A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?
First the Obama campaign successfully shut down any resistance from the Clintons by succeeding in getting them tagged in the Clinton-loathing media as ‘racist’ or, at least, ‘racist-like‘. (i.e., racist if you ignore the actual meaning of the word ‘racist,’ plus all known facts about Clinton and ignore common sense and the plain meaning of her remark.)
Once the obstreperous pit bull Bill Clinton was muzzled (as I concede he needed to be), Obama’s campaign proceeded to—how shall I put this?—creatively reframe Hillary’s health care package, his own relationship to corporate money, and Hillary’s stance on various issues. Not only did Obama not step in to prevent his supporters’ use of right-wing style slur tactics against Hillary, but his wife went on Good Morning America to say that she just wasn’t all that sure that she’d be able to bring herself to support Hillary if Hillary got the nomination. Yep, that’s what she said. And that’s how the ‘Clinton rules‘ work: one rule for Bill and Hillary, another for whoever is on the opposite side of the fence. FOR NOW.
Then Obama’s impassioned supporters jumped into the fray. Look under any Hillary-friendly or Obama-skeptical blog post by a fellow Dem and you’ll find them there in the comments, getting the drift but missing the point and snapping like crocodiles at any question about the appropriateness of making Obama our candidate before we’ve had more time to get to know him or the media, more time to vet him.
Do you wonder, as I do, how people got the idea that this relative newcomer to national politics has the credentials, experience, and other requisites for cleaning up after George W. Bush? Saying so is a sure recipe, as I’ve found, for getting called a fool, a moron, an idiot, amoral, brain-washed, a Hillary shill, a tool of the Clinton establishment, and a tool.
If I raise questions (because the questions are definitely are out there), I’m accused of ‘stirring the mud’ (as if you could stir mud if it the mud wasn’t there in the first place) or of ‘innuendo.’ Obama supporters seem to think that it’s unfair to bring up allegations that are out there if I can’t personally prove they are true. Of course, my point isn’t that they are true, but that they are out there. So far the media’s given him the same sort of pass they used to give to George Bush. What happens when the honeymoon ends?
Meanwhile, not one supporter has risen to the challenge of telling me—if I’m stuck with Obama, I really need to know—what superior or equivalent credentials or experience they can cite to indicate that he is currently better qualified than Hillary to be the Chief Executive of the United States.
Most of them try to lecture me about Hillary—me!—arguing, with a sublime disregard for logic, common sense, or the facts, that her qualifications and experience aren’t any greater than Obama’s, or not enough greater to matter, in light of his ‘charisma’ and his (their faith in him ensures) pure, untarnished record.
Most say they don’t care about credentials or think his credentials are sufficient. They like Obama; and that’s all that matters. I like him too, or till recently I did, but they… they ‘LIKE him like him’, as the kids say. And if you say you don’t, they’re all up in your face, demanding that you step outside so they can administer a moral drubbing.
Moreover, they don’t think his voting record in Illinois shows anything important about him, such as an alleged unwillingness to take a clear position on hard issues that might render him less, you know, ‘electable.’ (No, don’t tell me your rationalizations again—I’ve heard them all, and remain skeptical.)
Yeah, Hillary’s made mistakes. But that’s because she’s made hard choices.
I understand why Obama’s supporters love Obama. It’s the same reason Republicans used to love George W. Bush. He represents, or seems to represent, our image of what a perfect Democrat should be. They’re sick of being on the defensive and of defending the Clintons. Why not vote for the candidate they really like?
True, Hillary doesn’t have Obama’s much-touted ‘charisma.’ I don’t care. I distrust charisma. It’s an aura, a glamour, a trick of the light, too often taken for the outward and visible sign for an inner and invisible grace. Those who compare his candidacy, apparently unconscious of the irony, with JFK’s and Reagan’s have got it exactly right.
Meanwhile, those of us who have supported Hillary have done so for exactly the reasons that Obama’s fan base derides her. She is tough, a bit battered by hard experience, hardened to being disliked, a little soiled by her mistakes, persistent, politically astute, intellectually flexible, wary, wiley, and all the things that her critics take for insults but which are really the constituents of the ability to make realistic judgments and politic (as opposed to popular) decisions.
As Obama himself put it, she’s ‘likable enough,’ but the charm that we hear about isn’t generally on display when she’s campaigning, partly—of course—because any sign of her femininity draws her a whole different set of rebukes ‘n ridicule.
I believe she’d make the tough calls that these dangerous times require and that she’ll already recognize the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t' component of 44′s job. It’s going to be a long, hard slog picking up after Bush. Not much glamour or glory in it and therefore, not a job for a glamorous and glorious candidate, I’d argue. Our next candidate needs to be a determined, stoical, and experienced one who is inured to being blamed.
In any case, the US presidency isn’t the election for president of the senior class. It shouldn’t be merely a popularity contest.
Is Obama up to the job? Yes, his supporters say. They ‘know’ this because he has inspired them to believe it. Maybe they’re right. But I remain skeptical.
Of course, there is a bright side: his ascendancy is apparently pleasing to the Hillary-fearing right-wing pundits. (Obviously, it’s because they too are under Obama’s spell and want him to be president, am I right?) It’s nice, I guess, that he has the ability to make even the right wing do the right-wing happy dance. And he made a thrill run up Chris Matthews leg (good for Tweety; I’m so pleased he’s found another politiican to love).
So anyway: Obama. Is he as wonderful as he seems? Perhaps. Forgive me if I don’t take it on faith. For one thing, I am entirely offended that he has sat by while his campaign and his supporters use every tried and true right-wing tactic to undermine and deride Hillary—-and, by extension, her supporters.
Now I’m told he’s apparently “on track to make his case” that the party should ‘coalesce’ around his candidacy.
So now what, my fellow Dems? What are you going to do now? Because it’s not just me. Hillary supporters across the country are beginning to express their outrage at the way that Hillary’s been treated—not just in the media (we’ve come to expect this) but by other Democrats.
Three weeks ago most of us would have said we didn’t really care which one got the nomination or were on the fence. I certainly was. A couple or few weeks ago, it took me 25 minutes to choose between Hillary and Obama. I really wanted Edwards. I hadn’t looked into either of the others. I didn’t really want to take sides.
But then the fence on which we fence-sitters were still sitting—”after all, we’ve got two great candidates,” we said to ourselves— got blasted out from under us by the shocking tone of the attacks on Hillary and on those of us who supported her by the anti-Hillary contingent of our very own party.
Many Democrats will be waiting to see how the Obama camp goes about mending their fences, assuming the fences can be mended. "McCain isn’t that bad, except for the war thing," mused one of my friends—previously very well-disposed toward Obama, as I and my co-bloggers used to be. "Maybe it would be better to let the Republicans clean up Bush’s mess."
I realize that the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that we’ll turn out to vote for Obama anyway. He and his campaign advisors certainly seem to assume that they’ll have the support of the whole party no matter what they or their ‘surrogates’ do or say.
Oh, really?
Here’s what Ms. Obama said when she was asked on Good Morning America if she’d vote for Hillary if Hillary got the nomination.
ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats [Obama], becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?
OBAMA: I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone. (The Huffington Post)
Good idea. I’ll have to think equally hard if Obama gets the nomination. Shall I vote for McCain? Nah. But I can stay home.
Or I can write in ‘Hillary Clinton’ or ‘John Edwards.’ After all, I’ve been pretty turned off by the ‘tone’ and ‘approach’ of the Obama campaign.
Or—depending on how Obama handles the alienation of a good portion of the party—I can vote for Obama.
Perhaps you think it doesn’t matter. Sure, he can do without my one vote. But what about other, equally outraged Hillary supporters? Does he think he’ll win without any of us us? We’ll see.
We’ll also see how many supporters ‘help’ Obama by responding to this post by telling me—again—"You’re don’t DESERVE to vote for Obama!" "You’re too STUPID to vote for Obama!" Such a persuasive tactic. I’m always moved by that one.
If Obama gets the nomination, defeating the very powerful Senator from New York many of his supporters are pleased to refer to as ‘Bill Clinton’s wife,’ what then, Obama campaign and my other fellow Dems? What then?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
96 Responses to “A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?”
“It would be harder for McCain to get Dem votes if the BO and HC supporters would stop going after each other.”
This could be true, so I think the pot should be further stirred………….
“I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century,” the Illinois senator said.
“… It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One,” he added.
Thank you for finally putting my feelings into words!! I'm a Clinton supporter and I'm thoroughly insulted by the whole way this is being handled. The media characterizes it as Obama's insipration against the Clinton machine. I've never been contacted by anyone, I just think she's the better candidate.
I'll take you one further Damozel, if Obama's the nominee, I will vote for McCain in the fall. I'm a 39 years old, liberal gay lifelong Democrat from New Jersey who has voted for every Democratic candidate for president since I could vote (beginning with Michael Dukakis) and I know I'm not alone.
Love her or hate her, Hillary got to the senate 7 years ago and by all accounts, built bridges with her Republican counterparts and worked her tail off. Obama has a history of dodging important choices (what you mention above about his votes in Illinois and more recently, skipping the Iran vote a few months ago that he's been deriding her for).
I've support Hillary from the start, but I liked Obama. That said, I'm tired of the way he's portrayed as walking on water. That and plain and simply, he's not qualified. The though of turning this world over to someone with little to no experience who peppers every speech with the words “change and hope” and no substance terrifies me. John McCain has experience in foreign poicy and is moderate enough to satisfy me (we'll also have a democratic congress to keep him in check).
Those who assume all Hillary supports will line up behind Obama in the fall are dead wrong. I'm a prime example.
Jill:
'Avaricious?' Obama supporters are greedy, and this stirs you? Or are you suffering from definitionitis?
