My Divorce From the Clintons
George McGovern’s campaign was my first. I was just shy of voting age but threw myself into going door to door and electioneering at the polls. He lost but I was not deterred. I volunteered for every Democratic presidential campaign until 1992, when I was too tired as a working mother to do anything but write a check. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. I even worked on two occasions for his Administration and worked for a project that Hillary was very interested in. I thought Bill was a good President and was disappointed and hurt when his own poor judgment led to his impeachment. And, I blame him in part for Al Gore’s loss in 2000. Vice President Gore was by far the better candidate but he had a “bad boy” big brother back at home, whose reputation shadowed a campaign that ended in the biggest political fix in American history.
Thus began the descent of the Democratic Party, to which until now I have been blindly loyal. But my loyalty is linked to my patriotism. I always thought that the Democratic Party message matched my view of what constitutes love of country—concern for the greater good, sacrifice, inclusion. During the last eight painful years of the Bush Administration, my Party has not been able to get back on its feet. It ran a weak campaign in 2004 against a weak sitting President, and lost. But I voted for Senator Kerry, yes I did, although my heart wasn’t in it. Although the Democratic Party took back Congress, it has not done so in great enough numbers to get much done, and certainly not to override Bush’s veto.
And then came Barack Obama. The disenfranchised and the disinterested rose up. The disheartened, including me, were heartened. We see change with him. It’s not just rhetoric, as the anti-change agent Hillary Clinton suggests. We mean it. We want change. We want an end to the Red State/Blue State civil war. We are tired of fractious politicians. We want civility in our politics. We want bipartisan problem solving. We want our country back.
The Clintons want the White House back, whatever it takes, even if it destroys the Party that has been more than gracious to them. But they have worn out their welcome and the more they stay, the more damage they do, like rock stars smashing the hotel room furniture with their guitars.
I am supposed to be in the “Hillary demographic,” a white woman in her 50s. Well, I’m not and I resent the simpleminded categorization. I was a Title IX athlete and I know all about glass ceilings. I know how momentous it would be for America to elect its first woman President. But I also have worked with women who would step on you to raise themselves up and I sniff that in the air around Hillary. Her campaign is too much about her and entitlement—and that’s bad for the country and it’s bad for women. It’s not enough to be a woman, you have to be a fair and honest woman. And, what many women Clinton supporters won’t openly acknowledge is that what they really want is Bill back. If you’re nice to your crush’s girlfriend, maybe you can get closer to him, and maybe…..Oh, sorry, how sexist of me.
Moreover, I don’t buy the argument that this is our last chance in a long time to have a woman President. Senator Clinton has broken new ground for sure and a much better female candidate is already somewhere, working her way toward the White House.
If the Clintons proceed to bend the rules and break arms to achieve a victory, it will be the end of the Democratic Party and the death of loyalty to it. My son is a college student and reports an incredible level of enthusiasm and hope on campus in this election cycle. These young adults, our babies, are paying attention, putting down their game controllers and picking their heads up from their laptops to watch a debate or go to a rally. These children were old enough to remember Florida in 2000, got off their middle school buses dazed and afraid on 9/11, and during their formative teen years grew up in a political climate of fear mongering, acrimony, and cronyism. Until now they have been cynical, scornful, and dismissive of politics. And now, when Bill Clinton is on one of his rants, my son turns to me and says "and you liked this guy?" African Americans, who rightfully turned slowly to Obama—needing to get to know him first— see a candidate who doesn’t just want their vote, but rather wants to work with them to build a better life for their children and grandchildren.
These two demographics, so central to the future of the
Democratic Party—at least the Party I used to know—will sit out the general
election if Senator Clinton is the nominee by virtue of the second biggest
political fix in history. They will leave the Party and perhaps never come
back. I am getting there myself. I could never bring myself to vote for Senator
McCain—based on his stance on the war alone.
If Clinton becomes the nominee because her husband strong arms enough
super delegates or she violates her own party rules to grab the delegates from
two states she has no right to, then as Ralph Nader put it, the Democrats
should “pack it up and go home.” But, where is home? For many Americans, home
might be that third party whose concept has been marginalized and ridiculed by
such notables as Ralph Nader, Jessie Ventura, and Ross Perot. Now, that would
be change—a viable third party. But instead, I will write in Obama, and I hope others do too if we face this awful prospect.
The Clintons should not depend on the Party loyalists to support them in the general election if they get there via fraud and cynicism—that’s a wild assumption and part of their sense of entitlement. My Democratic Party is bigger than the Clintons, unless it caves in to vote grabbing tactics. That’s when my Party is over.
I will no longer vote for her (and definitely not for McCain). You can be angry or say that it is an ignorant act to not blindly vote for the Democrat but I will not if she and a large number of spineless supers subvert the system. She has engaged in character assassination of her rival in her own party and pandered to every corner of the right wing punditocracy. I will also not give a penny to the DNC prior to the nomination of Obama.
May 2, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hamsun, I have even e-mailed them and told them this. Soon as they get off the fence, all the money they need comes rollin' in - from all of the little people in fly-over states.
May 2, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did the same thing -- I told the DNC as long as they allow this travesty to continue and allow the impression that they will overturn the will of the voters, as pledged delegates playing by the rules, they will get no money from me. And believe me, if they were to support Obama, as they should have after the speech on race and so many other times they should have had his back, the money would flow to the DNC.
Hillary has now become more hawkish than McCain and Bush; she humiliated the Democratic Congress by demanding they support her harebrained gas tax holiday or they're "with the oil companies" -- she has demonstrated how she will govern. She cares about Reagan democrats, who have voted republican for the last 28 years. She cares nothing about the loyal AA vote, and certainly considers me a traitor. I, like the poster, am a white female in my 50's. Hillary has insulted and demeaned me throughout this campaign.
She has proven to me that she will be a disaster as a president. I cannot vote for her. And not because I'm acting like a spiteful child if Obama is screwed out of the nomination. But because the Clintons are bad for the party and the country. If we give them this nomination, they will never feel they owe anything to anyone -- they will have manipulated the system for their petty political ends, and won.
It's dangerous to put Hillary in power under these circumstances. We cannot allow her to entrench unitary executive theories. Obama last night at the JJ dinner in NC, spoke eloquently and passionately about the Constitution. When have you heard Hillary do that? Ever.
But as long as the supers sit on their hands in petty fear, they DNC gets not one dime from me. They don't deserve it.
May 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her very public lie about Bosnia should have shut the door on her candidacy. How can the Democratic Party back such an obviously dishonest candidate? I wouldn't even want her as my Senator anymore, if I were a NY'r. Party leaders should have removed all support and solidified around Obama, in the name of an honest and ethical government. No one really knows what else is going to come out about the Clintons. Fair or unfair, Hillary is damaged goods, and she has herself to blame for a lot of that.
May 3, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, instead you'll vote for a man who threw a "friend" of 20 years under the bus for political gain. Really, I don't see how any decent person could regard his public abandonment of his pastor as anything less than shameful cowardice. He places political power before the moral demands made by his (putative) God. And this is the guy you want to be President.
I think Obama has gained a chapter in the next edition of Franken's Lying Liars.
Thanks.
mp
May 3, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Were you also part of the chorus that was skewering Obama for not disowning Wright on the heels of his media blitz this week? Perhaps that's not you, but you'll forgive my skepticism, the level of anti Obama kneejerk on this site has almost become a parody of itself.
Many of the commenters I see that have criticized Obama for being human (and flawed as we all are), mostly give Hillary a pass for far more egregious offenses. Talk about a double standard, that's a heinous one.
May 3, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
good point, pmeasley.
Amazing how many wingnuts who were demanding Obama repudiate Wright are now on the other end of the story, accusing him of "throwing Wright under the bus."
HYPOCRITES!
May 3, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really want to go there? Do you really want to compare who has thrown more people under the bus -- Obama or Hillary.
Laughable.
May 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So true, the list of people under the Clinton bus is endless....although all of the people that were pardoned may feel differently!
May 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
**Yup! He's the one. That's the guy I want to see in the White House.
May 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
One day I say I will, the next I say I wont. Let me put it like this and welcome the fight as Im being partly coy, before I could see a stark difference between McCain and Hillary......being only somewhat fecetious, what are they're stark differences besides one claiming to bring the troops home and one saying that no casualties they dont mind being there for a 100 years?
May 2, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feeling is that here in Colorado, it won't make a difference. Clinton doesn't stand a chance here, whether we vote for her or not. So I've decided that if she is the nominee, I'll write in Obama as a protest vote.
If I lived in a state where she had a chance, this would be a much more difficult decision.
