Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
It Is Personal
Many of Sen Clintons supporters claim that those who are saying that they will not vote for her should she be the nominee are spoilers who would be voting out of spite because their candidate did not win. That is just plain false. It is not about who lost. It is about HER.
Do not tell me dislike for her is about an Obama cult. I know too many people for whom he was the third choice but they will not vot for HER. People (including my mother who has voted for the democrat in every election since 1948) are saying that they will vote for the nominee unless it HER. It is not that they will not vote for a woman. It is that they will not vote for HER. It is not that they will not vote for someone who is on the wrong side of one issue. It is that they will not vote for HER. It is not about the five other candidates who began this season that they would have voted for. It is about HER.
I probably will hold my nose and vote for HER because I think that the SCOTUS is important and know that the next president will get to appoint two justices or more. But I will be voting for HER despite my intense dislike for HER, and I will not campaign for or donate to HER campaign.
I understand from the polls that people who feel this way are a minorty. Something like 3/4 of Democrats tell pollsters they would be happy with either candidate. That does not change the fact that to go along with the high floor her providers supporters give her she also has a low celing because even among lifelong democrats there are simply many who will not vote for her under any circumstances.
Comments (17)
Yeah, that's the way to dispel that "irrational, cultist, ranting, unhinged" notion! Well done.
February 19, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Irrational, ranting, and unhinged or not Hillary is despised. It is not about an Obama cult. It is about it is about the gut reaction so many have to her as a person and a candidate.
Much about the support of Obama is over the top. But that has nothing to do with her negatives. Her negatives predate his rise to national prominance.
February 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is my Senator, being that I'm a NYer. I will not vote for her under any condition. That has nothing at all to do with my support for Obama.
February 19, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was nothing irrational about this post whatsoever. There was nothing unhinged about it. There was no ranting. It was a simple expression of facts and opinions. The very next time I see someone spell out why they are a fervent HRC supporter without slamming Obama supporters as "kool-aid drinkers" (as though you won't need us in the Gen'l) or using the nonsensical notion that she's a better candidate because she's a lesser public speaker will be the first time.
In the case of Loki Redux, I would say "It takes one to know one," but that would seem to give you a level of expertise that is not matched by your activities in the comments section around these parts.
February 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it was unhinged. Of course it was an irrational rant. Emotions like that, emotions that high can only be described as irrational. But then... your "defense" of this post points to an irraionalism that wouldn't see the obviousness of it all.
February 19, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understand here, I'm not arguing with anyone's gut reaction. It is what it is, and I'm sure you could not be talked out of it if I tried.
Nevertheless, I'm genuinely curious: WHY do you feel that way? That kind of resentful attitude about Sen. Clinton seems perhaps understandable in a Conservative ideologue, but strange to me in what I assume to be Democratic Party supporters. What's the problem?
February 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not about partisan ship. It is about credibility and intelectual honesty. I think that she has compromised what she believs in for political calculation to the point where it is imposible to figure out what she actualy belives. The most agregeous example is how she voted for war in order to apear tough instead of taking the courageous position that the presidents case did not hold water. I do not believe that she was so ill informed that she did not know that the rational for war was all smoke and mirors. She just did not have the courage of her convictions.
It is about saying things that I do not believe that she believes because she thinks it will help her campaign. The most recent example is the plagerism bruhaha. She knows that Sen Obama did not plagerize his friend but will say that he did just because it is helpfull to her campeign to smear him even with a false smear.
It is about giving parsed non answers to questions even on small issues. Like when the candidates were asked what their greatst flaw was and she listed a virtue as a flaw. I have had enough of that sort of dishonest political speach to last me the rest of my life.
She also sets off my slimeball/used-car-salesman radar. The same way Craig, Romney, and Bush do. I would confirm it with another source if she told me that the sun will rise in the morning.
February 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They have the attention span of circus monkeys - that's the problem. They can't remember the last eight years.
February 19, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rember the last eight years all to clearly. I have seen a Republican president do more damage to the Republican cause than any Democrat ever could. I would like for my party to refrain from nominating some one who could do the same sort of damage to my party. She is Nixon in a pantsuit. Rember how well that worked out for the GOP.
February 19, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nixon in a pantsuit". "Cold, manipulative, calculating personality" - it wasn't so long ago that assholes were saying the same exact remarks about Gore. That worked out to our benefit, didn't it?
February 19, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was the democratic nominee so that hurt the party. She never will be. She just lost her chance by running he campaign as poorly as whe would an administration.
February 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another example of the slimey dishonesty I am talking about is on the front page right now. She knows why Sen Obama voted present. She has advisors who can explain the rules and procedures of the IL senate to her. She trots this stuf out because she knows that the average voter does not. She does not care if she gets the vote by lying as long as she gets the vote. I hope that my fellow democrats see throught this transparent dishonesty and give her the reward she deserves, another trouncing at the polls!
February 19, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of my Senators is a woman. I'm quite pleased with her as a Senator, and a person - we talk from time to time.
My Congressional representative is a woman. I'll vote for her for as long as she wants to keep running - and the more seniority, the better, far as I'm concerned.
My other Senator, well, he's up this year, and he's going down, as long as it's not Clinton running, and I'm happy about that. She draws Republicans out to vote like moths to a flame, and will cost us dearly downticket.
Clinton seems to want to gut the Democratic Party in order to win her Pyrrhic victory. Bad idea.
For those of you wondering, for me, it's not that she's a woman, it's who she is. A man with that cold, manipulative, calculating personality would engender every bit as much animosity, and fare every bit as badly.
February 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry nails it. I would also give her my vote but not my trust.
February 19, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really troubled by the sheer number of Obamaniacs who are either stating outright they will not vote for "HER" no matter what. The welfare of the country be damned, I suppose, since you are not all that proud of it anyway (go read that particular discussion thread and you'll see what I mean).
Because I don't see anything of the sort on the pro-Hillary blogs. Those of us who support Sen. Clinton vote for her because we believe she's the best candidate, period. Here, it seems a lot of people vote for Obama because they hate Sen. Clinton.
February 19, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Sen Obama is the best candidate we have had in my lifetime. I think Sen clinton is just marginaly better that Bush Or Nixon. So I got to vote both for him and against her.
February 19, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's HER, and then there's THEM. I continue to be uneasy, to put it mildly, of a Them in the presidency, and HIS behavior in the past few weeks has led me to believe that HE is not controllable and that HER presidency would really be THEIRS.
February 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment