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?
96 Responses to “A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?”
A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?
Learn to say President McCain and wait for the next war.
LOL – you know – I was going to use omnipotent but I think omnipresent fits better.
I know about being duped. I was duped by Clintons for years and without being even a little omnipresent. LOL!!
Omni whatever. I am amazed at how people may know very little about the Clintons and are somehow attracted to the images they project.
Maybe you mean omniscient?
Can I just say I have a fever and assume you knew what I meant?
DaM; It was Hill the Chill and Bill that started with the niggerizing of Obama, and posts like this are classic distortions.
And Michelle's remarks were classic hedging your bets. She does not want to appear overconfident and say that that is not necessary. As for Hill's 'tone'. If they are niggerizing YOUR hubby, woukd you be even as gracious?
Hill has a sense of entitlement exceeded only by the Bushes.
As for your titular query- what then? Well. then there is a chance to reverse the Bush debacle. Hill has shown she has not the spine to stand up against the Right- despite her claims, and she certainly is too monied by corps to really do anything of a significant nature even if she had the will. Come 2012, w her in charge, Iraq will still be larded with Americans, and the homefront will still be being bled by NAFTA and similar atrocious economic policies endorsed by her and her hubby.
As for experience- O's got more of it as a legislator, and more in actually making decisions. Being First Lady of the nation and Arkansas, I'm sorry, simply do not count.
I think the author has missed the point of why Obama supporters support him over Hillary. She is a part of the same divisive and divided political machine that has dominated this country for the 15 to 20 years. We're tired of it. She may a lot of “experience”, but that's why I'm not voting for her. She's experienced in the same political games that have torn this country apart. Frankly, I'm tired of it.
Well, I certainly have doubts about someone who voted time and time again to assist Bush in creating the mess.
1. Obvious, Iraq Authorization for Use of Force.
2. Also Obvious, Kyl-Lieberman amendment
3. Just odd, the 2001 Bankruptcy bill which Clinton “voted for but hoped it would die”. WTF?
But what's amazing about this post is it's attempt to cast all Obama supporters as mean spirited chauvinists of some sort.
Considering the tone of the post itself, that attempt falls hilariously flat on it's face.
Are you honestly ignoring the Obama bashing that Clinton and Clinton supporters have engaged in since he started to gain momentum?
Honestly, what pushed me over the fence to Obama's side what the fact that she is willing to destroy the character and career of a someone who stands between her and power. Had this been a civil race, maybe they could even have been running mates…
She's been able to divide the democrats. I'm sure she'll do the same for America.
I wish she had lived up to what I had hoped she'd be. I really was looking forward to the first female president…
I don't know why Clinton didn't vote on the 2005 bankruptcy bill, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that it was a good reason. She did release a statement that said she was against it and also voted for amendments to make it less awful. So at least she changed her mind. Considering the number of things that Obama has said he didn't support but then didn't show up for the final vote (including the immunity thing yesterday, although he did vote on the amendment ) I don't think it can be held against her.
Also Obama is open to being questioned about his present votes in Illinois but don't assume that they were all because he didn't have the guts to stand up for something. He voted present for a bill he helped draft because he was informed it was probably unconstitutional. Hillary is disingenuous when she makes it sound like they are all chickening out.
Anyway Damozel, you're asking for the impossible, which is that people prove that he has more of the type of experience that you find best. I think he has more experience than her in what I find most relevant. For instance, I like Obama's policies a lot more than hers and think the idea that there is little policy difference is false.
His policies are focused on bottom-up structures, while hers are top-down. They are both “progressive” but his greatly reflect his community organizer background while hers reflect a politician/lobbyist mentality (not necessarily negative even those have negative connotations). Ironically, I'm having a hard time finding specifics in her plans compared to Obama's, but in most of the policy proscriptions I have found reflect my summarization. For instance, her housing plan calls for a foreclosure/interest rate freeze, as well as giving money to people to help them with their payments (at least I think, this is what it sounded like in her speech but I can't find details). All of these things work against market forces and will have lots of unintended side effects. Even if they “worked,” the best case scenario is that the prices would remain elevated and long term it would be harder for middle income people to buy houses (not to mention the effects of property taxes on fixed income). The best case scenario would give us a Japan situation with stagnant prices over at least a decade.
By contrast, Obama proposes using a similar amount of money but letting the market deflate. A lot of his proposed money would go to local governments to purchase foreclosed homes, fix them up and then rent/sell them as affordable housing. He is not entirely against intervention, as he is for allowing judges to change the loan conditions during bankruptcies, so people can stay in their houses at a value that reflects the lower price.
In any case, I consider myself a pro-market progressive, inasmuch as I think that the markets are a very powerful tool for distributing wealth and encouraging innovation, but that they mess up a lot (especially when there isn't enough oversight or regulation) and that we have a moral duty to help those in need get back on their feet. To me, Clinton and (even moreso) Edwards, have ideas that are more anti-market and as a side effect, inflationary, so I don't support them as much.
So since that's my thinking, (and I think that it has a LOT greater chance of getting support of 60%+ of the population) Obama has the most experience and a better mindset. If you have different priorities, then you might disagree and we can debate which priorities are more important. But the theme that Clinton has more experience is like saying that my boss has more experience than me because he's been working 30 years in science and I've been working 2, even though our skillsets are completely different and I have much greater experience in things that he needs to move forward in a new way.
Having no emotional stake in this contest, I would only suggest to the HRC supporters to take a read of the article over at RCP today by the writer named Jay.
If I am properly absorbing his gist, Obama's victory string might well be the result of voter-converting momentum or, it just might be Obama-favoring demographics in the most recent states. The remainder of the states, he states, will move away from the demographics that have been so rewarding to Obama.
Damozel, you can count me as someone who thinks you have nailed it right on the head. I feel exactly the same way. I have been attacked and insulted on the political blog boards for having the temerity to:
- be a baby boomer;
-be a veteran of the utterly necessary political wars of the 60's through the 90's';
-not think Bill Clinton was a scandal ridden rogue
- not agreeing that the Clinton adminstration was a disaster
-not think that Hillary is a calculating, amoral shrew for staying with Bill,
-understand that Kyl-Lieberman meant absolutely nothing
-understand and remember that lots of people of good conscience had different opinions on Iraq
-understand that we cant solve all problems if we just all get along
-understand that the Republicans are not dying to compromise their principles to agree with Obama
-understand that it was the Republicans not the Clintons themselves (!) who made the 90's so divisive.
-understand that to get rid of the divisive politics of the past 20 years we have to give up the fighting, and just all get along regardless of what policies this results in. This country has hard bitter partisan fighting for over 200 years! You are not going to change that.
I frequent literally dozens of these blogs and it is without dispute in my own experience that Obama's people there (with a few limited exceptions) are rude, vulgar, nasty, belligerent, and ready to tear down everything Clinton and dance laughing on the grave. With only a limited few exceptions I do not see that same things out of Hillary supporters. Quite the contrary, until recently they were all too willing to pledge to support Obama in the fall if he is the nominee. With only a few limited exceptions I did not see the same statements out of Obama supporters. But I agree with you, we are getting angry. We are sick and tired of being attacked by the unity candidate and his minions. We are sick and tired of being excluded, and having our lives, and the battles we felt it necessary to wage marginalized, insulted and demeaned. It seems that just at the same time that Hillary reigned in Bill was when Obama turned directly on all Clinton admirers and he hasnt stopped, and his supporters havent either. Hillary knew when to stop her husband. Obama seems not to have that kind of tactical smarts.
“If they are niggerizing YOUR hubby, woukd you be even as gracious?”
Well, you and many others have attacked HIllary in the most vicious and vulgar ways, and we still declared we would support Obama in the GE, so the answer to your question is no, we were far more gracious. And what a thoroughly ugly phrase you used there. Its not only completely and totally wrong but insulting and in no way shape or form a useful advance in our national discourse. And how exactly to you expect to unify the party by accusing half of it of being racist?
So the question at the end of the article is really pertinent: what are you gong to do to unify the party, because frankly I see this as more difficult than McCain unifying his party. Are you going to boo Hillary at the convention? Walk out if Bill Clinton speaks? Continue to accuse Clinton supporters of being racists? What will you do to try and bring people who feel as we do back into the fold. Frankly I dont see Obama supporters as caring about this one bit. But we will see how it all plays out in the fall.
It is amusing to me to observe the sudden discovery by Democrats about just how duplicitous and craven the Clinton's are, and also the expressed shock at the 'big lie' strategy they and their supporters wage against their opponents.
Republicans have known if for years. But then again, really, so have Democrats. They just treated that behavior the same way NOW treated Bill and Monica. It doesn't count when we don't want it to count.
diquscommentator said:
“she is willing to destroy the character and career of a someone who stands between her and power.”
I would really appreciate hearing how this is so. I am not kidding. How exactly did they try to destroy Obama's “character” and “career”? I dont see it, sorry.
A Clinton Supporter Asks: If Obama Wins it All, What Then?
Learn to say President McCain and wait for the next war.
There are some valid points to having Clinton as President, as there are for McCain and Obama. At the core, the three candidates are similar in many ways; how they've acted and some of their history makes the difference in how people are going to react towards them.
I support Obama's pursuit of the Presidency precisely because he doesn't have all of the weight from years spent in the Federal environment to guide his actions. Will he make a couple of mistakes once he has the job? Assuredly no moreso than any other President has during their own time.
Secondly, I look at the reactions that a number of friends outside of the US have had in contemplating each candidate. Many see the continuation of foreign affairs as they have been in the past 20 years under possible Clinton or McCain administrations. They are more intrigued and open to an Obama administration, because it would represent, to them, a fresher start to many discussions. You can't say whether they are right or wrong until that administration is actually formed, but I will at least pay attention to what those perceptions are as our nation lessens its stature as less of a world leader to more of a star player on the global team.
In any campaign season, there are going to be cliques which form, be it Democratic vs Republican, young vs old, rich vs poor, etc. Most often, people look through the lens of their own team, and it becomes unfortunate: words become harsher, criticisms become more prevalent, and divisiveness ensues. Yet, at the end of the day, we still wave to the same neighbor, buy from the same cashier, and go about our business.
Perhaps, rather than casting discussion in the negative, it would be better to change people's minds via constructive discussion over the implications of each candidate, and their platforms. After all, three or four ads really aren't going to compare – in the long run – to bills proposed once someone moves in to that house on the hill. Most people realize this, and will listen more readily than to any negativity.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, Senator Clinton and Senator Clinton aren't ripping each other to shreds. Their supporters ARE at times and it's quite depressing. Senator Obama has said earlier, he is friends with Senator Clinton now and will be after this process is over. I'm sure she will also.
I respect Damozel's viewpoint but disagree with much simply because Obama and Clinton are such strong candidates. I refuse to get involved in firing broadsides at them simply because the McCain Campaign has some serious salvos ready. And they will hit Clinton or Obama. Doesn't matter how tough or charismatic someone is or isn't. McCain will go after them hard. And all Democrats would be best served to chill, let the process play out, and get ready for the real battle. I disagree with all the polls. Obama and Clinton would both face a TOUGH fight from McCain and could LOSE more convincingly than you think.
'Nuff said…
My experience has been the exact opposite. In any case, I'm glad that I just expect to not like the reasons that 95% of people from any group self identify as being part of that group. I think that both Obama and Clinton themselves have been fairly civil and really arguing about the supporters is kind of stupid. Although you could argue that Obama's whole platform is based on us working together to put pressure on our political system while hers is based more on her putting pressure on it, so it matters more for him that most people are incapable of rational discourse.
In any case, I think that the partisanship towards the political apparatus of the GOP is necessary and if Obama wins, he will need the activists/Clintons/Edwardses of the nation to stand up against them. But from her rhetoric, it makes it sound like Clinton is attacking Republicans in general and I know a TON of self-identified Republicans that loathe the state of their party, but dislike the traditional democratic one even more. It is these people that I think Obama can bring in, and hopefully help change things. Ironically, if his plan is successful, I think the Republican party will get a lot stronger in the long run because it will be forced to reform.
First off, Clinton is the immediate family member of a former president, and I am against that in the most heartfelt manner. Second, she will be a divisive political figure whether she wants to be or not. The neocon hate machine will pump their quarters into Rush, Coulter, and all the boys at the FOX network to ensure that. Third, Obama “Gets it”. I'm sure you've all read his opinion on the plans to invade Iraq, and were at least somewhat impressed with his dead on prediction of what it would become. But please also read the following:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/01/barack_obama…
I don't support Obama because of the media hype. I have listened to him, and his answers are my answers, he sees the actual problem and despite what all his detractors say, if you listen to him has stated quite clearly what his positions are and what his plans to fix things are. If you think he hasn't listen again. Read again.
Thanks for being civil, everyone (okay, most of you).
I've said what I believe. Obama could at any time have reined in his supporters by affirming his respect for Clinton. He chose not to do so. His wife chose to say she was unsure whether she could support Clinton if Clinton got the nomination. That—by itself—was outrageous, signalling, as it did, that Obama's supporters should also consider whether they could support Obama's fellow Democrat if she got the nomination.
He has benefited tremendously from the demonization of Hillary. I can't say he has ever SAID anything, but I accuse him of passive-aggressively enabling a great deal of the bashing that she's taken. I am reporting how I—and many many many Clinton supporters—perceive events. And I am disappointed. As I said, I came within a hair of voting for him. I'm glad now I did not.
I also believe that he has distorted Hillary's positions in his speeches and I KNOW he distorted her position on health care.
I could cite a LONG list of ways that I think he's let me (as a fellow Democrat) down. But Hillary's supporters already know and his don't care. So that's where we'll leave it.
I would like to think better of him, but I can't separate him from his campaign. I hope he'll change my mind. But I 'have to think about it.'
To the extent that Damozel has described the behavior of Obama supporters toward undecideds and/or Hillary Clinton supporters, I completely agree with her characterization of that treatment.
To the extent that Clinton supporters (of which I've never been one – I wanted Biden, Dodd or Richardson and thoroughly expected to vote for one of them in Ohio until I saw the sample ballot today and none of them are even on it!! – now I'm really screwed!) really feel the way Damozel depicts them feeling, I imagine that for many, they do in fact feel that way.
I'm not saying it's right that they do, but I can imagine how it IS that they do.
I will not have a problem voting for whomever is the Dem candidate in the general, but, as I just wrote elsewhere, I'm very, very unhappy with the chiding and childishness of many, many of the Obama supporters who've tangled with me. And I have a hard time believing that Sen. Obama would be proud of them for what they've done in his name.
Oh please, the Clinton campaign has been way more underhanded. You wish to pin the passive aggressive label on Obama but the leaked ads about Obama being a muslim get a pass? Gimme a break. You seem to have no problem separating Clinton from her campaign, just make a small mental adjustment and you will be able to do it for Obama or see that they are both getting nastier in the heat of the race. Its pretty silly for you to not see that you're just giving your candidate a pass.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and with enthusiasm. I have watched and sifted through much that has been written and spoken by and about both Clintons, disregarding the obvious rantings of the Clinto-hating right wing hit squad. The more I learned, the uglier they looked. I have never been so disappointed or disillusioned by any politicians as by Bill and Hill, and that is saying a lot. I think they are both very skilled politicians. As an Obama supporter, i generally have seen very little negativism on blogs and boards written by other Obama supporters. Not so the case with Clinton supporters. If Obama wins, he'll have his work cut out for him. If Obama wins I will celebrate a new beginning and hopefully roll up my sleeves and help the many who want to reclaim a governemnt of the people, for the people and by the people. I hope with all my heart that Obama does win because he by far the superior candidate. I also hope he wins because of what I have learned about the Clintons in all my years of observing their behavior and understanding their ruthless tactics. I would love to itemize my list of reasons to never vote Clinton again. I do not know if this is the forum suitable for such an exchange. I am amazed at how Clintons still have many loyal followers. With all due respect I know you have been royally duped.
“You know” someone has been royally duped? That's rather omnipresent of you, Adnora. We're capable of tolerating a pretty high level of cognitive dissonance and I would say that strong Clinton supporters have an extraordinary high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. But I would never say that I KNOW they are being duped. I'd much sooner say that they know they're being duped and choose to accept the Clintons rather than the alternative. They – the Clintons – do still have an awful lot of support.
Wow.
[...] not me, but a co-blogger at The Moderate Voice. Here’s the post and here’s an excerpt (the original is even longer): …Obama’s impassioned [...]
Jammer: '”If they are niggerizing YOUR hubby, woukd you be even as gracious?”
Well, you and many others have attacked HIllary in the most vicious and vulgar ways, and we still declared we would support Obama in the GE, so the answer to your question is no, we were far more gracious. And what a thoroughly ugly phrase you used there. Its not only completely and totally wrong but insulting and in no way shape or form a useful advance in our national discourse. And how exactly to you expect to unify the party by accusing half of it of being racist?'
You are utterly delusional if you think Obama's folks started the splitting. And the fact that so-called liberals like the Clintons are willing to use racial tactics if 'one of them' gets in their way shows exactly why so many blacks distrust ALL whites. The Clintons are not David Duke, but there is still that hidden resentment if 'the other' succeeds at their expense.
'I would really appreciate hearing how this is so. I am not kidding. How exactly did they try to destroy Obama's “character” and “career”? I dont see it, sorry.'
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.
Dam: 'He has benefited tremendously from the demonization of Hillary.' As said by me and others, you simply have that backward. Blasting someone who demonizes you is not demonization but defense.
As for Obama supporters, the very claims against them are likely true, in small parts, as are similar claims about Hill supporters. But, look right in this thread, both Dam and Jill are doing the very childish fingerpointing they accuse the Obama folk of.
And they DO NOT see it!
Jill: “You know” someone has been royally duped? That's rather omnipresent
I think you mean omnipotent.
Outrageous? I don't know if it could be considered so. Is it also outrageous to vote for someone whom you truly believe would be very bad as the leader of our government? If it came down to the wire, I would really have a hard time bringing myself to vote for Clinton. I could not vote for McCain. I know many folks who feel the same way. To us HRC is too similar to McCain/Bush in important areas of mindset and policy. Her war approval was unbelievable. Her health “care” plan is unbelievable. I am a doctor and I am dismayed at how insurance premiums have skyrocketed. Many people can't afford to pay the premiums and pay rent. This is a fact. So what to do? So let's just force them to pay anyway, and we'll call that “universal health care”. That appears to be what Clinton wants.
damozel, I just want to point out that in the vast majority of Obama's speeches and debate performances, he does in fact compliment Clinton on her campaign. As far as I know, he has never come out in favor of bashing her or publicly said anything blatantly disparaging about her. He obviously points out policy differences and he does talk about past decisions she has made that he disagrees with. But that's the whole point of the campaign process – to learn about the candidates, their views, and what they hope to do as President. It just seems unfair to me to expect Obama to make some kind of extra statement admonishing his own supporters when it's already clear that he respects Senator Clinton and wishes to lead a civil campaign. We can't hold him accountable for the actions and words of others. As for Michelle Obama's statement, well, I respect her candor in voicing that opinion. Of course it would be difficult to support the woman who defeats your husband in a campaign. And if Michelle Obama has the same questions about Hillary Clinton as many other do, then why should we expect her to automatically fall in line?
As for the complaints about Obama supporters, I haven't seen nearly as much heckling from them as I've seen from some Republican and Clinton supporters. I'm a regular at a couple different blogs and various communities on LiveJournal and from what I've seen, there are a lot more Obama supporters around, but mostly they're a pleasant (if over-zealous) bunch. I've also noticed that a lot of Clinton supporters tend to be more personally offended by pointed questions and honest differences of opinion than they really should be.
LOL – you know – I was going to use omnipotent but I think omnipresent fits better.
I know about being duped. I was duped by Clintons for years and without being even a little omnipresent. LOL!!
Cosmo – what are you talking about???? “As for Obama supporters, the very claims against them are likely true, in small parts, as are similar claims about Hill supporters. But, look right in this thread, both Dam and Jill are doing the very childish fingerpointing they accuse the Obama folk of.”
What fingerpointing?? Have you been following my blog and a few of the others in Ohio? My experience is real – it isn't about fingerpointing – I'd be happy to give you a tour. Trust me – the posts with which some Obama supporters have tried to provoke me are absolutely outrageous. I don't need to fingerpoint – it's out in the open. I'm really not sure what your issue is with my comment.
Omni whatever. I am amazed at how people may know very little about the Clintons and are somehow attracted to the images they project.
Adnora – again with the “knowing.” This is like the argument that if people just “knew” what gay people do, then they wouldn't approve of homosexuals.
That is just nonsense. I know plenty about the Clintons and if it's Hillary v. McCain, I'm voting for her. If it's Obama v McCain, I'm voting for him.
This really has very little to do with what people who support Clinton actually know – you are asserting that to support Clinton, you must not know anything. Come on.
For example, isn't this a lovely way to support Barack Obama? of COURSE I'm SURE Obama has nothing to do with it, but seriously – people want people to say race and gender don't matter, and then people whip up this kind of crap?
http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?pro…
Maybe you mean omniscient?
Can I just say I have a fever and assume you knew what I meant?
Damozel, you may be right about the attitude of some Obama supporters. There are certainly some fanatics out there. But I'd also suggest you check in at a site like hillaryis44.com for equally ridiculous examples of fanactical Hillary supporters.
My point being, both sides have people supporting them who make ridiculous claims, state they'll never support the other Democratic candidate should their favorite not win the nomination….the list goes on and on.
To claim that Obama is responsible in some way, or to suggest that Obama should do more to reign his supporters in, while ignoring Hillary's lack of effort at doing the same, strikes me as hypocritical.
Rather, you may as well just accept (as I do) that both Hillary and Obama are inspiring people across the country, and some of those people are becoming a bit “passionate” about who they support. But at the end of the day, we each have a responsibility to vote only for the candidate we see as being the right one to lead the country. The actions and/or slights (real or imagined) of one or the other's supporters should have no bearing on that decision.
It doesn't matter what the supporters say, Senator Obama routinely praises Senator Clinton in his speeches. That's a fact. And I see nothing from Senator Clinton that shows she feels Senator Obama is disrespecting her. BUT I do see supporters on both sides ripping each other incessantly. And that just plain sucks.
Jillmz, that t-shirt is tasteless and classless. And if Senator Obama was endorsing them, I would be the first to rake him over the proverbial coals. People that make t-shirts like that are agitators and inbeciles. Bros before hoes???? Puh-leeze. How about:
CLASSY BEFORE ASS-Y!
That's what I'll wear for those t-shirt losers.
“Senator Obama routinely praises Senator Clinton in his speeches. That's a fact. And I see nothing from Senator Clinton that shows she feels Senator Obama is disrespecting her.”
I agree 100% with that, T_Steel (why an underscore – hyphens are so much easier!!).
Wouldn't it be nice to see what great t-shirt someone could come up with if, although I don't expect it to happen, but if they ran on the same ticket – of course the whole who is pres/vp issue – I can't imagine resolving that one!
Many of us, who haven't necessarily been mean to Obama, have been asking this about Obama since he began his campaign.
The fact is, he differs little from Clinton insofar as their policy or program objectives are concerned. Both are well left of center, Clinton just better disguised at this, while Obama doesn't seem to be concealing anything (“Trojan horse”) but instead simply hasn't decided yet on details or simply doesn't know yet.
This is sad, but unsurprising:
http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7865717
This, though, is disturbing to non-liberals:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsq…
(Get Washington out of, not deeper into, where it doesn't belong!)
What we're seeing with Clinton vs. Obama is a contest between what the Dems are known for — identity politics (reverse racism and sexism, primarily, but other identity politics are involved), and a competition because now black Americans are not sidelined at the left fringe (the kind of activists the DNC wants to take for granted and exclude from leadership) but are part of the mainstream, even if the party establishment, so long used to deciding things (since 1932 in the modern world), now isn't simply faithfully obeyed.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/31/usa…
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentato…
Jill: I have not read your blog. I read TMV as a precis because it links to others, and folk like you recap things. I was referring to Dam's amd your portrayals of Obama folk as lumpenmenschen in their attitudes toward Hill, when the very fact of grouping them together is exactly what you are supposedly decrying in the Obama folk.
Damozel's main point was NOT why people should support Hillary over Obama. It was that some of Obama's more ardent “surrogates” and supporters have been DIVISIVE (e.g., insulting) to the point that it has created resentment toward Obama on the part of some Hillary supporters.
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. So yes – I am absolutely lumping together the ones I know from my experience. I am sure that there are others who are not like them – I was speaking about my experience. And I stand by my characterization of my experience.
The chance to be seen and heard in more than just a handful of quirky early-primary states has already made a striking difference for the Illinois Senator, who was the clear underdog when he entered the race. “What was a whisper has turned into a chorus,” Obama told his hometown crowd in Chicago.
But a whisper, many would like to know, of what?
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?opti…
Damozel,
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you have not visited this site yet.
http://www.hillaryis44.com/
Perhaps it would help level out your views of the candidate's supportors.
Did you know that Obama has “has repeatedly insulted the voters of Florida and Michigan”? Apparantly by living up to the agreement both he and Hillary made at the start of this campaign.
Really nice as well how they go all “Confederate Yankee” on Obama supporters such as Tim Russo.
Frankly, it looks a lot like a “Karl Rove Blog for Hillary” if you ask me.
T-Steel, Good point re: supporters (not candidates) tearing each other apart. Frankly, I'd like to see a joint ticket, whoever wins the Dem primary, because I think that's the best chance for the Dems to beat McCain.
As many bloggers forget, many ordinary (i.e., non-wonks and non-bloggers) mis-perceive McCain as a moderate or liberal. This means that McCain will be able to peel off some Dem and Ind votes. It would be harder for McCain to get Dem votes if the BO and HC supporters would stop going after each other.
cosmoetica I agree with you about NAFTA and a few other things. What I don't understand is the term “niggerizing.” What does it mean? And what concrete actions did Hillary take to do that to him?
A completely new point: I'm still troubled by the way that Obama's surrogates cried “racism” when Hillary said that MLK needed Johnson and Congress to get laws passed. To me, her remark was part of her trying to say, “Hey, if I'm president, I'll be helpful to reformers like MLK.” It was a nice message.
Somehow, Obama's bigger, media-tied supporters cried racism. Why? And what also troubles me is that Obama was the only one who could have quickly stepped in and put out the fire. He didn't.
I know that my last point doesn't address yours, but your use of “niggerizing” reminded me of it.
I guess I just don't share the idea that she is a great executive, or has a record of getting things done. It seems pretty clear from the dysfunctional campaign she has run –she has blown through a 20 plus lead and at least 120 million, its hard to see how the clinton's great experience has translated into anything effective. In fact the clinton presidency was similarly hobbled by such leadership gaps. The most blatant being the stupid impeachment, but the most damaging to the progressive cause was the debacle of arrogant overreach in 93, of which Hillary care was the most prominent. We progressives have been on the defense ever since.
The idea that just because she has survived her mistakes does not mean that she has learned anything. Witness her blowing the very important Iraq call. She may indeed have felt she needed to position herself as tough enough, but that would be a strike against her. That war is costing billlions and thousands of lives, and engendering the world against us. Not too mention our own betrayal of our principles. This is not the call a good leader makes. You could take a cynical note and suppose that she, knowing how incompetent the Bush team was, gambled on the war being a debacle allowing the democrats to sweep the nation in 08–now that would be a cunning strategy worthy of a great general, but I'm not sure if you would be comfortable with such a thought. If she were that capable she would have surely noted that that vote has allowed Obama to take all the voters to the left of her, while advocating policies to the right of her and boxing her into advocating health care to win back those leftest votes- shining light on her biggest debacle.
She may be battle scared, and she may still win, but she is not effective, and she would not be a good president.