May 3, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me join the 50+, white, female, anti-Clinton crowd. Sheesh, I have a friend who stills tears up over Bobby Kennedy's campaign. And we have 40 years of experience as Democrats so we can surrender the party to right wing Dixiecrats? No way!
May 2, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sistas!
I'm right there with ya.
May 2, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me in! I turned 60 this year, I'm still white, and Obama is the first candidate that I have been excited about in my adult life. I voted for Carter, Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Kerry, often out of loyalty, but never with the enthusiasm and high expectations that I have for this intelligent, competent, and decent man.
I defended Bill and Hillary against all their wounds, the unfair and also the self-inflicted. They have shown themselves to be unworthy of my loyalty.
And I am so sick of being lumped into the Hillary demographic that I have put an "O" on my left hand. You'd be surprised how many people ask me what "that is." I say, "It's my Obama O!" It is a real conversation starter!
May 2, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to you and all the other independent-minded women in the so-called "Hillary demographic"!
I'm flirting with the write-in option also, but want to do some research on its viability. The last thing I want is for it to be declined as a legitimate vote somehow, and for McCain to be elected as a result.
May 3, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not it's legitimate, it'll have the same effect as far as contributing to a McCain win. I'm just talking about facts, here and not talking about what you should do.
In our two party system you effectively have three options when voting for President: (a) vote for the Democrat, (b) vote for the Republican, or (c) other
Both (a) and (b) speak for themselves, so let's address (c). "Other" could mean abstaining from voting (whether you do that completely or just for the top item on the ticket), voting for a 3rd party that's on the ballot, or writing in a name. Any one of these things basically has the same effect: neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidate gets your vote.
OK, some caveats. I'm talking solely about the effect on who wins the election. In that regard, it doesn't matter who you vote for (or don't vote for), if you're not voting for the Democrat or the Republican. However, there are possibly two ways it does matter. (1) It "sends a message", and (2) it might allow that 3rd party access to additional campaign funds in future parties. Also, I'm assuming that the other Democratic candidate is not running as a Liebermann-style candidate (actually running and not just there being people writing in his/her name).
May 3, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time to re-think this "two party system" business. It hasn't been serving moral interests. The two parties are in the pockets of the same interests, and those aren't good interests. Two pro-war parties. Oh, I know, the Republicans are overtly pro-war (with some out-of-power exceptions like Ron Paul), but the Democrats are effectively pro-war, as they voted to start the Iraq war and consistently have voted to sustain it. It's hard to see that a win by Hillary would do much of good. Obama has supported too many things to make him an unlikely candidate to lead us in a good direction, but he's sufficiently unknown to leave some reasonable opening for hope. But taken overall, the two-party system is a disaster for our country, and anything we can do to send it to its grave would be OK.
May 3, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both 1 and 2 are perfectly valid reasons. I don't take the option lightly but if your party goes against a core value, you can't just surrender the core value.
May 3, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, even with the scenario you are talking about, the truth is that if you are a democrat voting in a guaranteed red state, your vote doesn't count at all as far as the electoral college is concerned.
If you are that democrat and want to send a message to the party that is not doing the right thing by you, you have the unique opportunity to express yourself with a write-in vote, knowing full well that you did not contribute to the other side winning.
I am happy to say that for once, Virginia may not fall into the category of states that will go red this year.
May 3, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it.
May 3, 2008 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasnt alive when Bobby Kennedy was alive, but I tear up whenever I think of how this Country would have been had they not killed him. I get ridiculed by my friends for being gulible in that as if I didnt understand he wasn't a perfect man either!
May 2, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I would still vote, grudgingly, for Clinton in the general, you have perfectly stated the hesitation I would have. The divisive, "with us or against us" attitude of her campaign is not going to help the American people and will not ensure the reforms that we desperately need. People need a reason to vote Democratic, and she has given us very little to go on.
May 2, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, we are of similar ages and backgrounds, and I have been volunteering for Obama's campaign since its inception. I never, in my life, had any illusions about Sentor Clinton. And yet I am a demographic as well as you? This is one of the great myths of the MSM. Please know that there are a WHOLE bunch of us out here!
May 2, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate what a great post and one that I relate to.
Like you Iam in HRC's demographics: white female, 57 and I am in Obama's camp.
I also arrived at the decision that if the nomination is stolen from Obama I will write in his name on the ballot.
However Iam torn because if McCain (McBush) gets elected it will be more of the same only on steroids and then there is the matter of the Supreme Court ...
While HRC would be infinitely better than Bush on domestic issues her foreign policy is too similar if not worse IMHO. She voted for the war, against 2 amendments that would have slowed down Bush's juggernaut to attack Iraq, for the Lieberman-Kyl bill and recently twice threatened to obliterate Iran. Furthermore it is on record that defense contractors are some of her largest donors. Electing either steroids McCain or HRC would be like a third Bush term via proxy. That is not something a majority of Americans want, but do not realize that is what they will get.
I feel like Iam caught between a rock and a hard place if it turns out that the nomination is stolen from Barack.
However I do believe Barack will be the presumed nominee and will go on to win the general election.
You stated this perfectly:
"We want our country back." "The Clintons want the White House back, whatever it takes, even if it destroys the Party that has been more than gracious to them."
The only thing I would add is Clinton's attempts to knee-cap Obama in hopes he becomes unelectable. In doing so she is doing great harm to our nation's future. This is bigger than her. If Hillary was serious about her policies she would refrain from attacking Obama and go after the opposition instead. We cannot afford another neocon in office.
I used to respect the Clintons. That is not the case today.
Thank you for sharing your feelings.
May 2, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto to everything you said. I not only want my country back - I want my party back! We need to rebuild this party sans Clintons and the DLC. They think the way to win is to become more and more conservative - it just alienates more and more of the party faithful.
If they take this election, I'm done with Dems and for a third party - I've seen this movie too many times.
Women for Obama!
May 2, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double dog ditto, and one of the 50+ White Men for Obama.
Go Barack!
Nite...
May 3, 2008 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, I wish I were an american female, preferably white, right now. Just so I could stick into her.
May 3, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love this. Thanks. That's it - the disheartened, the disenfranchised, the disinterested.
This is a great post.
I just can't vote for her. She's done too much damage. I won't reward her for that if she steals the nomination.
May 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, in all my years of being heavily involved in politics, this year matters more than any. Thanks for hearing me. We need to get this done.
May 2, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, I really do.
I never felt or saw anything like primary night here in my life.
I keep saying that because it was one of the most magic nights I've ever spent. I really felt like I was living in a participatory democracy - for the first time ever.
I know - I feel you.
It's different - it's different than any other campaign I've gone through - I feel differently about him than any other candidate ever. I am so proud to support this guy, I just think he is real.
Now watch the trolls climb all over my ass.
May 2, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let them crawl. However this turns out, we have been a part of something bigger than the system. That's what keeps me getting out of bed in the morning. We know the better angels, we are just calling them, calling them, calling them, to please help us now. What people don't understand is how much we love this country and all it stands for and what it can be.
May 2, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"However this turns out, we have been a part of something bigger than the system."
KatO, you got that right!
History is in the making.
May 3, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is what I think, my own opinion. I think the media and the right wing flak machine and the Hillaryites are out to totally destroy Obama. The right wing wants to run against hillary, the media is owned by the right wing, and hillary and Bill (notice how we all address her campaign as "they, them, Bill and hill"?), want to annihilate him. Bill and hill have always "flattened" their competition. They have a 'take no prisoners' mentality.
But, I think that Obama's supporters are still with him. I think the vast majority of remaining voters have already made up their minds and they aren't going to change them. Some, but not most. People do not forget 'hope' and 'inspiration' that easily! When we see the polls and hear the "guilt by association" crap on teevee, it is just the right wing media and polls can be slanted easily.
I think Obama is going to win this, in spite of these character assasinations. But, don't think Bill and hill will be going anywhere. Remember, when Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman and he immediately came out and ran as an Independent? Do you remember who was one of his most ardent supporters against the fairly and honestly elected Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont? hillary clinton. I see her and Bill doing the same thing, which will split the party (the same way Ross Perot split the Republican party and gave the nomination to Bill Clinton). They don't EVER quit, and they will not go away.
Just my opinion. By the way I am a 60 year old white woman and I am for Obama all the way!!
May 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
**If it's Clinton, I will be writing in Obama's name, and I could care less about the Party. The Party stands for something or it doesn't. If it doesn't why would I want to be part of it?
May 3, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fret not, Kathleen Mavourneen;
You will have Senator Obama to vote for in the general election.
May 2, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Liam. I certainly hope so.
