« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An honest question for Clinton supporters
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 it’s so hard for some of you to get behind the candidate who will almost certainly be our party’s nominee.
As many admit, the platforms between these two Democrats are virtually indistinguishable, and yet many of the Clinton diehards are saying they’ll vote for McCain (directly by pulling the lever, or indirectly by sitting the race out) when his platform is across the board diametrically opposed to the Democrats’ platforms. How does it honor the Clinton campaign to vote for a man who stands for everything she opposes?
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 thoughts you might have. This is quite puzzling and I hope to get your honest perspectives.
Thank you!



Comments (311)
I ask any responders to please not poison the discussion. I am honestly seeking insight to something I don't understand.
Please, no name calling or anything. Thank you.
Live Frankly
May 31, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
But when you frame it with "the man himself", you miss the point that all the slinging is done by surrogates, and if anything controversial appears, it's blamed on surrogates. Thus Mr. Obama stays clean.
So start a new thread and talk about Obama + his campaign. We can go to Jesse Jackson Jr. in South Carolina and the same guy just before New Hampshire, but you can also peruse the Daily Howler archives back throughout early 2007 to get a better background of the campaign.
You can also click on my name and go through previous postings. I've laid it out in rather thorough detail.
June 1, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just what do you have to say about the various Clinton surrogates and their words and actions, some of which make "bizarre" seem like understatement?
June 1, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Start a thread about that and we'll discuss it.
June 1, 2008 3:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I looked back at your posts and you don't have anything connecting Obama or his campaign to 'playing the race card.' There is mention of South Carolina, but I think you've got it mistaken. Obama hadn't commented of Jesse Jackson, B. Clinton did.
So, the question still persist: examples of how Obama or his surrogates have used the 'race card.'
I also urge you to do some research on racial politics so that you have an understanding of how it is employed.
June 1, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look harder, it's there.
June 1, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't YOU provide some examples. That's what she's asking for, not "It's there, trust me. If you can't find them than you're not looking hard enough." That type of reply makes people think that you don't actually have a specific example.
June 1, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn, I've written thousands of lines. She can't even differentiate Jesse Jackson Jr. and Jesse Jackson Sr or find my posting on the matter. Really, I have better things to do.
And she suggests I research racial politics - I have, back to 18th and 19th centuries, quite far enough, thanks. And I see little relevant to what's going on in 2008.
June 1, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you all understand. Desidero is much too important to actually spend time engaging on issues. If you can't see the wisdom of the cryptic posts of Desidero well, tsk, tsk on you.
June 1, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's just above answering dumb questions for the hundredth time. Hey. We're not against all questions, just dumb ones. If Obama is nominated, you'll find out what it's like to take your personality with zero experience to the general electorate. Experience? Running for the next office. Responsibility and performance while in office? Zilch. Subcommittee hearings on NATO and Afghanistan? Too busy. Vote on Iran resolution? Too busy. Vote against continuing to fund the war? Too busy running for President. So if you think working as a "neighborhood organizer" qualifies you to be President, it is going to come as a shock to you to find that most American voters don't. It's no secret in the echo chamber that I consider Obama to be less than an empty suit. He's an empty pair of pants?
June 1, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the original post: I, too, am scratching my head at what seems like "logic disconnect", re: Getting "my candidate" elected, vs. Getting policies I endorse enacted. I'm hoping that logic may reconnect at some point.
That said, I seem to see three threads of terminal resistance to Obama's candidacy:
1. Women who have fought their way through deprivation/prejudice/injustice to earn real accomplishments - or perhaps feel that they were denied their potential. As a 61 year old professional woman, I "get" that... up to the point where it begins to turn bitter; I see no positive value to bitterness, and try to recognize progress when I see it. Having such a strong female candidate for the Presidency is real progress.
2. Folks - many of them good people - who are so culturally "white" that they can't envision a person of color having the competence to lead a nation, and/or who simply don't understand the historical role of black churches in strengthening and inspiring the black community to simply survive another day. I've got to cop to this one too. I was pretty proud of my "fair racial attitudes" until I married a man of color, shared the experience of the black community, and realized I hadn't had a clue!
3. People who aren't adept at separating words of surrogates from words of candidates.
(Anybody out there have kids? Your kids ever say things like, "I'm sorry, Mrs. Moose. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings when I called you a witch. But you really DID look like a witch when you were out on the porch drying your hair!")
My point: I'm not voting for the kids, and the kids aren't running the family. I'm voting for the family leader, who speaks firmly and judiciously. Nobody speaks about the all other "kids" that behave well! And nobody speaks about the relative punishments that the misbehaving "kids" receive. Seems to me that the misbehaving Obama "kids" get stiffer and quicker "punishments" than the misbehaving Clinton "kids". But every family's different.
And there's one more possibility: Who's to know how many of the "pro-Clintonites" might actually be Rush's "Dittoheads", out on an "Operation Chaos" excursion. I gotta wonder why the folks from "the vast right-wing conspiracy" seem to like our gal so much!
All that to say: Study the candidates and the issue. Vote your brain, not your spleen.
June 1, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion pretty much all along has been that Sen. Clinton would be a better bet to make a better President at this point in her career, and in his. I think that basically because I am a "Clinton" man thru and thru - I thought her husband was the finest all-around President of my rather lengthy lifetime, and I'm more than willing to take a chance that she can carry THIS stong policy tradition forward:
Sound fiscal and economic policy, true preparation for an INEVITABLE global economy (with all that implies for health care, energy policy, modern job-training, etc), positive engagement in the broader, inevitably-interconnected world, and just a whole broad range of sophisticated approaches on many simultaneous fronts (as well as the occasional educated improvisation) that will move us forward to best advantage into the 21st century. This is the type of integrated leadership in my opinion that can only EFFECTIVELY flow from deep understanding, long, hard, and gifted thinking, and a lifetime of work in these areas. In a nutshell, THAT's why I think we are making a mistake not to put Sen. Clinton into position to carry that work forward to its next logical level.
As for Sen. Obama, my primary objection to him AS PRESIDENT, is that he has not demonstrated these qualities at this point to a sufficient extent for me to believe that he has that grasp. He MAY, I don't (and can't) know. And I want to KNOW, as best as humanly possible.
[Quick story, to the point:
Machine broke in factory. 20 Engineers studied charts, experimented, consulted, days passed - no luck. Couldn't get it running. Called-in retired old-time maintenance man who had helped install the thing many years prior. He walked around the machine for 5 minutes, took a hammer and tapped on it. Presto! It took off. Later, he sent an itemized bill for services: Total $1002.00. Tapping - $2.00. KNOWING WHERE TO TAP - $1000.00.}
I DO have some reservations about the sort of culture in which the Senator has immersed himself, and the sort of people who comprise a significant part of both his background and his current support. I'm not saying they may not be OK from SOME point-of-view, I'm just saying they don't seem like MY kind of people. There are a few secondary issues like that, and a few suspicious campaign moments that (no doubt) stick in my mind. The fact is, I can probably be brought around on those points, if that turns out to be the whole problem.
I'm not SURE yet about my MAIN point: I'm NOT a "hallaluyah" guy. I don't care how big a crowd he draws, or how excited his strongest supporters get. I'm going to have to be convinced that this is a man of genuine depth and substance (we KNOW that his opponents already are), with a genuine capacity to learn and grow his way into the job. If I just don't feel that in November, I may not be there. It's up to him at this point, and time alone will tell.
June 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
HILLARY
Vote to give George W. Bush Permission Slip to invade Iraq - $2.00
Cost of Iraq War to date - $1,000,000,000,000.00 and 35,000+ US casualties.
June 1, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are an acknowledged "Clinton" man thru and thru. You admit it is a 'chance,' that she can carry THIS stong policy tradition forward
You've based this on your affinity for Bill Clinton and fail to recognize the problem with your analysis is that one must assume Hillary Clinton would be a good president.
"Sound fiscal and economic policy, true preparation for an INEVITABLE global economy (with all that implies for health care, energy policy, modern job-training, etc), positive engagement in the broader, inevitably-interconnected world, and just a whole broad range of sophisticated approaches on many simultaneous fronts (as well as the occasional educated improvisation) that will move us forward to best advantage into the 21st century."
