« CNN Still the Clinton News Network? | AndrewPDX's Blog | No Sense of Decency - The Clinton Campaign »
Why I can't vote for Hillary
I write this in response to Josh's post "Goodbye cruel Ballot Box." Count me among the Obama supporters who will not cast a vote for Hillary if she was to somehow accomplish the impossible and become the Democratic nominee in the general election. However, I disagree with Josh's take on why I -- and several like me -- have vowed never to vote for Hillary. To me, this is less about policy differences than it is about rewarding bad behavior, or kissing progressive policies goodbye.
I was never much of a fan of Bill Clinton's, even though he was leaps and bounds better than the Republican nominees he faced, and light years better than his successor. My problem with Bill was that his constant triangulating and generally centrist to right-of-center ideology worked to shift the center of debate unacceptably to "the right," such that once traditionally liberal or progressive ideas became more outside the mainstream (in perception, at least). His tenure as president, and the resulting alienation of the "left wing" of the Democratic party, was one of many factors that allowed the word "liberal" to become a four letter word in popular jargon. My main fear in electing Hillary to the same post once occupied by her husband was always that 4 or 8 years of similar politics would so damage the progressive wing of the Deomocratic party that it might never recover (that and the idea of 24-28 years under the "rule" of two families kinda freaked me out).
Despite these feelings, I entered this primary season pretty much resigned that the Democrats would shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Hillary, and that I would still vote for her in the end. No more.
The level of mendacity displayed by Hillary on a more-or-less regular basis nowadays, and the lengths to which the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, have gone to keep this primary process alive have so bothered me that I could never support her run for the presidency. For example, during the debates, Hillary accused Obama of shirking this responsibility to make tough decisions with his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, when she knew full well that those votes were the equivalent of a "no" vote in Illinois, and that her intimation to the contrary had been debunked several times by that time. She knew what she was implying was false, yet she continued on this course, depending essentially on the "low information voter." (Curiously, no one ever challenged Hillary on what I think was the equivalent of what she was implying Obama did when it came time for her to vote on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill -- I think she abstained from voting altogether).
Prior to really pushing for revotes, Hillary also asserted that both the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated based on the intitial primaries in those states. This, to me, was the height of dishonesty and mendacity displayed by here and her campaign, and did not reflect the sort of conduct I expect from a president (current one notwithstanding).
Now, she and her campaign continue to push the nominating process beyond the point where it will do anyone on the left side of the aisle any good. Using Slate's delgate calculator, I recently experimented with what would happen assuming Hillary totally kicked ass in all of the remaining primaries, including revotes in Florida and Michigan. Giving her 60%-40% victories in all remaining contests (something I don't think she accomplished in any state yet, even at the zenith of her popularity), including Florida and Michigan, she still fell more than 100 pledged delegates short of Obama's total. To make up the difference from the 300-400 or so uncommitted superdelegates would require that they choose her roughly 2 or 3:1, and yet this would only happen if something catastrophic happened to Obama and his campaign, or Hillary and her campaign went soooo negative that no one came out looking very good to anyone. Again, I ask myself, to what end Hillary? When is it enough? The elevation of self above all else is not strength; nor is being a "fighter" for the sake of fighting something I value.
Don't get my refusal to vote for Hillary wrong; it does not mean I'll vote for McCain. Unlike an earlier poster, I could never vote Republican, and doing so could never bring about the politcis and policies I believe in. Like Hillary on the bankruptcy bill, I'll simply "not vote" for president, but will for other offices.
I was never much of a fan of Bill Clinton's, even though he was leaps and bounds better than the Republican nominees he faced, and light years better than his successor. My problem with Bill was that his constant triangulating and generally centrist to right-of-center ideology worked to shift the center of debate unacceptably to "the right," such that once traditionally liberal or progressive ideas became more outside the mainstream (in perception, at least). His tenure as president, and the resulting alienation of the "left wing" of the Democratic party, was one of many factors that allowed the word "liberal" to become a four letter word in popular jargon. My main fear in electing Hillary to the same post once occupied by her husband was always that 4 or 8 years of similar politics would so damage the progressive wing of the Deomocratic party that it might never recover (that and the idea of 24-28 years under the "rule" of two families kinda freaked me out).
Despite these feelings, I entered this primary season pretty much resigned that the Democrats would shoot themselves in the foot and nominate Hillary, and that I would still vote for her in the end. No more.
The level of mendacity displayed by Hillary on a more-or-less regular basis nowadays, and the lengths to which the Clinton campaign, and Hillary herself, have gone to keep this primary process alive have so bothered me that I could never support her run for the presidency. For example, during the debates, Hillary accused Obama of shirking this responsibility to make tough decisions with his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature, when she knew full well that those votes were the equivalent of a "no" vote in Illinois, and that her intimation to the contrary had been debunked several times by that time. She knew what she was implying was false, yet she continued on this course, depending essentially on the "low information voter." (Curiously, no one ever challenged Hillary on what I think was the equivalent of what she was implying Obama did when it came time for her to vote on the Bankruptcy Reform Bill -- I think she abstained from voting altogether).
Prior to really pushing for revotes, Hillary also asserted that both the Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated based on the intitial primaries in those states. This, to me, was the height of dishonesty and mendacity displayed by here and her campaign, and did not reflect the sort of conduct I expect from a president (current one notwithstanding).
Now, she and her campaign continue to push the nominating process beyond the point where it will do anyone on the left side of the aisle any good. Using Slate's delgate calculator, I recently experimented with what would happen assuming Hillary totally kicked ass in all of the remaining primaries, including revotes in Florida and Michigan. Giving her 60%-40% victories in all remaining contests (something I don't think she accomplished in any state yet, even at the zenith of her popularity), including Florida and Michigan, she still fell more than 100 pledged delegates short of Obama's total. To make up the difference from the 300-400 or so uncommitted superdelegates would require that they choose her roughly 2 or 3:1, and yet this would only happen if something catastrophic happened to Obama and his campaign, or Hillary and her campaign went soooo negative that no one came out looking very good to anyone. Again, I ask myself, to what end Hillary? When is it enough? The elevation of self above all else is not strength; nor is being a "fighter" for the sake of fighting something I value.
Don't get my refusal to vote for Hillary wrong; it does not mean I'll vote for McCain. Unlike an earlier poster, I could never vote Republican, and doing so could never bring about the politcis and policies I believe in. Like Hillary on the bankruptcy bill, I'll simply "not vote" for president, but will for other offices.
Advertisement
But we just have her all wrong! She's just acting like a duplicitous race baiting liar! When she's President she will uphold the most righteous of liberal ideals and make all things correct! We can count on her, its just that she has to pretend to be about something else to win but in reality her heart is pure!
March 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah right...in your dreams!
March 23, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could have written this post (in fact in many ways I have in Comments here and other blogs).
With each passing day I become more and more convinced of Hillary's unfitness and unworthines to be president. Her stubborn addiction to having it her way is not "strength", as we've learned from the disastrous Bush years. She's exaggerated her alleged experience. It's like a little kid playing dress-up. But she's playing with the country and the world, and she does not have that right. She has been incapable of telling the truth and can't utter anything about Obama with a snide sneer.
After Obama's speech on Tuesday, which at its core was a basic progressive value, with intelligence and honesty for the new century and for ALL parties involved in the conflict, she was incapable of seeing that such a progessive value required at the very least, agreement. She could not see beyond what it would get her (or cost her). She was graceless, without basic decency. Imagine if she had given such a speech about sexism. Obama would have embraced it as a progressive value and stood with her. The campaign would have gone on and they would have continued to fight for the nomination. But he would have recognized the commonality of her subject.
Hillary could not see that. That frightened me about her ability to make proper judgments about anything, and seriously questions her commitment to progressive values. We heard Bill talk about them, but he never delivered. Certainly not against political will. The Clintons were disturbingly comfortable triangulating to the right. Hillary has never stood up to Bush, held him accountable, called him to task. So what, actually, does she believe?
I no longer trust her to do what is right. That is why I don't think I can vote for her. I don't expect her to try to win me back (which is half the democratic party), and she has squandered the African American vote pretty much beyond repair. If Obama gets the nomination, he will take the time and energy to try to win back the bruised souls who supported Hillary. Hillary will not even consider doing the same thing. That makes me question her fitness to understand what is necessary to lead.
I defended and loved the Clintons for years. I don't recognize these people. But regardless of what happens to my chosen candidate, I think she is unfit and unworthy to be president.
March 22, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And lets not forget, do you think she is going to give up any of the powers GWB gave himself?
From her own war vote:
...puts the awesome responsibility into the hands of our president.
She is a hawk...plain and simple. She justified her vote back in 2003 two weeks before the invasion saying that her husband went into Kosovo without approval from the UN and believed this was such an instance. She doesnt care about working with the international community. It's my way or the highway. We have a president like that.
Do you think for one minute she is going to protect our privacy? How about signing statements. I mean really. There truly is no difference.
Lets look at how Hillary's preparation for her campaign and GWB's prep for the Iraq War:
1. Both were arrogant enough to think that they will just walk over the competition.
2. Both had the unfounded confidence that once they beat the so called opposition they will be greeted with flowers, no matter what it takes to win.
3. Both did not do any grass root work to find out what the ground reality is.
4. Both are adamant that their strategy was sound.
5. Both never anticipated a long drawn out battle.
6. Both surround themselves with 'yes-men' and appoint incompetent loyalists to important positions.
7. Both are reluctant to change their strategy because that would be tantamount to accepting that there was/is something wrong with it in the first place.
As much as I would like to say I will hold my nose and vote, I just can't in good concious. Too many people think the only option is to choose between a bad choice or worse choice. I am taking the stand to not choose between either of those options. If Hillary is the nominee..I have to sit this one out. I couldn't bear to do otherwise.
"The only winning move is not to play" - from the movie War Games
March 22, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
get over it already.
March 22, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alioto or Souter, Thomas or Ginsberg, Scalia or Breyer. It's our choice.
Get over it, and get real.
By the way, I voted for Obama, who I think will be nominated, and think both Clintons are despicable. None-the-less, I believe that Clinton would appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices and McCain would not. That's what, as has been repeatedly noted here, this is about.
March 22, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although I believe Clinton's votes on the Iraq War Resolution and Kyl-Lieberman were self-serving and duplicitous, I do sincerely believe that once President, she would actually LISTEN to the generals (like Wesley Clark, Norman Schwartzkopf and Brent Scowcraft) and not unlike Kerry, begin coalescing UN support and drawing down U.S. troops. I also don't for a second believe she would truly "Ba-ba-ba ba-bomb" Iran.
March 22, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Get over it, and get real."
Actually he is being more real than you are. He's voicing his opinion as his vote. This is the meaning behind Democracy. Our natural right to freedom is not based upon siding with one party or the other. That's a marriage of convenience. By voting what he truly feels, he is getting real.
As for the supreme court justices? It should worry the Democratic party that people may not vote. If the supreme court is that important to Democrats, than the leadership will figure out how to solve it and reconcile both sides. Furthermore, by voting progressive on the downticket, we may be able to make Congress strong enough, where confirmation will not be automatic, and a Republican president will need to think twice about putting in a right wing justice.
I too will plan to vote for Clinton, as an Obama supporter, with one caveat. If she steals the nomination (overturning the will of the people) I will not vote. I cannot condone that with my vote. I'll just write in Obama or just vote on the downticket.
March 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is not what it is all about. It's about whether we continue to accept truly horrible politics in out country. It's about whether we can summon the courage to say no to voting for someone like Hillary. It's about whether we can vote for something other than "the lesser of the two" evils. I, for one, cannot continue voting for any evils. For the most part, Obama seems acceptable. Decent, even. Perfect, no. But I could find myself voting for him because he is not clearly evil. But Hillary, even if she nominates some folk who are better than Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, is nothing more than evil, even if slightly less so. (By the way, do you think that Bill's nominees to the Supreme Court do anything other than support corporate capitalism against the interests of the American people? Would Hillary do better?)
March 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Souter and Ginsberg are far preferable to Alioto, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas and I think Senator Clinton would appoint Justices who would not vote to continue to erode our civil liberties and in favor of unchecked executive authority.
If your looking for a candidate who will "do anything other than support corporate capitalism against the interests of the American people?", you're voting in the wrong country.
I don't really care who those expressing this point of view vote for, as I think your numbers are so few as to have a significant effect.
Very appropriate handle, by the way.
March 23, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have you really thought about this?
The only realistic difference between the judges Hillary would appoint vs the ones that GW has and McCain would, is that they'll hew to "liberal" orthodoxy on the "name" issues like abortion. Other than that, they will be exactly the same rights-and-privacy eroding corporatists.
You should review which justices are on which sides of these issues, and who they were appointed by. It might surprise you. Keep in mind that all sorts of things we hate about the supposedly GOP disregard for the law (warrantless wiretaps being one example) were embraced and extended by Bill Clinton. Bush has just been the continuance of the slippery slope. Any analysis that denies this is willfully blind. Given Hillary's open disdain for our first amendment rights (flag-burning amendments, banning of artistic expression that she doesn't like in video games, music, and film, etc), I'm not sure exactly why anyone thinks she'd be the savior of the Court. It's preposterous, frankly. Not only is she a gross authoritarian, she's willing to use these silly anti-freedom pushes like the flag-burning amendment as a public circus to distract from substantive issues.
In short, no, the SCOTUS fears are not a good reason to vote for her vs McCain. In all meaningful ways, the two would have the same result.
I'd like people who think otherwise to explain why for once instead of just asserting it. Nobody ever does.
March 23, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"In short, no, the SCOTUS fears are not a good reason to vote for her vs McCain. In all meaningful ways, the two would have the same result."
You provide no support for such an assertion; and I, of course, think you're wrong.
I do know which justices were appointed by which president. I pay such attention to SC goings on that a couple days ago I read the entire transricpt of the oral arguments of District of Columbia v. Heller. So please spare me the sophomoric lecture.
I think you need to look no further than Gore v. Bush, when the republican appointees usurped authority that is explicitly reserved to the states in Article II, Section 1.
Go ahead and vote for McCain.
March 23, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I've read a lot more than one oral argument transcript; as a matter of fact, I've written hundreds of pages on them. :) That aside, I discussed at length the reasons for my outlook on her likely judicial picks; namely, her own policy directions. I'm not sure how you could read it as a bare assertion... to borrow your label, that seems a bit sophomoric, no offense intended.
March 23, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris: The SC retirements and nominations to come are the only things I can think of that would make me vote for Hillary in the fall, on the assumption that her appointees would at least not be as bad as McCain's. I think it's safe to assume that that is an accurate assumption, but again, when you're centrist in thinking, you tend to appoint fairly centrist jurists, and that presents very little to counteract the very conservative Scalias, Thomases, and Alitos.
Do I think McCain would appoint hard-line conservatives? No; at least not if there are strong Democratic majorities in both houses. However, as I often say amongst friends, right or wrong, justified or not, Hillary is "gay marriage" in the red states, and will likely motivate thousands -- if not milions -- of conservatives who might not otherwise go to the polls to vote for McCain (i.e., he's not their favorite either), but who will make the effort simply to cast a vote against Hillary. The down-ticket effect of this could be tremendous, and if Hillary were to win, could very well result in her serving with a Republican Senate, and a very slim Democratic majority in the House. Against this backdrop, I'm not so sure her nominee(s) would be any -- or at least not significantly -- better than McCain's in the above-described scenario (strong D majorities).
