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.
Think Left. Live Right. 
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?
8) I agree that he used the system to his advantage to win his races to date. And this is bad in what way? Politics ain’t beanbag and he was operating in one of the toughest dog-fighting pits in the country. Plus, he wasn’t responsible for Jack Ryan’s problems…Jack Ryan was. BTW what does your complaint about BHOs easy elections say about HRC? Her two races for the Senate consisted of Rudi G pulling out late because of cancer and beating a no-name, underfunded sacrificial lamb. I’m sure not holding this against her.
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 so your attempt to deflect blame for HRC’s own decision to vote for AUMF is moot to the fact she voted in favor of it to look strong on military for future political ambitions. The “action” is what is important, not what was being “acted upon.”
MsJoanne said,
June 1, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Sorry…I’ll go back into lurk mode. 😀
Evergreen said,
June 1, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I read the responses in hope of learning what some Clinton supporters find so off putting about Obama. I might have overlooked something…but the main “reason” I found in those few postings that were trying to answer the question…was that they didn’t like his supporters.
This confuses me because it seems to be like saying you doen’t like apples because you don’t like oranges. What???
Hoping for substantive responses.
Shalimar said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Whoops, I should have cited “3. NYC Leon” for the quote I responded to. I should have gone back and checked.
fozmeadows said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Speaking as an Australian observer of the perennial weirdness that is the American political landscape, I think this comes down to religion. From every American Christian that I’ve spoken to, left wing or right, there’s a terrible, terrible fear surrounding Obama, and it is this: either he’s a Muslim or an atheist, and I honestly cannot tell which of these prospects the voters finds more frightening.
Australia isn’t nearly as Christian/Evanglican a nation as America, although we’ve got our share of Hillsong attendees. But even here, it’s a kind of political suicide to admit to atheism. Surveys have shown in America that atheists are actually more feared, on average, than Muslims (although not by much), so perhaps this is what the die-hard Clinton voters are coming from: they might loathe McCain, but at least he’ll be right by the Lord, whereas there’s a 50/50 chance that Obama is either a Muslim sleeper agent (I’ve heard waaay too many Americans espouse this theory to feel comfortable), or a godless heathen.
Scott said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee made its ruling yesterday. While the fat lady has not sung, she has stepped up to the microphone. I am not a Hillary supporter. I supported Edwards until he dropped out, and then voted for and supported Obama financially. That being said, I believe the Clinton campaign was write to challenge the Michigan and Florida results based on the fact that these votes needed to be counted. I am tired of this sense of entitlement that New Hampshire and Iowa feel that they and they alone should be the first in the nation to nominating process. I also feel it is high time that the delegate selection process be re-examined that would call for more delegates elected directly by the people, as oppossed to these so-called superdelegates who earn their seats at the convention by virtue of who they are and what their standing is within the party. Obama will be the nominee and I will vote for him. But I think the Democratic Party ought to be ashamed of itself for not demonstrating some courage and discipline and telling New Hampshire and Iowa that they can no longer expect their first in the nation status as a gimme. That honor should be rotated every four years. Give everyone a chance to be first in the nation.
cypheroftyr said,
June 1, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I don’t know honestly, but I do feel very strongly that I’d rather not vote than risk putting Hillary in the White House.Mostly because I don’t think she’ll care about the same issues that affect me. I’d love to know why people are so anti-Obama as well.
I’ve posted your inquiry to my LiveJournal
Feel free to follow any commentary there.
http://tanyad.livejournal.com/966694.html
sjp08 said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Hi! I’m wondering the same thing, too! I invite you to read my latest post “Why Come?”. Just follow the link: http://sojournersplace.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-come.html
SjP
fred said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:09 pm
I simply have to laugh at the way all the Democrats, this year especially, are wrapped up in the coils of their own creation – “political correctness”………
BTW – most of the commentary here reminds me of the kind of things that
“A 13-year-old in 7th grade” would think of as intellectually deep.
Of course Hillary would believe she is entitled to the nomination – “entitlement”
is what Dems are all about!
Cats r Flyfishn said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hey, MsJ – looks like you have some “SPAM” sticking to this post 🙂
And btw – I am a baby boomer and grandmother and I will gladly hand over the “keys” to the younger generation. My children and grandchildren deserve better than what is being offered by McBush and Hillary’s war votes and the Kyl-Lieberman vote and the statement about “obliterate Iran” makes Clinton sound the same as McBush. As I stated earlier, Clinton was last on my list and Obama was second to last on my list. My initial support was for Bill Richardson because he has more experience… he has executive experience and he has international experience. Too bad the media weren’t interested. It’s been Clinton and Obama for two years. I went with Obama because of his management style. Clinton is too controlling and I can’t trust that she will keep her word. She couldn’t honor the contract that she signed with the DNC regarding the Michigan and Florida primary vote so I don’t trust that she would honor any of her campaign promises.
fred said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:25 pm
just remember this, EVERYONE :
IF YOU CAN’T DAZZLE ‘EM WITH BRILLIANCE, BAFFLE ‘EM WITH BULLSHIT!!
It is impossible to overestimate the ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility of the people.
Jim said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I’ve heard people on the radio talk about how Hillary was treated unfairly because she’s a woman, and that people played up her gender too much. If her situation and Obama’s situation were reversed, I think they’d be saying the same things – that he wasn’t treated fairly because he’s black.
SCruz said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I live in one of the most progressive cities in one of the most progressive states: Santa Cruz, California. I am tired of both the republicans and democrats ruining the economies of the U.S., California and Santa Cruz. Obama, in my opinion, is much more progressive (i.e. socialistic) than Clinton is or will be. I also feel that Hillary can work better with all sides than Obama will. Additionally, Clinton lived through the affects of 9/11 directly in her state and knows what can happen to the economy and spirit of her constituents. She more directly understands why the leader of our country should not hold direct conversations with the thugs and dictators. Clinton has an enormous intelligence/common sense/experience to bring to the table. On the other hand, in all of these areas, I am less than impressed with Obama.
fred said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm
What is insulting is Hillary supporters’ willingness to brush off the fact that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Sorry, I am not trying to hijack, but Jim moved the goalposts slightly off my point. Hillary was treated unfairly because she’s a real disappointment to me. Only when it became clear to Hillary that she unexpectedly needed those delegates to potentially win, and that includes some of the worst blog web sites, gleefully pitting the two Democratic front-runners against each other.
That is why people are against Obama. Then his advocates are nauseating, insincere, heavy handed, arrogant and smell funny. I won’t be voting for any Ne-gro for the first time in many election cycles – voting present more than 60% of the time in Ill.
This ne-gro smells bad.
Honest Reponse said,
June 1, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Why wont many of support Obama? You want honest?
I do not think Obama is the kind of person that we need representing the Democratic Party. He has so many shady friends such as Ayers, Rezko, Wright, Pfleger, etc. He seems to be running in a circle of friends (who all seem to be friends for about 20 or so years who helped him get to where he is today). They seem to be criminal and unethical people.
Michelle Obama herself has said some pretty off-hand remarks. It is rumored that the alleged “whitey” tape is about to hit mainstream. That is going to wake up a whole lot of people if it does.
Obama will have a very hard time staying in this through the convention if the alleged “Whitey tape comes out. I
f the Larry Sinclair story breaks into the mainstream media, it is unlikely that he can survive his run for presidency. For those of you who do not know who Larry Sinclair is…you should research his blog.
larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com
It has been reported that Greta from Fox news met with Larry SInclair while he was in DC this weekend. It seems that Mr. Larry SInclair has been busy getting his allegations against Obama heard. It involves allegations of gay sex and drugs in 1999 when he was in office and married about to have his first child. According to Sinclair, Donald Young contacted him on several occasions at the end of last year. From what I understand, Donald himself admitted to an affair with Obama. (Donald Young was the gay choir master at Trinity United Church of Christ) In late December, Donald Young was murdered execution style. Some speculate that he was murdered in order to silence the Larry Sinclair story as well as hide the alleged affair with Donald Young as well.
If you have watched Reverend Manning, he has stated that he felt that Rev. Wright had an affair with Obama. He claims to have proof and says he will reveal it at the appropriate time.
These are just a few reasons…..check out Larry’s blog and decide for yourself.
MsJoanne said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:04 pm
#73. Absolute. Total. Bullshit.
Larry Sinclair has been discredited, failed a polygraph test which he took of his own free will.
And Fox? Spare me.
I asked for input from Clinton supporters, not Republicans in sheep’s clothing.
Hans said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Fred!
Please do not steal my two points and recite them verbatim as yours while changing the meaning. I do not appreciate that!
and
menopausemama said,
June 1, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I am also baffled by the way Hillary supporters—fellow baby boomers—are behaving. I blogged about it also: The Legacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton at: http://www.babyboomerbev.blogspot.com.
Lorrie said,
June 1, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I think Hillary should get out of the race. She had an opportunity to win and she lost. I think Hillary Clinton thinks she doesn’t have to follow the rules like everybody else and she was proven wrong at the DNC committee ruling. I think she fought a good fight but Obama has prevailed. Although I know Hillary would never concede to Obama but she should respect that he has recieved the majority of pledge delegates inwhich nominations are won. Therefore this nomination process is different because both candidates need the supperdelegates to reach 2118 delegates. If Obama reaches them, I don’t see why she should continue to fight a losing battle. If Mi & Fl is seated she’s still behind in pledge delegates. So whats next, change the rules of how they Democrats win nominations. I don’t think thats going to happen. For those who think Mi & Fl was robery. The DNC Commitee could only issue 50% votes since both stated moved up there primaries so seating all delegations would have broked the rules inwhich they had no authoriy. However, it was Hillary’s decision to take up this fight and disappointed with the results. Both resolutions were calculated by the Reps. of Mi and Fl. and they were asking for 50% of delegations. So now Hillary is asking for more than the both States are asking for. Basically she asking for them to help her become the nominee and thats not how it works. Tuesday, I hope Obama proclaims the nomination and continue campaigning and build a broader coalition just encase Hillary wants to take this fight to the convention. Play by the rules and end by the rules. Fair is Fair
kay said,
June 2, 2008 at 12:27 am
Why did BHO request his name be taken off the MI ballot but not the FLA ballot?
Until that question is fully answered for me I smell shenanigans of the back room type.
So, please, correct me about this and show me why this was not political manuvering of the “old school” type.
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 3:01 am
Follow-up post (something I rarely do, but why not since Joanne really wants to know why people are not enchanted with Obama. . . .)
For Walt, “Get over it”? This is an argument? No, it is one of the reasons many people find Obama supporters smug and intolerable. Your comment is a taunt, not an invitation to be persuaded.
For Kay, Obama probably (who can know without seeing internal campaign files) removed his name because all the tracking polls had him at no more than 19 points with Clinton around 50. Lest you think polls are inaccurate, a few have been (notoriously Zogby, who tended to flood primaries with daily polls just before contests), but most have been close — with the exception of caucus states, which were atypical. Why? Because they were not democratic — they sampled activists, not the general population.
Is that bad? Yes, it is, if you believe in democracy and not activist oligarchy.
For those upset with Geraldine Ferraro, remember that the truth is not always pleasant. The reality is that if Obama were white or Hispanic or Asian or a white or Hispanic or Asian woman (or any of a number of other ethnic and sexual combinations), he could not run for the Presidency. Only a black man can do that with Obama’s unimpressive record of achievements and his rather formidable record of gaffes. The other reality is that if whites had voted 9:1 for Clinton, there would be a gnashing of teeth and howls of pain from the liberal (and even the conservative) press, and with good reason. But because he is black and blacks have voted in a bloc, there is just nervous silence or disingenuous rationalization. Finally, there is a small reality regarding the media, where reporters have confused editorializing and reporting — they are separate functions, and confusing them undermines the integrity of the press (thank you Keith, Jack, et al., for making the American press little different from those in authoritarian countries). These are realities, and if you do not see them, a lot of people in the country do.
To reiterate my main points (in partial rebuttal to Walt, who seems to think that assertion and deliberately misunderstanding another’s argument is rational discussion).
Walt writes:
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.
Response — No, it is not. With Obama I get zip, with McCain I get zip. With Clinton, I get a shot at universal health care. Why should I ‘waste’ my vote on somebody with whom I do not agree and who promises me nothing?
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?
Response — not comparable. One was a sophomoric gesture, the other was a phrase wrenched out of context and spun until it bled. I am old enough to remember Bobby Kennedy and his assassination, and the faux crying and beating of breasts by those who were intent on imputing meaning to Clinton’s comment was disgusting — the manipulation of RFK to help BHO. Not at all edifying and more than a little off-putting (to answer the original question). It was also typical of the tawdry campaign Obama has run — his campaign put the story out there (check the files), then after it ran through the weekend news cycle, Obama magnanimously announced he forgave Clinton. For what? For the underhanded campaign tactics Axelrod, Burton, & cpy. favor? For mentioning RFK and her husband in the same breath? No, sorry, Clinton did nothing wrong; Obama’s handlers did, and, I suspect, with his full knowledge. If you go back and do a careful analysis of their tactics, you will find this occurring more than a few times, beginning with Brazile’s claim that Clinton’s ‘fairytale’ comment was somehow offensive. It wasn’t — it was the truth. Obama did not oppose the war once he was in the U.S. Senate; he voted with Clinton 85 times and without her once (but to appoint a general, not to end the war). So, yes, his gesture was sophomoric and offensive; Brazile’s comment was offensive, the use of race baiting was offensive. . . .
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….
Response: Obama blocked both Florida and Michigan — and for good reason; he was going to lose in both states, as he has in all other truly ‘diverse’ states. If he had nothing to fear, he could have accepted a revote. He did not, claiming that Democrats had voted Republican. That’s silly. But the major point is that a whole slew of states moved up, including a bloc of eight or nine to Super Tuesday, and that by suppressing the Michigan and Florida votes, the DNC allowed Obama supporters to claim ‘momentum’ they did not have, which the media then picked up and ran with. If they had counted Florida and Michigan in January, Clinton wins four to Obama’s two, and at the end of Super Tuesday she is ahead in popular vote and delegates because she picked up the ‘big’ states while Obama picked up the smaller ones, with the exception of Illinois. The ‘narrative’ of the campaign, the possible spin, etc. would all have changed dramatically. Accident? Perhaps. But you might want to look more closely at the infighting in the DP before you say for sure.
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.
