Younger Dems, Hillary Haters, LISTEN UP!
You know the Democratic nominating contest has heated up by the increasing level of flames seen among blog commenters on the web in the last 2 weeks. We’re seeing more and more Obama supporters declare that they’ve reached a tipping point, vowing not to vote Democratic in November if HRC is the candidate. Some of this reaction is based on the changing tone of the campaign since the days preceding the WI primary and the cumulative effect HRC’s negative tactics have had in blunting Obama’s momentum. Some of you have set your focus on the possibility that HRC could end up the nominee by virtue of superdelegates casting deciding convention votes for HRC in spite of the near certainty that Obama will bring to the convention a lead in pledged delegates. Another group – the dyed in the wool Hillary haters – has been vowing from the beginning that they will never, under any circumstances, cast a vote for HRC.
Please… listen up.
This election is not only about who will head the executive branch for
the next 4-8 years. There are 2 branches
of government at stake in this election, with far more on the line beyond the
executive: the federal courts. Federal
judicial nominees are lifetime appointees and cannot be turned out of office
via a presidential election. Younger
voters will not remember the Warren
court and the enormous impact its progressive decisions have had on this
country. The Supreme Court decisions
from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s have defined and under girded our civil
liberties across the spectrum of the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War
constitutional amendments. Consider
where we might be without the SC’s decisions on privacy, the rights of the
accused, and free speech. Consider the
crucial decisions the Court is now facing (on habeus corpus, detainee
treatment, military tribunals) and what issues we’ll be facing when, with a
Democrat in the white house, the Republicans seek to litigate policy through
the SC.
We are at a critical juncture now in the composition of the court. A quick review of the nine most powerful jurists in the land (including who appointed them, their age, and their record of opinions):
John Roberts – GWB – 53 – conservative
Samuel Alito – GWB – 57 – conservative
Clarence Thomas – GHWB – 59 – conservative
David Souter – GHWB – 68– liberal
Stepehen Breyer – Clinton
– 69 – liberal
Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – 71 – SWING
Antonin Scalia – Reagan – 71 – conservative
Ruth Bader Ginsburg – 74– liberal
John Paul Stevens – Ford – 87– liberal
The last two SC appointees (Alito and Roberts) replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, a swing voter, and William Rehnquist, a conservative. In losing O’Connor, the conservative bloc is now just one justice removed from an outright 5-4 majority (or 6-3, depending on how Kennedy votes). At is now stands, there’s a 50-50 chance that any given close decision will go 5-4 liberal or 5-4 conservative. Now consider the age of the current justices. I believe Stevens has chosen to remain on the Court through this term so he can be replaced by a Democrat. If he is the only justice to retire with a Democrat in office next year, the composition of the court will not change. A Democrat will replace Stevens with a liberal. The same is true for Ginsburg. If both Ginsburg and Stevens retire under a Democrat, the court will continue to have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and a swing voter.
If HRC wins the nomination and a sufficient number of disaffected democrats sit out the 2008 election, and if McCain is the next president, you can be certain that the composition of the Supreme Court will change, and that it is highly likely it will move to a conservative majority. With another young Republican appointee on the Court, the critical questions of civil liberties and privacy will be determined from a conservative philosophy for the next generation and probably another generation beyond. It could be 30 years before the last of the conservatives now on the court will retire. If there is a Republican in office, the conservatives will certainly obtain the 5-4 conservative majority they have been aiming for. With HRC in office, we can at least maintain the 4-4-1 composition of the court, and may be able, over 8 years, to move the court to a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal majority.
What is at stake is not just whether, with HRC, there will
be a continuation of the politics of division for the next 8 years and another Clinton team in the white
house (nothing I would look forward to).
But we can prevent the creation of a long-term conservative
branch of
government, one with powers commensurate to the legislative and
executive
branches, but with no possibility for electoral change and a guarantee
of many
years of conservative decisions. The SC is the most important of the
federal appointees the next president will make, but the federal
District and Appellate judges are also critical to local and regional
judicial decisions and serve as the farm system for the SC. The future
of the entire federal judiciary is at stake this November.
I voted for Obama in February. I am very hopeful he will be the Democratic nominee in August. I am loathe to return the Clintons to the White house. But I will not cast a vote for McCain or Nader or sit out the election in November if my vote will help assure that we do not enable a conservative Supreme Court and federal judiciary for the foreseeable future.
Please… listen up, and think beyond the immediate anger and frustration, put aside the Hillary hate, put in perspective what is at stake in November, and cast your vote to keep the SC out of the hands of the conservatives. We would elect McCain at our peril. And not just for what it means in the next 4-8 years, but what it means for the next 4-8 presidential elections.
You know, sometimes people need to stand up for their principles and take the long-term view.
Do you really want to keep voting for the lesser of two evils for the rest of your life? If you do, then by all means do so... but if you don't, think long and hard about how to change things. Clearly, voting for Hillary is not a way to change things.
March 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. That's why I voted for Obama and have contributed money to his campaign. I'll fight to see him nominated. But if her isn't and HRC is on the ballot in November? I will be voting Democrat.
March 7, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem with your argument is that it excuses any of a number of crimes Hillary may or may not commit against the Democratic party during this process. At what point are there consequences?
March 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? So Hillary wouldn't do anything for education or women's rights or support for children or health care? She wouldn't get us out of Iraq? She wouldn't try to bring the budget closer to balance? She wouldn't deal with the mortgage crisis? She wouldn't change *anything*?
Or you mean she wouldn't "bring us all together, make us all one, unite us"? I always think of the Wendy's burger - "make me one with everything".
Anyway, I'll support Obama in the generals if he's running as a Democrat. I'm not sure I understand people's attitudes - I like the Cards but would take the Cubs over any American League team.
March 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Hillary proposes to do about the mortgage crisis would radically increase the cost of mortgages to future buyers, who would in the end pay for the foolishness and greed of current holders of mortgages taken out by those who couldn't really afford them. So once again the debts run up in the present would be passed on to the next generation.
The economy is about to go through a period of serious destruction. But that destruction, if let to run its course, will largely punish the large institutions which have behaved so corruptly. Any sort of bail out, even under Hillary's plan, will protect those institutions far more than it will help the fools who let themselves be sold mortgages beyond their means.
March 8, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you're saying McCain is the lesser of two evils against Clinton?
Seriously?
March 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the McCain would get us out of Iraq faster than Clinton. Part of this is just the Nixon-to-China psychology and politics, but fundamentally Clinton is trapped by her pandering past vote on the AUMF.
She is corrupted on this issue, in a way that McCain - who honestly believed it was a good idea - is not.
March 8, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you'll just ignore what he said about bing there for 100 years. That's just ridiculous.
Sorry, but either dem will get us out of there quicker.
March 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for a well-argued reminder of how important this election is.
I would only add that every single Federal Agency has been headed by incompetents and hacks over the last 8 years. They are entrenched now -- the political appointees converted to civil service jobs -- and if the Republicans get 4 or 8 more years to put their cronies and lickspittles into positions of power, the effects on our environment, our economy and our health will be devastating. It is going to take years to root these bastards out. We have to get started this Fall.
March 7, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post this after the convention. It's too fresh right now.
March 7, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I hear ya. And note that this argument has been put forward by O supporters, saying HRC is unelectable in the GE, so get behind O. I'm all for it, but feel like those who are rashly stating they will NEVER vote for HRC have more to think about than just how much we don't want to see her in the WH. I know I don't, but the SC is just too important. :-/
March 7, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a supporter of Obama, and I deplore Hillary's recent barrage of negative campaigning. That said, I have a great deal of respect for the argument that you make. My mother was, in the mid-seventies, a rabble rousing union organizer. She organized and led one of the first unionized shops for registered nurses in the country. In the past twenty years, she has swung so far to the right that we can no longer discuss politics without rancor and pain.
In 2000, and again in 2004 I made my simple case for voting democrat over republican, and I make it in concurrence with your opinion here. Long Term Matters. Think about our Judicial System and the Environment. I would rather see a President who will most likely come down on the liberal side in the judiciary and on the environment's side over big business.
That's it. Now, Cheney's imperial reign with his Presidential Sock Puppet has disabused notions of what an executive branch can get away with if they simply ignore one branch (legislative) of government and stuff the other branch (judicial) with politicoreligious activists. Even more reason to get behind both the eventual nominee of the Democrats (Please please not Hillary) but no matter who it is we MUST STOP the right wing ultra conservative growth within our society.
Frankly, I became an Obama supporter because I thought (and still do) that he has a better chance of beating a republican than Hillary. Hillary just brings too many anti-Hillary votes to the polls. Obama has a chance to shake things up.
Since joining the Obama campaign I have come to believe in Barack's message, and I fervently hope that we can, as a country, bring enough energy to Washington to shake the establishment a bit and see some ability to do great works. But we cannot do this if we alienate our sisters and brothers of any race, class, age or political persuasion.
Find ways to express your support for Barack in positive ways, and to counter Hillary in positive ways as well. We need to shift the debate from "Who is ready to be commander in chief?" to "Who is ready to lead this country?" Who is ready to bring people together, not in a spirit of cynicism and fear, but in a spirit of determination, grit, and hope. We must dedicate ourselves to work hard in order that sacrifices we make now will benefit our country and our children.
We must deliver our country from the disaster that the right wing bestows upon us. There will be negative attacks from reactionaries throughout our efforts and we need to prepare for them. What will we answer when we are accused of 'redistributing wealth', a typical reactionary response to progressive taxation and social and public works spending? I say that we need to be prepared to counter this with oratory decrying the Bush administration's redistribution of wealth from our country's needs for public infrastructure, education and health care into the pockets of a burgeoning defense industry.
Ah... I've begun ranting... Simple message...
Keep the faith, keep the energy, and bring it all to bear to defeat John McCain. We must win back our nation.
Ott Out
March 8, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, Chris.
You've reminded me that I need to re-direct my energy.
Many thanks.
March 8, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree.. maybe the Democrats should learn the cost of picking losers for nominee.. I am an independent and I think the reason democrats continue to pick awful candidates is because they don't understand the importance of picking electable candidates - not just the one who can play the democrat primary game the best. Bashing one another on critical issues only frames your candidates for the general election. How do you think Bush would have done in Florida in 2000 if the other nominee's had pointed out the social security privatization plan that he favored for the elderly in Florida? Bringing out National Security as an important issue when the republicans have McCain is fatal. If you guys can't understand that, then your party has no right to be in the white house.. good luck..
March 7, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate your perspective, but this is exactly why Dems needs a pep talk right now about voting Dem in November. I don't expect the SC picture to have much influence on Independents, and think that any conservatives who might cross over and vote Obama in November would be doing so against their best (conservative) interests. We have the final slate of Dems that we have. There's no point in second guessing our ability to pick a candidate at this stage.
March 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the Democrats haven't really been picking "losers" so much as they have had their elections hijacked by Karl Rove. If you read this blog regularly, you should know about the US Attorney scandal.You should also know that many of us vet our candidates better than the the Republicans do.Apparently all you have to do to win as a Republican is to kiss George Bush on the check and give up your principles.I wouldn't call that a very high standard for electibility.
March 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "awful candidates"? You mean like Bush?
March 8, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
Which is why I will write in John Edwards.
March 8, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
John will be voting for the Dem nominee. I voted for him in the primary, and like him, I'm not thrilled at the leftovers, but be practical. Not pissy.
March 8, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
After seeing her act over the past two weeks, I'm not so certain that Hillary Rove Clinton would nominate a liberal for the SCOTUS.
How do I know she would ask McCain to recommend a judge due to his vast experience?
Maybe she'll be looking for re-election to her second term and bow to the Republicans and select a conservative for political expediency, much like she did with Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman.
I just don't trust her anymore.
March 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, I don't trust Obama.
March 8, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are bad judges on the left just as there are bad judges on the right. Under Hillary's Supreme Court, get ready for any disparagement of President Hillary to be prosecuted as a hate crime. There is no advantage at all in replacing a totalitarian-leaning right with a totalitarian-leaning left. Obama and McCain both understand the fundamental American value of liberty. Hillary is the sort of leftist who clearly does not - except when it is her own, and transcends any standard of fairness or responsibility.
March 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting propaganda, and good luck with getting the Senate judiciary committee to consent to a totalitarian of any stripe.
March 8, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need some medicine to help you. This is, honestly, deranged. Where do you find anything in her history that suggests Senator Clinton plans to overthrown the US government.
March 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this election is so important, then someone needs to tell the Clintons and their supporters that. They and they alone are killing the Democrats' shot at office. Three months ago, I was extremely willing to vote for Hillary had she been the nominee. No longer.
March 7, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm certainly sympathetic to the argument that HRC is in take-no-prisoners mode and is moving into territory where, when she loses this Dem race, she will have hurt Obama's chances for the fall. The best action is to work harder to ensure Obama is the nominee. And, in the worst case, we need to vote in our long term interests and put a Dem in office this fall. If that's still possible... It won't help if droves of Obama supporters put their anger ahead of the nation's interests and stay at home in November.
March 7, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Maybe Hillary should stop campaigning for McCain.
March 7, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Off topic, but I really hope Pelosi, Edwards, Gore, Richardson, etc. can talk some sense into the HRC campaign ASAP and get HRC off the ledge before she completely goes off into the deep end. Talking up McCain is just batshit crazy. ;~)
March 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I will vote for Hillary over McCain.
But I live in Texas. And the only way my vote has a CHANCE of even counting is if Obama wins.
March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your vote counts and don't kid yourself that it doesn't. Look at the last two elections - too close to call, close enough to steal.
March 8, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
In short: No Democratic state will flip if Hillary is nominated.
So, you're preaching to the choir here.
March 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Dem state could easily flip for McCain if enough Dems stay at home or vote Nader. I've long thought HRC can't win in a GE, given her huge negatives, but we're going to completely destroy any chance we have if we can't bring out the Dem base.
March 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMan,
Thanks for your post. Normally I think and talk just like you do.
But after the last few days, I have to confess, I've been re-thinking the just-vote-for-the-Dem reasoning. Does it benefit us in the long run to keep rewarding this kind of behavior?
There are two things the Clintons are doing that bother me:
1) Strengthening the Republican Fear Message for the General Election If Hillary wins the nomination, she is risking her own general election campaign by providing McCain with the audio/visual spectacle of Hillary placing herself in the same (bogus, in my opinion) experience league. Fear/Security/National Defense is the sharpest sword in the Republican sheath this fall, and they'll plunge it to the hilt.
2) Jeopardizing New Interest in the Democratic Party Hints from the Clintons that they are willing to capture the nomination by seating delegates from the Michigan and Florida primaries, despite earlier mutually-agreed upon rules; or that they will use superdelegates to undermine the choice of the majority of Democratic primary voters, may destroy the momentum the Democratic Party finally has to build a new Progressive majority. (Remember, Bill Clinton never won a majority voter mandate--in 1992 nor in 1996.)
I suspect it's taken for granted that candidates get away with doing some pretty offensive, egregious stuff to each other during primaries because they count on the 'base' unifying after the nomination. It's annoying to the base -- at least a part of its members end up feeling like an abused spouse agreeing to go back to the relationship despite the bruises and indignation. But newcomers haven't necessarily resigned themselves to living with the battered spouse syndrome. They haven't cultivated that kind of loyalty yet.
And this year is unique, at least within the context of several decades' worth of elections. The Democratic Party is attracting new interest because a lot of moderates and independents are looking for a way to repudiate the Bush years and the Republican Party in general. Many of the new people are interested, in particular, in Barack Obama.
Party purists, like our friend workerbee, seem to have a dim view of these newcomers, speaking of them as if they are carpetbaggers who lack devotion to the party and therefore should not be trusted. I think it's a mistake to alienate those folks -- they may be here for the candidate right now, but there's potential to earn their loyalty -- if we let them know they're valued. Let's face it: there's no other way to significantly grow the party unless we exploit an opportunity like this.
And let's not overlook the potential length of Obama's coattails. Look, I'm a frustrated voter in one of the many 'red' states between the two coasts. Frankly, I'd like to entice a few of those independents and disenchanted Republicans to vote Dem for lots of offices, not just President. I think Obama can help us red staters turn purple and maybe even blue.
So I'm not sure what I'll do in the general election. Lately, though, I'm feeling sympathy for the anyone-but-Hillary crowd.
March 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good question, and if I thought there might be a way to choose neither HRC nor McCain, and make my voice heard with a substantial minority in order to send a message, I could see voting another way, even ceding the SC to the conservatives if it really meant we could change the nature of the divide in our parties and within our party. But there aren't enough voters who care so much to band together and make some kind of genuine protest that will truly get a message through. Perot's run did not get a message through to either party (though I never thought Perot's central concern was sending a clear message on the tone of politics as usual). Nader would be a possibility, but I'm pretty certain that a very small percentage would vote for him and that it certainly won't convey any message to the major parties. If I read you correctly, you'd like to see a change in how we select candidates. I would, too, though I'm a realist in thinking it's not going to happen in this election.
I agree with all the points you're making, but I'm seeing most of the responses to my post as misunderstanding my point, including yours. I am not suggesting we make HRC the nominee. I'm not suggesting anyone vote for her in the forthcoming contests. I want to see Obama as the nominee. To that end, I agree with almost all the reasons people have put forth against her becoming the nominee. But the outcry of late has been based on a hypothetical. IF HRC is the nominee, people won't vote for her. I've tried to give reasons why we should put aside our distaste and our sense of being offended and vote Dem in November. I understand the arguments that if people vote for HRC over O in the primaries, we're doomed in the fall. I'm afraid that may be true. But the only way we can have any chance to avert that doom is to pull together and oppose the Repubs in November and put a Dem in the white house.
March 8, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't misunderstand--I get your point and appreciate your efforts. I just wish we could find a way to break out of this losing pattern. Rewarding it over and over just means we'll get the same thing over and over. And yes, I realize a third party candidate for President isn't a workable solution. If we want to form a viable third party, we should start with Congressional races. Your point about the Supreme Court is absolutely right -- there's too much at stake with the office of President.
Like I said, I normally think and sound just like you. I was just giving voice to some of the (reasoned, IMO)problems with resigning ourselves to voting for Hillary. I think it's important to acknowledge and understand everything we give up when we resign ourselves to accept Hillary in order to defend the Supreme Court and the administratin of duties of the Executive Branch.
March 8, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely, and some may just feel they'd be better off with McC in office and the Clintons finished, regardless of the SC. I understand, and am grateful for those who are engaging in this discussion on the merits. Thanks.
March 8, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing this up. I too am frustrated at Dems' argument that either candidate is a better option in the end than McCain. I disagree stridently. Voting for a Democrat like Clinton who plays on our fears, knows only traditional interest-group politics and is implicitly campaigning to suppress new voters doesn't make sense.
If, after years of nominating no-win candidates who get the Demos' nomination by playing traditional interest-group politics (Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, even Gore), the Democrats won't learn their lesson and nominate Hillary Clinton, then they deserve to lose and start over to learn their lesson. Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary or any Clinton (or any Bush, for that matter), and if she's the nominee will happily vote for McCain, a man of character with whose policies I generally disagree. I'd rather have someone with integrity in the White House than one whose policies might be more like mine but who will further the corruption, cynicism, and gridlock of the past 25 years.
The Democrats need to get it, or they can forget about a huge chunk of the one-third of the population (and steadily growing at that) that's independent. Obama offers that chance, and a chance to win this November, but only because he could drive turnout through new voters and independents Hillary can't.
March 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully understand not voting for Clinton--I won't. But John McCain is not a man of character--so I can't say I'd vote for him either.
March 8, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I'm with the anyone but Obama crowd.
He hasn't defined himself as standing for anything concrete, it's all smoke and mirrors and women talking trash for him.
No Obama , no way.
March 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, the president determines the courts, so winning the presidency is crucial. But let's look at this another way.
1) Since we have to win the presidency, we cannot nominate Hillary, because almost all polls show she will lose to McCain, and so does common sense, while Obama kicks McCain's ass. Look here for details:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26659785
2) There is also another very important branch of government at stake here: Congress. We need Dems to win in purple/red districts to keep and expand our majority in Congress, and whoever is on the top of the ballot for president will determine whether tons of new voters flock to the polls to vote Dem, and continue all the way down the ticket, or whether tons of Republicans will flock to the polls to take down Hillary, and every Dem down the ticket. The same goes for local elections. We have an Obama Effect and a Hillary Effect, so who our nominee is will not only determine whether or not we win the presidency and control the judiciary, it also determines how we do in Congress. To read more:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/26284440
So we do have a choice to make, and it needs to be smart, but you are addressing the wrong people. Hillary is tearing apart our party, and regardless of what people think of her, she will hurt the party if she is our nominee, whereas Obama will help us win big.
March 7, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Supreme Court scare tactic is the lamest B.S. ever.
I want everyone who thinks anyone but McCain to stop and THINK for a minute.
Who is out their praising John McCain and his lifetime of experience?
Who has compared herself favorably with McCain to the detriment of her party mate?
Who has acting more and more like Joe Lieberman (also a McCain supporter)?
Who is using the politics of fear to distinguish herself from her opponent?
OK.
Now what makes you think that Hillary Clinton will appoint judges who are materially different than John McCain would appoint?
That is a serious question? Show me one indication that she might?
Those who fear for the end of Roe v. Wade might sleep a little better. But for those of us who are also concerned about the ascendance of corporate rights over human rights, about the rights of the poor being preserved in courts of law, about sentencing that does not unfairly target certain racial groups and about restoring equality between the branches of government, there is not one thing you can point to that would indicate Hillary Clinton is better on these issues than John McCain. Hell we know Hillary Clinton is a bought and paid for creature of corporate lobbyists. Just like John McCain.
If you vote for one, you might just as well vote for the other.
Young voters actually have a functioning bullshit meter. And this argument about the Supreme Court appointments is pure B.S.
Don't be intimidated. Vote your conscience.
March 7, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Bill was critisized for appointing moderates to the fed bench to avoid opening up a new front in his fight with congress. Hillary, who is something of a moderate, will do the same. But, McCain if he wins is going to owe his base, and is going to appoint young, fed society judges that will be on the fed bench for a long time. You cannot conflate moderate judges with the right wing activists the republicans have recently been appointing. Read some opinions, the difference is unmistakeable. Though her picks may not be ideal, they are not downright scary. That's a substantive improvement from what we've been seeing since Reagan (with some notable exceptions: Souter, Clinton appointees).
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
best.avatar.ever.
March 7, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really like jed757 because of rational arguments right next to Jeff Spicoli.
March 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
All right, now show me evidence that McCain will appoint justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade. ;~)
March 7, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm, inoperable link there...
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5404
March 7, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
gman08,
It isn't that I don't value choice. I am a woman with two young daughters after all. But, Roe v. Wade is not a deal maker or deal breaker with me. What does matter is that we are in a pitched battle to save participatory democracy. Do we really have to sacrifice the democratic process to a woman's right to choose? Because that is the position I feel you are putting me in gman.
And here is my dillema. I feel that there is something deeply wrong with my country when I have a right to a safe and legal abortion but I don't have the same right to a safe and legal pregnancy. Though I understand the need for reproductive freedom to end a pregnancy, I think reproductive freedom is a much bigger issue than that. In our country, justice seems to be whatever we can pay for. Reproductive freedom must include a woman's right to have a healthy baby whether she is rich enough to afford cadillac healthe insurance or not. And again, I have seen no signs at all that Hillary Clinton will understand that any better than John McCain.
Yes, I know she is for universal coverage. But so far, she has not shown the kind of synthetic thinking that would lead me to believe she sees her judicial appointments as being connected to anything other than preserving Roe v. Wade. And you know what else? She has made some statements in the past about abortion rights...remember the safe, legal, and rare controversy of a few years back? How do you know that she won't be willing to sacrifice Roe in order to get her appointments past Republican resistance?
You don't know that. In fact, all evidence tells us that is exactly what she would do. But go ahead and trust her to do the right thing. You can't. You already know what she is and how she caves in to Republican pressure.
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Voting for Hillary Clinton after watching her in action over this last six years is the definition of insanity.
March 8, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should note that I raised Roe v. Wade because it's a well-known example of the kind of case that divides conservatives from liberals and in which a conservative Court may move to overturn a well-established liberal precedent. (I'm not a single-issue pro-choice voter, but it's among the issues that are deal-breakers for me.)
Beyond Roe, the entire concept of a "right to privacy," language which is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or amendments, is under fire from the right. So just this one case has far-reaching implications. There are many more examples of liberal precedents at risk and, given the power of the Court, should be among our considerations when we vote in November. The executive branch sets the pieces on the board when it comes to the judicial branch, and I am suggesting we don't allow a Republican that prerogative. The Congress is also key, in playing the pieces and, while I tend to agree that having HRC rather than Obama at the top of the ticket will not be nearly as helpful to Dems in retaining or taking seats, if Dems en masse stay home, the consequences for the Congress could also be very negative.
March 8, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the pro-choice position is the only differentiation between McCain and Clinton, then isn't the decision easy?
March 7, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The composition of the SC is important, with ramifications on a scale of decades.
But the future of the Democratic party is also important, with ramifications also on a scale of decades. Look at how the Republican party has deteriorated, because they openly trickle down economics (i.e., tax cuts for the rich, and screw the poor), openly embraced warmongering, openly embraced the politics of fear, openly embraced torture, etc. etc.
And one reason they've been careening down that slippery slope is that Republican voters kept supporting terrible candidates, partly on the basis of the importance of shifting the SC to the right.
Was it worth it for them, do you think? Degenerating to the point of Bush/Cheney, a multi-trillion dollar war taking thousands of American lives for no good reason, an economy in shambles, torture being openly embraced, civil rights being eroded, John "100 years" McCain on the horizon? And all to get Roberts and Scalito on the SC?
Letting the SC considerations override the importance of having the Democratic party move forward in a good direction isn't sound long-term thinking at all.
If you like what the Democratic nominee stands for, vote for them. If you think it would send the party down the shitter, then don't. Whatever you reward, that's what you're going to get more of.
March 7, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not necessarily true that Repubs voted for W just to ensure they would yield conservative appointees on the SC. Even if it were true that Repubs voted on the basis of the SC, they had no opportunity to consider what a disaster his administration would be because they had no way to predict 9/11, its aftermath, and how W would perform (or, how badly he would bungle everything). To suggest that by voting to protect the SC against a conservative majority, Dems would be inviting disaster in a presidency is to assume that we have foreknowledge of an impending disaster. We don't have any such foreknowledge. But we can predict with a good deal of confidence that John Paul Stevens will be retiring (or will die) in the next four years.