An Obama presidency, on the other hand, would likely come about because of strong a D turnout, which should ensure at least the status quo in Congress, if not strengthen the current majorities, thereby allowing nomination of more truly progressive jurists. At least that's my thinking right now.
And again, it largely comes down to trust. I simply do not believe that Hillary will do what she says if political expedience is not furthered thereby.
March 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another reason Andrew.
The democrats will have a majority in the senate and house, probably the current majorities.
Should McCain be president he would be able to stop the restoration of habeas corpus and would probably be less willing to roll back Bush executive orders relating to eaves dropping, interrogation, and etc.
There would be little chance to restore the New Deal era type of regulations to restrain the avarice of Wall Street investment bankers, such as we have seen in their demand for more mortgages to securitize and vend regardless of the abilities of the borrowers to repay the mortgages.
McCain has stated that he doesn't care if the USA military stays in Iraq for 100 years.
Any Obama supporter, it seems to me, who really is a "progressive" would be readily able to see the benefit of voting for Clinton over McCain. Likewise for Clinton supporters voting for Obama.
March 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew: I read your post and want to respond.
1. The left-wing of the Democractic Party HAS NEVER supported Bill Clinton, except for two short occasions in the 1990s.
2. The pejorative "triangulation" and centrism in policy was the only way for a Democrat to win the White House in the context of growing right-wing ideology that culminated with George W Bush. I'm not sure if you know that it started with Barry Goldwater in the 1960s and that it was a long but steady process.
3. In this year's elections, political centrism remains the only way for a Democrat to win the White House, barring self-destruction by John McCain. Because moderation is what the majority of American voters want. You can only beat extreme right-wing with centrism, or you don't last more than one term. Barack Obama is more liberal than Hillary Clinton on some issues and less on others, but they are both pretty centrist.
4. You may like or dislike Bill Clinton's legacy. But in the context of the "Contract with America" and Newt Gingrich, he has the largest track record of any Democratic President alive. Think about it for a second if you can, key words: record and alive.
5. I would also like to remind you that the Congress controls the budget, laws and corporate interests, not a President. Democrats have won the mid-term elections in 2006. There is every reason to believe they will do better this year. It's up to Congress to stand up and roll back on things like line-item veto, executive power, budget, habeas corpus and Iraq. To expect the partisanship of the 1990s to continue next year is to say that Democrats in Congress are just as partisan as Democrats running for President.
This morning I ranted just like you. I'm still just as angry as you are.
We have our different candidates, but I would never be as disrespectful to Obama's small contribution to our politics as you are to both of the Clintons, however tempting it can be.
March 22, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you and I just disagree at a fundamental level about what Democrats need to do to regain the trust of the American people. To me, it's not centrism that attracts the undecideds and independents, but believability and (more frightening but real) likeability. I don't agree with you that moderation is what wins elections for Democrats, because I don't think that it's moderation that the American people necessarily want. They want, and have always wanted -- at least as far back as I can remember -- someone they think they can trust, even if they may not agree with his or her policies 100% of the time. They also want, again more frighteningly, someone they think they could actually talk to at a bar. Now, maybe neither Hillary nor Obama are very strong on this latter point, but given the choice between the two of them on the former, I think most would choose Obama.
You may remember as well that Bill Clinton did not simply inherit the Newt Gingriches of the world. They came to power (read: majority status) in large part because of Bill Clinton, and his response was to sell out the liberal wing of the party. I know this is a bit of oversimplification of the matter, but Bill really was very weak at using the bully pulpit to further progressive and liberal ideals. As a result, the debate in many areas never really centered anywhere near where it needed to be (IMHO), but fell between what the conservative Republicans wanted, and what the moderates of both parties could agree on.
March 22, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They want, and have always wanted -- at least as far back as I can remember -- someone they think they can trust"
What is trust? Why do you trust someone? How does someone earn your trust?
America trusted Reagan and Bush too, and wanted to have a beer with each of them.....
And what is blind trust?
March 23, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with Lalo's statements. Andrew has the right take on the Clinton Administration.
The centrist policies of Clinton and him going along with the Republicans on things like deregulation and NAFTA moved our country further to the right. It's a matter of perception. He ran on a populist platform and then moved to the right on so many issues which allowed the public to think that what was once extremely right wing was now actually pretty centrist. The whole septrim was lost. Centrist has been consistently more further and further to the right. Democrats began to act like Republicans... supporting the corporations and not the unions, etc. and the DLC was born!
Also, contrary to Lalo's other premise... at the time Goldwater was running for President, the general opinion was that it was the end of the Republican Party because he had so little support. If it wasn't for LBJ's horrible Vietnam policies Nixon would have never gotten elected with his supposed "secret way to victory" there. Even more sinister was the Republicans use of racism as a political tactic. Realizing that LBJ's civil right's policies were hated by the southern Democrats, the Republicans began their compaign to use Race and change southern Democrats into Republicans... later other issues were born like Roe vs Wade and now there are the value voters and the Christian Right with issues like flag burning, homosexual marriage, etc. After Nixon resigned the country was really angre that Ford pardoned him, but all that is forgotten now and everyone celebrates Ford for doing that now. Carter was very popular almost all the way to his re-election (another fact long forgotten) Reagan was a joke! If it weren't for the Iranian hostage situation which Daddy Bush, head of CIA, took advantage of (too many shenanigans used to go into now...look it up) Carter would have easily won re-election. All of these dealings ...Iran Contra continued during the Reagan Administration and all the guys involved were pardoned, ie., precedent... Nixon's pardon. But the investigations were still going on and Clinton swept it all under the rug when he became President and let these Republicans get away with murder and worse of all they made Reagan out to be a staint. They even began naming things after him before he was dead, ie National Airport now Reagan... nothing named after LBJ with all his civil rights achievements, but I digress... Republican's have been able to rewrite history and they continue to do so. The policies that Clinton adhered to, for one; burying the past are continuing in this Congress today with their refusal to hold impeachment hearings, etc. and the story goes on...
I'm afraid with the way Hillary votes and her centrist positions she will also allow all of this to continue.
March 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
None-the-less, I believe that Clinton would appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices and McCain would not.
It's not that obvious. Hillary has done some things that are very much out of line with progressive liberal thinking. Backing the Iraq war, backing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment (along with every single Republican senator) potentially enabling war with Iran, the vote on cluster bombs, supporting (for a while) legal torture, sponsoring a law banning flag burning, supporting a Republican motion to prevent amendments to the Patriot Act thus blocking a move to tighten standards for warrantless surveillance, and on and on.
More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01rosen.html
And McCain's animosity toward the wingnuts is well known. He's willing to court Hagee if he has to do that to get elected, but hardly anybody thinks he really agrees with anything Hagee stands for. So he's not likely to pick a Scalia.
The Senate will be Democratic, which makes approval of Hillary's picks more likely and challenges to McCain's picks more likely. A questionable pick from Hillary has a better chance of getting Senate approval than a questionable pick from McCain.
The bottom line is I don't trust either Hillary or McCain. I don't have any confidence that either one would make good SC picks.
And McCain is likely to be a one-termer. Four years of McCain, with a strongly opposing Congress, could be less of a disaster than eight years of Hillary with Congress controlled by the same party and less likely to mount any serious opposition.
I'm not saying I'd vote for McCain, just that if we have to have a hawkish president who isn't trustworthy, it's not clear which is the lesser of two evils.
March 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. Let's get our heads on right here. For all her faults, Clinton would be a better choice than McCain! I support Obama and I am not at all enamored with Clinton, but I'll vote for her if need be and shower later.
March 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the deal. I cannot vote for Hillary. Her votes for the war, and implicitly her vote to allow war against Iran should Cheney decide to do that, showed that she places more value in her career than in the lives of millions of innocent people. However much she might be the lesser evil compared to McCain, I find her repulsive and will vote for Nader if she is the nominee. This in no way reflects any enthusiasm on my part for Obama. His outrageous claim in the "more perfect union" speech that our staunch ally, Israel, plays no role in fomenting the disastrous situation in the mid-East and that the blame is with the radical Muslims turned me off. One can find blame in radical Muslims without letting Israel's apartheid policies off the hook. This was pandering to the Israeli lobby and undoes Obama's claim to being a radically new choice. In fact, my preference would be to vote for Nader over either Hillary or Obama, but the fact that Nader cannot win might allow me to vote for Obama, because he clearly sufficiently less evil than McCain. But to think that I wouldn't vote for Hillary because of disappointment that Obama loses to her (if this should occur) is wildly off the mark.
March 22, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find fascinating, is how many Dems, seem to be in denial about how the Republicans would go negative with Hillary in the fall.
Besides Monica, and the rest of the "bimbo eruptions", there is Bill lying under oath, being disbarred and the Marc Rich fiasco. Plus, Hillary was responsibility for the WH travel office thing and "losing" then "finding" files that had been subpoenaed.
In view of the way they have conducted themselves during this campaign, all of the past sleeziness of Bill and Hill seems much more important. As a loyal Democrat, I didn't get it then, but since Hillary started going negative, it's like someone tore off a veil, that had kept me from seeing the Clintons clearly.
Somehow, the issue of what the Republicans would do to Hillary in the fall, needs to come front and center. Her issues are far more more third rail than Obama's, but they are largely being ignored by the media.
March 22, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is denying they will go negative. The effect of that negative is going to be nowhere near damaging as Wright will be.
March 22, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing how Obama's speech resulted in a rebound in the polls, how can you say that?
And Agrippina only scratched the surface of what voters would be reminded of about the Clintons. And what's already known is one thing. How much of a bet are you willing to place that Bill has kept it in his pants for the past eight years? How much of a bet are you willing to place that there's nothing to be found in the tax returns that Hillary is so reluctant to release?
March 22, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your joking right? The republicans are salivitating over Obama bigtime. A War hero against a pupil of the Anti American Rev Wright.
Obama is clueless about foreign policy.
March 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it comes down to McCain versus Hillary, I'm afraid I'm going to have to apply the "Daily Show" rule to my choice. "Which candidate is going to provide the greatest amount of gaffes and buffoonery for late-night comics?" I'm afraid that Hillary is just not good material for political comedy. I don't know if I can take four years of droll and dour Hillary-based humor.
March 22, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least that's an argument.
Hillary: pantsuits, Bill (so much material), her chipmunk cheeks, and the disintegration of the Democratic party. Pretty funny, if you ask me.
McCain: big bobbling head and four more years of "what an idiot!" jokes.
I don't think I can stand four more years of "what an idiot!" jokes. Jon was a lot more fun when Clinton was in office, don't you think?
March 23, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Brown is absolutely correct, allbeit if that happens, seems unlikely,I will force myself, but believe me it will be very difficult, praying for unlikely. Agree with Bill Richardson, there's something special about Barrack Obama
March 22, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an email I wrote to Josh an hour ago on this subject, titled "Sane reason to not vote for Hillary"
"If Hillary wins the nomination by strong arming the super-delegates even though Obama has maintained his lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, it's evidence to me that the party has lost its head along with its soul and is not worthy to lead the country.
I know the downsides of a loss, but think time in the wilderness would ultimately be better for the country and the Democratic party than 8 years of the Clintons having ascended to their throne by successfully wringing the lifeblood from the party leadership and its voters."
March 22, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough. And Hillary supporters should vow to reject Obama in November. That will work out great.
Grow up.
March 22, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of them already have.
As hard as it is for me to believe, many Hillary supporters see Obama as the one pulling dirty tricks and running an underhanded campaign, while she is being "presidential" and hated for being a strong woman.
March 22, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
We see Obama as someone who is simply expoliting every advantage he has to further his presonal amibition:
- exploiting his oratory gifts to pound on campaign promises that sound great but have practical or measurable ideas underneath
- exploiting the Iraq war and his speech and hiding the fact that apart from the speech there is no record of what he did to stop the war
- exploiting the Reagan strategy of taking a high road while his campaign plays character assasination
- exploiting the netroots enthusiasm and the country desire to move past Bush without any proof he is capable of winning against McCain
For us, when Clinton says "just words, zero action" it doesn't feel like talking points. For us it feels like she's listening to us and capturing what we feel.
March 23, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
We Obama supporters need to worry less about this. The points that TM and 57andfemale and Agrippina are making are plenty apparent to the superDs. That's why, according to the New York Times this morning, Obama has netted 62 superDs since Super Tuesday, and Clinton has netted 3.
If the dreaded Clinton "machine" were all that effective in corralling Democratic politicians to do what the Clintons want, Hillary would have been able to put her health care plan through a Democratic Congress back in 1994.
March 22, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're laughing here - or grumping, as the case may be - but I, as a huge Obama supporter (biweekly donor and on-the-ground-campaigner) could never pull a lever for John "Is it Al Qaeda or is it Extremists???" McCain, The Confused One. I'd be afraid he'd wake up and forget who's running the country. Unless, of course, he thinks it might be Obama...
McCain's in the background right now as our Democratic primary season rages on. Little's coming out from the GOP. They quietly wait on the sidelines, hoping we'll do each other in.
I say we keep plugging our own battles, Obama versus Clinton, but let's never forget the war...and that's no pun intended!
March 22, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll vote for her, but she's lost a lot more than a vote.
As precinct captain for the get out the vote effort, I think I'll pass on it this year.
Of course, the premise itself is, as stated so clearly at the top of the post, an impossibility.
March 22, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The argument that Hillary's general election win would hurt progressivism in the long run isn't insane--either because she would so discredit our party that we would lose a generation, or because seeing an honest progressive win in '12 is worth seeing a dishonest triangulator lose in '08. The counter argument isn't insane either--Bill Clinton's judges were way the heck better than Bush's, and Hillary's will almost certainly be better than McCain's. Figuring out whether Clinton or McCain's victory hurts progressives more in the long run is kind of a tough call to me. In November, I won't be motivated by spite--I'll be doing my best to figure out what's best for the future of my country. And I don't know what I will decide.
But I've never heard a plausible account of how Obama's GE defeat would make things better for Clinton supporters--if we don't let her win the primary this time, we sure as hell aren't going to let her win in 2012. While a Clinton defeat serves as a rebuke to both the DLC and Mark Penn, it's not clear what or who an Obama defeat serves as a rebuke to, what lesson Clinton supporters expect to teach us by sinking his candidacy. Frankly, if Obama loses the general election, I will blame Clinton for staying in the primary when she has little chance to win, giving McCain an advantage.If either Democrat loses in November, the person to blame is Senator Hillary Clinton. 2012 primary voters will remember this. Should Clinton's road to the White House reach a dead end, her supporters have nothing plausible to gain by torpedoing Obama, other than spite.
March 22, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not abandoning the party, but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton. This is a matter of principle, a decision I made in October 2002.
If you believe as I do that Hillary Clinton, wittingly in order to establish her militarist bona fides, voted to support a war, which at the time, I believed and believe even more strongly today, had no warrant in fact, international law, morals or theinterests of the United States; that she supported that war unflinchingly for four years against criticism from within her own party, and that she didn't change her position one wit until the time came for her to run for a second US Senate term and president, then, if you believe all that, as I do -even if she were able to win this nomination legitimately which she now can't - you have only one choice
Josh makes the usual lesser of evils case but I submit there is a limit. There is for me and many others I suspect.
Enough
March 22, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm only 5 years older than Mrs. Clinton but way back when her husband started touting NAFTA it was clear that we weren't looking at a liberal, progressive or even Democratic presidency. No policy that excluded environmental and wage safeguards was ever going to be good for the blue collar class.
What was obvious to me so long ago is now, with the help of monster loans from China, finally becoming visible to those who can only see what's directly in front of their pocketbooks.
Clearly Mr. Obama is going to have an awful set of tasks before him come next January, and if we care at all about our country (which he insists he loves, and which many on this forum also seem to care about) we must hit the road, ring the doorbells, lick the stamps, make the phone calls, develop the convincing arguments and bring into the Congress a group of people who will make his work easier.
It will not be enough just to vote for him. It's past time to argue about which Democrat to vote for. There is serious work to be done - Franken creeps up on Coleman this very moment, for instance.
Time to make our political action plan, guys. The fall seems far away, but the groundwork needs to be laid now.
March 23, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on you, JohnMcC. Do you really mean to represent that Molly Ivins would sit at home or cast a vote for McCain? Do you have ANY IDEA what kind of amazing woman Molly Ivins was? The poor woman is rolling over in her grave.
As for the rest of you: Fine. Just f**king fine. Ruin my f**king country. Ruin my f**king life. Plunge this country further into darkness and fear. Stay home, suck your thumbs and enjoy your self-righteousness while you can.
My first presidential election: I refused to vote because I wouldn't stoop to participating in a corrupt political process. Reagan was elected and I had to live with not even having voted against him. There was a difference, and I was too full of myself to value it.
I think Clinton would be a mediocre and unreliable president; I think Obama would not only be a great president but could plant the seed for a change in American culture and rejuvenate the Democratic party. But I knowright to argue about the purity of our politics.
I'd rather cut my throat than throw my vote. And I won't pretend there's no choice when so much is at stake. But you guys, you just sit there on your thrones all wonderful and smart.
March 23, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shoot. I meant to say that I know that four years of McCain might not only destroy this country but might affect our right to argue about the purity of our politics.
Sometimes I think cutting and pasting is what's going to kill me.
March 23, 2008 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely think McCain would support worse policies than Senator Clinton, but I can't see a plausible scenario where he literally destroys the country or removes our right to argue. I think if you look above, most people are arguing that a Clinton defeat sets up better scenarios in 2012 and onwards. Maybe that's right, maybe it's wrong, but it's a completely pragmatic argument.
March 23, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
So many children, so little time...
March 23, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought youth in general and children in particular were voting Obama in the caucuses
March 23, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK I wasn't going to respond to this thread but the stridency of posters like eliyah compelled me.
I will not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I'm open to reconsidering this choice down the road, it's not locked into place. But, frankly, I don't know what the Clinton campaign would have to do to win back my vote.
I served in the Peace Corps in Morocco from 2003-2006. My personal experiences there absolutely forbid me from voting for a candidate who supported the most horrible and tragic foreign policy mistake in my lifetime, and probably in the history of the United States. The hesitancy to apologize for a mistaken vote and the support for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment were unexcusable. The kitchen-sink strategy and Mark Penn's "vetting" of Obama and virtual endorsement of McCain only made it even more clear what kind of politician we were dealing with.
I'd like to say to Eliya that he/she needs to calm down. I'm not ruining his/her life nor do I feel smart or superior or high and mighty. I just cannot cannot cannot vote for someone who supported the horrible invasion of Iraq and supported the vile Kyl-Lieberman amendment. It's a personal thing based on deep convictions and personal experience. Period.
Oh, by the way, f**k you for telling me what I should or should not do with my vote. It's my business. You accuse people like me of being high and mighty but seems like you're the one who needs to get off of your f**king high horse.
March 23, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment below on being a red-state progressive and the importance of a down-ticket vote. We're dyin' out here with a Republican in the white house.
March 23, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
We keep ordering vanilla, then we wonder why there isn't something better on the menu.
March 23, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just incredible. I am sure Senator Obama would be proud of you all.
Shame on you for damning your children and mine to more wingnut judges, more war, more fiscal insanity, just because you didnt get your way in the primary, no matter who you are for. Shame on you for not supporting the Democrat, no matter who it is.
March 23, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Court and the environment will make me vote for her, although I frankly can say I loathe her more than any other Democrat I will have ever voted for. I do not view her as a lesser evil but as evil. But on the Supreme Court and regulatory issues in general she will be better than McCain. Will I do much to elect her - I can't tell.
BTW she did vote for the credit card company's bankruptcy bill in the 107th Congress when it came up for a vote in the Senate. Mark Penn politics at its best - endorsing the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act.
March 23, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary will aplogize for her vote as soon as Bush apologizes for all the deaths in Iraq.
And don't worry about McBush being too old, whenever he has one of his frequent senior moments
(I,m sorry, what was the question), Joe Leiberman will be right there to whisper in his ear.
And Obama "those remarks are obsurd" (Ger F.)and lumped her with his grandmother and The Rev, in his cure all speech.
How about the Clinton bunch running photos of Obama which had been darkened. Fair and Bal Fox News, took care of that, this morning they are running side by sides of Obama darker, Hillary
lighter. Should settle that bit of stupidty
March 23, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Shame on you for not supporting the Democrat, no matter who it is."
The vast majority of Democrats in Congress have abandoned the American people and abandoned the Constitution.
I say shame on you for blindly supporting this colony of spineless parasites.
March 23, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you condemn your children and mine to 8 more years of Bush and his cronys.
Your political naivety is troubling.
With McCain in office the chance of pulling out of Iraq are 0, that is ZERO. With a Democrat in office, no matter who it is and no matter how they voted in 2003 (or even IF they voted in 2003) the chances are 100%. Square that with your friends and families who have loved ones in Iraq. Because you are politically naive???? Because you have too much pride??? Because you believe the Republican talking points????
Again, shame on any so called Democrat or supporter of either candidate who will sit this one out because their bestcandidateinthewholewideworld didnt get the nomination.
March 23, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
rwomalley, I submitted a reply that has not appeared. Anyway, I don't believe that Hillary or Barack would get us out of Iraq. They have both supported the war, and their withdrawal plans require unrealistic circumstances.
Barack said in his article in Foreign Affairs July/August 2007:
_______________
"We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."
_______________
That's what we're doing now. Barack's "over-the-horizon" forces would have to immediately turn around and go back to business as usual. If he or anyone is serious about settling the Iraq mess, he will have to leave it to the Iraqi people to do it entirely in their own way and in their own time. Almost anyone who studies history will agree with this, but you'll never hear it in the mainstream media.
In my opinion, there is little or no difference between the parties.
March 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't support the party. They're a bunch of crooks. I support survival. Don't twist my words.
March 23, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I support survival."
eliyah, I respect this statement. I believe that for short-term survival it is probably better to put a Democrat in the White House than a Republican. But I also believe that our only chance at long-term survival is to dismantle our two-party system that has become nothing more than a plutocracy.
March 23, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully disagree. I think you're more optimistic than me in believing a loss now will mean a more progressive candidate in 2012. I think if anything more Republican madness will produce a more cynical Democratic candidate in 2012.
In Utah we have plenty of experience with a cynical, barely-Democratic party that slips further to the right with every Republican landslide. That's why I don't believe the 2012 arguement; pain will not make us stronger, it'll make us compromise even more. I'd rather compromise this much than get someone worse in 2012.
March 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Republican. Now she has endorsed John McCain, another Republican Senator from Arizona, for Commander in Chief ahead of Senator Obama.
Hillary is a traitor to the Democratic Party.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 23, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"God damn America".
No thanks.
A sure loser but dems are dumb enough to lose three in a row on the same freaking issue, national security.
I will register as Independent because both parties are pathetic.
God bless America.
March 23, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, millions of Americans condemn Barack because of his pastor's words. How many Americans have spent decades in churches whose leaders raped children? Should we condemn those Americans?
And which is worse: harsh words, or child rape?
March 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you here, this merits discussion. The answer to these questions are significant. People keep pointing to high negatives. They would be there for any known figure and they would be there for any woman. Obama's will rise as he gets known. He is not the second coming.
I think the answer to people who say they don't want to hear any more about Bill's sexuality is OK, stop talking about it.
With Mark Foley and Larry Craig and Diaper Boy Vitter not to mention that story in Radar magazine
(by that economic hit man guy) allegedly linking the Noriega transfer to France to hiding kinky sex photos of GW Bush. not to mention the excessive bombing of Noriega's building in Panama City to destroy those photos. and now the spectacular fall of Spitzer there are a lot more interesting politician sexual topics to discuss. Oh, the humanity of it all!
How about Obama's opponent in his 2002 race falling out of grace over his wife's testimony in their divorce trial about forcing her to go to a sex club in Paris??? Obama's speech in 2002 about the war was not courageous in the context of that race, and it is weak tea now.
I was disappointed about her vote too. But I have forgiven it because I believe she is by far best prepared to end the war and has the support of the professional military to do so in the best way possible. she is herself an expert on the topic and she is ready to go with it.
not one meeting Chairman Obama. When you cannot fulfill your duties as chair of such an important committee you should give it to someone else so the work of the committee can be done! he's the one all about him.
March 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an Obama supporter living in Utah. This is the first time I've felt that being in a situation where I know with certainty that my vote will have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the election is an advantage. Neither Democrat will win Utah, though it seems likely that Obama would help more "downticket" west of the Mississippi) I would never vote for McCain, or for Nader. But since my vote won't matter, I'd have the luxury of deciding where or not I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. Honestly, I don't think I'll need to make that decision though.
In the unlikely event that Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination, and I lived in a state that had even a chance of going for her in the general election, I'd vote for her, for the reasons others have outlined above. Of course, if she gets the nomination through continuing to build up John McCain while dissing the likely nominee of her own party (for the latest example, see Bill Clinton's statements this weekend), the nomination won't be worth much anyway.
People's votes are their own, and the vote for a presidential candidate is the most personal. On the Democratic side, this election has become VERY personal for many supports of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. While I think it's VERY IMPORTANT to elect a Democrat this Fall, I can respect anyone who puts together a reasoned, sensible argument for not voting for one of these candidates. This includes most of the people who've written above.
On the other hand, those who cannot need to take some deep breaths and clear their heads. While this doesn't include most of the people who've responded above, it does seems to include the majority of people on both sides making statements about how they'll vote for McCain if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination.
If by November progressives are willing to calm down and make their decisions based on rational analysis of our situation and choices rather than their anger and disappointment, we'll have a good shot at winning this election. If not, it would be beyond sad. It would be pathetic. It would be a missed opportunity, and another example of the American people (at least the majority) getting the governance they deserve.
I'm just really tired of also getting the governance they deserve.
March 23, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, "destroy" is a little hyperbole, but the basis for pessimism under McCain is that I think this is a reasonable scenario under McCain, based on some things not talked about, b/c most aren't very sexy:
1) Control of congress. Pay attention to down-ticket effects. If McCain wins the GE, Republicans would gain control of one or both houses of Congress. They wouldn't get a veto-proof majority, but who needs one with McCain as president? Dangerous, because:
2) Signing statements: McCain will abuse signing statements invalidating anything he doesn't like (see shrunklink.com/anlt for only 10 of Bush's 750 signing statements canceling key provisions of executive disclosure, torture, NRC whistleblower protections, use of illegally obtained intelligence)
3) Environment/Climate change: Return to Reagan and Bush policies on environment. Subsidies for high-carbon "alternative" fuels, repeal requirements for compact fluorescents, cuts in any current funding for renewable energy so that, just like in the 70's & 80's, big oil and energy buys technology then locks it in a warehouse somewhere so noone can use it;
4) Health care 'reform' that pushes everyone into corporate-slanted managed care, slashes coverage, cuts coverage for disability, medicaid, medicare, and imposes criminal penalties for providing care or education for, and failing to report knowledge of, undocumented immigrants;
5) "Cure" recession/slowdown/whatever on the backs of the poor and middle class. Hedge fund and financial sector bailouts and government-arranged mergers (see Bear Stearns) while the middle class sinks deeper in debt;
6) Speaking of debt, further tightening of bankruptcy protection for debt including medical debt, at least portions of housing debt, or any kind of personal debt, while loosening protections for business; this causes
7) Accelerated growth of wealth disparity between upper class and everyone else, which means continuing erosion of the middle class and more desperate financial status of lower middle class and the poor;
8) Social security "reform" including wholesale privatizing of accounts while encouraging high-risk investment strategies.
9) The hell with net neutrality, speech, or privacy. New McCarthyism, based on what we say in blogs like this one.
10) Dropping any pretense that the FCC protects the public airwaves from monopoly, restricting regulation to obscenity or dissent.
Call me paranoid, and McCain might not accomplish all this, but he'll sure support it (as pushed by right wing money interests). This stuff has been deteriorating for decades (remember Bill Clinton couldn't, or didn't even try under a Republican Congress, to stop the slides in most of these public policies.
Thus my passion for this issue. I may not trust Clinton, I may think she's too deep in the political machine and big business to reverse this stuff, but she'll be better than McCain.
I don't buy the argument that we can wait until 2012 and hope for the best. When average Americans are pushed further and further towards financial desperation they'll have less and less time to pay attention. They're paying attention to this race at levels we haven't seen in decades. We simply can't gamble at this point.
Americans whine about having to choose the better of two evils, and we don't do anything about it but stay home and think we don't matter. But like I said above, go ahead and be mad, be pissed, get off your butt between elections, and push for true change. Your vote at the GE counts. Don't let disappointment turn into a reason for paralysis.
But if you're going to sulk, well, don't complain about what you get.
March 23, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"1) Control of congress. Pay attention to down-ticket effects. If McCain wins the GE, Republicans would gain control of one or both houses of Congress. They wouldn't get a veto-proof majority, but who needs one with McCain as president? Dangerous, because:"
I'm not sure what I'd do, but if I did decide to boycott the presidental vote, I'd definitely vote for a Dem in Congress. Republicans are unlikely to gain control of either house whoever wins the GE. McCain will be stuck dealing with Democratic majorities.
On the other hand, if Clinton governs the way she acts now, you can darn well bet Republicans will perform pretty well in the 2010/2012 elections. Meaning, a vote for Hillary today is a vote for Republican domination in the future--which is bad for all the reasons you list. In fact, worse--McCain has actually been louder complaining about signing statements than Clinton or Obama. Given his torture flip flop I don't think that counts for much, but it does mean that any GOP president who wins in 2012 would likely be worse.
The pragmatics of the situation seem cloudier to me than they do to you. And the ethics do as well--I'm not sure it's morally obligatory to participate in a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil from rising.
March 23, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
UTmark I think you speak wisely. My pointing out Obama's weaknesses does not mean I will not support him. I will not waste a good democratic vote.
I would love the dream ticket-either way they'd agree to. Democrats united could be amazing!
We could undo Bush in year one and fix so much else after that. He'd be great on the stump and she'd be great hammering out policy. yin/yang
March 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great original post. So close to my thoughts.
As a Obama supporter there's no way I'd ever vote for McCain if Clinton gets the nomination. But I wouldn't vote/volunteer/donate for her either. Electing her would seriously reduce/destroy the progressive wing of the party to such an extent that the country would see GOP controlled Congress by 2010. However, I can see why so many Clinton supporters would vote for McCain. They have more similarities than differences when it comes to keeping the status quo.
March 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with a lot that you have said. But, as much as I don't want another Clinton in the White House, I feel forced to vote for her (if she somehow gets the nomination) because I need health care.
I think there is another way to make the point now to the party. Leave it. Who wants to be in a party in which half the members support the Clintons?
If the dems don't recognize the Clinton problem now, give them the message by leaving forever. And still retain the option to vote for Hillary (this time) is she is the only choice. Some can do it. Some can't.
After all, Obama wants independents. Perhaps this is the chance to break up the old, nasty politics. Use Obama and the Clintons as the time to make a new politics, which clearly, many dems don't want.
March 23, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your reasons to abandon America to the likes of McSame are too weak.
To not vote for the democratic candidate because it's HRC is doing exactly that.
Your negative attitude toward HRC's attempts to distinguish herself as a candidate could be a symptom of gender bias. Ladies are not suppose to challenge men, much less beat them. Remember the Billy Jean King challenge ?
March 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why my passion makes me less than civil about this: I've been pissed off for 20 of the past 28 years, and I'm threatened, and therefore fearful, by your position. Obama gave me hope we could move towards progressive politics by practicing moderation, and so did you by supporting him. So pardon me if I'm mad that you seem to be pulling a Clinton and directly or indirectly supporting McCain. Let’s be different than the Clintonistas, shall we?
I'm also angry at H. Clinton’s cynical politics, and at and all the Dems who caved in throughout the war-mad years. I'm angry at B. Clinton because he gutted his own presidency and is now being an ass. I'm angry at the Democratic Congress and its namby-pamby-ism. I’m still pissed at Nader for blowing the vote in 2004. I’m a realist, and reality has been getting pretty scary this past few decades.
By the way, this is from a Utah progressive who's desperate for anyone better than a Republican in the White House, and desperate for any down-ticket Democrat to get elected in Utah, weaken the stranglehold of the Republicans in our state, and get the Republican boot off my throat. Maybe this whole thing simply matters more to me. If you don't care about the red states, if you write us off as useless and not worth helping out, you're as bad as Hillary, at least in that respect.
I can't force you to vote, and I certainly can't force you to vote for Clinton. I’m telling you why I think your position supports an evil far greater than Clinton. In case you stopped at "shame on you," please read my arguments. I'm asking you to look past our dreams and consider reality.
I used to romantically perch on the pedestal of my pure and righteous ideals. But grown-ups have to make choices, and sometimes they're between a rock and a hard place and simply have to get out of it however they can. A coyote chews off its paw to get out of a trap; a trapped hiker cuts his hand off with a dull pocketknife to escape. I'm fine with losing a few fingernails to do the same.
And I'll stop bothering you, unless I can participate in more Daily Show jokes. I tell you, Jon Stewart is just about the only thing that has kept me sane this past 8 years.
March 23, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
57andFemale wrote:
"After Obama's speech on Tuesday, which at its core was a basic progressive value, with intelligence and honesty for the new century and for ALL parties involved in the conflict, she was incapable of seeing that such a progessive value required at the very least, agreement. She could not see beyond what it would get her (or cost her). She was graceless, without basic decency. Imagine if she had given such a speech about sexism. Obama would have embraced it as a progressive value and stood with her. The campaign would have gone on and they would have continued to fight for the nomination. But he would have recognized the commonality of her subject."
I had this exact same conversation with a friend. Hillary could have don herself a world of good among Obama supporters if she had simply acknowledged the speech. Indeed, what if she had -- gasp! -- posted the same speech on her website? It would have been noted as a gracious, healing act.
You had a number of conservative writers note the eloquence if the speech. But not Hillary or her crew of dead-emders. She could have actually shown some class, but it just wasn't to be . . . because she just doesn't have it in her!
March 23, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't a big part of Obama's message to move beyond us-n-them politics? I guess this is no easy task based on what I am reading here.
No one has the right to bully someone else into voting for or against Obama, Hillary, or McCain based on some sort of implied mandatory loyalty. Every candidate must earn their votes and each of us has the right to vote for whomever we choose.
I am a registered Democrat. I am a huge Obama supporter ($$ and sweat equity) for reasons too numerous to detail in this post. I may or may not vote for Hillary in the unlikely event she wins the nomination. It all depends on how sleazy the Clintons and their surrogates get and what tactics they employ to win. They are already pushing the envelope with the race-baiting, Hillary's endorsement of McCain's foreign policy acumen over Obama's, Bill's frequently disrespectful and dismissive insinuations - especially his newest charge that Obama is not patriotic, Carvel's consistently ridiculous statements including calling Richardson Judas. Their bizarre positions regarding FL and MI coupled with what I see as a deliberate, pre-conceived strategy to gain an unfair advantage by not removing her name from the MI ballot and tacitly campaigning in FL (preannouncing a rally to be held there the night of their primary) and then coming back later to claim she doesn't want to disenfranchise them. Who was the "party's candidate" going into this thing with the most influence over how the MI/FL situation was handled in the first place? No qualms about disenfranchising then - only after she got behind.
If fact, as I write this, perhaps I don't need any more convincing that their almost complete lack of integrity is worth never supporting them again. The only thing left to ice the cake is for Hillary to show up at the convention screaming, "My precious, they’re trying to take my precious away from me."
Just remember that there were a number of Clinton scandals that involved Hillary as much or more than Bill. The Obama campaign, including his surrogates, has left them alone, much to their credit. The Republicans will not.
Would I go as far as to vote for McCain? I don't know - but it IS my choice. I do not see Republicans as the enemy, no matter how often I may disagree with them.
March 23, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want another Republican-controlled White House. I don't want McCain.
I'll vote Clinton if I have to.
I don't want it to come to that, however.
I am sure I won't be volunteering like I plan to do. Won't donate. Won't put on the bumpersticker. Good thing I live just a quarter mile from the poling place.
The problem with Clinton is not so much her policy as it is her dishonesty. Her phoniness. People are talking about Obama's big speech as if it was delivered from angels, but it's just that people are awestruck by a politician speaking honestly and delving into complexities, not reciting something approved by consultants and focus groups. The latter is the Clinton way.
Also the disingenuousness behind the Clinton tactics saps me of any ounce of respect. And the lying -- in Bosnia, she wasn't running "under fire."
As she said, "There was a saying around the White House. If a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, and the President couldn't go, send the First Lady." What the hell? If they needed the President, but it was too dangerous, the only one with presidential powers, yet was expendable, was the First Lady?!?
And then she lied.
In addition to this just being blatantly disgusting, she's giving ammo to McCain to use against her if she is the nominee. Here's Democrat Clinton lying. Perfect for a campaign commercial.
She's just not the best candidate. Obama's opponents have to focus on image issues, race, and things he may have been exposed to in church. They can't really focus on him, because he's just too ... good, dammit.
And if she wins the nomination the only way she can, by twisting the arms of most of the superdelegates, most of the energy that's been going into the party will vanish. People will go back to being bitter and cynical again. Look, the Democrats screwed up a certain victory, again.
So, I'll vote for her. But I'll have to shower for a while after.
March 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just for a bit of perspective, I worked for McCarthy's election in 1968 and watched as Humphrey, Robert Kennedy, Mayor Daily, and the rest of the democratic party establishment swung the nomination to Humphrey. I also watched as Daily's police force started a riot, beat protesters, and tear gassed McCarthy's hotel(and, yes, for those who don't know, the investigation that followed on concluded that the police started the riot).
I believe their were many McCarthy supporters who sat out the subsequent general election and Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon.
The guy was a crooked lunatic, bu Nixon, for those who don't know, was far more progressive in every sense than is McCain. The EPA was created during Nixon's term and I believe that he advocated a single payer health insurance system.
Regardless of how cynical you might be, and I will challenged any of you to a cynicism contest (not to mention a Clinton detestation contest), imagine the differences between what might be done with with larger than current majorities of democrats in each house of Congress and with McCain as president or with Clinton or Obama as president.
March 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with you, but...
How did Robert Kennedy help swing the nomination to Humphrey, after his own run to the nomination was ended with assassination that June?
March 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're piety is foolish. I would imagine you voted for Nader in 2000, and haven't learned your lesson. Please Get over the narcissistic wound, realize that the rest of America may not entirely buy your brand of progressive politics and accept that we're electing a President of a vast and diverse nation. Then take a look at who would do a better job - bearing in mind that the person who would occupy the office makes decisions that literally mean life or death to millions of people on a daily basis. Unless you're willing to entrust that responsibility to McCain over Hillary, should she be the nominee, it is imperative that you vote for her.
March 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know to whom your post is addressed, AG, but I can speak for myself. No, I did not vote for Nader in 2000, because I thought he would be a horrible leader. I voted for Gore because I thought he would have made a great president. Similarly, I don't think that Clinton would be a good leader, but I believe in the vision that Obama is presenting and the intelligent way he frames his policy choices.
I have read Obama's books, read Hillary's bio, read both platforms, researched their voting histories and watched them campaigning. I have made up my mind in an intelligent, adult manner.
Why should I be compelled to vote Democratic if I don't support the candidate? It's my choice, after all. Not casting a vote is as much of a political choice as casting one.
The arguement that not casting any vote is equivilent to supporting McCain is nonsense. I don't support McCain. If I did, I would vote for him, which I won't. I find both candidates unpallatable, so I won't vote. I don't see why you're so threatened by that.
I'm not asking the rest of the country to "buy into my brand of progressive politics." Why would I? I believe that everyone has the right to make up their own mind and vote their own conscience (people who hold their nose and vote for Hillary or Obama even though they don't believe them to be good leaders are voting their conscience just as much as those who don't vote at all). I think the main difference between you and me is that I believe that everyone has a right to vote as they choose, and the outcome will reflect those choices.
You, on the other hand, admonish and disparage others by suggesting they are merely acting on their self-righteous wounds because their candidate didn't get the nomination. Ironically, by trying to insult and shame me into casting a vote I don't want to make, you are committing the very act of which you accuse me--trying to impose your brand of politics on my vote.
You don't have to agree with my decision, and it's pretty clear that you don't. But it is not imperative for me to vote for anyone, no matter how many derogatory names you hurl at me. I am free to vote or not vote for whomever I choose.
Project onto me whatever juvenile, gender biased, or racial feelings you will, the fact of the matter is that you don't know me at all and have no idea how or why I arrived at my decision. I do, and am comfortable with it. It is a decision that is just as intelligent OR just as stupid and blind as the decision to vote for any one of the three candidates...frankly, you will never know and shouldn't care. I am unmoved by your arguement that I am somehow compelled to vote because you tell me I am. Armchair Gorilla has no moral influence over my decision.
March 23, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be a little late here, but hopefully this will make it to Shrivti1. My comment was addressed to the original post. I am somewhat chastened by your thoughtful response and do not mean to demean you or anyone who chooses to vote or not to vote based upon sincerely held beliefs. However, the original post here smacks of the same self-righteous, holier than thou, too pure for politics attitude found among Naderites is increasingly prevalent on these boards. As I see it, Hillary and Obama have nearly identical positions on all of the critical issues in the race: a more internationalist, less militaristic foreign policy, an end to the Iraq debacle, the retention of some semblance of a safety net, the idea that healthcare should be available to all, an end to the race baiting politics of the Republican party, the appointment of Supreme Court justices who will respect the separation of powers, protect a woman's right to choose, the rights of criminal defendants and the civil liberties of all, the protection of social security and progressive taxation, etc. If you share Obama's positions on these issues, you should be comfortable voting for Hillary Clinton over McCain. That's what the election is about. All the hurt feelings over Hillary's sharp elbows (carefully cultivated by the Obama campaign, by the way, which is not some sort of pure, lily-white (forgive the pun) operation) should not obscure these important stakes.
March 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me among the Hillary supporters who will not cast a vote for Obama if he was to somehow accomplish the impossible and become the Democratic nominee in the general election,between Rev Wright and Rezco, it is obvious he is no judge of Character, I am sure another shoe will drop.
Obama is all talk no substance, his supporters are absolutely clueless as to what he stands for besides a couple of buzzwords. He voted for the Cheney Oil bill, the worst bill in history. He has no military background unless you consider his Rev Wright's hate speech as a weapon. He throws people under the bus in a moments notice. Comparing his grandmother to the Rev Wright in order to spin his relationship with him was the single lowest point in campaign history. I guess we will have to take Obama's word for it that she was racist, she cannot defend herself.
He is hoodwinking all you rich elite who feel guilty for making so much money while poor folks suffer, but of course Obama is a Harvard Grad Millionare. He is Bamboozleing all you students who have the attention span of bloggers and will realize that Obama is all about Obama someday. He is giving minorities the old Okey Doke, you will all realize that Obama is a closet republican someday. Obama is about as street as Mr. Rogers in his neigborhood. Obama as already been foolish enough to say that Hillary supporters will back him but his supporters would not back her. And Michelle Obama has already said she probaly would not support Hillary. I feel the Obama campaign has been just as slimy as the anti Clinton Rovian republicans. I would not vote for Obama if hell freezed over. At least McCain served his country in the war. Obama instead of serving soaked up the Rev Wrights view of the world. Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever in my opinion. Record economy, no wars, budget surplus, every American who wanted to work could be successful.
What a bonus it would be for Hillary to have him to lean on as a Mentor. But of course you Obama supporters prefer the Rev Wright to be Obama's Mentor.
March 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just got a tip from an anonamous source, high up in the Obama archives.
Bill ,what his name, from AZ did call Clinton, but not to tell her that he was going to support Obama, but it did get a little heated when he ask if she would pick him as a running mate. When she said not likely, he got upset and reminded her of all the support he has provided over the years.
So he went for the Obama carot dangle and anounced his support for the Senator, although he stated that supers should go with the voters(I think Clinton won NM). Hey Bill, don't count on the nod from Obama, he is only loyal to one person
,can you say Wright.
March 23, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may wish to re-read, respectfully. I described at length the justification for my outlook on her likely judicial picks; namely, her policy directions. I'm not sure how you could get the idea that I made a bare assertion.
And no, I won't be voting for McCain any more than I would Hillary. :)
March 23, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voting for the republican candidate, or registring as an independent, because your candidate didn't win, gets you absolutly no where and demonstrates a lack of intestinal fortitude (can't say guts on-line, big bro is watching)
I will vote for the Dem Nom and even if it turns out to be Obama, I won't hold my nose, or take a shower after (unless it's Sat nite)
Get real folks, this is serious business, a third term McBush can not be an option.
March 23, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink