Clinton Camp Flaming Her Supporter's Sense that Obama's Win Is Unfair?
| Mon May. 19, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
Even though Hillary Clinton is campaigning onward, a key question for her is how gracious a loser she can be. How she handles what seems to be her pending defeat could affect Barack Obama's prospects in the fall and her own future political career, especially if Obama is defeated by John McCain in the fall. Regarding the former, much media attention has been showered on the possibility that many Clinton voters are so mad-as-hell that they won't vote for Obama in November. On Monday, The Washington Post front-paged a piece on PO'ed women who support Clinton and suggested that some of these voters will choose John McCain rather than vote for the guy who dashed Clinton's glass-ceiling-breaking dreams.
For Clinton, a test will be what she does to mitigate the anger of her followers and lead them into Obama-land. Right now, she appears to be putting off this challenge until after the primaries end of June 3. Which is fine. But her campaign does seems content until then to flame her voters' sense of being aggrieved.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
In a memo entitled "Mission Accomplished? Not So Fast" that was sent to reporters on Monday, Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's communications director, wrote:
Senator Obama's plan to declare himself the Democratic nominee tomorrow night in Iowa is a slap in the face to the millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton's 17 million supporters.
There is no scenario under the rules of the Democratic National Committee by which Senator Obama will be able to claim the nomination tomorrow night. He will not have 2210 delegates, the number needed with Florida and Michigan included in the process, nor will he have 2025 delegates, the number needed to secure the nomination without Florida and Michigan.
Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so.
While Senator Obama inaccurately declares himself the nominee, Senator Clinton will continue to work hard, campaigning for every vote in the upcoming states and making the case that she will be the best nominee to take on John McCain and be our next President.
Well, with Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico left to vote after Tuesday, there really aren't millions of voters. And residents of late-voting states are usually shafted in primary contests. Candidates routinely declare victory before the primaries are finished. Wolfson also is ignoring the fact that Clinton has previously recognized 2025 as the magic number of delegates needed for the nomination. (Now her campaign focused on the 2210 figure, which only would be operative if the disputed primaries of Florida and Michigan are counted.)
It's certainly within the rights of the Clinton campaign to say "whoa" to Obama. And she has ceased attacking Obama on the campaign stump. (She even defended Obama against George W. Bush's implicit attack that he is an appeaser.) But if she and her aides treat Obama's close win as an insult and unfair development, they will have a tougher time nudging her supporters into his column in the fall election. And this is not just about helping Obama. To keep her own political future alive--she can easily run again if Obama loses in the fall--Clinton will have to do all she can to assist Obama in the general election. She and her people ought to not make that job any harder for themselves than it might already be.
Comments
Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses, and other Scare Tactics
We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here's my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).
First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.
Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton" script. The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim ?- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.
In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama's jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?
Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love "the horror": If you vote for McCain or don't vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming!
These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts." Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama's success does not dictate the way I vote.
I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive." My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats' misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honst person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or "Clinton politics." Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the "boys" will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is "hurting the party" and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn't matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don't tell me fake racial politics doesn't matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.
? A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More.....
Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses, and other Scare Tactics
We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here's my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).
First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.
Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton" script. The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim ?- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.
In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama's jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?
Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love "the horror": If you vote for McCain or don't vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming!
These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts." Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama's success does not dictate the way I vote.
I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive." My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats' misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honst person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or "Clinton politics." Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the "boys" will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is "hurting the party" and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn't matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don't tell me fake racial politics doesn't matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.
? A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More.....
I'm not sure I'd call the "suppositions" on the inner workings of Hillary Clinton's mind journalism.
Secondly, even if your evidently false suppositions were true and even if she had utmost in her mind the strategy to choose for bowing out gracefully, Hillary Clinton does not "own" her voters. I can see where many of them -- despite the encouragement that Hillary would have given to vote Obama if she indeed doesn't get the nomination which is still NOT settled -- will refuse to vote for "sweetie"-pie.
i simply don't understand how women that call themselves feminists could vote for mccain. he has already stated that he would appoint supreme court justices that would overturn roe v. wade. is your anger so overwhelming that you would give up your key issues to prove a point?
"simply don't understand how women that call themselves feminists could vote for mccain"
I say the same thing, but about Hillary. What feminist would "stand by her man"? Especially after being made a fool of in front of the entire world?
And Hillary's new math is disturbing. The way she counts votes and delegates is the epitome of spin. Then, she will say that the votes in MI and FL should count, but dismisses caucus votes when she says "I'm wining in the popular vote". This is desperation at its saddest. I can't see how anyone would look at that and think that such murky and obtuse rationalizations are the characteristics of a good leader.
And everyone who is singing from the Hillary hymn book will vote for Obama in November. Once McCain gets going and gets back in the limelight, the nation will see voting for him is as much as saying "Four more years".
gObama!