My fundamental point of departure is that HRC's probable performance on the issues that are important to Dems will be far preferable to what we could expect from McCain. If you really don't think HRC's policies are acceptable, then you probably shouldn't be supporting Obama either. And that's not something I particularly want to hash out in this thread, but I find it hard to believe that Dems could confuse their best interests on the issues with their distaste for the person who would support those issues. I support Obama because I want to see a Dem in office AND I want to see a new measure of dignity and decency in the WH. But as a second choice, I won't be voting to enable McCain and the certain change in composition of the SC to a full-on conservative majority.
March 7, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's difficult to predict human behavior, but isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say that Hillary's policies are not so different from Obama's? Now I happen to think Obama has superior judgment; and I happen to think that Hillary does not.
In the event of a disaster, I believe Obama would outperform Hillary. And I also believe that an interconnected world does not require saber rattling as Hillary is wont to do and Obama is not wont to do.
See how that works? And, yes, things may have to get worse before they get better. That is the sad conclusion I have arrived at after decades of this crap--briefly lighted for two years with the arrival of the Clintons. That light whiffed out in 1994.
March 8, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
GMan, I think you are right on. As has been recounted countless times by others on this site, I went into this election excited about both Obama and Clinton, developed a slight preference for Obama, and now have become completely disgusted by Clinton. A couple months ago I was trying to talk some Republican friends out of their irrational hatred for her. Now I have what I would describe as a rational loathing.
But, as a lawyer with an appreciation for the impact the fed judiciary has on our lives, I begrudgingly would have to pony up in November and vote for her. The stakes are too great to sit this out. Principle and "long term change" over an immediate threat is what led some poor souls to vote for Nader in 2000. Let's not replicate that result.
Now, that being said, the Clintons should fully appreciate the importance of the the fed judiciary and SCOTUS in particular and that in the next 4 years at minimum one new justice will be appointed to the Court (Stevens is closing in on 90). So why on earth is she pursuing a desparate plan to gain the nomination by smearing the dem front-runner so as to scare superdels to her camp, thus usurping the will of the voters (i.e. disenfranchisement). Her plan has little chance of success but, even if it does bring her the nomination, her party will have been splintered by the means with which she has pursued her ends. What her plan is sure to do, no matter if it succeeds, is to help McCain (especially when she directly compliments his bona fides for the job). Thus, though we dems need to vote for whomever is our candidate in the fall, I think for the time being it is Hillary, not the rank and file, that needs to be focusing on the importance of the fed judiciary and acting accordingly. Ugh, so frustrating.
March 7, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely... I'm at a loss over how HRC thinks her latest behavior or tactics will help her win the nomination or the general election. But I think that topic's been pretty well hashed out here recently.
March 7, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Obama should take his money and his base and start a Third Party. That would be far more helpful than sitting out the election or voting for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.
March 8, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama didn't want to box, he shouldn't have stepped in the ring. It's politics - this is how it's played - when it's not being played harder. Hillary's been slandered for 16 years now - just part of her experience.
Hillary can royally screw McCain in November. She voted for AUMF taking a tough line against Hussein. But didn't support the occupation and especially not the surge. McCain's horribly vulnerable there, but not so much to Obama. She's framed it exactly right for herself - she is an elder statesman (but not ancient, like McCain). Poll after poll has shown that voters discriminate against old age before race and gender. Reagan batted the question away. McCain is doubtfully so smooth.
Hillary also set herself up well on Social Security - just leave it alone, fix it when we're serious. McCain wants to private, Obama wants to "tweak" - it's going to be hard to explain the two, vs. "Leave it the hell alone".
March 7, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, that wasn't the point I was making. I certainly have an opinion on who we should pick as our nominee, and am highly doubtful HRC can win in the GE, but I'm addressing the contingency, IF HRC gets the nomination. As Dems we should do everything we can to prevent McCain from winning.
A) I don't buy that McCain will have very effective coat tails in the general. Conservatives could be sitting out this November b/c of their animosity for McCain. B> If worse comes to worst and McCain wins, we have another chance in 2012 to change Congress. Not so the SC once the next justice appointed is a conservative. We're going to hurt for way longer than 2 Congressional election cycles. Yep, in legal terms, what I'm doing is called arguing the alternative. It is fully legit to assert one proposition (we should elect O in order to protect the Court) while at the same time taking another, potentially contradictory, but equally effective tact in support of the argument (vote for HRC is she is the nominee in order to protect the SC).One doesn't have to love HRC to support the notion that it is imperative that we keep the Repubs from appointing another justice to the SC in the near future.
March 7, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly enough in the polling I've seen, it's the Clinton supporters who need to be told to rally behind Obama the nominee - not the Obama supporters.
As many as 1/4 of Clinton supporters (in recent polls) have said they won't support Obama, while only about 10-15% of Obama supporters say they wouldn't support Hillary.
So - while I see your overall point - Democrats must rally around our eventual nominee - perhaps you should target it more appropriately - at the Clinton supporters?
Especially as the likelihood that Obama will be our nominee is far higher.
Please note that these polls were taken before the Clinton campaign's recent "trash Obama" tack....
Her recent behavior - in particular the tacit embrace of McCain - is even making me (someone who has NEVER missed a vote) want to skip it in the fall if she is the nominee...
March 7, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I'm reacting to the recent rash of exploding heads we've been seeing among pissed off Obama supporters in the last week. I completely understand the anger and frustration, but I agree that both sides should be thinking about this in the fall.
March 7, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give it a rest. We were the loyal Democrats.
it's your hypocrite traitor Hillary who is trumpeting how wonderful McCain is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw
She's committing fratricide, not us.
If you cared about the Supreme Court or anything else in this country, you would tell that TRAITOR to quit.
From this point forward:
A vote for HRC = a vote for McCain
March 7, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"One doesn't have to love HRC to support the notion that it is imperative that we keep the Repubs from appointing another justice to the SC in the near future."
This is wrong.
The message now is clear:
If you want the Dems to win in November, vote for Obama, send money to Obama, write the MSM, write the DNC, and push this to a conclusion.
If you want McCain to pick the supreme court, keep writing this nonsense about unity behind the theif-traitor.
You know, it is a fact, that a clear HRC loss will end this and help our chances. That is the post you should be writing, instead of apologetics.
Like I said, from this day forward:
A vote for HRC = A vote for McCain
March 7, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Luck with this, Rees.
:)
Admirable try, for sure.
March 7, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny that a post from a self-proclaimed Obama supporter would get a thrashing like this, when I'm basically just suggesting we don't let our emotions get the better of us. Viewed as a Rorschach test for how the 2 candidates' supporters comport themselves, I'm sorry to say that my fellow O supporters are not doing very well. ;~)
March 7, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think its because it always hurts more when the knives come from behind than from the front. GMan, I agree with your rationale 100%. The prospects associated with the alternative of another 4 years of a Republican White House is brutal.
I think we are seeing the mirror-image of what is happening on the Republican side with hard right-wingers like Coulter and Limbaugh saying that they'd rather vote for Hillary rather than McCain because of the fear of a "true" revolution that might usher in a long-lasting progressive revolution.
But in the end, I don't believe for a second that those two would ever vote for Hillary, even if they truly hate McCain as much as they say would -- but the Republicans don't have a Ross Perot mucking up the works this time around, and Darth Nader has decided to don his dark helmet to yet again to suck off liberal lifeblood.
March 7, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said on this board many times that I absolutely will not rewards Clinton's behavior by voting for her...
But, last night the same thing occurred to me that you posted here - what about the judges. Not just the judges, but Congress, as well. We need every Democrat out voting, because every single House of Representatives seat is up for grabs in November.
So, I will ... VERY... VERY... grudgingly hold my nose and vote for her. This will probably be the most distasteful vote I have ever cast, if she goes to the GE. But I can't dismiss its long-term effects on Congress and the courts.
March 7, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, sometimes one must hold their nose in lieu of cutting it off.
Welcome to the sucky-but-rational world.
:)
March 7, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about we dont let Clinton Steal the election.
March 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't there three branches of government at stake in this election? Or are we just assuming we'll have control of Congress? Or are you saying Congress is useless? :D
p.s: I think 'fall in line' arguments are a waste of time. Most Democrats will continue to vote for the nominee of the party. But I think its silly to expect new voters (those brought into the process for the first time in 2008) to stick with party if their candidate fails to win the nominating contest.
March 7, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm sorry to say that my fellow O supporters are not doing very well. ;~)"
As a Democrat, I am saying your post is premature.
If you want the Democrats to win, HRC must be stopped. It's that simple.
If she carries on, she will destroy our chances. If she steals the race, blacks will stay home and the Dems will lose. I assume you do understand the depth of feeling of seeing the first black nominee in American history DISENFRANCHISE by dirty tactics. The history of America is about disenfranchising blacks. This is Jim Crow writ large. Blacks will not vote, and you can write off any states with large black populations. And frankly, many blacks already feel seriously alienated by a DNC which takes them for granted. This will seal the deal -- they'll be gone for a long time. And so will the DNC.
So, losing on delegates and stealing the nomination = a loss.
Since HRC can't win in the remaining votes, either HRC quits or is made to quit, or the Dems will lose.
Any true Democrat should be asking themselves if allowing HRC to continue her scorched earth strategy is worth the price: President McCain.
This is insane. This needs to end. She will destroy your party. Mark my words.
March 7, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I have no argument with that reasoning, and I can only hope that whatever transpires it happens on a rational basis. Suppose HRC ends up with the largest popular vote. The SDs are not obligated to vote one way or the other, and it's possible they could succumb to the popular vote argument and move their support the HRC.
It's politics, observer2, and there is a rational calculation to be made at the end of the day. "So, losing on delegates ... = a loss" for Obama = a Dem in the WH if we stand behind the Party.
I agree that a stolen election will be a cause for something akin to revolution, but the rules are what they are, and if somehow, heaven forbid, the SDs give HRC enough votes to get the nomination, it will not have been in contravention of Party rules. I'll find it distasteful and abhorrent, but I won't turn my back on the Party or the issues that are of vital importance to us.
Let me be clear, should HRC do something illegal to get the nomination, all bets are off. But if she gets there by virtue of turning public support and, by extension, SD support in her favor, and if the Dem party legitimately nominates her, I will vote for her. I can't stand the tactics she's using right now, but there's nothing I can do about it except to give my ardent support to Obama through the convention. I will, but I'm also prepared for the worst.
March 7, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said earlier, the electorate is more likely to run on and deal with an unsatisfactory Congress, via the voting booth, that is just not possible with the judiciary. Once appointed, we have them until they resign, die, or are impeached. And the suggestion to not sit out the election this November if HRC leads the ticket helps the party overall, as I would assume committed Dems would vote for the Dem candidate for Congress on the ballot.
But that's precisely why it's important for newer voters -- newer Dems, at least -- to take this into account. A party supporter, in line with the bulk of the party platform, should understand how important the presidential power of judicial appointments is with respect to the party's ideals. If a new or young Dem thinks it's best to sit out the election because their preferred primary candidate didn't win, then they have the wrong idea of what party identification means. I don't expect Independents to be susceptible to Dem party talking points. Younger voters may not be aware of just how much rides on electing a Dem this fall (including the Congress and SC).
March 7, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen up yourself, asshole. I'm 52 years old, not some wet behind the ears kid. If you don't want to help elect McCain, tell your selfish, destructive piece of garbage candidate to get the hell out of the race.
How tragic, in retrospect, is the waste of political capital by progressives to save Bill's worthless ass. If Gore had gone into teh election as the incumbent, recent history would be very different. The Clintons are a cancer that MUST be excised from our party.
March 7, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I forgot she's not even "your" candidate, which makes your post even dumber.
March 7, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Listen up yourself, asshole. I'm 52 years old, not some wet behind the ears kid. If you don't want to help elect McCain, tell your selfish, destructive piece of garbage candidate to get the hell out of the race."
Right on, steve.
March 7, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think, fairly, that it is you two that are working rather hardf at electing McCain.
Indeed if Hillary is the nominee, it will certainly be people like you that will be held responsible if she loses.
52? Maybe, with the emotional maturity of a 13 year old.
It happens.
March 7, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is that, by her tactics, Hillary is not just undermining Obama's chances at the primary, but Obama's chances at the general election, too. Moreover, by contrasting herself with Obama on issues of national security, she's ironically undermining her own chances in November if she's the nominee.
If McCain wins the general election this year, it won't be because I didn't vote for Hillary. (Like others here, I will hold my breath and sell a little of my soul at the ballot box.) No, if McCain wins, it will be directly attributable to Hillary's underhanded, divisive and destructive attacks. Whoever the democratic candidate is, these attacks will dissuade independent voters from supporting a democrat.
March 7, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
Hysteria is lame.
March 7, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try again, jerk. As I've said elsewhere on this site, I personally will hold my nose and vote for her, though it will go hard. But get this though your thick head: SHE WILL NOT WIN. The only cold comfort is that after she's thrashed by McCain, she and Bill may at long last achieve the pariah status in the party that they so richly deserve.
There is only one way for McCain NOT to be elected, and that is for Hillary to go away. As someone once said, it is time for her to go. And note this well: I am no "Obamabot". I am a disappointed Edwards supporter whose regard for Obama is somewhat lukewarm. But he's a hell of a damn sight better than Hillary, especially because HE CAN WIN in November(as long as he doesn't have to keep running against a Clinton - McCain tag team.)