May 2, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, from your mouth to God's ears. I don't know if I can take Hillary's "better than Bush", which is only just better. I actually don't think she'll be that different. At best she'll replace the few liberals on the Court with centrist ones, continue to fund carbon-spewing alternative fuels while killing off newly developed large-scale solar and wind power, hold hands with the Saudis and continue our bluster campaign against Iran as well as starting a standoff with Putin.
Boy, I hope I forget all of this by November if she gets nominated. Maybe it's actually a good thing that my vote doesn't count here in Utah.
May 2, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand how uncomfortable it must feel to be a Clinton supporter who is enthusiastic about her. But you've expressed your support in the hopeful and uplifting way encouraged by Obama's campaign. Well written.
May 2, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post, Kate.
For myself, I will not have political relations with that woman, nor will I support any super delagate who does.
May 2, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a t-shirt that would sell BIG-time!
May 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or any 'delegate'.
May 2, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad to say, but I have to agree with you. I don't see how I could possibly reward Hillary and Bill with my vote.
May 2, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A beautifully written and thought out post. I wonder what you think of Michael Moore's statement last night that, no matter how displeased we are with Clinton tactics, we should close our eyes and vote for her if she is the nominee?
May 2, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this great post, just want to admit I will vote for Hillary if she's the nominee, but I prefer Obama as the gateway to the future.
But that is a compromise I doubt we will need to make.
The writing is on the wall.
I just hope Hillary will be gracious enough to ask her supporters to stay with their party and support Obama.
May 3, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't do it, won't do it. I'll write in Obama. I will not continue to reward cynicism, racism, and negative politics with my vote. We will never get rid of these people if we keep voting them in. My vote matters too much to me. I understand that many will hold their nose and vote for Hillary, that's a choice they have to make. But when I say divorce, I mean it. And, at this point, I don't see much difference between McCain and Clinton. If McCain wins, he's got W's mess to deal with, so there is some justice in the world. If the Ds keep both houses, he won't be able to do much.
May 3, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kate - what a beautiful and well-written post. Kudos.
May 2, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm 62 years old, white, and used to be a republican, until George W. broke me of that habit. I'm convinced that Mr. Obama represents the finest, brightest chance we've had to elect a Commander in Chief who will help us to bring this country back from the brink of disaster.
And, yes, if Ms. Clinton should manage to steal the nomination, I would write in Obama's name on my ballot, on election day. I wouldn't worry that I might be throwing my vote away, either. To vote for Clinton or McCain would be throwing my vote away, and I refuse to do it.
McCain is simply a trainwreck waiting to happen. Clinton is the person who sabotages the train, and then turns the tragedy into a photo-op.
May 2, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and my husband - generations of Republicans.
It's the only thing George Bush has done right in his whole miserable excuse for a life - he turned my husband into a straight ticket voting Democrat who totally respects my outrageously liberal views these days.
Thank you for that - you ridiculous missing link in a suit.
May 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, BTW love the new photo..
May 3, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks - I just by accident found out I have this app - this computer takes pictures.
I"m so lame it took me a year to open the file - I didn't know.
lol!
May 3, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, thank you for a great post. I'm also 50+, white female, Obama supporter.
I would write in Obama's name if she took the nomination from him. Voting for McCain is wrong, period -- and I would never do it. But I won't stay home, as that's not the right message, either. Writing in Obama's name sends a message.
Watching Olbermann tonight, they were discussing the gas tax holiday pandering in Indiana. Clinton and her people apparently have admitted that pandering is exactly what they're doing and they believe the gas tax holiday idea will bring them lots of votes. I hear stuff like this and I'm amazed that all the superdelegates haven't already gone to Obama! Yet someone mentioned that maybe superdelegates want a good panderer. Sheesh!
Not me. I want real change.
May 3, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Add another "Clinton demographic" woman to the list. I question my previous support of both Clintons, am ashamed of them, and very much ashamed for them. But I would NOT reward their bad behavior if Hillary Clinton were to win the nomination.
I understand the push to support the Democratic candidate no matter what, the reservations people have about possibly enabling a Republican win; yet I still disagree. I believe it is time to take a calculated risk and go independent, this time with a write-in vote for Obama (if it comes to that). I agree with eliyah's opinion that Clinton, if she became president, would appoint centrist judges, not liberals - after all, she would be looking to her reelection prospects from Day One - so that is not a compelling issue to me. The defense of balance on the Supreme Court I leave up to the Democratic Party. They either do or do not have the backbone to represent my point of view, and it could well be time to find out.
My take is that Hillary's presidency would be to the right of Bill's; while Clinton the First had a relatively successful tenancy, I was never partisan enough to ignore its flaws. I do not see Clinton as offering a substantive difference from a McCain presidency, neither of which would represent my interests. For me, a Clinton nomination would be the time to make my own declaration, however insignificant. I also want my party back - or, if I have been as wrong about the Democratic Party as I was about the Clintons, I want a party which represents my interests. Both political parties have been either far to the right of their constituents and/or have failed to represent the people's interests for too long. I am ready, I NEED to take a risk to try to influence the long term future of the U.S. political system.
______
As a side note, I want to mention how awful I feel when the "older women for Clinton" demographic trend is cited, whether by the MSM or by individuals here. I hope people can remember that the 'trend' cited in recent primaries is not universal. Every woman I know is an Obama supporter- even my life-time-Republican (and somewhat racist) mother declared herself for Obama long ago - Obama or no one, never Clinton nor McCain. For me, feminism has been a movement to eradicate the (mis)perceived differences between gender regarding factors such as intellectual capabilities and personal strength. The only feminist choice is to support the individual one believes is the best candidate, regardless of sex. Supporting a female candidate on the basis of her sex, as fulfillment of one's identity fantasies, would simply further the divisiveness. (And yes, the same goes for racial identity.)
May 3, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, thank you for an excellent post.
CVille, love the idea of the "O" on your hand. Gonna do it, too.
Thanks to all you "demographics" women who are speaking up as Obama supporters and thanks, too, for the option of writing in Obama's name if she is given the nomination. In my anger and frustration, I couldn't see beyond either vote for her or not vote for president.
Wonder how many write-in votes O would get in such an outrageous situation? Maybe another way he could win.
I'm a 62-year old white woman from the South, no less, and virtually all my 50+ white women friends and colleagues support Obama.
Carry on, Scott P
May 3, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
White male, 48, right there with you on everything you've said, Kate. I've never understood how any non-conservative could not be a registered Democrat. Yet, now, I am THIS close to de-registering and joining the independent ranks. I am absolutely disgusted that Atwater-Rove tactics have been embraced by our party leadership. And policies -- first vote FOR War, then PUSH for a Gas Tax Holiday. How F'd-up is that?! At this point, I don't know why Obama would not run as a third-party candidate. I don't recognize him as a Democrat. The Democratic Party entered the gutter with the Clintons. Why be a party to that? Hey, he left Rev. Wright.
May 3, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in my early 60s and I have to admit that this thread has been interesting. I guess seeing that the 50+ XX crowd still loves to hear sweet nothings whispered in their ears, even if it is whispered by a cuddly fuzzy race-pimping weasel.
So ladies...go get another white zin or chablis or whatever your wine of the moment is and let's all drink a toast to Preznit McCain. Because you just simply couldn't be caught dead voting for Clinton.
Maybe the weasel can go back to community organizing...or a bunch of "The Audacity of Whatever" books that will dutifully be purchased. Sounds like a good living for him.
May 3, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weasel?
If that is the case, I would guess you are worm.
May 3, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pimply faced? So your eyesight is as inaccurate as your hearing, and understanding.... you have our sympathy for being so personally impaired.
May 3, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Evidently I quickly gave you the benefit of the doubt by late night pimping becoming pimply. Now, upon looking more closely I'd have to add that you are also lacking in any sort of taste. Clearly my eyesight is comparable to yours...
May 3, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I might suggest that you find a suitable beverage that might make you less bitter.
May 3, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't drink, you condescending and nasty little POS.
May 3, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's something when you can't tell the difference between Clinton supporters and freepers.
May 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
**Bill?? Izzat you? I thought Hillary told you to stop with the woman-hassling.
May 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
White Women 50-somethings for Obama -- Rock On!
May 3, 2008 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great post! I am another white, 50-something female who should be in Hillary's camp, but never have been. When I was young, I considered myself a social liberal and fiscal conservative - registered Republican (now uncommitted), but usually voted Democrat, especially for president. I remember the days before we had laws protecting us from sexual harassment in the workplace. I remember hiding under my desk at an office Christmas party because one of the vice presidents (married) was trying to "find" me -- the same one that tried to get me fired shortly thereafter because I wouldn't go on vacation with him. I survived and thrived professionally for many years and I earned respect the old-fashioned way. I was very high on Bill his first term and then lost a lot of respect for him when the Monica scandal erupted. But I wasn't that naive. An alpha male is an alpha male. I never warmed to Hillary for whatever reason, but I would have voted for her. I wouldn't have worked for her, but I would have voted for her. But along the way, Barack Obama spoke and I listened. For the first time in a long time, maybe the first time ever, I was really excited about this country and the people in it. I believed -- I believe, that when we work together, anything is possible. The way Hillary and her people have run this campaign has made me sick to my stomach. They would have us believe that this dirt is "politics as usual". Isn't that our point -- that it doesn't have to be "politics as usual"? There are two ways to get to the top, one is to do so on your own merits and the other way is to bring other people down and step on them so that you look taller. You can pander and tell people what they want to hear, knowing you cannot deliver but figuring that it won't matter by the time they figure it out. The end justifies the means. Well, not in my book. No now, not ever. If she does steal this nomination, maybe it will be time to seriously consider a third party. The Clintons represent everything I have always hated about the Democratic party. I can't vote for McCain for a lot of reasons. I find myself waffling between inspirational hope and faith that all will turn out the way it should and deep despair that somehow the "bad guys" will win. I hope it ends soon.
May 3, 2008 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kate O'Hara:
"We are tired of fractious politicians. We want civility in our politics. We want bipartisan problem solving. We want our country back."
This is the kind of drivel that gets a "recommended post" stamp on this board, regardless of how much space is wasted on utter stupidity. The Obamessiah does not apply to any of the foregoing. Fractious politicians? He did not have to run against the Bill Clinton presidency in an election cycle wherein the dems have a bountiful basket of issues against the GOP. But his petulance will cost him the election (perhaps even CA) as turned off Clintonites will stay home. Civility? He cast the first stone way before the primaries with a vicious (and can I say racist?) attack on the "senator from Punjab," followed early in the primaries by that steroid-fueled leap in presumption equating "fairy tale" with Bill saying "black man can't mount a credible presidential campaign." Bipartisan problem solving? Yeah right, the most liberal member of the senate as catalyst for bipartisanship. Why don't we test it by getting the messiah's House counterpart, Dennis Kucinich, in room with Dana Rohrabacher for some bipartisanship? We want our country back? The smugness is palpable in this post about the so-called "demographic." Funny coming from a campaign whose consistently and uniformly manifested core support has two legs: the 92% bloc, and GOP whites (that's Guilty, Overpaid), which I'm sure will come in handy in the general. Meantime, Rove and Ailes are licking their chops hardly able to curb their enthusiasm. And they haven't even brought up grimacing Michelle yet, who will make Lani Guinier look like Hannah Montana by comparison. As a post-Terri Schiavo agnostic, I can't hide my glee. Perhaps one more bitter loss will finally force this party to grow a spine and find their way.
May 3, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would respond to you point for point, but what you wrote was just too much drivel to be worthy of it.
May 3, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's wrong. I know it is. And a McCain presidency would be wrong. Yet if the nomination is weaseled away from Obama I also cannot imagine myself voting for Hillary. And I once was excited about both of them. The degree to which she is duplicitous is downright spooky. What she expects me to believe is insulting. If that works on the superdelegates I will be embarrassed to be a democrat.
May 3, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
My divorce from the Clintons--and the Democratic Party--came during the Bill Clinton presidency.
Up until then I had been a longtime Democrat. I'd been a staffer for the Dukakis campaign in 1987-88. In 1992, I voted for Clinton with some trepidation, due to Ricky Ray Rector and his promises to "end welfare as we know it." But after eight years of Reagan and Bush, I was willing to hold my nose and vote for the guy.
But the triangulations and real commitments of the Clinton administration began quickly to wear on me. Budget balancing and NAFTA were the priority. Gays and lesbians were quickly thrown under the bus with don't-ask-don't-tell. The Clinton health plan was inadequate and politically mishandled. Then came three strikes, the Telecommunications Act, the Iraq Liberation Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and welfare "reform." By 1996 I had seen enough. I voted for Nader for President in NJ in 1996. And within the next couple years I no longer considered myself a Democrat.
The Hillary Clinton campaign reminds me of many of the other things I disliked about the Clinton political style. In this regard, Obama and his campaign are something of a relief.
Unfortunately both Clinton and Obama embrace the centrist "New Democratic" policies that Bill Clinton pioneered and that were such an effective prelude to the disasters of the last seven years. Returning to them will not solve our nation's--or the world's--problems (though doing so would be less harmful than continuing on our present course).
May 3, 2008 4:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a 40-something male. Obama has brought me back to the party from green and human rights activism after being driven from it by the disgusting corporatism of the Clinton/DLC era. If the Clintons/Limbaugh/Scaife/Murdoch steal the nomination, I'm going to write in Arundhati Roy, the great author and political thinker of India, to make the point there are plenty of women I'd gladly vote for, just not Hillary Clinton or anyone of her ilk. She and her advisors are just so insulting to the intelligence -- and so damaging to our dwindling chance of saving America and the world from the consequences of the insane excesses of the oil boom. We really don't have time for any more major mistakes, and Clinton would be catastrophic in that regard. At least McCain would bring the remnant of the GOP down with him able to survive the Bush faction's rot, paving the way for the even more drastic response needed by then.
May 3, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Late Friday the Clinton campaign put up a new gas tax ad mocking Obama's strong response to her first ad. The only reason she did this would be that her internal polling said voters in IN and NC were buying her pandering.
I find this utterly depressing. Wave something glittery in front of low information voters and they follow obediently. Hillary has learned that lesson well from Republicans. Once again she will likely win enough votes to may make the next two primaries inconclusive and thus keep her campaign dragging along still longer to the detriment of the Democrats.
I am also one of those women who are supposed to be pro Hillary but cannot be. If she scuttles Obama by adopting Rovian tactics then I will know for sure that America has slipped too far to be redeemable.
Our country has been hollowed out in the last two decades. We truly have become of, by, and for the special interest. The well-being of our citizens has become secondary to the well-being of big business. Obama is the insurgent grassroots candidate against these interests which is why he has given rise to such enthusiasm. If he cannot prevail, if too many citizens go for the glitter rather than seeing the true gold, we will indeed get the kind of country the majority deserve.
Yes Hillary would be better than McCain because she would keep the Supreme Court from going totally conservative but other than that she will end up triangulating away everything else. Meanwhile Bill will stop playing Bubba, don his $5000 suits, and rejoin the private echelon of the wealthy and powerful. "God bless us!" as Hillary would say.
May 3, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's something I don't get. What is Hillary's long term strategy? If she somehow magically gets to win the presidency, she will start with the sort of approval ratings that Dubya ended with. Republicans already hate her, and she's working so very hard to make half the Dems hate her as well (and succeeding!).
Is she completely stupid or what? If she wins, that will give a new meaning to the phrase "hollow victory". How does she expect to accomplish anything?
Am I missing something here?
May 3, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you are not missing anything. She will indeed win with a hollow victory and not even be given the typical honeymoon period new presidents get. In addition she will not have pulled in the new down ticket candidates especially out west so congress will not be able to pull together enough vote for anything she does try that isn't appealing to Republicans.
May 3, 2008 7:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the Clintons *have* a long-term strategy beyond "get the White House or at least make sure Obama does not." The gas-tax suggestion says as much--it's short-term at best. The "obliterate Iran" comment says as much... and we're supposed to trust her on foreign policy? And I've got to wonder how the drinkin' shootin' stereotype Hillary donned to win PA voters will play in NY and California.
May 3, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for not calling this "An Open Letter to Hillary"
May 3, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sing it, sister! What Clinton seems to want is "a change from Bush" (although as much as she's been cozying to the Republicans, I have to wonder about even that). What Obama wants is a change to the very PARADIGM of Washington politics, and it's about damned time. The American empire is crumbling. Unless someone empowers the average voters to get involved again, and to see our REAL values (instead of "hey, it's politics, who cares if nastiness wins?"), the ideal of the founding fathers won't last another century.
I'm 45, white, female, and very much an Obama supporter. Thank you for making our divorce case clear!
May 3, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
We want an end to the Red State/Blue State civil war. We are tired of fractious politicians. We want civility in our politics. We want bipartisan problem solving. We want our country back.
This is so clean and crisp, so Nice - the very distilled essence of Progressive Republicanism.
You have no policy concerns at all. You don't want a president or a government to do anything. Forget all that silly old New Deal stuff about universal health care. You just want Nice.
Two problems: Progressive Republicanism is as extinct as the dinosaurs, and real Republicans are not Nice.