You know, at first I was angry that HRC started talking out of both sides of her mouth a couple of months ago about MI/FL. Now I am just extremely saddened and disgusted. If people truly feel that HRC is the best candidate for President, than God Bless them because they are entitled to that belief. But will any of her supporters publicly acknowledge that changing and redefining the rules in the middle of the game so you can get an advantage is wrong? I mean, it's like we are in living in bizarro world. Last summer when the decision came down, HRC signed up with and supported the DNC's decision to strip away MI/FL's delegates. But earlier this year, when it became clear that Obama was more of a threat than she realized, HRC started singing the tune about the "disenfranchised" MI/FL voters. Last year, all candidates were well aware and acknowledged the magic number of 2025 to get the nomination, but now that HRC is trying to include MI/FL in the fold, that number changes to 2210? I mean what the heck?
I think that HRC is extremely intelligent and competent and has done great service for this country. But this is wrong. And I will not sit by and watch her change the rules while "feminists" try to brow beat me into believing that she is losing because of sexism. Yes, sexism has unfortunately plagued this election season and proves that we still have a long way to go to change the negative attitudes about women.
But HRC is not losing because of sexism, she is losing because of Hillaryism. And there will be no apologies for that.
Well said, Tanisha. Even arguing that sexism hurts a female candidate's prospects, if that female seemed as genuine, intelligent and truly desirous to make things better as Barack Obama, instead of pandering and cozying up to corporate high-rollers, said female would have garnered a lot more confidence than Hillary.
I am sorry, but this issue really makes me laugh...
Yikes!--shouldn't people be rallying to Nader--simply because "The Establishment" didn't rapidly freeze the rapidly rising adjustable mortgage rates...
OUCH--REPEAT AFTER ME:
We've had it up to here with: Tuna containing dangerous levels of mercury, with light bulbs that don't explain the dangers of the mercury contained within, with electricity power plants that spew loads of mercury into the air...
Maybe this is what's behind the rising numbers of childhood autism...
I'm sorry, but I do not need Clinton to "flame" me to do anything. I am educated, of sound mind, informed on the issues, and an independent thinker. The party is in major denial if it thinks that voters will unify around Obama (or Clinton for that matter). Also, I think it is odd that Obama supporters who have for months described Clinton as evil personified welcome her to work to get out the vote for Obama. Wouldn't that be the same as asking Karl Rove to get out the vote for him? Or was all the venom just grandstanding?
Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses, and other Scare Tactics
We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to "unify" with Clinton's supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here's my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).
First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama's supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.
Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal "issues" you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the "only racists vote for Clinton" script. The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed "uneducated" voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out -- starting after Iowa -- in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean's bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined "racism" directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats -- the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim - to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do "anything to get elected." I refuse to join this madness.
In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as "Annie Oakley" gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up -- another "precious" Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama's jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?
Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love "the horror": If you vote for McCain or don't vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive "our children" from having a "great country." I feel a tear coming!
These are just Karl Rovian "red alerts." Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring "change." They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere "policy wonk," while Obama made people "feel good again." Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama's success does not dictate the way I vote.
I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your "red scare" alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it "progressive." My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats' misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past -- what they call "Clinton scandals," when every honst person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the "education" on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or "Clinton politics." Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the "boys" will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is "hurting the party" and "kneecapping" the "first viable black presidential candidate" - as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country's history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don't tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn't matter. Don't tell me sexism doesn't matter. Don't tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn't matter. Don't tell me fake racial politics doesn't matter. Don't tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a "real" Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not "endorse anything to get a Democrat elected," and neither should you.
A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want More.....
lets see we have white women that would have voted for eva braun with hitler as sidekick to put a woman in the white house.
when she had that big picture taken of her with just her women advisors i knew then it was over.
and she has the white lower working class vote. ie racism.
welcome to american politics.
the goldwater girl revealed her true self and it cost her the election.
Poor, poor Hillary. She is such a fool to drag this on, no matter how bad an effect it will have on her political future. She is thrilled about getting the support from KKKarl Rove and she's only getting it because she's the weaker candidate. But she is too blind to see that, even though it's right in front of her face. She is turning her supporters against Obama, who would vehemently support McCain if Obama is nominated. How Hil can't see the forest for the trees, is beyond me. She's so bitter about losing that she doesn't care about getting a democrat in the White House; which is what will happen if she continues her craziness. She has lost Murdock as a supporter, which is a big time loss. There are countless numbers of former Clinton supporters who have defected to Obama's team. What more of a sign to quit does she want? She only want to win... it has nothing to do with the people of the United States anymore but how it's always been: about her.
I think that her family is going to be less prevalent in the primaries to come. With both Chelsea's emotional reaction from her mother's small marginal "win" in Indiana along with Bill's reddening somber face that just says that this is over, it's clear to see that continuing on in this race is a practice in futility for Hillary.
Her physique has been telling a story since she entered this race with Obama. She has gotten wider and fatter as the nomination race nears a close. It looks like she has gained at least 20 lbs. Too much ice cream, I suppose. She's looked like she's aged at least 15 years. Her stump speeches sound more and more ridiculous and absurd; her insidious lies have continued on, to trick the voters. She's as dirty and slimy as ever, if not more so. Who wants that in a president?
When she returns to the Senate, her colleagues aren't going to think much of her, since they have seen her for what she is along. I'm sure that when her re-election comes up, we're going to say goodbye to this "lady". Then she'll have to find herself another job, which may or may not be in the political realm.
Do you want fries with that?
Submitted by mike (not verified) on Tue May. 20, 2008 6:54 AM PDT.
Tony Smith... buddy... you need to take a breath. Someone's clearly got some hurt feelings... If you don't want to vote for Obama, you shouldn't. If you want to do a protest vote, have at it. I am a democrat idealisticly, but i wish i were a Republican, because thier party is so much smarter politically. Dems fall in LOVE with their cahndidates... Reps love to win, period. The concept of "boycotting" Obama because of your view of unfair treatment towards Clinton (real or perceived)is poorly thought out, and defies logic. But it is your right... no matter what the costs. If an Obama boycott occurs, and he loses, then it will officially trigger the need for a third party in this country, where people in the center can get together and solve some actual problems instead of wasting energy on nonsense like boycotting a solid candidate of ours.
Mike: I am actually very calm, and my feelings are not hurt. Perhaps you had some underlying anxiety, but I do not. I have not fallen in love with my candidate, but instead, I have principles that lead me to a party and/or candidate. If the party seems not to embrace them, I do not go along with the party. Even very conservative Christians are leery over McCain. I think they will come out and support him, but his campaign has not denigrated them. I do agree with your observation that we need a center party. I am actually far more progressive than the looney do-nothing "left" of the Democrats. But the problem with "ideological" leftness and conservatism is that these things become dogmatic and people do not want to compromise or hear any script that deviates from their own -- which is another thing that has been so troubling about this campaign. The so-called left decided that Obama was a left hero. Blacks decided that he was a racial hero. No dissent was allowed on these issues. You disagree -- you are a racist. You are black and disagree -- then you hate being black. First of all, given this situation, I have the right to be angry - but I am not. Second, and more importantly, the notion of party unity cannot make me ignore this madness. Because of the process - not the loss by Clinton - I am sitting this out. If you think that is crazy, that's your choice. It's all anonymous anyway....
PS: Obama is YOUR candidate, not mine.
Geraldine Ferraro, calling Barack Obama "sexist," may not back him
Might fully one-third of the six surviving Democratic vice presidential nominees end up opposing their party's national ticket this November?
Ferraro, in the NYT story, terms Obama "terribly sexist." And, as a result, she says she may not be able to cast her ballot for him if, as anticipated, he gains the Democratic presidential nod.
OMG! You dare mention Karl Rove, when Hillary has be "quoting" Rove's political analysis (in her favor)?!
Hillary is not suffering from "sexism", Hillary is suffering from CLINTONIAN (ya'll OWE ME) syndrome! They (both she and Bill) change accents and backgrounds as often as changes pantsuits!
Skipping back over all the responses, I'd like to comment on the last paragraph of the original blog.
The idea of anyone "nudging" the supporters of either candidate in any direction is just plain funny.
Too much passion on both sides.
Angie, in typical fashion, Obama supporters distort to bash. Clinton was making general statements about her strength in state-to-state contests and said that a network had released a poll showing she was ahead. She mentioned in passing that it was prepared by "none other than Karl Rove." Stop overstating what she said. Also, if you had actually taken the time to read the Rove report -- all he does is average polling data from various pollsers. THIS IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM REAL CLEAR POLITICS!!!!! The thought that Obama supporters are getting worked out of shape because of this shows how they will do anything to portray Clinton in a negative light. Well, you bashing has worked. We realize that there is nothing positive about you and your phoney change crew. Enjoy November, and make sure you get ready for President McCain.
I keep coming back hoping David Corn has laid off the Hillary Hatred that he feeds to people on the blog. I used to enjoy reading Corn.
For those who are honestly shocked that a woman can support Hillary and not just posting snark, I can't vote for Barack.
Don't threaten me with Roe. Barack's not a Roe defender. But NO feminist can support homophobia and as Kevin Alexander Gray outlined in The Progressive at the start of this year, Barack used homophobia to scare up voters. NO feminist supports the use of homophobia.
So drop the lectures. That position is not open to discussion.
Colleen, your post indicates that you may be just a man hating feminist. I know that you feminist feel entitled because for years you have put your time in for the party and worked hard for the party, but remember, Blacks are former slaves, you feminists were never slaves. The Blacks are more entitled than you feminists. It is our time now. So get behind Obama.
Tyrone - are you serious? First of all, I guess you have never heard of Bell Hooks and other black feminists. No - feminist = white. How simplistic. Also, there is no such thing as a "man-hating feminist." That's just a stereotype designed to dismiss women who criticism discrimination. Think: "militant black" or "angry blacks." Same concept. Plus, there are not black "former slaves." Slavery has an impact, but you need better justfication to claim that someone has to "get behind" another person or that another group is "more entitled." Your post is beyond ignorant.
I say let Obama "have" the nomination, for now. He's so eager to call it won, when it hasn't even finished. He's a dilweed, and everyone knows it, so I am SO eager to see HIM on the chopping block, now, that they won't have Hillary to hurt anymore. I can't wait. He will FINALLY be EXPOSED!