You have the intellectual maturity of a toddler if you can't see what the Clintons are doing to the party. Wake the hell up.
March 7, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You people too good to vote for the Dem nominee if it's Hillary? Let me guess, you're also too ghood to flip burgers and bale hay in June--right?
You're not a progressive, you're a regressive elitist snob.
And you're hardly better than anyone that does the right thing for the greater good. THAT'S what having principles is. Not your personal selfish egotistical head games.
Grow up.
March 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with your arguments for a democratic president, whoever he/she might be, Hillary clearly stated she would prefer for McCain over Obama, thus it follows that she does not agree with your arguments.
Then why should I vote for someone who does not agree with your arguments?
March 7, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry. dems are better than reps, but not so much to blindly vote for them. gwb is the only reason i have ever considered voting straight ticket. and i have very little respect for the supreme court. if clinton is on the ballot, add a vote for whatever wacko is on the green ticket.
March 7, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not the Clinton Party I've been supporting since I was old enough to vote, it's the Democratic Party. Workerbee, like so many Clinton supporters, seems to suffer from massive confusion on that point.
March 7, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So vote for McCain. That's what a vote for Nader or a Green will do. That is the reality and the consequences of your mindset. Period. How many years of Bush/McCain do you need before you let go of your overinflated egos and consider your fellow citizens?
Is it fair to have two sucky parties to choose from? No. But to pretend it's something it's not is to be delusional. Selfish, too.
Just because you want it to be different, doesn't change reality, and I for one, think you jerks looking down at the majority of Dem voters doing their duty, as disgusting as it may be, as somehow inferior is backward.
You're not better.
You just suck.
March 7, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said he'd vote for her...what more do you want. he doesn't have to like the Clintons, no matter how much you want him to join the borg.
March 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was just that kind of loser selfish attitude that got us 8 years of Bush.
Gee, and I'm an idiot?
Hardly. The real idiots in the thread are the ones that can look at an argument like Gary's and say, I don't care! I WON'T! I WON'T! I WON'T!!!!!!
Like a fargin toddler having a temper tantrum.
Disgusting.
Living in a society requires that occasionally you do what's good for the majority, even if it makes you feel a" little uncomfortable". These zealots are the very same jerks that had tizzies over Gore and Kerry.
But hey, they still have their "principles." The rest of us have Bush and Cheney. Some "principles." How cool is that? Not very.
Hardly admirable sentiments, considering just how selfish and self-centered they are. Nothing to be proud of, either.
March 7, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee!
Geez, speaking of temper tantrums.....
WTF??? I understand what you're saying, but reacting by getting pissy and insulting is not helping! Come on, now!
Or do you enjoy shaming people??
Emotions are running high right now. Take a break and cool off, and recognize that some people are really, really pissed at Hillary right now. So what? Railing at them isn't going to persuade them to rationally re-evaluate their positions. If anything, throwing back verbal abuse just feeds the grudge. Why do that? Maybe you're being selfish too, like you accuse others of being, if it's so important for you to service your anger by insulting and shaming others. It seems like it's far more effective to empathize first; then respectfully persuade.
It depends on what the goal is. What's yours?
March 7, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
My goal is to let people know that the old tired Nader argument of 2000 doesn't fly.
My goal is to let people know that there is a difference between having principles and being selfish
I'm not here to moddycoddle militant zealots. If that's how people want to act, then I'm going to call them out for acting that way.
I won't be the only one doing so, if McCain wins because these 8%ers somehow think they're acting "noble." They aren't. They ought to be aware that there will be consequences to their ridiculous whinning.
They're acing childish. It' s not a position worth any respect at all. Why let them think it is? Why reward them for poor behavior?
March 8, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're really making me want to be veeeeeeery selfish right now; and spiteful. All I need is a nudge from a sanctimonious douchebag...are you that douche? I'll continue reading.
March 8, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look in the mirror, you sanctimonious douchebag. I'm not the one going on and on about my personal integrity being somehow above anyone elses for allowing another Republcan to become President. That's sanctimonious, and I've had it with these puffed up poppinjays from BOTH camps that say so.
I'm gonna cause you to not vote for the victor of the democratic primary? Why, because I pointed out that not doing so was elitist, selfish, and shallow?
You aren't much of a Liberal if you'll stand by and let McCain get elected. Too bad if you don't like reality, but it's the only reality there is.
March 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, the ole "I'm better than you" argument. Interesting gambit.
March 8, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm the old Rovian tactic of accusing your opponent of what you're so obviously guilty of.
Quaint.
March 8, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zealots can't be persuaded. So it's best to just ignore them. They're not capable of being rational.
But you're insulting thoughtful, rational people too. They might be persuaded, but you give them reason to continue their grudges.
On another thread, to illustrate how selfish you think we are, you described us this way:
"These are the same people that cut in front of you in line, insist on special treatment on airplanes, are nightmares to drive near, and would go on the dole before they'd do honest work like flipping burgers or stocking shelves."
I think your ad hominem shittiness and sanctimony don't serve any greater goal than boosting your own ego and further entrenching each side's resentment of the other.
You're not being persuasive. You're not helping to support or increase the Democratic Party. The only thing I see you accomplishing is servicing your own rage. So while you accuse others of being selfish, it's irritating and discouraging to see you being selfish too.
Remember what's important. The Democratic Party needs to encourage support, not alienate it.
March 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to encourage you by being civil.
It isn't as if I've had any success with being civil, and what I'm saying goes equally to the jerks in "both camps"
Don't like me telling you to grow up? Then grow up.
Some Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama no matter what, some Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary no matter what. These are not Democrats, Liberals, or Progressives. They're selfish, immature morons.
I call them like I see them. Too bad if it hurts your feelings. For someone that is lecturing me about being civil, you sure don't hold back. Pretty hypocritical, actually.
You asked me a question, ignored all the snark levied towards me, and then bashed me when I gave you an honest answer.
Not terribly admirable on your part.
Oh well.... That's a zealot for you.
March 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it was Bill Clinton's inability to control himself, and the unfortunate willingness of Democrats to rally around the triangulator who had already sold them out, instead of realizing the advantages of having Gore run as the incumbent without Bill hanging around his neck, that got us Bush. What a huge mistake, on behalf of such an unworthy beneficiary. And how disgusting that people who claim to be Democrats are still supporting these selfish assholes, who care only about themselves and not a fig for the party unless they can control it.
Take your condescension and shove it.
March 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No take your over-inflated ego and faux outrage and shove it.
If you don't want to vote Dem after 8 years of Republican incompetent governance, then shut up and quit whining.
You aren't part of any workable solution, you're JAFO, fucking up the majority.
Don't like it? Grow up. Be an adult. Look outside of yourself.
March 7, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support, workerbee. It's obvious you at least see the underlying dilemma for Democrats. We can support different candidates and agree about the most important issues facing us after November. Interesting that you never see Repubs in the circular firing squad, and explains how it is we could end up with a moron like W... twice.
March 7, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't even read, idiot, since I already said I'd hold my nose and vote for her. But SHE CANNOT WIN. That is simply a fact. Too many voters have already been irretrievably alienated, AND she has simply painted herself as McCain Lite- swing voters will go for the real thing.
March 7, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your argument is that we should support someone who speaks with a forked tongue no matter what. To me it's like a spoiled brat that falls out in the supermarket and the parents reward the bad behavior by giving the child what they want. I'm sorry, this is not a time to send Hillary to timeout. She has made a mockery of fair competition. It's too much of a game to her and she doesn't care who she hurts it's too much about winning at any cost. I'm actually one of those former Hillary Clinton supporters, now Obama supporters, who will give McCain a hard look if Hillary wins in this manner without honor.
March 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your analogy is a little off.
It's as if your child is misbehaving in the Supermarkert, and in the next isle, someone elses, who is fatter, richer, and better off than you has a kid throwing a MAJOR tantrum and you go to the next isle to buy the strangers brat candy. Then you pat yourself on the back for being such a "good parent."
Not.
Quite.
Sane.
March 7, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, the only sane thing that you said is that it is my analogy. Let's keep it that way.
March 8, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary:
I think I would have to cut off my nose and half my face to be able to vote for HRC.
Her campaign is not one of transparency.
Her campaign relies on playing a victim card.
Her campaign relies of vicious gimmicks based on advertising focus groups appealing to the worse emotions of people.
Her campaign relies on fear: be it 3 am phone calls or SCOTUS appointees.
How am I supposed to trust her as President if I can't even trust her as a candidate?
She is always reminding me of the "experience" card -- well, McCain has more experience.
And you know what? In the end, he is more honest.
He's not the most honest politician out there -- but he is more honest than Hillary.
March 7, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, and if her pattern of behavior continues it will be more and more difficult to make the choice in November if she's on the ballot. I can only suggest that campaigns are not 100% indicative of how a person will govern. Yes, that cuts all ways and is true of HRC, O and McC. We can't guarantee exactly how they'll govern, but we have to put a lot of trust in their proposals on the substantive issues and make a reasoned choice on the best outcome with respect to what we feel is important. To me, it's more important to have a Dem in the WH and it's absolutely critical to keep the SC at its present balance than it is to assume that HRC will be a dishonest or ineffective president. I don't have to like her, or her style, but I believe she'll work for more progressive and sensible policies than McCain.
Aren't we all taking a leap of faith with O? I'm very comfortable making the leap with O, but I can't guarantee you he'll be a great president. He is much more appealing in his leadership style and personal comportment, but I can't say that's sufficient to justify voting for a Repub in November if HRC gets the nomination.
March 7, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Obama and HRC have shown remarkable consistency in their campaigns:
Obama has been level-headed and, normalized for a politician, essentially an above board, issue oriented campaign.
HRC has tried to unleash fear, play victim, and deride a fellow Democrat.
No one can predict the future and the president is a human being and capable of making mistakes.
But I want my president to display the characteristics of Obama and not HRC. There is no gamble there.
March 8, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. I think HRC ran a consistently positive and issues-oriented campaign for about a year. She only adopted the Rovian tactics once her campaign realized the depth of their misfire by failing to plan past Super Tuesday and after O picked up his nearly insurmountable delegate lead. It looks like politics to me. Yes, I find it detestable that she has taken to suggesting McC would be a better choice than O. But let me ask you, and others, what will your take be if O comes out with all guns blazing next week and turns the Rovian tactics back on HRC? Wouldn't that turn you all off for O and have you pledge not to vote for him in November?
As evidence of just how recently HRC has turned Monster, look at the number of people who were saying they would happily support either candidate and that only the events of the last week have brought on this cascade of "I won't vote for HRC" declarations.
I'll hold off on withholding my November Dem vote until we see what transpires between now and the closing of the convention. But I have my doubts that HRC can get away with increasingly heinous tactics and actually get the SDs to fall in behind her. If she legitimately takes the nomination, I believe we need to vote for her.
March 8, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what you are saying, is that you will elect someone who, despite all her innate advantages (branding, money, and political machine) couldn't convince the electorate that her ideas were better?
In my book, that is reason enough not to vote for her.
Hillary is a bully, pure and simple.
That's another reason not to vote for her.
She is no more presidential material than GWB.
March 8, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
But watching what the Clintons are doing to win (and Obama's current paralysis in effectively fighting back), I could see her getting close in the pledged delegates and convincing the supers to accept an argument, should she get the most popular votes (or even the most congressional districts), to give her enough support to surpass 2025 (or 2207, whatever the circumstances warrant). We may be hard pressed to argue convincingly that it was out of bounds for the SDs to make that kind of decision because there are no rules binding the SDs to vote one way or the other.
Some time back, Chris Bowers on openleft.com made a prediction about the SDs, that if O won the pledged delegates by 20 or less, the Party would feel justified in stepping in and handing HRC the nomination. He felt that O had to get a lead of 100 or more in order to foreclose that possibility. It made a lot of sense, considering the Clintons' position in the party. I'm suggesting that if we get to the point where the SDs side with HRC, we should think long and hard about the consequences of not voting for her once she has the nomination.
March 8, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's important to judge the Dems by the SDs who are supposed to be a safety-valve against voter insanity (e.g. fear-based, smear-based).
If the Dems decide that they need to push HRC as the candidate to best represent the hopes and ideals of the Democratic Party, then it's my right to seek alternatives.
If the Dems reward the exact same type of smears, fear mongering, and he-said/she-said shenanigans we have been subject to the past 15 years, then I reserve the right to not support their platform. Already, we have seen religious pandering in this primary from the Dem side... in other words, they are trying to out-GOP the GOP.
The GOP, love them or not, are more disciplined and mean what they say. I think the hypocrisy the Democratic Party would display under a HRC nomination by the SD be far worse for the Republic to endure.
Respectfully, if the Dems do not want to look to the future, then I will not chain myself to the past.
March 8, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
To quote Samantha Powers, Erghh! I completely understand your thinking on this, and agree that if HRC gets the nomination we'll be blowing our best opportunity in a life time to elect a head of the party who can lead us out of the political morasse we've been stuck in. I certainly respect your choice and fervently hope we're not faced with it in November. Thanks for the insights, CT.
March 8, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Always happy to help. Now is the time when ideas and values are really tested.
A candidate may be able to sway the masses by doing anything and saying anything, but the world is run by cleverer people than the masses -- and such tricks of a scoundrel won't work there.
Hang tough, GMan. The SCOTUS is another fear-based argument. Don't give in to the dark side.
March 8, 2008 4:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish that were true, but my premise is in the assumption that cleverer heads may not prevail and that she might pull through after all.
I respectfully disagree. For my part, the composition of the SC has been of great concern in every election in which I've voted. It's nothing new and, to my mind, not a legitimate matter with which to appeal to people's baser instincts. Indeed, the issues that will be at stake before the Court are wide-ranging, not just the prospect of turning abortion laws back to the states. Should Congress grant the Telecomms immunity from prosecution over their participation in wiretapping, you can bet it will be taken up at least to the Appellate level, and very likely will be put before the SC. I would hardly place an issue like that as an example of how to scare people to vote for HRC.
When you suggest the "SCOTUS is another fear-based argument" you imply that I am a proponent of using fear-based arguments. I disdain the tactics embodied in the 3am phone call ad and emphatically reject (and denounce, of course) the use of emotions like fear in arguing for or against a given candidate. It absolutely wasn't my intention to appeal to people's fears, and, to be clear, I raised the possibility of Roe being overturned as a well-known landmark case that is well understood to be at risk. (And I'm too lazy to assemble a thorough list of all the areas of law where a liberal precedent is in danger of being reversed by a conservative majority... they are legion.)
March 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
GMan,
Hope you see this:
I can understand why what I wrote may have made you feel like I said that *you* were a proponent of fear-based campaigning. That's certainly not what I meant.
I expect to hear from HRC's campaign a similar argument soon, and I wanted to point out that it is in line with *their* fear-based campaigning policy.
Sorry for any confusion.
March 8, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I was wondering whether that hypothetical would be raised, but I can't think of any rational way in which HRC could try to leverage SC appointments against O. Wouldn't surprise me to see her trying to appeal to fears in the GE in contrasting herself to McCain, but at least so far, her campaign doesn't seem to have conceived of some devious manner in which to turn SC appointments against O. But give them some time, I wouldn't put it past them, and no one can argue convincingly that the recent moves by HRC have been rational for a Dem. ;~)
March 8, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker,
You are putting my thoughts into words when you say this:
["If the Dems decide that they need to push HRC as the candidate to best represent the hopes and ideals of the Democratic Party, then it's my right to seek alternatives.
---
Respectfully, if the Dems do not want to look to the future, then I will not chain myself to the past."]
Thank you.
March 8, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, just chain yourself to the sucky present.
Like that's somehow noble? It's not.
This is exactly what happened in 2000 with Nader. Talk about sanctimonious, look what your high ideals wrought.
It isn't high ideals driving this childish nonsense, it's vanity.
About as opposite from high ideals as one can get. Self-sacrifice, now that's a high ideal. I will sacrifice my ideals in what a good candidate is (he lost), and swallow my disgust with BOTH nominees left standing, in order to help those hurt by the "high ideals" of self-involved twits whose only concern is the own undeserved idea of of their own self-importance. I'm sorry, but the implication here that somehow you folks are better, or have more integrity, doesn't pass the smell test.
Self serving hubris isn't what makes a Republic work. You go for the representative that is closest to your ideals AND that has a reasonable chance at succeeding.
One without the other is simply irresponsible and vain.
March 8, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee,
I agree with your comments about a vote for Nader.
However, what you fail to realize is that I find a McCain Presidency more palatable than more dynasty politics from the Clintons.
Corruption in government is difficult to stem. The only way to deal with it, is to have a fresh set of people in office.
There are 3 things in particular about Hillary Clinton that I find distressing:
a) I have no idea on who I am getting for president. In the space of 2 months, I've already seen at least a half dozen Hillaries. What will 4 years give me?
b) I am already exhausted by the Clinton's media dominance and manipulation and it reminds me of the 1990s... and the present administration. I find that people fail to recognize that the President is not a dictator -- the President needs Congress. Hillary is not only polarizing to begin with, she is a poor compromiser.
c) If I'm going to vote for a person who is hawkish and arrogant and demands absolute loyalty to their views, I'd rather vote for a genuine GOPer -- who tends to reward us college educated, Prius driving, latte drinking voters. You know, the kind that the Dems call elitist.
Hope this clarifies things.
March 8, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
March 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't talk to me about "younger" Obama supporters asshole. I'm 52 years old and I spent the day in the freezing cold doorhanging for Bill Foster on the treeless frozen steppes of northern Aurora IL. We will not only lose the presidency against McCain with Hillary at the top of the ticket if she wins after the way she's run her campaign, we will lose about 4 congressional seats in the Chicago burbs we have an excellent chance of picking up. You want good SC justices quit shilling for Mrs. False Hope.
She can't win.
March 7, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was talking emotional age. Apparently.
Get some rest.
March 7, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve said it best:
"There is only one way for McCain NOT to be elected, and that is for Hillary to go away."
and
"what the Clintons are doing to the party. Wake the hell up."
This bears repeating, for all who haven't notice exactly what is transpiring:
CLINTON IS DESTROYING THE PARTY
CLINTON IS DESTROYING THE PARTY
CLINTON IS DESTROYING THE PARTY
Anyone who wants to win, beat McCain, knows McClinton must go.
March 7, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those of us who will not support HRC on principle will bear no responsibility if she/the Democrats lose against McCain. Her supporters shoulder that responsibility, not others.
The SC issue is real and Gman has argued the party unity argument well. I disagree though with the idea that McCain will owe his base somehow, particularly since that side of his base may not even show up in November unless Hillary is on the ballot. While reproductive rights and the right to privacy are central to our democracy, and as a woman I support those rights, I would also not encourage Democrats to go down that same old path with Republicans because that leads us to gay marriage and the rest of the "what's the matter with kansas" types of issues that encourage voters to vote based solely on morality rather than intellect. Moreover, SC nomination battles are going to be easy compared to the battles on middle east policy, and the bleak macro-economic situation of a declining dollar. Americans haven't felt the latter entirely, but it is going to be palpable after the Beijing Olympics when the Chinese don't have to worry about losing face with the international community if they allow a damaging dollar devaluation agains the yuan. At least that is the view a lot of people out here in Asia talk about.
If we, as a people and a party, do not choose to hire a new cast for the political theater in Washington we will get the same old tired show that we've had for the last 16 years. The American public has shown bad judgement before, so if HRC is nominated I will not be surprised. Afterall, we elected George Bush twice over much more qualified opponents, war-vets no less. In Gore's case the residual negativity of the Clinton era combined with his poorly run campaign equalled defeat. For Kerry (not the strongest candidate) he couldn't really differentiate himself from the Republicans on the war issue with all of his "voting against before voting for," rhetoric or vice versa, I can't remember. HRC is doing the same thing with McCain now by making it seem like those two are the only credible choices to lead our country in this perilous world.
If the American people buy into an idea that is the flimsy equivalent of the "weapons of mass destruction" argument,e.g. allowing Clinton to suggest that electing Obama would threaten our national security, well then, the American public deserves what it gets.
I will have no part of it. Like the earlier WMD farce there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the messenger is more dangerous than the threat she claims to be identifying.
If either McCain or Clinton is elected, along about 2009/10 we will have the same V8 moment that people had right after the 2004 election when they realized that the preemptive war was a stupid, costly, and dangerous foreign policy. HRC and McCain will do the bidding of AIPAC and likely support more aggressive policies towards Iran, possibly of the military variety. Let's hope not, but they are on record suggesting support for such positions now.
Voting for either of McCain or Clinton now will ultimately result in a post 2004 election deja vu...that moment when the politicians, like HRC, finally defected from the failed policy in Iraq and claimed that they would have voted differently had they known what Bush would do. Rubbish. If the American public wants to look back and say, "well, if we'd only known what we do now..." We do know. Don't act duped if it comes to pass.
And as for Billy Glad's comment about the incompetent heads of federal agencies, I couldn't agree more. But take a look around at HRC's choice of staff appointments for her campaign and realize that she hasn't shown very good staffing judgement. She, like Bush, values loyalty above competence. All politicians are beholden to the people who get them elected, Obama will be no exception, but in the case of the Clintons the list is much longer (given their time in politics) and I would bet that some of the folks that got overlooked in Bill's administration will be lining up with their I.O.U. chits for Hillary's; Hello B team. Go America.
At this stage there is no acrimony from me towards Clinton. I stated long before she announced her candidacy that I wouldn't vote for anyone who voted for the Iraq War resolution. And while I will give her all the credit she deserves for putting forward a solid healthcare plan her early suggestions about economic policy related to the housing crisis, e.g. freezing interest rates, are not well thought out and she has no more experience in economic matters than Obama. They will both hire people. Yet, if she gets the nomination there will be no way that the Democrats will get a working majority in Congress to do anything anyway, so we will get another 4 years of nothing for our campaign contributions.
Those in the Democratic party who support her will bear the responsibility of any outcome in November, not those of us who see another path.
But yeah, worry about reproductive rights and vote for Hillary regardless of every good reason not to. Everyone gets to choose what is important to them.
March 7, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, you will bear the responsibilty.
At least normal, well adjusted adults will think so. That's most of them. You 8%ers have a lot to answer for, as it is.
You can start with 3,500 dead Americans..
On the contrary, I won't take responsibility if I've done everything I can do to prevent another Republican, especially one preaching endless war, from being President. I will vote Dem.
You won't have that reassurance at all, for you did NOT do everything you could.
Your "high ground" is pretty swampy and smelly. More like a fetid, low lying pool of muck.
March 7, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
My conscience is clear. If Obama is elected and fails miserably I will raise my hand and accept my share of the blame.
Healthcare reform aside, McCain will not be much different than Clinton. And as I said I do not believe that if she's elected she will be able to get any meaningful legislation passed, no matter how shrill her voice becomes.
It is not as though her negative rating is a secret. Democrats who support her choose not to believe that is a meaningful measure of her electability. Those of us who are part of that number understand why it does affect the general election.
I'm not in some fetid, confused ideological swamp, (although I am typing from right on the equator) I am merely stating my own choice.
My conscience is clear. As someone who is and has been outside the US for many years, foreign policy is important. Clinton represents more of the same and has a terrible record based on her judgements and votes, which are incidentally almost identical to McCain's.
March 7, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the war which you claim to care about?
You are deluding yourself. I find that pretty lame.
Which are incidently almost identical to Obama's.
You can vote for him, but not for her?
This is vanity. Nothing more.
Common vanity.
March 7, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq Resolution? Patriot Act? Sense of the Senate resolution to name the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist orgnisation? And recently the tel-co immunity bill that she didn't even bother to show up for.
This isn't vanity, this is reality based on principle. Justify your position all you want but there are real differences in their records and their statements.
While Obama made just a "speech" can you not remember how politically incorrect the anti-war position was before the vote? Very few had the courage to speak out against it who were in public office. He was running for office at the time so he put his beliefs on the line in public.
Vote for Hillary, support whomever, it's your choice. I have very solid reasons for choosing otherwise. It's not vanity, it's principle.
March 7, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was hardly politically correct n Chicgo AT THAT TIME.
No Obama isn't one to take chances.
That speech might hold more sway if he hadn't then gone and backed pro-war Lieberman in the Senate Primaries.
He's about as sincerely anti-war as, well, you are.
Keep telling yourself "you conscious is clear." In 'principle,' it matches what passes for brains inside your head.
March 7, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, I meant It was hardly politically incorrect in Chicago at that time. They were far more antiwar in Chicago then what was reflected in the country as a whole.
March 7, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My guess is you were part of the genius crowd who supported the war, and likely Bush at some point.
Give it a rest workerbee. You're not catching any flies with that putrid honey your spewing but are certainly reinforcing already strongly held beliefs that Hillary supporters are irrational and unstable.
March 8, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're being willfully obtuse. Another unattractive thing about you and your fellow anti-democratic voters.
I don't support Hillary, and I marched in New York against the war. before it started. Heck, I'm a card carrying member of MoveOn. Where was Obama on February 15th, if he was so "principled?"
That's why I call Bullshit on your soft "antiwar" support, as well as o Obamas.
Go ahead and vote McCain. But be honest about it. Our political system allows you to vote for the least evil, and that's about it.
Pretending you have the moral high ground by playing dumb and ignoring reality doesn't get you any points. It just gets you deeper in the cesspool that you created.
You aren't fooling anyone but your fellow 8%ers and yourself.
March 8, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who wants to catch flies? That's Gary's job. I just want to tell you how much your attitude disgusts me. It's time we all did.
March 8, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I can agree with that, too, if the Dems cannot bring out enough support for her in the fall. I do believe it will be on the HRC supporters heads that they brought us the candidate who loses against McCain and nominated her in spite of the polarization she is causing right now.
Sorry, I'm not following. Are you contrasting a HRC v. McCain administration? If the Dems can increase their numbers in the senate to 60, it will be much easier to confirm if we have a Dem in the WH. It will be messier if we have 60 senators and McCain b/c he will get filibustered into gridlock. Just not sure what you're suggesting...
You seem to be suggesting that a HRC or McC admin would be indistinguishable, or have an equally negative impact. I fundamentally disagree. To suggest that HRC will not pursue a Dem agenda is like calling her the Manchurian Repub candidate, which is as absurd as calling O the Manchurian muslim candidate.
That HRC will certainly lose and that Dems will lose Congressional seats is only a foregone conclusion if Dems do not rally and instead stay at home. Yes, she will likely still lose, but if the Dem base comes out, it has a chance of reprising the 2006 Congressional results. Or so I would dearly hope.
March 8, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting points of view here. I am a Hillary supporter who will absolutely vote for Barack if he is the nominee. We MUST elect a democrat.
I also find it interesting that the man who claims to be a uniter (gee, where have we heard that one before???) has actually caused the worst split among democrats in recent history by his premature run for the big spot. He is wet behind the ears, so to speak, and amazingly arrogant to think he can handle the White House over any of the other democratic candidates who have been around a lot longer than he.
I used to go to a megachurch who had a charismatic minister with a charmed tongue. She turned out to be stealing from the church; luckily I figured her out before I got taken and left. I don't think Barack is doing anything wrong like that, but his inspiring talk can charm the masses without them realizing he is not suited just yet for this kind of job. Nevertheless, I will vote for him if necessary, knowing that it still takes a democratic congress to make things change, and if they decide to buck his so-called "new politics," well, little harm done.
March 7, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, and I'm glad you'll support Obama.
Don't let some of these people turn you off of Obama, do some research, he actually has more experience than most people know.
He'll make a fantastic President.
March 7, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA has caused "the worst split among democrats in recent history"???
Do you honestly think this would even be an issue if the race was Obama vs. Edwards right now?
Every Obama supporter on this site understands the USSCT issue. I read Scalia opinions almost ever day--there's not much that makes me angrier.
But somehow we are "naive" and "selfish" because Clinton supporters don't agree with what we believe is and is not worth sacrificing our principles for.
I appreciate Gman08's argument and I would agree under most circumstances. I also understand that he disagrees with Hillary's tactics. But we have all struggled to deal with this kind of politics for the last 8 years (much longer, in my opinion) and people should respect other's right to reject a continuation of that, despite the consequences.
Emotions are obviously running high and people tend to get a bit irrational. This really shouldn't be all that surprising given the campaign Hillary is running.
I happen to believe the long term benefits of rejecting this kind of campaigning will be more beneficial than blindly checking D in November. This is because I think a Clinton presidency will last four years and fail to bring in the large portion of independents/moderate republicans currently susceptible to an extended progressive movement. Such a failure could affect the Sup.Ct. even more than a loss this year.
Obviously many people don't agree with this, but I have a right to vote based on my opinion. I'll be the first to admit that many Obama supporters are too angry to discuss things rationally, but this is one of the only rational arguments I've read for supporting Hillary. And it comes from an Obama supporter.
I may still vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but if I choose otherwise it will not be the cardinal sin some are proclaiming it to be.
March 7, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get me wrong, I most certainly respect everyone's right to vote or whomever they like and for whatever reasons they like, and especially those who have a strong sense of conscience behid their action. I am simply presenting a case for not becoming so overinvested emotionally that one is blinded to the potential positives of electing HRC and what we face should McC be elected. I still favor 90% of the policies HRC has proposed, even if I'm coming to dislike her as an individual. (I didn't much care for WHC when he ran in '92 -- voted for Tsongas in the primary -- but I voted to help remove GHWB from office.)
I think that's probably incorrect strategically. I agree that HRC is unlikely to change the mix of Repub/Ind/Dem, but if she serves 8 years, she will likely place 3 justices on the SC. That could secure a liberal voting bloc for 12-16 years, when one would hope O would take office and undertake the work to fundamentally transform the electorate. ;~)
March 8, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, part of me knows that if this type of campaigning is successful we will just see it again in four years, eight years, etc. Like I said, I will probably still vote straight Democrat, but if I don't it won't be so much a "strategic" decision as a rejection of politics in general. I guess a much more succinct way of stating what many of us are getting at is this:
Blindly voting Clinton could have more negative effects than waiting four years; it's impossible to know for sure.
Now, I think there are a number of ways I could demonstrate this possibility, but it would be very long and God knows my posts haven't been short to begin with.
March 8, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and it's unfortunate that I addressed you in the same paragraph as the "right to vote" thing. That was really in reference to some of the Clinton supporters (amply represented both below and above this) who's argument is "Obama supporters are whiney little children."
Many of the Obama supporters have demonstrated that they fully understand the logic of voting striaght Democrat (often by saying they have done so for years). Clinton supporters either chose to ignore or don't recognize the various (I think legitimate) views of the Obama crowd. While it is completely fair to ask people to think more calmly about the implications of a McCain presidency, I am amazed that Clinton supporters don't think it's fair to be outraged by her campaigning.
The overzealous attitude is not exclusive to one side.
March 8, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing...
Polls taken now regarding McCain v Clinton are simply not reliable. Fact is, this country wants out of the war, and they know that only Clinton or Obama will work toward that end. No matter which of them gets the nomination, a dem is going to the White House.
March 7, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check this out:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html
March 7, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying for some time that I will not vote for any Dem Prez candidate who voted for the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I did that in 2004 and it was a damned struggle for me. I won't do it again.
I'm 59 years old and I carry cards for the national Dem party, the state party, and the damned ward I live in. With one exception of a known crook, I vote for the Democrat.
I held my nose and voted for Kerry in 2004. I won't do it again for Hillary. I'll work for all the down ticket Dems and vote for them. I'll send my bits of cash throughout the country for Senatorial races to get as many Dem Senators to WDC as I can.
But I won't vote for a hawk who proved that her reputation for studying details and for being a policy wonk was simply not true--she didn't read the NIE, did she? Sure, Bush and his gang of GOPers are drenched in the blood and pain of a conflict that WE STARTED but don't try to tell any sensible person that enablers are not splattered too. Hillary did not earn this position. Her judgment is fatally flawed--go count the crosses if you don't believe "fatally" as it is intended--and I don't see that any of us have to reward that.
And I'm not even a pacifist. I wholeheartedly supported our venture into Afghanistan.
Go ahead. Push her nomination. And I'll tell you there are folks here in Missouri whose eyes turn feral red at the mention of "Clinton". And these are Democrats. Hillary simply will not win in the general--and part of that will occur because folks like me won't lift a finger for yet another nominee who does not embody the heart of the Democratic Party.
March 7, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear.
I hope the Superdelegates take into account the % of Democrats who are part of HRC's negative numbers. In my case it is not as much about being a rabid Obama supporter as it is about being a firm non-Hillary voter. There are many who feel that way.
If Obama were somehow incompetent and flawed, I'd be looking to an Independent candidate and be on that bandwagon. I think it is fortunate that we have a very competent and credible OTHER choice on the Democratic side. Hillary isn't the only capable person in the race, nor has she ever been.
March 7, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your sense of entitlement is showing. Please tuck it in.
The person who is dividing the Dems is Hillary with constantly reminding us it should be her or McCain in the White House.
March 8, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Codswallop. "Sending a message," indeed.. That's what the Nader voters said in 2000. We'll the messgae got a little mangled in all the BS the Republicans gleefully got up to. What an empty "principle" that is. And stupid. Sorry, but doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane.
According to the polls I've seen, Obama loses more Dem votes in the General than Hillary does. Most Democrats are willing to vote for the victor, thank goodness.
So, whatever.
Delusional people usually have no trouble rationalizng their own poor decisions. Whomever the nominee is will just have to hope that the actual minority opinion expressed here stays in the minority, as it rightly should.
That will help the majority recover from 8 incompetent years of Republcan rule.
March 8, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee...
"Sorry, but doing the same thing and expecting different results is insane."
Electing the Clinton's again? :-)
March 8, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Willfully obtuse again?
How droll.
March 8, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Workerbee-
Please stop with the insults. This is a topic that is really important. I am an Obama supporter who is really struggling over what to do in the general election, and reading your rants against people, with your one-liners and put downs is just making me more angry. And it is making me NOT want to take seriously anything you post.
Seriously, please stop. Your tone is toxic.
Can you think of a better way to make your point? Or is pissing people off what your point is? It is hard to tell. You seem like a troll who is here just to stir the pot.
March 8, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
My tone?
Excuse me? Have you read the vitriol here about Hillary Clinton?
I'm not a fan either, but really. You people need to get a grip. She's hardly Satan, and in comparison to the alternatives she's downright saintly.
My tone is due to the unbelievable amount of BS I've seen posted here. It would take a bulldozer to get through it, and yeah, my point is that this attitude of being "too good" to vote for Hillary if she SHOULD become the nominee, is totally disgusting.
It's the truth, uncomfortable as it may be. Being selfish and short-sighted is not O.K. It seems to me that lately the consensus is that it's somehow "noble" to be an elite snob and put your own interests above the good of the country. It's not. It's vulgar.
Furthermore, Obama fans are not the only people entitled to be angry. I'm pretty damn angry, too, but unlike you apologists, I'm angry at the source of the misery in this Country.
Republicans...
Frankly, I'll have to hold my nose and vote for either of these Dems. Obama isn't much different then Clinton and will likely govern to the right of her as far as I can tell. Tamper with Social Security, not be as strong or effective on healthcare, and not as effective at getting our troops OUT of Iraq, but I'll do it. He's far and away better than McCain. So is Clinton.
The alternative is another 4 years of Bush/Cheney destruction.
I didn't vote for either of these Dems in the primary, but I'll vote for whichever becomes the nominee. If I can do it, so can you.
March 8, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
urbanamerican,
"Or is pissing people off what your point is? It is hard to tell. You seem like a troll who is here just to stir the pot."
I think you hit the nail on the head. I've asked workerbee the same thing and asked if she's really trying to help the Democratic Party or just rant.
After seeing the number and tone of her insulting rants, I've come to the conclusion that she uses these threads to exercise pent-up rage and bolster her ego by bullying others whose moral fiber is 'inferior' to hers. We should just ignore her hostile badgering from now on--engaging her isn't helpful or productive. She's just being an asshole, and she has her own reasons for it. Let's just let it go...
If it makes you feel better, know that I'm struggling too. (See my comments upthread.) So I definitely feel you. Let's just hang in there. We'll work our way through this--let's keep talking it through and sharing insights.
Peace.
March 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
You call me
March 8, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets see, you two Einsteins engage in flaming me personally and ad hominem name calling, don't address a single word I've said, but I'm the asshole?
Mirror check, I was perfectly civil until I got called a jerk for agreeing with the substance of this post.
Your faux outrage is amusing, but tends to prove that everything I said about you poor tortured souls that can't pull a lever for the lesser evil is true.
Thanks for helping to make my point for me.
March 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Karl Rove seems to have hijacked Hillary Clinton as well. Or maybe he could learn a thing or two from her. She's been amazing at his game.
The CLintons know this about the Supreme Court. They know we have no choice but to "get in line", so they destroy in order to win with impunity.
I'm in a safe enough state (that went for Obama by 32 points! Is that possible that Hillary will carry a state won by Obama by 32 points?!?!) so I won't have to sell my soul to vote for her.
She may win. She may accomplish a couple of things. But she's damaged the soul of the Democratic party, and it will be a long time before those wounds heal. For a lot of us.
Go, Obama! And start fighting!
March 8, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, GMan, I wish you luck. I clicked the "recommend" link because I think that this is an important message to get out. I will vote for the democratic nominee in the fall. I expect this will be Obama, but even if not I will vote for the democratic nominee. The country cannot survive 4 more years of Republican rule.
That said, I agree with the fellow above who mentioned that this message should be targetted just as much to the Clinton supporters, who are just as quick as the Obama partisans to insist that they will go play in the GOP sandbox if their candidate does not get the nod.
I also agree with Steve LaBonne that, while I will vote for Clinton, fat lot of good it will do. She cannot win at this point. Fortunately Obama is going to win the nomination, so this is a moot point.
March 8, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rees,
Is everyone who disagrees with you a hater?
I disagree with John McCain and Hillary Clinton for the same reasons but given the options I would choose the more honest of the two.
I particularly respect McCain's trial by fire for 5 years as a POW though Gloria Steinem says it is nothing compared to the horrors of being a wealthy and honored Playboy bunny. Got to admit we men will never know the horrors of being a Playboy bunny.
I don't hate Republicans Heavy or Light. I just don't want another as president. I don't want more worthless killing. I don't want to see the U.S. continue to decline. I would prefer the U.S. be a beacon of freedom to the world rather than a suppressor of freedom and supplier of arms and munitions to murderers when we aren't doing the killing ourselves.
BTW the most liberal member of the Supreme Court was nominated by a Republican. What evidence do you have that Hillary would not appoint another winger like herself?
Best, Terry
March 8, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
She'll need a Dem Senate to get a nominee on the bench. Somehow I don't see Patrick Leahy allowing a closet Repub to make it on to the court. ;~)
Put in context, the whole spectrum of liberal v. conservative has changed since Reagan. Eisenhower put Brennan on the court and Nixon gave us Blackmun and Powell (notwithstanding Rehnquist and Burger). When Stevens was appointed by Ford he was considered moderate (did you think the Dem Senate would have consented to a radical Repub immediately after Watergate?). Times have changed, making it all the more important not to allow another latter-day strict-constructionist conservative on the bench.
March 8, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very true -- and more likely to happen should Obama be the nominee.
March 8, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh! Good call, GMan--distinguishing the "latter-day strict constructionist conservative" when talking about the Supreme Court. The traditional liberal vs. conservative frame really isn't adequate for discussing the Supreme Court.
March 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't always agree with you, Terry, but this is well-said.
And just as only Nixon could go to China, I'm glad you said:
Is everyone who disagrees with you a hater?
March 8, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Catholics for Obama '08,
Even if she is a Republican who despises the rule of law and anybody beneath her uppper class "middle class?"
It is no accident whatever that Hillary borrows the worst features of the Republican smear machine when she gets the white out of Barack Obama as the Republicans did with Willie Horton. She is after all a Republican mudslinger herself no matter what she calls herself.
No one is forced to vote for either Republican if that is what the major parties choose to present.
Then why present it as an option?
I agree that is likely true.
See. Liberals and conservatives can come together when the cause is just and reason overrules passion. :-)
Best, Terry
March 8, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton wins the nomination, she will easily demolish McCain in the GE. McCain is the weakest Republican candidate since GHWB. Not to mention, if McCain doesn't self-destruct before November, it will be a freakin' miracle.
Anyone who thinks there is no method to Clinton's madness is credulous, slow, or just plain stubborn. If you think Clinton's drawing parallels with McCain makes her a Republican, a DINO, a traitor, or whatever, you fall into the "slow" or "stubborn" category. If you expect her to be morally superior to all other politicians, you fall into the "credulous" category. Clinton is now going after conservative-leaning independents and disgruntled moderate Repubs because they are up for grabs. Will it work? Of course I don't know. Does it make her a Republican? Of course not.
To all the people who say "I could have gotten behind Hillary if she hadn't done X, but X was the last straw and I'll never forgive her": please stop lying to yourself and especially to us. You were never able to get behind her. There is nothing Clinton has done in the last three weeks except aggressively play this game to win. And that's what this is: a serious game, an aggressive competition. If you don't like the competitive aspect of an election, you've picked the wrong spectator sport. And if you don't want a winner, then go ahead and vote for a loser in the GE. I'm sure both sides have crunched the numbers and already tallied your vote (or protest) into one column or another.
To Gary Rees: Thanks for the thoughtful post and valiant effort to express your opinion in the midst of a hostile crowd. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, especially on this site, where people seem to prefer that only one viewpoint get expressed: the one that matches theirs.
March 8, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You haven't even listened to your own candidate: remember her crocodile tears and complaining that to some, this is just a game...?
Hillary Clinton is going to reap what she sows... Appealing to the baser nature of people doesn't do anyone any good.
Because if you really believe that the end justify the means, you are on the slippery slope to politics via violence and dictatorship. It's happened elsewhere in the world. In a desperate economy, it could happen here.
This is the reason to end the dynasty politics of the Bushes and the Clintons.
Anyone remember ANIMAL FARM? By the end of the book, no one could tell the pigs apart from the men.
The self-referential nature of your statement boggles the mind.
March 8, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, clearthinker, for your reliable foggy-headedness. I said I appreciated Gary Rees's "thoughtfulness, especially on a site where people seem to prefer that only one viewpoint get expressed: the one that matches theirs."
As you may know, I don't happen to support Obama, therefore I don't agree with Gary's premise that Obama can, will, or should win the nomination. Nor will I work to make Obama the nominee. And yet I appreciate that he (Gary) can think beyond Obama to other reasons to vote Democrat in the GE, an opinion (voting Democrat no matter what) I have not expressed on this site. Therefore, while Gary's viewpoint does not exactly match mine, I appreciate it nonetheless.
So how was I being self-referential?
March 8, 2008 4:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Answer the question, Clare...
March 8, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always suspect people who label themselves as something instead of just demonstrating it. Unless the label is ironic. Watch out! I'm thinking clearly here, goddam it! Pay attention to what I say. I lean to readytoblowagasket. Maybe because I was living in Park Slope on 9/11. I noticed a while ago we got a run down on the Civil Rights movement from an African American who didn't mention Jesse Jackson and his 1984 and 1988 campaigns. TPM threads are mostly Obama echo chambers these days. Let's get rich and launch a fantasy politics version of fantasy football.
March 8, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, who's appealing to baser instincts and wielding the tactics of fear? ;~)
March 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, GMan!!!!! ;-)
March 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've only seen you support viewpoints that match your own (e.g. vote for HRC).
So, what will *you* do if HRC is not the Dem nominee?
It's a simple question, should be easy to answer.
March 8, 2008 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, either you don't read me very carefully or you don't give me credit for having a complex viewpoint. Or both.
Without going into my reasoning (and yes, I do have reasons for my positions), here are a few of my positions and experiences, in no particular order:
1) I'm extremely doubtful that Obama is electable in the GE.
2) I was able to watch Hillary perform from the outset as my state senator; I have kept abreast of the copious criticism of her in the press for years, not just in the last year alone; I don't agree with her every position.
3) I have experience working in the media, both print and online, and I bring that perspective to the discussion threads. Often I will critique TPM's coverage of a news story when I think it sloppily misleads its audience, speculates wildly, or skews in a direction that promotes gross inaccuracies.
4) I am not so foolish as to try to convince anyone at TPM to vote for Hillary, nor am I so needy as to require that they do.
5) I will sometimes come to the aid of a Clinton supporter who is getting bashed or piled on in a comment thread because I think that sort of safety-in-numbers gang-think power play is grotesque. I also find too many of the comments in the threads are disturbingly sexist or racist (as far as I'm concerned, 1 = too many).
6) I lived in NYC during 9/11 and observed firsthand how the city responded. Surely living in NY makes me appreciate toughness and diversity.
My answer is I don't know. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I appreciate Gary Rees's argument.
Any other questions?
March 8, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice equivocation.
By the way, if you want to try to Rudy-me with a 9/11 card, you've picked the wrong person as I deal deal with portions of the Government directly involved in activities associated with those detection/prevention/alerting/reaction to types of things.
I'm surprised, however, that you are a big Clinton supporter considering WJC's response to the 1993 bombing of the WTC.
And, please: remember that people also died in Wash DC and in PA that day. Not to mention that LAX is a major target, with several thwarted terrorist attempts already, on the West Coast. I know the NYCer's tend to not think beyond the Hudson, but it's important to keep the broad perspective here.
By the way, most polls say that Obama beats McCain -- and by a wider margin than HRC. Short of pointless "gut" feelings, this should make you an Obama supporter on that criterion.
March 8, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker said:
Thanks for the specificity of your accusation. Am I required to be a purist or a fanatic to comment here?
I have no idea what you mean about "Rudying" you with a "9/11 card," although I could have guessed that's what you did for a living.
Sorry, I'm not a mind-reader, so please explain what exactly you mean?
Really? I hadn't heard. Thanks for telling me.
I'm not from NY, so I was taught about U.S. geography in grade school. I've lived in 5 states besides NY, so I feel my perspective is fairly broad.
I totally don't give a shit what the polls say about artificial matchups in March. Anything can happen between now and November.
Are you capable, clearthinker, of having a conversation without tripping over your own free-association assumptions about other people?
March 8, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us put the blame for the change in the SUpreme Court exactly where it will fall which is at the footsteps of Hillary Clinton. She can only win the nomination by helping McCain. If she grasped the nomination from Obama by the methods she is employing she cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. THe Democratic party will be wounded not just Obama. Newly energized voters will leave in droves. McCain will then turn all her arguments she used against Obama on her and destroy her. Remember her negatives were hugh before this Mr. Hyde side came to the forefront.
Just like her husband who ushered in the era of destructive Republicanism she will keep it going because her ego has to be fed by a pyrrhic victory in Denver.
I will not vote for her because althought she will win my Democratic state she will be responsible for losing all the other states we need for a victory in November.
Too bad your obvious intelligence is blinded by devotion to the self-centered Clinton.
March 8, 2008 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, the empty suit, if on the top of the ticket, means I and others over age 50 vote McCain. Outside of the Obana's natural African American community, traditional have DEMS voted for Clinton. Even with the Supremes aging, I'm far more conservative and lost my idealism. I can live with state regulated abortion, wiretaps of bad guys, and more liberal gun laws (DC) so other than scum can defend themselves. Obama will lose in November if at the top of the ticket. It's George McGovern (1972) all over again. Hillary 2010 then.
March 8, 2008 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you'll destroy the country in order to save it.
How incredibly short-sighted and silly is that?
McCain? The 100 year war guy? This guy is OLD. I bet he doesn't even know how to send an email.
I like McCain as far as I can like or respect any Republican, but his endorsement by W. should give any sensible person some pause.
Obama is maybe a little to the right of Clinton. He'd likely govern like Bush's Father, but that is far preferable to the way McCain will govern. He's basically indicated he'll rule like W. Is that O.K. with you?
As for being a straight shooter, puh-leeze. He's flip-flopped on so many issues it's a wonder he doesn't wear his underwear on his head.
March 8, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider me corrected.
March 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary isn't talking up McCain. She's stating the obvious point of attack by the Repubs. The argument is that she's got more experience than Obama as does McCain. That's the plain truth and that's all she's saying. Nowhere have any of you all seen anything that says she endorses McCain's views on foreign policy, especially Iraq, the economy and taxes, especially the Supreme Court, or anything else except perhaps the environment. Drop this stupid notion that Hillary is talking up McCain over Obama. What she's doing is taking her argument to its logiocal conclusion If you want the Democratic nominee to go head to head with McCain on the issue of experience, then she's the candidate to do so, not Obama. And for those of you who think she's providing talking points for the Republicans by attacking Obama's experince, here's a news flash for you. They're already figured it out. They don't need Hillary's advice on this issue.
March 8, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marginal Player...... You're more than welcome to vote for Hillary in 2010. The rest of us will be voting to reelect Barack Obama in 2012 when the Presidential Election is taking place.
March 8, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
zing!
March 8, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
vote McCain - or 3rd party - and have your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren fighting the 100 year war - come on people - grow up - as my mother always said..."don't cut off your nose to spite your face."
March 8, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your call to unity and the need for a Democratic Prez to do all the above. But I wonder if YOU do. Because if you did...
...then tell Hillary NOT TO UNDERMINE the chances of the eventual Democratic candidate in the general election with these scorched earth tactics.
Or as Gary Hart calls it in his essay, Breaking the Final Rule and showing her "raw, unrestrained ambition".
March 8, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
DemDave1972, correct on the 2012 but Obama has to win the general election where there aren't any caucuses in November 2008. Let's see how many Independents actually would vote for Obama in a general election. It will be very difficult to win in NY, PA, VA, OH, FL, NM, CT, etc. All those Southern states Obama won vote Republican. If one thinks older adults will vote for Obama, keep dreaming. Country #1, party last. I've seen this act before, McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1976. Carter barely won one term and until recently, was a greater disaster than "W." Obama is clearly not qualified to be commander-in-chief. Somehow the jump from the wide open job description of "community organizer" and PT legislator in that great world deliberative body the IL Senate doesn't cut it as POTUS. Oh yeah, Obama sometimes shows up in the Senate over the past 3 years.
I'm happy to watch the Obama train wreck if he's nominated. John McCain looks better every day.
March 8, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gary,
I find this kind of argument boring, tiring, annoying and within the realm of bullying. My vote is mine, and only mine. Please stop asking people to vote in a herd, as in sheep, cattle... That is exactly what ruins Democracy.
Using the logic of the “useful vote” or the “tactics of fear” to sway voters is just another way to disenfranchise the voters and the whole system.
If you vote for Hillary in November because you think this is your best choice considering all the possible consequences, then do so. But please remember that not everyone else looks at the Universe from your point of view or upholds the same values as you.
I want to scream: Enough of the scare tactics to get people to vote according to one’s values! Whether it is a 3:00am phone or a Supreme Court argument!
Believing that a politician you don’t trust is going to end up coming through for you or the country may be yet the most delusional thing to do. Go ahead and cast your vote.
(PS: In my book, if we all stuck to our principles, the (mostly corrupted) politicians would have no choice, but to consider us. You don’t have to agree to this, but still: my vote is mine and I don’t owe it to any group.)
March 8, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reposting what I stated above a moment ago in response to the suggestion that my argument is based on "the tactics of fear":
I am attempting to appeal to reason and to ask those who are preparing to reject HRC out of hand, to consider the implications for another branch of government. Thanks for considering what may be at stake. If, after considering the implications for the judicial system, you exercise your right to vote non-Dem with HRC on the ticket, you won't see me belittling you or expressing disrespect for making a choice different than my own. Being judgmental of your choice would be inconsistent with making a straightforward rational argument.
March 8, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand Obama Supporters. They act like it is his right to the nomination. He should not have to fight for it like anyone else. When a Clinton supporters is asked about Obama they most often say they like him but feel Hillary is the beter candidate at this time. An Obama suppoer asked about Clinton will launch into a full trashing of Hillary not extol the vertues of their candidate. I wonder about their true " democratic party loyality" They remined me of little kids who, if they don't get their way take their toys and go home. It is time they grew up because even if he gets the nomination John McCain is not going to say Ok Barak I step aside so you can be President. He will dish out 100x worse than Hillary has given him and he better be prepared to deal with it without pouting.
March 8, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
He leads in delegates and popular votes. That's winning right? It's not entitlement, it's called winning more votes and delegates. The only way Clinton wins is through the Superdelegates. And as soon as your candidates shows some virtues, we'll quote them to you.
Actually, that's not fair, she's not as evil as most would think, but OTOH she is not as good as others would say.
March 8, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must not live in MI or FL, drosz, because you conveniently forgot about them. Oops.
March 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, it depends on how that works out.
March 9, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't undestand Clinton supporters. They are world champions of projection, as the quoted fatuous remark illustrates. They're the ones who support the Clintons' idea that they are the rightful owners of the Democratic Party and that anybody who challenges their divine right is to be destroyed.
Sorry, bub, we're Democrats, not Clintoncrats.