Might that include publicly touting trade agreements she finds unacceptable for America? Or in hypothetical conversation, threatening the obliteration of a countries women and children; maybe failing to read intel reports before deciding to obliterate a country? Or is it, her record of failing on her promise to bring 200K (Net loss of 30K during her tenure on the senate) jobs to New York; subsequently blaming Al Gore: "Well when I made that promise, I thought Al Gore would be president!"
The truth is Hillary Clinton has never proven herself to be what she has claimed. And in response to a sincere request, you've forwarded her campaign's talking points. Hillary never answered the question about the legitimacy of her credentials. After her Bosnia mishap, the press quit hounding her because she had been exposed. Stand up and Unify the party.
June 1, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful reply, one_wilson. Thank you.
June 1, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
query the sexism too? I have been at a loss. I even heard one guy say Obama was behind the 'Bro's over Ho's t-shirts, but that is ridiculous!
June 1, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short form: Obama is to liberalism what George W. Bush is to conservatism.
Another short form: would you even consider voting for anyone who hung out with people who talked about blacks the way the people Obama hung out with talked about whites?
June 1, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have an answer, as I personally know many, many, many people, women over 50 in particular, that feel, to the depths of their souls that she was "entitled". The tasteless, tacky, deplorable diatribe from that priest was pretty much on target, but just way, way, way beyond the pale. But, many people just KNOW that Obama "stole" her election.
June 1, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm baffled too. Wish you could get a representative sample of Clintonites and draw some conclusions; in practice, people on a blog are not typical supporters.
My guess:
Long, close primary +
Two candidates who are "firsts" +
A media that loves to make demographic generalizations =
A lot of people who perceive this primary as a cruel, unfair loss, not for Hillary, but for their own demographic identity. As a woman, or an older person who feels pushed aside, or a "hard-working white American."
If the primary had ended in February, it wouldn't have become this divisive. It's the media's insistence on defining the race demographically that did it. In their defense, there aren't a lot of really profound policy differences between the candidates, so there wasn't a lot else to talk about!
May 31, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's the media's insistence on defining the race demographically that did it."
Not only. One would have to add the wild blogging I would think, and the need to gin up every angle of race and gender from bloggers, not always for political purpose.
June 1, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help, I was an Obamanite since November and was never for Clinton. However, I will tell you what I have seen between the lines of many of the comments by Clintonistas - they don't want him because he's a) new and jumped the line and should wait his turn b) he hasnt got enough experience, if you count her time as First Lady as somehow being a policymaker (I don't, never did, myself), and c) HE CANT WIN; i.e., he's black. I really think that the radical core of Clintonistas - are racists.
May 31, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama campaign gave me this universal translator gizmo, let's see if I can turn it on and get it to . . . there we go . . .
"I really believe that the radical core of Clintonistas are raci -- . . . have a less hopeful view of racial relations in America than Obama supporters do."
I hated the Clinton campaign. But Obama's own speech about race ought to give us resources to think more imaginatively about all this, without leaning on the r-word so much. There are a lot of white people out there who don't hate black people but do dislike the idea that they're required to be sensitive about race. The narrative of this campaign has been guaranteed to irritate that kind of person, because there have been unending debates about "Is Ferraro a racist or isn't she?"
Of course, a lot of those debates were fired up by the Clintons, and I don't think it was an accident. But by using the r-word we just perpetuate that strategy, when we could be rising above it.
May 31, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, Alex, I meant racists. I think that there are those who take the posture 'Gee, America isn't ready for a black president' but I think that is a huge cop-out. That is simply code for 'I am not going to vote for the black guy with the funny name who is probably a Muslim.' So I meant exactly what i said. But they haven't got the moral courage to come out and say 'I won't vote for the black guy' and hence they blame the nominee and scream about voting for McCain. Why on earth would a good Democrat who believes in Hillary's platform (which is nearly indistinguishable from Obama's) reverse him or herself and vote for McCain? Because they would vote the white guy over the black guy - that is the only explanation for the radical position of jumping parties and giving us 4 more years of Bush. And those are the Clintonistas I am talking about - the ones who WILL vote McCain, not the ones who are just saber-rattling.
May 31, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a racist doesn't mean you hate black people.
