Clinton Supporters Who Want To Vote For McCain
Tweet
… are the 2008 equivalent of Nader supporters who said there was “no difference” between the two parties.
You may very well end up electing the government you deserve. My guess is that the amount of Clinton supporters who are actually that stupid is a far smaller number than the loudness of their voices seems — but I’ve been wrong before.
I think its pretty insane that people want Sen. Obama to apologize for things he never said, but that somehow Sen. Clinton and her supporters are the wronged party even though they mainstreamed racism in the Democratic party.
43 Responses to “Clinton Supporters Who Want To Vote For McCain”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Well, we know JK will vote for McCain as he/she has so adamantly asserted in the comments section on this blog.
I think party unity is a very important concern right now. On our part, we’ve got to stop trashing Hillary supporters. Sure, some of them ARE racist, stubborn and impervious to reason, BUT they can’t ALL be that way. The people who support Hillary because of her policies should, in theory, support Obama since Clinton/Obama policies are so similar. To support McCain over Obama is cutting off ones nose to spite the face. It is illogical.
I actually had an argument with my brother-in-law this weekend who said he would vote for McCain over Clinton (which I also don’t agree with) He doesn’t vote on policy though and he’s voted Republican in the past because he found the Republican leader more charming (though he wouldn’t put it that way).
I guess the question is, how many Clinton supporters are swing voters and how many are true Democrats?
Hopefully the Democratic leaders can unite the party.
Peace.
Obama ’08
Do these people even realize that forcing an Obama loss is the easiest way to make sure a white woman won’t be nominated for a god 20 or 30 years? People aren’t going to roll the dice on a woman if a black man just lost. Not for a good, long time. It’ll be White Southern Men for the rest of our lives if Obama loses, and they really need to think about that.
You may very well end up electing the government you deserve.
But not the government we deserve….
P.S. I speak as someone who used to support Hillary (not in the 2008 race, but in the distant past). It is possible (and logical) for Hillary supporters to switch to Obama. I know plenty of people who have.
I think comparing the insane fringe of Clinton supporters with Nader supporters is really unfair to those who supported Nader. Clinton supporters will favor McCain because they favor the status quo, they don’t actually give a shit about any progressive causes.
Soullite wins the thread!
How stupid am I not to have seen that from the outset? As stupid as everybody else is, I guess; but that gives me little comfort.
Forget morals, can you think of anything stupider than wanting the Black guy to lose so you can get the woman nominated next time? (Actually, I can: getting, within a span of 6 months, both the Soviet Union and the United States at war with you. But that guy has been dead a long time, and besides, you can’t mention his name, or allude to him at all, without some bozo saying you’re likening someone to that guy.)
Soullite wins the thread!
Indeed! And with a very clearly stated post. Wish I’d seen that.
Having had it pointed out, it also points out the “next quarter’s results” focus that is so American. Let’s not look at what actually gets us where we want to be down the road. Let’s just think only of the immediate. Which, in this case and at this point, is really counter-productive to those who say they want a woman in the White House.
I’d like to see one there in my lifetime as well. But not just any woman for the sake of getting a woman there.
“It is possible (and logical) for Hillary supporters to switch to Obama. I know plenty of people who have.”
Me. I’m one.
I supported Edwards to begin with, but I liked Clinton’s position on health care and social security slightly better than Obama’s. Also, I felt she was more electable as there’s nothing new the GOP could throw at her.
However, Obama proved to be the better campaigner and it became clear to be that it didn’t matter which Democrat was nominated, they would have an equal shot at winning in November and I supported both.
Then Clinton started her ‘kitchen sink’ strategy and she lost me.
Now, if she doesn’t concede and campaign hard for Obama to make sure her supporters vote for him and win this race, I want her out of the party. She put her political career ahead of the party and that’s not acceptable.
“Clinton Supporters Who Want To Vote For McCain are the 2008 equivalent of Nader supporters who said there was “no difference” between the two parties.”
How do you figure?
They’re voting for a major-party candidate over another major-party candidate. That’s not the same thing at all.
I’d say they’re more like Bush voters who bought his 2000 image — “uniter, not a divider”, “compassionate conservative”, all that stuff.
Ironically, that would include the people who were reluctant to vote Gore because they were sick of the Clintons.
They’re worse. They’re willing to sacrifice the progress we’ve made on women’s rights to spite the Democrats. Only psychotics do that.
Meteor Blades at KOS nails this one:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/1/8216/94358/221/526603
Is there some reason these “people” (whatever they are) couldn’t just write in “HILLARY CLINTON” when the time comes in November? They still get to vote for who they want but don’t make jackasses out of themselves.
0 is still far better than -1
I remember what the Democratic party used to represent prior to Bill Clinton’s two terms, and I wholly disagree with the comparison between Hillary supporters threatening to support McCain and people who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, which I have no problem admitting I did (in 1996 too).
Gore was a bit of a dolt who could barely differentiate himself from Bush during the 2000 debates by frequently suggesting he’d “have to agree with the Governor on that.” My point is that Clinton brought my (our) beloved party significantly (right) towards the center, and there was not a hell of a lot of difference between the two parties. Nader had an insight that was believable and trustworthy given his record up to that point.
Living in MN, I knew I could vote my conscience without ramifications – Gore won MN handily. I am looking forward to seeing Barack for the third time in person this Tuesday in St. Paul. He will bring our party back to where it belongs.
BTW, Dan Marino is NOT overrated.
Yay, I won something!
Today, this thread. Tomorrow, all the internets!!!
Seriously though, I didn’t see a huge difference between Gore and Bush in 2000, mostly because Bush was lying his ass off and I was all of 18. I still voted for Gore, mostly out of loyalty to the Clintons. The 90′s were an awesome time to be a Teenager in. I feel kind of bad for kids today. Voted for Hillary too, so I get where Vanessa is coming from. I doubt I’d hate the Clintons half as much if I hadn’t idolized them growing up.
I’m confident that most of her supporters will come around. We don’t even need half of them to reach 50%, so I’m not terribly worried about it either way.
I’ll agree with Bird. I voted Nader in 2000 too, and I was likewise in a state where it didn’t matter — in my case, Arizona, where Bush beat Gore by more than double what Nader got.
Gore ran a poor campaign in 2000. He spent the debates, as Bird said, agreeing with Bush, barely spoke about the environment, and picked Joseph Lieberman as his running-mate. In short, he listened to the same very bad advisors who are now in the employ of Hillary Clinton.
As for the notion that there’s no difference between the two parties — well, that’s obviously an exaggeration, but I think Nader’s observation that the Democratic Party is not serving the people is truer now than it was 8 years ago.
It’s nice that we got that minimum wage increase, and I’m sure glad Gonzales and Rove are out, but aside from that I’m hard-pressed to remember precisely what the hell the Democrats have accomplished since taking Congress.
Don’t get me wrong, Obama’s got my vote (not that it matters — again, this is Arizona; it’s a safe Republican state even when the candidate’s NOT from there). And of course it would be foolish to suggest this country would be as badly off under President Gore as it is under President Bush (though again, I rather tend to cringe at the thought that Lieberman would probably be the uncontested Democratic nominee now). But at the same time, Congressional Democrats have sat back and allowed this nightmare to happen, every step of the way, and in some ways actively helped it. (98-1 on the PATRIOT Act.)
So in conclusion, yes, there IS a difference between the two parties. Sometimes, it’s a huge difference. But others — and, I would argue, MOST of the time –, it’s so small you can hardly see it.
my wife told me she’d vote for McBush until I told her what that would mean. she changed her mind.
Well, all these comments don’t really help with the “unity” crap the DNC is counting on in November. So be it.
I will never vote for Barack Obama. I have 20 reasons, but none of you want to hear them. So let’s move on.
The fact remains, we do not have any loyalty whatsoever to the DNC.
And we for sure are not liberals.
There are 17 million voters who voted for Clinton. That number doesn’t seem to register with the other half of the Party.
But we have done the math. We know that it only takes a few hundred thousand of our votes in NH, OH, MI, WI, MN, PA, NM, NV, and CO to stop BHO.
I doubt 17 million of us will vote for John McCain. But I guarantee you that a few hundred thousand Clinton supporters/Reagan Democrats in the swing states of NH, OH, MI, WI, MN, PA, NM, NV, and CO will gladly and proudly vote for Senator John McCain if they can’t vote for Senator Hillary Clinton.
The intersting part of the math is, BHO could still take the popular vote because his black vote is so overwhelming. But his overwhelming black vote doesn’t actually win him a single state.
Wouldn’t that be some seriously delicious irony?
Continue blah, blah, blahhing about how much you hate Clinton supporters. It only makes us that much more giddy. We seem to realize how much you need us in November a lot more than you seem to realize how much you need us in November.
Flip off her 17 million voters now.
Watch us flip off his 17 million voters in November.
Yummy.
Nobody here “hates” Clinton supporters, Jan, except perhaps for the seriously rabid right-wingers in sheep’s clothing. We just don’t understand it.
I will never vote for Barack Obama. I have 20 reasons, but none of you want to hear them. So let’s move on.
Actually, I do want to hear them, but I want to hear rational, reasonable reasons, things that you actually disagree with him on, not specious rumors or things that have no relevance (like Rev.Wright).
Jan, just admit you won’t vote for the black guy.
There, that felt good, didn’t it?
Otherwise, put the 20 reasons on the table.
The fact remains, we do not have any loyalty whatsoever to the DNC.
And we for sure are not liberals.
So, in other words, the principle at stake for you has nothing to do with policy or administration. It has to do with some sort of intangible “other” quality that draws you to Mrs. Clinton.
You’re the worst kind of voter, frankly, if that’s the case, because not only are you ignorant of what sort of catastrophe you intend to unleash, you’re willfully ignorant of it.
In November, you hope to see Obama defeated just so you can leap up and down and say “See? See? I told you you should have nominated Hillary!!!”
And then in November of 2012, after four more years of Bush/McCain doctrine, you’ll be saying, devoid of irony, “None of this would have happened if only Hillary had been elected!!!”
Yummy, indeed. Delicious.
Actually, I do want to hear them, but I want to hear rational, reasonable reasons,
Okay, so this is the 2nd time I have made this request, and again, I get nothin’.
It’s almost like rational is beyond the scope of the discussion.
Vote for Sanjaiya, already.
I am a Clinton supporter who will never vote for Obama. I am a Black female and a life long Democrat. I will never vote for Obama because he is inexperienced and unqualified to be President. Further, he has not been in the Senate long enough for anyone to know who he really is. Judging by his association with his Church, he has embraced and associated with extreme, radical, ignorant, un-American racists. His message of hope and change sounds like BS to me. In addition, his supporters are intolerant and vicious toward anyone who does not worship him. His supporter frighten me more than he does because they would justify and defend everthing that Obama did. Just like the Busites have defended everthing that Bush has done. McCain is not Bush, no matter how many times the DNC says that he is. It does not make it so and anyone with a brain knows that McCain is not Bush. McCain is more moderate and open to real compromise. I will not vote for an unqualified dangerous Democrat like Obama but I will vote for John McCain a known quality.
I can give you some insight on why Clinton supporters would go to McCain. We started out wanting the most qualified candidate – and we were lucky! She was a Dem, a respected Senator, ranked in the top 10 most productive senators 3 years in a row, and had worked across the aisles to get things done. Obama said he most wanted to emulate her when he got elected.
Then, the media went crazy over Obama, and openly made sexist remarks re Clinton (take her out behind the barn and deal with her, put her in a room with a super-delegate and only he comes out, she’s only a senator because her husband cheated, etc)
When women, and other demographics, including black females, men, Latinos started to protest this kind of treatment, they got told to shut up – sexism doesn’t exist. Our candidate won big states, and we were told through the MSM that this was ‘irrelevant’. On blogsites (Huffpo, WaPo, etc) we were yelled at by Obama supporters that we were old vaginas, irrelevant, uneducated, racist.
The Democratic party left us. The Obama people told us we didn’t count. They threw vitriol at us left right and center. And the MSM repeated “Clinton Deathwatch” over and over, EVEN THOUGH SHE KEPT WINNING.
So, those of us who wanted a qualified candidate, and didn’t think Obama was one…got evicted from the Democratic party. Now we can’t choose the most qualified candidate, a proven Centrist. So we’ll have to pick from what’s left. There’s another centrist out there, but wearing the “R” tag. That’s McCain.
So far, he hasn’t courted us. But neither has Obama. And yelling at us to get in line for unity, after condemming us and telling us you don’t need us….I ain’t buying it.
Mccain has an impressive record. He’s not as pro-life as Repubs would like. And he’s not Bush by any means. He’s a centrist maverick. Much as I hate to say it, the Dems have forced me to consider him a viable alternative. And with every breath that the Obama supporters and mainstream media continue to diss me and other Clinton supporters…well the more likely it is we’ll get driven into the arms of the other qualified candidate.
Sharonevolving: the media went crazy over Obama, and openly made sexist remarks re Clinton.
That is true. But it was the media’s infatuation and favorable bias for Obama and the sexist remarks were not his.
Clinton and Obama had to deal with their staff contributors (Clinton – Geraldine Ferraro saying Obama was unlucky because he was black and male Obama – Samantha Powers calling Hillary a monster. Neither Clinton nor Obama have any control over what their supporters say or blog.
But please, don’t forget that John McCain when asked by one of his women supporters “How are we going to beat the “bitch” – after extended sharing of laughter with the crowd said “Good question.” He did not say it was inappropriate to call her a “bitch” and truly, I believe as a supporter of Obama that he would sincere rebuke that remark and that he is too intelligent to say “Good question” when a woman is being called a bitch.
As an Obama supporter, I appreciate that you believe Hillary is the most qualified candidate and I believe that Obama is the most qualified, but I do object to the idea that Obama is not qualified that is made by Clinton supporters.
You misunderstand the feelings of those Clinton supporters
( especially older white women ) who refuse to support Obama. Our country has a history of overt sexism: Shirley Chisholm noted that she encountered more discrimination during her quest for the Presidency on acount of being a woman than she did for being black. Even Howard Dean acknowledged that he found the volume and type of sexist remarks shocking. If you still doubt this, just take a gander some evening at Jay Leno’s prefered object of humor. Those of us who are “older” have had a history of being told that we can’t go to this or that school or enter this or that profession. We have had to deal with male bosses who could never raise their eyes to meet ours and referred to us as “sweetie”, “honey” or something else equally offensive. While times may have “changed”, younger persons have no recollection of such events and fail to appreciate how deeply they have affected us. Just consider what would be the responce of the Black community if Obama were referred to as a “boy”. Black males have legally been able to vote since 1864 (whether or not they could exercise the priviledge is another matter). Women didn’t receive that right until 1920 and even then only after massive protesting with many persons imprisoned. For us to vote for McCain is not a vote FOR Clinton nor a vote AGAINST Obama. Obama and Clinton both are irrelevant to our struggle. We are asserting that we WILL be treated civilly by both the DNC and the media, and we refuse the call to “smile sweetly”, and be “good girls”. Our denying votes to the nominee of the DEmocratic Party is the only way to impress them with our seriousness . . . otherwise they will just pat us gently on the head . . . into eternity.
I appreciate you giving me airtime on this blog. This is one of the more civil discussions I’ve had with this camp, so thank you.
It’s hard for us Clinton supporters to buy the ‘he’s qualified’ argument when it feels to us over and over again that he really doesn’t know what he’s doing. He served 143 days in the US Senate before going to campaign for his presidency. Obama likes to compare himself to JFK, but JFK had a much stronger record of service…so the comparison doesn’t hold. Here’s JFK’s record:
during the Second World War served as a lieutenant in the United States Navy 1941-1945; PT boat commander in the South Pacific; author and newspaper correspondent; elected as a Democrat to the Eightieth, Eighty-first, and Eighty-second Congresses (January 3, 1947-January 3, 1953); did not seek renomination in 1952; elected to the United States Senate in 1952; reelected in 1958 and served from January 3, 1953 to December 22, 1960, when he resigned to become President of the United States.
JFK had 13 years of experience in the US House and Senate…compared to Obama’s 143 days. JFK performed actively in military service in WWII. Obama’s never been in in uniform. JFK wrote a book on appeasement in Munich at the end of WWI – it was his graduate thesis that he published in July 1940 as a book entitled Why England Slept, and it became a bestseller. Obama wrote books about himself, not volumes on American history or foreign policy.
Obama says Iran is no threat, then a big threat the next day. He says Venezuela is a small country(!) He thinks living in Indonesia as a child qualifies him in foreign relations. His uncle liberated Auschwitz, when everyone knows the Soviets did that. You think, big deal, he missed the names. But a man who knew his world history would not make such an egregious mistake. Obama would hold unconditional talks with rogue nations, which is an absolutely disastrous approach, and is very Carter-esque. We know where attempting to bring everyone to the table got Carter – he vaulted America into the position of weakness in foreign policy, which had to be undone by Reagan, of all people. Obama’s policies were mostly adopted from Clinton’s when they proved appealing in debate reviews…
…it’s extremely difficult to make any case here that the man is qualified. I’m sorry, but there it is.
If I were 20, I’d be in love with him. I’d be an ardent supporter. His approaches would sound wonderful to me. I wouldn’t have encountered sexism yet, so who cares what feminists think.
But I am 40, PhD, have a very high paying job in the high tech industry in management, and am a lifelong student of world events. I simply cannot turn the country over to a man who seems ill-prepared to helm it.
My apologies, but there it is.
I’m going to say this one more time:
1) The only people with job experience at being President of the United States are people who have been President of the United States. Ironically, these are the people who can never again be President of the United States.
2) Obama has more experience as an elected government legislator than Mrs. Clinton does. Being the First Lady is a position of respect but not of power. Her influence on government is respectable but by no means official. If her position as First Lady were more important to our system of government, she would appear somewhere in the line of succession.
3) Even if you were just going by amount of time spent in government as an indication of “qualification,” you have to explain why FDR, Lincoln, and Roosevelt were such great Presidents despite having as little or even less experience in government as Obama.
I for one am sorry that some Obama supporters were rude and undignified to Hillary supporters in their fervor to defend their candidate. I for one have actively avoided such vitriol because I was aware of the possibility that people like Sharon and Madeline would react as they now are, and I avoided even though I was lambasted in certain corners of the Internet by Clinton supporters in as belittling and haughty tones as some Obama supporters.
But I’d still have voted for Clinton if she’d been the nominee, even though she herself belittled my voice from the stump (I didn’t just vote Obama because I’m from Illinois, Mrs. Clinton). Because a President McCain is a terrifying prospect. I’d vote for a package of marigold seeds before I’d vote for John McCain.
Embittered Clinton supporters who choose to vote for McCain are playing a dangerous game with the nation, and comments like those of Sharon’s last paragraph speak to me of trying to turn McCain into something he is not–which is to say, a reasonable substitute to voting for Clinton.
Clinton shares the vast majority of her policy positions with Obama, not McCain. Of course, that’s assuming you can nail down any of McCain’s policy positions to begin with; the only thing he’s been absolutely consistent on is that we need to keep our troops in Iraq until we “win,” even though conditions for victory remain elusive at best, nonexistent at worst.
If you want far-right Republicans to pick the next two or three Supreme Court justices, then by all means vote McCain. If you want more Lilly Ledbetters, vote McCain. If you want more war, vote McCain. If you think our economy is doing swell, vote McCain.
If nothing of the above excites you and you feel that Obama has personally insulted you (not his supporters–HIM), then stay home; you don’t have a dog in this fight.
sharonevolving ….how does Senator Clinton compare to JFK?
If I would do something that I have never done, choose a candidate based on a comparison of a candidate not in the race or one of the most revered Presidents ever, I would trust the comparison to someone like Ted Sorenson, who was JFK’s speak maker, special advisor and councilor. He had a personal and professional relationship with JFK and he is an Obama supporter.
Did you see Ted Sorensen’s interview with Charlie Rose or read any of his books including “Councilor”. He makes the most articulate and detailed comparison of Obama to Kennedy. JFK’s credentials were dismissed by the status quo politicans of his day, the same as Obama has been today.
Obama’s comparisons to JFK to my knowledge have always been about ideas, his vision, and his ablility to inspires people to feel that they can make a personal contribution to their country by active participation in the political process and activism.
How can any woman Clinton supporter try to send a message to the Democratic National Party by voting to elect John McCain who has promised to put on the Supreme Court and other judicial appointments those who will overturn women’s reproductive rights to choose their medical care a treatment?
How can any woman Clinton supporter vote to elect conservatives who deny national and international programs that protect the health of women and children because of religious principles, abstinence only programs, and objections to birth control?
How would any woman Clinton supporter explain to future generations of young women that they do not have choices an ownership of their own bodies because it was more important to teach the DNC and Obama supporters a lesson and show them how angry they were that a woman was not nominated?
If Clinton supporters enable John McCain and the Republicans to continue the Iraq War, the Economic War against the middle class, and overturn women’s rights, Hillary Clinton will never be able to win any elected office again.
SpiderJ is right (except for #2 – Clinton’s Senate experience exceeds Obama) Votes are not to teach lessons – votes are to get better governance, protect the country and set the course of our nation’s future.
I would like to thank you for that response. That’s what I was looking for. I too would like to apologize for some Obama supporters who have made you feel insulted.
Let me just make a couple of small points.
-For as long as my children have been alive, there has been a Bush or a Clinton at the helm. Time for a change.
-The only requirements to be President are that a person be a natural born citizen and 45 years old. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a provision for experience at being President. Anyone can grown up to be President.
-Obama is a Constitutional Law professor. I think someone who knows the Constitution backwards and forwards would be a positive thing.
If folks are mad at the DNC, that’s fine. Write a scathing letter to Howard Dean, but vote for the Democratic nominee. Because we, I and my kids deserve the government we deserve, not the government we get.
One more thing; since we’re talking about sexism, do Democrats for McNovocain have no problem with him calling his wife a cunt in public? Do Clinton supporters feel no qualms for a woman who remained married to a serial philanderer?
I think sometimes this is where the breakdown happens – in the arguing of the minutiae when the big picture is going unseen.
It’s really irrelevant to wonder how to compare Clinton to JFK because that’s never been her campaign’s sales pitch – it was Obama’s. It begged scrutiny, so I gave it.
There are really several things at work here, so let’s separate them out so we can address them separately:
1. Clinton supporters are behind her because we feel she’s qualified. That was our argument – women and men of many demographics. I hear you on no one’s qualified unless they’ve been president, but when people present their resumes, you can tell what they bring to the table. This is standard in business. When examining her background, her accomplishments, and her vision, we felt she had the most on offer. I hate to tell you this, but sometimes, the image of the likeable guy you want to have a drink with, who’s younger, not very experienced, and presents himself as a unifier, a man of hope, of the people, who would change things in Washington…well, that was Bush in 2000. It’s Obama in 2008. 17 million of us looked at it and said, no thanks. Been on the unity pony once, and it quickly turned from “I’m a uniter” to “If you’re not with me, you’re against me, you traitor.” Ughhh.
2. The press went very sexist in its coverage of her and stayed there. Now, I am not saying Obama went sexist. I am saying the press did. However, Obama showed us what he thought about it by keeping silent. The constant sexism was unnoticed by a great many who really don’t see it as a problem. But live in my world, the corporate arena, as an ambitious and educated woman, and it becomes your number one problem quickly. I have noticed similar issues on the racism front, but thanks to a Herculean effort over the last 40 years, it is now distinctly uncool to be racist on any count – a marvelous advancement in this civilized society. It is, however, still distinctly cool to be sexist, openly, covertly, or even unknowingly. This was a huge turn off to women and men, but worse, it shifted public opinion MORE in favor of Obama. He got rock star cool coverage, while she was deemed shrill, vile, evil, comabtive, divisive, etc. The press rushed to annoint Obama, and this many of us cannot abide. They are supposed to report objectively, not to engineer the outcome go the way they want it to.
3. The DNC is now openly trying to hand him the nomination, and this is the last straw. The attempts to force her out, to urge her to quit, when Jackson, Kennedy, Reagan and many others MUCH farther behind in delegate counts were allowed to take their case to the convention floor – what do you call that? The DNC is openly stating there’s a ‘new’ Democratic coalition of youth, blacks, and ultra-liberals, and they don’t need or want the rest of us. What’s amazing is that they’re doing this while she’s winning state after state, big states that we need to win. She’s looking more darned presidential standing up to this lot than anyone I’ve ever seen. She’s even getting grudging admiration out of the Republicans. Don’t we want a president that’s a proven leader – strong, tough, able to stay the course even under intense pressure? If it were a man doing this, I’d think we’d all be clutching our thighs together to avoid a collective orgasm. But it’s a woman – the vile bitch.
So, three different forces at work here, but the net is that half the Democratic party feels the more qualified candidate, the one who could beat McCain, has been told they’re irrelevant, and that we’re backing someone else. Deal with it. (Same thing happpened to the Repubs in 2000, btw, when they shoved McCain to the curb to back Bush. We now know that this because they wanted someone they could control easily, and McCain was too much his own man. I feel we are facing the same future on the Dem side.)
The Democratic party dumped us, 17 million of us, at the urging of the media. And here we stand, having had high hopes of taking back the presidency with a tough, tenacious, smart woman who has the best ideas, knows how to get things done, has a great track record in the Senate….and it’s all evaporated. Taken from us by the media and the machinations of our own party.
Now perhaps you can see the landscape, and why the shift to McCain. It’s on two fronts: one, let the Democratic party know the penalty for kicking us out. We do have options. See if they can win the presidency without their irrelevant base. The coalition they’re erecting won’t be enough to get them the White House. We want to send them a message – give us someone we can get behind, or continue to hand it to the Republicans.
What’s ironic is that the guy the Republicans put up is not that distasteful to those of us who wanted a strong leader. Mc Cain is not a fiend to women – I’ll grant you that. But those of us that have fought the sexist fight haven’t been joined by younger generations. In fact, we’ve been denigrated for it. So let them face the world on their own and find out how tough it is. Maybe they’ll get the fight after they live the reality of it for awhile.
I am not having any more children, so no abortion worries for me. I don’t dream that McCain will do much to advance my domestic agenda, and guess what? Neither will the Dems – they’ve made it abundantly clear that women aren’t wanted or needed. The difference is that the Republicans have always been like that. They’ve been honest about it. The shock for the rest of us is that Dems were supposed to be different. And they’ve proven they are the same…they just tell you they care, sweetie, while they screw you.
In the foreign policy arena, McCain’s far more on point than Obama, and won’t let us lose power on the world stage in the name of ‘friendly get togethers’. I know McCain doesn’t like Bush, but has to be nice to him right now. So I expect to see a break with Bush policies in the GE.
There’s the landscape as many of us see it in the Clinton camp. The DNC needs to learn a lesson – ignore us at your own peril. That’s why many of us are breaking. I never voted Republican in my life before. But I can do it now that I know how the Dems truly don’t value me, or the 17 million like me.
Sharon – I appreciate where you’re coming from but couldn’t disagree more with several of your points. I do, however, understand that nothing I say is going to convince you exactly why I think voting for McCain, for any reason, is folly.
What I am going to tell you is that I also looked at both Democratic candidates and decided I could support either of them based on strengths both brought to the table. I went into the primary season expecting that Obama was going to have a respectable second-place finish, after which Mrs. Clinton and the party higher-ups would give him an encouraging “Maybe next time, kid,” before returning to the narrative that Mrs. Clinton was always “inevitable.”
The press didn’t do Obama any better or worse than it did Clinton, in my view–they each had different sets of barbs to fend off. I see and decry the sexism that Mrs. Clinton was faced with, but I was also appalled to watch Obama deal with garbage about lapel pins, about the fact that he knew people who had said things that were controversial, about the still-breathing nonsense that Obama is a secret radical Muslim determined to sell us out to al-Qaida. I watched the press make hay out the fact that his supporters were young and college-educated as if being young and college-educated were some sort of crime.
Honestly, the only person this primary season who hasn’t had to deal with major press scrutiny is your man John McCain. Which is understandable, because it’s been no secret that the press won’t challenge McCain on any of his statements or policy positions.
Look, I know what it’s like to watch your favored candidate be denied the nomination–I was a Deaniac in 2004 and Kerry failed to convince me that he was the best choice for the job. I found many of his positions too far to the right for my liking. In effect, I too watched my voice and concerns fall to the wayside. But I voted for Kerry because he was clearly, after four years, a better choice than George W. Bush.
Frankly, Sharon, I find some of your reasons for supporting McCain to be the same sort of dangerous thinking that led us to Bush’s re-election. The idea that you shouldn’t care about reproductive rights because it doesn’t affect you anymore strikes me as incredibly selfish–you know, I don’t have kids and may not ever, but I still want our schools to be well-funded.
The thought that McCain doesn’t like Bush but needs to be nice to him doesn’t make sense when you consider that McCain has grown supportive of most of Bush’s policy positions, up to and including the authorization of torture, and that McCain has no reason to be nice to the most unpopular sitting president in American history–particularly one who got the nod in 2000 by implying that McCain had an illegitimate black child.
The lesson you’re going to teach the DNC is this: 17 million voters were happy to hold the country hostage until they got their way, and when they didn’t get their way those 17 million voters were happy to screw even themselves over by allowing four more years of Republican control. You may believe this shows your nobility, but all this shows is your spite.
The DNC needs to learn a lesson – ignore us at your own peril.
Like I said, I understand that. I felt the same way when Kerry won out over Dean. but i didn’t vote for Bush. I held my nose and voted for Kerry, like a Democrat should (I just felt Kerry was not the best we could do, and I rather favor the idea of someone who does not have a lot of Washington experience, i.e. detritus, for the job).
I understand your outrage, I really do. I’m a child of the ’60′s/70′s myself and grew up in a pro-feminist household.
Just don’t take out your outrage on the rest of us, that’s all I’m saying.
I don’t kid myself that I can change any body’s mind to support Obama. If you don’t want to vote for him, that’s fine. But I will try my damnedest to try to persuade Democrats not to vote for McCain.
Sit this one out. Make your dissatisfaction known by not voting. That is your right. Write a letter to the DNC, make them know how you feel with your eloquence. That is your right. But for God’s sakes, don’t play for the other team. If you honestly think the DNC doesn’t care about you, how do you think the GOP feels about you? They’ll take your vote, but they’ll still call you a commie-pinko terr’ist appeaser who wants the US of America to lose, and proceed to read your email and monitor your phone calls.
…sharon evolving….(to what) ? “I am not having any more children, so no abortion worries for me. I don’t dream that McCain will do much to advance my domestic agenda, and guess what?”
Either you are not a woman or you are so angry you just want to “vent” right now to say “I am not having any more children, so no abortion worries for me.”
What I find most distrubing is your comment “Now, I am not saying Obama went sexist. I am saying the press did. However, Obama showed us what he thought about it by keeping silent.” Are you kidding me,
Obama was knee deep from Hillary’s constant negative allegations – you wanted him to fight her battles… your whole premise is that Hillary is the stronger of the two candidates.
Hillary’s campaign is about today’s women and young girl’s dreams and the political future of all women being respected when they enter into political campaigns. Women need choices in the future not abortions. I am pro choice – no pro-abortions. I want a future for all young women filled with so many choices and opportunities that every pregnancy can be a joyous welcoming event.
If you can pull the lever or the touch scene that says McCain knowing and having no dream that McCain will do much to advance your domestic agenda, trust me, your vote will be for hopelessness. Your vote will not be a vote to teach Democrats a lesson – your vote will teach you a lesson. Everyone has choices and you are free to make yours. Good luck in the Republican Party.
Don’t flatter yourself there are NOT 17 million like you, no matter how angry the majority of CLINTON Supporters are 17 million are not going to say – “I am not having any more children, so no abortion worries for me. I don’t dream that McCain will do much to advance my domestic agenda.”
You want to teach the media and the DNC who gave the nomination to Obama.
I have a daughter – like all young people they don’t acknowledge what the previous generation as done for them – they take it for granted the same as the previous generation had done. How can you say you want today’s young women to suffer. I am very proud of the young girls and women like my daughter who are not Paris Hilton wannabes and are in college and no “college girls gone wild.” Don’t insult my daughter or other young women, when they take up the banner to fight sexism they will do your generation proud, even if you don’t believe in them.
Young women and young men have overwhelming chosen OBAMA. They want dreams, ideas, and a future that includes their activism and participation. They have said no to “isolationism and fear.”
Are you going to abandoned Hillary forever when she supports the Democratic National Party and Senator Barack Obama’s campaign in the general election?
Sharon, let me just ask you this. Did you vote for Jack Kennedy? Remember how that felt? You’re kids and mine deserve that same feeling.
Duros – She’s forty, not sixty. She wasn’t even alive when JFK died.
That said, it is perhaps because she grew up without having experienced a candidate as exciting and full of promise as either Jack or Bobby that she and other Hillary Clinton voters can be so dismissive of those of us who don’t think hope is BS.
I’m 30, and cast my first vote for Bill Clinton in 1996. But I didn’t feel the optimism and inspiration in that vote that I feel in the prospect of this one. Honestly, I’m not sure I’d have known what that could even feel like outside of enjoying Martin Sheen on The West Wing.
Addressing the (slim) possibility that Sharon is not just a concern troll.
Point 1 – Clinton is qualified. Sure, she’s has more experience than Obama if you consider being first lady experience. Considering her leadership role as first lady consisted largely of completely bungling healthcare reform for the next ~15 years, I wouldn’t consider it positive experience. But she’s certainly been in the limelight for quite some time.
Point 2 – Clinton has suffered from media sexism. Absolutely. Chris Matthews was particularly vile, I’d like to see him permanent erased from the airwaves. Did Obama fight sexism? Not particularly, in fact I never once heard him say he didn’t want votes from sexist voters. Interestingly, I never once heard Clinton say she didn’t want votes from racist voters. I did hear her claim to have an electoral advantage with “hard-working white voters”, which struck me as much supremely cynical.
Point 3 – The DNC wants her to quit. Absolutely. Why do you think they want her out when Jesse Jackson and Ted Kennedy were “allowed” to take it to the nomination (and remember, Hillary is absolutely “allowed to take it to Denver, she’s just being discouraged by the DNC)? Perhaps because, unlike in those cases, the outcome is still technically (though not realistically) in doubt, hindering the democratic candidate from moving on to the GE?
Sharon, if you think McCain is not repugnant on social issues, and you think he’s more “on point” than Obama with regards to foreign policy, I can only assume that you really are a concern-trolling neocon. McCain is far right on all social issues (save immigration) and advocated the Iraq war before, during, and for the next 100 years. McCain even wants to bomb Iran to stop them from developing the nuclear weapon that is decades away. If you don’t find him repugnant, either you’re not paying attention or you’re a republican.
This would all be moot if HRC had run a decent campaign. If she’d admitted a mistake on her Iraq vote in 2006 or 2007, she’d have given her primary victory speech months ago, sexism or not. She has no one in the media to blame for running a campaign based on nothing more than her ability to win and having no fallback plan when she did
not. She has no one else to blame for blowing a tremendous amount of money in Iowa and having nothing to show for it. She was spotted $80 million, 100 superdelegates, and tremendous name recognition (with most of her negatives with republicans, not democrats) and still managed to lose. That her supporters are unable to assign blame to anyone but those outside of her campaign is a continual mystery.
Duros – She’s forty, not sixty. She wasn’t even alive when JFK died.
Whoops, my bad. Sorry, Sharon. I’m 45, so I was just barely conscious myself.
Obama scares me. We know everything there is to know about Hillary (good & bad), but nothing about him. If Hillary does not get the top slot, I will have to vote for McCain to keep Obama out. Check out eBay Item number 230259774733 to see something funny.
In June 1998 at a Republican Senate fund-raiser, McCain told a downright nasty joke making fun of Janet Reno, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Chelsea Clinton.
The fact that McCain had made the tasteless joke was reported in major newspapers, as was the vain attempt by his press secretary to initially deny what McCain had done. But in several major newspapers, the joke itself was kept a secret. When Maureen Dowd penned a column in the New York Times about the joke, she wrote that McCain “is so revered by the press that his disgusting jape was largely nudged under the rug.” But Dowd chose not to relay the joke, either.
The joke did appear in McCain’s hometown paper, the Arizona Republic, and the Associated Press did report the joke in full, this is what he reportedly said:
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.”
Hi,
My name is Josh and I’m from Sacramento, California. First of all, please don’t call me stupid for voting for McCain instead of Obama. Yes, I was a Hillary supporter and yes, me, my wife, my brothers and sisters, my grandmother and my uncles and their family (That’s more than 30 people – big family huh?!) are all voting for him.
How dare you call the exercise of our Right stupid????!!! This is NOT the U.S.S.R. so stop sounding like someone with an -OV at the end of his/her name.
We injected race into this campaign?!????? First of all, apologize for saying that. As a minority (Hey, Josh Perkins isn’t my real name, I don’t want to be stabbed by some Obama supporter where I live. This place is packed with them), that would have been the last thing I would do.
Please ride the Obama wave and let this electoral process reach its conclusion. If you can’t wait, then please start a coup. Good luck with your life.
I find a couple flaws in your argument:
1. Nobody ever mentioned Russia. This isn’t 1989 anymore.
2. There is absolutely no reason for Oliver Willis to apologize. If he does, you might as well apologize for calling him Russian.
3. If you really were a Clinton supporter and are now a Mccain fan, what ON EARTH did you like about Clinton? They literally disagree on every issue except immigration. Mccain’s VP wants creationism in schools…how could your whole family support that after being Clinton supporters?
I’m sorry, but you truly do not make any sense.