« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Fallible Human Beings
I see the theme constantly repeated in here that Sen. Clinton is dishonest, corrupt, morally reprehensible, etc. I've heard words like "witch" (and actually much, much worse) used over and over. For a forum such as TPM that likes to flatter itself as being a cut above the average in intellect and decorum, I've seen REMARKABLY little effort to offset this childish venom with more temperate, balanced commentary.
What can I say in response? Just this: Sen. Clinton got nearly 18 MILLION votes, including MY vote. {Don't worry, I'm not entering the "popular vote" swamp: they got more or less equal totals, (and who cares, anyway?)}. That is a lot of votes, is my whole point.
Yet there remain those in large numbers on Sen. Obama's (barely)winning side, who CONTINUE to suggest that those of us who lost with Sen. Clinton were not just (barely) wrong, but something much WORSE: corrupt, or crooked, or morally deficient, or depraved. You don't just show insufficient respect for our losing candidate when you talk like that, you show insufficient respect for US - all 18 million of us.
Do Sen. Obama and his supporters seriously believe they can win this thing without bringing a fair majority of us along with them? If they believe (correctly, in my view) that they ARE going to need our help to a considerable extent, can someone explain to me how this holier-than-thou, incendiary approach is helpful in that regard?
People are more than just the sum of their "political" parts. Certainly, we all have our various political beliefs, and we tend to give these due weight in our voting decisions. It's EQUALLY true that being flesh-and-blood, fallible human beings, our voting decisions are based as well on more mysterious intangibles: We like or dislike someone. We like or dislike their loudest supporters. Fear, prejudice, anger, PRIDE: All these play a role as well. Sen. Obama has a headstart with most of us in the pure "issues" element, but I'm not at all sure that that is enough just by itself. The basic chemistry of this marriage of convenience is going to have to improve, if its full potential benefits are to be realized. There may be those who sincerely believe that doesn't matter. You won, that's your right. I respectfully disagree, and I think the bill for that miscalculation, if it is allowed to stand, will come due in November.
Comments (5)
I don't think Obama nor his campaign intend on taking Hillary's supporters for granted. Don't confuse the 20 percenters with the rest of the crowd. By "20 percenters", I'm referring to that portion of each camp's supporters who act in regrettable ways. For Clinton supporters, this is largely expressed as "I'm not going to vote for Obama in the general" pouting, and for the Obama supporters, this is largely expressed as a "we don't need you anyways" mentality. Hopefully, by the time of the convention, or shortly afterward, we can bring these 20 percenters down to being 2 percent, or less. Hopefully, we can start to experience a positive feedback—as the least immature of these two groups begin to see the errors of their ways, others in the group will slowly follow.
June 4, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't automatically include us in the "incendiary, holier-than-thou" crowd, and I won't take you to task for weird arithmetic, like 17 million becoming 18 million.
June 4, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You and your kind are corrupt, crooked, morally deficient, and depraved. (Not necessarily in that order.)
Seriously, I think that this stuff will last approximately 24 hours after Clinton concedes. In the meantime, you'll probably have to suffer from excessive gloating from Ben's 20 percent.
June 4, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Ben said.
To put it another way, "fallible human beings" works in both directions.
I started to tune out the Hillary-bashing here two or three weeks ago. I don't think the Clinton campaign was run in a way that stayed at all true to Hillary's ideals; it angered me for a while, and it saddens me still. But I agree that much of the Hillary-bashing on TPMEC is irrational. I'm hoping it will be over soon.
The reason I don't argue against it any more is that it's a waste of time. Tried it. Didn't work. You can't fight self-selective pressures. Arguing against Hillary-bashing in threads started for that express purpose is like going to a smokers' convention to advocate for laws against smoking. Instead, I just find myself gravitating to threads started by the Clinton people (or, I would say, ex-Clinton-people).
June 4, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are always more magnamamous in losing than they are in winning.
June 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment