Could the Clinton supporters please explain what it is that is so off-putting about Obama? I mean that seriously — I am absolutely, 100% bewildered at why some of you say that you will never get behind Obama as our party’s nominee.
I am very interested in any Clinton supporters thoughts. Please see the rest of this message. And thank you in advance!
I’ve heard some say they’re disgusted at how Obama has “played the race card,” but I can’t think of a single instance in which he — not his more rabid online supporters, not the media, but the man himself and his campaign — have done this. If anything, his speeches and comments on race have been efforts to downplay the idea that he’s “the black candidate.” If you think that’s it, please point me to some specific examples, because I’m just not seeing it. If it’s not that, then what?
Seriously, help me out. Because these Clinton people saying they’ll vote for McCain — they sound like a vegan at a restaurant saying, “Oh, you’re out of the tofu and sprouts? Then just give me a bloody steak and a side of veal cheeks.”
I eagerly await any insight you might be able to provide. This is quite puzzling and I hope to get your honest perspectives.
Thank you!
Click it if you liked it! 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
==========================================
UPDATE: Please note if you post links they get spammed. I will unspam them ASAP.
==========================================
Please note that I am seeking open, honest, and candid dialog.
Any name calling or anything which will poison this discussion will not be tolerated.
Any hateful comments will be removed.
Hans said,
May 31, 2008 at 10:55 pm
nice analogy! not to sound vindictive, but “entitlement” comes to mind, as from my perspective it appears “perceived entitlement” trumps reality. I tried outlining what I saw being the denial of reality but was greeted with censorship and the above mentioned “pouty faced” reactions to real reasons as to why she was not winning the nomination. oh well.
i never saw the “sexism” allegations either, more “manufactured consent” if you ask me.
Peter G said,
May 31, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I must say I find the attitude of the more virulent anti-Obama people puzzling but then I am equally puzzled by the virulence of the anti-Clinton crowd. I attribute it to the rabid fan syndrome. It isn’t enough to support your man (or woman) you must hate the opposition.
NYC Leon said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:04 am
I am a leftist and pragmatically have been a loyal and active Democrat since I was 13. I will vote and maybe work for Obama as the nominnee but I am actually disgusted with the way the campaign was run and continues. There was an active effort to turn up the hatred for the Clintons. It started with calling her old school, part of the problem/not the solution, etc. which was interesting given that they have identical records in the Senate for their overlapping years. He never really argued policy with her- it was always this superficial “change”. He himself actively called her “emotional” and “whiny” during debates. It was a concerted effort by the campaign to reenforce a pre-existing narrative created by the right wing in the 90s of HRC. Everything was cut throat and Lady McBethian. I find this amazing considering the things widely known about how Barak ran for state senate (fighting the community organizers for his opponents), how he ran this campaign (relying on low voter turnout events such as caucuses- where the privildged class dominates, fighting revotes in MI and FL).
Then his advocates (and anybody who believes Donna Brazille had no contact with his campaign might want to buy a bridge…) started with the Clinton as racist thing based on interpretation of statements such as “the press is ignoring the facts about his stance on the war- they are creating a fairytale” as a racist statement??? Remember, that and the LBJ was the president who got the Civil Rights Act through were used to drop the substantial AA support HRC had in SC to save BHO’s campaign, which had just lost NH and SC. There was an excellent piece on this in the New Republic “Race Man” which is worth a read.
Now we have to hear that the 17.3 million of us that voted for her did it because we are racists or ignorant rather than we support the candidate with a better record of getting things done, with more defined policy proposals, and the one who is more likely to make a difference immediately rather than struggling for the first two years (as Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and W did since they were all newbees- and the more vague their policy proposals were in the election, the less they got done during their presidencies.. For all the comparison to JFK, we should remember that historically, he was having a low-average presidency with major foriegn policy mistakes as well as domestic problems- many of which were cleaned up by LBJ). Being patronized and disrespected for my choice makes me understand why we didn’t win the presidency in 2000 or 2004. There is nothing more infuriating and isolating than being looked down upon.
That is why people are against Obama. Explain the vitriol for HRC who has been an advocate for progressive causes for her whole career.
Leon
Max said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:15 am
I was initially open to Obama, impressed with him due to his speech at the last convention. On th esurface he looked great.
Then he started to get more exposure, then the ragged edges showed up.
For starters, the way the Obama team treated Joe Anthony was nauseating, insincere, heavy handed, arrogant and… identical to the things Bush does, a “unifier” in the same way Bush is, this talent to polarize people still dogs Obama.
Next, Obama’s compulive habit of shading the truth. When he is suprised with the unexpected, he reactively lies.
From Tony Rezko (which is still cloudy) to Obama’s floundering over the Wright affair, Obama has quite frankly looked like a suck-up (telling us what he thinks we want to hear) at best, and a calculating lier at worst. Have we not had enough of that for the last 8 years? If Obama had come completely clean right away on Rezko, and if he had resisted trying to hide his real exposure to Wright, it would have been another thing entirely… but no. Not just another arrogant and amature set of mistakes, a pattern of compulsive dishonesty.
I don’t like any of the current canadates, had hoped Bloomberg would enter.
At least I trust both Clinton and McCain, Obama has my BS detector going off big time.
Now, of course we need change!!! Thats like saying if the house is on fire we should put it out! This call for change is so “duh” it is meaningless!
What we really need is competence. Not just experience -but competence!
So far Obama has show me nothing on that front. Charisma, a golden throat and lofty rhetoric are not equivelent to the rock solid competence in the areas we desperately need:
1) Foreign Affairs 2) The economy 3) Finance 4) Energy/Earth sciences
Face it. On these matters it would be on the job training time for Obama. His statements on Pakistan were alarming, (I KNOW…I realize He DID NOT say he would bomb Pakistan, and HE DID NOT) …BUT….Pakistan is in such tenious shape he should have said NOTHING!!! Another amature and somewhat cynically pandering (to the voters fears) mistake. Here is the truth: Pakistan MUST be dealt with politically! There is NO other way!
Clinton and McCain are competent enough, Obama is still an amature, a “greenhorn.” I do not understand why he did not wait to run on the next cycle, I suppose it is that ambitious arrogance surfacing again.
We don’t need a “Rock Star”. We don’t need a “wunderkind.”
After the severe damage of the last 7+ years -we need a REAL President.
I don’t want to vote for McCain. But the contest between Obama and McCain will be telling. If I do vote for Obama, it will be with great fear and trepidation.
tom said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:16 am
Being from Chicago I vote for him for senate. He is from a bad group -Axelrod his manager, who split Chicago with Harlod Washington, and made it about race-is a consultant for Comm Ed. and Excelon and Hillary helped his disabled child many times? His wife loves her. Clinton’s are the only dems since FDR to win white house 2x’s. All other dems lose or only one weak term. They are not racist. He’s inexperienced and worse than Carter- voting present more than 60% of the time in Ill. He is protecting a 4th Illinois Gov. from going to jail with his mentor Emil Jones -Il. senate president and Exelon/ Comm. Ed activist against the environment and voted for Cheney’s energy bill. Out taxes are 10.25%- highest in nation. He’s done nothing but run for pres. for 3 years since entering senate where he’s lead nothing except his one committe appointed to ‘Afganistan’ and has not held one meeting in 3 year!? His friends are anti-american activist/ refused to give interviews to Gay press since 2004 and cheated in caucases that did not represent population-only moveon.org folks. He reminds me of an empty suit/ Emperor’s new clothes.There’s more but the guys just not what I am looking for in a president. I’ll stick with Hillary if she drops out Nader. Nuff said!
Briseadh na Faire said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:18 am
“Explain the vitriol for HRC who has been an advocate for progressive causes for her whole career.”
That’s easy, it comes from the NeoCons. They have harbored an irrational hatred for the Clintons for years. Before Bill was even sworn in there was talk of impeachment. Hillary was pilloried for her health care proposal.
Add to this a Corporate Media shaping the message into sound bytes of 3-word phrases, playing up racism and sexism, gleefully pitting the two Democratic front-runners against each other while extoling the virtues of McCain. The powers-that-be have selected McCain as the next president.
Study Machiavelli and you will begin to understand how “we the people” are being manipulated to serve our Princes. Or just re-read “1984.” It’s the blueprint our government is following.
Chris Stewart said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:21 am
NYC Leon,
I appreciate your post, especially the first paragraph. I honestly never though about how cutthroat positioning her as a candidate of the past was. That was a politically savvy aspect of Obama’s campaign. But I can agree that it was harsh and Hillary indeed is/was NOT part of the problem. Her policies (while a little too liberal for my taste) have always been aligned with democratic principles.
I am less fond of the second part of you analysis. I don’t understand why Hillary supporters are determined to turn the LBJ comment into an Obama/media conspiracy. Why can’t it just be an offensive statement that she should have apologized for? In many ways, the persistence of the Clintons to attribute the blunder to someone is also offensive. Am I not smart enough to be offended on my own right, or do I need the media to tell me?
In the end, the Clintons will always be remembered as friends to the black community. The democratic party is the party of diversity and unity. Finally, I don’t look at you as racist for voting for Hillary. Just misguided.
God bless. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback.
John said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:23 am
Thanks for providing this site. Very intersting idea, though I see that you are not getting much in the way of responses. Thank you for your thougtful and illuminating post, Leon.
I’d just like to explain, in as nice as possible fashion as I can, why I’ve never been a strong advocate of Senator Clinton’s candidacy. Sure, when the campaign started, I figured she’d win. I’d, pardon the expression, hold my nose, and vote for her in November. But I didn’t understand the underlying nature of her campaign. To me, she does not have the experience that she and her supporters continue to claim; yes, she did serve as first lady, but she was not the president, and regardless of any “pillow talk” that occured, she did not bear the responsiblity of that office. It simply seems overblown to claim that role as part of her experience.
Secondly, and most important to me, really is this: Living in Texas, as I do, I’ve noted a visceral hatred by many towards Senator Clinton. As the campaign started, I was actually disappointed that she was running, because I felt that she and her staff HAD to be aware of this. There are many people that will not, and will never vote for Senator Clinton. Her negative ratings have continued to demonstrate that throughout the campaign. Starting in a hole such as that, I felt that she was doing a disservice to her party by running.
Anyway, not what you wanted, but felt compelled to write.
abbie said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:23 am
There is an interesting youtube video on redstate.com that features a Democrat who mentions this issue and says she’ll vote for McCain over Obama. The reasoning is hard to follow coming from a Democrat.
Josh said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:28 am
Leon, it’s just as unpleasant to be as referred to as elitist, sexist, stupid, naive, lazy, over-educated and yes, racist, too, simply because one doesn’t like Hillary. You can’t deny that there’s some of that going around.
It’s her war vote. I know it doesn’t matter at all to her supporters but it matters to me. I didn’t want Kerry in ‘04, nor did I want Edwards. It was a terrible thing to do - I know she’s too smart to have believed the Bush administration’s case. She’s surely smarter than me, and I saw through it.
This has little to do with Obama, and nothing to do with Hillary’s gender. I simply don’t want to reward people who helped us go to war with promotions.
So that they will realize that there’s a political price to pay. So they won’t do it again.
What on earth is wrong with that?
I guarantee that this would have been over in February, with Hillary as the nominee, if she hadn’t voted for the war.
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:09 am
i posted this on some of the pro-hillary sites, which just like the official hillary blog, censor and only allow through 100% support with no dissent allowed. it is also what I posted a link to above, but seriously, Richardson was my first choice and Hillary’s “excuses” for everything and then her campaign’s attacks against college educated was the last straw for me….
“Henny Penny, the sky is falling.”
Rumsfeld could teach all the Hillary supporters a thing or two. Don’t deny reality, then try and blame it on “one person stealing the same vase.” You will look the fool years later.
Who was it that cried the Media was to blame again?
Democrats.Senate.gov
I would normally not use this man of little credibility to compare a Democrat to, but on 2 points it is justifiable based on Hillary Clinton’s choices this campaign. 1) Her claiming [paraphrased] John McCain was more qualified on day one, than was Barack Obama to be Commander in Chief.” 2) Her statements that Karl Rove, [you have got to be f***ing kidding me?!?!] claims “Hillary to be the strongest candidate against John McCain,” as an honest statement we should consider credible & without ulterior motives.
So Hillary takes a little flak and she claims “sexism”, boo-hoo, cry me a river. Was she crying during all the media bias in her favor [when she only had her little Bosnia-gate last a day or two]? No i don’t think so.
What Clinton & her supporters fail to realize is her vote to authorize Bush to go into Iraq, which coincidently was a pander to look strong on defense & military for future presidential ambitions, and Clinton’s complete disregard for making amens to the Democratic base & moderate Independents, by being humble and showing some remorse for her poor decision, IS the reason she did not wrap up this nomination months ago.
Who’s fault is this? Hillary Clinton’s, not the media’s.
The 2006 Mid-term Elections were overwhelming proof the American people required this apology from Hillary Clinton before they would consider voting for her.
The American people were looking for humility of their potential future President. Instead of showing her ability to accept criticism of her vote to go to war and humbly request the voters to forgive her for this poor choice, she decided to brush them all off and completely ignore their requests.
Instead, she decided to show her “human-ness” and “not tough-as-nails” personality shedding some tears at a press conference. Both were political calculations on her part that backfired and because she chose to do them, it is the media’s fault for calling her out based on what the American people wanted and she refused to listen to?
Here is reality resulting from her participation in authorizing the War in Iraq. “VA confirms 18 vets commit suicide every day,” yet still to this day nothing out of Hillary Rodman Clinton, who claims she will fight for the American people.
You don’t know the disbelief I felt first seeing Joe Wilson & Valerie Plame endorsing HRC, given Valerie’s life was put in jeopardy when she was outed, plus countless others we will never know and everything they did was to try to stop the invasion. Yet, I understand where they come from, fearing more reprisals being tied to the Clinton’s for many years, as the “Judas” comments of Gov. Richardson demonstrated the Clinton’s complete lack of humility in honest defeat.
Cry a river, claim “sexism” while at the same time announcing “[I] you will only vote for Hillary” as you feel entitled to have a woman President irregardless if she has made very poor decisions, ignored the will of the Party base and cannot even run a $100 million campaign in the black and we are supposed to believe she can balance the budget once again and take this country out of the perilous economic road we travel?
“Hillary is Best” supporters are oblivious to the reality of what people really want.
Humility, sadly is what lacks the most within Hillary Rodham Clinton, her advocates and too many of her supporters.
And also, open up your comments or are you just censoring [allowing] for what you want to hear instead of what is really being said? Closing down your comments, censoring those that do not agree with what you say, then claiming you are the victims? See “Hillary’s trouncing in Red-Rascist Kentucky Matters?!” for but one of many censoring of comments by blogs such as “The Confluence,” “LadyBoomerNYC” & “Semidi” and now “Donna Darko” moderates & closes comments to ensure they support HRC 100%.
Don’t Like Reality Ladies, Bring it to Thunderdome!
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:39 am
100% Josh
that’s what I wrote in my linked post above
glad I wasn’t the only one “stupid” enough to use my college education to see this reality.
thepoetryman said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:57 am
Who knows what party these people are truly aligned with that say they will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated? Don’t forget that Rove is still sniffing his criminal nose around… If those that say this truly consider themselves Dems then they are without a conscience. I doubt any true democrat would do what is being said. The game is afoot and the neocon wing of the republican party are not beyond stirring things up to the point of total confusion (see florida recount 2000). Everyone needs to take a step back and let the chips fall where they may. After the next president is sworn in, if Bush doesn’t become dictator first, then we need to work on dismantling our inane 2 party system and begin to take back the country. I’m afraid until then we will be left with “false” choices. Full of sound and fury… signifying -
Daniel's Critical Corner said,
June 1, 2008 at 3:34 am
I trust Mrs. Clinton. I’ve been watching her for years.
It really seemed to me, up until January, that she had
a clear shot to the White House. A majority of Democrats
backed her, many people told her to “go for it”. Then,
half of her supporters jumped ship at the last minute.
Chaos ensued. She didn’t change. But all of a sudden
“Obama” is the “one”. I personally don’t trust him,
(at least not yet) but then again, I only learned who
he was a few short months ago. The whole “church”
thing bothers me… And I don’t think he is ready for
the job. I’m not a fan of McCain. But our country has
never been in more trouble than it is now. We need
someone who can (from day one) at least stabilize
America as soon as possible. We need a pro. No,
I’m not going to vote for McCain, but I think some
people may see it like this:
If a loved one needed heart surgery, and their very
life was in the balance… Would you want the young
doctor fresh from medical school to be in charge of
the operation ? Or would you choose the older doctor
that had hundreds of such surgeries under his belt ?
The young guy is perfect for a sore throat or a tummy ache.
Bigger problems ? Go with someone who has been around
the block ! LOL !
I may grow to really like Obama
, but for now, I need to see
a little more… Yes, some folks are not going to vote for him
because of a “grudge” of sorts. And that’s just silly. There is
only a small percentage of folks feeling that way (I think). But
there are actually people that won’t vote for Mrs. Clinton
because she is a woman ! There are people that actually
are voting for Obama just because of his skin color. In every
election, there will be people that vote based on some strange
bias, either for or against ! Now, as for me, Obama only seems
squeaky clean because of his age… He hasn’t had the CHANCE
yet to make the “mistakes” over the years that Mrs. Clinton and
Mr. McCain are being held accountable for. Give him another
ten years, he will have a rap sheet as long as everybody else.
As Democrats, and more importantly, as Americans,
we need to have a solid, unified vision at least a YEAR
before the November elections. And, barring some
horrible revelation about the person we support, we
need to stick to our guns. And may we vote on the most
qualified person, first and foremost, and for that reason
only !
Thank you for such an interesting question ! I really
enjoy your blog, and will comment again soon…
Cats r Flyfishn said,
June 1, 2008 at 7:49 am
When there were 9 Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton was the LAST candidate on my list. She was never a favorite of mine. Her war vote and her Iran vote were a real disappointment to me. And then there was the Ruppert Murdock fund raiser which made me distrustful. Barack Obama was second to last on my list. Bill Richardson was my first choice with Chris Dodd as second etc… . The media decided that the Democratic contest would be between Clinton and Obama and I had to make a choice. I chose Obama because of his style of governing. I don’t want another “Yes, I will do this” in the White House. We have that now and it hasn’t been working out too well for our nation. I like the idea of empowerment that Obama presents. If I need to roll up my sleeves and get to work, well then, so be it. No one person has all the answers and I don’t trust any politician that acts like they have all the answers. It’s just “huff and puff” as far as I’m concerned. Good decisions are made by a group of intelligent people that present different ideas and then choose the best parts of those ideas when developing solutions.
LorMarie said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:05 am
I have been wondering the same. It appears that many among the Clintonistas have a “hidden” bias against Obama. I once held the Clintons in high esteem, but their condescending campaign changed all of that. I understand that many on both sides are refusing to support the other which is why I believe we will have another 4-8 years of a republican controlled white house. In other words, everybody get ready for President John McCain along with the possibility of more war. Aside from the war issue, I have developed more of a respect for the republican party and less for democrats. All I can say is, I saw through the democratic party years ago and await the day I will change parties (to independent, actually). I find this attitude growing among the demsocrats’ long time loyalist, black Americans, but that’s a separate issue.
That’s my opinion respectfully submitted.
LorMarie said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:06 am
I find this attitude growing among the demsocrats’ long time loyalist, black Americans, but that’s a separate issue.
oops! I meant democrats, he he.
intuitivelyobvious said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:20 am
Most voters aren’t really well-informed about how the candidates have voted etc. It’s a gut vote. I count myself in that league, too. Why do you support Obama? What has he done? Read the other comments of those who ARE well-informed and then tell us why you still want him. It’s not about race..it’s about real substance and experience. All he’s done is run for office. And didn’t he just make some comment about a comment McCain made about veterans. McCain served, so in my book, he can say anything he wants about the military and veterans and should not be criticized by someone like Obama who’s just looking for votes.
JakeD said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:26 am
I would agree it comes down to competence and integrity.
stushie said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:26 am
So the final wait is over. Michigan and Florida delegates get all of their delegates and half of their votes. Doing the math, Obama is still 178 points ahead of Hillary. Even is she were to receive 100% of the delegates in Peurto Rico, Montana, and South Dakota, she still would reach Obama’s total. The committee voted, the fat lady sang, and the party’s over it, Hillary.
Will Obama choose her as VP? That’s the only ticket Hillary has to ride in this election. She will have to earn it because of the internal and infernal division she has caused the Dems. Hillary will have to concede and let go of her Presidential dreams. She will have to settle for second best and stop sabotaging the Democrat Party. If not, then it only proves that she was in it for herself all along.
On a side note, Harold Ickes stated that votes were stolen from her yesterday, but his voice in the wilderness went unheard. After all, weren’t some of his clients gangsters and mobsters who couldn’t care less about democracy?
Out with the old and in with the new. The golden ticket has been won by Obama. But we already knew that before and after West Virginia and Kentucky. The question is this: are the Clintons still in the land of denial, or are they ready to go home?
JakeD said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:30 am
Stushie:
You think it’s fair that 4 Hillary delegates, and ALL “uncommitted” delegates, were given to Obama? Would you feel the same if they were all given to Hillary?
goesdownbitter said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:33 am
http://goesdownbitter.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/clintons-march-to-the-sea/
The Bitter Hinterlands is quite happy to see the Democratic Party tearing itself apart. We presume that Senator Clinton will be campaigning for McCain in the fall as her supporters plan on doing.
JakeD said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:39 am
Actually, she has pledged to campaign for Obama if he wins.
JakeD said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:50 am
She also told all her supporters it would be a “terrible mistake” to vote for McCain over Obama.
orvillelloyddouglas said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think some of the Clinton supporters will vote for McCain because they have a sense of entitlement it relates to white skin privilege. Last year Hillary Clinton was crowned the Democratic party nominee by the media. However, Hillary Clinton has also benefited from the “Mythical Norm”, from the Marriage Market, access to a powerful white heterosexual husband, and whiteness. The media focus on Obama’s “blackness” yet ignore Hillary Clinton’s “whiteness”. Also 73.9% of the USA population is white, they are the majority. Some people I honestly believe do have racial prejudice against Obama because he’s a black man. I just wonder why some people can’t just be honest and say it.
gazzed said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:27 am
I just don’t trust Obama, I am not throwing my hat in the ring for him, as of yesterday I know in my heart that I will never vote for him, that was a secret back room deal at the RBC meeting, I think the thing I dislike most are the people who say they are neutral in this campaign and really are not, also I am from Pa. we did not like his comment in San Francisco about people in Pa. as some type of people from another planet, with all of us being bitter, holding onto their faith and their guns,I really think Obama is not about change or believe in things, I think his record in Chicago shows that he is just the same old dinosaur that Axelrod and the gang are trying to polish up to look like new, I think the church issue has bothered me quite a bit, it kind of shows me his judgement on things, like sittiing there for 20 years off and on, what does he really believe and then to resign after that so called priest made those remarks, I don’t think he will win the election against McCain no matter what are saying, some people will just not say anything and wait until Nov. and then vote. I really didn’t like the Kennedy endorsement, in many peoples minds the Kennedys are put on some type of platform above everyone else, they also have many, many , many skeltons in their closet, well those are my reasons for not voting for Obama, I have just joined the McCain campaign and will now work for them in Pa., I feel safer there.
Hillary Clinton Updates » Blog Archive » Comment on An Honest Question to Clinton Supporters by Cats r Flyfishn said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:04 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Hillary Clinton Updates » Blog Archive » Comment on An Honest Question to Clinton Supporters by stushie said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:05 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Hillary Clinton Updates » Blog Archive » Comment on An Honest Question to Clinton Supporters by JakeD said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:06 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
beeinthecity said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’ve never been a Clinton supporter, but my mother voted for her in one of the big states that she won, so I thought I’d explain her reasoning at the time to try to help. Unlike what I’ve heard from friends in many other reddish or swing states - ones like Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana - in the rust belt state where she lives, a number of Republicans she knew were saying that they would switch sides to vote for Clinton, or in some cases, switched party affiliations (the primary was closed to party members) to vote for her in the primary. She said that people she knew there, in a heavily Republican area, disliked McCain but were unwilling to vote for an African-American. She took her own experiences and applied it to the whole - assumed that because that was peoples’ reasoning there, that would be their reasoning all over the country. She combined that with feeling like Obama was more style than substance and feeling like Hillary Clinton was a known quantity who had the experience to fight back at the McCain attack machine in the general election. In other parts of the country - in blue, swing, and reddish states - I have heard over and over that people think that the vitriolic hatred between the right wing and the Clintons would lead to a very nasty campaign and to many Republican-leaning independent voters simply staying home, but the thinking of many in the rust belt was the exact opposite of this.
The thing I thought was interesting about it with my mother in particular is that all she talked about was winning the election - who would be the most likely candidate to win the election - and I never once heard her talk about how she thought Clinton would be as a president after being elected. All she would ever say about that subject is that she felt like Obama was like an Adlai Stevenson or a Walter Mondale.
(She changed her mind, by the way, after the Republicans lost those special elections recently. She found the one in Mississippi where they tried to link the candidate to Wright in a heavily Republican district and still lost, to be the most compelling one. Before that happened, sometimes she would call me just to complain about how she felt Obama was like Mondale and she was disappointed Clinton now seemed like she was going to lose. Since then, she’s said that she thinks that the Democrats have a good chance of winning the general election regardless of whether Obama is the candidate.)
Marcia Rae said,
June 1, 2008 at 12:40 pm
The problem with Hillary and with many of her supporters is that their championing of Hillary and their hatred of Obama is based on emotion, not reason or an examination of the facts.
Let’s look at the FACTS.
Hillary lies when she maintains that she won the popular vote. Frankly, since the Democratic caucus states’ popular votes cannot be calculated, there is no way to factually and truthfully count the popular vote until the general Presidential election. There is no truth to her claim to have won the popular vote.
Hillary lies when she says that she has the most experience, “30 years of experience”. If you read her resume, she was a corporate lawyer in Arkansas; she was First Lady while Bill was President; she is a junior senator from New York State.
A corporate lawyer has no experience that relates to being President.
A First Lady - any First Lady - has no accountability for any decisions about any national policy or course of action whatsoever. And a First Lady has no authority to make any decision on behalf of our country. Read the Constitution and you will find the accountabilities and authorities of the President, but nothing whatsoever about the First Lady.
As the junior Senator from New York State, there is no significant legislation that Hillary has initiated, shepherded through the Senate, or achieved compromise or passage on.
So what IS this so called “experience” that Hillary touts?
It can’t be her effort as First Lady to create national health care; her conduct of that initiative was flawed, secretive, and a vast failure. How do we know that? We know it because 15 years later, the country still has no national health care.
Hillary’s claims to have participated in major international negotiations have also proved to be false. She didn’t sit at the negotiation table; she had tea and off-site visits to cultural and other local notable places, with the other individuals who accompanied their spouses to the negotiations. Her calendar has been reviewed, and this is the factual result of looking at where she actually was, despite her claims to the contrary.
Hillary lied when she said that when she landed in Bosnia with daughter Chelsea, it was under sniper-fire. The pictures tell the truth: there was a receiving line with bouquets of flowers being given, not bullets being shot.
Please, people, resurrect your brains, and LOOK AT THE FACTS. This highly vituperative, emotionally over-charged attack laden approach is just not dignified for any American to use to make decisions about any candidate, especially for President of the United States in this crucial, water-shed time in our history.
WHAT IS THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES?
The Presidency is a JOB that needs to be done, and at this crucial point in our country’s history, it is imperative that we approach our analysis of Hillary as a Presidential candidate based on the FACTS and the TRUTH, not our emotional pre-dispositions.
What have we seen about candidate Hillary that signals how she would act if she were President Hillary?
She has run a campaign that was strategically inept, and financially devastating. Rather than developing a multi-faceted, broad based campaign that would allow her win in all the states, she took the road of arrogance, and, because she expected to win by Super Tuesday, she had no plan - or money - left to continue an effective campaign in the subsequent state primaries. This is why she is losing. She has had to loan her own campaign millions of dollars, and is way in debt - somewhere from $25 to $35 million.
Why would we want a President who so clearly has failed at such a major task as running a successful and financially sound campaign?
When asked to make commitments to the “rules of the road” for the Democratic Party process for Presidential campaigns, Hillary readily signed onto what the DNC required “no campaigning and no votes” for Michigan and Florida if they violated their rules and moved their primary dates up. Only when it became clear to Hillary that she unexpectedly needed those delegates to potentially win, did she create a firestorm that centered around her propaganda that those votes deserved to be counted.
Now, the Democratic Rules Committee has both followed their rules, and honored the requests of the Michigan and Florida delegations by restoring the delegates participation at the Convention, and according the number of delegates that Michigan and Florida requested. Hillary’s campaign responded to that decision with bitter denunciation and further threats against the Rules Committee.
What about this behavior would say to Americans, or to foreign leaders, that negotiations and/or commitments President Hillary might make could be believed or trusted?
The campaign that Hillary and Bill Clinton have conducted has been bitterly divisive, pitting “poor white working Americans” against black, pitting women against men, segregating out any group that they felt could become a pro-Hillary voting block against their neighbors. The rift in the Democratic Party is now so deep, that, despite Bush’s lowest performance rating ever for any President anytime, the split in the party may give the Presidency back to a Republican. And not just any Republican; one who stands for Bush’s failed policies such as the Iraq Wat.
How has Candidate Hillary shown any capacity to sound out various groups in this country about various issues, some of the potentially explosive, and bring them together in workable - not necessarily perfect - but workable consensus?
What is it, again, about Candidate Hillary’s performance that makes her such a great fit to getting the results that we, to get our country back on track at home and meet the increasingly volatile and divisive issues of the international community desperately need from our next President?
Marcia
gazzed said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I thought you wanted opininons from Hillary supporters not the Obama trolls.
Duke of url said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“The problem with Hillary and with many of her supporters is that their championing of Hillary and their hatred of Obama is based on emotion, not reason or an examination of the facts”.
This is just stupid. How can you say something so unrealistic about 17,000,000 supporters (popular vote estimate)?
MarciaRae destroys her own argument when she says: “A corporate lawyer has no experience that relates to being President”
Duh. What was Obama before he became a State Senator and a U.S. Senator?
and what experience does he bring to the table anyway, since you brought it up?
Good talking and charisma doesn’t get the job done, never did. I’m an Edwards supporter, and will always maintain that he quit too early. I don’t see the negativity you raise about Clinton. I think that thirty years in government does give you an edge, you see what you are getting with Clinton, and although there is much to the eye that I don’t like, denigrating her as if she is the Ann Coulter of the left, will bring exactly zero Clinton supporters to your side.
If you think you will win the election without those 17,000,000 supporters you would be badly mistaken.
The first thing Obama needs to do to win, is lasso all of these soap box orators off the stage, and that includes some of the worst blog web sites, and start treating her supporters with some respect. Only then will he start to turn this around.
kay said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You should really move all the Obama supporters responses to another thread so we can actually read the answers from HRC supporters (like myself). I came here from FDL specifically to read why others felt like me about BHO and contribute my feelings and thoughts on this topic–but I have been very taken back by some of the BHO supporter’s comments on here.
I know I will not- for the first time in many election cycles- volunteer to work for the presidential campaign if the nomineee is BHO. I will not give money as I always have and I will not put out lawn signs. I haven’t decided if I will just abstain from voting or write in HRC.
Why? Look above at how the Obama supporters talk and treat Hillary’s people. Do you think that I would deal with that in face to face in daily activities? Will I be asked to sweep floors and bring snacks for the “real campaign” workers? Will they mock me to my face and behind my back? I think so.
Why do I have this horrible gut feeling about Obama? Partially due to his followers who have been over the top in their blind following behavior. I’m 54 yrs old and hear people say sexism is not a problem in this country. Are you serious? When I can’t get something resolved with a store/company I still have to get my husband to get on the phone to talk to someone and it never fails that he gets better results than I do in those cases. Men still talk to my cleavage–and it’s wrinkled nowadays!
Partly due to his belonging to a church that dragged the pulpit into politics once again in our country while preaching hatred for certain people—everyone keeps focusing on “God damn America” but I can’t shake the anti-Semitism remarks more than anything else.
Women used to work as secretaries for many years in almost all major companies basically doing their male bosses jobs but never getting a promotion themselves. The boss would get promoted and the secretary would have to train her next boss. This is what a lot of women who support Hillary see in this race.
I see a hard working woman who is being pushed to the side by the male dominated DNC/DLC for a smooth talking man.
I gag everytime I see him give a speech because he stops during the speech to hold a pose for the cameras ( Madonna’s Vogue video comes to my mind).
People talk about entitlement issues with Hillary? I see him as the ultimate “I’m entitled” Dem candidate of our time. He’s exactly like Bush. The only difference is that Bush is married to Peaches and BHO is married to Omarosa.
kay said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“”Jim wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptI think some of the Clinton supporters will vote for McCain because they have a sense of entitlement it relates to white skin privilege.”"
And, this is a perfect example of why I won’t be working with BHO people this fall. I’m being painted as a racist because some jerk says so. Some jerk who doesn’t know my family is of mixed races. Can you even imagine how the Black supporters of Clinton must feel to read things like that? Are they race traitors? Is this going to be a campaign of “if you don’t support us and you don’t give us votes/labor/money you are a racist?
Good luck with that strategy.
MsJoanne said,
June 1, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Kay, did you mean to post a link there? Nothing came through.
Thank you for your honest post, btw. I appreciate it.
And remember…one or several supporters are NOT Obama. There are dicks on both sides of the supporter side. I am not turned off by Clinton supporters - they are people like you and me. I look at the candidate themself and base support on that.
Alvin said,
June 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm
It’s Obama’s supporters that are so irritating, and it makes him irritating. Clinton is what she is: a mildly crooked politician just like all the rest, and I don’t hear any worshipful feet pattering along behind her. Obama is the same, mildly crooked, typical politician. But you read people agreeing that he’s for change and a new kind of politics, and people really believing this - this same nonsense that every candidate says every time - and the adoration which just seems somehow servile, makes me loathe him like I loathe all cons.
Nick said,
June 1, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I think my reason is along with many younger voters. We want change. I am tired of the older generation in politics. Barack Obama represents a younger generation. No offense to the baby boomer. No offense to the Vietnam generation. You guys have done some good, but the last decade was horrible, and yes Democrats deserve some of the blame.
The fact is this. Americans are going to have to pay heavily for this war in Iraq, but the baby boomers will not have to pay this bill like my generation will. The baby boomers that file behind Hillary Clinton have had to pay for another conflict inflicted on them by the generation before them. It wasn’t the generation before them that had to pay for it. The same thing is going on with the younger generation-the Post Vietnam generation. The soldiers dying are not 50-60 years old, they are 20,30, and 40 years old. The Baby Boomers will not have to get us out of the debt caused by this war, the Post Vietnam generation will.
We have real problems in this country and I am tired about how 60+ politicians are telling me how to raise my kids as if raising kids are the same as it was 20-30 years ago when they were doing it. We have an energy problem that will only get worse as the baby boomers retire. Our economy, immigration and foreign policies are really going to affect us more than the older generation. The baby boomers have social security, but my generation does not, but we are to rely on the older generation to solve that problem for us? I am sorry, we young people don’t think so.
Hillary Clinton is one helluva candidate, but it is time for a change. This primary is about the evolution of politics. It is time for the young generation to ask for the keys from the older generation. The Vietnam generation did it 30 to 40 years ago, and our children will do the same to us in 30 to 40 years in the future. The younger generation has spoken and we want the role and responsibility to bring real change in this country. That is why I am for Obama. It is time to hand over the keys.
Alvin said,
June 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Hey Nick, what specifically is Obama going to change? What does “real change” mean? And - just an opinion - how is Obama significantly different than any other politician?
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Alvin,
both Nick & I give real reasons why we support Obama and do not favor HIllary, and the best you can come back with is “he is annoying”? well no offense that is pretty much opinion and really doesn’t mean much or show that you have much reason to have the distaste you have for him.
there is a huge difference between the two. One makes political calculations that not only upsets & offends people, but also impacts our lives, the other sticks by his/her principles and welcomes everyone into the “party”.
who is who?
i am tired of the “entitlement” right of the older generation. it is becoming growingly responsible for damages to the environments & economy (we are “entitled” to large SUVs, giant houses for 1-2 people, fancy vacations to 3rd world countries that run $300-500/night yet only cost $40-50, we are entitled to run up huge national debts, etc)
Then there is the “entitlement” to “see race” because one person’s uncle’s cousin’s father experienced “reverse racism” in a job 20 years ago and what it really was was this 4th degree contact was f###ing off at work and got punished or demoted due to his own failures and the person that “replaced” or was promoted, just so happened to be someone of race, and Mr. Promote Racism would rather blame it on the “colored” man than accept responsibility himself.
So to answer your question: he welcomes all into the group, he acknowledges we need to make sacrifices to better ourselves in the long run, he did not use the vote for war to look strong on defense for future political ambitions, he doesn’t need to fake “pumping gas” to understand how gas prices are affecting 90% of the populations, he doesn’t need to slam shots to be “working class”, he doesn’t need to change the rules to get ahead, and he doesn’t have to manufacture consent by censoring all those that do not agree with him.
kay said,
June 1, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Nick, you think that a 46 yr old man is better in touch with “your generation” because of his age? I live in a 65+GOP town and there are droves of “your generation” running around here with values and goals totally in sync with the basic republican platform– “self responsibility” above all else– no helping hands for the poor, disabled, mentally ill or elderly.
Don’t take advice from baby boomers on raising your kids? So, you would not take advice from your parents or grandparents? Hey, don’t trust anyone over 30, eh?
To bring in age is ridiculous. Or generation for that matter since it is the Kerry (vietnam era-wealthy and politically entreched for generations now) and Kennedy (wealthy politically entreched family for several generations) and a whole slew of other “baby boomers and older” who have propelled BHO in the first place. Almost all of whom are in that evil baby boomer-rich-white-politically influential-party insiders who put this guy where he is.
What change are you expecting when you look at his record and who is supporting him? He hired lobbyists to work on his campaign! Don’t you think those people are going to go right back to lobbying after this is done? You think they threw their careers out the window to take a chance on someone because of his “vision”?
You are why a lot of us will not want to participate this fall.
kay said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Hans and Nick, just how old are you two? I stated my age in an earlier post- 54 (actuallly my birthday is july 4th when I turn 54)
Another thing that will stop me from supporting BHO is that I’m sick to death of hearing people - like my own Gov. Jim Doyle - say they support BHO because their kids like him. Doyle has a reputation for playing some pretty heavy handed politics in this state and if that is any representation of where BHO is– you are going to be very sadly mistaken if he wins the presidency.
Walt said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Kay: I totally agree with your anger at the over the top gloating from some of the BHO supporters. On the other hand you have to understand that this has been very hard fought and there are high emotions in both camps. Read some of the HRC posts here and elsewhere and you’ll see the other side.
“He’s shallow!”
“He can’t be trusted!”
“He’s an empty suit!”
“He’s a whiny baby who won’t wait his turn!”
“He and his followers are sexist!”
“He and his followers are anti-democratic fascists!”
“He’s corrupt!”
Please.
The truth is that both sides have been mean to one extent or another. I personally started this with bias that BHO would fare better in the fall because I thought turnout would be key and that HRC was the only person who could rouse the slumbering beast of right-wing anger enough to make a difference at the polls. I was also worried about the down-ticket effect of a Clinton candidacy, since I was hoping for a gain of at LEAST 5 senate seats this year. Finally, I felt that BHO had a superior ability to inspire and connect. One of the most important tasks for the next president will be to repair our standing in the world and restore our faith in ourselves. I just thought he was the best for that.
However, all that said, there was NEVER any question in my mind that whoever was the nominee, they were going to get my support.
Of course, as time has gone by I’ve had some serious vitriol aimed my way for taking this stand. It’s hard to listen to someone accuse you of being an easily duped misogynist, especially when that someone is a person you respect and otherwise don’t have a disagreement with. It hurts even more when the candidate herself implies those things (and yes, BHO has done it too, I know). If HRC were the winner, I confess I’d be harboring some of the feelings you do now as a result of this. But then I’d look at my daughter and ask what kind of world she should live in. You know what? I’d swallow hard and do what’s right for her. I’d open my wallet and pull the level for President Hillary Clinton.
This is why I don’t buy for a minute the arguments about McCain’s experience, how we need a ‘real’ president, or how voting Nader is anything other than a petulant abdication of your responsibility to participate. These arguments are either from closet McCain supporters or the result of irrational anger at how things have gone for HRC. The truth is that we never know what kind of president we’re going to get until they sit in the big chair. It’s not really a job you ‘train’ for. So we take a chance either way. Lincoln had less experience in Washington than Obama does and James Buchanan had more than Clinton, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd COMBINED. So what does that tell us? Not Much.
The bottom line is this. While I respect and admire John McCain, he wants to continue our current war, social, and tax policies. Obama, Clinton, and I do not. All three are more pragmatic and open minded than Bush and are advised by experienced policy professionals. Each would run a competent administration. So the choice is between their visions for America. It’s really that simple. The rest is just jeering between fans of opposing teams at a football game. We ALL need to get over it, and the sooner the better.
Jim said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I have never particularly liked the Clintons, and I knew nothing about Obama when I began to pay attention to the primaries in January. Now I would vote for Clinton, but I will not vote for Obama. Why? Lots of reasons, too many to list here, but a couple will do.
1. Their programs are not at all similar. This is a myth favored by the Obama camp. Clinton is old school in the sense of the Democratic Party of FDR, Humphrey, JFK, and LBJ — not of the DLC and certainly not of Obama, who is neo-liberal through and through. Read his programs and actually compare them to hers. Case in point, health care. Clinton proposes universal care, which most people in the U.S. sorely need, and she proposes to control costs, to control how health-care dollars are spent (for health care, not for dividends and CEO salaries), and to control premiums (capping at 5 percent of gross pay, if Congress will agree). Obama will let the market take care of things and wants mandatory care only for children. And what of older people? Those who are middle-aged with chronic diseases? His plan is a joke; hers is serious. Ditto with creating jobs (she promises to create jobs; he will give money to coporations, entrepeneurs, and universities), and so on. This is the major reason for not voting for Obama.
2. The tawdry campaign Obama and his supporters have run. Obama could not get enough digs in at Clinton in Philadelphia — not much of a gentleman — and he stood five feet away from McPeak while the good general savaged Bill Clinton (unjustly), and he stood next to Richardson while he savaged Hillary Clinton (unjustly), and so on. Obama likes to let his minions savage his opponents and appear above the fray, but he is as responsible as those making the remarks. His campaign has repeatedly race-baited, using people like Donna Brazile to do so (her first foray was on CNN, 8 Jan. 2008, if you want to check the transcripts); it has made false accusations (that Clinton gets most of her money from the rich while he does not — check Chris Hedges’ article and FEC filings — most of Obama’s cash comes from the well-heeled, not the little guy and the poor gal); and so on (I could cite chapter and verse and lots of examples, but that seems excessive in a simple post.)
3. The tawdry primary that the DNC has run, from its punishment of Florida and Michigan, which was unwarranted — given that Iowa, New Hampshire, and a score of other states ‘moved’ up their contests. This is a long discussion in itself. . . .
4. The fact that Obama has won the bulk of his delegates in caucus and small primary states, not in major primary states, where Clinton has beaten him handily. Put another way, his lead does not reflect electability; it reflects the weirdness of the DP primary process. Had it been winner-take-all, Clinton would have wrapped this up; and had it even been equitable, she would be well ahead. How weird? Check the Texas primary, which Clinton won and in which 3 million people voted, and the Texas caucus, which Obama won and in which at most a third of the 3 million people who had voted in the primary participated. What was that?!? And Obama comes away with more delegates? And the DNC had the gall to call the Michigan primary ‘flawed’? To quote Ickes, “I am stunned.”
5. The refusal to discuss black racism — and what else can you call the black vote? Just reverse it — if 80-90 percent of whites voted for Clinton, everyone would be up in arms and viciously attacking those who case their ballot for her — as pundits and others were over Kentucky and West Virginia. But not a whisper about what the black vote says about blacks. That is not reverse racism; it is simple hypocrisy.
6. The claim that anyone who votes for Clinton is a racist, and Obama’s statement, given in private, that whites don’t trust ‘a black man named Obama’ and so have a hard time voting for him. Nope, sorry. See number 1, above. He’s a flaming neo-liberal with no experience for the job (see next point).
7. He’s got no experience for the job.
8. He hasn’t won a real election yet. He got into the Illinois Senate by chicanery (disqualifying his opponents); his serious opponents in the U.S. Senate race had their messy divorce records (which are secrete) unsealed and made public, forcing them to drop out of the race. And, of course, the DNC has rigged the DP primary contest.
9. He is patronizing.
10. He flipped off Clinton after Philly (yeah, I’ve watched all the video clips, and I’ve watched other clips of Obama; the gesture is unmistakable, as is the reaction of the audience, who clearly loved it — sophomores all!).
11. He has repeatedly insulted ‘whites’ as a group (’typical white person,’ ‘bitter’ whites), and he showed tremendous disrespect for his grandmother (white) so he could protect/rationalize his relationship with his ‘uncle’ Wright (black), whom he later dumped when it became expedient, just as he has now cut his ties to TUCC, which evidently has served its purpose and is no longer of any use to him.
12. His supporters, who confuse taunting with a clever riposte, who believe an assertion is an argument, and who think repeating something makes it so (just like Jean Luc Picard).
There are another dozen or two points I could make, but these suffice for now.
And, you are right, I will not vote for Obama. I may write in Nader, or stay home, or vote for someone whose policies I can support and whose character I respect. But not Obama — and the expectation by the DNC and Obama supporters that I must vote Obama because he is the only game in the Democratic camp is just another reason not to vote for him — if the DNC and Obama do not want to work for universal health care and real jobs and a living wage, and if they believe they can insult people and call them racists and then tell them they have not choice but to vote for them, they are sadly mistaken.
I could hold my nose and vote for Hillary.
I could not face myself if I voted for Obama.
Taihunter said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Alvin:
Whats Obama gonna change? How is he different? Heres a few that a quick google & wiki turned up about what hes done as a trail blazer, and that reflects where he wants to take the entire system. Try to use the internet for research, not just posting, mkay? Sorry if that sounded snooty, but I hope you can research as well. I hope that you will see that Obama isnt a regular politician, and his life & record proves it.
————-Ethics & Transparency —————–
—Bundlers—Obama released names of fundraising bundlers. Obama was the first Democratic nominee to do so. Hillary did as well, but was the last to do so, and only released bundlers over 100k, as opposed to Obamas “all bundlers” benchmark.
—Lobbyists— Obama doesnt accept funds from PACs or DC lobbyists. Hillary does, and doesnt see this as an important issue. I personally feel lobbyists are little more than legal bribery.
—Campaign Finance—Co-sponsored campaign finance reform legislation.
—Transparency—Obama Pledged to post all meetings as President online. WOW! What a great idea!
—Ethics—Passed a bill that created a searchable database that allows Americans to track how the government is spending their tax money! You can look at all federal government contracts. (www.usaspending.gov)
* Pushed new Senate ethics bill to require candidates to disclose their bundlers
* Pushed to create a Congressional Ethics Commission
* Pushed a law banning subsidized corporate flights for candidates
—————-Foreign Policy—————-
—Iraq— We all know how that one went - Obama put himself out to buck the majority and speak against it (way before it was fashionable). Hillary went right along. Obama also introduced the “Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007,” a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008. Imagine if that measure would have succeeded?
—Iran (Kyl-Leiberman)— Hillary voted to declare the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist organization (in complete contrast to the information found in the NIE). This is a very very very dangerous precedent. To sum it up this gives war authorization against a state without the tangling formalities (and balances) usually required. It would be like a foreign gov. voting for agression against the democratic party. Not the State, but a government faction within the state….very slippery indeed. Please see antiwar.com for great analysis of this measure.
This list can go on forever, but Obama is definately not status quo. Hillary is. In fact I’d go so far to say that recently Hillary looks like a regular red hawk to the rest of the world. I am very sensitive to this as I lived as an ex-pat for many years, and returned to the states 2 yrs ago. The world is getting smaller, and we need to learn to play nice, and stop being the global bully. Obama is the first step in that.
Shade Tail said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I have yet to see any Clinton supporter posting here give an explanation that is both coherent and rational. Every answer so far has been based on Faux “News” style talking points which pretty badly misrepresent Obama’s record, or guilt-by-association tactics because they’ve had their feelings hurt by one of the fringe members of Obama’s support. Those don’t make good reasons, people.
So please stop rationalizing and give a real answer. One based on reality and on Obama’s actual record.
tortuca said,
June 1, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Why Clinton?
As a political blogger, a lot of people ask me about the presidential election: Who’s winning, what the major issues are, what the goofy side is, and yes, who I support. Gentle readers of this blog know I believe the Democratic party has the best platform, ideas, wisdom and soul to lead America.
With the primary race so tight, many voters are torn between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, as am I. The basic question you need to ask yourself is this:
Do I want a president who will make me feel good, or will do the most good?
Barack Obama is a natural orator. His speeches (hat tip, Obama speechwriter) move, sway, and recruit an audience. The cadence of his voice has the call of a Siren, drawing the listener in. Last night on the obnoxious Fox News show Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld (yes, I was up that late), the obtuse Gutfeld himself said that Obama’s speeches made him feeling willing to do whatever Obama asked.
A few hours earlier, Republican presidential front runner Senator John McCain stole one of Obama’s signature lines at his victory speech after the Potomac primaries, stating as his last line: “I’m fired up and ready to go!” Clearly McCain currently believes Obama will be the nominee. Obama’s primary victory speech was also a general election speech, speaking of McCain as the politics of the past.
Obama clearly has the momentum, the voice, the uplifting message, and can excite young people and independents in the party primary.
So what’s not to like?
Obama’s got no beef.
The problem is that Democrats may be wishing they made a safer choice in the general election. Oh they had their chance with Biden, Dodd and Edwards. Even Richardson could have bested the Republican nominee. They had their chance to nominate a safe win in November. HAD, being the operative word.
The policy differences between all the major Democratic candidates, save Kucinich and Gravel, were varied, but ultimately minute. The Democratic base would have been happy with any of the presidential candidates as the nominee. But with the wind at their backs, and history floating around the female Clinton and African-American Obama, the base became over exuberant and voted with their hearts over their head. Choosing the riskier of the nominees, choosing Change over Experience, Democrats have rolled the dice with their choice of candidates.
Not that voting with your heart is a bad thing, but ignoring the general election response to the party nominee is tempting fate.
So now, after all the candidates of been knocked out except Clinton and Obama, the momentum is aligned with Obama, and like their heart strings, Democrats are going with the flow.
The problem is, Obama’s got no beef. It’s what makes him attractive, no baggage. It’s what makes others flock to him, no specifics on issues. It’s why the Republicans are frustrated with his ascendance, nothing yet to attack. And it’s Obama’s Achilles’ Heel in a general election, once the Republican attacks begin in force.
Conversely, Clinton has the opposite problem. She’s got baggage, but everyone knows about it. She has specifics, so much that she sounds like an uninspiring policy wonk. She has experience fighting off Republicans, but voters don’t seem to want a fighter right now. But Oh they will in the general election.
McCain’s steady hand, veteran status, and old world charm will make him very attractive in the general election, and when voters start thinking about the reality of a McCain versus Obama presidency, and who they feel comfortable with, McCain’s attraction will increase. American’s know what McCain will do, but are not so sure with Obama, and that’s a huge difference.
Voters know what Clinton would do as well. Bonus Clinton. History will be made with either the first woman or first African-American president. Split decision. Republican’s tend to prefer the devil you know over the devil you don’t. Point Clinton. (see Ann Coulter’s take as an example). Clinton has a political machine that has been developed over thirty years. Point Clinton. Et cetera.
With either Clinton or Obama, it’s pretty clear that a Democrat has the best chance of winning the White House in the fall. As president, Obama would certainly make you feel good about America, while Clinton would make you think about policy. Obama sounds great when he talks, a sharp departure from President Bush. Clinton, well, … not sucha great orator. After feeling horrible about our president for the last seven years, it’s easy to see why so many are drawn to the feel-good-guy.
The question is, do you want to feel good about America, or nominate someone who will make the best policy decisions to do the most good for America?
And funny enough, the greatest ‘Change’ would be with Clinton.
For one, Clinton gives you specifics on what she’ll do and has a greater command of the policy issues, which are the real change agents in government.
Secondly, Obama’s health care plan does not force everyone to have coverage (politically safer), while Clinton’s health care plan ensures everyone is covered. Everyone in America.
Third, historically, African-Americans tend to get things first in America before women, such as the right to vote (or their own Starfleet Command, with Benjamin Sisko before Kathryn Janeway :/ ). Electing a woman before an African-American would be a greater change.
Fourth, a former First Lady running for president trumps a senator in the change department.
Fifth, having a former president be a First Gentleman is a unique change as well. In so many ways, the real change is with Clinton, not Obama.
Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, the netroot activism is strong in the Democratic party this election cycle with both Obama and Clinton. If Clinton gets the nomination, netroot support will shift to her (as happens with every Democratic nominee). While this is true with both Clinton and Obama, it’s important to note that the ‘change’ associated with the netroots are, in the end, historically party minded over specific candidate minded.
It’s true that Clinton is running as the anti-Bush while Obama is running as the un-Bush, but we need to fix things before we can move beyond them. Clinton’s great debate line is dead on: It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and it’ll take another Clinton to clean up after this one.
She’s right.
Obama’s message of fresh unity is enticing to many–especially those who have not payed much attention to politics in the past, or this is their first time truly participating in the political process–yet the man behind the message has potential trap doors for Democrats. Will America trust him when the have no idea how he’ll respond to situations? Will he take his unity message so far that he treds on Democratic principles in order to compromise with Republicans? You know Clinton won’t.
America has a chance to responsibly run in the opposite direction of Bush’s horrendous policies with Clinton. With Obama, you can’t be as sure. Those who don’t take the time to investigate policy tend to vote on personality, which is inadvisable, risky, and frankly, selfish to the country.
There’s also the expectations game, a cornerstone of politics. When Obama eventually runs into political roadblocks even he can’t hurdle, Americans are going to be let down. With such high expectations, we might just feel worse when he cannot do what he says he wants to do. With Clinton, there is an erroneous perception that she would be the status quo, causing the changes she makes as president to seem even better. So not only is there a greater change with Clinton as president, but we could feel better about the changes too.
Obama makes me feel good too. But I want a president who will do the most good for the country and bring the most change, not just make my toes tingle.
With a greater sophistication and understanding of issues and polices that truly change America, Hillary Clinton would clearly make the best president.
Tortuca
http://garlinggauge.com
carrie sheridan said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:02 pm
exactly - as an obama supporter, i just went on hillaryclinton.com earlier today and reply/commented to some bloggers on this very thing - that if HRC couldn’t unite the dems, how could she unite the country, 1/2 of which loves to hate the clintons…
that if she wasn’t willing to spend just 10% of the clintons’ $100+ million income since 2001… why should her supporters dig into their gas and grocery money to pay for her private jets and first class accommodations?
that if she ran out of $ in april, for the 2nd time, she has to do what the rest of us do when the funds aren’t there… stop spending. period… if she couldn’t run her campaign’s finance, how could she be trusted with a national debt of $9 trillion…
riling women up that it was time for “a” woman is counter to everything MLK stood for re: content of character and just trades reverse discrimination for discrimination -
presuming to be the suitable bio for the first woman president… come on. what is the life lesson for little girls in THAT?
the clintons are the only ones who won’t get over this - once the smoke clears, people will realize we were spared the false choice of a clinton 3rd term vs bush’s 3rd term… and how the repubs would have made mincemeat of both clintons -
hillary declared war on every opponent and on everyone who didn’t support her. it’s unamerican. and it didn’t work. Thank God for Barack Obama… the world will erupt in joy and hope in november at the prospect of America striving to be everything we can be and should be and were meant to be… we’ll all be so grateful to have been saved from More Of The Same -
Shalimar said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm
4. Hans said, “That is why people are against Obama. Explain the vitriol for HRC who has been an advocate for progressive causes for her whole career.”
Rupert Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary during her 2006 Senate re-election. Bill Clinton appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show the day before the Texas/Ohio primaries and Rush has been campaigning for Hillary ever since. She actively sought and received the endorsement of Richard Mellon Scaife. Her campaign and her personally have repeatedly cited reports and statements by people like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist as reasons to support her. Those are not the kind of people a real progressive allies with, and for someone with Hillary’s personal history to do it (it was frequently in her defense that we came to despise the slime, after all) is disturbing.
As for her career of advocacy for progressive causes, I just don’t see it. She and Bill are centrist DLC Dems, in fact the DLC would never have had any power without them. She botched health care reform in the early 90s so that is one point in her favor despite the results, and she has hopefully learned from that mistake. As for the rest, name some achievements of the Clinton administration: NAFTA, welfare reform, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the balanced budget, Bosnia, all Republican objectives, not progressive ones (though the last two at least had admirable results). Hillary and Bill Clinton are not progressives, in fact many of us see her as a leader in the DLC fight to minimize progressive influence within the party.
The other main reason for the intense opposition to Hillary is her past position on Iraq and current one towards Iran. She’s one of the foremost Democratic proponents of the use of military force in international relations. Many if not most progressives are pacifists, and her zeal for war disgusts us.
And that doesn’t even get into her blatant dishonesty and situational ethics (”I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot, you know it’s clear this election they’re having is not going to count for anything.”)
Taihunter said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Torutuca,
OMG what a bunch of nonsense!!
How can you possibly believe that being first lady trumps being a senator for change?? Both are Totally irrelevant! Its the individual. As I stated above, and gave a few examples, Hillary isn’t the change us Obama supporters are looking for (Iran vote, Iraq vote in specific). Also, Mandating purchase of healthcare is hardly progressive, it is universal though. That universality I would prefer to avoid, I dont feel the government should be mandating anything
Can you please get specifics on policy? this whole -change is good if theres a first gentleman crap is for the birds.
Nick said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Okay I will clarify why I brought age into the dilemma. By the way I am 28 years of age. Let me bring up an example. In 2004 Kerry was hit hard over his service in Vietnam; if he deserved his medals, and what he did or didn’t do after the war. Many of us younger folks outside those who get caught in the partisan web could care less what happened at the end of Vietnam War. It was foolish on both Republicans attacking with swiftboats and Kerry with the lack of response that became the major issue with the election. Many of us younger people were turned off, because it is rediculous to bring up some old wounds that a plurality of Americans didn’t live through and didn’t think it was a top issue with the problems of this nation.
Fast forward to 2008, I find it very ironic that the two most polarizing supporters of both Obama’s and Clinton’s campaigns, were Rev. Wright and Congresswoman Ferraro. Ferraro is 72 years of age whose remarks were way out of line and false. Her logic doesn’t hold up and was a distraction from the issues of this country, and made the primary much uglier than it could have been. Reverend Wright, is 67 years of age whose remarks were way out of line like he was in a time warp or something. Both Ferraro and Wright both lived in a time in American society that is completely different than today. The young people of today didn’t live during the civil rights movement or a time when women started to step up and make great changes in America and brought forth women’s issues. Not that we are done yet, but we are significantly better than we were 40 years ago.
Barack Obama is 46 years old and has two relatively young children. He can relate to us who have children now, not raising children 20 or 30 years ago. He is closer to us in age which I can relate to because like I said, there are problems that older people cannot relate with us. For example, the baby boomers will not have to deal with repairing our views abroad, social security (retirees have got theirs), trade agreements gone awry (Obama spoke about this today), the real challenges to globalization (which has really evolved the last 15 years), challenges such as replacing our engineers which are retiring at a faster rate than those coming in to replace them. How about a real energy policy? I mean you guys got hit hard in the 70’s and 80’s over gas prices. You guys had a chance to make some real change, but it was put off over and over again. Now our window for putting these things off are almost to an end. It is time for the younger people with fresher ideas to take on these problems not the status quo. Hillary Clinton reminds me of the status quo.
Like I pointed out, politics is evolutionary. There comes a time every 20-30 years a new generation steps up and says time is up. It is now our turn. I can understand that some people who are older are upset by these statements. But it is my opinion and I believe it is the opinions of many other younger Americans and that is why they are coming out in droves.
My final reason is that I think Barack Obama can get more done than Hillary Clinton once she is in power. Republicans will not work with her administration. They loath her. She is the George W. Bush of the right. Many of us are tired of this 51-49% crap. It is time for this country to get a bigger consensus on where are country is going. I believe Barack Obama will be better at that than Hillary Clinton.
Walt said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Jim:
Get over it.
1) BHO’s plan is not as good as HRC’s, but it’s better than you portray it. In any case, do you think McCain’s is better? If not, then your choice is clear.
2) I just wrote a long post about this. Two candidates in a close race are going to say and do things that tick off the other side. How about I trade your ‘finger’ for a RFK assassination comment and call it even?
3) The DNC screwed up with how it handled FL and MI. If they had just done the same 50% penalty as the GOP we wouldn’t have to re-hash this. Maybe that means Howard Dean needs resign, but otherwise why are you punishing BHO when he had nothing to do with it? Both he and HRC supported the decision originally and are now taking their current stands based on how it positively or negatively affects their election prospects. Who’s surprised by this? Do you honestly think that HRC would be fighting for these states if she were in BHO’s position? Come on….
4) The caucus red-herring. Oy! Why even bring this up? Again, if their positions were reversed, would HRC still be banging on this drum? Of course not. Obama put a huge effort into winning the caucus states and in most cases the final tallies reflected the general opinion of the voters where polling was available. We’ll never know, but it’s entirely possible he’d have a much larger popular vote lead if they had held real primaries. But even if not, so what? These are the rules of the game and she was outplayed.
5) Racism in the black vote? I’m not convinced. BHO is definitely cleaning up with them and there’s definitely racial identity involved. Similarly, women identify with HRC. But is this racism/sexism or pride? I think the latter. Remember that in 07 HRC had the african american voting block by 30pts. She was very popular in this community and they supported her enthusiastically. However the combination of BHO becoming viable and Bill’s ham-handed smear in South Carolina (not smart by the way) turned them away from her. Is that racism? I don’t think so. On the other hand, there is an implication from HRC that white people WON’T vote for BHO, BECAUSE he’s black….now THAT’S racist. It’s also a valid point to make in all honesty.
6) “Flaming Neo-Liberal”? See now THIS is where you show your McCain troll colors. No real democrat would EVER say something like that, especially since his voting record doesn’t support it. In any case you claim to want a candidate who will work for heath care, jobs, and a living wage. If so, then who better than a ‘flaming neo-liberal’? Do you honestly think you’re fooling anyone?
7) Lincoln, Abraham: 6 terms Illinois legislature, 1 term US House. Greatest. President. Ever. Next?
9) Patronizing? To whom? You? I guess that’s how you hear him (or more likely how you want to make other people hear him). I can see where it might come from. He has a detached, professorial demeanor that can be off-putting sometimes, just like Al Gore was in 2000. I think it’s just his style, but even if I didn’t, I’m voting for the best policies, not the person I want to have over for dinner.
10) Enough about the ‘finger’! If he did it, it was snarky and mean. However, both candidates have verbally flipped each other off enough times to have given themselves karmic carpel tunnel. So what?
11) Ok. Yes. His comments in SF were stupid, but sadly representative of what many democrats think of downscale voters who seem to vote against their economic interests. This is definitely NOT the way to get them to back you. HRC is no saint in this regard either. She just has a different target.
12) You are actually quoting a star trek character to support your position? And you’re complaining about the substance of BHO supporter arguments? Really?
LorMarie said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Do I want a president who will make me feel good, or will do the most good?–Tortuca
Great post, but what you have to understand is that your response is subjective. Obama does not simply bring a feel good message as far as I’m concerned, I feel that he would do the most good. The biggest issue for me is his stance on the war in Iraq. He is the only one of the three candidates who was consistently against the war in Iraq from the beginning (we all know that McCain was and still is in support of it). His stand against it was unpopular while Hillary Clinton supported it. She appeared to me as one who stayed on the fence so not to upset those on the right. How convenient now that she wants to bring the troops home. Maybe she is sincere, but I can’t escape the fact that she did not stand against the Bush regime when she needed to. I also notice that she and her supporters feel that one with the most experience is better suited for the presidency. But I have to ask, who has more experience, Clinton or McCain?
“Third, historically, African-Americans tend to get things first in America before women, such as the right to vote (or their own Starfleet Command, with Benjamin Sisko before Kathryn Janeway :/ ). Electing a woman before an African-American would be a greater change.”
Are you saying that black women had the right to vote before white women? Historically, white women have had greater privileges than African-Americans ever had. Besides, her being a woman or Obama being black should not even be a factor. I personally couldn’t care less about having the first woman president.
Nick said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Kay,
Are you sure a Democrat? You sound like Fox News pointing out BHO (you are good bringing out that Hussein middle name). This is what I am talking about. Kay, most people in their 20’s and 30’s could care less what Barack Obama’s middle name is. Nice try. Those talking points worked in 2000 and 2004, good luck with that in 2008.
I am from Texas, I am know exactly what GOPers say and think. Republicans are having a tough time getting youth on their side. In fact the younger voters 18-29 are voting Democrat by 2 to 1 right now and that margin is growing. Politico had a news story on that.
Second intresting enough, because I am from Texas I have talked a lot to conservatives, and many of them are going to vote Democratic for the first time in decades because they would rather have Obama than McCain. They don’t trust McCain. I continuously ask them what happens if Hillary is there? I get an overwhelming response, they will vote for McCain.
Duke of url said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:30 pm
The only time that Barack Obama was given an opportunity to lead he blew it.
In 1997, Tony Rezko’s apartment fiasco was unravelling, there were 13 apartment buildings in Barack Obama’s state Senatorial district that had had the heat turned off in the middle of a bitter Chicago winter. For five weeks, the residents of those buildings shivered without heat, while Barack Obama did absolutely nothing to alleviate their suffering. The poorest of the poor, who believed that their well loved elected official would take care of them, were sorely mistaken. Help never came for them, and its the principle reason I haven’t gotten behind Obama yet. I do not want to see anymore “heckuva job” moments from any future American president.
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:38 pm
@ Marcia
please post your comments at your own blog, as they are one of the best put statements I have seen yet and I would like to link to them. they get lost in the shuffle here.
Opinions over facts, is the “answer” to why Hillary is “better.”
@ kay
I am 34, your question being? Yes I am old enough to vote, I am old enough to feel nostalgic over the Clinton years, I am old enough to remember the hypocracy of Henry Hyde prosecuting Bill Clinton then stating his affair at age 40 was a “youthful indiscretion,” and I am old enough to remember where and what I thought when Bush came to power and to try imply Obama supporters are young and stupid is insulting.
What is insulting is Hillary supporters’ willingness to brush off the fact that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq. This was not due to safety concerns, it was EVERYTHING to do with political chess playing. Had the Iraq war miraculously gone smoothly, she would have looked strong on military for 2008, if it went as it has, well then it would look like political posturing which is exactly what it was. You cannot honestly expect her to ride the coattails of popular upset over the war, when she voted to authorize it can you?
I have yet to list a “racist” or “sexist” reason for supporting one over the other, so please stop using media propagated faux reasons for why I am for or against someone.
also I would love for any Clinton supporter to justify why the actual HRC website censored their blog to make it 100% “Hillary Friendly” as did most pro-Hillary blogs, while the official Obama site did not do this, nor did many of pro-Obama sites. Please do tell me how censorship is used to strengthen democratic [little d] principles and how I should put trust in someone that endorses censorship?
MsJoanne said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hans, in my eyes, Kyl-Lieberman is by far worse than AUMF. AUMF was bad enough. K-L is an abomination. That would be like saying any country could call our Army, Navy, AF or Marines terrorists and just go blow them up.
It’s way beyond a slippery slope. It’s the aftermath of a mudslide.
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Kay said…
“You should really move all the Obama supporters responses to another thread so we can actually read the answers from HRC supporters (like myself). I came here from FDL specifically to read why others felt like me about BHO and contribute my feelings and thoughts on this topic–but I have been very taken back by some of the BHO supporter’s comments on here.”
why do you support censorship and manufactured consent?
How does this support the fundamental basis of our society and the necessity of open discourse to ensure the strength of our system?
Don’t make we compare you to authoritarian regimes of the past when this is how they rose to power and then therefore have to link HRC to these regimes. It is only 3 degrees of separation away from being factually true.
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Sorry, I am not trying to hijack, but MsJoanne moved the goalposts slightly off my point.
There was no need for AUMF (I have never seen that acronym before, but can decipher it) or for Kyl-Liberman or any other “war resolution” against Iraq, because Iraq & Saddam was contained by the No-Fly Zone