Being racist means you don't think black people are as smart, dependable, trust-worthy, honest, hardworking, etc, etc. For example, if you read the USA Today article which described the Bush administration failure to appropriately handle housing discrimination claims, and your response is that most claims are false and the accusers are just trying to get something they don't deserve even if the article explains that people of color are discriminated against because of color and not credit rating, collateral, or income, then you're a racist. You may LOVE black people, but you're a racist.
I think what hurts the discussion is that when most black people use the r-word, the mean it the way I do. But mainstream/popular discourse has narrowed the meaning so much so that a white person has to practically lynch a person of color, burn the body, and spray paint "I hate -- people" before other white people will say, "Yes, that guy's racist." And so then, when the r-word is used, it comes with all this inflammatory baggage that most users aren't even thinking about.
And lastly, Ferrarro is racist. There're not questions about that.
May 31, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
no doubt, I agree Geraldine is a closet bigot. Sickening that she almost became vice president.
Her staunch stance on not voting for Obama on any means for reasons that she's inflicted to herself believing he's racist and sexist. She's a wacko floon worse than Hillary.
June 1, 2008 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost became VP? That is Hilarious! '84 was the biggest landslide in modern presidency. Ferraro couldn't even carry NY! They won MN and DC. That's it. Maybe Obama can make the historic case that women like Ferraro/Clinton are NOT electable.
Clinton/Ferraro 2008? I think there's room on the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.
June 1, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the core of Clinton's supporters (the core we saw at the RBC event) are racist. Of course, there are regions where his race is a liability.
I, however, have met someone who would warn me that Obama is not electable because other people wouldn't vote for somebody named Obama and because other people aren't ready to vote for a black. This person once wondered out loud if the slogan "Change You Can Believe In" is grammatical, the grammatically correct alternative being "Change In Which You Can Believe". Of course this person I met wasn't one of those bigots. I think some amount of discomfort with otherness lingers with some people.
I hate the blanket statement that Clinton's core support is racist though.
May 31, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Different can be scary. The unknown makes some people very nervous. Some of the Clinton supporters may be what we refer to as racist, but only a small few. The same can be said about sexist Obama supporters.
Must admit, I wondered about the "Change" slogan wording. Ending a sentence in a preposition?? Obama? But I soon put the elitist side of me away and realized it IS change we can believe in!
June 1, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dangling prepositions never made me hesitate saying what I mean. They also don't sound awkward to me.
Interesting. I might have read too much into my friend's question regarding the grammar of the slogan.
June 1, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Churchill,a dangling preposition is something up with which I cannot put.
They're perfectly good English.
June 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. Nothign wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. Perfect good English, despite what some have wanted to push (including some teachers here.)
June 1, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barefooted, I forget who said this about dangling prepositions (maybe Mark Twain?) but it deflates concern for the construction. The unknown quotee called the dangling preposition a phrasing:
"...up with which I will not put."
In typical conversational English, "Change we can believe in," is just fine.
When our national newspapers regularly use adjectives where an adverb is appropriate, and vice-versa (I can't count the number of times I've seen "more importantly" where the writer means to say, "more important"), I think we can get by with a slogan such as Obama's.
As for those Clinton supporters who threaten to vote for McCain, I believe that the Clintons tapped into deep resentments that have festered for decades -- not racism, but anger toward the men who pushed woman around back when it was still acceptable to do so.
In the 80s, when I was a junior copywriter at an ad agency in NYC, I was one of only two women who had jobs that didn't involve getting coffee and typing letters for male executives. Both of us non-secretaries were fired by uber-executives, over-ruling the creative directors who hired us (and this was after I won an award for the agency -- its first -- for a radio campaign).
I recall that the men at another agency, this one in-house for a retail chain, would pull their secretaries into their laps. Everyone laughed, but what else could the secretaries do? Scream "sexism"? Right. And wind up on the unemployment line -- with bad references, to boot.
And then, there are all the older women whose husbands left them for someone different -- younger, prettier, or just new to them.
Some of these women have huge reservoirs of resentment toward men stored up and the Clintons opened up a pipeline into that vast resource.
Remind these women, early and often, that McCain at least once, within hearing of witnesses, called his wife a cunt. Then, maybe, you can re-direct their anger and resentment toward the presumptive Republican candidate.
But old unhealed wounds are driving this, not love of Hillary Clinton or hate of Barack Obama, at least for a great many women-done-wrong in past decades.
June 1, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
She does have 6 years on him in the US Senate and if you discount her experience as first lady then you must discount his experience as state senator. First Lady requires much more than that.
June 2, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that is why so many Clinton supporters cannot stomach Obama supporters. The assumption that the only reason I could prefer a woman to a black man is because I must be a racist who can't vote for a black man. Forget his religiosity and how much it offends me. Forget his pathetic health care reform plan and his worse than pathetic tax reform. That's immaterial. It's just that he's black.
For just one minute think about that. You are saying we owe him our votes because he's black. He doesn't have to earn our votes because of his positions or policies, but because he's black, we have to justify not supporting him, because we OWE him. That is your implied position. Wow! For whom is race the overriding issue?
June 2, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because a long time ago, the contest stopped being about electing a democratic nominee and went into electing a specific candidate. It should've been win-win, but people treated the primary season like a general election campaign and now they feel like they're losing so they want to make sure everybody else loses too.
May 31, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My friends offline who are Clinton supporters are nothing like the Clinton supporters online.
All of them are supporting the democratic nominee. They never even had any intention of NOT voting for Barack Obama.
Personally, I have yet to see one online Hillary supporter present a cohesive explanation for seating all MI and FL and giving Obama zero. I watched the meeting all day today and I still didn't find a reasonable presentation for seating the delegations as is.
May 31, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mine too!! In fact, the two women I know who are Hillary supporters promised me months ago that they would fall in line with the party if their candidate didn't win.
And they have. Are. Whatever.
May 31, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the biggest problem is most of us don't realize this election is about us. It's very like along with the continuation of the Iraq war- we'll have a war with Iran under McCain. Ofcourse, he has no clue about the economy, hardly interested in Climate crissis, etc, etc. But most people feel as if their vote is a favor to someone else- to Obama or his supporters in this case. Hopefully, there will be a point in this election when most people will realize this election is about their own lives and by not voting for a democrat- they're not screwing Obama or his supporters, but themselves and their families. We do have enough morons who vote for lame reason- George Bush.
If I become a victim of bunch of morons living in psuedo-reality, well there is nothing much I can do. Again, I hope people don't burn their own asses
May 31, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kash, you continue to amaze me. You are the ultimate breath of young, fresh air.
Pardon me for trying to sniff you.
But, oh!!! How I love your approach to politics! How I love your scent.
Sense.
Scent.
Whatever.
May 31, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks a lot Lis! You made my day just when I thought it couldn't get better....Feelings are mutual.
May 31, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
*whew*. I'm having a case of the vapors.
June 1, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You sound like Congressman John Boner (R-OH), the less than honorable Bush ass licker. He gets the vapors on a regular basis...and cries like a three year old.
Buck up, sunshine! (wink)
June 1, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's your answer (from another post):
The Clinton were always happy to pal around with minorities and treat them like 'junior partners'. They were very patronizing, and would visit communities and mouth some pandering words. the proverbial pat on the head.
But when a minority candidate has the nerve to challenge and beat the Clintons, they can't believe it. All the vile starts spilling. "How dare he!"
They would never have acted like this against someone who they really respected. That's how I would sum up the whole Clinton campaign: Deeply deeply disrespectful.
If Edwards or Biden (or later McCain) had beaten them, it would have been different. You would never have seen them mocking Obama by offering him VP while losing.
Edwards regularly beat up Clinton in the debates and no one cried "sexism". He was harsh, yet Obama calling her "likable enough" set them all off. Heck, McCain has even made some really nasty jokes and remarks about Hillary, with no uproar.
There was a *visceral* reaction against Obama, and the reason for this is obvious.
May 31, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I remember correctly (after all this beer), I seem to recall McCain making a joke that the reason Chelsea was so ugly was because her parents were Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton.
Correct me if I'm wrong?
May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No correction.
May 31, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was putrid and it was
Q: Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
A: Her father is Janet Reno.
June 1, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I recall reading news reports about how the boys (Obama & Edwards) were ganging-up on Clinton.
And frankly it was stupid of Edwards to go after Clinton rather than Obama. By the time he realized that Obama was his competition to be the Change candidate and started criticizing Obama (the 'Present' votes; voting against 30% cap on interest rates, etc), it was too late.
June 1, 2008 1:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something that you must learn that the person in my avatar did in this election race.
June 1, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to encourage discourse. Thanks. :(
June 1, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Are you saying John Edwards is somehow responsible for that graphic? I don't get it. Explain please?
June 1, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt he did, but what was the point in posting it?
June 1, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incorrect: There were not news reports about the boys ganging up on Hillary. Hillary's camp complained that they were, and were roundly criticized for whining and subsequently backed off.
ie. complaints had no traction when it was Edwards. Later on, against Obama, the reaction of supporters was much more emotional.
June 1, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't believe that Obama's skin color has anything to do with the Clintons' behavior over the last two months. I also don't believe that his gender matters either.
The Clintons themselves are neither racist nor sexist in this matter.
It's strictly a matter of them being beaten by the next generation. It could have been another woman, a younger man, gay, straight, whatever.
They, themselves, did not expect to be at this turning point in American history. Their story did not include being beaten by a younger person. And they weren't prepared with new tools to manage the situation.
So they're angry, and their supporters are grabbing at any available straw including the ugly ones - sexism and racism.
But I have no quibble with them on the matter of their perceptions of how the press has behaved.
And controlling the press is off the table. It's right there in the constitution. We enjoy the advantages of it every day here, and everywhere else we speak in public.
June 1, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This isn't so much about gender OR race, though these issues have been used as straw men; it's about an enormous changing of the guard that began with Howard Dean and the 50-state movement. The Democratic Party had lost its way and was floundering after the Carter presidency. Carter was a bit too visionary for mainstream Americans, and they weren't willing/couldn't recognize the need for drastic change and sacrifice. In walked Reagan with his feel good vision for America, and everyone bit, hook , line, and sinker. Our Party couldn't get it together, but then the DLC was born. They shifted us to the right and brought Democrats back into the national game. What we are now witnessing is the death moan of the DLC. The issues Carter foresaw have become much more apparent to "middle America", and a visionary like Obama, who calls us to sacrifice, volunteer, and take personal responsibility looks all the more attractive than the old guard, who we've seen tow the big business line one too many times.
June 1, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, the death of the DLC - by a candidate more conservative than Clinton? If anything, Obama's the end death of liberalism? Has he said one liberal thing in his campaign?
He hasn't talked about the ridiculous military budget. In fact, if anything, he goes too far in "supporting the military brass" by saying the generals are light years ahead of civilians. Has he gone after Wall sTreet? No. Has he defended labor? No. Healthcare? a reform that protects the profiteers of insurance and pharmaceuticals.
Sad that this is all people expect from a Democrat today. I expect much much more.
June 2, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ask a very good question. I don't think you will get a good answer. I have been knocked off message boards because I was for Obama, not Clinton. No discussion...just gone. There is no logic with these people. If you watched the Committee hearings today, you noticed that there were very vocal Clinton supporters. They wanted all votes for Hillary, and zero votes for Obama. No concessions, no way. As I said...no logic.
I will go out on a limb and say that I think the whole problem is one of entitlement. Hillary and her supporters knew without a doubt that she would be President. Nothing else would do. As for the 'racist' part of all this...I really don't think they are racists. I think they saw a wedge, and jumped in. Think about it...they had nothing else. Rev.Wright failed, 'bitter' failed, she threw back a shot, and that failed. Bosnia failed, 3AM failed...man, we are running out of stuff. Racists are all we have left. Hell...even gas prices failed. Race is a winner. Not. No more...we are sick of division, hate, and fear. Sorry, Hillary...doesn't work any more.
May 31, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, this may not be the most sensitive or politically correct way of saying it, but I've been trying to figure this out for a long time and I believe this goes along with the entitlement theory.
Let's take a hard look at her most fervant supporters...they are women, 45-65, right? I bet if you peel back the layers and look a little deeper, most of them have had to give up something or some part of themselves for the men in their lives - whether it was their father, brother, husband, boyfriend, boss or son - and the male was not as grateful as he could/should have been.
There is obviously a simmering resentment that they lost an opportunity or time or youth or something...and this is transposed onto Hillary and this campaign. She represents them finally winning. They saw her swallow all the humiliation from Bill, she is "one of them".
Have you looked in their eyes? They are rabid - some of them were sobbing in the halls after the MI & FLA decision yesterday. This is way too personal for them. If you ask them what her positions are on issues, half of them couldn't even tell you. She is working out their drama dream.
June 1, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condescend much?
June 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you really believe that their platforms are virtually indistinguishable, that tells me your preference and your own thinking is not in policy or substance, but in the personality of a candidate.
Sorry, but for me there is a big difference in their views on what specifically needs to be done in the next 4 years.
I happen to agree with Kash, this election is about me (and you and every american) and I don't buy Obama proposals on my issues at all. Healthcare, income taxes and capital gains taxes are on the top of my list.
May 31, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain is closer to your views on those issues than Obama?
May 31, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
On healthcare, I stack them as follows:
#1 Clinton
#2 McCain
#10 Obama
Universal healthcare cannot exist without a mandate. It will create free-riders that everyone else will have to pay for. McCain takes a completely different approach by providing tax credits and opening markets, so despite other flaws in his proposal it is vastly better than Obama's
June 1, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't like Obama's original proposal either. But, as you know, Lalo, writing new legislation is a long process. When you elect a president, you can't expect to get all their proposals, just like they were written up in the campaign brochure. You get the compromise they're able to hash out with Congress. And Obama is much more likely to sign off on the sort of universal healthcare you like than McCain is.
If you just want ammunition against Obama, fine, you'll get no objection from me. But if you really want universal healthcare, you need to take off the hat and roll up the sleeves.
June 1, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. in the process, any legislation will get watered down, I agree. That's why Obama proposal sucks, because he sets the bar too low from the start. I don't think he will get elected but if he does let's revisit this 4 years from now.
June 1, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's a decent point comparing Clinton and Obama. But pretending that McCain is better on the issue than Obama just shows you're not being serious.
June 1, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not fair, Josh. This is a hit-and-run comment. It's not like Lalo can respond to your charge and expect you to come back and read it. How do you know Lalo is not serious?
You must be really bored today.
June 1, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blow - what isnt fair is that lalo is just being dishonest if he thinks McCain is closer to Hillary on healthcare policy than Obama is.
But everyone here knows you are a troll, so we're not surprised.
June 1, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think McCain is closer to Clinton than Obama, by any means. But both McCain and Clinton have a healthcare plan that is superior to Obama.
Clinton requires a mandate and builds a guaranteed national pool that prevents free-riders and offers lower costs.
McCain provides a direct personal incentive for anyone to get insurance through tax credits. He deregulates insurance market to lower costs across state lines and he bans free-riders.
Clinton's plan is collective, McCain's plan is individual-driven. They are managed from two completely opposite viewpoints but either of them is far better than the half-baked excuse that is the Obama healthcare plan.
June 1, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, urban, I'm a card-carrying Shillary troll, and this post appeared to be an invitation from me to contribute. I suppose you had a different reading of the OP.
June 1, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. Change "from" to "for." Now I'll have confused everyone into thinking MsJoanne is my sock puppet.
June 1, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Whad'd I do? Whad'd I do?
June 1, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect! You didn't do anything. Just keep playing along. ;-)
June 1, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't that be change "for" to "from"? If you're trying to make some sort of point-
June 1, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse me.
June 2, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, MsJoanne, are you the same MsJoanne over at thecarpetbaggerreport? I'm the same independent thinker from there. Just curious.
BTW...I agree with some of the posts above which talk about the pent up resentment many women rightly feel about how they were treated. Being 37, I kind of straddle the divide (although I am a man, not a woman). I remember the days when newspapers had men's jobs and women's jobs. The women's jobs were always things like secratary or airline stewardess (must be attractive to apply). So yes, I believe many, not all, but many female Clinton supporters over 50 have a great deal of emotion tied up in this contest.
Of course, being under 40, I came of age in a different era and learned to respect women (and people of all races) as equals.
To those Clinton supporters who sincerely believe she has more experience, they could be right. I am not convinced, but I certanly recognize that greater life experience is not to be discounted easily, if one is smart. However, youth does not necessarily imply ignorance or less capacity. And in the case of Obama, the ability to inspire millions of people into action, many for the first time, has a value too.
And I join with the others here who question why any Clinton supporter would turn around and vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't get the nomination. Putting McCain into office could be devastating for Liberal cuases. Certainly the Iraq War would continue. And it is likely the next POTUS will nominate 2 SCOTUS justices. Any woman (or man for that matter) who believes a woman has the right to decide what happens with her own body needs to consider what kind of SCOTUS they want for the next 30 years.
June 2, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, the question is - are you going to vote for McCain? Bottom line. Will you really do it? Will you vote Republican in November, regardless of what McCain says about Iraq, womens reproductive rights, to name a few?
When you look at ALL the issues - not just healthcare, which candidate will you vote for, Lalo and Blow???
Instead of more insults, just answer the question honestly.
June 1, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a seriously misguided understanding of policy and economics if you rate the health care plans as you did.
First, the main problem we have as a society is the cost and cost growth of health care. We can have universal care but if we can't afford it, or that's all we can afford, we are in trouble. Moreover, there are many more people who have insurance but are at risk of financial calamity nonetheless.
Second, There is no question but that Obama's plan covers more people and does more to reduce cost than McCain's. In fact McCain's plan is more of the just rely on the market voodoo that only serves to forestall progress. You lose all credibility with that comparison.
Third, you assume that people lack insurance because they are free riders, rather than that they cannot afford care or insurance. I think this is far from certain. Moreover, from financing standpoint, it is those with more money who will have to subsidize those with less no matter your health status. Healthy young kids who have enough money to subsidize sick old folks are most likely getting health care from the employers who pay them so well. In fact the young folks with no insurance can't afford it. There was just a study last week about growth of uninsured youth. Most lack care because of cost.
Fourth, you assume free riders are the source of excess cost and excess cost growth. That is not true. The main issue is service delivery. Maybe you should check out the data on geographic differences in Medicare costs. No free riders, but we are spending twice as much in one major urban center as another because of the way we practice medicine. The majority of the cost of care is concentrated in a about a quarter of he population. If free riders turn out to be a significant drain on cost there are many ways to incentivize them more strongly.
Truth is Obama has as his objective lower cost and universal access to care. The means to get there are well thought out and seem to be both politically feasible and practical. You can disagree with his chosen means to get there, but you cannot legitimately claim that he will at the very least make a huge improvement in the status quo.
June 1, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, that's a fair point; their policies are not identicle. I am an Obama supporter, but I can certainly see how a case can be made that Clinton's policies are superior. I don't agree with this case, but I can certainly agree to disagree.
But for the sake of this conversation, let me concede the point and say that Clinton's policies are superior.
Why the outright hatred? This is what I really don't understand. Even if you think Clinton's policies are superior, certainly Obama's policies (from a Democratic perspective) are FAR superior to McCain's?
I completely understand why someone would prefer Clinton to Obama. Completely. No argument from me whatsoever.
What I do not understand is how a Democrat could go vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. I can understand how an Independent or Republican could do that, sure. But how can a Democrat do that?
That's what makes no sense to me.
May 31, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not voting for McCain, but if there needs to be a group asked Why the hatred, I think it needs to be the Obama group. I have never seen such obsessive hatred of a candidate as I have seen folks here hating Clinton. They hate Clinton more than Bush or McCain. It's sick and twisted. Illogical and insane.
I don't hate Obama, but there's a little list of Obama supporters who have seriously damaged their candidate because I don't have any interest in sitting in a room planning outreach with this kind of people. They act like freepers.
June 3, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but...it's about more than just personality.
Now give me that friggin' hat.
You owe it to me....LOL.
May 31, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those who focus on the minutiae of Clinton's policy proposals present yet another false argument for their candidate. Frankly, Clinton can do far more to get the important details of her policy proposals implemented as a Senator than she would ever have the ability to do as President. She should seriously consider the fact that she is in a position to become one of the most influential Senators in history.
June 1, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink