right issue, but I am pretty sure Hillary lies a whole lot more about it and consistently hawkish before primary.
If Hillary won, my first prediction would be: Hillary lurching to the right and being hawkish again.
War, in my opinion is the biggest issue because a) it is tied to energy price b) as you can see it kills the economy. c) even current congress now lost deficit control turning from minus 200 to projected 420 again.
people can talk about women’s right, universal healthcare or what not… but nobody will have job or house if things keep going like it is. This is going to be bigger than vietnam era stagflation.
But we are early in the process so most people still don’t feel it yet except maybe penny pinching to pay gas.
As DTG in STL noted just above, Clinton made a very insulting, destructive remark recently:
Even for someone in a tough fight, this is below the belt. Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune has a good posting on this remark.Dear Joe Max,
If you vote for anyone with a “D” after their name - no matter how lame/conservative/corrupt just because they shout “Courts!” then you are never going to get better Democrats. You’ll just get the same tired Rockfellas, Salazars, Feinsteins, and Liebermans who sell out our rights.
If you vote for a Democratic nominee who is selected by the party elite despite the wishes of the rank and file (and that’s us BTW) then why won’t the elites continue to do so next time and the time after that.
It’s not about purity, its about moving the country in a progressive direction. You will never move the party and country in a progressive direction so long as the other sort of Democrat knows they can count on your vote as soon as they shout “booga, booga! Courts!”
It’s the same stupid trick the Republicans use when they scream “booga, booga! Terra!” at their sheep.
Redmountain:
I would say that Obama is more left solely on the basis of the DLC support of Clinton and Clinton’s support of the DLC. She cannot be other than a centrist.
But that’s too quick, I think, and elides that the two have far more in common than not. Where they differ, though, Obama comes out more liberal. There’s a good National Journal article on the subject. Obama has moved from 16th to 10th to 1st most liberal senator in their annual rankings while Clinton has moved from 32nd to 16th over 06-07.
I’ll have to spot you any trade discussions–it’s well beyond my ken and I have a hard time figuring out what either means in terms of actual policy when they talk about NAFTA and free trade.
Foreign policy is probably the largest difference that is not an issue of party election strategy. In terms of foreign policy, Clinton has carefully not said that the original authorization of force was a mistake while Obama was anti-war from the get-go. More recently, Clinton supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization (and, arguably, brought the IRG within the scope of the first authorization of force she supported in 02.) Obama did not vote on that bill, but said that he would have voted no (for what that’s worth).
Of lesser import generally but still, I think, serious, back in 06 Clinton sponsored a bill to amend the constitution to prohibit flag burning. It failed by one vote and, to her credit, Clinton ended up voting against it when it would have passed otherwise, but it does not inspire this card-carrying ACLU member’s confidence in her commitment to free speech. A comparison could be made to Obama’s votes on reproductive rights while in the Illinois senate, but PP of Illinois has said they were strategic votes, and that he voted exactly the way they asked him to.
Finally, I’m impressed with the open/transparent government initiatives Obama has proposed while in the senate, such as requiring all bills be posted to a searchable online database at least 72 hours before they are read on the floor. He also co-sponsored a new voting rights bill to respond to modern tactics of voter intimidation and suppression.
None of this is to say that he or Clinton is the Great Progressive Hope–neither support same sex marriage, for example–but on the whole, I think Obama’s record is slightly more liberal than Clinton’s.
That’s the worst mentality of voting I have ever heard from a progressive.
You would actually choose Condoleeza Rice over John Edwards in a General Election for the Presidency? You actually believe that Rice would have a stronger position on pro-choice women’s interests than Edwards?
I don’t even know how to respond to that.
No one is as jaded as I. I’m old, which in kind of an ironic twist is now a bad thing to be, just the way it was when I was young!
What I think is that you can take your pick among the rich people who run this country and their backers. I’d never vote for McCain, but either Hillary or Barack are OK with me. I expect no miracles, however. Just choose whichever rich people will throw you a bone or two.
I dunno… Perhaps because Obama has won nearly twice as many contests, leads her by nearly 150 pledged delegates, leads her in overall delegates, and leads her in the popular vote by a few hundred thousand votes?
If the roles were reversed and Clinton were the one on the winning side of the numbers ledger, there would be a massive call for Obama to get out of the way.
“And THOSE people, regardless of where they start from, are indistinguishable from all the other authoritarians. Stalin = Hitler = Batista = the Khmer Rouge = Pol Pot = Somoza = Pinochet = Rios Montt.”
And Obama is EXACTLY LIKE all of those people! Geez. Is that a Godwin’s Law overload?
For the record, this Obama supporter will vote for Clinton if she wins the nom. I think the two candidates are equally able to do the job, as someone upthread also said. I do worry that Clinton will have a hard time winning against McCain, who has mysteriously retained his “maverick” image even after bending over for the Bush administration for the past eight years. Anytime that both Limbaugh and Rove are enthusiastic about a certain candidate, it makes me worry about that candidate getting the nomination. Limbaugh’s been telling his listeners to vote for Clinton for weeks, and Rove fawned over her when she appeared on Fox recently.
I do find it humorous to hear Obama called “Republican-lite,” as I find Clinton to be similarly centrist.
I can understand why someone would vote for neither Obama or Clinton and instead vote for Gravel or Nader. It is not what I plan to do at this point, but I understand and respect why someone would do so.
What I cannot understand for the life of me is why anyone who supported Clinton or Obama would then vote for MCCAIN in a general if their preferred Dem did not get the nomination. That is insanity.
Thank you for that post, Amanda.
If the roles were reversed and Clinton were the one on the winning side of the numbers ledger, there would be a massive call for Obama to get out of the way.
There would be and it would be just as wrong. One of the problems with either candidate stepping aside at this point is that they both started with the ‘making history’ subtext to their runs. If either backs down and isn’t defeated that will resonate for generations as X isn’t able to take it all the way. Add to that the dippy Huckabee’s valiant stay until McCain was over the top and you give the Republican a fallacious but usable- McCain won his place but his opponent was given the nomination.
We all just have to suck it up. Neither of the Democratic candidates teh sucx as much as McCain would. Now there is a campaign poster to go with- Their candidate teh sucx more.
I think that’s a reasonable argument and I certainly don’t begrudge Hillary for sticking it out and seeing where this thing could go… though it wasn’t a huge delegate win for her, winning 3 out of 4 Tuesday did effectively resurrect her campaign, and I can’t blame her for moving forward.
All that said… if somehow Obama were to pull off an unlikely miracle and win Pennsylvania next month - which would be treated as a death knell for Hillary’s Campaign by the media - would it then be fair for Obama supporters to push for Clinton’s withdrawal from the campaign, as it would be nearly impossible for her to win the nomination without a massive lead in superdelegates trumping the people’s vote in the primaries?
Lillet: the poster was Pam, not Amanda.
I don’t know — I’ve got to assume that any Democrat who threatens to take their ball and go home should their preferred candidate not win the nomination is just blowing off steam. When push comes to shove, McCain is a continuation of the current nightmare. there’s no decent reason not to vote against that, even without a strong “for” motivation.
Hallelujah, SOMEBODY has some common sense in the blogging world!
I can certain accept a Clinton nomination under this scenario–at that point, it is actually a toss up. Gotta chose someone, and if they’re that close, then either can plausibly claim the mantle of being the Party’s choice.
Sorry, but I can’t just see that. No one who can force the Illinois police departments to videotape suspect interrogation and confession can plausibly be called “republican lite”.
DTG in STL- At this point it is imperative that neither sides supporters be active in shooting down the other side. I don’t see them not doing so, but they really need to back off. In the event of a truly decisive win on the part of Obama in Pennsylvania then a delegation of non-aligned or even dropped out candidates like Edwards needs to approach the Clinton camp with a white flag. This needs to be done by neutral third parties to avoid furthering the conflict within the party. Clinton would need to be offered something big that isn’t VP or a Cabinet position, I’m thinking Ambassador to the UN or something in foreign service. It has to be a credible and important job and preferably groundbreaking to balance the books.
In the event of a Clinton win then the whole thing HAS to play out at the convention, chips fall where they may.
In the long run this may be better for the Democratic party than the current vitriol leads us to believe. There has got to be a whole lot of thinking going on, Dr. Gov. Dean has obviously been using his thinking cap in trying to find a way to bring enough delegates into play to get this done before the convention. None of the pundits have been able to call this right so there has got to be plenty of thinking going on about the pent-up anxieties of several democratic constituencies that have traditionally been asked to step back for the good of the party as well as emerging constituencies who are starting to get their voices heard. I am sensing plenty of books coming out in the new year about this race.
Recent history suggests that candidates don’t fare well in Presidential Elections when they are viewed by a significant chunk of their base as “the lesser of two evils”, and when the primary reason to vote for them is to OPPOSE the other candidate…
Cases in point:
- John Kerry couldn’t win on an “Anybody But Bush” platform in 2004
- Bob Dole couldn’t win on an “Anybody But Clinton” platform in 1996
If Hillary emerges as the unpopular nominee - meaning she manages to grab the nomination despite overall deficits in pledged delegates and popular votes in the primaries - then she will be seen by many Democrats as “the lesser of two evils” in this election. Many will vote for her for this reason… but even more will not vote at all for this reason.
The only way Hillary will be a truly electable opponent against John McCain will be if she manages to garner enough popular support in the primaries to not give off the impression that she won the nomination exclusively by appointment from the superdelegates. Can she win more pledged delegates than Obama? Probably not. But she needs it to be darn close. And the popular vote needs to be even closer, if not an overall win for her. If Obama is the clear winner in the primaries (and right now, he IS the clear leader), but doesn’t get the nod, McCain and the GOP operatives will use this against Hillary relentlessly and brutally…
I can see the McCain campaign ads now…
“Do you really want the next POTUS to be an individual who wasn’t even the favorite of her own party?”
I could defend my candidate here, Obama, but it seems pointless. I have argued with various Clinton supporters for many months and believe they are committed to their candidate for good reasons. If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her — as Pam has said there is too much at stake here. However, after her punt on telecom immunity and the 3 am ad, I cannot say she inspires me to give money to her campaign. This will be the difference for most Obama supporters: they will give their votes, but not contribute.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/01/coulter-wants-clinton-over-mccain/
And now that McCain’s got the Rep nod, Ann Coulter’s supposedly coming over to the “dark side” to help out- isn’t that swell?
Ground situation in PA. Next big cycle. (This is going to get very nasty)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/06/for_obama_an_uphill_battle_in_p.html?hpid=topnews&hpid=topnews
Everything that worked for Hillary Clinton in Ohio is there in Pennsylvania in greater numbers. The Post ran a chart in Thursday’s editions comparing the Democratic electorates in the two states. Obama’s campaign should tape it on every office wall in their North Michigan Avenue headquarters in Chicago as a reminder of the steep hill they have to climb.
Look at some of the comparisons: The black-white mix is roughly similar, meaning Obama will not have a significantly larger African American population to tap. The male-female mix is also roughly similar, with women accounting for nearly 60 percent of the electorate, meaning Clinton will have her solid base upon which to build.
But look, too, at some differences. There are fewer young people and more old people in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, which is good for Clinton and bad for Obama. In Ohio, 44 percent of the Democratic electorate was under age 45 and Obama carried them by 54 percent to 45 percent. In Pennsylvania those voters may represent only a quarter of the electorate. In Ohio, voters over age 65 comprised 14 percent of the electorate and Clinton carried them 72 percent to 26 percent. In Pennsylvania, they may account for a quarter of the Democratic vote.
There are fewer college graduates and more non-college graduates in Pennsylvania than in Ohio, both among the population at large and among white voters. That, too, spells trouble for Obama.
The differences are not hugely significant, but even a slightly less educated electorate plays to Clinton’s favor. Again, look at what happened in Ohio. Among white, non-college educated voters, who accounted for almost half the electorate, Clinton beat Obama by 44 percentage points — 71 percent to 27 percent. Among white, college graduates, who were just 29 percent of the electorate, she won, but by just 7 points.
Well, I’m not sure we should expect it the other way around, either. It’d be nice, but getting their vote should be the first thing, not undying emotional fealty…
Bitter Scribe
“I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he’d bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
I guess truth hurts, doesn’t it?
I do not trust Barack Obama because everythig he says is contradicted by his previous positions. I do not trust Barack Obama because I don’t trust a mysoginist to change his ways. I don’t trust barack Obama because when coming down to the dirty facts, the guy changes his opinion more often than I change socks.
DTG in STL
“Do you really want the next POTUS to be an individual who wasn’t even the favorite of her own party?”
remember that Barack Obama is the democratic candidate whom 20% of the Democrats won’t vote for. As opposed to 10% who feel the same about Clinton. Go figure.
Interesting thing… 20% of Clinton’s white voters in Ohio said that the race of the candidates was a factor in their decision to vote for her. That doesn’t speak well of many of her Ohio voters.
As for the supposed “gross misogyny” allegation against Obama, I’m not sure where this comes from, honestly… could you please cite something to back up the claim?
If she wins the nomination despite Obama being the clear frontrunner in pledged delegates and popular votes in the primaries, she has absolutely ZERO chance of winning in November.
If Obama can’t counter this, he shouldn’t be the nominee. Period.
I like both candidates. Why shouldn’t I? They agree on 90% of the issues. Of the two of them, Clinton is the stronger candidate, but Obama is the better campaigner. John McCain didn’t need Hillary Clinton to figure out that Barack Obama is vulnerable due to his lack of experience.
Sooper:
I’m genuinely curious about this “Obama is a misogynist” argument. I wasn’t able to find Shakespeare’s Sister’s account, but today is the first day I’ve heard of it at all. Can you provide a link to some of these criticisms?
And this is what I see happening, and this is part of Clinton’s strategy.
Obama will probably have more pledged delegates than Clinton, but not that many more, and not enough to win it with pledged delegates alone. If she can get to within a virtual tie with Obama, she’s already floating the solution: Clinton/Obama ‘08. She is hoping to convince the superdelegates to side with her so that they can get them both on the ticket. If Clinton can close strong, that will bolster her case.
Agreed.
But in order for her to be able to claim true legitimacy in her nomination (in terms of public perception), she must close the gap to a virtual tie… 50 pledged delegates and 1% of the popular vote being my best guesstimate on what would constitute a “tie”.
Right now, she’s trailing by nearly 150 pledged delegates, and by a few hundred thousand popular votes… she’s going to have to have big wins (eg Pennsylvania and Indiana) and small losses (eg North Carolina and Mississippi) in the remaining contests to close this gap enough to call it a virtual tie.
If she gets the superdelegates to support her despite large deficits in pledged delegates and popular votes, they will be shooting themselves in the foot, because she will be highly unelectable if she carries the perception of being the “appointed” nominee rather than the elected one.
To me, this is the ideal solution. Both candidates are so strong and are bringing out so many voters that the combination of the two would be unstoppable. There is no one that McCain could pick as VP who would even come close to galvanizing votes the way a Clinton/Obama (or Obama/Clinton) ticket would.
Plus it would be fun to watch all of the partisans’ heads explode when Clinton and Obama start praising one another to the skies.
There is no rationale for not voting other than egotism and stupidity. You got smacked down on your home turf for this, it’s not going to fly here. I also like how you fail to mention that *you* were the one defending not voting and constructing the rationale.
You can act to ensure a preferable scenario or you can not act and enable a less preferable scenario. Tough one!
Jesus Christ.
I wonder if asked would you rather be shot in the face or the foot how many people would abstain based on “principle.”
And please don’t throw out red-herrings about getting better candidates or changing their behavior. On election day it’s far too late and the only remaining question is which lever to pull.
Defending not voting as a rational choice for progressives is campaigning for McCain. Period. That is exactly what Republicans would love to see happen, a bunch of selfish idiotic progressives not voting and thereby increasing the chance of a McCain victory. Acting in a way Republicans would like is probably not a smart thing to do.
Specifically to Pam, the distinction you draw between not voting and voting for McCain is essentially meaningless. Voting for McCain is worse, but they are both irrational unless your preferred outcome is a McCain victory.
Personally, since I don’t want a McCain victory, I’ll do what I can to actively ensure a different outcome. Crazy!
Apologies but this subject makes me crazy.
It’s no different than fundamentalists who demand abstinence-only education based on “principles” even though it leads to more STDs, pregnancies and abortions. They are willing to fuck over other people and actively work against what they claim to support just so they can selfishly brag that they “stuck to their guns” or “stayed true to their beliefs” or some shit like that.
We MOCK those people. We rightly point out that they work AGAINST what they claim is important and are idiotic hypocrites.
But some of you *are* those people. Unbelievable! Yeah, women’s rights and dead Iraqis and things like that are good to pay lip service to, but what really matters is staying true to your own morals!
Fuck.
This is not directed at you Pam. You have it mostly right. But I’m distressed that so many people are just mirror images of crazy right-wing fundamentalists. The policies differ but the logic is indentical.
Ok, I’ll stop now before my head explodes.
Here is one McCain side
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3890.html
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a leading candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has been one of the key congressional supporters of the interventionist foreign policies of the George W. Bush administration, including the Iraq War. In early April 2007, after taking what the Washington Post described as a “heavily guarded walk through a newly fortified Baghdad market,” McCain gushed about the progress in Iraq since the president’s “surge” strategy began to be implemented earlier in the year. “Never have I been able to drive from the airport, never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today,” McCain said. “But I am not saying ‘Mission Accomplished.’ … It’s a very difficult task ahead of us” (Washington Post, April 2, 2007). Another member of McCain’s delegation, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), told journalists that the market was “like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime” (New York Times, April 2, 2007).
…
McCain’s Baghdad trip was standard fare for the Arizona Republican. Although he is sometimes characterized as a liberal-leaning conservative, in recent years McCain has proved decidedly neoconservative when it comes to Iraq and the war on terror. After returning from an earlier fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), in January 2007 McCain and Lieberman presented their opinions on Iraq to an audience at the de facto neoconservative headquarters, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Emphasizing his belief that the war there is still “winnable,” McCain laid out his argument for a surge in troops in Iraq: “The presence of additional coalition forces would give the Iraqi government the ability to do what it cannot accomplish today on its own—impose its rule throughout the country. In bringing security to Iraq and chiefly to Baghdad, our forces would give the government a fighting chance to pursue reconciliation.”
Furthermore, the “surge” of troops must not be brief, but rather 18 months at a minimum, McCain said. This plan was echoed by that proposed by AEI scholar Frederick Kagan and Gen. Jack Keane—unveiled at the same AEI event at which McCain and Lieberman spoke.
McCain’s affiliation with the neoconservative political faction reportedly extends to a relationship with Weekly Standard editor William Kristol: “Kristol is predictably modest about his influence on the Arizona senator, although he acknowledges, ‘I talked to McCain on the phone and compared notes.’ But when McCain wanted to hire a new legislative aide, his chief of staff, Mark Salter—himself a former aide to neoconservative Jeane Kirkpatrick—consulted with Kristol, who recommended a young protégé named Daniel McKivergan. Marshall Wittmann, one of Kristol’s closest friends, became a key adviser during McCain’s presidential campaign. Randy Scheunemann, who had drafted the Iraq Liberation Act and was on the board of Kristol’s Project for the New American Century (PNAC), became McCain’s foreign policy adviser. One person who has worked closely with Kristol says of Kristol and McCain, ‘They are exceptionally, exceptionally close’” (New Republic, October 16, 2006).
If Clinton is nominated, I’ll just go vote on the downticket races and leave the Prez one blank. I’m sorry: she’s a willing and eager agent of our shadowy corporate masters. My eyes bug out when people say she’ll fight for our rights, any of our rights. Look at her record: when in the last ten years has she done one solitary thing to make life better for people who don’t play golf?
She’s a profoundly uncharismatic person with a long record of service to corporate interests and absolutely no rationale for why she should be President other than that she’s female. While I think it’s high time we had a female President, I don’t want it to be her. If she were a man, she’d be one of those boring conservative Northeastern senators who gets 2% of the vote in Iowa and drops out after NH, thanking his fifty supporters.
God, Pam, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS.
I have been about to scream listening to my progressive friends, whom I deeply respect, seriously contemplating throwing this country to another 4-8 years of criminally incompetent Republican control because Clinton or Obama isn’t as perfectly progressive as they are.
I’m not saying you have to pretend they’re the perfect candidate, or that you can’t call them out when they do something wrong or offensive. Of course you should call them out and hold them to account, as you (Pam) did with Obama and McClurkin. But for God’s sake, let’s not replay 2000. Al Gore would have been a very different president than Bush, even though I (along with many others) at the time thought they looked too similar. I was wrong.
It would be freaking fantastic if we had an instant runoff system, or a parliamentary system where other parties could get some seats and some votes and some power. But we do not have such a system right now, and throwing away your vote isn’t how you get one. You can’t send a message by not voting. You’re only hurting yourself.
Hillary: Nafta?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBypp2hqxaQ
Hillary: NAFTA in 1996
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW4XPRA2jIk
my fav. still Hillary: the Walmart year. (must be some of that liberal experience she is talking about. Incidentally, Walmart didn’t change policy about women during her tenure. NADA. she was pure prop, since she was a gov. wife.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVpPGxuafA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvIKX6oNro
I think some people are intent on doing that–”It’s my way or no way”…
Fair enough…
But if Barack Obama wins the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes by a substantial enough number to not consider it a “tie”, yet he still loses the nomination because of superdelegates, am I hurting myself by writing in the candidate who was the people’s choice for the Democratic Nomination, even if he wasn’t validated by the party elites in their un-democratic nomination process?
“But I’m distressed that so many people are just mirror images of crazy right-wing fundamentalists. The policies differ but the logic is identical.”
It is pretty idiotic for either side to act this way. We have a 2 party system where each side is trying to win over 50 million votes. Both parties are hugely broad coalitions of varied and sometimes conflicting interest groups: geographic, cultural, economic, and racial.
If the democrats want to win, they’d best get over themselves and begin looking how to include more people in their coalition, rather than fewer. This circular firing squad is about the stupidest move possible in a two party system.
DTG in STL, yes. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be angry in a situation where the superdelegates swung the nomination away from the popular choice — and that’s speaking as someone who really, truly likes both O. and C. as candidates. But frankly, yes, you would still be hurting yourself. That’s the way things are set up.
I’m an Obama supporter, and I’m still telling myself that I’ll vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. However, I have to say it’s getting harder and harder to tell myself that every day.
Up until fiarly recently, I thought Clinton couldn’t win against McCain, but now I think differently. Why? Becuase it’s become obvious that whatever other weaknesses hre campaign has, she and her advisors are so astoundingly masterful at lying, character assassination, and dirty politics in general, they leave Karl Rove in the dust. I’m not kidding. And I’d be lying if I said that although I hope Obama gets the nomination, I would still relish seeing the Clinton campaign using their dirty politicking skills against McCain and the Republicans.
Fair enough… I disagree, because I think blind support for the un-democratically appointed nominee would be perceived as acceptance and support of the status quo. Hence, the DNC would feel no need to make changes should they allow this disaster to occur (HRC winning the nomination solely because of superdelegate support)…
The only way they will consider changing the system - which a vast number of Democrats will see as patently undemocratic should the less popular candidate win the nomination - is if they see a huge protest vote of write-in ballots with Barack Obama’s name on them.
I think it is all moot. Hillary’s only chance at winning the general election is if she wins the Democratic Nomination in a manner that doesn’t appear to completely contradict the will of the electorate. If Obama beats her by 100 pledged delegates and a few hundred thousand votes at the end of the primaries, but still doesn’t get the nomination, we’ll be looking at a Democratic defeat in November on the scale of Reagan-Mondale in 1984 all over again.
I hope and pray that the superdelegates aren’t so stupid and arrogant as to completely undermine the will of the electorate in the primaries. Otherwise, you can almost guarantee that we’ll be watching the 71 year-old white-haired dude taking the Presidential Oath of Office on January 20, 2009.
Voting for a candidate outside of the two major parties is a collective action problem and a pretty different discussion. It’s at least defensible, especially the scenario you are describing where Obama has established popularity with the electorate. That said, it seems pretty silly to me to vote for candidates who cannot win even if every single supporter of theirs votes for them.
Clinton winning the nomination through some back-room deal is something the Democratic party is hopefully not stupid enough to allow.
*sighs* If you’re voting for anyone but the Dem in the election you may as well be voting for McCain. Stupid purist Dems will never learn…this country deserves what it gets.
Just to be clear, I intend to vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who it is, provided that tehir nomination doesn’t come as the result of a complete undermining of the democratic process of the primaries and caucuses.
If Hillary Clinton is the eventual nominee, and she is no more than 50 pledged delegates behind Barack Obama, and she is no more than 1% behind him in the popular vote, she will get my vote.
I plan to write-in a protest vote for Obama ONLY in the event that HRC receives the nomination against strong support for Barack Obama in the primaries.
And while it is true that this might, on an infinitesemally small-scale, cost HRC the election, I don’t think she would have won anyway under this scenario. There will be way too much outrage from Obama supporters, and neither the press nor the McCain Campaign will let that outrage go unnoticed.
You can’t have a successful political party without loyalty, which means “party before candidate”. This is the entire fucking reason political parties exist. It is mind-boggling that Democrats need this shit explained.
DTG in STL-
Your example of Rice/Edwards is hypothetical. In the real world,the chioce is usually between 2 men. If there is a choice between a woman and a man,I will vote for the woman most of the time.
Our culture tries to silence women. Clinton’s voice is “shrill”. Women that speak up are called names or told to step aside. My votes for women over men are a protest against this injustice.
I don’t see anybody complaining about Pelosi being house speaker. (well maybe few rightwing bobble heads)
She is the third in succession line. Currently the highest female leader in the country.
I’ll complain just the same about her lacking spine like Reid.
Clinton is a lying warhawk who vote for illegal war. She should be in jail instead of running around like she is inevitable.
OK… but would you then agree that an African-American who almost always chooses to vote for the African-American candidate over the Caucasian candidate for the same fundamental reasons that you hold for your adherence to female candidates would be equally justified in doing so?
Second question, b harper…
Let’s say Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senior Senator from Texas and a Republican, runs for re-election in 2012, and her opponent is a progressive liberal of the John Edwards variety, but he also happens to be a white male.
Who do you vote for?
Pam, amble over to DailyKos, even to C&L, Obama supporters are increasingly saying that they will sit this one out if Hillary get’s the nod.
She is alienating them with stuff like this http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/6/22261/01334/914/470968
Personally the thought of having to vote for her to stop McCain is now something that twists my guts.
Squashed:
if you are so extremely upset about NAFTA and Walmart, then you seriously should not vote for Obama either. Not after the recent Canadian embassy incident…as far as NAFTA goes.
And I hope that you do know your candidate’s wife was on the board of a WalMart subsidiary until recently, right?
As for those living in the la la land of “Clinton is a corporate interests shill”, you might want to remember who voted fro Cheney’s energy bill. who supports corn ethanol ( and thus huge agricultural subsidies) and which candidate actually thinks the HMOs can be kindly convinced to cut their profits in order to help people get insured?
That is not going to happen. And if you seriously believe McCain will not dig up all of this considerable dirt on Obama, together with, let’s face it, the seriously larger amount that lurks in Obama’s pandering past ( Rezko, anyone?) is seriously mistaken.
I find it funny that when it’s done here, the “if you don’t do this so and so bad thing will happen” tactic is fear mongering…. unless one of our own does it. Then it isn’t. Then it is actually a legitimate electoral tactic, together with the “fairy tale is a racist slur”.
BULLSHIT
It is just another way to push someone’s favourite candidate forward and women be damned, they need to sacrifice themselves again for the greater good.
I also find it amusing how selective democracy applies for some people. It is OK for the winner of the popular vote o win less candidates, because those are the party rules, it is OK for voters from Michigan and Florida to be disenfranchised because of the party rules, but when the party rules might work against a certain candidate, that’s no longer OK. Hypocrisy at its best.
So launching a last-second TV spot implying that if the other candidate wins the nomination and he gets a 3am phone call that America could face total annhilation is a legit fear tactic to use?
K.
Yes, any support for Barack Obama, particularly support that comes from the menz, must be rooted in nothing but sheer contempt for women. Nothing but a misogynistic plot to bring down the campaign of HRC.
STOP. Please, just STOP.
Look, there’s no denying that Hillary is a very real victim to patent misogyny that is a reflection of the overall patriarchy we live in. But to post this sort of nonsense, to imply that ANY support for her opponent must be rooted in misogynistic tendencies is truly a case of wolf-crying.
Please, please, please call out any instance of misogyny you see that attempts to thwart the campaign of HRC. It has no place in progressive dialogue, and it is a cancer for all of us, men and women alike.
But please make sure that you reserve your outrage against misogyny for actual instances of misogyny… doing otherwise simply trivializes the issue and gives more fodder to those who don’t perceive this very real form of oppression a legitimate concern.
Preference for Barack Obama does not automatically indicate a predisposition to misogyny. Implying that it does gives the necessary fight to end misogyny a bad rep.
I hate to break it to you soopermouse but that was Clinton NOT Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM
DTG in STL- So launching a last-second TV spot implying that if the other candidate wins the nomination and he gets a 3am phone call that America could face total annhilation is a legit fear tactic to use?
Actually if we parse the ad and not rely on pundit propaganda, it is designed to remind older female voters about who gets up to deal with crises in the home. By transferring that to a presidential context it is remarkably effective. If you follow the world annihilation angle which is the more popular reading of the ad brought on by the crap peddled by the Bush/Cheney then it is asking you to consider the White House as a sort of ur-home for the American people.
Obama did a good job rebutting the media reading of the ad as fear-based but still hasn’t addressed the deeper subtext of security. And no, I don’t believe that they are the same. Fear makes us do stupid things like land wars in the Middle-East, security makes us hire more inspectors and regulate vulnerable industries.
The ad worked on the people it was meant to work on and will work as well against McCain- at three am with a sick kid, do you call grandma or grandpa?
Also picking on people about their taxes during tax filing time may not be a good strategy. By claiming he has already handed his in, he is either implying that he is relying on last year or that he is uber-efficient and already has his done for this year. She looks like the rest of us and hasn’t got this year done yet. It is going to start pissing people off soon as it is a constant reminder about something that is sitting on the desk waiting to be done.
I posted this in my DailyKos diary on Wednesday:
(I’ll put a link to my diary in my next comment)
Show me where Obama has gone Rovian on Hillary.
So I’m suppose to ignore all Hillary’s negatives and the fact that the right has spent 16 years painting her as the devil incarnate, and with that foundation laid and cured am I supposed to ignore that she will activate their base.
I’m supposed to ignore that in knowing she will activate the right wing base and she will need every vote from progressives and liberals if she is to win, she and her campaign has no problem alienating those who support her Democratic opponent.
I’m suppose to ignore that her record in the senate. I’m supposed to ignore her campaign’s financial problems, the lack of planning, the arrogance of thinking she would just walk into the nomination so she didn’t plan for anything after super Tuesday. I’m suppose to ignore that she is part and parcel of the DLC, an organization I would like nothing better to see squashed and never to be heard from again.
I’m supposed to ignore all that and more simply because she is a woman and I am a woman? I’m supposed to shut up, ignore what I think and feel and adopt a “herd mentality.”
Yes, that’s exactly why the suffragettes worked so hard to get us the vote.
Yep, especially when she agreed to the rules.
DTG in STL-
Yes,African-Americans are justified in voting for people of their own race over others. Which they are doing. No one seems to have a problem with this,although a woman doing the same thing is a bigot.
In your hypothetical texas race,I would probably vote for the Edwards-type male. (although,a woman’s right to choose is a dealbreaker for me).
My local Common Council,when I first started paying attention to it,was composed of 15 white males,mostly Democrats. I started voting for every woman and person of color who ran. I even voted for white male republicans. Different outlooks,life experiences need to be heard in government.
#
Also picking on people about their taxes during tax filing time may not be a good strategy. By claiming he has already handed his in, he is either implying that he is relying on last year or that he is uber-efficient and already has his done for this year. She looks like the rest of us and hasn’t got this year done yet. It is going to start pissing people off soon as it is a constant reminder about something that is sitting on the desk waiting to be done.
Um, we’re talking about *seven* years of tax returns, Hawise, not just the most recent tax return. In fact, all the tax returns since she became a Senator. And she made it a campaign issue against Lazio.
But wev. I had a hard time deciding and finally opted for Obama because of the Iraq War. But I’m getting pissed off enough at her latest campaign strategies to not volunteer or contribute money if she wins the primaries in the end. But vote for her? yes, holding my nose as I have done in every election since 1980 except 1996.
We’re talking lizard brain reactions by the electorate- everyone resents being nagged about taxes this time of year. Conscious brain says “yeah, why doesn’t she just produce them?” Back brain says “Will he just shut up already!”
Some targets are seasonal
Clytemnestra
“Mr Goolsbee, Mr Obama’s top economic policy adviser, had told Canadian officials a public pledge to force a renegotiation of Nafta with tougher labour and environmental rules was “more about political positioning”.
You might want to produce more than a youtube link if you want to be taken seriously. Goolsbee’s actions have alrteady been confirmed, and regardless of what you might spin, your candidate was punished by the electorate for lying.
Forward, we have another brilliant move by the Obama campaign who apparently is NOT going Rovian at all.
No siree, not at all. It only stoops low enough to call her a monster.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp
Nicely done. I am looking forward to see Pandagon keep very quiet about it, or spin it to excuse it.
Do you understand now why the Clinton supporters are having a hard time conceiving voting for such a candidate? Unless the author of the above comment is fired immediately, it is obvious that the comment represents the exact position of teh Obama campaign, and it’s not like the previous mysoginist comenters were fired or anything.
Enjoy McCain, that is all an Obama nomination will bring you.
DTG in STL
The fact that the Obama campaign has rana mysoginistic campaign against Hillary is not news, ad teh fact that teh candidate himself has perpetrated mysoginist attacks shoudl tell you all you need to know about his attitude towards women. Supporting such a candidate implies implicit agreement with his behaviour.
I chose ONE link so that my comment would not go into moderation. So here’s another one
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wnafta06/EmailBNStory/National/home
(I have others)
So when are you going to call for the firing of Mark Penn?
So you are going to ignore the polls that show Hillary’s win against McCain to be within the margin of error. (While Obama’s is not). You’re going to ignore what the right has done to her for 16 years, that the THEMSELVES have said Hillary is the ONLY thing that will activate their base this election cycle. You’re going to ignore that Hillary has just given the McCain campaign ammo to use against not only Obama but her too.
I have said that I will vote for Hillary if she get’s the nod (even if I have to find a strong enough clothes pin).. will you vote for Obama if he get’s the nod?
soopermouse March 7, 2008 at 6:00 am
Squashed:if you are so extremely upset about NAFTA and Walmart, then you seriously should not vote for Obama either. Not after the recent Canadian embassy incident…as far as NAFTA goes.”
Yeah except it seems there is blow back, and that the shenanigans is Clinton’s crew doing.
Hillary behind Canadian NAFTA Smear.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181749.php
Michigan caucus is going to know it.
Personally, I don’t believe nafta can be fundamentally changed. (fair labor, sustainable development.) It was about cheap labor for giant corporations.
Most will go under if that is fixed. (nevermind increasing price of energy we import from canada/mexico) We depend on screwing them. And Canada/Mexico rulers depend on us continuing the corporate friendly corruption.
You won’t get to choose between Jesus Socrates Einstein and John “four more years” McCain. You get to choose between John “four more years” McCain and whoever gets the Democratic nomination. That’s reality.
Do you know what reality is? Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.
Any Obama supporter who refuses to vote for Clinton in the general election, and any Clinton supporter who refuses to vote for Obama in the general election, is supporting John “four more years” McCain. Now there’s a word for supporters of John “four more years” McCain, and that word is “Republican.”
To my amazement and horror, I see bunches of these people in the thread above. I had no idea that so many Pandagon readers were Republicans.
Holy fucking shit, people.
I was going to post what W. Kiernan so eloquently phrased just a post or two above (heh, Jesus Socrates Einstein, I’d vote for that guy). Whatever your feelings on how the campaigns of the respective parties have been run, if you’re seriously considering “punishing” the nominee from the other side you’re working to hand victory to the Republicans. That’s what it amounts to, John McCain or the eventual Democratic nominee, and I dare any liberal to tell me that McCain is the better choice. I voted for Obama myself in the primaries, but if Clinton gets the nomination, I’m going to vote and possibly even campaign for her, because whatever her shortcomings, she’s still an order of magnitude better than the other option.
If there’s one lesson to be learned from the last decade plus of Republican dominance in American politics, it’s that sometimes party loyalty needs to take precedence over personal preference. Yeah, the system sucks, but taking your ball and going home isn’t going to fix it. We’ve got to vote in November through the system we have, not the one we wish we had.
Actually, I like this blogger’s take:
Clinton supporters as Buffy fans.
Obama supports as Serenity fans.
Folks…I’m a Whedon fan….
J.V. March 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm
We’ve got to vote in November through the system we have, not the one we wish we had.”
.
Take me to your lizard
-Douglas Adam
[An extraterrestrial robot and spaceship has just landed on earth. The robot steps out of the spaceship…]
“I come in peace,” it said, adding after a long moment of further grinding, “take me to your Lizard.”
Ford Prefect, of course, had an explanation for this, as he sat with Arthur and watched the nonstop frenetic news reports on television, none of which had anything to say other than to record that the thing had done this amount of damage which was valued at that amount of billions of pounds and had killed this totally other number of people, and then say it again, because the robot was doing nothing more than standing there, swaying very slightly, and emitting short incomprehensible error messages.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see…”
“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”
“What?”
“I said,” said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, “have you got any gin?”
“I’ll look. Tell me about the lizards.”
Ford shrugged again.
“Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,” he said. “They’re completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone’s got to say it.”
Forward, we have another brilliant move by the Obama campaign who apparently is NOT going Rovian at all.
No siree, not at all. It only stoops low enough to call her a monster.
When you’re talking about a candidate that picked up Ohio by criticizing Obama for something her own campaign turned out to have said, “monstrous” is a fairly apt description.
It sounds like Powers was burned by the media for saying, off the record, the things that eveybody’s campaign says off the record. Remind me who the media is supposed to “be in the tank” for, again?
Any Obama supporter who refuses to vote for Clinton in the general election, and any Clinton supporter who refuses to vote for Obama in the general election, is supporting John “four more years” McCain.
Some people - and I’m not one of them - actually think that McCain is the better candidate than Clinton. Obama’s strength is that he appeals to those people as well as to Democrats.
Conversely, there’s only two people who think McCain is a better candidate than Obama but thinks Clinton is better than both of them, and that’s Bill and Hillary Clinton.
For my own part, I’ll support the Democrat. But Obama has a strength in the general election that Clinton simply doesn’t, and moreso, he has a strength in office in terms of pulling together support for his agenda that Senator Clinton simply hasn’t ever displayed. Sure, maybe she’s ready to answer the red telephone after 8 years of watching Bill do it. Obama’s ready to put the phone down and bring people together to do something about it. And I can’t believe that the ability to rally people to a shared agenda - the very definition of leadership - constitutes a negative to people like Stormkite. Some people, I guess, learned all the wrong lessons from 2000-2008.
gwangung: Actually, I like this blogger’s take:
Clinton supporters as Buffy fans.
Obama supports as Serenity fans.
Folks…I’m a Whedon fan….
Excuse me for bringing my personal feelings into this discussion but I’m beginning to get torqued off here. I’ve never seen an episode of “Buffy” or “Serenity” in my life and I hope I die before I ever do. I’m a BLS fan. I do not give a damn about personalities or slogans or whether the candidate is black or white or male or female. If I want an artificially induced injection of “hope” or some other such emotion I sure as Hell won’t look to a Presidential candidate for it, I’ll walk down to the liquor store instead.
All I care about regarding the forthcoming election is what will the candidates do about taxation and legislation and judicial appointments. But I care about that a lot. Am I the one and only person in America who feels this way?! (Besides Paul Krugman, of course.)
Unless the author of the above comment is fired immediately, it is obvious that the comment represents the exact position of teh Obama campaign, and it’s not like the previous mysoginist comenters were fired or anything.
She was fired immediately. Though I’m sure that’s proof of an even deeper misogyny on the part of Obama’s campaign, right?
Oh, and it looks like Hillary is on board with my unity ticket idea. Hopefully Obama will hop on the train, too, if it comes to that.
W. Kiernan, don’t hold back. Tell us how you REALLY feel about Buffy, Serenity, and Joss Whedon…
If I want an artificially induced injection of “hope” or some other such emotion I sure as Hell won’t look to a Presidential candidate for it, I’ll walk down to the liquor store instead.
One of the things the President has to do is convince people who may not initially agree with him or her to go along with his or her agenda. I’m sensitive to your concerns but a leader who can motivate people with hope and positivity isn’t just frosting; that’s a real and legitimate advantage in an executive. One that has to lead by fear and intimidation simply isn’t as effective at promoting progressive causes.
All I care about regarding the forthcoming election is what will the candidates do about taxation and legislation and judicial appointments.
The candidate who can’t seem to do anything but get people to distrust her less than her enemies isn’t going to be able to do anything about those issues except strike the bare minimum compromises. The simple fact is that neither Obama nor Clinton are going to be in a position to enact every single one of their policy proposals. We’re electing a president, not a dictator. The question is, who is going to be able to sway the most people and therefore advance a stronger position? Who is going to be able to push through real progressive justices instead of moderate compromisers? Who is going to be able to take the most progressive stance on taxation, rather than simply token concessions?
If there’s an argument that Clinton - the triangulator - is that person, I haven’t seen it.
well isn’t that nice spin. Too bad that what we do see is… what now?
Is there any doubt that Goulsbee met with the Candians? No. the whole scandal as doccumented by globeandmail talks about a leak. You don’t talk about leaks on stuff that didn’t happen now do you?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home
so now the Obama campaign goes around screaming “No she did it” without one shred of evidence and the little sheep take it.
You guys seriously deserve McCain, for stupidity
and now it turns out your guy lied to you yet again with regards to his Iraq exit plans
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_el_pr/obama_adviser
“Power’s comments about Iraq came in an interview with the BBC. She said Obama’s position is that withdrawing all U.S. troops within 16 months is a “best-case scenario” that he will revisit if he becomes president.
“He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator,” she said. “He will rely upon a plan — an operational plan — that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.”
”
so, your guys is feeding you hot air while not actually having a plan in place. Any MORE lies you are willing to swallow? because I have a bridge to sell
The tax thing may indeed be a petty issue, however it smells of rank hypocrisy when you have a campaign spokesman accusing your opponent of behaving like Ken Starr, when the EXACT SAME SPOKESMAN raised holy hell 8 years ago about Clinton’s then political opponent not being as forthcoming as possible with his tax returns (Rick Lazio).
Why is it that when Obama demands to see Hillary’s tax returns, he’s acting like Ken Starr, but when Hillary demands to see Lazio’s tax returns - and even goes so far as to send a paid staffer to Lazio events dressed as Uncle Sam to shame him - that she’s behaving completely within the rules?
She’s playing with a double standard. Can’t use a strategy against one opponent and call it fair game, and then cry foul when another opponent then uses the EXACT SAME tactic against you.
Gotta Link?
I’m still not seeing it. Misogyny coming from some of his supporters? Sure. From him or his campaign itself? Don’t see it.
If you want to call the “Monster” comment by one of his FEMALE staffers misogyny, have at it. I see it as a tasteless and improper comment made in a moment of emotional frustration, and for having made the comment the staffer has now been put into the position of having to resign from the campaign.
Please show me all the misogyny that exudes from Obama. I’m not talking about the dumb things some of his supporters who aren’t officials inside his campaign team have said, I want exact quotes from Obama himself which suggest that he’s a rampant misogynist. Or even from one of his paid campaign reps.
Anything… give me anything which proves your claim is true.
Soopermouse, are you trying to convince those of us who favor Obama to change our minds and support Clinton? Or are you just posting in order to express your contempt towards us and your extreme self-righteousness?
Because if it’s the former, here’s a hint: It’s not working all that well!
It’s interesting how you skipped over a few paragraphs when you read that selfsame story:
In other words … Clinton did the exact same thing as Obama.
Hillary called it “frankly disturbing” that her Senate opponent wouldn’t release his tax returns, now she won’t release hers
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/hillary-attacked-her-senate-opponent.html
She called it “frankly disturbing” that he refused to release his returns, and now she won’t release her own returns when Obama released his a year ago.
Hillary’s right. It does look like she’s hiding something:
Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so, raising suspicions about whether he had the kind of financial problems that have tripped up other politicians in New York in recent decades.
The campaign of his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something.
And more from one of Hillary’s current top advisers:
‘’Rick Lazio can’t explain why it took three months to release his taxes,'’ said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton campaign spokesman. ‘’Now he won’t come clean with New Yorkers and reveal the real cost of his reckless trillion-dollar tax plan. It’s time for Mr. Lazio to stop playing games and start talking straight.'’
How is Hillary going to fight Mr. Straight Talk in the fall when her own campaign isn’t holding true to its own “straight talk”? She can’t. Another theme Hillary won’t be able to hit on.
Oh, and there’s more:
Howard Wolfson, the chief spokesman for Mr. Lazio’s opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, even showed up at a Lazio event in Harlem to fan the flames [over his tax returns].
Gary Hart: Hillary “has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.”
http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/gary-hart-hillary-has-essentially-said.html
If you don’t vote Hillary, ter’rist will kill your kids, Baby Jesus will cry and A kitten will die.
oh yeah, she is inevitable, ready from day one and has passed the threshold. (What threshold?)
Just imagine how she will behave when she is a president and getting cornered.
you can always tell a Stephanie Miller listener
I don’t know if we’re still trying to discern which side is more nutz but in my experience (I supported Kucinich and Edwards), Obama supporters act like the mirror twins of LGFers. I occasionally see some over-the-top nastyness from Clintonites but the Obamites are in a class by themselves (as you can see on virtually any Dem site you care to visit). Digby had to shut down her comments today because of the intra-party bloodletting, which is ultra-retarded in the long run. Please, people…….chill with the attacks on fellow Dems, we’re got a common enemy in John Unsane, right?
Really? Because I see on C&L alot of clinton supporters taking the Mark Penn/Cinton talking points in insulting Obama supporters. In fact yesterday I pointed out to one Clinton supporter who called Obama, “Obam bam” that the comment he was commenting on did NOT call Hillary any names.
It was critical but it did not call her a name.