Cupples: Niggerizing means to try to drag Obama down with assorted means of imputing bad things on him based on race- subtly, tangentially, or not- such as 'The BS about him equivocating on the war when Hillary did so, the BS that there os no substance to hi splans, which as a commenter above notes, are every bit as thorough as Hillary's- simply more innovative, the semiotic dance about race- Jesse Jackson, the smooth talker comment, and all the not so subtle racial and religious codewording.'
As for the LBJ thing, no one disputes LBJ championed the passage of laws, but w/o MLK he'd've done nada. It's the imputation of a plantation type mentality, that sans LBJ the Civil Rights Movement wd have failed. That was nonsense and the doublespeak that blacks hear all the time from even well menaing whites who know better or not.
Shadrach: yes, Hillary has a meager 7 years as a legislator, in 60 years alive. Obama has more legislative experience. But Hill tries to download Bill's 'experience' as her own. It's utterly absurd, but necessary since her track record in office is rather pedestrian. And her leadership skills are no better.
Mickey21: I smell a Clintonista plant.
It's good to see Democrats doing their best to rip one another apart here.
I have two comments to add. 1) To think that the Obama camp is somehow singly engaged in branding opposing candidates, Clinton in this case, negatively while the Clinton camp is engaged purely in the pursuit of high-minded ideals and goals seems… hard to believe, for lack of a better expression. Every example provided in the post can be matched with some similar examples on the other side.
2) I will agree with the post in that I have noticed a trend on this board among Obama supporters to think that support of Clinton isn't genuine. This is clearly wrong. Of course, this is matched by Clinton supporters on TMV posting about how Obama supporters are deluded by personality and charisma, or Republican supporters thinking people only vote Democratic due to their race, class, or being from some sort of lunatic (brainwashed?) fringe.
OK, I will add one thought. There was a moment in some debate where the moderator was berating (oops, I meant asking) Clinton about her relatively low likability ratings. Obama made some comment that he thought she was quite likeable. That was a bit too tepid to me. I would have liked someone to have made a much stronger statement, which is to reject likeability ratings completely. It's rather offensive to me, honestly, to tell someone on national TV that a lot of people don't like you. It's rude at least and largely irrelevant to the issue at hand, being President. Communication and leadership is important, but each candidate's job is to display that, not give answers about what they will do about their likeability rating.
For the record, I will likely vote for Obama, but find Clinton plenty “likeable” as well as possessing some useful experience. I just think Obama offers a better direction for the country than Clinton. I do however think she offers a better direction than McCain and so will vote for her if that's the choice given to me.
I really think Clinton should have come clean on her war vote. Basically something along the lines of “that was the stupidest thing I have ever done.” If you can't admit a mistake like that with the glaring spotlight of hindsight showing you the way you really aren't much better than the flunkies in the Bush administration. Again, Obama saw the writing on the wall with that one, went on record about it and history has born him out. Bash on his lack of experience all you want, but he seems to get it right the first time.
mickey21, I find it hard to believe you would vote for 4 (if not
more years of Republican management of this nation. Whatever image McCain (ie: Maverick) has built for himself, ideologically, he's not that different from President Bush. That you, a self-professed life-long Democrat would throw the Democratic party under the bus just because your preferred candidate didn't get the nod speaks more about your own weaknesses and prejudices than either Democratic candidate.
I will say, upfront, that I have, and will continue to support Obama. But if he doesn't get the nod, I will vote for Clinton in the general. Not because I am a party-line voter (I'm an independent), but because I could not, in all good conscience, hand the reins of this country over to John McCain.
Cosmoetica: I disagree about the LBJ remark. WHen I heard her say it, it sounded like she was saying, “Hey, I would be cooperative with reformers such as MLK.” Maybe I had wax in my ears.
I agree that Obama expressed opposition to the Iraq war in a speech in 2002, BUT he wasn't voting on it then and risking the pre-Katrina Rove machine's calling him a traitor if he voted against it.
In 2004, Obama did say that he wasn't sure how he would have voted if he'd been in the senate in 2002: I've heard that he was being nice to Kerry — ok. HOWEVER, he also said in 2004 that his position on the war was not that different from GWB's. That's noticeably different from the claim “I've been against it from the start.”
See meet the press re: Obama's 2004 statements (about 1/3 of the way down):
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/11/sweet_b…
See Boston Globe re: his support of war funding (like Clinton's)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/ar…
I already know that Hillary voted for the war, and i was disgusted that she likely did it for political reasons, but my point isn't who was better re: the war. Given that their war votes since 2005 have been largely the same, I'd say that NEITHER of them was better on that issue. But that's just me.
But to be fair he explained why he was downplaying his opposition to the war. That particular interview was during the democratic convention and he was trying to not put the presidential and vp nominees, both of whom voted for the war, on the spot. Which makes sense. As far as the war votes since then even the democrats don't simply want to yank funding for the troops while they are out in combat. It would be seen quite literally as not supporting the troops and rightly so. There needs to be a consensus between Congress and the White House when we pull out of Iraq, its going to be ugly.
Does anyone else notice this contradiction? Clinton supporters cannot brag about how she's “battle tested” and “experienced,” especially against the Republican smear machine, and then whine and bellyache about how mean and uncivil Obama has been during the primary, and how rude and sexist the media has been to Hillary. I'm an Obama supporter but am willing to acknowledge Hillary has done great, especially since many people (such as Andrew Sullivan) think that Hillary is a high priestess of Cthulu and sacrifices babies in pagan blood rites under the new moon.
Also, Dem supporters of both candidates have shrieked about how the opposing Dem candidate is secretly a Republican or Bush-Lite, to which I respond, THEY (the candidates) DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. Both Clinton and Obama have had to lurch to the right, even in the primaries, to appeal to a broader swath of voters who may otherwise be reluctant to vote for a woman or a black man.
The Republicans may have their strongest candidate in play in the general election, but no matter who the Dem nominee is, they will have more organization, more money, more volunteers, and more turnout than the Republicans, which bodes well in November. Despite being “weak on national security,” I think the Dems will win, if only that the public is sick of foreign policy misadventures and want some actual domestic policy pursued.
Cosmo – you can believe me or not. Send me an email address and I'll send you the links to the offensive posts. Yes – they are avaricious. Or maybe I just have a fever.
I think this argument is pointless (all due respect to fellow co-blogger Damozel). I feel that many Clinton and Obama supporters are hypersensitive due to this historic race for the nomination. It's obvious.
Neither Clinton nor Obama are entitled to the nomination based on race and sex. Neither. People are voting who THEY want to vote for. All of this back-biting is depressingly horizontal. If you are a Democrat, your candidate loses, and you then switch to McCain, you aren't a Democrat in the first place. And that goes for Clinton AND Obama supporters.
How do ya like that?!? So there?!? Got somethin' to say?!? Yeah?!? Bring it!!
LOL…
I am bewildered with all the rudeness and nastiness thrown at the Clintons. I agree with the author, what shall I do if Obama were to be nominated. I think hard, and decided that perhaps let a republican clean up their own mess. I see Obama as a Big Mac, all colorful void of nutritions. Big Mac is a big success but the result is gagantuan public health problem: diabetics among youth to name one. If one listened closely to his so call charisma and speeches, he said nothing. His campaign will sling the racist stone at anyone that dare to mention that he used drugs even though he admitted using drugs in his youth. If he was truly a community organizer, he would not be able to amess wealth, 1.6 million dollar homes. Besides his advisors are leftover clinton's staff, they got their experience from Clinton. So where is the CHANGE!
Will everyone stop with the all style no substance angle about Senator Obama?! He has told you his positions in debates. What else do you want?
See it's both ways. I'm sorry Damozel. But an Obama fan can write the exact same thing as you. And there were be 50+ comments and rising. And I'll say it again, Senator Obama has praised Senator Clinton numerous times in his speeches. And Senator Clinton hasn't shown ANY sign that she feels disrespected by Senator Obama. THAT IS A FACT! Romney vs. McCain was MUCH nastier.
Insult and outrage is in the eye of the beholder. Many Clinton supporter I have dealt with seem more than comfortable with referring to Obama supporters as cult members. They are fine comparing Obama to George Bush, as you did yourself Dam.
I think what it really boils down to is that a lot of Hillary supporters feel betrayed by Obama because they felt that it was Hillary's turn. Obama wasn't supposed to be a legitimate challenger for the nomination. He was supposed to be the standard cannon fodder that most secondary candidates are in the primaries.
So as the tide continues to turn towards Obama, Hillary supporters are increasingly lashing out at him for being unfair or for being divisive. Whereas 2 months ago these supporters many of these same Hillary supporters were saying things like “politics ain't beanbag” and “if Obama thinks this is bad wait till he faces the Republican candidate”, today the roles have reversed and the Hillary supporters are the aggrieved victim.
The Clinton campaign made some strategic blunders. They thought that the experience argument would defeat the hope theme. Problem is that most people weren't all that impressed with Hillary's experience either.
I really have no idea why you think that Michelle Obama's comment is all that noteworthy. You mentioned it several times. Why should I care, even assuming that I take your interpretation at face value which I don't?
You speak of the countless transgressions by Obama supporters as being unforgivable. What of the NH co-chair who suggested that Obama was unelected because of his drug use? What of Robert Johnson who suggested that Obama was busy using drugs while Hillary was doing real work? What of the Clinton Campaign finance chair sending out an email from a pretty out there blog making all sorts of sinister accusations about Obama's secret ties to Muslims? What of Bill Clinton consistently saying racially insensitive comments to tamp down support for Obama?
And what will you say of the almost certain run of attacks that will be coming out the Clinton campaign in the coming weeks?
Politics isn't pretty. But for the most part this has been a tepid primary run. Neither candidate engaged in the mudslinging for the most part.
If you want your betrayal to define you going forward this year, that's you choice. But I certainly will not feel ashamed for supporting Obama simply because Hillary was supposed to win.
Oh and if you want some examples of some truly hatefilled stuff go check out http://www.hillaryis44.com and then come back to us and tell us that it is the Obama supporters that are lowering the bar.
“Romney vs. McCain was MUCH nastier.” wrote T_Steel – absolutely true.
Only because conservatives didn't want McCain. It's not like they loved Romney. This one is a more because people are absolutely obsessed about Obama to the point that they have forgotten that Clinton is still a respectable candidate and they should be happy either way.
Cupples: 'Cosmoetica: I disagree about the LBJ remark. WHen I heard her say it, it sounded like she was saying, “Hey, I would be cooperative with reformers such as MLK.” Maybe I had wax in my ears.'
No, you're simply not attuned to doublespeak, nor the way wealthy and privileged whites really feel about blacks and their accomplishments. I often argue over race and white reactions to it, and whether or not Northerners or Southerners deal w it better. Hill's LBJ dance was classic paternalistic White BS. At least recalcitrant Southern whites are honest about their hate or uneasiness.
Jill: I don't care about posts outside this thread, but what the hell does the lust for money have to do with Obama supporters or Clinton? Explain what the connection is, and why this is a negative, because it's simply a bizarre claim.
I like flyerhawk's first paragraph in particular. Obama supporters have been called cultists often; —–1 on a different thread called Obama's speeches vapid; —-2 has suggested in posts that Obama is all style with no substance; all of this hinting that people who think Obama would make a good president are almost irrational followers of a personality magnet. (I just took the names out of my comment, because I don't want this to become personal. Hope it doesn't confuse.)
All that said, Clinton supporters are being attacked by Obama supporters as well. It's a genuine thing and I understand they can get fed up with it. Pointing out ill behavior on one side doesn't remove the ill behavior of the other side. I don't see any use in getting into a “which supporters are ruder than other supporters” war, particularly when these two candidates share many of the same basic policy initiatives. I do hope that people will continue to come on to TMV and give reasons why Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, or Paul would make the best President for the nation, however.
Modifying BBQ's statement a bit with my additions in brackets, “This one is a more because [some[ people are absolutely obsessed about Obama [or their favorite candidate] to the point that they have forgotten that Clinton [or the opposing candidate] is still a respectable candidate and they should be happy either way[, and vice versa].” (My additions are not intended to represent BBQ's thoughts, as BBQ can express him or herself just fine. They are intended to add my perception to his or her nice comment.)
Cosmo – I'm using it in this sense, from Merriam Webster online:
“excessive or insatiable desire for wealth or gain” – and there are other definitions out there that indicate the meaning of the word related to gain, not necessarily wealth.
And how Jill, is Hillary's unending quest to be Prez, at the exclusion of anything else, not up to your definition?
This is like not liking cetaceans, and ripping Flipper when Moby-Dick's in the pool.
Both you and dam are digging yourselves in deeper with every pro-Hill post.
My wife is a big supporter of Clinton and after Richardson pulled out I was leaning her direction. However, after Hillary's appeal to to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, Clinton lost both of our support for her devious and underhanded approach. Simply put you cannot change the rules after the game has started and particularly in the case of Michigan where hers was the only name on the ballot. Seating the Michigan delegates and having votes under those circumstances reminds me of the old USSR elections.
Cosmo – you are getting so far away from the original sentence in which I used the word. I wrote:
“Cosmo – I am telling you that my experience with the Obama supporters in the Ohio blogs has been extremely difficult and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be avaricious.”
They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.
I wasn't talking about Obama. I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about a very discrete group of individuals.
You are totally losing it here – I've never, ever written a “pro-Hill post” – seriously – what are you talking about?
It is interesting how many of the critics of Obama forget about the Clinton camp's move concerning Michigan and Florida, including Hillary campaigning in Florida. That one really bugged me. Almost as much as those who are willing to see a virtual Bush clone in the White House in the name of their anger.
That's a nifty trick but hey, I'll republish my answer:
Cosmo – you are getting so far away from the original sentence in which I used the word. I wrote:
“Cosmo – I am telling you that my experience with the Obama supporters in the Ohio blogs has been extremely difficult and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be avaricious.”
They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.
I wasn't talking about Obama. I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about a very discrete group of individuals.
You are totally losing it here – I've never, ever written a “pro-Hill post” – seriously – what are you talking about?
Wow – ok- well – I guess i'm just driving up the count here – T_Steel – I am trying to reply to Cosmo here but his/her post keeps getting pushed to the end somehow – please feel free to delete all my multiple except that come after his, which I'm trying to answer in sequence – sorry for the confusion to readers.
Here's my reply to his post that ends with “pro-Hill post.”
Cosmo – you are getting so far away from the original sentence in which I used the word. I wrote:
“Cosmo – I am telling you that my experience with the Obama supporters in the Ohio blogs has been extremely difficult and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be avaricious.”
They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.
I wasn't talking about Obama. I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about a very discrete group of individuals.
You are totally losing it here – I've never, ever written a “pro-Hill post” – seriously – what are you talking about?
Jim,
Sorry McCain isn't a Bush clone. No he isn't your progressive anti-war liberal but that isn't coming out of the GOP in the next 100 years either.
Cosmo,
Why do they need to dig when you have already dug a big enough hole?
Flyerhawk, you're right: there are emotionally charged attacks from both candidates' supporters.
I don't think Bill or Hillary brought racism into the campaign. As I recall, the MEDIA created the issue after Hillary made the factual, non-racist comment involving LBJ and MLK ( my paraphrasing): Reformers like MLK need presidents like LBJ, and I would be one (a positive message that some people twisted beyond recognition).
Michelle Obama's comment was a big deal, as it sounds like a message to supporters to stay home if Hillary wins. That message is a slap to the roughly 50% of Dems who now support Hillary: it's like saying, “We're in it to win, and we don't give a damn about the rest of you Dems if we don't win.” THAT's hugely divisive, and it came from the candidate's wife. [Remember, Bill's words are imputed to Hillary, so Michelle's are equally imputed to Barack.]
Frankly, I'd like to see a joint ticket — whoever takes the top spot.
On another note, I've been troubled by Obama's tendency to make comparisons that don't quite gel with reality (NO OFFENSE to his supporters). Examples:
1. He implied that his hands were much cleaner than Hillary's re: corporate and lobbyist money — though he's taken a healthy share. Hillary has too, but she didn't start the false comparison.
2. He implied that he is better re: the Iraq war, though a) his neck wasn't on the line with an actual vote in the pre-Katrina climate, and b) his and Hillary's war-related votes since 2005 have been about the same. The upshot: NEITHER candidate is an anti-war activist's dream.
3. He claimed during the campaign that he stood up to the nuclear power industry, and he did — AT FIRST. In the end, he rewrote the bill to give the industry what it wanted (i.e., don't FORCE us to actually report small radioactive leaks). I DON'T BLAME Obama for his original version's being sunk by fellow legislators. I DO blame him for posturing as though he had not ultimately capitulated. Here' s the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/0…
My point is NOT that Hillary is better on all issues. Mmy point is that Obama had no business claiming that he was somehow untainted when he wasn't — and yet, the media is buying and amplifying it (which isn't his fault, I know). Still, it's frustrating to witness.
Cosmoetica:
I am “digging myself in deeper”, how?
I expressed an opinion. You do not agree. It's fine with me if you differ. You haven't said anything to change my mind—you seem to think that it's because I don't understand, when it's just that I don't accept how you're framing the facts.
I am pro-Hillary, as between Hillary and Obama. That's not something I am going to apologize for. I imagine I've gone into the facts at least as thoroughly as you, but my conclusions are different. Each must choose her own best option.
The day may come when something happens to change my mind—but it won't come from something someone says to change my mind, because I've pretty thoroughly looked into the facts. It'll have to come from Obama himself or from Hillary.
I do get that you dislike Hillary and like Obama.
I hope I come to like Obama too. But people who bash Hillary repeatedly aren't making me like him better. Rather the reverse. Which was the point of my post.
cupples,
I don't expect any candidate to be pure as a driven snow. He is cultivating his image just as Hillary is trying to cultivate her image as the wise and experienced leader.
I think that people try to take individual quotes and extrapolate them into larger messages. Michelle Obama said she would have to think about working to support Clinton. So what? She is the wife of someone running for President.
She is NOT a former President of the United States so I think it is a little silly to try and put her on similar footing as Bill.
FTR, the MLK comment was simply a misstep by Hillary and on its own it would have disappeared. But then came the NH co-chairs comments, Then came the Robert Johnson. Then came Bill's utterly stupid comparison of Obama to Jackson.
If you allow the media to create a narrative, they will.
Flyerhawk, I remember Hillary and Barack at a debate (sitting down) being asked if they would support each other after one of them wins the primary. They both managed to skirt the question without in indicating that they might not support each other and without stating that they would. They even said nice things about each other in that moment.
Mrs. Obama could have done likewise at GMA: it was a scheduled interview. She CHOSE not to go that way. I was just a small-time candidate (once), but I never went to a scheduled interview without a good idea of what I would and wouldn't say. The Obamas (and Clintons) have far more at stake than I did.
Whether Bill was president or not doesn't relate to my point, which was that now — as a husband and campaign volunteer — his words have been imputed to Hillary. The same is true for Michell/Barack (and would be of the McCains, if Mrs. McCain actually spoke).
Anyway, I still hope we'll see a joint ticket, whoever wins top slot.
Firehawk, I failed to address a few of your points. Sorry.
The drug comments were low blows. Period. I didn't like the comments when I heard them. They weren't racist, though, just hypocritical (only by association) given Hillary's own husband's admission about marijuana.
I CAN see how the Jessie Jackson comment might have been construed as racist. He should have picked someone else to illustrate that winning South Carolina doesn't mean one will win the nation.
I don't think the MLK comment was a mis-step: she was stating that she would be helpful to such reformers in a practical way. Some of Obama's media-linked supporters ignored crucial parts of her statement, began screaming, and the media amplified it.
Like you, I don't expect candidates to be pure as driven snow. and if they're not, it's not wise for them to falsely imply that their opponents are “dirty” on the very same issues regarding which they, themselves, have dirt in their history. That's as hypocritical as IF (note the “if”) Bill Clinton had accused Barack of being a womanizer or deal cutter.
Hillary didn't pounce on Barack over political donations or the war until AFTER he tried to pass himself off not only untainted but also comparatively cleaner than she is. He opened the door on that one. Can you think of a reason that she should not have reacted with counterpoints?
Again, I'm not trying to argue here that one is a ton better than the other overall; I'm just pointing out that some of Obama's actics have smacked of hypocrisy — again, NO OFFENSE to his supporters, who aren't responsible for the candidate's choices.
Does anyone really “let” the media create narratives? They seem to do it on their own — without regard for objections from folks like you and me. As Fox and Limbaugh have shown for years, people who don't do their own research often don't know that they're being misled (or manipulated or lied to). They turn on the TV, see guys and gals wearing suits and using crisp diction, and they think they're getting facts. Go figure!
MCCAIN DEMOCRAT.
VOTE MCCAIN
I am infuriated by the treatment of Hillary by the Democrats. I was not a strong Clinton supporter when this began but have rallied to her. The Clinton's lead over a strong economy and left office with a surplus, taking office after 12 yrs of Republicans. The Obama Dems are acting like crude idiots in their treatment of the Clintons and “Clinton Rules”
Obama was just an Illinois state senator just 4 yrs ago….He is being compared to JFK, but what did JFK do in the short time he was in office besides Bay of Pigs and gross adultery. I am an educated White Male.
Although I am a lifelong democrat but voting for MCCAIN if Obama wins the nomination.
Jill: 'They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.
I wasn't talking about Obama. I wasn't talking about Clinton. I was talking about a very discrete group of individuals.
You are totally losing it here – I've never, ever written a “pro-Hill post” – seriously – what are you talking about?
reply'
Again, how is the supporter of any politician, by using your definition of avarice, not avaricious. They all want to see their guy/gal get power. That's what politics is about. It's when power is the only driving force, which far more resembles Hill and her crowd than the Obama folk, whom the Hill folk accuse of naive te and idealism, even ripping him and them for it.
So, they are avaricious and naive and idealistic. Which? What have all your posts here been but blatantly pro-Hill? Hello….
BBQ- I've not duh anything, I've watched Dam and Jill distort with spade and fork, and simply am calling the instruments by name.
Dam: You did express an opinion, and a nakedly biased one which you have been called on, by me and others. And while I will vote for O come Texas primary, I am under no illusions that he's a savior, but he's far and away the best of the 3 major candidates, for reasons I and others have enumerated in the past. Like has nothing to do with it. He could be an asshole in person. I don't care, but he has the best ideas and temperament to be the 44th Prez.
It's this conflation of 'liking' candidates with their real world qualifications that leads to so many probs. Yes, I think W- as big a moron as he is, is more likable than Gore or Kerry, but most of the folk who voted for that reason alone likely regret it.
As for media narratives, most people do let themselves be guided by outside things. Most people do not think for themselves, in their personal nor professional lives, so why would their voting record be any different. Humans are lazy- be they R, D, or I.
Cosmo – we're simply not reading and/or talking abou the same blog or the same thread. Your comments about what you say you've observed me writing about do not resonate with what's actually in here. But thank you for giving my feelings so much time. I'm not sure why they befuddle you so.
cupples,
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I think we are generally in agreement but simply finding differences on the edges.
I believe there is a tendency to see base motives in other candidates while seeing only high moral motives from the candidate we have chosen. And in the world of blogs it is that much more pervasive because so many blogs tend to being egregiously biased. They spin stories to favor their candidates. I have been posting on TalkLeft for a few weeks in an attempt to temper the fervent pro-Clinton anti-Obama rhetoric there. And I can tell you that there are certain known facts about both campaigns that cannot be challenged because they are entrenched matters of faith.
I really do believe that some people are far better at controlling the media narrative. Ronald Reagan was exceptionally good. John Kerry was horrible at it. Certainly how the media views the person is a factor. But some people treat the media with disdain and really don't care how they are portrayed. The current President is a good example of this.
Jill, again:
How is the supporter of any politician, by using your definition of avarice, not avaricious. They all want to see their guy/gal get power. That's what politics is about. It's when power is the only driving force, which far more resembles Hill and her crowd than the Obama folk, whom the Hill folk accuse of naive te and idealism, even ripping him and them for it.
Do you not admit that the Hill folk have chided Obama folk as idealistic dreamers? So, you are saying, that in online arguments, most O folk are not that, but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort. But, that's not so of Hillary folk, even if we accept your syllabus of the argument.
Even the worst Right Wingers who post here- Superdestroyer with his racial paranoia, and DLS with his Right Wing comments, I would not describe as avaricious in support of this or that folk, so again the claim seems strained.
Can you link to specific comments where this rapacious Obama support resides. And, if so, what makes you think that is the majority, when you have objected to similar sweeping statements against others?
Barack voted time and again to assist Bush in this mess. He delivered his FLIP, uncourageous anti-war speech in 2002, then he FLOPPED right into the Senate and voted lock-step with Hillary to fund the war. If he wants to use all that money to build bridges, he should never have funded the war and taken a principled stand like Dennis Kucinich. “Punishing/supporting” the troops is a B.S. kowtowing line. Look to see much more kowtowing from Barack going forward.
So sayeth a Clintonista.
Who is Obama before some partisans from the democrat party decide to find another alternative to her candidacy. Obama supporters repeat the same slogan : she is divisive. The divisive ones are likely to be the medical lobby who want to put an end to her health care plan, which they already did 15 years ago. The divisive used to be the republicans who hated her and put in lots of means and money to find nothing to say much about whitewater. The people who keep up this slogan seem to recite a lesson without actual proof.
And what about Irak war? Any of Obama supporters dare say that in the heat and terror of 9/11 and the speculations about Saddam Hussein mass destruction weapons never think a minute the war might be necessary? And to say they would support Mc Cain if Obama is not the nominee, knowing Mc Cain's positions on the war show their inconsistency. At least the Hillary supporters who say the same on their side seem more consistent, not that they support the war but never use that as an argument against her.
There is a spell cast on this election, and that is the work of the irrational on the mass . In either case the divisivness and partisanship inside the democrat party itself will turn against the democrats themselves.
Now to this point, it seems like none of them will coalisce all the democrat votes . The democrats are very good at paving the road for the republicans. What's wrong with Hillary as president and Obama as VP, time and experience can only work in his favor to get full support from all (minority immigrants, hispanic and Hillary supporters).
Instead a young inexperienced senator who already thinks he is the One for America while he helps bring out partisanship and division. Many can do with Mc Cain. The democrats should do a little more sociological studies, psychological and cultural research about their voters.
Cosmo – people are going to start talking, and on Valentine's Day no less.
1. My comments? My words. I stand by avaricious regardless of how many people it describes. That's my observation. I take responsibility for it.
2. I never said any of this or intimated any of it, so don't put words or ideas into my comments that aren't there in the first place: “Do you not admit that the Hill folk have chided Obama folk as idealistic dreamers? So, you are saying, that in online arguments, most O folk are not that, but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort. But, that's not so of Hillary folk, even if we accept your syllabus of the argument.”
3. This describes your threshold, to which you are entitled. “Even the worst Right Wingers who post here- Superdestroyer with his racial paranoia, and DLS with his Right Wing comments, I would not describe as avaricious in support of this or that folk, so again the claim seems strained.”
4. I invited you a several comments ago to look at the instances to which I'm referring. Go look at Buckeye State Blog. Just search on “clinton.”
5. Again – I never said anywhere at anytime to anyone anything that would indicate i felt this way. How it is that you make such an assertion, I can't say. “And, if so, what makes you think that is the majority, when you have objected to similar sweeping statements against others?”
Jane: I never thought it was possible to slur a typed word, but yuo did so.
1) You are missing the point re; avaricious. How does that describe Obama folk and not Clintonistas or McCain supporters or any supporters?
2) I prefaced the quoted part with 'Do you not admit that the Hill folk have….' which indicates I am not stating you said that. Then we get back top avariciouus, where you typed, 'They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.' about the Obama folk. How does that not square with 'but rapacious power-hungry sociopaths, of a sort.' You are dancing semantically, but not quick enough to not trip on your own claims.
3) It is mu threshold. The point?
4) Your link points to a blank page.
5) I copied and pasted your quote: 'They have shown themselves to have an insatiable desire for their candidate's gain in exchange for anything resembling a civil discourse among people in the same political party.'
How is that NOT a sweeping statement?
Cosmo – we're wasting bandwidth here e-mail if you have something you want to continue. If the link didn't work, google it. Sheesh. jillzimon AT mac DOT com
You may be wasting bandwidth, but I'm asking clear and direct questions to things you typed. Evade if you wish, but that's your onus.
Cosmo:
Feel free to assume that I will take it as read from now on that you will disagree with everything I say.
Yes, I am 'nakedly biased.' This is a blog. These are opinion pieces. It would be wrong of me to pretend to be detached when I am not. Others, including you, are free to differ. Your information may be different or your premises may be wrong. As for naked bias, go back and read your own comments. They're the best retort .
I have no intention of defending my opinions to you. I do not find your arguments persuasive, but that may be because of the sneering tone. As I asserted in the piece, “You are too stupid to see the light” never strikes me as particularly persuasive.