May 3, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I think that's the first time in my life anyone has accused me of being any type of Republican. It's a bit presumptuous of you to assume I don't care about policy. I have worked in Washington in the area of health policy since 1982. So, yes, policy matters, but you don't get the chance to implement any worthwhile policy if political gamesmanship always takes center stage. I have watched partisanship derail EVERY area of policy over the past 26 years. After all, these are people sitting in congressional offices, not some ethereal policies floating in the air. They have to work together to compromise, iron out differences, discuss the issues in civil and constructive tones, and DO SOMETHING. So, I don't understand your premise at all. What suggestions do you have for improving things? I am curious.
May 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because they weren't listed for you - that doesn't mean there aren't policy concerns here.
For one thing, jackass - Obama did not vote for that illegal war.
Clinton did.
Then there is: flag burning, the bankruptcy bill, Nafta, Hillary isn't trustworthy, She flip flops and panders
Ok?
May 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The whole gas tax thing is proof positive - Hillary's campaign is banking on IGNORANCE to win. Not appealing to our minds or our better natures, but raw, unvarnished ignorance. That's no way to grow the progressive movement, and I won't have a hand in abetting it.
Another Clinton Presidency would kill the Democratic party. We would lose Congress and critical statehouses in 2010, right before pivotal redistricting. Voters would rightly conclude that we are no better than "them." Everything we have fought for would be lost.
I am ashamed to have voted for Bill Clinton twice. I used to admire him so deeply. But he has proven himself to be an awful human being, and one that seeks to advance his own self-interest at the expense of his party and his country. The sooner we rid ourselves of this charlatan, the sooner we cement the 50-state strategy and the triumph of progressive politics that comes with it.
If Clinton steals the nomination by using GOP/Rovian techniques, then I will not vote for her. I also will not vote for McCain, nor will I encourage the Greens. Instead, I will unfathomably vote for Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. Who would ever imagined that nut from the impeachment drama would be the only 2008 Presidential candidate (assuming Clinton steals the Dem slot) talking about restoring habeas corpus? That, and ending the drug war, would be enough to get my vote.
I will not write in Obama's name, to respect his wishes that we not do so. If the Libertarian line gets 5%+ of the national popular vote, that sends a message loud and clear.
One thing to smile about - Easley was loudly booed at last night's NC Jefferson/Jackson dinner. NC is still Obama country, y'all. Fear not.
May 3, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then again, would that be such a terrible thing? Who needs Republican Lite when there's the real thing...
May 3, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in that demographic too. I've never been a Hillary fan, but I would have been happy to vote for any Democrat who won the primary fair and square
I've been told that if Hillary gets the nomination, I should think of the party, hold my nose and vote Democratic.
My response is that if the superdelegates give the nomination to Hillary at this stage, then it's not the Democratic party any more and I don't want to support it. I simply won't vote for President.
I'm aware of the dangers of a McCain win and also think he'll be hobbled by a democratic congress.
I also know my small protest won't mean much if anything in the general election. Still, if I can't vote my hopes, I'm not going to vote my fears.
May 3, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Obama wants is a change to the very PARADIGM of Washington politics
For Christ's sake, write in English. Unless you are writing about revolutions in scientific thought, which you are not, "paradigm" is an empty corporate buzzword, meaning absolutely nothing.
Come to think of it, that does make PARADIGM the perfect metaphor for the Obama campaign - pure Hollywood high concept, all sizzle with no steak.
May 3, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hate thread critics.
Nasty supercilious and useless.
May 3, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's 'cause you're a grackle.
May 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, thread critics can only criticize threads because thaey can't come up with enough cogent thoughts to initiate a conversation on their own.
May 3, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Kate. Wonderful post, encapsulates everything I've been feeling. I'm another 50+ white woman for Obama and I'm sick of hearing I should be behind Clinton simply because she's a woman. That's not what I fought for.
My favorite observation is "we want the country back", "Clinton wants the White House back." Perfect!
May 3, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
63 year-old white woman chiming in here: You spoke for me! Thanks.
May 3, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a t-shirt that would sell BIG-time!
May 3, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
posted in the wrong spot! It's in response to PaDem's excellent line upthread: "I will not have political relations with that woman"
May 3, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love that t-shirt!!!
May 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found that on a blog by an Obama supporter named Jack Nolan, so can't take credit for it (or profit from it, dammit!)
Here's his original post.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rednecksforobama/gGB2vD
May 3, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Essentially, a paradigm is simply the predominant worldview in the realm of human thought. ...it is not a term reserved for scientific revolutions. Thomas Kuhn hijacked it for that use, but it is a very versatile word and appropriately used by the lady in the bonnet.
May 3, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for defending "paradigm," Kate -- I'd gone to bed by then :-) And Tena, thank you for explaining to the s l o w critics of the thread that just because we don't list policy every. freaking. time doesn't mean we aren't aware of those as well!
Mature women for Obama!
May 3, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Kate. Wonderful post, encapsulates nothing I've been feeling. I'm sick of hearing about white people being racist when people like
Michelle Obama and William Ayers are the racist ones. I just read MB's thesus the on line and I was shocked how much she hates whites. I heard from the son of M. Murtagh that when he was 9 Years Old, Obama's friend Ayers Bombed His Home. As impressive as Obama appears, he is still in his first term in the U.S. Senate, and only four years ago was serving as an Illinois state senator. His friends and wife are total losers. The Weathermen are scumbags and Rezco was a slumlord in Obama's own district.
His inexperience in high office is a liability. Clinton, in contrast, is well prepared for the rigors of the White House. She is tough, experienced and realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished on the world stage.
Obama basically has copied most of her positions and is an empty suit. He cannot even talk without mumbling if he is not reading from a script.
In other words you have gone senile Kate, soon you will be attending Oilbama events makiing excuses for the fact that Oilbama voted for Dick Cheney's Energy Bill, and cheering while some Obama troll threatens to kill Hillary, or at the very least calls her a F*cking Wh*re.
May 3, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! What a bunch of hooey! Print it out and look at it next year after Barack has been sworn in and has started the long slog to dismantling the mess left by Bush. (Something Hillary doesn't want to do, and couldn't if she did want to, because her "with us or against us" attitude is so destructive to the process.)
Michelle Obama -- racist? What a cheap shot! Try this one: Bill Clinton -- abuser of less powerful women. Hillary Clinton -- opportunist.
May 3, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is projection, where we see our own flaws in another.
It's more than ironic to hear people accuse Obama of racism when:
a) he's the product of a black man and a white woman, and has (if you've bothered to do any research) come to see things in a post-racial way that many whites have yet to achieve, going by the results in many primaries so far.
b) the people who have the biggest problem -- going by who bring race up all the time, namely people like you and Mat Weaver and a few others-- are allegedly white (who can tell on an internet forum, after all?), and seem hyper-sensitive to who's calling who a racist. It's not Obama who's making race an issue; I believe it's people who can't see anything but a black man when they look at him, whether they're honest enough to admit that or not. Instead, they make up sh*t, like playing the opposite game and blaming others for what is, in effect, their own problem.
And I do believe the Clintons, coming of political age in a southern state, are fully aware of how to blow this dog whistle and do it effectively.
If not, would someone explain to me how she's gathered such support from low-information, low-education, poor whites? Isn't it obvious what they're doing?
May 3, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to really dislike this new comment system.
The above was intended for dembillic.
May 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate I think I love you. I am a visual artist and have never been comfortable with words. I agreed with every word of your article and ever response you have made this morning. I have found my words in you.
I already knew I was going to write in Obama's name if for some nightmarish reason he is not our candidate in November. I hope everyone does.
female age 52
May 3, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can count on me.
May 3, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, and my 82 year old mother!
May 3, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, I can be lovable at times. I am gratified that so many others can see their own thoughts in my words. I believe that words matter, a lot. They are how we communicate, which is one reason why Obama is so powerful and threatening to those without his gift. I also think his power with words is what has Bill sputtering and furious. Bill has been dethroned and he doesn't like it one bit. Put one of your pieces of art up as your avatar.
And now, it is a beautiful day in MD, so I am going to go enjoy it.
May 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you requested I am placing a piece of my art up as my avatar. Hope to hear from you again, and thank you.
May 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lovely avatar. Too small to tell whether it is a photo or painting.
May 3, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My word, you've fallen for every single Obama cliche. First, Gore disassociated himself from Bill Clinton and refused his help in 2000. Had Gore allowed the popular Bill Clinton to campaign for him, he'd be President right now.
As for all the rest, it's just a bunch of cliches, plus your understandable desire to connect with your son. But instead of following his lead, you should be guiding him with your experience. Too bad.
And all that stuff about people just wanting Bill back. You can't even see beyond your own dislike for Hillary. You don't believe it, but people really do like, respect, and want Hillary. You're just projecting.
Anyway, I believe you are in for some disappointments. I hope you can bring yourself to vote for Hillary in November. If not, your loss.
May 3, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a golden age of cliches. When and how did mushy David Broder bipartisanship become Transformational Change, the rapture of the progressives? What am I missing here?
May 3, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. It seems that pundit pleading for bipartisanship flowered around the mid-terms when the writing on the wall for Bush and the Reps. began to show. During six years of dictatorial rule and a goose-stepping Rep. Congress, I never saw the Broders and Klines and Brookes calling for a can't-we-all-get-along DC love-in.
May 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else noticed how angry many Hillary supporters are? The words they use to express themselves are always filled with hate. Whats up with that?
May 3, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are "bitter?" Not better... Bitter!!!
May 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, Otto F, but I'm just back from canvassing for Obama in Western PA and they want Bill back - they say it openly (just like they are open about their dislike for "colored" people.
Many times, I heard people say "Hey, the 90's were good to me." When I responded that voting for a person named Clinton couldn't bring back the 90's, they seemed genuinely surprised - like they truly hadn't thought of that. I don't know if I changed any votes, but I certainly opened some eyes.
May 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"colored people"? Are you serious - how old are these people you are talking about?
May 3, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
I'm from the "Alabama" part of Pennsylvania, and anyone who says some good, old-fashioned, knee-jerk 1950s style attitudes about 'them uppity colored people' isn't a big part of the demographic that's backing Hillary is just smoking something illegal.
Oh, and can I thank you, Bill and Hillary, for doing everything you can to take us back in time like this. No, really. Thanks.
May 3, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but didn't the riots in Chicago in 1968 begin the covert op to take the Democratic away from the lunch box FDR ,New Deal , Great Society liberals and hand it over tho Woodstock Nation types who have run it since the McGovern debacle?
Who is zooming who?
What , exactly have we accomplished since then , pray tell?
Richard Nixon was more liberal than Bill Clinton!
Jimmy Carter had the same Fed chair as Reagan!
In taking Party direction towards Social rather than Kitchen table issues the Democratic Party has destroyed itself!
After Edwards left the race I knew this would happen! That the Part would cannibalize itself in the name of "making history".
With the Party divided the way it is were looking down the nose of another war-monger in the White House because the supporters of both remaining candidates are going to take their toys , pout and go home if their guy or girl doesn't win!(Michelle Obama said so.)
Well, as long as you preserve your "principles" I suppose you won't mind explaining your position to the soldiers who have died and will continue to die. After all you can't compromise now can you ?
May 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And by the way, honey -
If Hillary is elected, you can apologize to Iran after she obliterates every goddamn Iranian.
Please give me a break - you can't guilt me. Experts have tried and it's a waste of time. I don't do guilt.
May 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall addressing you on this. By the way, my Mom is 56 too. She yelled at me for "throwing my vote away" by supporting Edwards!
May 3, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does your mother have to do with me?
I don't recall giving birth to you.
You put up a deliberately provocative post and then pretend to be shocked and outraged when you provoke people?
Your intellectual dishonesty is really getting me.
May 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said before, go have a wine cooler and calm down. I'm sure this anger is not good for you.
May 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you can't tell the difference between anger and just being as aggressive as you are, then sumpins wrong.
And do not tell me to "take a wine cooler" again.
I don't drink and when I did , it was not "wine coolers"
You condescending, supercilious person, you.
I've had enough of your snearing.
May 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, now, don't get all flushed and excited. It's not going to do you any good. From what I can tell, there are some folks around here who have had enough of you too.
May 3, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have an interesting and fallacious arguing tactic--as soon as someone protests your point, you say something akin to, "Hey, let's no overreact here!" This is fallacious because it is meant to do two things that aren't constructive to the argument 1) change the topic, and 2)undermine your opponent as someone who's merely emotional and flustered.
In the hopes that this was unintentional, and you really do have points worth debating, let me take this to your initial post:
I'm hoping that something can change between now and the election, bringing the party back together. I'm certain that at least SOME of the people threatening to not vote will, should the Democratic candidate have won that position fair and square, be willing to compromise come November.
But also, should McCain win because of this distressing party upset, that makes the upset Democrats responsible only for FAILING to stop him. It does not make us responsible for ELECTING him. Both are failures on the part of our country, but really--the people who actively VOTE for McCain are still the ones who will have done the most damage, just as did those who voted for Bush/Cheney.
May 3, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when you kick ass...
May 3, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wine cooler? Well, from the looks of your photo - you must drink alot of beer because you obviously need to shed some pounds. Dont come on here and start shit with people unless you really want it back in your face. You ugly little troll.
May 3, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You still look fat in your new photo.
May 3, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is facinating about your position is that it is so far from reality experienced bloggers on this sight recognize you as someone who isn't worth the time to engage. And NO ONE on this sight is sick of Tena!
The problem is not only in your style (so eloquently addressed by Yvaughn) but in your content. The frustration you read in the positions of Obama people is some of the most principled opinions you will ever see in your lifetime. The discussion about whether to write-in a name or not is based on emotional responses, it is based on the fact that we know what the rules are, and that the rules will have to be changed in order to accommodate Ms. Clinton. That is not principled. Watching her ability to manipulate the public into thinking this is a real position, and one worth supporting is depressing as it indicates a level of synicism about the basic value and intelligence of people that none of us wish to ascribe to.
Many of us were around for the '68 convention. Direct experience in this case is far more accurate than whatever history you have managed in your education. You diminish yourself by lecturing people who were around at the time. It is an indication of youthful condescention. Either your education is limited, or you are regurgitating things your 56 year old mother told you. Either way, it does not resonate with any credibility. Unfortunately for you, you only prove how easy it is to manipulate minds. Minds that have not learned to think, and determine when they are being manipulated. Your mere existance is proof that Obama needs to win. How else will you learn.
May 3, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, CaringThinkingPerson--you make an excellent point as well. Obama pushes "education" more than any candidate I've heard in a long time. The critical thinking skills of the electorate would definitely make a difference in future elections--and I'm not saying that anyone who thinks differently from me can't think! I'm saying that higher critical thinking skills would change the TONE of the elections.
May 4, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
As would expanding broadband access to isolated or rural areas.
When you can follow-up on a candidates' claims or do your own poking around online, you have a fighting chance of getting some knowledge and becoming more informed.
May 5, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm 56 years old. I've compromised every fucking election of my life.
No more. I'm through. I'm sorry, but there is only so far I can go and if Hillary steals this nomination, I'm finished.
I'm turning my back on the party and forgetting all about politics.
I can only take so much and I got John Kerry chained around my neck by the DLC in '04 and that's my limit. I cannot do it anymore.
If Hillary is nominated - it won't matter here in Texas whether or not I vote - she can't win.
May 3, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a thread from over at Kos to make you wonder why you'd vote for any Democrat. Supposedly, Dems are going to offer Dubya twice as much money as he wants for Iraq so they don't have to actualy cut war spending assuming they win!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/3/10502/25056/491/508019
May 3, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not for nothing -- because I understand and share your anxiety about this -- getting us to give up is exactly what the desired outcome would be for the power brokers who want to run things without being bothered by the little people.
That's why the Dean 50-state strategy -- which is pretty successful, from what I can see -- is so detested by the Washington-based party hacks who've had things their own (losing) ways for so long. It's also why Obama's new funding strategies, of raising up new voters and more than a million new donors, is seen as so threatening by the same party hacks and elected officials who've been backing her: they're losing power.
If she steals the election, it'll be because she had a lot of help. I do think it'll kill the Democratic party, but this sort of thing has happened before.
The Whigs were traditionalists who didn't want to challenge the southern slave-holding aristocrats, and it was the fight over slavery that killed the Whigs and birthed the Republican party. Most of the republicans then, including the Pennsvlvanian governor at the time, Andrew Curtin, were former Whigs who were repelled by the corruption and sacrifice of principle they saw in the old party. And, the Democrats at the time were virulently anti-abolistionists. They would have let the slave-owners expand slavery into new territories.
So, this election may or may not turn out well for those of us who want a peaceful reform of the Democratic party from the corporate whipping boys they've become, putting up one losing national candidate after another -- not counting Hillary -- but if she somehow pulls this out, it's the end of the Democratic party. But in the big-picture, it might simply be the birth pains of a new and, ultimately better, party anyway.
May 3, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fit Obama's demographic for age, education level, race, and caffeinated beverage preference.
I can't stand the guy.
May 3, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why?
May 3, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! No one's ever asked me that before here.
I dislike Obama for lots of reasons, but I'll name the most important one: He's much too conservative for me.
But because Obama's just a year older than I am, our ages add emotional kindling to my dislike of him. I want someone my age to be even more progressive than he is, even more progressive than any past "progressive" presidents. Obama doesn't offer that. He offers compromise before he even sits down at the table. He disappoints me utterly.
May 3, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is a great opinion. So glad you elaborated. What is interesting about the demographic in the thread is that at just a few years older than you, we have learned that someone who is more overtly progressive will not be elected until some of the old coggers die off. The level of consideration he gives others gets him to the table. What happens after that will not be nearly as conscilliatory as you fear. What he, as someone your age, has learned is that you have to be sitting at the table before you get anything accomplished. There is a lot of informationa about Obama - that does not come from MSM - that will provide you with a little more progression from his positions than you might think.
May 3, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in the Hillary demographic in every way but education--includng that I come from a depressed steel town in western PA--I will also write in Obama before I will allow my ethics to condone the death of everything the Democratic Party stands for. I loathe the threat floating out there that we can't allow Supreme Court Justices to be picked by another Republican--it isn't enough to have me go against deeply ingraned values. I won't write in Obama out of anger, I will write in Obama because to do otherwise would go against the fiber of what I believe in.
May 3, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in Hillary's demographic, too. In fact, she is in my college reunion class at Wellesley (we weren't in the same graduating class, but our reunions are held together every 5 years). For many years, I looked forward to campaigning for her for President. No more. Her negative campaign lost me completely, and then I went back and reflected on her own history and "experience" and realized that she is far from the progressive feminist I once thought her to be.
If Hillary succeeds in stealing the nomination with the help of the media and the right wing, I may decline to vote for the Democratic candidate for the first time in my life. I live in Philadelphia, and as long as Pennsylvania has been a swing state, heavy turnout in Philadelphia has been critical to carrying the state. I busted my ass doing GOTV for Kerry, whom I wasn't enthusiastic about, but cannot see doing the same for Hillary. I would probably decide whether to vote for her or write in Barack Obama depending on how close the race is in Pennsylvania.
I care very much about the federal courts (I am a civil rights litigator), not just SCOTUS but the lower federal courts as well. But to be honest, the Clintons never cared much about appointing decent judges to the federal courts, unlike the Bush administration, which put the Federalist Society in the White House. While almost any Democrat will be better for the courts than McCain, I think it's even more important to concentrate on enhancing the Democratic majority in the Senate and doing whatever we can to ensure that rotten nominees do not pass muster with the Judiciary Committee.
May 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary made it into the White House, she'd start campaigning for 2012 on day 1 and that means she will appoint no justices that endanger her love affair with Reagan Democrats. Can't you just see her religious conversion on the choice issue coming any day?
May 3, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, you are right, of course. We would get justices and judges who are acceptable to Republicans and the right wing.
Bill Clinton was so uninterested in the federal courts that he left vacancies unfilled for a very long time, which not only squandered the opportunity his administration had to appoint good judges but resulted in crowded dockets and lengthy delays in getting cases heard. During those years, many federal judges got out of the habit of analyzing the record in depth and writing thoughtful, reasoned opinions.
May 3, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for litigating on behalf of civil rights!
May 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
But to be honest, the Clintons never cared much about appointing decent judges to the federal courts, unlike the Bush administration, which put the Federalist Society in the White House.
I call bullshit. As a civil rights litigator in your late 50s, surely you'd be aware that the Gang O Pigs controlled Congress for 6 of his 8 years. It seems likely that you'd also be aware that there were a large number of nominations by the Clinton admin that were never acted on by the Senate. Yet you're willing to confide in us that the Clintons "never cared much". TFN...
May 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, Clinton got almost all of his nominees for the federal bench confirmed: 373 out of 374, to be precise. The Clinton administration simply did not want to spend its political capital and energy getting progressive judges confirmed. Duering the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations, judicial selection was located in the White House or a joint White House/Department of Justice body. Bill Clinton moved the process back to the Department of Justice, signalling that judicial selection was not a priority of his administration.
May 3, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 3, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to all the angry Clinton supporters posting here,... Really? Are you really so jaded that you think a politician that will lie to you about tax holidays, Bosnian sniper fire, and her position on NAFTA is better for this country?
Are you really so jaded that you see people with hope for a better future and it makes you physically ill enough to come and post hateful stuff about anyone who is hopeful about Obama?
I have said it before and I will say it again, I have no disillusions that Obama may just be a corrupt politician feeding us a message we want to hear, However I KNOW Clinton is.
That's enough for me, just the idea that he may be the real deal, and the knowledge that even if he isn't he is better then Mcain.
No one has a problem with the fact that half of her plans go against the interests of her biggest financial contributers? Including bringing the troops home. To me the fact that she is willing to wave around a gas tax Holiday that anyone with any measure of expertise says is only going to help the oil companies (and if you buy the idea that the the wind fall profits tax will get through congress and past Bush you are a fool) tells me the truth about her. She is willing to lie about her policies to get elected. What other ones is she willing to lie about?
What is this wisdom you suggest they pass down to the youth? That there idealism is a bunch of bull? Get ready for a long succession of republican presidents because if this is true then we don't give a shit. Because if this is true our country is a lie.
If it's true that we have to vote for liars because that is all we can get, if it is true that we have to become jaded like you in order to be in the "right" then this country that I was raised to love, that I was taught to respect growing up is nothing but a sham and it doesn't deserve my patriotism.
What would have happened with the revolutionary war if we had said, "jeez this monarchy thing blows and they really don't have our best interests at heart.... but you know, it probably won't be any different if we rebel, so screw it."?
What would have happened in the sixties if the youth hadn't stood up against Viet Nam and social injustice? What if there parents had shown them the wisdom of the ages and convinced them that this was just how it was and they really couldn't change anything with there protests?
I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton wouldn't be running for president, neither would Obama. Women wouldn't be voting, you wouldn't have the right to have a say. This is what your suggested "wisdom" would have meant for this country.
The wisdom that they shouldn't believe in anything better, to just shut up and vote like you because you know better. Well fuck you. Age may bring a certain degree of wisdom, but it also can destroy any trace of idealism. This country was founded by a whole lot of idealism, tempered by wisdom. You know what, I'm young, I'm Idealistic, and I believe this country can do better then it has.
Yeah I know there are I lot of people out there who believe in Clinton. That believe everything she says is true. I just don't understand why. Much of what she proposes isn't backed up by her voting record, and she has been caught lying multiple times in this campaign. So why? Why do you trust her? Why do you just trust her that she was privately in her heart against NAFTA when records show her doing whatever she could to get it passed? Why do you trust that she is really against the war when she not only voted for it but voted to give the president the authority to attack Iran? Why do you believe she wants to help average Americans struggling to make it when she voted for a creditor sponsored bill to make filing bankruptcy harder for average people? Because she says so? Well I'll use her words here, actions speak louder then words.
May 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me one angry Clinton poster and I will show you 50 angry Obama posters.
Get real, okay? Take off your blinders and reread this entire thread.
May 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look is right - y'all charged in on a very nice conversation and turned it into a war.
That's the most dishonest thing you do - you provoke these things and then say we did it.
Indeed - read this thread. It's fucking proof in print right here.
May 3, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, Tena. Calling a post My Divorce from the Clintons was the perfect entrée to a "nice" conversation. In fact, it's "fucking proof in print right here," as you would so delicately say.
May 3, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Tinkerbell, let me have your mother's address and I'll send her a note and express my apologies.
May 3, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
grackle
May 3, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go sisters:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/
May 3, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Feminists for Peace and Obama:
"We urgently need a Presidential candidate, who understands that "pre-emptive" attacks on other countries and the reliance on military force have diminished rather then strengthened our national security. And we urgently need a Presidential candidate whose first priority is to address domestic needs. We do not believe that Senator Hillary Clinton is that candidate
We base our judgment on her seven-year record as the Senator from New York. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has carefully identified herself as a supporter of a strong, enlarged and proactive military. In 2002, she voted to authorize the "use of force" against Iraq, while voting against an amendment that would have mandated further diplomacy. In subsequent years, she expressed enthusiastic support for the war effort, objected to fixed timelines for the withdrawal of U.S troops and until last summer voted for the "unconditional funding" of the war.
Under pressure from the Democratic base, Senator Clinton has recently issued numerous statements about bringing the troops home "responsibly" But her actual plan would leave tens of thousands of Americans soldiers in Iraq over a period of many years. Her record of embracing military solutions and the foreign policy advisers she has selected make us doubt that she will end this calamitous war. "
May 3, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have the right to be angry. Just like, yes, I have seen times when Clinton supporters have the right to be angry.
Do you know how many times a day Obama supporters are insulted in huge generalizations. The comment that the poster made about showing her son wisdom instead of trying to connect with him, that was disgusting. It insults her, her son, and every Obama supporter because we are all just so stupid to support him in there mind.
I was reacting to specific Clinton supporters who make insulting comments like this. Also I made some statements about why I don't support Clinton and asked why this is acceptable to Clinton supporters. I was angry so it sounded insulting but my concerns are valid. Funny how this is the type of response I get whenever I have concerns,... Obamas worse! Never a reasonable or even angry answer to the concerns.
Get angry with me, show me proof I am wrong about my concerns! Something other then Obama is worse, or Obama supporters are worse. I can handle people being pissed at me for me posting angry but NO one has done anything to convince me I am wrong about Clinton, and the candidate herself isn't doing anything to convince me either.
I'll admit, I'm tired of having my intelligence questioned by Clinton supporters, it pisses me off and I respond. I may go overboard, however if you are a Clinton supporter and you do not while away your day calling us cultists and foolish and idiotic then I am not angry with you and the nastier sections are not directed at you.
However, yes I would like to know why these things about her don't bother you? Because they bother the holy living hell out of most Obama supporters.
Now I am sure I am going to get a responce like, Why doesn't A B and C bother you about Obama and a complete lack of answer to my concerns but whatever, I'm used to it.
May 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is such an old tactic - men are very apt to run this on women and I've several hundred do it -
They provoke you until you respond and they immediately accuse you over being overly emotional.
It's transparent.
It also doesn't work on me anymore.
May 3, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
These three Indiana women, who switched from Clinton to Obama, would seem to agree with you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOaQx079Usg
May 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a stateswoman from the Chicago area who was victimized by Obama's ambition. So, if that's a criterion, vote McKinney.
May 3, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Voting for McCain instead of Clinton will not have an effect on the SC. The conservatives already have a majority and that's not going to change in the next 8 years barring an unnatural disaster. All federal judges must be confirmed by the Senate, which makes it more important for the Dems to have a veto-proof majority in Congress than it does to have a Dem President, IMO.
May 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does.
I already said upthread that I'd rather have Congress than the presidency. Congress has the last word.
A solid majority in Congress is the very best thing you can have.
along with a justice system that isn't broken.
I hate them so much for breaking the best justice system on earth.
May 3, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kate, I am in exactly the same demographic as you are, and my political leanings are practically identical to yours. You have very eloquently expressed my own feelings about this election. If Hillary steals this nomination, I have wondered what I would do. I can't vote for McCain, and I don't know how I could stomach voting for Hillary. Maybe a write in for Obama is the way to go. I sincerely hope that the party does not cave and put Hillary in. I may never vote again and may never even pay much attention because I would feel that it didn't really matter. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Thanks for your post.
May 3, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it interesting that kingsnake provided a link so that we could hear these three women's names, occupations, and stories directly from their mouths. Where is your link, Vaughn B?
May 3, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jsmith: You have every right to be angry and I admire how much you care. I am assuming you are a good bit younger than me. And, I appreciate your picking up on the uncalled for comment that I should lead, not follow, my son. He's 21 for Christ sake, old enough to think for himself and fight in this godawful war if he so chooses. You are running into some aging boomers here who have turned bitter and cynical for whatever reason. I suspect that some people who support Clinton are just as disappointed in her as those of us who never supported her. After all, her negatives are VERY high.
I hear you when you say you are willing to take a chance on Obama because you know Hillary, and you don't trust her. I really am convinced that he is the real deal. Don't let cranky old farts tell you that you have no right to a better future or no reason for hope.
May 3, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best part about Clinton supporters, based upon two stories of going undercover in each candidate's campaign in PA, is that Clinton supporters complain about how 'Obama supporters can't think for themselves' while they wait around for programming from the Clintons and the Obama supporters are doing stuff w/o ever hearing anything from Obama until Obama decided to reward them w/ a speech!
May 3, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow. Great comments.
When Hillary and Bill Clinton first won the WH. I thought she was really cool. She was not like the other First Ladies. She spoke her mind, she dressed differently, and her daughter was my age and she had a cat that looked like my cat. The things a young mind perceives.
Even up through the first part of this primary season, I really liked her.
I knew nothing about Obama. I started to hear snippets of news about her dog whistling in IA. Still, I remained loyal. Obama awed me with his IA victory speech. I bought his book on audio and listened to it. It was in NV that I started to see things a bit differently. In SC, the cover was off all the way – in that debate. I wondered who these people were. Had they changed so significantly or had I? I was angry for a while. I'm not angry anymore. Still, she does manage to surprise and disgust me quite regularly. Yet, I cannot hate her. Still, yet, I can see why people get burned out on politics.
However, if she steals this from Obama (and I cannot see that happening, really), I'm undecided as to what to do. I'm leaning more and more towards not voting at all. Why bother. In a face-off between McCain and Hillary Clinton, my state will go for McCain. It's the white men, testosterone vote block. In a face-off between Obama and McCain, Obama could carry my state and my vote would count.
May 3, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
However, if she steals...
Please, Evainne. Unless Obama has 2025 delegates, it can't be 'stolen' from him. It isn't 'his' nomination until he acquires that many dels. It's looking increasingly likely that he'll get them so what's your problem with completing the race?
May 3, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The race is over.
It's been over for awhile. No ifs - no nothings - it's over.
May 3, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should learn to count. It comes in handy many times in life.
May 3, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich.
Ok - have it your way. The numbers do lie according to you.
Because according to me - there's no way in hell mathematically she can catch up.
No way.
But hey - tell me to learn to count. I'm terrible at math - nothing new about that.
However I have really excellent reading comprehension. And it's over.
May 3, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
...there's no way in hell mathematically she can catch up...
The only way that can be true is if he has 2025 delegates and we both know that he doesn't.
May 3, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena: You got it right. She cannot win this unless some unforeseen unbelievable shenanigans occur--and I just don't see Dean letting that happen. Just don't. He is no friend of the Clintons and he wants this to go right. And, we shouldn't underestimate Pelosi. Now, she's a broad that is tougher than nails but just feminine enough to fool ya. We just have to do the shuffle until June 3 because after 2000 everyone wants every vote to be important, as it should be. Obama will be the nominee and McCain will be a cakewalk compared to Clinton.
May 3, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
...because after 2000 everyone wants every vote to be important, as it should be>>>
Then why have caucuses and disenfranchise people? It's true that Obama does better in caucus states where fewer people get to vote but there aren't any caucuses in November.
Obama will be the nominee and McCain will be a cakewalk compared to Clinton.
Seriously? You really believe that? Good old Cakewalk McCain that's already hung the 'Hamas endorsement' around his neck? You guys are dreaming. Good luck.
May 4, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have caucuses because that's the way it's been done for a very long time, and the process has not been legally changed yet. The process CANNOT be legally changed in the middle of an election cycle. Surely you are not implying that it should be, simply because your candidate does poorly at caucuses?
Her husband did fine with caucuses. Were they fair then?
In any case, if Democrats have a problem with the caucus system, they need to work to have the system changed -- once the election is over.
May 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure Tena knows how to count. Why demean?
May 3, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's 'demeaning' to remind Tena that numbers matter? She was making a claim that the actual numbers don't support.
May 3, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex, from everything I've read, the nomination is already his. Yes, you are technically correct that 2025 is the magic number but I've read that neither can reach it, in terms of elected delegates. So, as I understand it, the SD's will have the final say.
Did you see FlyOnTneWall's recent post?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/red-state-superdelegate-math.php
May 3, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, as I understand it, the SD's will have the final say.
In my origianl post to you, I stated that it was likely (key word) that Obama would win the nomination but that she can't 'steal' what he doesn't have. Nothing is being stolen from Obama unless he gets the 2025.
May 3, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many good men taken down...another reason to support Obama: Get behind a great one when you have the chance. Nobody knows what the future will bring.
May 3, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>>Obama did not vote for that illegal war. Clinton did. >>Then there is: flag burning, the bankruptcy bill, Nafta, Hillary isn't trustworthy, She flip flops and panders.>>>
Boy, does she pander. Let us not forget her vote for the Kyle-Lieberman bill. I know I haven't.
Thanks to HRC's latest pose -- the shot-swigging good ol' gal eager to show off her populist bona fides -- my 60-year-old Clinton-supporting spouse has finally come in from the cold. Watching the silver spoon-fed Hillary pretend to be the just-folks candidate and avatar of blue collar workers did the trick.
I'm proud to say that my wife made her first donation to the Obama campaign last week. Prouder still that she's able to see Clinton's newfound populism for what it really is -- the second coming of Dubya circa Election 2000, the compassionate conservative cum down-home saddle pal.
May 3, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink