Thanks Turkana, this is the conversation that all pro Clinton and anti-Obama blogs need to start haveing to begin to turn our attention to November.
Eric in Austin
Posted by ericl at May 12, 2008 01:00 PMUniversal Health Care, also, he can stop talking about making nice with the Republicans, I want blood on the floor. I have a few others, but these are my biggies.
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Well, Bush is considering bombing Iran, according to Philip Giraldi, who is a credible former CIA type. I'd think rallying around Obama to oppose this would be something we all should agree on. Admittedly, I'm a one issue voter and this is my issue, which was why I couldn't back Clinton to begin with, after Kyl-Lieberman last fall. But still, another crime against humanity with the Democratic faithful split and not speaking with one outraged voice against it?
Posted by JohnShreffler at May 12, 2008 01:12 PMShorter Turkana: Let the pie fights resume!
Posted by TIKI AL at May 12, 2008 01:15 PMWell, of course there were/are perfectly good reasons for very informed, perceptive, good people to prefer Clinton, many of her positions are excellent and she knows the issues very well.
It's the idea that it's so obvious that she's the only acceptable nominee between the two that's going too far. And the desire to cut off the nose of the Obama supporters to spite Ameica's face.
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 01:18 PM
"It's the idea that it's so obvious that she's the only acceptable nominee between the two that's going too far. And the desire to cut off the nose of the Obama supporters to spite America's face."
You know I've heard Obama supporters say the thing. Perhaps acknowledging both sides are playing to win would be a good start?
Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah
Posted by Radix at May 12, 2008 01:25 PMjohn,
i was not impressed with obama's support of s. 970, nor his lack of effort in opposing kyl-lieberman, so they're both not great on iran. but yes- they're both much better than bush or mccain, and it would actually be great not only for the candidates' supporters to unite in opposing any action against iran, it would also be great if the candidates themselves would step up and declare that any unprovoked attack on iran would be illegal.
Posted by Turkana at May 12, 2008 01:26 PMIt is the Obama crowd who says they will not vote for Clinton, not vice-versa. I'll vote for whomever has a D behind their name, but it is the Obama folks who threaten to bolt the party if Clinton is nominated, which at this juncture seems unlikely. So you Obama fans can rest assured that your guy will be the Dem nominee--whether he becomes the President certainly remains to be seen. The Rethugs are already sharpening their knives.
Posted by joanne at May 12, 2008 01:26 PMjoanne,
i'm with you- i'll vote for whoever is nominated. but i have seen clinton supporters who say they won't support a nominated obama. i've seen people on both sides say they'll walk away if their candidate doesn't win. and neither is helpful even to their own candidates!
Posted by Turkana at May 12, 2008 01:29 PMHow about appologizing to the Clintons for running a smear campaign against them? How about a willingness to take on the MSM that pretty much acted like an arm of the Obama campaign? How about explaining to MI and FL how he didn't want their votes counted? How about offering specific detailed policy positions? How about commiting to universal health care? How about an energy policy that doesn't cater to the nuclear power industry? How about taking a strong liberal position on something...anything that challenges the Bush administration right now? How about promising to hold investigations into government corruption and war crimes? Do some of these and maybe you'll get my vote. But I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by johnny at May 12, 2008 01:31 PMmost obama supporters are a lot like their candidate..audacious...to think any opposition to that empty suit is about them..they used racism to divide the county..and put the blame on the clintons..i believe the rift is more then they realize..much more....
Posted by dennis at May 12, 2008 01:32 PMI'm torn as to whether I'll vote for Obama or write-in for Clinton or not vote at all.
There are a few reasons why I don't know if I can support Obama. I'll admit that the majority of the reasons don't come down to policy issues, but rather derive from the way the campaign has played out and given us portraits of both candidates.
1. Healthcare
Having lived in London for quite a while, I truly believe in the creation of a single-payer system but also recognise that the likelihood of any viable candidate bringing about such a system any time soon is virtually nil. That being said, universality is not out of reach and I deplore Obama's position on achieving universality. I do agree with Sen. Clinton that healthcare is a fundamental human right, one that the government must make sure that all residents have and that, for the time being, a mandate is the only way to make that happen. Moreover, I agree with Paul Krugman's position that Obama's arguments against Sen. Clinton's plan will, in the end, harm the greater cause-- healthcare for all, somehow and soon. As will no doubt become evident in all my reasons for disliking Obama, I think his position shows an incredible lack of leadership and a wealth of short-term calculation. That he's willing to put the burden of a mandate on children being insured, which parents would be liable for, but would not extend that to parents is, I think, somewhat hypocritical.
It also shows a disregard for working parents, who in all likelihood under a plan like Sen. Clinton's, wouldn't pay anything (or not that much at all) to be insured along with their kids, meet the mandate, and not have to worry about getting sick and choosing between expensive medical care for themselves or feeding their children. Having had a mother who was in a similar situation for a time (we kids insured under the Healthy Families/Blue Cross program in California while my mother was not) I've seen the choice be made to the parent's detriment. It's not justifiable in my eyes; Senator Clinton has the moral high ground on this one.
2. Race-baiting
Everything that Sean Wilentz wrote on this topic at The New Republic applies here. Taking that as a basic assumption, what this reveals to me is that Obama is not the purveyor of New Politics and Hope and Rainbows, but will, in fact, do anything to win.
And what exactly has he done or promised black America? All he's done is whip up anti-Clinton sentiment, using the brush of racism to tar a former president.
3. Iraq
I don't care about who opposed the war back then, I care about who is focused on the now. The fact is, Obama funded the war just as much as Clinton did. Where was his courage and judgement on the floor of the Senate?
Really, I don't care about how long someone's opposed the war. Judgement is a tricky thing; one can show poor judgement on something like Iraq and good judgement on healthcare. Similarly, one can show poor judgement in one's personal acquaintances and good judgement on the Iraq war. Judgement is contingent on circumstance, so I don't buy that Obama's anti-war position is indicative of anything greater about his potential leadership as president.
What I want to hear are sensible solutions for getting us out of Iraq that do not include leaving a country to implode and millions more unnecessary deaths. On this issue, I feel both Clinton and Obama have pandered incredibly; that Samantha Power got in trouble for saying what is all too likely, that we'll be in Iraq for some time to come, shows I think that they both recognise the situation for the long-term. So, let's talk sensibly. And if not, then this issue is a wash between the two.
4. Electability
Hope is not a policy position and New Politics are just Old Politics dressed in the Emperor's New Clothes. In this campaign, for all her negatives, Clinton has a solid record to fall back on. Obama's record is not that great and if Clinton can knock him off his pedestal and force him to fight dirty, then New Politics is over. And then what does Obama have to fall back on? I don't think Obama supporters appreciate enough that the symbolic importance of Obama and his Words, does not translate into debatable policy. Instead, it's a referendum on him as a person and what he represents. And as the Rev. Wright saga proved, that's a tricky area on which to base a candidacy.
These are just a few of the reasons I've got trouble supporting Obama. I'll post more later.
Posted by Fabio at May 12, 2008 01:41 PMaudacious with a strong penchant for mendacity
Posted by dennis at May 12, 2008 01:43 PM"It is the Obama crowd who says they will not vote for Clinton, not vice-versa. " this is simply a false statement. There has been way too much of this on both sides, but to say only Obama's people have been saying it is, well, simply false. I'd like to know how you can make such a statement, Joanne?
Posted by T2 at May 12, 2008 01:44 PMMaybe it's because I nearing 60, but this election is starting to look a lot like poor McGovern, and later, Dukakis. They were obviously better than their opponents, but lost horribly. Obama seems particularly naive about the hard-ball tactics he faces. His supporters are bright, idealistic and race means little to them. My cynicism tells me not a whole lot of voters agree with their enthusiasm--by the time the Rethugs get through with him, he will be a black Muslim terrorist and Willy Horton will be a distant memory.
Posted by joanne at May 12, 2008 01:47 PMMaybe it's because I am nearing 60, but this election is starting to look a lot like poor McGovern, and later, Dukakis. They were obviously better than their opponents, but lost horribly. Obama seems particularly naive about the hard-ball tactics he faces. His supporters are bright, idealistic and race means little to them. My cynicism tells me not a whole lot of voters agree with their enthusiasm--by the time the Rethugs get through with him, he will be a black Muslim terrorist and Willy Horton will be a distant memory.
Posted by joanne at May 12, 2008 01:49 PMI agree with the two commenters who pointed out Obama's failing on universal healthcare. I'd like to see him take up Edwards's/Clinton's mantle on this one, but I'm not sure how he does it now that he's staked the position he has.
I'd also like to see him drop the post-partisan b.s. I also want blood, and I really believe that Clinton was the only one running against Bush this primary season.
Given that they're not that far apart on policy, but that Clinton is generally more progressive on domestic issues, I'd like him to keep adopting her stances as his own. And we all should thank Edwards for driving the debate on domestic issues to the left.
Most importantly though, I think Obama needs to extend an olive branch to Clinton supporters. I've never heard him explicitly say - I will support whoever is the nominee or work towards unity within the party - like I've heard Clinton say repeatedly. In fact, if anyone has any quotes of him saying stuff like that, I'd love to see them. And I don't mean, things like he assumes we will come together or that he knows Clinton's supporters will vote for him - I mean an explicit statement that he will work to win our votes and bring the party together. I've heard nothing of this.
Finally, I want him to stop pandering to the religious right/anti-abortion crowd. Kate Harding has a great post up at Shakesville about getting Obama-skeptical re: his positions on reproductive rights and LGBT equality. He is particularly weak for my tastes here and at a minimum he could create a page on his website about "women's issues" or something to that effect.
I'm a Clinton supporter but I'll most likely vote for him in the fall if he's the nominee. I think he'll be a good face for the country in terms of international relations/goodwill in a post-Bush world, but I would like to hear his qualifications on foreign policy beyond his Iraq speech, his living overseas, and his Kenyan relatives. Supporters of his seem to find him particularly compelling on foreign policy and I'd be curious to hear more - is it just because he seems more diplomatic and less hawkish than Clinton, or does he have some appeal independent of comparisons to Clinton or Bush?
Posted by Redstar at May 12, 2008 01:56 PMT2
I can make such a statement because most of the exit polls say that--by a vast percentage, Obama voters say they will not vote for Clinton (even his wife says she "would have to think about it." So, no, I'm not just blowing smoke.
Posted by joanne at May 12, 2008 02:01 PMHow about if we just wait until the lady in the pantsuit sings before trying to persuade one side's supporters to vote for the other side? These types of stories are premature, just like the Time newscover. No matter how much the media stomps around with their haka, it just ain't over yet. Neither has the number of delegates needed to win outright. Even if there were a big SD move, it still wouldn't be over because those votes can change at the convention. They aren't committing themselves even if they come out now one way or the other. Obama may currently be slightly ahead with pledged delegates right now, but he can't get to the magic number. He should not be coronated when he has not yet won. And Clinton supporters should not be told that its over. So how about if you hold off on these kinds of stories until it's appropriate?
audacious with a strong penchant for mendacity
I'm pro Obama because Clinton supporters use big words without understanding the meaning of those words.
Posted by phidipides at May 12, 2008 02:05 PMIncidentally, who kidnapped eriposte?
the majority of the above posts site what obama needs to do to heal the party. are you giving hilary a pass on what she's done?
michelle norris from npr states: hrc's positions has changed from state to state, while obama's have remained basically the same.
i'm sure you will have a field day with that, but your candidate's hands are just as dirty, and in some cases, more so, ie, the white americans comment. by that logic, can i state that she would not win the wh if the african american working class did not vote for her by 90%? its the same damn argument, just reversing the words.
both need to work to heal the party, but laying this on his feet, not gonna work.
Posted by anthony at May 12, 2008 02:07 PMObama's main senate committee assignment is Foreign Relations, redstar, so he has spent much time with our current diplomatic woes and Bushco's foreign policy "issues" (i.e disasters).
So he has likely been briefed and advised on the many opportunities for diplomacy and progress that exist if a president were simply willing explore them and not simply refuse to talk to the demonic "evildoers", as Bush calls them.
Hillary's main assignment is the senate Armed Services Committee. McCain's as well.
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 02:09 PMaudacious with a strong penchant for mendacity
I'm pro Obama because Clinton supporters use big words without understanding the meaning of those words.
hehe
Posted by curious at May 12, 2008 02:13 PMRadix / Fabio -
I strongly favor universal health care, but I don't think either Clinton or Obama could get us there. The first problem is the Congressional meat grinder. A mandate is a tough sell, so I don't expect there would be much difference between between the Clinton and Obama plans after clearing Congress. Massachusetts has demonstrated that a mandate is pretty much a mandate-in-name-only anyway. Important problems we can address are the inability to get health insurance and non-portability. Having anyone able to sign up with an equivalent of the federal employee plan would be a big step.
To me, Edwards' health care plan was the only noteworthy one since it gave people the option to choose single payer. I think that is the only way we will make the conversion to single payer, which is really what we should be shooting for.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at May 12, 2008 02:16 PMHere you go Joanne...
May 5, NBC WSJ poll:
Thirty percent of Clinton supporters said they would not vote for Obama in November if he were the nominee, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week. Twenty-two percent of Obama voters said they would not vote for Clinton.
I'd be happy to discuss some new numbers if you can quote them.
Posted by T2 at May 12, 2008 02:22 PMphidipides
do you know the meaning of "pretentious dickhead"? I am sure you have heard it enough.
The poster used his words correctly - you just didnt like them.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 02:25 PMTo the commenter who wants to remind us of the blood on Clinton's hands - she's made clear she will work to unite the party, whether the nom. or not. Obama has not made this clear. Also, if he is the nominee, he has an even greater responsibility to the Party to unite us.
Obama's position on the Foreign Relations Committee - is this where he chaired a Subcommittee where he hasn't held a single meeting?
And of course it would be a fight to get UHC; that's why the bar has to be set high from the outset - and Obama has not done less here than Edwards and Clinton.
Anyhoo, yes, the fight's not over, but I do think this exercise is helpful, unlike the commenters who are just throwing out yet more snark.
Posted by Redstar at May 12, 2008 02:27 PMt2,
both those numbers are extremely disappointing. both are enough to give mccain the election.
Posted by Turkana at May 12, 2008 02:30 PMI need to see Obama, above all else, change his positions on Social Security and universal health care. He cannot continue to argue Republican talking points on privatizing successful governmental programs. Dismantling FEMA and eliminating governmental controls in health care, the airlines, banking, and environmental protections are what have put us in the horrible position we are today.
The plan he puts forth for health care is simply a sellout, as I see it, to the insurance industry, and does nothing to ensure full participation and sharing of the costs of health care by all Americans.
It frightens me and other Americans on the edge of retirement to see a Democratic leader showing utter disregard for our economic security.
Posted by candideinnc at May 12, 2008 02:33 PMFor whatever it's worth, like me, my girlfriend was a passionate supporter of John Edwards. She really despised Barack Obama and when it became clear that Edwards was not going to be the nominee, she insisted that she'd write Edwards's name in during the general election rather than vote for Obama. Unlike me, she voted for Edwards in the California Primary.
Since then, she's come around. She's sent copies of Barack Obama's autobiography to several of her friends and relatives. I fully expect that she'll be running a canvassing-call center for Obama in the weeks leading up to the general election, as she did for the despised Kerry (we were big Dean supporters) in October and November of 2004.
Posted by kaleidescope at May 12, 2008 02:36 PMThe Bush regime has set us up for an economic fall, and the Bushites expect the next president will have
no choice but to complete the repeal of the New Deal. I think both Obama and McCain are quite ready to buy
into that. Barring any contrary specifics from the candidate, I'll be joining the "win without me" folks.
hey dippy..they apply especially to you..and like i told ya..you're alot smarter when nobody knows what you're saying
Posted by dennis at May 12, 2008 02:49 PMt2,
The numbers I have are also from WSJ and NBC and are from the states Hillary won--there are new numbers this week indicating the trend continues in KY and WV, but we'll see how it pans out in the days following the primaries there. Turkana is right--the numbers, in any case, don't look good for the GE, but there's time and if the Dems run a good campaign, we can pull it out. I still say Michelle's comments about having to "think" about supporting Hillary are unfortunate and will be used against Obama--to almost quote Martha Stewart, that is not a good thing.
Posted by joanne at May 12, 2008 02:52 PMWell, it would certainly help if he'd say one dadgum word publicly to shame his supporters for saying things like this (yes, I'm looking at you, Donna Brazile): "...the Hillary forces are uncivil, repugnant and vile."
Beyond the wounds his campaign has inflicted on faithful, long-time Democrats who simply prefer a different candidate, Obama has never demonstrated any particular loyalty to the Democratic Party. Despite Hillary's repeated promises to do everything she can to support him if he wins the nomination, Mr. and Mrs. Obama have not returned the favor. That's a little hard to swallow, considering all the unity ponies they keep offering.
Obama would have to change his pro-Republican "unity" rhetoric and back up all that "hope" and "change" with some solid progressive positions on universal healthcare, Social Security, and SCOTUS appointments, among other issues, before I'd even consider voting for someone who has so diligently worked to destroy the legacy and reputation of the Clintons.
Posted by Motherlode at May 12, 2008 02:53 PMAs a former Edwards supporter, it would be extremely foolish for either Clinton or Obama to push single payer universal health care. As much as I want it, if it were crucial to most Democrats at the present time Edwards wouldn't have gotten obliterated in the primaries. You need Congress for that, and they're not there yet by a long shot.
And I find it impossible to get excited one way or another about mandatory insurance using the existing giant companies.
Posted by TJ at May 12, 2008 02:58 PMyes we can...no we can't
Posted by dennis at May 12, 2008 03:04 PMObama would have to completely scrap his "hope" and "change" routine and campaign on specific policy proposals, particularly on health care. Start drawing lines in the sand. I don't care what's in his position papers that nobody reads. He has to tell the voters exactly what he plans to do or he'll start compromising in order to fulfill his destiny as a "uniter".
Don't promise to transform society, promise to help solve some of its problems. And let us hold you accountable.
Posted by cygnus at May 12, 2008 03:11 PM1.) Universal health care.
2.) Hillary has committed to getting us out of Iraq within a year, Samantha Power now says 16 nmonths is "best case scenario" for Obama.
3.) Social Security (see: Krugman)
4.) Obama throwing one constituency after another (hell, his own pastor even) under the bus to make kissy face with the Republicans. Will he throw us under the bus when times get tough? I know Hillary is a fighter because he has demonstrated that.
5.) The John Roberts vote. Both voted No, but Obama had to be told that it would piss off Democrats if he went all 'bipartisan' and voted for him in the name of unity. He had to be told that!
6.) Hillary's experience as part of the Clinton administration is a badge of honor for her, and for her supporters, not easily dismissable because--if you recall--she was attacked by the right for being 'too involved with policy.' Add 2 administrations to 8 years in the Senate, and that equals the experience to be 'ready on day one' - it's more than just a slogan.
7.) Obama's new coalition resembles a 3rd party movement, not an addition to the 'old' coalition that includes white working class voters (those dumb racist bigots like me I guess)
8.) Immaturity and sexism on the part of the Obama fanbase.
9.) The need for investigations & prosecutions of Bush administration lawbreaking. Investigations would hurt the unity pony wouldn't it?
10.) I don't want to lose. My issue with Obama supporters is -- if you think that there is so much racism out there (which there is, but to reduce the non-Obama vote to that is VERY insulting) then why aren't you worried at all about November?
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 03:20 PMI think you misunderstand what Obama has said about social security. He has not advocated privatization; instead he has advocated lifting the $90,000 limit on payroll taxes. Currently someone whose income is $90,000 pays as much in payroll taxes for Social Security as does someone who earns $1 milllion. If we made a shift upwards on the payroll taxes, SS would be solvent as far as the eye can see. That is what Obama has recommended.
Posted by at May 12, 2008 03:21 PM"i was not impressed with obama's...lack of effort in opposing kyl-lieberman..."
As I recall, Obama did what he has done so often in both the State and national Senates when "controversial" votes come up, and did not show up, so he did not have to go on record as voting either way. I don't call that lack of effort, I call that avoidance. As far as I am concerned both he and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for their conduct regarding Kyl-Lieberman. Both should have voted a resounding no, AND presented strong arguments against passing it.
Posted by Shirin at May 12, 2008 03:24 PMA word on item # 4: this is called electoral strategy. IMO we need to hold and expand, i.e. maintain our traditional base and addon women voters and hispanics. I'm sure someone talked about this in the left blogosphere before it split in half. Obama's strategy seems to be: go for broke and risk alienating your party for a bunch of kids who know nothing other than Bush = Bad.
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 03:26 PMgarak - anyone who questions number 8 should read the posts of Obama supporters in Steve Soto's recent Opus about Clinton's campaign finances. Talk about obnoxious.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 03:27 PM
I think you misunderstand what Obama has said about social security. He has not advocated privatization; instead he has advocated lifting the $90,000 limit on payroll taxes. Currently someone whose income is $90,000 pays as much in payroll taxes for Social Security as does someone who earns $1 milllion. If we made a shift upwards on the payroll taxes, SS would be solvent as far as the eye can see. That is what Obama has recommended.The point is, after having soundly defeated privatization in 2005, why is Obama so eager to hype the myth that Social Security is in a 'crisis'? The framing is right; make the rich pay their fair share, but it's a solution to a 'problem' that is 90% right-wing myth.
Social security is currently still taking in a great deal more in SSI taxes than it is paying out, despite all the old people you hear about retiring. The year at which the 'peak' is predicted to come has been later and later every year, and that's only the point where yearly revenues begin to barely drop below SSI expenditures. That's where the surplus that is 'building up' comes in. Now, the surplus (called the Social Security trust fund) is spent each year to give more flexibility in discretionary spending because it isn't good to have that much money just sitting around collecting dust. This is why Bush called them 'worthless IOU's,' but as was amply demonstrated by the old TPM, this was hogwash because the only way the government could default on those "IOU's" would be if a.) the US government defaulted on its debt obligations, which it has never done (we wouldnt be worrying about social security first and foremost if that was happening anyways) or if Congress changed the law to partially privatize social security, making paying in 'non-mandatory.'
Hillary wants to preserve & protect Social Security and ADD-ON retirement savings accounts as well. And you would hardly even need to lift the cap to $100,000 for what it would cost to make this minor adjustment in the balance sheets.
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 03:41 PMIt's gone too far. And there is no turning back. Since it is quite apparent that Obama and his Supporters, both implicitly and and explicitly, believe that no one could possibly support Hillary unless they are racist, then I might as well say it. I can't vote for the under-qualified, never would have gotten this far except for the color of his skin, affirmative action candidate. There is nothing he can do to fill his empty suit.
Posted by OutWithAffirmativeAction at May 12, 2008 03:46 PMYeah, it must be "affirmative action", OutWith, because black candidates for president ALWAYS do this well!
Posted by euzoius at May 12, 2008 03:54 PM60-40, 75-25, very well indeed.
Posted by OutWithAffirmativeAction at May 12, 2008 03:55 PM"Hillary has committed to getting us out of Iraq within a year..."
No. She hasn't committed to getting you out of Iraq AT ALL. She has committed to withdrawing just enough troops to keep the level of involvement lower profile, and therefore more tolerable to Americans. She has been very clear that she intends to keep significant "residual" troops in Iraq indefinitely, and the "missions" she has described for those troops include combat. Military experts estimate that in order to fulfill the missions she has described she would have to keep AT LEAST 40,000-70,000 troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
"Samantha Power now says 16 nmonths is "best case scenario" for Obama."
Obama's plan for Iraq is virtually identical to Hillary's. He also does not intend to get you out of Iraq any time in the foreseeable future.
Both Hillary and Obama will continue the occupation of Iraq against the will of 80% of the Iraqi people, and the majority of the American people, and that is obvious unless all you listen to are the pretty sound bytes. Hillary has actually stated that she considers it necessary to continue America's "military as well as political mission" in Iraq. Obama may not have been so explicit as that, but he has the same idea.
So, if you are concerned about Iraq, it doesn't make a bit of difference which one you support. Take your pick and Iraqis will continue to pay the consequences.
Posted by Shirin at May 12, 2008 03:58 PMshirin's right, about their iraq plans, and naomi klein and jeremy scahill would concur.
Posted by Turkana at May 12, 2008 04:01 PMHere's more, euzy:
But that still does not explain all of Obama's white working class problem. Let's look at three other states: Arizona, Florida and Indiana. In Arizona, Clinton won the white vote by 53-38 (she won Latinos 55-41.) In Florida, Clinton won whites by 53-23 (she won Latinos by 59-30). In Indiana, Clinton won whites 60-40. Need to hear more? Ok.
In Massachusetts, Clinton won whites 58-40 (she won Latinos 56-36). In Rhode Island, Clinton won whites 63-37. In New Jersey, Clinton won whites 66-31.
I think he has an opportunity given his silver tongue to make a speech about misogyny and deploring it. By acknowledging that there has been a lot of it, by disavowing it on the part of his campaign, and by saying that we have to work to eliminate it, he could do a lot to calm people down. If this were coupled with something like a pledge to work for the same gender ratios that the Clinton administration followed or some other specific goal, it would be good.
Posted by marc sobel at May 12, 2008 04:15 PM"Hillary has actually stated that she considers it necessary to continue America's 'military as well as political mission' in Iraq."
Just in case it is not crystal clear what that means, it means that Hillary has explicitly stated that the imperial plan for Iraq must proceed. Obama's plan would produce the same result.
Posted by Shirin at May 12, 2008 04:28 PMI haven't read all the responses, but as a Clinton supporter, here's what I want to see from Obama:
--stop complaining about how hard it is to campaign. You don't think being president is hard? You need to show you're up to the challenge.
--not much he can do now, but I just haven't seen leadership from him. Yeah, he did that ethics reform thing, but the other day Reid was on some show saying he chose Obama to lead that. All this time I thought Obama worked on it of his own initiative, but apparently not. I'm also not confident in his ability to make decisions. He's so good at seeing both (all?) sides of an issue that I worry it'll be hard for him to decide on anything. I'm like that too, so maybe that's why I worry.
--There's an arrogance about him and a lack of warmth. Not a big deal, but I just prefer Clinton in that area.
--I'm concerned by his willingness to give "bad" people the benefit of the doubt. Not sure what he can do to change that impression.
Posted by CG at May 12, 2008 04:50 PMHe could adopt John Edwards health care plan, stop parroting GOP talking points about Social Security, stop trashing the Clinton legacy, go to W. Virgina and Kentucky and apologize for the racist nonsense he and his surrogates spread about all non creative class whites, and throw Ayers under the bus like he has everyone else who he has used up and has no need for anymore. Even then while I agree with Turkana that neither Hillary or Barry was even in my top three I will have to hold my nose a lot harder to vote for Barry than for Hillary.
Posted by Gerald at May 12, 2008 04:53 PMie, the white americans comment. by that logic, can i state that she would not win the wh if the african american working class did not vote for her by 90%? its the same damn argument, just reversing the words.
I just have to address this again. Clinton's comment was NOT that only white people are hard-working. (I know that's not what you were saying Anthony) It was an acknowledgment that she doesn't have the African-American vote. She was saying she has the working class vote, then said oops, I mean the white working class vote because obviously she doesn't have the black working class vote. If she had left off "white Americans" there would have been the exact same uproar because people would have said "hey she said she has working class Americans, but she doesn't have the black working class, so what is she saying--that only whites work hard?"
I haven't seen any Obama supporter say why we should vote for Obama. I've asked in several threads, but no one has answered (that I've seen--I don't always catch all the comments.)
Posted by CG at May 12, 2008 05:04 PMCG - because they can't.
My answer to your post question, Turkana, is no Obama supporter I have seen online here has the goods to convince me.
That is up to Obama. It is his job.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 05:25 PMToo late. I'll never vote for him. My position has hardened just recently. The things he would need to do to make me vote for him I know will never happen. For example,
- He could explicitly disavow the anti-white and anti-semitic bigotry of Rev. Wright (and no he did not do this explicitly). But then again, this wouldn't matter because the new Rev. of Trinity Church is just as much a disgusting bigot as Rev. Wright is. And dontcha know, the Obama's still love them some Trinity Church and some black separatism. It was a bitter pill for me to finally swallow, but I did have to accept all this anti-white stuff coming from the Obama's and their campaign.
- He could explicitly disavow the appalling sexism and race-baiting by his surrogates and followers. Oh wait, he's had months and months to do this this, hasn't he?
- He could stop being an arrogant and condescending jerk to people who don't look like him and don't live in urban areas.
I could go on, but you get the point. Never have I seen a more divisive, disgusting campaign in my life. To call this man a champion of change and unity is the height of irony.
Posted by Reality at May 12, 2008 05:25 PMis 'young judith' a troll?
Posted by at May 12, 2008 05:45 PMat - what the hell kind of posting name is "at"?
at what?
and when this board becomes yours let me know.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 06:04 PMUniversal Health Care- and acknowledge that Hillary's been on this issue for 15 years.
Stop with the post-partisan/non-partisan crap. Embrace being a full-blooded Democrat -- instead of appearing embarrassed by it. Embrace, credit, and cheer current and former Dem leaders--including the Clintons.
Abolish No Child Left Behind
Explicitly Promise to protect social security.
Explicitly Promise to serve children's interests.
Explicitly Promise to spurn Bush policies (spying, torture, corporate welfare, etc.)
Tell us his Supreme Court justice potential picks.
He could turn into Al Gore.
Posted by No Blood for Hubris at May 12, 2008 06:14 PMHe could start by explaining exactly what his 'new politics' are about and how he will go about implementing the concept. So far in the campaign, all I've seen is his rehash of the 'old politics' he purportedly laments.
If he wants me to subscribe to 'change I can believe in', then I need to know what his plan for change is is in detail. And yes, this is exactly what I 'need to know'.
But I don't expect I'll hear any answers from the Senator, so the question of 'What will it take' is rather moot.
Posted by Coldblue at May 12, 2008 06:20 PMKind of new to LC (several days)to suggest that this "board" is yours eh 'young Judith'?
Awfully 'concerned'for one who lives under a bridge.
/
1. Stop conflating the B. Clinton and the Bush years.
2. Drop the messiah complex, although this is all he has going for him because his resume is paper thin: "Washington's been broken for a while, both parties are equally culplable, I'm here to save you."
3. Resist the temptation to speak like he's preaching, or like he's MLK reincarnate. This started in February, when he was winning caucuses big. He started dragging his vowels and preaching. He grew up in Hawaii, Kansas, Manhattan, and Cambridge: drop the damned affectation, you're not MLK.
4. Tell Michelle to stop talking to me like she's better than me.
5. Stop triangulating, it's too early for that.
6. Don't tell me you're a green candidate when two years ago you voted for Cheney's windfall energy bill.
7. Don't tell me your gay-friendly after McKlurkin and your refusal to reach out to gay-friendly publications.
8. Don't take me for granted. I don't like you already.
"It is the Obama crowd who says they will not vote for Clinton, not vice-versa."
Excuse me Joanne, but this is what you said. The poll I presented directly refutes your comment and many other polls show that both sides have shown the same unfortunate tendencies....you were wrong in your statement, as I said. you don't have to say so...everyone can see it.
young Judith is not a troll, anon. She's just as welcome to comment as you. At least she's not scared to choose a name, and stick with it...
Posted by iamcoyote at May 12, 2008 06:30 PMthanks iamcoyote.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 06:37 PMJoanne has not been listening to the same exit polls I have heard about. By far more Hillary supporters have said they would not vote for Obama.
In regards to health care, I actually liked Edward’s plan the best. But whatever plan we start with, will not be the plan we end up with. I’m not at all sure that Hillary would be that successful going for the whole thing at once, and I’m concerned that she will keep the process secret again. Obama says he will have the discussions be available for C-span, so that everyone can listen. I think that is a good idea.
Regarding the Middle East, I was horrified at Hillary’s comments about massive retaliation, .. obliterating Iran. Her Iraq vote and that comment make me question her “judgment”, and makes it very hard for me to vote for her. But the idea of McCain and four more years of Bush, of course, is even worse.
I respect that there are others that feel as passionate about Hillary as I am about Obama. I do not respect the campaign that Hillary has run the last few weeks. I am also very concerned her judgment, considering the way she has financially managed her campaign.
I was an Edward's supporter until he dropped out. I saw Hillary at Chicago and went to her breakout session. I have always been a little concerned about the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton…. Dynasty question. And Bill, God bless him, as much as I love him, I don’t think I want him back in the White House.
However, after Chicago I would have been okay with her. After the last six weeks, her behavior, her campaign, have sorely disappointed me. I’m am not okay with her, even though I would vote for her if that was my only option.
If Obama wants my support (as the presumptive nominee) he'll have to put Hillary on the ticket..... They both earned the right (in my mind after a grueling, unprecented primary process) to be our party leaders (PRES, VP)
That will go a long way in assuaging half the party who have supported her campaign -- will strengthen the Dem's chances among women, Latinos and blue collars....Will help with the electoral map as well...
He clearly will not get the Democratic nomination with a "mandate", and in order to prove he can bring "change" to DC he'll have to mend fences in his own party. Its up to HIM, not Hillary, to bring the party together...
Obama supporters need to realize that Hillary's 16+ million voters do count in the fall, and they need to be brought into the process....
It is ironic that at the end of this nomination process our "nominee" will probably end up looking weaker than our runner-up (ie--Hillary)....
Hillary has options....VP....Majority Leader of the Senate....2012...etc.....
It will be a mistake for the Progressives/Obama Movement to disregard the Clinton faction in the Democratic Party...
We'll need to work together every step of the way......
Turkana: "[w]hat does Obama have to do to win your support? "
Well, a forthright and humble apology for all the race-baiting and misogyny that's thus far emanated from both his campaign and his supporters would be a pretty good start -- but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for it.
Posted by Donald from Hawaii at May 12, 2008 07:21 PMFrankly, although I haven't been as unenthusiastic as this about a campaign since Dukakis, what he has to do to get me to vote for him is to be elected the Democratic candidate.
Sadly for the Obama campaign, I'm not (based on all of the elections over the past twenty eight years) in the majority.
Look, Axelrod (David. Obama's message guy. The man who invented him as a politician, at least to hear him tell it) told the New York Times that he was going to have to destroy Hillary Clinton to get the nomination for his guy, which he felt (a moment for a few crocodile tears) real bad about, since the Clintons had pretty much been his main clients since he was a little baby political consultant (he's since rewritten his CV for the purposes of the press to become someone who made his bones representing african american candidates, presumably like Rahm Emanuel and Mayor Daley, whose Axelrod-run campaigns were not particularly congenial to african-american politicians in Chicago).
Obama feels as if this is what he has to do to win, and he's got a politician's hubris, so he figures that his winning is important enough that whatever it takes is a small price to pay.
Fine. He's a politician. That's what they do.
However. Now that Axelrod's proved that he can kick Mark Penn's ass, it's time for Obama to show a little leadership.
There is a huge, very angry constituency for beating the Republicans. For strategic reasons, Senator Obama has sat back and watched a large chunk of that constituency be treated by people at least as closely aligned with his campaign than the people she's been held to account for dismiss people who aren't voting for him as too stupid to vote for him. There's been a battening onto Republican talking points if they hurt her. There's been the suggestion that his voters won't vote for her not only from his campaign, but from him and from his wife.
I'm sure any even vaguely interested person could come up with instances of her supporters doing equally bad things.
Thing is, the question being asked isn't what she can do to get his voters, since apparently his campaign was mistaken about his voters' unwillingness to vote for her. The question is what he can do to get the votes of people who support her. He's the one who has to make the decision if he's the candidate. He's the one who has to win.
You know what, though? If you're going to demand for the good of the country and the world that people who have been made collateral damage of your campaign hold their noses and vote for you, it's a really, really bad move to announce - in high dudgeon - that you're not willing to hold your nose and invite them into the fight for the general as if you want them to be there.
Now. Personally, given my druthers, I'd sleep til next spring, as this primary campaign has been as disgusting a spectacle of promise thrown away as I've seen in a long, long time. Can't do it. The Supreme Court is in the balance, as well as pretty much the fate of the world if we don't turn global warming around, just to name two issues.
But you don't have to convince me. You have to convince women with kids and minimum wage jobs and no healthcare in right-to-work states who've been hearing about how their lack of a college degree means that they don't understand the real issues as clearly as people with internet connections and a bunch of free time.
The Republicans have yellow dogs too, and Obama's not going to get them. He needs Independents and Democrats. Not all of those are people one would dine with.
The question is, would he, his campaign manage,r and his supporters rather lay the smackdown on people who disagree with them or would they rather he be president.
Posted by julia at May 12, 2008 08:03 PMJulia - that was one kick-ass post.
Posted by the young Judith at May 12, 2008 08:12 PMI'd like to know if the VP for Hillary would win all her supporters over for Obama.
Posted by Brian at May 12, 2008 08:44 PMHillary has been running as Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
Obama has been running as a 3rd-party candidate within the Democratic party, arguing (in a critical election year) that the party's needs to be
dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.
"You go into an election with the party you have..."
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 08:52 PMHillary has been running as Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
Obama has been running as a 3rd-party candidate within the Democratic party, arguing (in a critical election year) that the party needs to be
dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.
"You go into an election with the party you have..."
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 08:53 PMsorry for the double post.
Posted by garak at May 12, 2008 08:56 PMHow Obama Lost My Vote (and May Have Proceeded to Make it Permanent)
By the time of the Texas primary, we had two contenders left in the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination for POTUS. I read the local paper, listened to NPR, subscribed to Time magazine and somehow, I still was not sure who to vote for. My local paper endorsed Senator Obama. Then I began to notice what I felt was skewed reporting.
It shook me up to think that Bill Clinton could be a racist. I knew that Hillary had some major image issues because she was a very assertive First Lady that did not hesitate to challenge the status quo or run off at the mouth, err, uh, I mean, express her opinions. (Hey, Michelle, why do you hate her so much? She blazed a trail for you, sweetheart.) The rehashing of the attacks on her character felt like I was transported back to the 1990’s. I was feeling manipulated and lied to.
Now, you have to understand the mind of a woman like me. There are many of us… we see the games frat boys play and we are just not that into you. We know how you treat the smart girls and how you play nice to get them to help you out and then wham… (insert betrayal and personal derision here or use mine) they dump you and call you a whore. Now, I hope that many of you get the picture I am attempting to illustrate.
I decided that I needed to learn more. It took time and diligence on my part because my local paper and the news channel pundits were talking about how Obama was the second coming or something. When a pundit to says things such as “when he speaks, I get a chill up my leg” it makes me wonder where objectivity went.
Obama would like me to believe that he is the face of new politics, above “division” and “secretiveness”, above “character assassinations” and “dirty politics” (wink, wink). Because of this, he will unite the country and he will work across the aisle to get things done. He is the man that will fix America because “we” are so messed up (that “we” does not mean you, as you were powerless before Obama came to town, now that he is here, yes we can…). He will bring the change I can believe in. He will tell me hard truths. He will not compromise his character by taking money from lobbyists or big business. He is ethical and wise, because he sees the error of our ways in America. He will salvage our bad reputation around the world and he will deliver peace to the Middle East. He will not pander to me, or lie, because, he is above all of those dirty tricks. This excellent leadership is in his DNA, it is a force of nature.
So, onto the internet I went, searching for answers to my questions. What is the background of these candidates, what does their history and accomplishments tell me about their dedication to the issues I care about. How closely does their walk fit their talk? To be honest, I did know more about Hillary, and it was hard to find blogs and news sources that I felt were objective about her. Hillary hate was even attached to the menu of the YouTube videos on her site for awhile, (maybe she had us old-timers working for her in that department). I think she learned how to overcome that gap of covering your butt against a relentless attack machine in the YouTube world however….
Then we have pundits that appear to work for Obama (Come on, Dick Morris, an advisor to Odinga as a source of credible information on Hillary? He is on a slash and burn campaign…, he behaves so spitefully the hate is palpable. Get over it Dick, I’m not that into you (even though I do prefer men). So you did not get the promotion you wanted, stop acting like a jilted lover, OK?)
My quest became one to find out more about Obama. It was hard to track down much on him. His supporters are very savvy in the ways of the internet… So, I at least understood that to know what I had to do to get more information, use creative language… like, Obama sucks. Jackpot!!!
Slowly, information that was from what I felt was a credible source but not carried widely surfaced. The first article I found confirmed what my gut was telling me, Obama’s record of working across the aisle and being the leader that unites the partisan logjam was weak. OK, Clinton wins my vote, thinking that their stances on the issues were similar. I began to get information that confirmed my gut feelings. Obama was not the man he is trying to tell me he is. I keep searching and find the Test Your Obama IQ from the Chicago Tribune. I failed the test, but what I learned was that he was a politician, and not above political maneuvering and deceit. His treatment of Alice Palmer made me really question his character.
Next, I learned about his church, before the sound bites and media coverage. When I visited Trinity’s UCC web site (which has been scrubbed since), I was amazed that a man who wanted to run for POTUS attended this church. To me, the ideology is fine for a black person trying to find his way in the world, but it is not OK for a potential POTUS. The POTUS has to be above this kind of divisive thinking. I have no problems with black churches, I feel that many are a source of comfort and strength to people that have endured hardships because of the color of their skin. I feel ashamed that racism exists in the world. However, I am also a product of a single mother raising four children on her own. I was the cracker in the projects, so, please, do not tell me that I do not know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of your skin color. I was a blue eyed blonde cracker, and I was spit on and told I was ugly (and worse) because of it. Do my experiences make me a racist? I don’t think so. I understand the anger, but I do not believe it is correct thinking.
With my computer sleuthing, I discovered blogs. I have been a busy mom and never had the inclination or time to explore this world. What a hair raising experience this was for me… I thought that being circled by the kids in junior high and having rocks and spit thrown at me was tough, this was just as bad. This abuse came from a different source however, it came from “progressives” of the “creative class”. Many of these same people threaten to riot at the Democratic convention if the nomination is “stolen” from Obama. These people had the audacity to call me a racist for being a Hillary supporter. That will take some time to for me to forgive… I did not name call on my posts, just asked questions and tried to make my points… what I got in return were hateful and condescending missives.
That idea brings me to another point that makes it impossible for me to pull the lever for Obama. I am a Texan, and I know the two step process, it used to be a friendly gathering of dedicated Democrats that live next door to each other. They would work together and form a consensus on how we would send delegates to the Senate Convention and then to the State Convention… It was changed up this year. Never in the history of a caucus here has there been such a turn out. Were the precincts prepared? Hell no. Were they run smoothly and legally? I guess that depends on which lens you choose to look through… Texas gives you a perfect example of why caucuses are unreliable as an indicator of how you will win in a GE vote. Hillary won the popular vote, Obama won the caucus… Hmm. That is another story, but my experiences at my Precinct and Senate Conventions stiffened my resolve to never vote for this man.
This is enough for today… there are more plenty more reasons that I have to not vote for Obama as POTUS. They are related to his waffling stance on issues, his associations, judgment and his character… his walk vs. his talk. I just scratched the tip of the iceberg here…
The burden is on Obama and his surrogates to heal the wounds. If he wins the nomination, he will need Bill, Hillary, and all the rest of us if he hopes to win in November. Whether Obama approved it or was even aware of it, Obama's campaign spent the last year tearing apart the only Democrat who won two Presidential elections in the last 28 years...the only Democrat to leave the White HOuse with the country in better shape then when he took office since Truman. Obama's campaign must do whatever it takes to extend the olive branch and win over the Clintons and the base of the party. I would not be able to vote for Obama unless he seriously offers VP to Hillary, adopts her health insurance plan, and drops all the whole hope b.s...I too want a fighter..someone who realizes that some things are worth fighting far...someone who recognizes that those fights in the 90's were why we are Democrats.
Posted by Craig in IL at May 12, 2008 09:57 PMIf Obama came out with a Manhattan Project for new nuclear power plants, I'd vote for him.
10 years: No Middle East oil. That's about 2.5 million barrels a day. It's about national security and providing affordable energy to Americans.
If Obama doesn't do that, then I'm voting for McCain.
Posted by Muck at May 12, 2008 10:09 PM"But I have a short, simple question for those Clinton supporters who are considering not voting for Obama, should Obama become the party's nominee: what does Obama have to do to win your support?"
Here is my four point program:
1. Obama must confess that the Obama Team deliberately leveled false accusations of racism against the Clintons in order to secure the black vote, which previously favored Hillary.
2. Obama must explicitly condemn Markos Moulitsas, and must condemn the politics of hate found on Democratic Underground and other blogs.
3. Obama must apologize for his (and Michelle's) previous associations with the Rezko/Daley corruption machine. Furthermore, he should approach Patrick Fitzgerald and deliver evidence against his former cronies.
4. Obama must dissociate himself entirely from Austan Goolsbee and Jeff Liebman. He must abjure any association with any economist associate in any way with either the Cato Institute or Milton Friedmanism.
All four conditions must be met -- without exception or compromise -- for me to vote for Obama again. (I foolishly supported him in the California primary.)
If Hillary is not the nominee, I would prefer a McCain presidency. The economy is going to tank anyways; the Depression might as well occur on a Republican's watch.
Posted by Joseph Cannon at May 12, 2008 10:30 PM"But I have a short, simple question for those Clinton supporters who are considering not voting for Obama, should Obama become the party's nominee: what does Obama have to do to win your support?"
1. ANYTHING liberal, progressive, Democratic, leftist -- starting with not lying that Social Security is in a crisis, as the Repubs do.
2. A repudiation of his statement that Republicans are the party of ideas (implying good ideas) -- otherwise, why is he a Dem?
3. An explanation of his non-partisan philosphy. Why should I want to unite with Repubs when their policies and programs are not in the best interests of the common working people. The Dems have been compromising and capitulating to the Repubs forever. How is that change?
hey cg,
it was late here when i wrote my last post.
what gets me is the mc cain media treatment hrc gets here. obama was butchered for his bitter comments, the rev. wright fiasco, and any other perceived misogynistic comment he made, yet for her white american gaffe, his campaign is silent. where is it on this blog, equal coverage of coe? or how is it that his answering a question in san fran about why he is not getting the vote from a particular demographic elitist? attending schools on scholarships, just now paying off school loans, being raised with food stamps, makes it difficult to accept the 'elitist,' tag, placed on him by the msm, hrc, and mc cain.
why to vote for obama?
he is new to the process.
i have a bias for folks who lived overseas, it colors their world view a bit.
paid off school loans.
lived on food stamps.
had a single mother.
goes to church, but believes in the sep of church and state.
he is less polarizing than hrc.
his message is consistent from state to state,
i reference michelle norris' again here.
he motivates.
the is anti-establishment, not lock step with the dino's of the party.
i am hard pressed to find exactly where he called hrc or bill racist or made sexist comments toward hrc. would appreciate you pointing that out to me. not surrogates, but him.
someone above mentioned wanting blood from the repub party, i do also, but that mentality will get nothing through congress.
he plans to investigate the current admin.
20 yrs of community organization.
he knows the constitution.
he is an orator. and yes, sometimes being an orator is a needful trait.
i don't believe in garnishing wages to pay for health care (i acknowledge it is dead in the water, per congress)
looking for long term solutions to the energy crisis.
calling out for personal responsibility in the black community.
challenging us to be our brother's keeper (biblical that)
it is well documented above that he has the onus work to heal the party. i challenge hrc to do the same, as she is just as responsible for this mess. up to 50% of her supporters will either vote mc cain or stay home.
obama supporters are accused being unreasonable, cultists, etc. hasn't hrc's supporters enaged in the same?
I'm one of those who have decided to walk away if Obama is the nominee, not only will I not vote for him, but I have decided to leave the Democratic party. This was not an easy decision for me, I've been a registered Democrat for 33 years. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because I feel that the DNC had overstepped their bounds in showing unending support for Obama, while doing everything they could do to sink Hillary Clinton. When I think of all that the Clinton's have done for this party and for the AA Community, it makes me ill to see them torn down like they have been.
I believe that Howard Dean has been blinded by the money that he thought Obama would bring to the party. Registrations are high, but I don't believe they are high because Obama brought them in, they are high because of the failures of Bush and the country's desire to make sure that the Republican party could no longer be in power. That said, what Howard Dean has not counted on is the number of Hillary supporters who feel they have been taken for granted will walk away...they will not donate (I've been contacted numerous times from the DNC looking for donations, which I will not give).
Obama, with his message of unity did just the thing Bush has done, he divided our party and our country. His race baiting has brought our country back 50 or more years.
I did not vote for Obama to be my Senator in Illinois because I looked carefully into his career before running. I saw him as an opportunist then, as I do now. He wants to be President for one reason only, his own power. He has no ideas of his own, he lacks good moral judgment-which is obvious by the people he surrounds himself with, people he calls "mentors", and he will lie right to the American people's faces with impunity. He's been allowed to do this by the press, and by our own party.
If the contest had come down to any other person besides Obama/Clinton...say, Biden/Clinton or Edwards/Clinton, I could have easily said that I would take either one and stay with the party nominee. Not this time, not the way this campaign was run by the media and the DNC.
Personally, I hope that if Obama is the nominee that he will lose. As bad as some think that McCain is, I don't think he is as incompetent or as dangerous as Barack Obama. This will also teach the DNC a lesson---you don't stick it to your base in order to bring in new members.
Can someone convince me otherwise? It would take a miracle of epic proportions.
Posted by Mary Ellen at May 13, 2008 06:40 AMObama is poison for the party. He is the old Mondale coalition, the coalition that constantly loses for Democrats. He will not maintain support. He will ultimately alienate working class voters. Young voters may boost him for one cycle, but they will go back to historical patterns. The question isn't whether, but when, his support will erode. I'd rather have it erode before than after the election.
This view is most eloquently stated on this blog:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/
The party is in a no-win situation. An Obama presidency, in my view, is worse than an Obama defeat. The Carter presidency ushered in the Reagan era. Whoever is in the White House will have the unpleasantness of finishing the Iraq saga. It won't be pretty, or in the end, popular. The Republicans are good at being a minority party, and will block most of Obama's major initiatives, making Obama an extremely weak president with a job too big for him and his experience. If the weaknesses in the economy persist, Obama will be blamed as much as Bush.
The Republicans are so badly on the ropes that Obama may win, but it isn't a worthwhile victory. In the long run, it's probably worse than a defeat.
I'm done with the Obama folks. They are the same people who lead the Democrats to defeat, again and again. I'm not going to even lift a finger to save this miserable wreck of a party this time. I've watched this too many times. I'll work for a Democratic victory after the end of a failed McCain presidency.
I say this without any animosity towards Obama as a person. He's just the wrong guy for the job, backed by the wrong guys.
I'm sitting this one out.
Posted by Kanzeon at May 13, 2008 07:05 AMWow, there were some really good posts here. Many of them mirror the ones I outlined in a long comment to Paradox's "What kind of Party" nonsense. There were some new ones.
Turkana, are you going to synthesize the responses? That would be an interesting post with your analysis.
Posted by SeaMBA at May 13, 2008 07:13 AMI thought of some place Obama could start -- he could debate Clinton and win.
Posted by SeaMBA at May 13, 2008 07:33 AM"I'd like to know if the VP for Hillary would win all her supporters over for Obama."
___________________________
My personal answer? HELL NO!!
In General: A more qualified woman with an amazing intellect is supposed to take the back seat to a less qualified newbie who has little but charisma, media fawning, and his obnoxious, bullying supporters to go on?
In Specific: Hillary Clinton, who has been personally eviscerated, smeared as a racist, and bullied out of the primary by the Obama campaign, is now supposed to suck it up it and help The Precious actually win because he can't do it on his own?
Obama, his campaign, and his disgusting blog supporters can kiss my ass! I only wish Hillary would stand up and say the same thing. It is an insult to think that saying she is OK to be VP *NOW* would ameliorate the rage about how she has been treated thus far.
I've been a lurker here for some time now but this thread begs me to answer. I also cannot vote for Obama. I've thought long and hard about the inevitability of HRC (my senator)losing the nomination but am firm in my resolve to sit this presidential election out. I will vote for the other Democrats running in my local races but I cannot vote for someone I feel is unqualified to be our POTUS.
While I was angered by the work of the Swift Vets and POW'ers For Truth in 2004, this year I will be mildly amused when groups like these start their "work" on Obama. Let's see what Axelrod and company do then.
Posted by simpleton at May 13, 2008 08:02 AMMy buddy Mike at LEFT is RIGHT, who is an ardent Hillary supporter, and was a delegate to the CA Democratic Convention said this:
Any Hillary or Barack supporters who say that they'd rather vote for McCain than the other Democrat are truly ignorant and/or too lazy to spend any time finding out about any of the candidates. These are the selfish people who would rather use their tiny bit of voting power to make a personal point at the jeopardy of the nation than be objective and compassionate towards their fellow countrymen. I find these people to be despicable and undeserving of the right to vote. They really make my blood boil.
My sentiments exactly!
I realize that there are Obama supporters who are appalled and outraged that anyone could fail to comprehend the wondrousness of the Chosen One, and I realize there are Clinton supporters who will never sell their souls by voting for the Evil One, but I want to hear from the sane and the rational.
Turkana, You do realize by calling Obama the "Chosen One" and "Evil One" it became a poor way to solicit an honest response from Obama supporters. But then you really only wanted to hear from the outraged Hillary screamers anyway, right?
What can you Obama supporters say, in response, to convince these Clinton supporters that Obama is a worthy consolation candidate?
If you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters don't want a "consolation candidate".
Posted by Seven of Six at May 13, 2008 08:48 AMHillary should never allow herself to be demeaned by being VP to that fraudulent empty suit. Especially after what he did to her and Bill. Why, so she can do all the work while he gets all the credit? So she can provide on-the-job training to a less qualified candidate for the job that was promoted ahead of the more qualified one? No way. Even if he did offer--and I doubt he would, or that she would accept--no, I wouldn't vote for him. Nor would I do so if he chose some unqualified hack who just happens to be female. McCaskill? Don't make me laugh.
Posted by DancingOpossum at May 13, 2008 08:49 AMSeven of Six:
That sort of arrogance is exactly why Democrats lose.
Suggesting that anyone is just too stupid and lazy to be entrusted with a basic human right because they disagree with you is beyond offensive.
Posted by Kanzeon at May 13, 2008 09:13 AMHillary is a hawk who voted for the Iraq war resolution and the Kyl Liberman Bomb Bomb Iran. Turkana forgot?????? Yep she is getting ready for Kyl Liberman, said so last week when she warned Iran that she would nuke them. Yep Hill is a peace maker just read her lips.
Stop this insanity helping McCain hurts the Democratic Nominee.
That sort of arrogance is exactly why Democrats lose.
And your sort of ignorance "is exactly why Democrats lose". If you're truly a Democrat?
Oh, damn the bad luck! What, we have lost 25 loser voters here?
There is a good article in Salon today about WV voters which bears out my contention that Obama is going to have big problems in the GE. Obama supporters refuse to concede that electing a black man, as good as he is, will be difficult. I will certainly vote for him over the terrible McCain, but it is naive to think that we live in a "post-racial" country. The racial animosity just happens to be more covert.
Posted by joanne at May 13, 2008 10:25 AMThe racial animosity just happens to be more covert.
Go ahead joanne, you can say it, "CRACKER!"
I think Obama is a corporate/mob-linked trojan horse. Nothing could make that clearer than the way the corporate media is trying to shove him down our throats. But I have other reasons for thinking this. Obama says whatever he needs to say. He changes his story whenever convenient. He uses the words of others, including their inflections and even pauses. He steals policies and even jokes from others (see the many Youtube videos available on this topic). He is a total fraud. But he’s charismatic and, of course, can use identity politics to discredit his critics. Yet he will abandon the progressive agenda once he wins. He’s never really stood up for or accomplished anything-except for voting for (for instance) giving the oil companies a huge tax break in 2005 (and then accusing Clinton and McCain of being in the pockets of the oil cos. in 2008, even though they both voted against that bill. He was for universal one payer health insurance when he was running for the U.S. Senate (see video on YouTube) before he was against it and before he ran “Harry and Louise” ads that were identical ( including the clothing of the actors) to the ads used by Big Pharm to kill Hillary’s universal health care plan in the 90s. He wanted to discredit Hillary’s new plan which requires mandates, which the insurance companies hate. The Wall Street Journal (Monday May 5, 2008 front page) has an article titled “Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight.” This article explains why the Teamsters are backing him. He wants to do away with an independent review board “set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.” Then there’s his support for Blackwater. Says he sees no reason to oppose them and his support for Supreme Court Justice Roberts, seeing no problem with him and not wanting to keep Supreme Court Justices off the court simply for “ideological reasons.” He only voted no on Roberts because his political advisor told him it wouldn’t fly in the Dem. Primary (this was on Obama’s own website).
Then there is the misogyny of the media and Obama’s followers. He has a very thin skin when it comes to accusing his critics of racism (an absurd charge against the Clintons), but never bothers to stop his followers online or the MSM (especially MSNBC -”the all Obama all the time network”) from making horribly misogynist comments. They call Hillary a bitch, a cunt, a “Fucking Whore,” and that’s okay. Well, guess what? There are millions of women in this country who will not vote for Obama just for this reason alone. We take this personally and our response to the MSM and the DNC, for that matter, this November, will be loud and clear.
I will vote for McCain rather than this fraud. If I’m going to have a Republican in the White House, I’d rather have a real one than one pretending to be a Democrat, whose policies (solving the “social security crisis” anyone?) are no different from those of GW Bush. Our party is being taken over and, if this happens, then Nader is right. There will truly be no difference between the corporate owned parties and all third parties and progressive policies will be shut out.
How anyone can delude themselves that this guy is a progressive is beyond me.
When the corporate media blatantly takes sides, you can rest assured that the public interest is not what they care about.
Seven of Six:
It probably isn't worth debating the point. It's obvious to most people who don't post on blogs.
It isn't necessary to demean or hate people, or decide they are ignorant, just because they have a different opinion. Tens of millions of people voted for Bush. I only know a few personally who did, and they aren't ignorant or unworthy of the vote. Some of them are religious; others have fairly educated views about economics, who believe sincerely in deregulation, and can argue quite well for it.
I have no problem with you, or anyone else arguing that aiding McCain is severely at odds with Democratic values. But the Democratic party has had problems with long time Democrats switching parties in the past. Those voters aren't dumb, or evil. I'm sure some of them are as smart as you are or as "informed" (informed seems to mean obsessively tracking stupid horserace posts on blogs, to learn today's smear against x, y, or z - I find very few people who could actually explain both sides of policy positions beyond sound bites) - but that's the way of democracy.
I'm just not big on intolerance towards anyone. Most people aren't. However, people who are passively involved in politics frequently have the sort of personalities who need to hate, demean, or belittle everyone who doesn't think they way they do - simply because that person might not be wasting as much time on the internet or reading the same partisan drivel.
But, as I said, I'm done with our exchange.
Posted by Kanzeon at May 13, 2008 10:45 AM"Hillary is a hawk who voted for the Iraq war resolution and the Kyl Liberman Bomb Bomb Iran. Turkana forgot?????? Yep she is getting ready for Kyl Liberman, said so last week when she warned Iran that she would nuke them. Yep Hill is a peace maker just read her lips."
Yes, Hillary is a militaristic hawk who has never met a military action she did not love - just look at her record.
Hillary Clinton did not stop supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq until well into the campaign when it became clear that she needed to change her position if she wanted to have any hope of winning the nomination.
Hillary Clinton's hands are soaked in Iraqi blood going back to BEFORE her days as First Lady. As First Lady she whole heartedly supported her husband's policy of regime change by genocide and regularly cheered on her husband's regular bombings, including two major bombing campaigns against Iraqi neighborhoods.
As one of the biggest cheer leaders for Israel's habitual war crimes, Hillary Clinton's hands are also soaked in the blood of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese women and children.
As for Obama, his much-touted initial refusal to support the aggression against Iraq didn't last long, did it? His voting record in that regard is virtually identical to Hillary's. He has also stated on more than one occasion that had he actually been a member of the Senate at the time he likely would have voted just as she did on the bill to authorize the invasion.
He has virtually the same non-withdrawal "withdrawal" plan for Iraq as Hillary's, and virtually the same deceptive campaign sound bytes about it. Just as she does, he intends to continue the occupation and political and economic domination of Iraq indefinitely. For the foreseeable future he will maintain tens of thousands of troops there, including combat troops, against the will of 80% of the Iraqi people - to bring them freedom and democracy, of course.
He conveniently ducked out of the Kyl-Lieberman vote, thus skillfully avoiding going on record either way, as he has done habitually on potentially "controversial" issues ever since his days in the Illinois State Senate. However, he has been quite clear regarding his willingness to use military violence, including unilaterally against the sovereign territory of allies who do not - or for completely legitimate domestic reasons cannot - adequately comply with U.S. desires.
And in a "ground breaking" major foreign policy speech a year or so ago he exposed the most astonishingly blindly ignorant Bush Regime-esque explanation for and plan to improve America's ghastly image in the Arab and Muslim worlds! You see, boyz and girlz, the reason public opinion of America is so terrible among that part of humanity is simple - they are hearing about America only from America's enemies. Therefore, the answer is - are you ready?! - a gigantic, multi-faceted, carefully coordinated P.R. CAMPAIGN! See HE KNOWS that the problem is not with the product, it's strictly with the packaging. Put a pound of shit in a glossy embossed gold box, put a fancy ribbon around it, and the natives in the Middle East really WILL believe it's a pound of fine chocolates. See, that way you don't have to change your policies, you don't have to change the way to treat people, you just have to tell them how wonderful you are, and what great things you are doing for them, and overnight they'll start thinking you are a gift from the heavens.
Gosh - maybe he could establish an Arabic language satellite TV channel and fill it with pro-American lies - ummm, propaganda - ummm, programming. He could call it Al Hurra (the free one). He could also start a slick, expensive Arabic language youth magazine that no one will read. He could put out a series of slick TV spots showing gleefully grinning Arab and Muslim-Americans talking about how beautifully they are treated by the United States. Oh, wait - didn't George Bush do all that? Gee, didn't work too well for Georgie and the Neo Cons, did it? So, why does Barry think it will work for him?!
Barry, Hillary, Hillary, Barry........... Can I vote for None of the Above, please?
Posted by Shirin at May 13, 2008 10:46 AMI'm just not big on intolerance towards anyone.
I guess I'm a hypocrite: I'm intolerant of intolerance! And will call 'em when I see 'em.
Being a Hispanic in the police state of AZ will do wonders for your attitude!
Just so you feel better, my sisters are conservatives. I don't hate them, just their views. But I will never agree with them, ever, for their party breeds injustice for all.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 13, 2008 11:10 AMHe could start by changing his campaign's logo, the O with the waves in it... I have a visceral reaction against it now that I've seen his supporters' behavior while they are emblazened with it (as well as A&F logos!)... like the dumb college kids here in DC intimidating passersby and yelling in people's faces... or that woman heckling Clinton at a speech. Etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I'd also like to hear what Hope and Change mean, exactly. What's his signature issue? His top priority? And don't tell me to go read his website with a bunch of position papers he didn't write, please.
Posted by Seth at May 13, 2008 12:05 PMI began this primary season supporting Clinton because I am SO ready for a female president. Demographically I am in her "group" - white, 50's, female. I completely supported her all the way up to Super Tuesday. This is what changed my mind. The goalposts started to move. Certain states counted, others didn't. She reneged on the Florida and Michigan promise. At first I considered this politics as usual, but then Bosnia happened. I didn't like the new tone of her campaign. I held her to a higher standard, not because she is a woman, but because she was a Clinton and I was always a huge supporter of them.
Maybe that's not fair, but it was one of her own strong arguments for supporting her - the Clinton factor. I moved to Obama because of the way he managed his campaign. I am thrilled with the way new young voters are taking their country and responsibility to vote seriously. While some may have considered it a "cult" I saw it as a movement, slowing picking up steam. I don't think their positions were that far apart and would have voted for either in the general, but you have to choose one. She lost me with the negativity. She is a strong, intelligent and very capable woman and would have made a good president. Unfortunately it came with too much baggage.