« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The increasing xenophobia of Clinton's campaign
Curiosity drives me to hillaryis44.org sometimes. I suppose I'm looking for insight into Clinton's support, particularly as the days get bleaker, the odds impossibly longer. Also I'm looking for, hoping for a softening of position, something that telegraphs an acceptance of the trajectory we're on.
However that website is more shrill, more vitriolic than ever. Not only are the isolationist walls going higher and growing thicker, they're closing in. Today I read rage driven posts that paint Edwards as: 1) unimportant; 2) contemptible; 3) traitorous. Many say NARAL committed an unforgivable sin with their endorsement of Obama.
Could it be that everyone who goes for Obama is an enemy?! Really? Are we not all Americans? Democrats? Friends, or at least friendly colleagues? How can we be this divided? You'd think Obama was Rumsfeld judging by the hatred.
Perhaps this is not the sampling of Hillary supporters I should be looking at to guess the baseline thinking of that group. There are many reasoned, balanced Clinton supporters here on TPM and elsewhere.
But it is getting harder for me to envision party reconciliation when many of Clinton's supporters are concretizing their myopic view that only Hillary can be president - and any alternative perspective, no matter how grounded in reality, is to be vilified.
Comments (32)
Uh oh. You used the word "shrill" in a post about Hillary Clinton and her supporters.
May 15, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, good point. I'd removed the term from it's political clothing but forgot that I was still talking politics. Won't happen again.
May 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What will Sen. Clinton's supporters do when she "campaigns her heart out for the democratic nominee"?
Do her supporters agree with Hillary when she says all that matters is that a democrat wins in November?
Does their loyalty end where her strongest most principled statements about unity begin?
May 15, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, what if she can't lead her followers any more ... ???
oh oh that would be really losing it!
May 15, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a stupid and divisive comment. Get it through your divisive little mind; the substantial and overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters will vote for Senator Obama. People like me are included in this group despite, and not because, of what people like you have written in the heat of the campaign, and apparently (at least in your case) continue to write. Your choice, but if you are anything of a unifier here's a condescending but warranted suggestion, and I stand by it. I would suggest that you take a deep breath and start expending productive energy by talking up your candidate, instead of scoring points with the peanut gallery with your divisive snark about Clinton supporters. In short, my vote for Senator Obama will count just as much as yours, but in the meantime please go play with yourself and your little petty schoolboy challenge to Clinton supporters.
May 16, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
cue sound effects of a henhouse full of cackling chickens....
May 15, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, I read a number of posts on the NARAL site and was somewhat surpise at the degree of vitriol. While I can see people being upset. I could not understand why some many claimed they would not support a pro-choice candidate, despite the fact he was not their choice. To vote McCain is a major setback for choice. Hopefully time will heal the dash hopes of many of her supporters and the will not throw the baby out with the bath water.
May 15, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that site and I'm more and more convinced that those people are mostly Freepers. They sound like the Bush dead-enders, not Democrats.
May 15, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It's not a legit site.
May 15, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, keep in mind that the people that frequent those sites are probably not typical of your average voter who supported Hillary in the primaries.
May 15, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a lot of paid/volunteer sock puppetry going on. You have to take that into account.
May 15, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent last weekend with a bunch of pro-choice academics who work on reproductive rights. Most of us supported Obama anyway, but the Clinton supporters had no difficulty supporting him in a general election against McCain. Everyone wanted a Democrat elected in the fall.
If McCain appoints one single judge to the Court (liberal Justice Stevens is 90 years old), constitutional protection of the right to abortion will be gone. Any so-called feminist who claims to prefer McCain to Obama is not voting on the issues.
May 15, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit kidding yourself. We expect Democratic senators to do their jobs. End of story. The early blackmail of "You'd better vote for our guy because we can't support Clinton" has now been displaced by "No more abortions if you don't vote for Barry."
You guys chose to run alone. We'll see how it goes. Sow. Reap. It's not complicated.
May 16, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone mention sock puppets?
May 16, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Hillary herself has totally changed the tone of her campaign since North Carolina. She has basically disarmed:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1027329.aspx
May 15, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do her supporters agree with Hillary when she says all that matters is that a democrat wins in November?
I don't know but I doubt it. They've had countless drooling Obama fanboys telling them how they couldn't vote for that monster bitch that shot Vince Foster.
Think hard. You'll figure it out.
May 16, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think you have it hard? Your candidate will be the nominee, but even now you can't stop the attack against Hillary. I think you're just bitter, and you no longer have a reason to be. Take comfort in the way your candidate crushed Hillary with that Edwards endorsement right on the heels of her blowout in W. Virginia. Think of how that must have made her feel. Play the image over and over in your mind. Purchase a Hillary doll, toss it on the floor and practice grinding your heel into it until you can no longer recognize it's face. Then start acting your age.
May 16, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're so right Otto, mean old Obama sure could use a copy of "Clinton's Rules Of Civil Discourse." I guess having the bar set so high by Hillary makes it inevitable that Barack and his supporters will disappoint in the manners department. Feel The Hillmentum
May 16, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, no one here attacked Hillary. You're imagining slights where there are none.
Time to heal, bro.
May 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy strawmen, Batman.
Seriously, Otto, Indiex, it's going to be okay. Deep breaths. Go, find the nearest person, and give them a hug. Isn't that better?
I don't understand this "Obama supporters are so nasty so I'm going to vote for John McCain." I've seen it everywhere. While I've had moments of disgust with the Clinton campaign, my I'm-not-voting-for-her snits (absurd, of course I would) have been about her, not because of the things I've been called by a few people on the internet. The Hillaryis44 group is totally unhinged--Obama is Hitler, the antiChrist--it's really kind of frightening. But not that, nor the behavior of Rae or gotalife or the embittered vehemence evinced here would affect how I voted in November. People on the internet are crazy. Hillary's not responsible for gotalife, and Obama's not responsible for your strawmen.
May 16, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Edwards endorsed Obama the other night, No Quarter put up a post right away titled "No More.We Are Through" with the the first sentence reading "To the Democratic Party: GO fuck yourselves".
The bile and hate just pours out in the comments. Don't dare attempt to even try and open a discussion with them, no matter how reasonable.
I read comment after comment about how they not only won't vote for Obama if he is the nominee, that they'll work HARD for McShame to make sure we all feel their Obama Derangement Syndrome Rage in November. (there is always the claim that there are 'Millions of us' with most posts also).
Yikes.
I do believe that they are a very small % of Hillary's supporters, and that more people than not know this country can't afford 4 more years of McBush. Iran being the main reason, followed by the Supreme Court.
May 16, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been hearing about Obama reaching across the aisle to Republicans for over a year, including advertising for them to come vote for him. Perhaps it's about time he started reaching out to Hillary supporters. But I'm not sure he understands how.
May 16, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You made this argument all day yesterday, Des. Maybe it could start with you, instead of griping about how Obama's not doing enough to woo you. Looks like Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. Are you supporting the Dem ticket? Even considering it? Start some soul searching and don't wait to be courted.
May 16, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? This is what's important to you? There is a strong tide pushing all of TPM and their commenters onto the general election. And this is what you come up with? This post is passe to say the least. It is over. Even Clinton knows this. Bush, McCain and the right wing are the opponents that need smacking down. You can continue attacking Clinton supporters on some partisan website for being "shrill" and "vitriolic", in a rage...whatever. (And for fun you can take a look around these very pages at TPM and see the same if not worse from far too many Obama supporters.) Or you can actually pay attention to what's going on in the world. Things are moving fast, right? So try to keep up.
May 16, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree about the Edwardses. When Elizabeth and John did their People interview, a number of us yawned and wrote off their significance. Some of the comments were pretty harsh, mine included.
But I think there is a difference between what you see on Taylor Marsh and Hillaryis44 and what you see on TPM. The bloggers on TPM like to entertain each other; there's more wit here than you find on the other two sites. I don't think this is purely because many of the people at TPM feel good because Obama is winning. This is a place for repartee; the other sites seem to specialize in communal comfort and commiseration. There's a bit of that at TPM as well, but it tends to be drowned out by the satire.
May 16, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the increasing hatred clearly shows that these people are more than highly likely to be 5th colonne Republicans.
No way that Democrats are so vile, full of bile and hatred.
May 16, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh poor otto. actually, i was elated and saddened. i am a woman after all. although edwards' support is much appreciated, like you, i felt that he was an opportunist. he should have come out when it could have helped obama or hrc but he chose to remain silent waiting for assurance. i have lost respect for him on every account. so on that score, yes i felt bad for hrc. it must have hurt b/c she fought as hard as obama for that moral endorsement. in the end, i was that much prouder of obama b/c if he was half as nasty running his campaign, some of his supporters would have defected to hrc and she would have been the victor.
on to victory in november...the goal is for obama to keep his base supporters and increase new voter turnout in hopes that it will override disingenuous democratic voters and wishy washy independent/republican support. along the way, if he manages to hold on to some of those wishy washy voters, all the better.
May 16, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"he should have come out when it could have helped obama"
Am I missing something here? Don't all the Rovians consider Edwards' endorsement just after Hillary's WV win to be a very savvy political move IN SUPPORT OF OBAMA?
I was disappointed that JRE did not endorse before NC, but considering the impact his delayed endorsement had on subduing the hapless, hopeless Hillary WV hyperbole we all expected, I can only say someone is a tactical genius.
As for the "shrill harpies" and the "mean girls for Hillary" everyone is reading at 44 and Marsh, I would agree with some other comments, many of them are concern trolls just playing roles, to amp up the vitriole.
Not that some of them aren't sincere, if misguided, but I think most of the really vile ones aren't Dems at all but dittohead sockpuppets fomenting dissatisfaction among Democrats, in hopes of preventing that 5-state landslide that Corker, Davis and Limbaugh all know is looming on the election horizon.
If the No Quarter crew wants to be a part of that change, they need to reconsider their willful little rebellion. It would be sad to see Joe and Valerie get drawn into the anti-Obama undertow, and Larry and Susan, too. Good, loyal Dems, all, at least up 'til lately.
It is bad enough to watch ignorant wingnuts like Rush and Hannity stumble all over themselves to dis Obama, but when powerful Dems feel compelled to do the same, it suggests there is a "third party" secretly at work within the system.
The REAL "DC beltway" is identifying itself before our very eyes... just watch Andrea Mitchell-Greenspan whenever she's reporting or commenting, for that cabal's insider perspective and spin. McCain and Clinton are both members, Obama is the outsider.
Hillary's once and forgotten "inevitability" factor has brought some very intelligent people to the brink of emotional collapse, thier brains just aren't staying ahead of their expectations.
May 16, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there has certainly been something of a 3rd party at work (DLC) for 8 years, and I had some real concern about their influence over this primary. I think the real victory here in Obama's win is the potential for wresting some of the unchecked power that the DLC has wielded in the Dem Party for the last 20 years or so.
May 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
For HRC, losing her NARAL sisters must be troubling. However, it is important to remember that NARAL is not about supporting "sisters" but, rather, promoting reproductive health choice. HRC's losing campaign does not promote reproductive health choice. Supporting HRC, at this point, is about giving the election the John McSame who is now sleeping with the vast, anti-choice right wing.
May 16, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your problem is that your whole thesis is premised on the "shrill" comments from posters at the Hillary44 website, which this particular Clinton supporter (like probably 99 percent plus of Clinton supporters in the country) has never even visited. When you go to that website, you look in the mirror, and that allows you to call the Hillary Clinton campaign increasingly xenophobic. Nice sample--tunnel visioned Obama right or wronger focuses on tunnel visioned Clinton right or wrongers on a partisan website and drives yet another knife into the gut of the folks whose candidate has all but lost.
When my three voting age children were tiny, all ardent Obama supporters by the way, one of the most important lessons I taught them was that the only thing worse than a sore loser is a sore winner. Fortunately, these three Obama supporters now live by that lesson. Too bad you didn't listen to your parents, who I assume would have also taught you such a valuable corollary to the Golden Rule.
But, party on dude--keep calling your brothers and sisters xenophobes, and thank heavens that it's only jerks like me who spend time in places like this reading the kind of drivel you have written here.
May 16, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, her hardcore supporters (not talking about the reasonable ones here) have lost their damn minds. I wrote a very lengthy post on this, mostly focusing on the NARAL backlash, which you can read here:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/05/what-reaction-to-narals-endorsement.html
It has many more implications than just the NARAL example, so I think it is worth a read. But here's a hint: their anger has nothing to do with a reproductive rights or sexism.
May 16, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment