« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
An Invitation to Clinton Supporters Who Wouldn't Vote for Obama in the General Election Under Any Circumstances and Who May or May Not Be Angry
Having removed all traces of racism, sexism, chauvinism, Maoism, favoritism, Fascism, etc., from the headline and content of my previous post, let's now talk about your reasons why.
Have at it.
Advertisement



Comments (157)
Ha! Nice title.
May 19, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"My Dear, Dearer and...Dearest supporters,
We all know I'm losing the race,
...but that's not a big problem, is it...!?!?
We'll just change the rules
to which I agreed to before the race,
...but obviously at the time I didn't know I would be losing now,
...so how can that count...!?!?
You agree with me...right...!?!?
And...those who don't agree are just sexist pigs."
-- Hillary Rodham Clinton
PS: Please send some more money to help me pay off the loans recurred by this effort and this little bitty debt force upon us .
May 21, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I repost as well
I aplaud your intentions, but your efforts may not invite desired discourse.
Once Hillary fades away, disposed into the dustbin of history, most of her supporters will realize they'll be screwing no one but themselves if they don't support the democratic party candidate.
I think most people are looking at personalities at the moment, so voting for Obama at this point seems like a surrender and a favor for Obama, but as the curtain on Hillary falls, most people will begin to acknowledge voting democrat is a favor not to Obama but for themselves.
Hillary must get out of the way before commencing any "healing" process
May 20, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I applaud your repost. You may be right. But if Nixon can go to China and Obama to Iran, I can go the extra mile to those Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstances and who may or may not be angry. In other words, it can't hurt.
May 20, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loathed her - seriously. When she came up with comparing McCain favourably to Barack; that ghastly, phoney performance of "I'm honoured" - so many things...
But really Obama's right. The most important thing is to unite the party now. Surely Ferraro's comment in today's NYT that she might not vote for Obama now highlights how crucial it is.
Unless she goes bananas and starts criticising Obama, we have to cut Clinton slack now by realising that she feels she has to stay in for the sake of all her supporters: so she has to articulate a rationale for that. Cut her slack by realising that she's staying in for them and focus on how much grit she has not to be showing how heartbroken she must be feeling and how exhausted she must be. I give her kudos for that. She has to stay in till June 3 when the Committee will have made its ruling over Michigan and Florida and until the last primary's been held.
And we have to basically lie low until then. The woman must be utterly exhausted. How the hell do you have good judgment in that condition and cope with campaigning because you have to?
The best thing all Obama supporters can do is to take their lead from Obama - not from Wolfson, McAuliffe et al - and certainly not from a woman who knows she's lost and, exhausted & devastated, isn't in a position to say so.
May 20, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
good perspective.
I distrust Hillary. I have for quite some time now.
I'm not without empathy, though.
May 20, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
David Gergen, bless his heart, seemed to just get it tat the race issue isn't good, and suggested that Hillary Clinton tell voters that if they're voting for her because of race, she doesn't want that vote! I'm yelling to the TV, "Perhaps she could have said that in the USA Today interview, instead of talking about hard-working white voters going for her!"
Edwards said just that at the very beginning of the campaign (about not wanting the race-based vote). Love that Gloria B said "What, it's too late, is she going to say that in Montana?"
This is absolutely insane.
May 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's incompetent.
May 20, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, he's demonstrated it with that crappy campaign that he's running. He's in debt. He's lost so many states. He's behind. Dang, you're so right.
May 20, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many incompetents have worked themselves up into corporate leadership. I had a boss once who "made it his private hobby to study corporate presidents". His conclusion? They must be all special because they made it to be president.
Skill at getting elected is not the same as skill at running government. It's scary that people don't see this as obvious.
May 20, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're absolutely right. We needn't look further than our current twice-elected President.
But what is it that makes you think he's incompetent?
May 20, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not Billy, so he'll have his own set of reasons, but by "incompetent" I would say inexperienced especially in foreign affairs, not fast enough on his feet with policy issues, not terribly good at damage control, and poor at political optics when it comes to specific issues. I also don't trust his bargaining skills, which I think is a key part of the job.
May 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what if I told you I think you are an incompetent judge of character and ability.
I mean, you have an opinion, that's fine, that's your right. You get to vote just like the rest of us. But who gives a flying peanut butter sandwich about YOUR assessment. What do you know about the skill and talent and intelligence and judgment it takes to be president.
What do you make of the fact that Paul Volker and Warren Buffett and Lee Hamilton and Lawrence Tribe and Abner Mikva and Ted Sorenson --just a few guys who have been around the block and know a thing or two about these things have a different assessment? (p.s. I purposely chose a bunch of 'over the hill' folks who are unlikely to have some reward to reap from backing the winner)
May 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I give a rat's ass about an Ancient Greek coming back from antiquity to pontificate on economics? Let's see, Ted Sorenson - child of the Kennedy Dynasty - how come he didn't keep us out of Vietnam? Warren Buffett, clever guy, what did he say, "because it appeared that Obama would win the Democratic nomination, he is endorsing Senator Obama." Oh, okay, he likes both but thinks Obama already won, fine, thanks for telling me. Not that I think Buffett would ever choose a guy with 3 years major experience to run one of his companies. You want to compare endorsements head on over to Hillary's and see who you like. I like Madeleine Albright and some others from the list, but here's a dark little secret. I don't give a shit. Albert Einstein could say Obama's his main man and it wouldn't make no nevermind to me. I go by *MY* opinion, which by the way is the one somebody asked for, all peanut butter aside.
Now I did think some of the stories from thehillaryiknow.com are interesting and compelling, and Joe Wilson & Richard Clarke give some pretty good arguments, and then there's Billy Glad, and you know what? I couldn't pick these people out of a crowd, but there arguments seem sound. Now if you want to pull out an Obama supporter who says something more interesting than , "Ayup, seems alright to me", I'm happy to entertain the prospect. But "another famous person endorses Obama" just leaves me cold as a reason to vote for him.
May 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Lincoln Chaffee, Tom Daschele, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Sam Nunn, Lowell Weicker, Jr., Zbigniew Brezezinski, Anthony Lake, Robert Reich, or . . .
Christ, here's a list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements
I'm not trying to beat up on you. I'm just saying, don't you think that the fact that all of these people, many of whom one would think are in a position to know that's at least a little better than yours, disagree with you is entitled to some consideration?
May 20, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I gave consideration. Like with Buffett - "Obama's winning". Oh, okay. I can go through the list, but at the end of the day I'm quite fine with being in the minority of major punditry with my own opinions. Hillary has some well known names for her, but in any case, I didn't sit around tallying endorsers for Clinton or Gore or Dean either.
May 21, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
But by your metric of how they have run the campaign, if I recall, McCain was going to be assigned to the "dust bin of history" less than 1 year ago and now he is the nominee. He must be a genius in your eyes by your own metric of running a campaign, eh?
May 20, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apples and oranges. The winner take all system allowed McCain to triumph. A system like the democrats have and the republican primary would still be going and split three ways.
May 20, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, McCain benefited by the splitting of the conservative base between Huckabee and Romney. If either one of those two had not been in the race, or had dropped out earlier (or if Romney had endorsed Huckabee over McCain), I think we would have had a very different outcome.
May 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you cite specific examples of this incompetence? Or is it just a gut feeling? The reason why I ask is that political experts from both sides of the spectrum have admitted that Obama has waged the most competent campaign in recent history.
May 20, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Axelrod ran a brilliant campaign. Give Obama credit, too. Does that make Karl Rove competent to govern? Was Bush? After you get elected, you have to govern. First thing are the schedule C's that were turned into super grades this year. Dug in and protected by Civil Service. These are the people who have worked night and day for the last 8 years to politicize and destroy the Executive Branch's effectiveness while extending its power. Obama is not competent to fix what's broken. You may believe, as an act of faith, that he will find people who know how. I'd rather go with the Clintons. They absolutely know how to get that job done.
May 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
By that metric, Clinton isn't experienced enough to do it on her own either. No one in the history of America would be qualified to fix every problem found in the federal government without significant help from an experience staff.
I don't know that it is even possible to fix every problem we have within a single administration, even one with two-terms. Sounds a tad unrealistic to me. By your standards, I am afraid even your candidate will be a huge disappointment.
We certainly don't think Obama will fix everything that ails this country. We just expect to get the journey started. Our problems are pretty damn profound and way more than any one person can handle.
May 21, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it Bizarro Day again?
May 20, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
So the upshot in response to the question is that you view McCain as more competent, and will therefore vote for him? Or did I miss something in your reply?
May 20, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? I'm actually coming around to that position. Threads like this help.
May 20, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if Clinton gets the VP nod?
May 20, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning, actually, that you don't know whether he's competent, but you think Hillary is.
I get what you're saying about finding a way to root out the Bush patronage sleeper agents they've burrowed into the civil service system. It is very important work, but, damn, man that is not a Presidential task. That's a job for the chief of staff the West Wingers.
Regardless, how is voting for McCain the answer to your concern? How is staying home the answer to this concern?
And, if you're resolved to voting for Obama, why are we arguing about this?
May 20, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President sets the agenda. Obama's not the nominee. Ask me again when he actually gets the nomination. Maybe I'll change my mind. Ask me again if Clinton agrees to run as VP. Maybe I'll change my mind. Right now, I'm in a "don't blame me, I voted for Hillary" frame of mind.
May 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No he can't... He just got a monster wedgie over the fact that his candidate is losing. =)
May 20, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that what makes Billy Glad?
May 20, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I am not the target demographic for this posting. I'll be writing in for Hillary but that's because I'm a NYer and my non-vote for Obama won't have an impact on the general election. But I will urge Hillary supporters in close blue states, red states, and purple states to bring a post it called "NOT MCCAIN" if that's what it taskes to pull the lever for Obama. At least of Obama loses, they will not be partly responsible for 4 more years of doubling down in Iraq, ballooning national debt and the risk of Scalia becoming the moderate on the supreme court.
That said my write in vote for Hillary is an expression of the fact I think Hillary was the stronger candidate policywise and I am not sold on the authenticity or electability of Obama.
If you want to know why Clinton supporters are angry it's not just because she is losing. It's because it is appalling to ses the glee and venom (much of it with laced barely disguised or outright misogony) with which otherwise reasonable minded democrats have been throwing her way. And to hear this shit not from Republicans but from DEMOCRATS sickened me to my core. Any perceived slight regarding race and the democrats were up in arms; repeated, vicous and outright attacks on Hillary based on her gender were laughed off or met with deafening silence. Really? Is this the new politics we've been waiting for?
Excellent, excellent article that really captures why Hillary supporters atre "bitter." To help Clinton supporters over that anger perhaps the Obama campaign,, supporters and the democratic party need to take a good look in the mirror and ask themselves what role did they play in creating this anger?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/14/AR2008051403090.html
May 20, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya know, I am so tired of this misogyny spin that the Clinton campaign has been lobbing of late. I am a woman and I simply don't like or trust Clinton as a person. I don't like her values or her all-politics-all-the-time mode. Sure, there are some men who are misogynists (sexist is more like it, misogyny is pathological) and they won't support Clinton, but they already have their candidate in McCain. But all these white hard working men in blue collar areas voting for Clinton? How can you claim sexism, when that would be the crowd you would expect it from, and they are voting for her? If you want to play with the big boys, then act like a big girl and stop telling the refs that it's not fair that the boys are winning. Outsmart them. And, Hillary has not done that, and it's because she ran a weak campaign with managers who were ossified and she thought her name was all she needed. She has not lost because of sexism. That's just crap. And the more she uses that as an excuse, the more it makes me cringe, as a woman almost her age who certainly knows what sexism feels like.
May 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever there is any mention of race the entire democratic party jumps to Obama's defense. Whenever there has been outright sexist comments against clinton like she's a she-devil or a bitch or she's just there because she's Bill's wife, the democratic party and representatives say absolutely nothing. It's fine to call Hillary a bitch, but who dares to use the N word against Obama? You can't even call him the new kid on the block without people saying it's too close to calling him "boy" which is racially inflammatory.
It's not just about Hillary - is this a way we should expect female politicians to be treated? Republicans do the same thing to Nancy Pelosi. I would expect better from democrats.
May 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have not heard anyone who is a real adult call Hillary a bitch. And I certainly have not heard that language from Obama. And you are right, that type of language is inexcusable. But I think you are missing the point that it is Hillary, not the fact that she's a woman, that some people don't like. It is her actions and words that are offensive, not her sex. My point above was, if you want to play with the boys, toughen up. I don't hear Pelosi going on and on about sexism, or Barbara Mikulski or Barbara Boxer, or Olympia Snowe. That doesn't mean they don't experience it, but using it as an excuse for your failings doesn't work. Tough truth.
May 20, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: pelosi and mikulski hear it all the time but it is coming from Republicans. Hillary has been getting this treatment from so-called democrats. I get it - many Obama supporters and folks in general don't like Hillary. But take a look at the posts and the level of discourse on TPM self avowed democrats and liberals using sexist and misogynistic criticisms of "shrillary". I have criticized Obama many times and I have never once had to resort to racism or muslim-phobia. Even if you dislike her, why do Obama supporters have to resort to sexist and demeaning attacks? Why is that acceptable? And how can you defend that?
May 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still dont see sexism Dijamo.
Now, from all of the things I had been reading, press wise, media and blog wise....I dont see it. Maybe you can help me by pointing out some specifics. Becuase I have seen your posts where you make these comments, and again dont back up any sort of proof...a name I can search? A event?
I know I havent seen any on CNN(and they had been asking the same question). I have seen some dumb ass comments from people of course through out the internet about not voting for a woman.
And yes, Hillary was getting it pretty rough early on(as was Obama, but it was being manifested in completely different ways), but that is because of her and husbands past, I didnt see any sexism or misogyny.
So if you could help with that, then I think we can move forward, as you are stating all of this as "FACT". But it cant be fact if it is all your opinion.
Thanks
May 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I am saying is that the attacks on Hillary have been incredibly personal and gender based. Her laugh is too shrill. She's a cackling evil she-devil witch. She only got where she is because she's bill clinton's wife and did nothing but serve tea and cookies in the white house. she can't even control her husband - how can we expect her to run the country. She wears pantsuits. All incredibly important in issue things that elections are made of.
The media laughed off those idiots at the clinton campaign rally shouting iron my shirts at her before they realized women were genuinely offended. Can't blame them - misogny can be so entertaining. I don't believe Barack ever had folks at his rally saying shine my shoes and the media laughing that off.
If she tears up, the Obama campaign says it's fake and a play for votes. John Edwards criticizes her and says she needs to toughen up if she wants to play with the boys. She is criticized more for than the male candidates like biden, kerry, edards, dodd etc for authorizing the Iraq war because her critics claim she was just trying to prove she's "tough enough" to be commander in chief.
Do I really need to provide links for this stuff? For anyone who's paid any attention to campaign to pretend sexism has not played a role is shocking to me. And again it's going to be very hard for some Hillary supporters to get over it if the issue is not addressed.
May 20, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you haven't cited a single example of where Obama or his campaign were making these charges or comments or innuendo.
So this boils down to the fact that you won't vote for Obama because the media write idiotic articles about Sen. Clinton's laugh, because two republican radio shock jocks (yes that is who they were) shouted "iron my shirt", and there are some rude bloggers out there?
Think about that for a second.
If you have examples of Obama treating Sen. Clinton unfairly just list them.
Or explain to me how the debate over the wisdom of voting for the war, or the gas tax, or talking to foreign leaders, or the wisdom of health insurance mandates vs. incentives has anything to do with gender.
May 20, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, i'm a 50+ woman. and once upon a time, i idolized hillary! i expected her to be the first woman president and was very excited about that idea!
but i've completely lost all respect for her, and am quite franky shocked that ANY bright woman isn't offended by how she's performed, how she's squandered, with incompetent planning and petty behavior, our gender's opportunity to prove ourselves equal to men in every sense. and i totally disagree with hillary's (and her remaining supporter's) claims that this has been an sexist primary.
having gone through a LOT of REAL challenging things in my OWN life, and especially because i AM a woman, i have precious little sympathy for women who play the victim card. i personally wouldn't call them strong women. REAL strong women can't abide a woman who constantly thinks she's a victim!
i read the article you posted.
and, i'm sorry but, to me, that, too, is nothing but a giant steaming cauldron of "victimhood"!
i'm wondering, how can people address hillary WITHOUT it being construed as sexist? if i had to define her entire campaign in one word, that word would be "pitiful".
what i see, as a very disillusioned and disappointed woman and one-time hillary fan, is hillary demonstrating nothing BUT the very WORST and WEAKEST aspects of our gender.
initially, there was the beauty queen sense of entitlement that caused her to think she was going to be "handed" this nomination. this can't be blamed on anyone but hillary and her staff.
it's well documented, by her own staff, that they were so confident that she would be anointed on super tuesday, that she didn't put ANY effort into caucus states, and had absolutely NO ground organization prepared for ANY state after that date.
that's pure arrogance. HER arrogance.
and that's incompetence. HER incompetence.
no one else can be blamed for THAT!
and no one can be blamed for her response to this error.
next, there was the "which hillary are we going to see today?" period. as a woman who's been through menopause, i feel i have every RIGHT to say she behaved like a woman going through her change of life! that, or like a woman with some kind of multi-personality disorder. as a woman looking at another woman, i didn't see anything remotely genuine in any of these personas!
when none of those worked, then came the smear campaign. like a jealous, scorned woman, like an iconic shrew, she lashed out, mind set on bloody revenge, embracing scoundrels and enemies, she went straight for the throat of her rival.
i put these criticisms in feminine terms simply because, and only because, after all, she IS a woman!
but HAD she been a man, and done the same things, my criticisms would be essentially the same. sure, the analogies drawn would be masculine in nature, if she were a man, but they would have been critical of the very same flaws. arrogance. incompetence. vengence.
as a woman, i reject the notion that this has been an intensely sexist primary. i reject it, categorically! i think hillary supporters need to take a good long look at HER performance, and stop playing the victim card, too, and reject this tactic. not just in hillary's campaign, but if need be, in their own lives.
May 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, sister.
May 20, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
You're purposely selective. Neither Obama nor his campaign have demeaned Hillary for being a woman. As to whether some Obama supporters have, that depends on your point of view. What is clear is that Hillary's camp has assailed Obama for his race. Think Bill in S Carolina, Ferraro for a month, and Hillary's attempt to pair him with Farrakhan and others. Want more examples of despicable Clinton supporters saying despicably racist things about Obama. Here's one from Billy Glad's recent post on Obama and Iran, by kanne:
"Well first of all Obama is going to walk into the meeting with that Iranian fellow all shuckin and jivein and its gonna put that Iranian fellow in a jovial mood. Then Obama's going to give him one of those awesome black handshakes that only a whitey can give and that Iranian fellow is going to say, 'Hey, you be my peeps.' Then they're going to get down to the business and afterwards go out before the cameras and give great speeches saying nothing signifying nothing was accomplished and Obama is going to shuck and jive his way out of Iran saying, 'THATS what I'm talking about!' And the Obamaheads will say, 'Oh ya.'"
May 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse Jackson Jr. on "tear-gate"? How many piled on her in October for "using the gender card" after the debate? There's more than enough info out there, but ignore it as you like. We've gotten used to this.
May 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muslim-phobia? You are joking now?
May 20, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You weren't around my place when she caved to NBC to get a debate before the Ohio primary.
May 20, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the Bitch comment, women and men can both be Bitches though they have slightly different meanings when put towards a man, and I am PRETTY sure you know that.
If your acting like a "bitch" then you get called a "bitch". I'm not saying Hillary is, or isnt, and I am 99.9% I havent referred to her as such, but it is still name calling. And not sexism....not misogyny.
I don't know, but again I think you have a very flimsy argument. And you want to be mad, just be mad. OR you have invested so much into Hillary(I understand) that now you are thinking "well what about me". This is all opinion but, its not about you. Its not about the other Hillary supporters...it is about all of us. Get over this "me, me, me" crap. Think 3 years down the line, andn ot 6 months.
In a year you and your supporters will be WISHING you had voted for Obama to put McCain out to dry.
The same as those who voted for Bush and we ended up in this mess now.
May 20, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remind me, who called who a bitch? When was this?
May 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe it was a McCain supporter and Tina Fey.
I was shocked that Obama never offered Hillary an appology for either of these incidents. Shocked I tell you! Shocked!
(Although I guess that, for some reason, it was OK for Tina Fey to call her a bitch.)
May 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, it's all over the place, bitch this, cunt that, Hillary the ball cutter and nutcracker and whatever.
May 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used some of those, but not nut cracker or ball cutter, when she caved in to NBC. Although not in print. Only to the ceiling. You get the picture. :)
May 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing worth keeping in mind -- "bitch" refers to a particular way of acting and dealing with other people. I've known a number of men who are 'bitches' in that sense (and said so to them). By the same token, there are many women who would never be described as a bitch, because they don't have those characteristics. So while 'bitch' may have its roots in negative stereotypes of women, today in common parlance it means something else, something that is not even particularly related to gender. --- N____r, on the other hand, means one very superficial thing one: that a person is black and someone who is bad, or less than the rest of us, because of that one simple fact. Thus it is, in a fact, far more offensive term, one that is absolutely racist and, in fact, has no meaning other than a racist one. --- So, yeah, when you call someone (man or woman) a bitch, you are saying something about their actions and attitudes. When you describe someone by that other word, you are saying that their actions and attitudes don't matter - only their skin color.
As to anything else I would add, Kate O is saying it incredibly clearly. I, too, am a white woman around Hillary's age who has been embarassed and offended by the way she has played the 'victim' of sexism to explain her loss of support from people like me who simply cannot trust her as a *person*.
May 20, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that article a few days ago, and agree with most of what she says. A lot of that stuff is offensive, sexist, and just plain wrong. But not one example comes from Senator Obama.
May 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course not. Please don't be so wet, Hilary. I'm trying to get you off that ship before it sinks. But you have to help. You're running out of chances. After they lock the chains it's too late. Then you have to row to the beat of the drum, and I can't help you anymore.
May 20, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post dijamo. You sum it up perfectly.
May 20, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why is the venom from our side so much more offensive than the equal and opposite venom from your side that it constitutes a reason to cast a spite vote against him?
And, I'm sorry, but I heard exactly the same tune from the Nadarites in 2000. "We don't want people to vote for him in swing states, only in the states Gore has locked up, to make a point" they said. Yeah, that worked out great for us. They played with fire to satisfy their own personal issues, and we have 4,000 dead Americans and a trillion dollars corpse factory to show for it.
May 20, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch. That is not a fair statement to make. Please don't blame any one American voter for the Iraq war. That is bullshit. The blame lays squarely on Bush/Cheney and their willful lies. Their accomplices: their republican friends in congress and a MSM willing to sell the war to the American people.
May 20, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take a quick stab at some of Obama's problems from the perspective you describe. This is only my fee-associating personal viewpoint - it isn't intended to be either comprehensive or definitive.
(1)Middle-aged white women. General rule: They don't like him. Something vaguely chauvinistic radiates thru his campaign and the media play on it (flicking the suit?), alongside the obvious fact that HRC is one of THEM, and Sen. Obama isn't. Rep. Ferraro is not so much an aberration, as a representative type. Lose them, and you lose millions of the kind of voters who are usually money in the bank for Dems.
(2)Rural and small-town white working-class people - a lot are Republicans anyhow, but I'm not sure there's much hope for those who aren't. Even the Dems. in this group don't stand too far from the Republican border. Sen. Obama has made ZERO effort to connect to them, and seems to believe he can win without them. (I will virtually promise you ahead of time that he will NEVER set foot in my home state, regardless of where we go from here). We'll see how that works out.
(3)Yes, I used "white" twice. OF COURSE race is a factor. It is also a FACT, same as the sexism I discussed above. There ARE white votes that are not available to Sen. Obama for that reason alone. I happen to believe that is a lower number than many people tend to think, but still a real and probably permanent obstacle.
This are just my off-the-cuff observations. Don't anyone waste a lot of time ARGUING with me, because I'm just talking intuitions, here - perhaps right, perhaps not. I hope they are some help to those who want to understand Obama's potential liabilities as I see them.
Time alone will tell the whole story.
May 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your perspective--but I have to take issue with the middle-aged white women point because I'm one of them. I think it is easy to forget that some white middle-aged women are also racist. I have friends whose opinions I respect a lot who say they just can't vote for a black man. As for saying these women think he's chauvinistic--why pick on him? All men might be to an extent, but is it the uppity black man that bothers some women? I don't want to start an argument either, but I don't get good answers when I ask older white women why they don't like Obama. They might have good reasons for supporting Hillary, and that's fine, but I think some women need to look deeper to understand what it is about this man that they don't like. For some, the answer might not be so pretty.
May 20, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, Ferraro has lost her bearings and should just keep her mouth closed. I don't find her representative of anything but angry old women who have a chip on their shoulder.
May 20, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama stated that he didn't know whether the people supporting him would support Hillary. Michelle Obama said she would have to think about whether she would support Hillary if she were to be the nominee. So why should they or you expect that Clinton's supporters will all support Obama? He has to earn it and I don't think the way to do that is by being dismissive of their concerns about him on a policy level, on a substance level, and demonstrate that he has respect for their views and opinions.
May 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle said she would have to think about "working" for Hillary, should she be the nominee and added that there is a lot of pressure to take care of her kids. She sacrificed for he husband, but for someone else, she'll have to think about it.
Your point about Obama showing respect for Clinton voters and their concerns is the only sensible thing you've said on this thread. Given that he is still competing for votes with her, do you not think he has every intention of doin g so duringthe general election.
What policy position of your do you think he does not respect?
May 20, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche - Michelle Obama clarified her original comments to say she'd have to think about working for Hillary Clinton. So I guess Bill Clinton can take some time to think about "working" for Obama in this campaign. Given how negative he's been in the whole campaign, I am sure Obama doesn't want him anyway.
So on my policies:
Healthcare - Obama doesn't understand the need for universal healthcare (not universal access). His policy is inadequate and just perpetuates a system where people can choose not to be covered. He's made republican arguments against mandates for coverage for adults (children have mandates for coverage).
Foreclosure - Hillary supports more active gov't involvement in freezing ARM rates and a forecosure moratorium for 90 days. Obama opposes that.
Foreign Policy - Obama made a huge mistake when he criticized Hillary Cinton's position that we will have vigorous diplomatic engagement with our enemies but would not be willing to have direct presidential meetings in her first year without preconditions. Looks like he's backing away from that now.
In short I think Obama's economic policies are not liberal enough. We have the potential for a democratic congress and president and this is not the time to be cautious. We can do important things and his economic policies in my view are mediocre. Are his policies better than McCains? Of course. I prefer lima beans to baby corn, but that doesn't mean I have to like lima beans.
May 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would prefer both Obama's and Clinton's healthcare policies to be further left. I would, in fact, prefer a single-payer plan. However, more than anything, I want healthcare reform that can actually be passed. I'm not convinced that mandates would pass, and I am not at all convinced that Clinton is capable of getting any kind of healthcare legislation passed. She and Bill had a Democratic congress back in '93, and she did not get it done. She antagonized fellow Democrats, and the whole debacle set us back 15 years. I am not convinced she's learned the correct lessons from that experience.
Obama's healthcare proposal is imperfect, but I do believe he could get it passed. It would be a vast improvement and at least set us on the path to where we need to be.
On the foreclosure issue, I don't think Hillary's right. Anytime you have a government-mandated freezes and moratoriums, you wind up with unforeseen consequences, and they're rarely good. Freezing isn't the answer. We need programs that get people into sane fixed-rate mortgages (or even sane ARMs - with reasonable restrictions, they're not all bad). We need to give lenders incentives to work with borrowers rather than pursue foreclosure, and we need to pursue sane regulation of the mortgage industry.
On the foreign policy issue, I disagree. I think we need engagement with our foes. Talking with our enemies is the only way we make progress. Unless you think five decades of not talking to Cuba has brought about any progress.
Clinton's foreign policy is all far too hawkish for my taste. It's not just her Iraq war vote. It's her Kyl-Lieberman vote, and her comments about obliterating Iran. We've had more than enough of that attitude.
"In short I think Obama's economic policies are not liberal enough. We have the potential for a democratic congress and president and this is not the time to be cautious."
I don't think either candidate's policies are liberal enough, but I at least have a reasonable expectation that Obama will do what he says. I have no such expectation from Clinton. She has lied to me too many times.
May 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the the nail on the head.
From the AA perspective: I think it is the same for many African American or Hispanic women. Usually burned through years of failed attempts of dating African American men that have all let them down, and it has spurned there views of Barack Obama, as it probably does with other African American men in their normal lives. Dating, and friendship, etc..
May 20, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we all personalize our political views, and this has been a fascinating primary for making us look inwardly, and at others, in terms of sexism and racism. I think it's healthy, if painful. I have learned a lot about my own views and have struggled with those of people I thought I knew well. In the end, I believe the Dems will come together because I believe in her heart of hearts, HRC will know that's the right thing--once the burn heals--and because Obama will ask us to.
May 20, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
BULL - maybe some Hillary supporters are more into substance and policies than flash and charisma.
May 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, here we go again with the patronizing. Obama supporters are simple minded cultists. That's getting REALLY old.
May 20, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most certainly it is the issues that drive a lot of voters on both sides. Which is why it makes sense that those people will, or should, vote for the person who is closest to their beliefs on those issues.
May 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What substance and policy are you talking about?
The gas tax?
May 20, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever happened to that gas tax holiday anyway?
May 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
But I have friends and associates who WANT to vote for a black man. If Hillary wasnt in the race I would support Barrack over John Edwards or any of the other candidates in some part because it is time for a black man as president.
May 20, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am glad to hear it.
May 20, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahaha@Title.
Well put Rip lol.
May 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you worried about what other people expect? Or what they can give you? This "eye" for an "eye" shit. Its dumb.
Think about it: What do you want to get out of this election? What do you want to get out the next President? What do you want to be doing in the next 3 - 5 years when it comes to your life and how you have planned?
Use those questions to guide your answers. Nit picking through 7 months of "what he said", "what she said" wont produce you any answers. And it will just stoke your fire even more. I mean, if things were opposite, I could find hundreds of lines or things I have heard Hillary say that I may not like, actually, probably not even that many, since I dont take things she says out of context or to heart in such a way(as you seem to with Obama) and then I would never be able to vote for anyone at all. EVER.
You either REALLY like every single thing that Hillary has ever uttered out of her mouth, or are being hypocritical.
May 20, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so curious about this assertion that the DNC and Obama surrogates (not bloggers) have jumped to defend Obama against racism or race baiting. Can you give any examples of this because I felt as though many of his surrogates were actually very silent and didn't come to his defense or speak out against race-baiting at all.
Additionally, what exactly are Obama's policy positions that causes concern? Clinton and Obama seem to share a great deal in common so what specifically should I being paying attention to that I have missed? And I ask this in all sincerity.
May 20, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I didn't see Obama having very many friends in high places around during the Rev. Wright fiasco. Good luck getting someone to respond to your questions. I've tried before so I can better understand the disconnect, but don't get substantive responses.
May 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
KateO, I've read here your attempts to get that question answered and it's a shame that we're at this place in the process and it is still met with silence.
I feel challenged on a personal level by these claims of sexism and misogyny being the cause of Hillary's loss and especially when her supporters assert that Obama's himself has been sexist. As a woman, I'm concerned that the patriarchy has blinded me somehow and I truly wish Hillary's supporters can help bring me into the light!
May 20, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we are blinded. I just want someone to convince me that racism is not as big of a factor as I suspect it is. I want to understand why Clinton supporters think she will do a better job bringing together this divisive Congress and country. I want to understand why Obama's ability to communicate so well bothers them. I want to understand why white blue collar workers relate to her (I really don't get that one).
May 20, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that CNN's exit polls show that 27% of black Democratic voters in NC said that the race of the candidate was an important issue to them, I can't disagree.
May 20, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I choose Hillary because I think she has a better understanding of the issues. If you saw any of the debates you would think the same way. Race has nothing to do with it.
May 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
KateO,
I choose Hillary because I think she has a better understanding of the issues. If you saw any of the debates you would think the same way. Race has nothing to do with it.
The way you wont give people credit for supporting Senator Clinton on the issues is quite condescending to your candidate. Think about it.
May 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw several of the debates, and I disagree that Clinton is inherently better on the issues. She's good on