Response: Hardly a red herring. Comparisons of primaries and caucuses in Washington and Texas leave no doubt that the primary is the representative contest, the caucus a non-democratic contest. That is reality, not speculation. Would Clinton have been happy to win the caucus states; sure, no question. But the underlying questions are more important — Obama originally claimed he was leading in the popular vote, based on his wins in the caucus states, but they do not reflect popular vote; he insisted that super delegates follow the ‘popular vote’ in their states, but he then changed his tune when it became clear he could not win the popular vote; and the reasons for his winning in caucus states is not clear because the process is so undemocratic and contentious (read some of the blogs on Texas, for example). What is clear is that those in Obama’s demographics were more likely to be able to attend caucuses than were those in Clinton’s demographics, unless you believe that people with high school degrees enjoy debating Ph.D.s and lawyers for three hours or that people who work at manual labor feel fresh and ready for a three-hour debate at the end of the day or that seniors just love to go to political parties (here we have a social and economic argument that could be more fully developed). That is the point. Nobody is arguing Obama should give up these delegates or that they do not count — simply that their meaning in terms of a general election is different. Remember, the election in November will not be like a caucus, it will be like a primary; and it will not just be limited to Obama activists, it will actually ‘poll’ the whole, diverse nation — and young people, blacks, and upscale whites are not a majority, even when they vote at 80 percent. If you don’t believe me, check the Census Bureau website or the stats for the elections for 2000 and 2004.
Bill Clinton won because he embraced those in his wife’s demographics; Obama (and his supporters) will lose because they have reviled, insulted, and rejected them.
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.
Response: Talk about parroting talking points! There was no smear by Bill in South Carolina; there was spin by the Obama campaign and the media (go check the original quote and its context, then check the Obama spin and the media follow-up). Obama implied whites would not vote for them because they are racist, as have a lot of media. That is silly, as exit polls show. Most people do not vote for Obama for lots of reasons, some of which I have noted.
Be careful of apples and oranges. Blacks voting in large numbers for Bill Clinton against a white candidate is not the same as blacks voting in large numbers for Obama against a white candidate. Think about it!
As for racism, to deny that bloc voting is racist is beyond comprehension. If I vote for Hillary just because she’s a gal like me, then, by golly, I’m voting for her because she’s a woman. Sexist? You bet! If I vote for her because she’s white like me, that racist? You bet! How do you know? Well, exit polls is one way (and not a perfect one). What they show is that women usually vote more for Hillary than Obama (about 6:4 on average) and that whites usually vote for her more than for him (about 6:4 on average), but blacks vote for him 9:1 on average. And you’re not convinced? Amazing! Racism is racism, and you can dress it up as racial pride if you like, but when it results in bloc voting like we’ve seen this year, it’s racially motivated, whatever you call it. Put another way, had whites been as racially proud as blacks, heck, Hillary would have won all but a handful of states where the electorate had a black majority (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi).
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?
Response? Another reason to not vote for you candidate — “McCain troll colors”? Oh my, do you even know what a neo-liberal is? I suspect not. A liberal might work for the things you favor, but a neo-liberal will not; he is for the free market (which is how Obama intends to ‘manage’ prices for health care, not by regulation, a plan that has never worked, and how he intends to create jobs, not by government intervention, which is liberal or social democrat — which, by the way, is what I actually am). Liberals believe in lifting all boats through selected government intervention in the economy; neo-liberals believe the free market will take care of everything. Obama’s programs are all neo-liberal, not liberal.
7) Lincoln, Abraham: 6 terms Illinois legislature, 1 term US House. Greatest. President. Ever. Next? I agree that he used the system to his advantage to win his races to date. And this is bad in what way? Politics ain’t beanbag and he was operating in one of the toughest dog-fighting pits in the country. Plus, he wasn’t responsible for Jack Ryan’s problems…Jack Ryan was. BTW what does your complaint about BHOs easy elections say about HRC? Her two races for the Senate consisted of Rudi G pulling out late because of cancer and beating a no-name, underfunded sacrificial lamb. I’m sure not holding this against her.
Response: Has Obama really served six terms in the Illinois legislature; I thought it was two. Has he finished his first term as a U.S. Senator? I thought he left D.C. a year after being elected to campaign and still has three years left to serve as a Senator. Silly me!
You’re right, Obama comes out of a nasty political arena — and that is why I do not want him in the White House. Seems clear to me, obviously not to you. Last thing I want is Chicago politicos running the U.S. government. We’ve had Texas politicos do that, and look where that has got us.
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.
Response: Enjoy your dinner. He is patronizing. Clinton has a right to stay in the race? Not for him to say, Walt. That is patronizing. Clinton did not mean to imply he should be assassinated? not for him to say, Walt. That is patronizing. White people don’t trust him because he’s black? Not for him to say, Walt. That is patronizing. But why go on. . . .there is only so much room on this blog. . . .
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?
Response: Karmic carpel tunnel? Nice metaphor, very postmodern and new age. But not an argument. His gesture said a great deal about Obama, as did his brushing off his loss in Philly gesture. Sorry, he got creamed by Clinton in a debate and then ran like the devil from a one-on-one with her because she is just, well, better at that than he is. He is great at making speeches and fielding soft-balls tossed by Wolf Blitzer. He is all but inarticulate when forced to field hard-balls or talk off the cuff. Am I surprised? Not really. If this was not the case, why carefully stage-manage his campaign so that most of his appearances are a stump speech read from a teleprompter?
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.
Response: No, they were not stupid; they were an insight into how this guy really thinks about whites and politics and himself. And what we got a glimpse of was very very ugly. This is not about HRC, it is about BHO. Remember, these remarks echo his remarks about his grandmother (read his book and find out what really happened, and it is not what he said in his speech), his comments about the typical white person (gee, do I really have an inbred fear of those who are different than me?), his twenty-year association with Wright and TUCC and Pfleger (birds of a feather, my friend), and his misrepresentation of himself as a law professor (he wasn’t), a poor boy (he wasn’t), raised on food stamps (he wasn’t), and so on. He is an elitist, who hasn’t a clue about how most Americans live their lives and what makes them tick. . . . I’ll take a ‘downscale’ white from Appalachia any day of the week over folks like Obama — and, really, I prefer a mountain diner to a posh San Francisco party.
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?
Response: my original point — 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).
The reference to Jean Luc is clearly sarcastic, not an argument. My point, which you seem to have missed, is that Obama’s supporters like to taunt (Get over it, Walt, that’s my opinion, okay?), they like to assert (see above), and they like to repeat things rather than discuss them. Judging from a second look at this thread, they also like to argue by simile and metaphor (Obama is not Lincoln, no matter how many times you repeat the comparison; they just share the same home state, sort of), and they are impervious to reality, e.g., ‘most’ Democrats have not voted for Obama — independents have, Republicans have (check the exit polls and you will find Rush’s people tend to vote Obama, not Clinton — what does that tell you?), and fewer than half of the Democrats have. Somehow, it never occurs to Obama supporters that Clinton has won more votes than has Obama — and that, with one or two exceptions she has won the big states and the swing states and the major primaries. . . . So when those of you who support BHO denigrate HRC’s supporters and tell them to ‘get over it’ — a juvenile taunt — remember that there are about 17 million people who voted for her — better than half of those Democrats who have cast a ballot, and that Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, and Humphrey all lost because they thought they could get along without the ‘downscale’ Democrats who actually make up the majority of the party. And I suspect that taunts and vacuous arguments and insisting they vote for Obama because McCain is even worse are not going to win them over, especially after the vicious race baiting and nasty insinuations about whites in general, and ‘downscale’ whites in particular, by the Obama camp and the media and the DNC.
Good luck with your coalition of, how did Begala put it, eggheads, young people, and blacks! That coalition has yet to prove itself viable in a general election, although it has done amazingly well in Democratic nomination contests. Go for it!
dean1616 said,
June 2, 2008 at 3:17 am
By taking his name off of the Michigan ballot, even though there was no rule that said he must do so, Senator Obama has shown a certain lack of respect for the voters of Michigan.
In my mind I ask myself this one question about Senator Obama, “How can a person who so fervently hangs on to a campaign theme of ‘CHANGE’, then turn an aboutface and say he’s pulling his name off of the Michigan ballot in accordance with DNC rules?”
If “CHANGE” (lockstep with national rules, of course.) means less choices at the polls, then I believe it’s a change we can’t afford as a nation.
I hope that answers your question as to why someone won’t vote for Senator Obama.
I would also like to add that I feel most people in this country are centrist. They go to the left on one issue, but to the right on others. Why then do you find it so hard to believe that people would then be willing to vote for Senator McCain? Although there are those who have tried to paint him as to the right of our current president, he has resided in the middle of the political spectrum for many years. Admittedly, he has begun the movement to the right, but he would have to, wouldn’t he?
So……I can understand why someone (in Michigan, at least) would vote for McCain, and not Obama.
Me? I’m voting Independant. Just having “Republican” over your name on the ballot turns me off.
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 3:27 am
that is the same as questioning why mentos mixed to coca cola produces soda fountains. who cares, they are fun to watch, does it really matter the chemical process behind what makes it happens?
did it matter what specific “acts” Bill did in the Whitehouse? not really, it was more important that “acts” happened, not what they were.
and seriously are you trying to start a new Hillary tactic of “leaving doubt on a superficial subject of a name” with the OHB? Just keep fanning the embers until you get a flame right? Hillary couldn’t answer a simple question of whether Obama was a muslim with a simple “No,” now you would like to propagate doubt with the implication by name association?
The HRC acronym implies nothing badly with Hillary as she has always gone by Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Rodham isn’t exactly linked to too many dictators in the world now is it?
gc said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:14 am
well, i WAS going to vote for O-blah-blah, but, after reading Hans’ long-winded posts of insanity, I don’t want to be associated with the crazy Kool-aid Clearasil Obama voters.
Cats r Flyfishn said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:06 am
It’s amazing how many posters resort to name calling, such as, “eggheads” and “Kool-aid Clearasil Obama voters”. This is immature behavior. Is name calling all you have to support your position?
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 9:58 am
Dear Cars r Flyfishn,
clever name, very mature.
Congrats! You pulled one word out of several hundred (and evidently did not understand that it was paraphrased from Paul Begala, a regular on CNN, et al.); now please go read the rest and pay attention to the arguments. Then write something thoughtful. I may not agree, but I sure will respect you a lot more.
What you offer is what is usually referred to as a reductionist rebuttal — reducing another person’s argument to a triviality then pretending the whole argument consists of the bit that caught your attention. Very sophisticated!
Of course, being labelled a Clintonista or a McCain troll is fine by me — shows the maturity of the Obama supporters. Wouldn’t you agree?
Now a reality check for you, courtesy of the 2004 elections, when around 14 million blacks, 14 million people with advanced and professional degrees, and 14 million young people voted — a total of 42 million or so. Ready? About 44 million ‘old people’ voted. Guess what? You need them. Time to stop insulting them, wouldn’t you say?
I’m not going to tell you how many ‘down-scale’ whites voted; after all, they’re racists and you don’t need them, do you? Just the trendy up-scale whites, like Father Pfleger.
fred said,
June 2, 2008 at 10:54 am
Sorry Hans, I am not trying to hijack, but Hillary was treated unfairly because she’s a real disappointment to me. On the other hand, in all of these areas, I am less than impressed with Obama. What is insulting is Hillary supporters’ moved the goalposts slightly off some of the worst blog web sites, California and Santa Cruz. If her situation and Obama’s situation were reversed, I think they’d be saying the same things – that he wasn’t treated fairly because he’s a Ne-gro. Spare me. I have supported Hillary steadfastedly, reciting them verbatim since the beginning of Operation Chaos.
Walt said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:17 am
Ah Jim….
I see you’re points, but I think we misread each other’s posts.
At least I’m sure it’s clear that you can’t (or won’t) see what I’m saying.
When I say “get over it”, I mean simply this. We have bigger fish to fry than whether HRC or BHO is the better candidate. If you can’t see this, then you deserve the ‘squat’ you get from McCain. If you’re a liberal, you vote for the liberal candidate. However much of a “neo” liberal you think BHO is, he’s going to be a LOT more liberal than McCain.
Look, I don’t agree fully with either candidate, and your criticisms of BHO are all valid. So what? Does that make both worse than McCain? Think about this before you slam either.
Both are complex:
-HRC has a better health plan than BHO (whose plan I suggest you read and compare with McCain’s. It’s definitely flawed, but much better than McCain’s and more likely to pass-it’s a clear starting point).
-BHO is better on the war than HRC (who’s still for getting out, which I like. However I don’t like her failure to fess up to why she voted for war in the first place, her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, or her tone on Iran).
-Neither are perfect on globalization. Both are hypocritically campaigning as though they’ll dump NAFTA and become protectionist. Please don’t counter with HRC’s new found ‘passion’ on the issue and BHO’s assurances to Canadian officials that he’s just posturing. BOTH are posturing and we know it.
So, who should I vote for? BHO and HRC are both better than McCain on the war AND health care. They won’t retreat on global trade, but will probably push through conditions that favor workers rights and environmental protection, which again makes them better than McCain.
So, I think I’ll vote for whichever one gets the nomination.
The rest of what I said is that your points are all just tit for tat between two hard campaigners.
-You don’t like BHO giving HRC the finger (you think he did, I think he didn’t. Doesn’t matter). Well, I didn’t like her “not as far as I knoooow” response about whether BHO was a Muslim (You probably think she meant nothing by it. I do. Doesn’t matter).
-You’re angry over the manipulation of the RFK assassination comment? Well BHO supporters didn’t much appreciate her ranking McCain ahead of him as a commander-in-chief.
-You think that ‘slimy’ Chicago politics has no place on the national stage? (As if my …ahem… HOME TOWN is unique compared with NY or Philly or New Orleans or ANY big city…) Maybe BHO supporters could shoot back with the unsavory good-ol-boy backdoor dealing and hardball politics that the Clintons play.
-You dislike BHO’s dismissive tone toward HRC? Well BHO supporters don’t like her sudden ‘discovery’ of democratic principles as they apply to MI and FL only AFTER she realized she needed them.
-You complain about Tony Rezko and William Ayers? Do you seriously want BHO supporters to start a 1-1 comparison of unsavory types our candidates associate with? Really?
Look I could go on and on, but what would be the point?
Here’s what really bothers me about this whole thread Jim. Assuming you’re sincere in your posts (in which case I’m sorry for calling you a McCain troll), then we’re allies, not enemies. We’d agree on about 90% of the policy issues of the day. We both remember RFK! I’d bet we have a common vision about where the country should go. I’d enjoy having dinner….
It’s also true that we’ve spent 8 years in a wilderness of neo-con horrors. Our rights have been taken. Our economy has been transformed into a kleptocracy. Our standing in the world has been shattered. We’re now a nation that tortures its enemies.
We both know we can do better. We have a choice. On one hand we can elect McCain (either by voting for him or by abstaining), a man who thinks we’re going in the right direction and wants to replace John Paul Stevens with Samuel Alito. On the other we can elect someone who sees a different future. Maybe they’ll be great, maybe not. We disagree on which one of the two is best suited to take on this challenge, but not about the challenge we face.
I’d be proud of president Clinton and I’d be proud of president Obama.
However, what I’m most afraid of is that we’ll spend so much of our time calling each other eggheads, racists, sexists, and elitists that we’ll miss a generational opportunity to re-make our nation. Now THAT would be sad.
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:21 am
hey GC, if you were so f@@@ing smart and thought you were so f@@@ing funny, you would have read when I responded to how old I am, but apparently your idiotic stupidity prevents you from doing that and just calling me names because you have absolutely nothing to discuss intelligently. bravo, welcome to pre-clearasil days of elementary school.
@ Jim,
wow, since when do pundits make news again? and when do they matter? and when does a pundit that worked for one of the candidates matter at that? and who the hell watches & believes a network that has an hourly quota of saying “”Network Name” your best place for political coverage” 20times? Hell now they even have their guests saying it too. If Ted Turner were in his grave he’d be rolling, but not being there, he’s pretty disappointed with CNN’s “keeping up with the Fox’s” switch from actual news coverage to opinioniating..
oh btw, your “I don’t much often respond & clarify my posts” take at correcting the “reality revelations” to your crap ideas, didn’t turn out any better when you asserted your “rightness” based on flimsy arguments.
with this argument it makes your points even more legit..
amazingly you picked every one of your rebuttals right out of Clinton Website talking points. When will you pull Nancy Pelosi in and demon-ize her next?
I’ve asked this a million times before, but here goes again…
When was it again that the American Dream stopped including the ability of every family’s children to go to College?
Call me a non working elite college kid again and I’ll take my college degree and shove it up your a@@ then work you into the ground without even blinking an eye. Please tell me where the Golden ATM is that all the college educated get their money that they “need not work for” our of, because I have yet to find it.
yeah you older people so want Clinton for Universal Health care why? Because you grew up during Legacy Coverage programs at your big companies, where all anyone had to do was sign up at the door and bam! you were guaranteed 30years of work and a pension. Now you were lied to, those that hadn’t retired 10 years ago or less, and your pissed someone took away your “entitlement” and now you want to project your anger on the young college educated why exactly? did we take away your retirement? No! do we get benefits & retirement at our jobs? F@@@ No! so what the hell is your major malfunction?
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:23 am
Good post. I think we need to consider what happens if McCain (or any GOPer) gets in in 2008 vs. ANY Dem.
What are the ramifications for that?
I don’t care BHO or RHC. I vote Dem. Period.
For me. For my family. For my friends. For my country!
Will said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:25 am
“that is the same as questioning why mentos mixed to coca cola produces soda fountains. who cares, they are fun to watch, does it really matter the chemical process behind what makes it happens?
did it matter what specific ‘acts’ Bill did in the Whitehouse? not really, it was more important that ‘acts’ happened, not what they were.”
Hans, what are you talking about? I’ve really done my best to decipher this portion of your post, but can’t seem to wrap my head around it. Please elaborate.
“It’s amazing how many posters resort to name calling, such as, “eggheads” and “Kool-aid Clearasil Obama voters”. This is immature behavior. Is name calling all you have to support your position?”
Well, it’s to be expected when you, the Obama supporters, make a habit of labelling Clinton supporters and/or people who just plain don’t agree with you — God forbid — as “McCain trolls,” racists, bigots, rednecks, etc., etc. If you hit below the belt, expect to be hit below the belt.
Duke of url said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
Ms Joanne, So much for neutrality. What is your agenda for asking your question in the first place?
“I don’t care BHO or RHC I vote Dem. Period.”
That clearly doesn’t seem to be the case, as evidenced by your comments on this blog:
MsJoanne
May 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm
“You know, I have been floating a theory in my own mind. Let’s run it by you, eh?
Hillary has been really going at it. I am starting to think that this isn’t about her being the next president; it’s not simply ego, it’s her absolute belief that there ain’t no way no black man is gonna get elected. No way, no how.
Which, indeed, does make her racist.
There’s a difference between campaigning and some of what she has done and said. That she won’t go away, I really think that she deep down thinks that there’s no way he can get elected – based on her own feelings.
Sure, you can do work for them thar minority types, but, hey, someone’s gotta do it. But elect one? In her mind, she may believe that there is no way that will happen.
And, this too, says a lot about her (assuming my theory is correct).”
From cats r flyfishn’s website
You can’t see how Obama has raised the race card, but apparently you have no problem seeing HRC as racist. Please explain yourself.
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:48 am
Thanks for the response, Walt.
Very thoughtful, and therefore appreciated, even if I do not agree with you.
I do not like what Dean, the DNC, Obama, Brazile, the networks, media, et al. have done — it goes to character, if you like, and fairness, which is a big deal with me. A crooked game is a crooked game. . . .and should not be rewarded with my vote.
I have read Obama’s health care plan; it won’t work. There is nothing to McCain’s — that leaves Clinton’s plan, which won’t be passed. We know that, right?
I’ve also gone through Obama’s website, Clinton’s website, and a lot of other junk over the last four or five months — and my conclusion is that Obama is a neo-liberal little different from McCain or Bush — even down to keeping a ‘strike force’ in the Middle East to use unilaterally when Obama feels like it (hardly peace-mongering, is it?).
As for Hans, oh, my! So I have “crappy ideas” and I am, ahem, old. So we also have a generational polarization — congrats, Hans, you have really helped unify people behind Obama!
BTW, accusing someone of ‘flimsy arguments’ without answering them is, well, unconvincing.
As for physical threats (what are you going to shove where?), are you serious? Not exactly a convincing intellectual point you’re making is it?
And regading entitlements, Obama is the person who feels entitled — not Clinton, not me.
Remember, there are really three things that are inevitable in life — death, taxes, and (if you’re lucky, or unlucky, depending on your health and your health plan) old age. Hope you enjoy yours without a universal health plan (assuming, of course, that you don’t get sick before you get old).
And yes, I’ve read Obama’s website, etc. etc. But I won’t vote for him. . . .for all the reasons I’ve laid out and many more.
Sorry, Walt. I know Chicago, and I know other towns, and you’re right — but I still don’t want a product of the Chicago machine in the WH.
Good luck, guys!
lizr said,
June 2, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Well here is how it looks to me. I have mostly Obama friends like me but more than a few were orignially for Clinton.
I have heard increasing desperation from the die hard Clintonites, which begins to start sounding like racism after a very short while.
What I saw and felt from the Obama side. More and more frustration at the feeling that she was actively sabotaging Obama and that turning into rage which then easily morphed into sexism. All in all a disgusting and Balkanizing display.
I call people on Huffpost.com constantly on sexism, and have noticed that other older feministas like moi have stopped posting, though we love Obama because they are grossed out by the misogyny/sexism, is my guess.
I was originally for Webb or Edwards as veep, valuing strategy and effectiveness, but now am convinced that to save the day it’s got to be a White Woman. I hate that kind of tokenism, but am liking Sibelius better day by day. We must stanch the bleeding!!!
The Republicans must be laughing their a@#$#s off at their good fortune.
Hillary, PLEASE get out of the way now. No one is going to vote for you in ’12 if Obama loses on your account. You must know this.
Walt said,
June 2, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Hey Jim,
I’m glad we’re cool.
Fairness is big for me too, but I’m trying to be pragmatic. I agree that we don’t have any great choices here. Both have qualities I don’t like. To be honest, my #1 (Gore), #2 (Richardson), and #3 (Edwards) candidates are all out of the running or never started. So I’m having to make due with what I’ve got in front of me and hoping for the best.
I guess our difference is that I’ll hold my nose, but you can’t. I can understand and I won’t try to change your mind. But promise to think about it if you can. A lot of FL Nader supporters in have had a wicked 8 year hangover.
And, at the risk of pulling out the most overused ‘rock wisdom’ ever quoted, let’s not forget what St. Mick said.
“You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you just might find, you get what you need”
Sorry. Couldn’t help it 😉
Walt said,
June 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Hey Jim,
Glad we’re cool.
I’m big on fairness too, but I’m trying to be pragmatic at the same time. There’s no question that both HRC and BHO are flawed candidates. My first 3 choices (Gore, Richardson, and Edwards) all bowed out or stayed out. So, I’m trying to play the hand I’ve been dealt and hoping for the best.
I guess the difference between us is that I’ll hold my nose and you can’t bring yourself to do it. I can totally see where you’re coming from and won’t try to argue the point anymore. But please promise to think hard about the future between now and November, OK? There are more than a few FL Nader supporters who have had a wicked 8 year hangover……
Finally, at the risk of pulling out the most over used rock pop-psychology ever, I think we all need to keep the words of St. Mick in mind.
“You can’t always get what you want. But if you try some times, you just might find you get what you need”
Sorry! Couldn’t resist 😉
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm
My latest post was to Kay, who asked Nick & I our age, to which I responded. Kay then ignored the answer she did not like, and then changed the subject in #78 to another “excuse” to which I responded with the “mentos & coke” idea as they to had zero relevance. (others posted in there before my post went it, so it was “lost” not being right after Kay’s post.
In posts #s 1, 11 & 40 I did not use any name calling, and pointed to specific issues, not “excuses for why things were unfair or the rules needed to be changed”
#34 Kay advocated “censoring” all non-Clinton supporters out of the discussion, to which I responded here in this post #56, but then if not fully, then I addressed it here
57-58 I called MsJoanna out on switching subject from one “war amendment to another” which was not the issue, the call to war was the issue, not the details of it. (sorry for making it look like I was blowing up on you MsJ)
75 was as mentioned above, kay & mentos
then from that point I and other Obama supporters were called names, although we never called anyone names in this post. I used reasons why throughout this discussion, then I am called names because people do not like my reasons, and I am supposed to just let that happen? you are kidding right?
and at Jim, no your ideas are not necessarily “crappy” but categorically dismissing another’s ideas because you are “all knowing” is not how open discourse works, unless you are of course a “republican” mascarading here as a Hillary supporter, Operation Chaos style.
My father defends everything republican by “Bill Clinton got blow jobs in the white house” or “Dems, all they do is raise taxes and give money to Ni***** (welfare)” which A) is not a reasoned justification for not liking one side’s beliefs and B) 20 years outdated if anyone looks at the size of gov’t now & the graph of the national debt over time & reflective of what party has held control of Congress & WH.
subjective comments & belittling of those who do not agree with you is not a productive means to carry on a discussion. As I am not the only one to point out, Walt summed up in #43, what I also believe, in that the Clinton followers use subjective ideas or innuendos to defend Clinton, not actual issues with backing on them.
“My candidate is better than yours!”
Why?
“”Because it Effing is, that’s why”
Can you give me a reason?
silence, no response.
Which gets me right back to how many Republicans act, just as I indicated with the example of my father. And this again, returns to the older generations feeling of “entitlement”. Well, entitlement gets nothing in this world, unless you are Prince Charles. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. If it did, then we would be living in a Monarchy and we would not be having this discussing.
How does a Monarchy/Dictatorship arise? Control of discussion and thought, which leads to Manufactured Consent, which leads to everyone believing the same thing, which leads to there being no difference between rigged elections and 100% consensus of the voters.
Please someone explain to me, why Hillary Supporters & HRC herself support censorship and manufactured consent by attempting to make their voice the only one heard, then EXPECT the rest of us to see her defending the principles of maintaining a strong democracy with her fight over “making every vote count”? You can’t put down open discourse then claim unfair voting practices in one breath.
JBL55 said,
June 2, 2008 at 1:28 pm
On June 1, 2008, at 5:23 pm, Jim said,
“Clinton is old school in the sense of the Democratic Party of FDR, Humphrey, JFK, and LBJ — not of the DLC …”
Apparently you are unaware of the fact that both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been stalwart members of the DLC for many years, almost from the beginning.
Here is a link to the DLC website listing her as a member of the DLC Leadership Team and describing her as chair of a DLC initiative:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm
and one last note on the “entitlement”
I never used Barack’s blackness as an issue. if I did, I would be correcting everyone and saying, “Hello, he is half white! What is your pure Aryan pedigree thinking you can claim your inalienable right to the claim of being “white”? But I do not.
maybe if the older generation wants to claim their “entitlement” to pay the national debt before they go, instead of making it an “entitlement” of my generation, then they can claim all they want that the older generation is “better” and that their “experience” is better than younger minds. But seeing as though they will never have to worry about the $30,000 each and every one of us owes now, their experience & entitlement to a woman, holds no water.
I too was a Richardson supporter to begin with, not because of his Latino-ness, but because of his experience in executive, foreign diplomacy and from a western state which is separated from inside the Beltway politics and eastern hypocrisies. How many centuries has ethnic nationalism thrived over US nationalism, so that the Melting Pot” (which is more respresentative of Canada, than the US) is really the “Salad Bowl”. Going back to the east coast and having a discussion with someone is annoying, it starts with an introduction by full name, so that eastern can go through a rolledex of family names to see if they or any of their family has a past grudge with your family name, aka Hatfields & McCoys.
sorry off point, but it is a turning off point for me on Hillary, I don’t want anymore “inside DC” leaders for this country and Hillary represents this view, as do many of her “large name” supporters, Rendell, McCauliff, Wilson/Plame, Rush & Rove<–he-he-he wtf?!
“Change” means more to people than just a catchphrase, quirky marketing scheme. It actually means starting something different by first and most importantly throwing off “Status Quo” as acceptable. 30 years in politics, fighting for her view first and foremost, is not change, it is status quo, it is the true meaning of “conservative” and Hillary represents conservative principles to me.
I don’t need to be 50 to see this country is going to the “Shitter” and I don’t need the continued use of the same policies and practices to steer the ship slight to one direction or the other when the Iceberg is directly ahead and a slight readjustment is not going to avoid the collision. Thank you, but No! A supporter of an unneeded war to look strong on defense for future political ambitions, who refuses to express remorse for that vote, does not get my support, nor my admiration! My vote, if it came down to it for the good of the country sure, but not my open, devotional, unrequited love? NO!
JakeD said,
June 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hans:
Last time I recall a balanced federal budget was under President CLINTON.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Jake, I think they key phrase there is PRESIDENT Clinton.
People are comparing Hillary to Bill and just like GW isn’t GHW Bush, there is no way you can say Hillary is Bill. It’s unknown.
Do you think George W. Bush’s presidency is the same as George H. W. Bush?
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Yeah, Walt, we’re cool.
But I will not cast a vote for Obama — an ethical question, a matter of fairness, a distate for someone who can cavalierly sacrifice his grandmother to save his pastor, and then dumps him when it is expedient to do so — however you want to see it. For me, Obama not only lacks substance; he lacks integrity, on a most basic level. That’s fine, except that he makes a pretense of having it, and if there is anything I dislike more than someone who is insincere, it is a hypocrite.
I have always really valued my vote, and I have always refused to vote for the lesser evil. If I do not think the candidate deserves my vote, s/he doesn’t get it. Period.
If you read J. S. Mill’s On Representative Government, you will understand my position better — unlike parliamentary systems, the U.S. system does not give choices; it demands most people vote for candidates they do not find altogether palatable, a kind of ethical erosion that seeps into other areas of life as well.
The ideal (and in many place, real) representative system gives voters a wide enough range of choices so they can cast a ballot for someone who comes close to believing in what they believe in (social democracy, in my case, for a lot of reasons, none having to do with entitlement, regardless of what Hans seems to think). So if you’re green, there’s a green party; if you’re a neo-fascist, there’s a neo-fascist party; and so on. Shifting coalitions keep things more or less honest and prevent the system from sliding into oligarchy, like ours has done. So in the US, you get to choose from among the more attractive artistocrats — much like Jefferson & cpy. intended it should be. And if you think Obama is not an aristocrat, look at his background and consider that his income puts him in the top 0.5 percent of income earners among blacks and the top 2.0 percent among all citizens.
The simple reality is that most of us are not CEOs, nor lawyers, nor professors, nor doctors, nor dentists, nor successful small businessmen; we’re working grunts, whether with a white or a blue collar, a high school or associate or college degree That simple reality means either we work to create a ‘fair’ society and seek to take care of those who are not successful, or we further reward the successful and further punish the unsuccessful.
Here, Obama comes up short — he is interested in minorities; he is not interested in the commonweal. Check his website and his remarks at the Philly debate, and you will see what I mean. . . . If you think only blacks are poor, think again; most recipients of food stamps are white. If you think that Latinos are doing better than blacks, check some income stats and you will see there is an insignificant difference. . . and if you think most whites are doing well, remember the median salary for a white male (the elite of the elite, according to Pfleger, Wright, et al.) makes $42,000. But Obama does not see poverty and disability anywhere except among blacks.
So he does not get my vote.
Nader was my choice in 2000, and I have never regretted my vote — Gore and the DP had a choice — to put forward programs that would attract those who voted for Nader or to assume they had no choice and would be ‘forced’ to vote for Gore. That, in my view, is a form of extortion. My answer was to vote my convictions. Gore lost not only because he lost a lot of working class stiff; he lost because he lost a lot of idealists too.
I will do the same this time around. . . .Clinton got a close look primarily because of universal health care — Obama’s programs will benefit almost nobody I know. . . .so why vote for him? Precisely because Clinton has spent all those years in DC and failed when Bill pawned health off on her in the early 1990s (for which he bears responsibility, not his wife), there is a greater likelihood she will be able to get a program through. Sometimes experience really is helpful. . . .or so I have found with certain tasks.
What many Obama supporters fail to understand is that he has offered nothing at all to the average working Joe (or Jane). He is about minorities (code for blacks) and professionals (code for well educated, successful). Go over his programs and you will see what I mean. It’s not his bowling that hurt him; it is his total failure to reach out to those without an education and without much of a chance in American society.
Hans, please go back and reread my posts again. You will see I am quoting Paul Begala, not giving you my opinion, and you will see I am explaining my opinion, not trying to trash Obama supporters. The last question is a serious one — I have watched that coalition — young people, blacks, and intellectuals — visit defeat after defeat on the DP over four decades. Only Bill Clinton and the DLC members understood how to reverse that. Alas, they really ticked off other factions in the party, who have wrested control of the DNC away from MacAuliffe and are now punishing the Clintons, and they did little except NAFTA for eight years — unless you think the dot.com bubble was a wonderful thing.
Nonetheless, what Clinton is offering is palatable to more people than what Obama is offering, and while I do not trust either, Clinton at least promises to do things that matter to me and those I care about; Obama does not.
For all Obama supporters, please stop and think for a minute — Clinton really does have a lead in the popular vote — and she has pretty much dominated Obama in major primary states. Why? For the same reasons Bush beat Gore and Kerry — her demographic is not only traditional Democratic, it is also the demographic that the GOP has been exploiting. Why? Because ‘down-scale’ whites and Latinos and Asians happen to be the majority in this country. This is not a Clinton talking point; it is a simple reality.
How do I know that? I have looked at the stats for the 2000 and 2004 elections, and I have lived through a lot of Democratic defeats, from 1968 forward. So I remember MLK and RFK and the ’60s, and I know Clinton was not implying what Obama’s campaign (Burton) said she was (she was making an allusion everybody would get, not calling for an assassination or revealing an unconscious wish — that is Obama spin), and I know who and what Wright is all about (he is a black nationalist who dislikes whites as a group) — and I remember the hype surrounding Ferraro (who said herself that she owed her spot on the ticket with Mondale to the fact she was a woman) but I also remember how they tried to associate her with the mafia and denigrated her as both a woman and an Italo-American (for those who think prejudice is directed only against people of color). . . . and I am very aware of what the DLC is and why it was resented by old-style Democrats and by the politically correct, and I even know people in DC who are lobbyists — yeah, I’m an old guy. I watched the history unfold and my memory, despite my age, is still pretty sharp.
The Clintons, like MacAuliffe, are DLC — absolutely. But the programs that HRC has put forward are old style, not DLC, which was essentially an effort to pull the DP back to the center after years of disastrous defeats in the Presidential elections. Obama is very like the DP that bridged the Humphrey-DLC years — the party of McCarthy (Eugene, not Joe), McGovern, Carter, and Mondale — a party that consistently lost because it had lost contact with its base, those now much maligned downscale white (and Latino) workers.
My age does not enable me to speak ex cathedra, like the Pope, or ex podium, like Obama. But it does give me a little perspective and, with a little luck, even a little wisdom. I have watched my illusions shattered and my hopes disappointed, and I have watched income gaps grow, unions busted, wages for workers stagnate while salaries for professionals skyrocketed, and an ethic that considers monetary success the only worthwhile goal come to dominate the country. Not to mention consolidation of the media (for those who have read Chomsky and Herman, try Bagdikian and Isaacs, and a host of other sincere people concerned about the decay of the US media, including the conservative journalist, the late Chet Huntley who was always David Brinkley’s better half). So I understand the illusions and the hopes and the desire to believe in Obama.
But he is more image than substance, more ambition than integrity. If you look carefully at how he lied, misrepresented, and rationalized his relationship with Wright, then finally dumped him when it became expedient to do so, you will get some of my meaning. My best guess is that Obama will end up disappointing his supporters, whether he is defeated or whether he is elected. He is promising a shining city on an immaculate hill, and that is not likely to happen in my life or yours — remember where he comes from, who is managing him, who is contributing to his campaign, and with whom he will have to work in DC. Also remember that he ran away from a one-on-one debate with Clinton after losing face during the Philly debate, precisely because without a teleprompter he is as articulate as the steretype of one of those down-scale workers he seems to think are racist because they refuse to vote for him (they’re not either — I’ve worked in factories and on construction, and some of the most intelligent conversations I have ever had were with average Joes, not people in think tanks and academe, many of whom are indeed educated idiots).
As for talking points, please. . . .I do my own reading and research, have been for years and years.
So, good luck.
Ms. Joanne (perhaps disingenuously) asked why Clinton supporters are not supporting Obama. You have my answer. Please do not generalize or extrapolate — it’s just my answer, and I’m just one person. But, hint for the future, if you invite someone to express an opinion, do not use it as an opportunity to attack them or proselytize in an effort to convert them. That way lies disunity, not peaceful coexistence (to use a very old Cold War term).
Again, good luck! My guess is that Obama will lose badly in the general, but I could be wrong.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 3:55 pm
In no way was my question disingenuous. I was, and still am, perplexed. While I can appreciate everything you said, Jim, I honestly don’t see it as you do. (FWIW, I am a 48 year old white woman.)
I see Obama as, hopefully, someone who can change the politics of Washington. To tag on to someone I pretty much loathed throughout the years, Scott McClellen’s many interviews and talks of late regarding his book and his (whether it’s newfound or not) concepts of the politics in DC are exactly how I feel. We’ve strayed from getting anything done to entrenchment in a party (granted, IMHO, this is all GOPers, but it’s there). And I am hoping that Obama can change our government to be just that, OUR government.
What impressed me about Obama (and I am from IL…an ashamed Illinoisan who doesn’t follow local or state politics; I am more into national politics as wrong as that is), was Hurricane Katrina. I travel extensively and years back, Obama was down there working with everyone to get things done. I saw an article in a local paper (don’t remember where, TX, TN, somewhere south of IL) and they were talking about what he was doing, and it was all Fix The Problems; no blame, none of the typical stuff we normally see out of a politician. I was hugely impressed (and this was long before there was a hint at a run for POTUS.
I see both HRC and BHO for the average person; black or white (and average could be those with or without degrees or education…we are all average unless you count the ones who make in the hundreds of thousands or millions). I have seen nothing from Hillary to indicate that she would turn her back on blacks nor did I see anything that made me think Obama would be solely for blacks.
How did you come to that conclusion? What parts of his speeches made you think that?
Basil Steele Harder said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Obama is as inexperienced as John Kennedy who continued the disastrous Bay of Pigs and the South Vietnam military advisors that lead to the war. Obama has the same cocaine and religious addictions as does George Bush. We don’t need another President who executes lap dances for the Military Generals. If Hillary is not the nominee, I will vote for McCain. At least then we will have the entertainment of Cindy whom John McCain has labelled as a trollop.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:36 pm
He also called his wife a c*nt – in public! I suppose that makes for great theatre, too, eh?
There’s some twisted logic.
Cocaine and religious addictions? Really? How can you buy into that?
Wife of Obama volunteer. said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Have you ever MET Senator Obama? Talked to him? I hate listening to him even more than I hate listening to Bush. He is just as arrogant and condescending as many white men. I cannot believe he has the audacity to run for president after doing hardly anything. It’s a superiority complex or something. We need someone practical and pragmatic. “Hope” does not create policies that solve problems. He is smart and articulate, but there is no there there. I’m sickened by him and am just not going to vote. And yes, it is hurting my marriage, but we respect each other’s opinions. I respect Obama voters, just as I respect republicans. They think that way, it’s their choice. But Obama won’t win against McCain. And he won’t get my vote, ever.
Anil Dalpat said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm
It is simple dude:
1) Bottom line this man does not love this country, that much is obvious. Plus he is tight with people who hate this country that makes many americans nervous.
2) For some reason he is the favorite of all hardcore Jihadists/Wahhbist/Islamist. We wonder why ?
3) The Saudis already occupy Washington, run our State Department, Ivy League(Harvard, Georgetown) campuses so it is not beyond them to put a manchurian candidate in the White House.
4) Most of the media is also controlled by the Saudis so no wonder they are all for him. Hillary is always caught by media with her mouth open, scowling while Barack as if Renee Refsintal photographed him
5) Obama is a smart dude who quickly adapts and tells you what you want to hear. Good marketer but not trust inspiring.
6) He is an establishment guy funded by banking lobby who lacks the authenticity, and the trust of most Americans. I am not talking the gullible latte drinking crowd who think Jihadist terror somehow started when Bush came on the scene.
7) He called Senator clinton the Democrat from Punjab a racist comment, but I think he himself is the Senator from Islamabad given the army of Islamists from Pakistan, and Saudi in his camp.
No wonder Americans are nervous about him, and his intentions. Remember we and the rest of the world(Buddhists, Slavs, Africans, Europeans, Indians) are all fighting with the Wahhabi death cults.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:50 pm
#105. All of what you wrote is patent bullshit.
Stop regurgitating talking points from Fox.
Sorry, DUDE. Lies and other fear/smear tactics won’t work here. Go back to your right wing, uninformed blogs.
I am looking for honest discourse, not crap.
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Ms. Joanne,
We indeed see things differently.
What part of his speeches?
I do not credit speeches; I credit experience and proposed programs and what a candidate says under pressure. Speeches are too easy.
Under pressure, Obama lied, misrepresented his relationship with Wright and sacrificed his grandmother’s reputation to maintain that relationship. In S.F. and elsewhere he has echoed James Cone, he has insulted whites as a group, and he not only was a member of TUCC for twenty years, he bragged of his close relationship with Wright.
Why do I think he is solely for blacks? What, exactly, is there in his programs for white working class people? Or Latinos?
What part of his life leads me to this conclusion might be the better question?
Again, TUCC, Wright, and the way in which he has conducted his campaign. I do not like race baiting, and the Obama camp has engaged in it on a regular basis, as have his surrogates — both public and covert, e.g., Brazile’s spin on Bill Clinton’s remarks on CNN on 8 January 2008 to make a factual remark (Clinton’s observation that Obama’s claims to oppose Iraq are largely untrue) into a racial slur, then exploiting her ‘blackness’ to lend credence to her outrageous remarks.
Obama is everything I find unacceptable in a politician — inexperienced, duplicitous, self-serving, empty of ideas and full of slogans. His campaign has been run in the good old-fashioned way — destroy your opponent in any way possible. In comparison, the Clintons might be candidates for sainthood. . . .and I am under no illusions regarding them or their handlers.
I might wonder, of course, what Obama, an Illinois Senator when Katrina hit (or have I mixed up the date of his election to the U.S. Senate?), was doing in New Orleans. . . .unless he was already running for President, in which case he was not exactly doing his job in Illinois, was he? (Heck, even if was already in the U.S. Senate, what was he doing in New Orleans as a Senator from Illinois?)
Unlike you, I have not been impressed by Obama. Quite the contrary.
As for his famous race speech, for anyone even minimally aware of the ethnic and racial history of this country, it was no more than a self-serving rationalization for the outrageous statements by Wright. Particularly offensive was his caracterization of blacks as having ‘real’ historical grievances, while the offspring of ‘immigrant’ whites (evidently, not quite real American whites — like the indigenous whites who lived here with the Indians?) had only ‘imagined’ grievances and unrealistic ‘fears’ that a black might take their place in college or on the job. Such a statement — and his complete lack of awareness of the Latino experience in this country, or the Asian, or the Indian — not only showed an ignorance of history that is alarming and profound (much like his anecdotes about Auschwitz and his claims regarding his grandfather and uncle) but a tendency to see things in black and white terms and to lump whites in groups. He clearly does not understand that racism and prejudice applied to bo-hunks, polacks, and other ‘whites,’ most of whom were every bit as disadvantaged and derided as were blacks who came north when they first got to this country and were exploited by the ‘core’ population of Anglos. Obama also seems to forget poor (Anglo) rural whites exist and have done so for centuries. . . .and so on and so on.
In short, he is ignorant, parochial, and self-righteous. He has chosen to embrace his black side, not his white one — evidently because it was politically expedient to do so, even though he was raised as lilly white as they come. . . .
So, not a particular part of a particular speech — but his comments in S.F., his race speech, his offensive characterization of the typical white person to explain why he threw grandma under the bus, his complete identification with blacks, his dodging the question that Clinton posed regarding giving everybody a fair chance in Philly, etc. etc.
Seems like enough reasons for one person. . . .
What I want to know is why anybody thinks this inexperienced, prejudiced, ignorant machine politician out of South Chicago will make a good President. Because he gives good speeches? Oh, my! Seems I can remember other politicians who gave good speeches at mass rallies. . . .
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Jim, I am not trying to turn this into a discussion of Obama’s good (or bad) points.
Why do I feel this way?
Read my posts here about his accomplishments (warning, very long):
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15723.html
And then read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
I didn’t start this thread to try to “turn” people. You guys have to make your own decisions and vote your consciences. And, I am totally cool with that. Whether I agree or not, that’s my problem, right? 🙂
There have been many talking points thrown out there that, to me, just do not wash.
I am a typical white woman and can completely understand what that comment meant in the speech you don’t like. That Obama went to a black church his whole life? I don’t care. (I do agree with most of Wright’s comments, though. With what the US has collectively done to interfere with the local politics of other countries – always contrary to that country’s citizenry [vis a vis The World Bank and IMF, especially, but not exclusively], the bad things that happen to us often result from that.) The story about his great uncle was true – it was Buchenwald, not Auschwitz. The few remaining soldiers of the 89th have stated it’s true.
Again, I am not trying to persuade. While I would love to have people vote for Obama because I believe in him, this is your choice.
That is what makes America America.
That said, McCain over Obama? That is a thinking I cannot understand (which is basically what this thread is about and where my original questions came from. McCain and Clinton are like night and day. Clinton and Obama are like dusk and night.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I am as well a Clinton supporter. I heard Obama speak on TV during the convention. I was impressed by his speech, so much so that I told my husband that this man will be running for president, but not soon, he’s not experienced enough, he is too “young.” Since then, I’ve learned things about the people surrounding him that scare me. His church yes, I object to even calling that a church, it offends me. I think that was politically expedient for him to attend that church at the time and now it’s politically expedient for him to back away. Faith is important and character is important. I have this personal belief and that is that I am just as good as but not better or worse than anyone else. I see Obama as a person who shows he is “above” others. Now that I see him more, I think he is a fraud with a goal and that goal is to be president. That goal is more for himself than to lead us. He doesn’t know the answers. he gives rehearsed and pat answers to questions. I don’t like that he doesn’t have experience, and that shows. He stammers when he doesn’t know the answer. He didn’t like hard questions during the debates and the people that support him object to hard questions. He objected to more debates when ihe started getting the hard questions. He has been hand picked by the democratic party and quite frankly I am not willing to chance our country to him, we are too fragile to give the job of president to someone that has “star power” but no real substance. When he campaigns it’s very well planned, picking the “white middle aged woman” to bowl against for instance. He is like a head of a company that knows nothing except how to play a game, and how to step on people but make it look good as he goes to the top. I also feel strongly that the people around him are very racially biased. I do think his wife feels this way and it comes across. There seems to be a sense of entitlement due to his race. His followers are like sheep, anyone that questions anything are called racist or uneducated. This scares me, we were fooled after 9-11 and with Obama it’s happening again. He has too many issues with his lack of knowledge about important issues. It’s easy to have a platform, it’s like the old joke that every beauty pageant winner wants “world peace” Obama is something like that. I had a son in Iraq, my kids are struggling to pay for college and do not have healthcare, we all know about the economy. I do have a clue, gas prices for instance. McCain brought up about speculation driving up prices short term. I listen and I pay attention. Clinton has real ideas and goals, if she doesn’t win, I have to seriously consider McCain and really listen to what he has to say, it’s either that or not vote. I am annoyed that I now know we really don’t count, our votes don’t count, and to me the democratic party wants Obama to be the one running, for whatever motive, maybe so he does lose but it still looks good having an biracial person running, doesn’t it? It’s race over substance. I do believe there is a real hatred of women in the country and Clinton’s every word was dissected where Obama can do no wrong. No one wants to hear facts. This whole thing sickens me, it’s not a game to me, it’s our country and all of us deserve better.
I have no idea why you want to know this, but it helped me to vent. I am not a non-college educated middle aged woman, that’s too vague. I am however a highly intelligent woman who works for a living and has two sons and a stepdaughter. My oldest was in Iraq. My kids are having a hard time making ends meet while they pay for college, my stepdaughter has a 700 dollar a month college payment, can you imagine? She advises people not to go to college, she would have been better off financially without her education loan.
We cannot compete in the world economy and how do we compete without encouraging people to get a education and to use their brains to help our country grow? If we are all focused on making it day to day, and how to pay for gas and food and a place to live, we cannot advance. Health care is a horror. Everyone should have health care. I don’t see how Obama’s plan can work. Everyone should have health care, if you say some, then people will choose food and a place to live, make it for everyone and make it affordable by hammering on the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
I read Clinton’s plans, in detail. She has no vested interest in being president, she wants to make this country better. What can I say other than that?
The evidence is there, take it or ignore it. We will pay dearly if we ignore it.
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Thank you, Susan Powers.
Ms. Joanne,
The choice is not between McCain and Obama. It is between Clinton and Obama at the moment. Nothing is set in stone until the convention because super delegates can change their minds, as some clearly have. So Obama cannot ‘win’ anything until August.
That, btw, is why Clinton is staying in the race — to give people time to think over who will be the stronget candidate in November. What the Obama people — and much of the media and the DNC (which clearly supports BHO) — have tried to do is force Clinton out of the race and stampede the super delegates. So far, they have had some success, but Clinton has stayed in.
Why both to force her out? The answer to that is simple — Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico. Obama has limped down the final stretch, and taking Montana and South Dakota will not redeem his looses in major states over the past three months, nor will Oregon and North Carolina, whose demographics were tailor made for him. Clinton has won states that are more like the general map of the U.S., and that makes her the more viable candidate, especially against McCain, who is a moderate Republican, a war hero of sort (if a POW can be a hero rather than a victim), and a very savvy politician. It is all about experience and demographics, and Obama has neither — he merely has a clever rap and a ruthless campaign team who understood how to win the caucus states and a slender majority of pledged delegates (with a lot of help from the DNC).
More reasons not to vote for Obama. . . .again, my choice will probably be Nader, not McCain. It will just not be Obama, under any scenario imaginable — unless, of course, he manages to disqualify his opponents, as he did in Illinois. . .then my vote wouldn’t matter anyhow, would it?
Jim said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:27 pm
both=bother, sort=sorts
hate typos and usually catch them
apologies to all
time to go on to other things
best of luck to all, regardless of your candidate. . .
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:34 pm
I read the above posts and I do have more to add, about the neocon’s and Iraq, it’s true, have a son in Iraq and you learn because you have a vested interest. What exactly is the real reason that people want Obama to be president? It alludes me. Who really is backing him? After the last two terms of Bush/Cheney, I will never again take anything or anyone at face value. When Obama said about Pennsylvanians “clinging” to religion and guns, it made me feel devalued and looked down upon, and also if Obama was dismissive of core beliefs in order to gain the appeal of that group of people he was with at that time in order to court them, he did show at that point that in reality he has more than two faces, he is a fraud and he is no good. I do know when I feel on the defensive to straighten up and look at the person making me feel that way and see what they are trying to hide or draw attention away from. I am offended at that point rather than being defensive. I do not trust Barack Obama and I have been learning and watching and what I learn terrifies me. It isn’t enough to have change. I pray we all recognize that we need more than change. We could be going from the frying pan into the fire with Obama. We need a leader with knowledge and grit. Not a “player” or worse…
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Why do I like Obama?
His ability to work across the aisle to get things done (see the Washington Post link in #108 above).
His cool headedness.
His ability to lead.
His willingness to talk with people – all people.
He has plans that include everyone.
He actually answers questions in a reasoned way which I do not see as being your typical politician (which plays into the Change thing – something I think Washington sorely needs)
Those are high levels but things that are important to me.
As for the guns and god bit, that is EXACTLY what people did in 2000 and 2004. Abortion/Gay Rights (God) and the NRA people voted on those single issues. When there are no issues discussed, and the GOPers bring forth the Abortion, Gay Rights, and those scary liberals are going to take away your guns! issues, THAT is what voters voted on. That was what he was talking about in that whole “bittergate” deal.
And, again, I agree.
r€nato said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I don’t get the Hillary-steria over Obama, either. In fact, a far better case could be made for Obama voters not wanting to vote for baggage-toting, GOP-lite Hillary than vice-versa. How any Democrat – after 8 years of Bush – would want to pass up this once-in-a-lifetime golden opportunity to hit an electoral grand slam, just boggles my mind.
But, never mind. The race is over and Obama did well. We should all be heartened that he could beat an established candidate who seemingly had all the advantages. He should be able to beat McCain like a red-headed stepchild.
Walt said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Wow!
It looks like we’ve gotten into the part of the discussion that was the point of the question. It’s nice to see the wheat cut from the chaff for once on one of these sites. I for one am getting a lot out of it. Susan and Jim (I’d love to see list his “10 books I think everyone should read”. You’ve obviously been thinking about this a long time) both make very compelling arguments for why someone *shouldn’t* support Obama. To be honest I think the Obama supporters have done a relatively poor job of advancing solid reasons for why someone *should* vote for him. Interesting….
For my part, I’m conflicted. I don’t really think either candidate is terrific, and I share Jim’s disgust with the way our system chokes out any real innovation or even a little ‘revolution’ now and then. (I also agree that the founders intended it that way. Our world is far more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian, that’s for sure.) The democratic party is a little corrupt, a little incompetent, and more than a little craven. But, we don’t have a viable Green party or a even neo-fascist party. And we can neither sustain ourselves or build a future with just our indignation. If we want our voice to count or our ideas to matter, then we have to work with what we have.
While I respect Jim’s integrity, I don’t believe that voting for Nader or staying home accomplishes anything beyond providing him the satisfaction of thumbing his nose at a system he disdains. On the flip side, we can’t just be enablers to a weak party that believes we have no where else to go. That’s the crux of what this discussion is all about. Whether it’s HRC or BHO, we won’t have the candidate we might all have wanted. The party and the system aren’t capable of providing that person to us. However you can’t heal a burn until you stop standing in the fire. My decision today is to back whatever horse runs in opposition to the candidate of the extreme right. I’m not proud of it, but *maybe* with a new congress and administration we can try to tackle the REAL problems with our society (e.g. health care, the declining middle class, crumbling infrastructure) and our government (e.g. public campaign financing, accountability). I’m not pretending that this is easy or that it will even happen in my lifetime. I certainly don’t think Obama or Clinton will be the answer, but either might be *part* of it if we push them. I’m sure both will provide their share of disappointment. However, I’m a lifelong cub fan, so if there’s one thing I know how to deal with, it’s disappointment!
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The bittergate thing, I am a very logical and analytical person. I resent anyone who would quantify me in such small terms. It was as if someone who had never been a fish tried to explain what it was to feel like a fish. Obama showed his lack of understanding about faith, yet on the other hand he states he is a faith filled person. He showed his lack of understanding about what makes most people “tick” and also lack of understanding about the history of Pennsylvania. He was simply reciting sociology lessons. He judged, the one cardinal sin. From that statement he started a war. Now every person who does not agree with his ideas is called “uneducated” and “poor” (poor is not a sin, choosing to be ignorant is) He closed the door on understanding with that statement. My values, what I believe is dismissed, I am judged and found wanting. I am a genealogy buff, through that I have learned I actually like history. Through my learning I have found I am the proud descendant of palatines, but that doesn’t show what I am or what I believe. I am responsible for my own destiny. I don’t have to defend my beliefs, I don’t have to say I am not a racist because I don’t “believe” in Obama. Obama has to show me why I should trust him and based on the evidence I cannot.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
BTW, it isn’t about Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian, it is not about Democrat or Republican, and that’s why I am open to any person who can show me they have some reality based plans for ending the horrors this country is seeing. It CAN be done. If you can mess up a country that badly in two terms, it can be fixed, perhaps in one, if the people involved are intent on fixing it. I did say reality based plans, and the motives must be for the country and not for self. While I’m wishing here, I do want a real election in my lifetime, and I haven’t seen that for a long time and I am not seeing it at all now. Can we fix that while we are at it?
Votes, electoral process, superdelegates. Let’s face it, it’s rather disheartening at this point.
I hate to give up on our country and say the heck with it, my vote doesn’t count anyway. I wonder did every generation feel this way, or is it just now, is our country in such poor shape that we cannot see our way out of the government jungle? While I am at the wishing well, can we inject some intelligence into this? Lives are at stake.
Terri said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Why do I support Senator Clinton? It isn’t emotional and I’m not ignorant (I have a PhD and have been active in national and local politics).Experience, experience, experience — Obama is a FRESHMAN senator, barely out of the Illinois Statehouse. His sponsorship and votes on legislation has been lackluster – some might say he has avoided controversial votes. He has accepted contributions and financial assistance from people who were known to be corrupt. What few judgements he has made in his political career he has displayed little courage. His political team is made of people who are known to be masters of racial politics – Axelrod among them. His campaign has given millions of dollars to the campaigns of superdelegates to influence their votes. This is not a racial thing – this is a logical decision. I will not be supporting him in the presidential election because I do not want him to be president.
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Thanks Ms J. for calling out blatant BS when it is recited.
Bittergate- Please let me explain this real simply.
Ohio voters over the past couple of elections have chosen “God & Guns” Ideology over “Jobs & Food” Reality. I think I summing it up well in my “Republican’s Strategy to the Whitehouse” and if I didn’t then I have posted it in a million comments so far elsewhere.
Think about those two categories, then think of what is happening in Ohio and other rustbelt states that are turning increasingly red. They are voting based on ideologies, not what puts food on the table.
And for any that have not seen my Obam Rally pictures, please tell me where where the 70,000 minorities were hiding in the crowd. Then when you don’t see them, and all you see is white faces of every nationality, age group and gender, don’t come back and tell me “its Oregon, they are just tree hugging lefties” as you apparently know nothing about the divide in the state between Red & Blue, and Hillary had just as many chances to draw out crowds like what Obama did, but never did, because she couldn’t.
and no excuses on it was a photo-op because I as well as 60-70,000 other people waited in lines, etc for over 7 hours to see Obama. We may have mail in ballots here, so we don’t have to wait in lines for elections, but we all dedicated a day to go see Obama. What can Hillary answer to that.
frankly, i have to go, so I didn’t read through everything. but this experience thing does not hold water. and as I pointed out and MsJ backed me on, Bill is not running for President and Hillary was not President in 1992-2000.
Michael said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm
{Message deleted. Personal attacks will NOT BE TOLERATED.}
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:00 pm
This argument, how many people and what races in what picture doesn’t matter to me because I think for myself. I am not a sheep. It doesn’t matter about “God & Guns” Ideology over “Jobs & Food” Reality. That isn’t REAL LIFE, That is just simply put, BS. It is so much fanatically based bull. I could say, “but I was at a Clinton rally and there where black men there and young people and college educated people”… Give me facts, give me reality and don’t make it stupid. I read the facts, I listen and I read, a lot. I do all of the above with an open mind.
I wish everyone did that and then there would be a President Hillary Clinton.
By the way, if anyone cares, a little thing that may or may not matter. To me it’s just trivia, Clinton is an INTJ. Myers-Briggs. I think she bothers some people because she is logical. It confuses ignorant people.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Never vote for a Republican? Just because? Why exactly? Vote for a Democrat because they are a Democrat?
Isn’t that a little, I don’t know, kind of like being a racist but instead of being racist, is there a word for that?
Someone help me come up with a word for that other than closed minded.
And yes I am a life long Democrat. I’m just weighing the candidates pro and con.
I am still trying to figure out whether to vote for McCain or not vote at all if Clinton isn’t on the ballot. I am questioning and with an open mind.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Susan, sorry…I will NEVER, EVER vote for a neo-con, war mongering, far right wing, no compassion, woman hating Republican…which is what McCain is.
Read my post about Bush and War Crimes…then look at the people in there and see how many of them are doing work for McCain.
He is not a moderate by any means. He is no longer the McCain who ran in 2000. He is living off that reputation and getting a pass from the media…repeatedly. Jeez, he called his wife a c*nt in public, for god’s sake! He’s vying for the religious right vote. He vows to put in justices like Roberts and Alito. He’s wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade. I could go on and on and on and on.
This was said TODAY by McCain’s new deputy communications director, Michael Goldfarb (another PNACer – see article):
Really? That’s what the framers had in mind? This is a guy McCain PICKED
I can’t say I will never vote for a GOPer, but right now, I would most certainly not vote for one.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I thought about integrity with McCain, I did not know about the C word. I know his background and I know I don’t like his character, you are correct in all you say. I am trying to separate the public man from the private man and see if there is any feasible way I could vote for him rather than not vote at all. As far as the public man, I did hear recently what he said about gas prices, current and future and it made sense, at least it was to the point. (being artificially inflated due to speculation) I’m desperate, make Hillary Clinton president so I don’t have to think about this any more…
I guess I am going to be sitting at home not voting on election day and feeling very angry.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:41 pm
and I want our freedoms restored, all of it, our privacy, everything. I think this election has made me even more afraid of what freedoms we have lost. I want the super delegate system abolished.
I don’t want a dictator or a puppet king.
Ivyleaves said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I guess I qualify as a supporter of Hillary, as I voted for her my state’s primary. That said, I kinda resent the assumption that I can say what is “so off-putting about Obama” because of that.
I understand why you want to know that, as I am totally puzzled by anybody who could possibly support McCain over Obama on the basis of anti-feminist sentiments! I am astounded by the concept. I feel that anyone who values either women or minorities could NEVER support John McCain for president over either Clinton or Obama on any basis other than covert or self-deceptive bias that has no place in society.
All of that said, I, too, was impressed by Obama at the 2004 convention. I made my sister watch his speech and said “someday he will be president.” His lackluster performance in the Senate on many progressive issues left a sour taste in my mouth. Clinton’s performance, being similar, felt the same to me. In many ways, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between them, and I voted for Clinton mainly in order to make my statement against the incredible misogyny rampant and rarely recognized from so many quarters: So-called progressive blogs (long bastions of hetero male privilege), the news media, campaigners – all of it.
At any rate, even though neither one of them are my candidate, and even if a good third party candidate existed, I would have to vote the Democratic candidate because my presidential vote always is really a vote for the Supreme Court – the bottom line for all marginalized groups. And, these Bush years have underscored the importance of that strategy, and can explain much of my disappointment with Obama.
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Fantastic post, MizzJ!
After reading all of the comments, I’m blown away by those alleged Democrats who say they will vote for McCain over Obama. Wow.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 7:59 pm
You convinced me with the PNAC’er statement by the way. Do you have any idea what it’s like to be the only person you know in your immediate environment that actually understands anything about what the last 8 years have been all about and educate people, WHILE your oldest son is in Iraq? Thank God he’s home now, and BTW he believes that Iraq is about religion, and he just took down a picture of a white Jesus from his place he just rented because he believes the war wouldn’t have happened if people weren’t so egocentric in their belief system. I would not have been able to raise children that are so diverse and thought for themselves like my sons do if I was what the Obama supporters judge me to be. However I do not take credit for who my sons are, I simply take credit for knowing from the time they were born that they didn’t “belong” to me.
Something on my mind, do you think this country is going to revolt?
I think that is what this will come to.
Hopefully people will take their heads out of the sand and see what is really happening here, and yes I believe Obama is a large part of something just… not right. I’m not sure what is going on exactly but I am keeping my eyes and ears open.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:10 pm
This is OT, but since you asked….
Susan, revolution has been big on my mind. Some fears:
– Bush will allow something to happen (or with as many PNACers in this admin, cause something to happen) so he can instill martial law
– The various known executive orders and directives (especially House Directive 51) pretty much nullify the Legislative and Judicial branches, placing power solely with the Executive branch (the president and his Coordinator of Homeland Security) (this is the link to HD 51 – from whitehouse.gov: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html )
– Dissenters of his fascist, dictatorial desires will go crazy
– Americans will be arrested, jailed and with habeas corpus all but forgotten, basically disappeared
– Americans either revolt or look to the next shiny object (American Idol, 24, Brittany’s crotch, what have you)
Not that I mean to derail this thread (because I still want to hear from other Hillary supporters!!), but we all need to be aware of what McCain offers…and all the things that Bush put in place does not need to be trusted to the next president – whomever that might be!!
To his credit, Obama has said he will review and revoke all executive orders which are unconstitutional (and there are many…I am currently reading tons of EO’s). I don’t want ANYONE to have that much power, Dem, GOPer, Indy, no one! I haven’t seen anyone else say that. And that frightens me. Seriously frightens me.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:11 pm
and so their is no confusion, I am a middle class, middle aged white woman who is a Christian who has an open mind. I have been gifted with intelligence. Race doesn’t matter other than that’s my genetics, my forefathers and mothers were wonderful people, middle class matters because I see where the middle class is being forced out. Christian matters personally to me but I believe in freedom of religion and freedom to choose personal issues. I believe that God gave me a brain to use. My children are everything and I want better for them.
Knowledge is power, trite but true. I am afraid for my country, and I really believe what I was taught in school that we are the most innovative country in the world but I see the cloud over it all and I wonder what it will lead to, will it lead to revolution or will it lead to passive acceptance of our freedoms being taken away. If we keep getting sidelined and don’t get to the core of the problems then what happens? What happened to my vote?
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Susan, you sound like me. Separated at birth? My Sistah!! 😀
And thank you, Madam Z!
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:21 pm
My oldest son, he is afraid of the issue before the supreme court about the gun issue. The Supreme Court is considering the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to citizens who are not members of the National Guard. He says he has to resign from the Guard if this happens, he took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. They are tearing our constitution apart little by little.
When I spoke with my son while he was in Iraq, I was aware I was talking to him in another country which meant anything I said was monitored for words, basically words that did not agree with the PNAC’ers. He kind of teased me about my dislike for Bush/Cheney that my emails were probably being tagged to be read by our government. I love my country, I do not love our government and according to our constitution I have the right to say that, so far.
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Susan, this SCOTUS will never overturn gun rights. Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment only provides for a “well regulated militia” i.e. the National Guard, but gun rights aren’t going anywhere any time soon.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:27 pm
MsJoanne,
You have been officially adopted as a sister to me. We are all sisters anyway through our mitochondrial dna. Some have a closer connection and I do believe in genetic memory so who knows, maybe somewhere in Africa or Russia or Finland we sat together by a river and pondered deep issues.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Wow, Zooey…GREAT piece over at The Zoo.
Check it out all!
Don R. Davis said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:31 pm
I am an avid Hillary supporter because I believe in what she and Bill accomplished. I am also a supporter of Senator Obama and commented eight years ago the he would be our next President. I would prefer to see Hillary as the candidate but would vote for anybody, up to and including Charlie Manson, rather than another McBush Rethuglican.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Zooey read the transcripts of the supreme court discussion, it is a little frightening. I don’t even like guns, but it’s a matter that counts. I like our constitution as is. I don’t believe in an evolving constitution except for perhaps an end to the electoral college, if that stays I still want an end to super delegates. I think we are at the place in history that we can mostly all read and write and I can make an informed decision about who I want to vote for without a privileged view making the decision for me.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Now that there’s funny, and I don’t care who you are! 😀
Thanks, Don!
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Susan,
I agree with you 100% on the electoral college. We’ve outgrown it. Superdelegates gripe my ass, as well.
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Don R. Davis — is that you Clyde?
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Aw shucks, MizzJ. Thanks for the link. 😳
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Credit where’s credit’s due, Z!
MARY said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm
The page is titled “An Honest Question to Clinton Supporters”…BUT, after reading a majority of the posts it is obvious that, like everywhere else, the BO supporters can’t stop from insinuating themselves and their candidate into everything. The question is not, why YOU support BO and hate Hillary. I support her because she has formulated distinct policies. Her answers are clear and concise and she knows her material and it is obvious she has done her homework…she is prepared ALL the time. She can think on her feet …no matter what the issue, she is on top of it. Which was apparent during all the “debates.” (Really they were Q&A’s.) She has worked for the people since she was in college by spending vacation time registering people to vote. She has worked tirelessly as an attorney and advocate for childrens causes for decades. Her work for universal healthcare was ahead of its time and unfortunately a republican congress was not about to accept anything from the wife of a dem president that hated. She supports the military and service people and their families by being on the Armed Services Committee. That is just the short list why I support Hillary Clinton. But mostly, I trust her to sit across the table from the guys that want to destroy our country knowing that she would not blink…she’s tough as steel and that’s what I want in my president.
vox clamantis in red state said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I still think Hilary can win and Obama can’t. not because I am racist, but I am hearing rejection of him based on his race… from many of my friends and neighbors.
I have been reading his book on hope, trying to get a grip on his wonderfulness, but must confess, feel entangled wading my way through.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Mary, thank you for your thoughts!
Vox, may I ask which red state?
MARY said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Sorry….Should have been “dem president that THEY hated.”
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Sorry, MARY. I prefer Obama, so I guess I have no business here. BTW, supporting Obama does not mean I “hate” Hillary.
Susan Powers said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:49 pm
My dog is under my feet and my cat is staring at me. My husband is in the living room so I should play nice for awhile. besides I am exhausted. I want to say good night and I sent myself this page in my email so I can come back.
Good night all.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I don’t hate Hillary either. I had an ENORMOUS amount of respect for her (the last couple of months of this campaign, I have to admit, were a big time turn off). I wanted her as president. I wanted a woman for president. I thought she could do the job. Lately, though, I just don’t find myself comfortable with her stances and approaches. I want collaboration not dictation, and that’s what I feel I have been seeing, of late.
She picked some crappy people for her campaign. And she didn’t waiver from some very disturbing stumping. That, too, was, for me, too reminiscent of Bush’s Decider Guy who never changes course. Honestly, it scared me and right now there is too much to already be scared of.
I don’t hate Hils. I don’t hate any of her supporters. We’re all emotional and feel that alot is at stake; it is. I also don’t think that she should be judged by some of the whack jobs who support her (did you see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s )? Honestly, this is downright embarrassing for that woman, Clinton, and women!
Are all supporters like that? Good lord, NO!
Nor are all BHO’s supporters perfect or crazy.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Night, Susan! “See” ya soon!
MARY said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Zooey – To each their own…I only know what the context of the page was to be about. Good evening to all.
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Wow, I hadn’t seen that video, MizzJ. That really is an embarrassment.
MsJoanne said,
June 2, 2008 at 8:59 pm
BTW, to all the Obama supporters, I strongly suggest that you read this post. It will be good for not just your soul, but for our country.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/american-dialects.php
Hans said,
June 2, 2008 at 9:03 pm
apparently SP you did not think about what I was saying before attacking me for saying it. part of it may be that I wrote it quickly as I’ve done it more detailed a thousand time before. It was not an attack on religion, which I believe you took it to be, it was an attack on people not thinking about the things that actually matter to them on a small scale (Food, work, putting kids through college, paying the car payment, paying the bills, how do I pay the medical insurance, etc) and how their decisions when it comes to voting ideology (God & Guns Candidates) do not coincide with what they are feeling at home (Jobs & Food) Reality.
Ohio, with it’s increasing redness and Faux Patriotism is reflective of this God & Guns Ideology winning out over Jobs & Food Reality in the voting booths (not to mention vote switching). Has George Bush done anything to increase the numbers of Jobs in Ohio after they game him the win 2x now? No, but he did make them feel better when he fudged the numbers of
new “working class” manufacturing jobs he brought to the country and instead of investigating whether it was true or not, they once again voted for “God & Guns” Ideology in 2004.
Not trying to put a jab in there, but what about the 200,000 jobs Hillary promised to NYers for voting her into office? As far as I know, nothing major has come to NY and I’m originally from upstate Buffalo, and that is where she was making the promises to, not NYC, yet the only thing that has come there was a new GIEGO customer support center and if you want to analyze that, it had nothing to do with HRC, but more to do with Buffet, et.al., realizing labor was cheaper in Western NY than it was in India.
I really don’t know what a second term senator has brought to the table in NY? From what my parents say, not much, people are still leaving. And the only vote or position I know of that she stood out on was the authorization to go to war. So “experience” regardless of whether it is good or bad, here being bad, is better than “no experience”? Slight disconnect in logic if you ask me.
I’m all for you believing in whichever religion you care to, just keep it out of my government, so that the government does not (through religious influence) come into your church.
As far as revolution, I see a complete dollar crash in the works myself, which would tie nicely into neo-con PNAC thinking, and the revolution won’t matter much as we’ll be post monetary collapse Mad-Max style. But that is just my take on it, even though oil prices continue to increase, dollar values continue to plummet, National Debt skyrockets and the current housing mortgage crisis points towards it too.
As to mention above about Obama being in the top 0.5% of wealth in America, so what he wrote a book that was very popular and that is where many the money came from. That dude that faked “Tiny Little Pieces” probably has just as much money from writing a book, does that make him elite and out of touch with reality? (maybe bad example 😉 Just being the writer of a very popular book does not make one “silver spoon in my mouth” aristocracy, that is the same as saying nelson mandella is elite because the people raised him to power because of how he makes them feel. Getting ~$50 million over several years just to speak because you were the former President is a different boat obviously.
Don R. Davis said,
June 2, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Zooey,
I’ll never tell but if you still love me we may reach a Hillary Presidency yet!
Alive and well and crustier than ever. Peace, My Child!
Don R. Davis said,
June 2, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Constiution and Guns: You can bear (carry, own, or give birth to) them but there is NOTHING in the Constitution that allows you to shoot the damn things.
Zooey said,
June 2, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I’ll always love you, Don. 🙂
Don R. Davis said,
June 2, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Zooey,
See you at the Zoo soon.
Pete Illy said,
June 2, 2008 at 10:40 pm
In response to your inquiry, I would agree that their Obama and Clinton’s positions are somewhat similar in scope, but not in procedure. With regard to foreign policy, I believe that Hillary Clinton is more pragmatic and realpolitik, whereas Obama’s is naive. For example, his often cited Kennedy quote that “we should not negotiate in fear, nor fear to negotiate” sounds nice and fuzzy, however, as JFK found out, this spells disaster in American Foreign Policy. Offering incentives and direct negotiations without a quid pro quo from unfriendly nations is disasterous. Obama takes Bush missteps a bit to far. He wishes to appease unfriendly nations, when instead we should only appease our allies.
Secondly, I take issue with your point that Obama has not used the race card. Directly after the Nevada primary, his surrogates circulated kits to media calling attention to racially insensitive remarks by Bill Clinton and Hillary. Can one honetly state that by claiming Obama’s position on Iraq as a fairy tale as racist? No, nor can one stated that HRC’s remark regarding MLK and LBJ as racist as well. Also, while Obama gave his speech on transcending race in America, his campaign manager, David Axelrod, directly accused Clinton’s campaign as specifically using race in this election.
I am not too thrilled with Obama’s details, he is more style than substance. Also, is McCain really that bad? He has bucked his party regarding issues such as Global Warming and seems poised to continue to do so. Plus, his maverick persona, gives him freedom of independence from the conservative wing of the GOP. Lastly, and I know that most of you disagree with this, McCain’s position on Iraq is more rational. Is the issue that the Iraq War really controversal because it was a mistake, or was it mismanaged by Bush. By reading Woodward’s book and the Bush administration, as well as listening to several of Bush’s inner circle aides, the Iraq War was completely mishandled. I am not comfortable with a unilateral withdrawal in Iraq, nor do I see how this enhances America’s interests. These arguments were made during the 1960s, however, Nixon and Kissenger demonstrated that we can leave Vietnam, without having to sacrafice American honor, thereby maintaining confidence in our allies, who rely upon a strong American committment.
Clinton is more pragmatic and realistic; Obama is too idealistic. His notions of history to support his lofty claims can be nothing more than cherry-picking and revisionism. Not to mention his handling of the Wright controversy, has been weak and does not provide the kind of leadership that he espouses in his speeches.
On a more personal note, my anger is really with Obama per se, but rather with the media and the democratic party. Since March 4th, Hillary exceeded every demand that party insiders and the media placed on her, however, super delegates provided no support. Obama stumbles? Superdelegates support him. This along with the fact she runs stronger in the key battleground states than Obama, despite Obama’s surging popularity. I think that the problem here is that Hillary can’t get nominated and Obama can’t get elected.
fred said,
June 2, 2008 at 11:47 pm
No Nee-groes
{Note: While I want to [delete] this, I feel that people should see what kind of people we still have in our country. Also I don’t believe in censoring speech – so it remains, offensive as it is. Too bad I can’t [delete] the author. MsJoanne}
David said,
June 3, 2008 at 12:26 am
Any female Clinton supporter who claims they’ll vote for McCain if Hillary doesn’t get the nod, is either a fool, a racist or had no intentions of voting Democrat in the first place. This is the man who called his wife a c__t in front of reporters and his peers, the man who will in all likelihood appoint yet another Supreme Court justice to the bench who will set the stage to take away womens’ right to choose. It’s sad you can’t see yourselves being manipulated by people like the guy that runs hillaryis44.org. Go ahead and vote for McCain – I believe there are enough Hillary supporters with common sense to know what to do come general election day. The rest of you can vote for the one who will take advantage of you, just like so many did for Bush – twice. Much of the nation has learned it’s lesson and won’t let four more years of Bush happen just because Hillary didn’t get her way. To sum up – this election will be a referendum on what we’ve learned since 2000. Do what you feel you have to do – send your message in the booth come election day. I have a feeling this time, common sense will prevail.
Loan holder said,
June 3, 2008 at 2:02 am
Very nice blog! Keep up with the good work.
BarbraAnn said,
June 3, 2008 at 6:56 am
I saw an interview with Harriet Christian, the angry woman from NY at the DNC meeting Saturday and she was very calm, rational & intelligent. She made numerous valid points and said that she had worked for civil rights in the past and is no racist. The MSM and Obama supporters obvious disrespect for women in general is what has fueled this type of rage among a large number of women voters. . It’s no longer about Hillary – it has become extremely personal and the results will be evident come November.
One vivid example, among many, that infuriate women happened at a speech at Tulane University where Obama commented on the attacks coming his way from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY: “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the CLAWS come out,” CLAWS? Really? Also when later asked about Clinton’s latest attack ad, “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”
Even some in the MSM questioned his language. According to this unofficial transcript, over at MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell and Norah O’Donnell seemed to suggest Obama may have been — if not playing the gender card, then using language women voters might find offensive. Language such as “when she’s feeling down” “periodically” she “launches attacks.”
Nora O’Donnell: “He said, ‘I understand when she’s down, that she makes these kinds of attacks.’ It’s getting a little personal.”
Andrea Mitchell: “It’s getting a little personal and, very frankly, you know how deeply we interpreted every comment to look for some sort of racial motivation before South Carolina. A lot of people said it was there. But, you know, when you start describing a female candidate as being ‘down’ and ‘striking back,’ I don’t know, that’s a little edgy, don’t you think?”
Nora O’Donnell: “Yeah. And I think there’s gonna be a lot more comments about that.”*
Pro-Clinton blogger Taylor Marsh writes that words like this, in her view, indicate “a way of thinking about women. A way of demeaning women in power; even saying we’re not up to the job. Seriously, Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman running for president. Not some emotional menopausal diva popping pills because she’s depressed she broke a nail.”
Add the over-the-top nastiness of many of Obama’s supporters and a DNC that seems oblivious to the concerns out there (I have written them many letters with no reply) and you have created a lethal stew of intense anger and discontent.
Hans said,
June 3, 2008 at 10:18 am
@ BarbraAnn
No offense the point may be valid, but it has been clearly shown the MSM has a profit motive to prolonging this Primary as it makes them more money through more all day election coverage through move advertisers. And that is exactly what they did.
Neither Nora or Andrea’s comments are fact based, which is what Journalism is supposed to be, but rather their own (of MSNBC’s producer’s) opinions. Opinions are not fact, and opinions should be left for the views to arrive at, not the media to influence the viewers.
On the content of what Obama said and the “gender-ability” of it, is it only Women that can get down and lash out? Male here, suffering depression, and I “lash out all the time to make myself look better”. I did it for no real reason last night, when my wife asked me something I knew she already knew the answer to. Tell me there is not a man that does not do this out there and I will show you a corpse.
Issue being, the MSM, which should honestly be called the MSG, “Main Stream Gossip” is inserting opinion into the “news” and instead of calling it “editorial” like it really is, call it “News & Journalism”
The Wright issue was Gossip Rag worthy, just as the reaction to the Bosnia story, had Hillary not made it a demonstration of her “readiness.”
“Add the over-the-top nastiness”? you might just want to look at the hillaryclinton.com blog and see how peppered within the the positive remarks & the pro-hillary spin, there are nasty remarks there towards Obama. the only issue I have as I can take rude comments or flat out lies & innuendo, but it is moderated over there, so that no anti-hilllary or anything countering in a courtesious manner the spin or lies is allowed. it is one thing to moderate and take out all “nastiness & rude comments” it is another to leave only those that speak poorly of your opponent while censoring out anything not 100% in your favor.
Amst said,
June 3, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Neither democratic candidate has proposed Universal healthcare! NEITHER!!! Hillary has put forth a plan that “mandates” every American have health insurance (INSURANCE – universal healthcare bypasses the insurance companies and offers medical services directly to the sick). Obama has no mandate and offers insurance (INSURANCE – again not universal healthcare) but will not mandate (avoiding garnishing wages, withholding tax returns etc). Universal healthcare is a Strawman at best and possibly deception especially considering that these minute differences in health insurance would never be handled by an executive and rather bartered back and forth in legislative committee.
So if after reading the remaining candidate’s websites you think the one with the Universal health care “mandate” has the best shot of getting elected in November I hate to tell you but I don’t think Dennis Kucinich has got enough delegates to pull this off! (Although I have not paid enough attention to Gravel’s health plan to tell you if he supports Universal health care – I can tell you no active campaign purports to enact anything even approaching Universal healthcare).
Jim you disappoint. You have intelligent cogent points and yet maintain this FU attitude toward the real world. To know that Ralph Nader has Iraq war blood on his hands and then to not regret your vote or even alter your reckoning to avoid that same future I say to you – end your delusions. You are not now a progressive, liberal or even a centrist democrat. Maybe a Trekkie or Sci Fi Buff but definitely not a responsible adult who can anticipate the consequences of ones actions. When you say you won’t let your civic standards slip below perfection lest it leak into the rest of your life I say guess what – you perform less than perfect actions with every movement: (i.e. Nader actively purchasing stock in Ford Motor Company while suing General Motors – definitely not illegal and still somehow unsavory). So let me recommend you crimp that tinfoil cap a little tighter to your head and get back to the physical reality that we all face today. Democrat or Republican – Nader (or his lazy cousin abstention) will definitely get us into trouble but damn sure won’t get us out!
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Amst, thank you for that very well reasoned comment.
Bravo!
I doubt we’ll have “universal” healthcare (also called socialized medicine – which I have no problem saying) in my lifetime, which is a shame. Too many people will die because they are not rich, unemployed, unable to qualify for insurance, etc. GET THE PRIVATE – FOR PROFIT – OUT OF THE INSURANCE BUSINESS! We don’t need for profit. We need DOCTORS and hospitals, etc., ad naseum.
Amst said,
June 3, 2008 at 4:59 pm
TY MJ
I simply will not abide self labeled Democrats who pitch hissy fits and claim they’ll vote for McCain over Obama and/or Hillary. Call them Independent, Yellow Dog, Reagan Democrats, Clintonistas, Obamatrons or whatever other nomenclature you can dream up but do not besmirch the good name of Democrats everywhere who fight not just to prevent the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the erosion of the church state divide but also scream into the abyss about the snuffing out of habeas corpus, Presidential signing statements, Katrina, Valerie Plame, Walter Reed and on and on.
Get over this juvenile he did she did – if you can’t admit that THEY DID to each other you have the same level of fairness and balance as Fox News. If you think what the Democratic opponent did seems underhanded and excessive – just wait ‘til you find yourself on the business end of the Rovian General Election run by the GOP. It will make prison sex seem romantic.
It don’t get no more real than this right here! Republican: War for the poor and permanent tax breaks for the rich.
Democrat: Probably too much political infighting and self serving machinations with at least a common goal of lifting the bottom by pulling it up from the top.
So just to finish the rant – if you decide to vote for the Republican because your first choice Democratic candidate did not win you must admit to yourself (if no one else) you have thrown in with those who approved (tacitly at least) the commutation of a traitor’s sentence, privatization (socialization in fact) of the debt of Bears Stearns, let the victims of Katrina devolve into anarchy, dragged America to the same level as the Khmer Rouge and with the secrecy raised to unrecognizable limits who knows what else. If you can look yourself in the mirror and say I will vote Republican because I wanted the other Democrat I say Get Off My Side!
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Dude(tte?)…I am COMPLETELY on your side.
Not to sound dramatic but right now it’s dem or die (and when I say ‘die’ I mean US…all of us! Bomb Iran, food ‘insecurity,’ affording not just food but shelter, heat, meds, and gas.)
There is so much more on the line than Hillary or Obama.
Amst said,
June 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm
My bad here – I meant to point this at the gnats that claim life long Democratic credentials but now must vote for a Repub because their first choice Democrat did not get the nom.
Democrats vote for Democratic candidates. A reality by definition. If one takes a look around because their first choice Democrat didn’t make the cut then one could rightly consider themselves politically active but this in no way qualifies them a Democrat. You either adhere to the basic planks of the Democratic Party or you are a swisher or one of the other more or less derogatory labels thrown around here and essentially everywhere else.
If a candidate adheres to the basic framework of the Democratic Party (which both HRC and BHO do) and a person can’t abide one because they preferred the other I will call them on the fact that this makes them a Democrat of convenience at best and – well a hypocrite at worse I guess. To me a person believes in workers rights, women’s right to make their own medical decisions, progressive taxation and the other foundational planks of the Democratic Party and will back that up with their vote every time or are something other than a Democrat. I understand there is no crime in this flexible position I just resent these posters who disrespect my intelligence by boasting about Democratic street cred only to take their ball and go home when they don’t get their way. I will call BS when I see it and expect the same treatment in return.
Again I don’t mean you (MsJo) when I say you– I mean the theoretical you. Believe it or not English is my first language.
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Amst, I don’t take anything personally, by anyone. I initiated this conversation to open a dialog to try to understand a mindset…which, again, is how a Dem could take McCain over Obama.
While I may not agree with what everyone has said, I value every single person’s opinion.
But, like you, I feel there is so much at stake, many of what you said:
– the rights of workers
– women’s right to make their own medical decisions
– progressive and fair taxation
– respect for science
– re energizing R&D for ALL OUR FUTURES
– the future of Medicare and SSI
– ANY healthcare improvements (which, I know, will move glacially)
– the war
– the care of the troops who have been hurt for the remainder of their lives
– rebuilding the military if we ARE attacked
– appreciation for brains in government
– COMPASSION!
Man, the list could go on and on. And each of the above McCAIN DOES NOT GIVE ONE SHIT ABOUT!! He has publicly said so. Repeatedly.
We live one life…and we need to be able to exist in that life.
Republicans do not care about US. Well, unless you are one of the US that makes at least six figures.
Terri said,
June 3, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I feel because this entire process was so media driven that HRC didn’t stand a fair chance! We went through her being castigated for everything and anything. Yet, Obama and his relationship with William Ayers, HAMAS, and Rev. Wright, and Louis Farrahkan was just shoved under the rug. HOW dare we question someone of color? WELL, if we DO we become racist! I am just appalled at the obvious way in which rules were violated, Obama said in his own words that STATES won by the particular nominee should also receive the endorsements from that State! Clearly, this did not happen in the case of Mass, and N.M, both HRC won and she should have received the endorsement of Bill Richardson and Ted Kennedy! I think too many bought into the “idea” of a “Clinton/Bush” Dynasty. Also, Obama’s primary camp was created by those NEVER before involved in politics, this became literally like a vote for your favorite on American Idol! Never before in history has the Presidential election year been as important as this one. And if Obama continues to deceive it will be with disasterous consequences! I knew HRC was the ONLY hope, now I am looking to McCain for guidance from this mess, he is very different from GW Bush so atleast we will stand a half chance with him, with Obama we all will begin to believe there are 57 States, and that Kentucky is closer to Arkansas than it is! This guy is not too bright! But it takes someone smarter than a FIFTH GRADER to see that! FUNNY, none of his supporters can name ANY accomplishments of his! WHY? Because there is NONE!
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I really didn’t want to do this here, but links above seem to be lost in the many comments above:
What does Obama offer?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
Obama: Judge him by his laws (by Charles Peters, Washington Post)
And this:
Susan Powers said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I just listened to Clinton’s speech, she answered the question that Obama supporters harangue her with, she is in this because she is a public servant and wants to serve. I feel better, and she did say she was going to help the Democratic party overall. Now we will hear people turn what she said all around and hurt the party.
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Hey, Susan! Welcome back!
I just posted this on another blog.
And like you and many others have said…we need a DEM in office in 2009! Whomever, wherever…it has to be a dem for all of us!
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:12 pm
I hope everyone is watching Obama’s speech (at the MN convention center where the GOP will be holding their national convention. As a friend of mine said…he is figuratively marking it in anticipation for the GOP.) 😀
Zooey said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Fantastic speech by Obama! Woo hoo!!
Nice new template, MizzJ. Willyloman used to use this one when he first started. 🙂
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I like the other one…but it blew up. 😦 I emailed you about it, Z. I like the old one. (sniff)
Zooey said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I’m sorry, MizzJ. It was really exotic looking.
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Me too. (sigh)
Zooey said,
June 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm
This was an excellent idea for a thread, MizzJ. Well done.
MsJoanne said,
June 3, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Thanks, Madam Z. I enjoyed reading everyone’s posts, too.
Monroe D. said,
June 4, 2008 at 3:32 am
Hillary Clinton has been called a “Champion For Women”. I see her as that. Imagine what the Middle East
would have thought, seeing one of the most powerful countries in the world being run by a woman of all things.
Well,despite her qualifications, despite it being “her turn”, Mrs. Clinton got the boot. Her impressive resume
was referred to as “entitlement”. I will be scratching my head for the rest of my life trying to figure that
one out. Or at least the rest of the week! Yes, I am a big fan of the Mrs. But I also like Obama a close second.
Well, MsJoanne, I’m proud of you for standing behind (Obama). Stopping Mrs. Clinton from going to the White
House was no easy task. It took hard work on every ones part. Nothing wrong with fighting for what you truly
belive in! Now, as a Dem, of course I shall vote for Obama. I’m putting blind trust in the rest of my party
on this one.
I hope Clinton gets the VP slot. In my mind, that “Dream Ticket” would GUARANTEE we go to the White House.
No room for even a percentage of a doubt. And, call me crazy, but there is nothing wrong with a sure thing.
Can Obama get there without her? Probably! But “probably” is a bit of a gamble, and who wants to gamble with
our future?
And finally, a note to Michelle Obama. DON’T get into politics yourself. No future in it past a certain date.
All of those babies you are kissing will see you as “old school” in twenty years. The more you are in, the less
you will be wanted. Learn from Mrs. Clinton. Today’s “fresh meat” is tomorrow’s “tripe”.
– Monroe D.
Jim543902 said,
June 4, 2008 at 4:31 am
Actually, Hillary is the problem. She is a poster child for the patterns which have taken America down with her clueless buying into all the feminist claptrap over these years. If she’s on Obama’s ticket, THAT is what is going to drive people to vote for McCain.
Katerina Deligiannis said,
June 4, 2008 at 6:20 pm
It would not be a “dream ticket”, it would be a colossal NIGHTMARE!
She With Feet of Clay brought up “white, blue collared, UNEDUCATED hard working people”. In effect she is the oner saying they are not too bright. My father did not go to college BUT he was well read and could hold his own with any college educated person on politics/history/religion. There are many “educated fools” in the world.
There is not “I” on team. Her Royal Thighness is not a team player and never has been.
Bubba called House Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn today 4 June 2004 and was quite vulgar in his conversation with him. Mr. Clyburn, being a gentleman did not repeat what was said. Do you think She With Feet of Ckay is not aware of this? He is her pit bull and attacks on command. Then she has her campaign apologize for his words.
She has no ethics/morals/character/humility/grace. She has NEVER conceded ANY Primary Obama won. She does not take any responsibility for her own actions.
She is a “femnist” only when it suits her purpose. A femnist NEEDS no one to protect her from men. A femnist does not flirt to advance her position.
CUT THE DRAMA++Obama won.
The popular vote is almost equal when counting cacus votes.
MsJoanne said,
June 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Popular vote is a myth.
You can’t get popular vote when the main competitor isn’t on the ballot of one state and was barely visible in another.
It’s fuzzy math. And it’s beneath her.
I do not want HRC for POTUS or VPOTUS…but she would absolutely rock on the SCOTUS.
I don’t hate Hils, but I sure do dislike the tactics of the campaign.
Susan Powers said,
June 4, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Here’s what I think, once the haters realize they want a democrat more than they want a neocon everyone will calm down, BUT those that are scared by Obama’s inexperience and associates will feel better if Clinton is on the ticket and those that LOVE Obama to start with will not be back away if Clinton if on the ticket, therefore, Clinton should be on the ticket.
MsJoanne said,
June 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I can’t understand why Hilary would want POTUS. She could be a Supreme Court judge for life and have the ability to impact decisions which would be the rule of the land for decades to come.
She could do so much more good there than simply as Veep. Except for Cheney, a Veep is a figurehead…the President is not a Vice President.
I would love to see some seriously smart people on the SCOTUS – for we need that so badly. Alito and Roberts were the worst choices (unless Bush had gotten Miers through – thankfully, the GOPErs blocked that one and we all dodged the bullet), and if we don’t get some reasonable people on the SCOUTS, we are a nation which is supposedly ruled by laws, will no longer be…we will be a nation ruled by corporate law. Look at the last three years of decisions.
Scary stuff!
Hans said,
June 5, 2008 at 4:43 am
Ms J!
You had such great response in there, I wanted to stop by as ask these people of differing views, that for the most part can communicate without screaming 🙂 if they would like to join in my discussion of 10 Real Presidential Debates Needed All ideas are open and welcome, and just like this discussion separated people’s emotion from their rational thoughts & reality, I would love to see it in the debates coming up between McCain & Obama.
Come join in, all welcome!
thanks Ms. J! 🙂
Susan Powers said,
June 6, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I was just verbalizing to my husband my concerns. I have questioned why my views are what they are. Yes, I am a woman and it made me ill that mass media could be so disgustingly prejudiced against Hillary Clinton and for Obama but that just led to soul searching and looking at facts. I cannot vote for Obama, he does what is politically expedient for him to do at the time to further himself (the church, the people that surround him, what he says and then changes what he says, yes, words matter and so does motive and experience). Then there is the whole super delegate thing, is this any worse than what has happened in the past (election’s) where the president was picked for us? The big question is WHY is all this happening? There are people in power that create situations for a bigger reason and they do this under the assumption that the general US population will go for it (9-11 and the Project for the New American Century Iraq et al)I cannot in all good conscience vote for Obama and I cannot vote for McCain. I will not vote in this presidential election unless something happens large enough to make me change my mind, but in that scenario I would not be voting for Obama or McCain, there would have to be another choice.
MsJoanne said,
June 6, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Susan, I respect your decision. As I said before, you have to vote your conscience.
I read this today and thought I would post it, so I am not posting this to you, per se, but in general.
This is from The Carpetbagger Report:
This stunning post by Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report should give every woman who might consider voting for McCain great pause.
And this from one of the posters:
Great pause indeed.
Susan Powers said,
June 6, 2008 at 6:03 pm
As I said, I cannot in all good conscience vote for Obama or McCain.
MsJoanne said,
June 6, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Understood. 🙂
I wasn’t putting that there just for you. I saw it this morning and was going to put it up, but your post prompted me to do so.
It’s all YOUR fault! (snicker…just kidding!)
The post above is one of the reasons I would love to see HRC on the SCOTUS. It’s decisions like Ledbetter which is giant strides backwards in women’s rights. And we need all the help we can possibly get. O’Connor retiring was a huge blow. I seriously fear for the direction of the SCOTUS should McCain (or any Republican) have the chance to add any more justices.
It’s bad enough they are all corporations all the time. Women don’t need to have to take a back seat to the corporation first, then the man, then the children, then the dog, then, then, then….
Susan Powers said,
June 6, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Yes, she would be great on the supreme court. I would still like her to have the big prize. I would love to see how our country would go forward because of her leadership. I guess it really isn’t about who is best for the job, dang it. There goes my naiveté again.
Jason said,
June 11, 2008 at 11:58 am
(Comment Deleted)
If you want to repost your comment not in ALL CAPS, that’s fine. Don’t scream at me or my readers.
MsJoanne
Alix F said,
September 1, 2008 at 2:53 am
I wrote an answer to this question a few months ago:
http://withoutparty.typepad.com./without_party/2008/06/when-is-it-goin.html
Thanks for wanting honest dialogue. I appreciate it.
Alexis Nectar said,
September 9, 2008 at 11:17 am
I am equally perplexed by anyone who would support Clinton but then make the outrageous leap to voting for McCain in protest of Obama winning the nomination. As a Clinton supporter, I cannot fathom how one could make the leap from Clinton to McCain. Agree with all that Clinton would make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court. Further agree that, even if you’re not a huge Obama fan, think of who McCain will place on the Court. I firmly believe that the only reason Justice Ginsburg has chosen to remain on the Court (rather than retire) is to prevent the nomination of yet another Justice who follows the selective originalism of Scalia or the outright conservative legislation of Thomas.
And don’t even get me started on the GOP thinking that putting Palin on the ticket is the equivalent of getting Clinton in the White House. That is just utterly insulting.
Terri said,
October 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm
The easiest way to understand WHY Clinton supporters would vote McCain is this: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are at opposite ends of the spectrum on economy and healthcare (although Obama has stolen HRC’s IDEA of medical records being made electronic) he is always stealing others ideas and trying to make them his own. Hillary is NOT a MARXIST and OBAMA is! He will raise all taxes, and this can easily be googled by citizens for far taxation show actual charts, he is a liar and a thief, and not even a CITIZEN of the US, this is now in court and hopefully will be fully out before November, he preys on the weak and empty who are looking for the government to give some sort of value to their meaningless lives, he has a HISTORY of ANTI AMERICAN connections, including the mentor who PAID for him to attend HARVARD LAW SCHOOL, this man HATES all WHITES…IF Obama is elected I look for the economy to be in a depression, for people to be out of work, more homeless, higher murder rates, war with Pakistan and Afganistan, and socialist radical values in the schools and racially motivated hate crimes….YES, it will be CHANGE all right! CAN’T wait to see how the LIBERALS deal with it then!
MsJoanne said,
October 9, 2008 at 1:01 am
Terri, please tell me what a Marxist is. How do you define it? And is Obama a Marxist or a socialist? How do they differ in your mind?
How are Obama and Clinton on opposite ends of the spectrum? In which aspects are you referring to?
I think, perhaps, that you missed the fact that we are, and have been, at war with Afghanistan for more than five years now.
The only taxes Obama will raise is for those making greater than $250,000 which apparently you fall under and are angry about. If I made $250k I would happily pay more taxes. Alas, I do not make that much. But good for you that you do.
I look forward to your reply.