March 8, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those of you who might have misinterpreted Rees’ point:
A McCain presidency will result in a conservative Supreme Court.
Politically active anti-conservatives have a social responsibility to prevent this from happening.
Even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils. Though I hesitate to use that old cliché because I don’t believe any of them are evil. They all show sincere effort to work for the citizens of this country. They have different values and beliefs of how to do that. Demonizing them does nothing to offer real information to voters.
I encourage those who have commented here to re-read Rees’ post and consider his point.
A conservative SC will have far reaching consequences that could render the progressive movement essentially powerless for decades. I happen to be a Hillary supporter and have made the same argument to friends who say they won’t vote for Obama if he is the nominee. In my opinion, this is an adolescent view that demonstrates limited understanding of how our government actually works.
March 8, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Kat75,
We don't need to read the post again. Some people are just not buying the "logic."
Can Clinton2 keep a Democratic Congress to ensure a choice of Supreme Court members, the passing of Health Care...? Clinton1 couldn't.
Time for catharsis.
March 8, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to the Senate, are you using a fear tactic that an HRC presidency will result in the Repubs moving to a 60+ majority? I see that as unlikely to the point of impossible, frankly.
March 8, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry friend but hillary campaigns like bush, talks like bush and votes in the senate like bush...she is bush...no thanks...plus on moral grounds i could NEVER vote for someone that has used smear and hate politics to make an electoral impact....FRANKLY IF SHE STEALS THE NOMINATION THEN I WILL CAMPAIGN, DONATE AND VOTE AGAINST HILLARY...I campaigned and voted for billy twice, had both of their books(meet w/50 others last night for my first book burning) and until 2 weeks ago had a mountain of respect and admiration for her....
but the last 2 weeks have shown that she is of the same ilk of bush, rove, chenery and hagee----when will the non-tabloid journalists have the courage to bring the truth to the american people?
ABC in 2008= anybody but clinton
March 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the previous poster.
Interestingly, while I always knew I could never vote for Hillary in any election, I am seeing an increase in that feeling among friends of mine who I consider Big D Democrats (read party loyalists). I work in law, have for 61 years, and I currently know two attorneys where I work(one a woman) who fiercely say they will never vote for Hillary should she pull off the nomination. I believe them. I myself, just to be on the safe side, will vote Republican for the first time in my life.
As far as the Supremes, it's just another blackmail attempt, in my view (like OMG what about Roe v. Wade?). It's not going to work this time, HRC has gone too far, and shown her true colors too vividly.
Nice try, though.
March 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, correction - worked in law 41 years, am 61. Ha!
March 8, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve:
"instead of realizing the advantages of having Gore run as the incumbent without Bill hanging around his neck, that got us Bush."
Are you implying that Gore would have been more electable if Democrats would have voted for removal and Gore ascended to the presidency?
I think that is laughably ridiculous.
Gerald Ford couldn't manage it in 76, I very seriously doubt Gore could have pulled it off-I like the man but Mr. Charisma he ain't.
Are you really saying that the 60 million + debacle/fishing expedition called 'Whitewater" was somehow a valid and legitimate use of the Republic's resources?
Been a Republican Troll long, Steve?
March 8, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Lookingin,
I agree that it may be “time for a catharsis” but Rees’ point isn’t about a choice between Obama and Clinton. It is about a Clinton vs. McCain scenario and what role Obama supporters will play if he doesn’t get the nomination.
Rees argues that by withholding democratic support, disgruntled Obama supporters would ultimately contribute (at least to some degree) to a republican win which will tip the scales of federal judiciary out of liberal favor.
For me it isn't about buying the logic. It is simply about who gets more votes on election day Democrats or Republicans?
I do understand your earlier point about voting on principles. We are all free to do that and I think most people do. For me that means the principles, goals and values of the Democratic party – goals and values that Obama and Clinton share.
March 8, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Kat75,
I see we disagree on what catharsis means or what it takes to get there.
Catharsis often comes about only after touching bottom. If that is what is needed, the sooner the better.
I don't bind myself to an Institution, specially when it seems messed up. My values are not those of the Dem Party at all cost. I believe in Human Dignity.
We will just have to agree to disagree. I would simply appreciate if people stopped bullying others into voting their way and started defending the freedom of voting freely.
March 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kat75,
Let me add that I am not a disgruntled Obama suporter.
I am simply trying to exercise my right to vote according to me.
March 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm definitely not a young Democrat, and I've never been a Hillary hater. But at this point, I don't think I could vote for her in ANY capacity. Frankly, if she gets forced on Obama as his Vice-Presidential pick, I'm even going to have to grit my teeth to vote for the combined ticket. Oh, I will, but I doubt if I'll donate any more time or money. If the Democrats have demonstrated that much stupidity (to say nothing about how I'll feel if she actually gets the presidential nomination!), how can I support the party?
Last summer, I would have been happy enough with any of the Democratic candidates, though I did prefer Obama and I was wary of Clinton's high negatives. But this election has demonstrated to me just what a great president Obama would make,... and just how egotistical, just how duplicitous, and just how... Republican Hillary can be. I can't imagine why there hasn't been a spontaneous revolution among Clinton supporters - especially among the super-delegates - against her tactics.
I guess that just shows that Democrats aren't all that much better than Republicans after all, huh? Don't worry. After two terms of Bush/Cheney, I'm not going to vote Republican. But despising one side isn't necessarily being enthusiastic about the other, either. And it's a shame, because I WAS wildly enthusiastic about the Democrats this year. Until the last few weeks, anyway.
March 8, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm an independent, and I found Hillary Clinton's endorsement of John McCain persuasive, particularly in light of today's revelations of what can only be called Clinton resume-padding.
If Clinton's the nominee, McCain gets my vote.
He strikes me (so far) as slightly less dishonest and corrupt than Senator Clinton.
I appreciate her raising the issue. If Clinton and McCain are the two who meet the Clinton C in C test, I'm going with McCain.
March 8, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is confusing to me. Why would Obama supporting democrats withhold support from the party their candidate is so passionate about? Surely, Obama wouldn't advocate for his supporters to abandon the party becasue his name isn't on the top of the ticket.
The Democratic party issues include ending the war, clean energy, universal (HRC) or mostly universal (Obama) health care, education funding, making college more affordable, fighting poverty, closing corporate tax loopholes, and preserving reproductive choice just to name a few.
These are typically progressive views. It is confusing to me that OBama supporters, who must be anti-war and embrace the same democratic principles as Obama does, would vote for a candidate that opposses those principles to make a "we disapprove of hillary" statement. Seems like a "bite off your nose to spite your face" kind of action.
Democrats voting for McCain? This makes no sense to me. I'm looking for a sincere non-confrontational explaination of this way of thinking.
March 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kat75,
I want to clarify first that voting for McCain is not the only option for those who don’t support Hillary. There are other choices.
If you are really "looking for a sincere non-confrontational explanation" as to why an Obama supporter might not vote for Hillary, you can read, as an example, Clearthinker's comments to this very post.
But there isn't just one answer to your question. There are many Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama in November. I just can't speak for them, but have you asked them why?
March 8, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this aimed at Obama supporters when Hillieberman is loudly endorsing McCain over Obama?
Stop projecting. HILLIEBERMAN is the one already throwing our party under the bus. Don't blame Obama supporters for that. Point your crooked schoolmarm finger at Hillieberman. Or the mirror.
Hillieberman says McCain has what it takes. Are you suggesting she's being dishonest? Woman hater!
Hypocritical hogwash, and typical Hillieberdem spin.
March 8, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The decision to vote or not for HRC is easy in my case. I'm an Obama supporting living in Colorado, a state that could potentially go for Obama in the general election. We're really more purple than red in most of the state, and the seriously red areas aren't crazy about McCain and would not be highly motivated to get out and vote.
However, Colorado will never go for Hillary. The Republicans here who don't much like McCain *really* hate Hillary, and they will come out in droves to vote against her. If she's the nominee, Colorado is out of the equation, tucked into an automatic red column.
Given that reality, I'm not voting for her. Nor will I vote for McCain. I'll make a protest vote, either by not voting for a presidential candidate or by voting for a write-in.
March 8, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we hate her, if she's the nominee, realize what a DLC piece-of-shit the Clinton duo is and how much damage they've done to the Democratic party and to liberalism, and STILL just hold our nose and vote for her over McCain (while putting all of our resources and passion into down-ticket Dems like Edwards, Murphy and Burner - people who I doubt the Hillary acolytes have even bothered to learn about, since they have a personality cult to tend.) I'll let go of my vote and pull the lever for Hillary over her "good friend" and fellow Iraq war enabler John McCain, but I'll never let go of my utter contempt for the duo that brought us Dick Morris and Mark Penn to define the "Democratic" message.
March 8, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We need to research Dems throughout her term (if God forbid, she wins) and put Progressive Dems in the House and Senate that don't play the DLC game.
We can gridlock her too with real Democrats. That way we insure that Dems secure the Court, but at the same time, bind her hands on everything else. And in 4 years, run someone against her. It likely won't be Barack, but there will be someone better than Hillary then, too. Should she steal 4 years, we DON'T have to give her 8.
March 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for non-confrontational! That kind of discourse seems unproductive to me. I wasn't "blaming" anyone. Just hoping for a better understanding of the issue Rees raises in his post. That is the point of being here? Correct?
March 8, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an African-American, I entered the Primary season ready to support the Democratic candidate. I was ready to listen to all arguments (with the exceptions of Kucinich and Gravel). I even took questionnaires matching my positions with those of the candidates in USA Today and the Boston Globe. Obama's positions were closest to my own. Listening to his speeches and reviewing his website for speeches and position papers solidified my support.
I was willing to support Clinton, Edwards, Biden etc. Imagine my amazement when Sen Clinton used African-American supporters in the South Carolina House and Senate to strong-arm her way into a Civil Rights celebration last year where Obama was to be a keynote speaker. Relatives in South Carolina characterized the SC Clinton legislators as opportunists. I chalked this episode up to just politics. Then she followed up with pimp rap and thug culture supporter Robert Johnson hinting at Obama's drug use. Stupid, but just politics, I thought. Then she came with the MLK slight. Bill discounted Obama's SC victory as a Jesse Jackson win. Then comes Sen Clinton supporting John McCain's credentials over Barack Obama. Enough was enough. I cannot support Hillary Clinton. She will do anything to become President. Her campaign becomes more underhanded as she faces increased challenges. Not a good indicator for a President.
Couple my dislike for Clinton's tactics with the observation that while many Democrats of all ethnic backgrounds are supporting Obama, there is a core of feminist Hillary Clinton who have been very close to racist in statements about Obama. There are clusters of Latinos and White working class males will will never vote for Obama based on skin color. Then there are Clinton supporters who characterized Obama supporters as stupid or naive and wallow in condescension.
I look at the Democratic Party as it is currently constructed and seriously wonder if has left me.
African-Americans have been invited out of political parties before. The Republicans invited in the Dixiecrats, the Barry Goldwater State's Rights folks, and the Nixon Southern Strategy. Blacks were ushered out of the GOP.
Democrats did not greet African-Americans with open arms. Fannie Lou Hamer and the Mississippi Freedom Party had to fight for recognition. African-Americans survived segregation, water hoses, police dogs and billy-clubs. We survived an openly hostile current Supreme Court and an unfunded No Child Left Behind. We are survivors. Threats of what the Supreme Court will do is not enough scare a people who have survived what the Supreme Court has already done with the aid of some Democrats who cast votes for wingnut jurists.
Finally, let me say that in the past, I was saddened by GOP operatives like Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio who would participate in the disenfranchisement of African-Americans to gain favor with his party. I could contrast Blackwell with the independence of Black Democrats who sometimes stood against the Democratic Party line. Now comes Maggie Williams who is willingly participating in the destruction of an African-American candidate. She is a disgrace. I will vote for state Democrats,and Democratic House and Senate members. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.
You can't scare me, I will survive McCain if that comes to pass.
March 8, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand, and would of course never do anything to help McCain gain the presidency. there is a strong urge to refuse to support someone who has resorted to the deplorable tactics that she has used, which is understandable as well. I think people are just airing their frustration, and saying "I won't vote for her!" is the loudest way to do it at the moment. But at the same time, people should keep in mind that the party will lose a lot of the enthusiasm which has accrued during the campaign if she takes this nomination. The aggregate numbers of voters and donations simply make that a reality. Obama has built a huge donor base that she will have very limited access to. I will vote for her, if NY looks close at all. But she won't get one thin dime from me.
March 8, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a current Obama supporter who (for any reason) will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she gets the Democratic nomination for President?
Then please take a moment to sign this petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/obama725/petition.html
March 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supporters can always write him in on election day. Vote for him even if he isn't on the ballot. That will be making ones voice heard more than not voting or voting for McCain.
March 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just start a Third Party. Make it official
March 8, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
kat75 said:
One explanation (with regard to TPM, anyway) is that not all Obama supporters here are Democrats. The closet conservatives among us will not always reveal that fact in mixed company, however, and the independents/uncommitteds are loyal to no party. The conversation doesn't make sense because many people here don't believe in progressive values. But this site is a perverse, self-supporting microcosm of the voting public.
I can't explain your friends' logic. But you should ask them if they've ever been flamed by an Obama supporter.
March 8, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And all of the African Americans are not African Americans, all of the women are not women. It's CYBERSPACE! But what really pisses me off is that not all of the Sean Penns are Sean Penn.
March 8, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink