Riverdaughter’s “Pocket Guide to the Obamaniac Behavior Cycle”

Ok Jill, very funny, however, where is the evidence that McCain will nominate Justices that support Roe v. Wade? Where is the evidence contradicting the fact that 1 in 5 Ky voters admitted they would never vote for a black candidate? (Plus how many can we add that would never vote for a black man yet wouldn't admit it in a poll.) If Hillary is truly principled, why is she actively seeking the support of these types of voters, even to the extent of making them the prize to be won in November? If she was so concerned about voters being represented, why did she agree to their punishment in the first place? For that matter, why is she so eager to take away the votes of states that ran caucuses and played by the rules? Are the votes of states that broke the rules more important? Why should braking the rules be rewarded and following them be punished? Why is she making common cause with people like Rush Limbaugh and Richard Scaife who accused her husband of murder and made some pretty vicious comments about her daughter ?Where by any chance is the evidence of sexist attacks coming from Obama or his staff? Even people who say they would never support Obama say they won't because of the Media's sexist attacks, not because of things Obama did. I think these are perfectly valid points and while accusing people who make them as throwing temper tantrums is easy and funny, I don't find it very persuasive.

I half to admit, I got a little chuckle out of this and I am an Obama supporter. But the stark reality is that Clinton has lost this nomination and when she starts spouting off rhetoric comparing FL/MI to slavery, civil rights and Zimbabwe, it really is time for someone to come with big hook and yank her off the stage. Facts are she agreed to the FL/MI rules and SIGNED an agreement stating as much. She didn't raise so much as a whisper about them until it looked like the only way she could get the nomination was to seat these 2 states that rules committee (which included Clintonista Harold Ickes) voted last year to strip their delegates. She's just embarrassing herself now.

Actually one of the more amusing (or perhaps disappointing) aspects here is the stark contrast between what is considered unacceptable behavior as definied in the graphic and acceptable behavior in the linked post. The graphic makes much of accusing Obama supporters of insulting offensive behavior toward Senator Clinton and her supporters. (And it's certainly a valid charge, as any short trip around the Obama supporting blogosphere would quickly show.) But the post links to the supporting article which turns out to be a tirade laden with condescending comments and vulgarity, not only toward Obama supporters, but the candidate himself. (Calling him the "unity pony" is one of the milder ones.)

This is a glass slipper that could be fitted on the feet of some supporters on both sides, to be sure, but I generally find such arguments more persuasive when the author chooses to take the high road. If complaints about "the other side" being insulting are delivered calmly and professionally, they carry more weight. Arguing that the opponent is condescending while treating their candidate with the same respect you would like to be shown to yours will make the point far more effectively.

But again, while interesting for observers of the election, one can hope that most of this will go away some time after June 15 or so when we finally wrap this up and move into full blown general election mode. (Or at least the Democrats certainly need to *hope* that happens.)

It's too bad we can't get a glimpse of what the world would look like if the race were equally close but with positions reversed. Such a comparison would go far, I think, to reveal a great deal about the respective candidates' characters as well as the solicitude or lack thereof with which the media portray them.

As for the characterizations of either candidate's supporters, well we all know that we will find the esteemable and the despicable, the insightful and the vacuous, the hysterically funny and the hysterically overwrought staked out under each candidate's tent...and then there's a whole lot of us in between. Frankly, I shudder every time I see these groups used as a descriptive sentence's subject or object... as thoroughly as I do when I hear about the voting patterns of this race or that gender.

aba23 - I have thought this CONSTANTLY lately: "It's too bad we can't get a glimpse of what the world would look like if the race were equally close but with positions reversed. Such a comparison would go far, I think, to reveal a great deal about the respective candidates' characters as well as the solicitude or lack thereof with which the media portray them." Thanks for making me not feel alone in that.

Jazz - thanks for pointing that out - I actually didn't even read the post. As hattipped in my post here, I saw the graphic because of an email I received from Women's Voices for Change. I then wanted to link to the original source of the graphic because that's the proper thing to do. I don't follow Riverdaughter - I think I only heard that blog's name in the last week or so.

But on my cross-post at my blog? :) I did note that if people wanted to see what a Clinton supporter sounds like (as opposed to me), they should definitely read Riverdaughter.

With regard to "Over-confidence mode", can anyone point me to an instance where an Obama supporter actually said that Clinton supporters are like battered wives who stay with abusive husbands? It seems to me that implicit in that argument is that Obama supporters (or perhaps Obama) are the abusers.

If Clinton is to win the nomination, the traditional democratic constituency that she is going to have the hardest time winning over is afrian americans. Can you imagine if an Obama supporter at that point caricatured Clinton supporters by saying: "After all where else can they go? Like a slave on our plantation, they'll come crawling back no matter how much we oppress them. "?

I'm essentially with djshay on this: An Obama supporter, but found this very funny. I especially enjoyed the copy in the "Attack/Gloat Mode." I also agree with djshay that Hillary is on the edge of embarassing herself; wrote a post not too long ago defending her, as she appeared to be on the verge of making a graceful, dignified exit. Now -- not so sure. Either way, yes -- of course -- Obama needs the Hillary supporters. All of them? Ahhh, probably not. But a solid, solid if not super majority of them. Absolutely. It's a shame some of his supporters don't heed his call for more civility. He's been praising Clinton right and left for fighting a good fight, etc. His supporters need to start doing the same; treating both Hillary and her supporters with dignity and respect -- that's the surest way they can help their preferred candidate take the White House. In fact, I would probably benefit applying some of that advice to my perspectives and writing.

Thank you for this, Pete - I hope you do consider writing a post around it - for ALL supporters all along the spectrum. You should see the insanity I get from Clinton AND Obama supporters. It's just too much.

"It's a shame some of his supporters don't heed his call for more civility. He's been praising Clinton right and left for fighting a good fight, etc. His supporters need to start doing the same; treating both Hillary and her supporters with dignity and respect -- that's the surest way they can help their preferred candidate take the White House. In fact, I would probably benefit applying some of that advice to my perspectives and writing."

Since I'm in full jailhouse humor mode, I have to add another slice to the "Obamaniac Behavior Cycle". This comes from a discussion with black men in my family who support Obama:

The Conspiracy Brutha Mode: "Man, bruthas and sistas holding down the fort for Barry-O. Don't matter what anybody says about Barry-O, WE HOLDING IT DOWN TILL THE WHITE HOUSE. But we know they not going to let a black man win. Ol' Hillary going to whip up some Clinton magic and brutha Barry will be cheering her nomination with a big 'damn a brutha can't get any love' smile on his face. IN the convention as a winner, OUT the convention with a moral victory. Well at least a brutha tried."

Kathryn - I think those are legitimate questions too that deserve answers, though the lawyer in me says that she will have even passably legit answers. I've been thinking about how some moot court problem drafting group she working up something right now. :)

The one thing I'll quibble with is the role these two play in sending messages to their followers re: how to interact. Pete Abel mentions it in his comment in this thread too. And in the Ohio blogs, I am really really really getting a lot of unacceptable heat - and I'm not even a Hillary supporter. Frankly, I can see that in Ohio, it's only going to get worse before it gets better.

OMG T-Steel!!!! That is PRICELESS! :) Thank you for adding that - I am in hysterics - you know, the laughing kind not the sexist women are crazy kind. ;)

My pleasure! :-D

All the black guys in my family have been in "Conspiracy Brutha Mode" since Iowa in supporting Obama. But here's the interesting thing, all of them said they would vote for Clinton if she did get nomination. And the black woman in my family say the same.

The naive kids who fundamentally characterize the Obama crowd lack self-control. The diagram is not a surprise and is not controversial in any way.

And who really believes the bluster by Dem voters that they'll vote for McCain or stay home rather than vote for the Dem nominee, whom they didn't prefer?

(Credit where due: At least they don't threaten to rusn to vote for Nader in protest.)


Even if Clinton gets the nomination after pulling her latest predictable stunt (see comments as well as article) the Dems will be largely loyal this year.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?i...

Hillary has been in denial since '97, how is this different?

For the record, in my previous post I hesitated about half a minute before using the "hysterically funny and hysterically overwrought" construction. (I heartily resent having to edit out the precise words I want to use for fear of having them misconstrued, but recognize that misperceptions are to be expected, and occasionally one absolutely must resist the ensuing distraction.) So it is with considerable relief that you seem to have appreciated it much as intended (and I usually hate emoticons).

aba23 - you will have to learn to trust me about me as opposed to how others write about me, which merely reflects their interpretations. I'm not now nor have I ever been for Clinton though in the end I voted for her. Neither of the two remaining candidates (editing in: in the Dem primary) satisfy me. Both of them have followers who by objective mental health standards are crazy, both of them have engaged either overtly or subconsciously in "isms." Voters deserve better but we get what we push for and what our system offers up and allows. I'm working as hard as I know how to to make sure there are viable female candidates in the pipeline and I would recommend that everyone do the same if there are people you want to promote to political office. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

I've learned that I should have overtly supported Joe Biden who was my top pick, then Dodd and then Richardson. I did very very little and that was wrong. I hope not to make that mistake again.

The fact is that the candidates had nothing to do with the rules put forth by the DNC. What they agreed to was to not campaign, that there would be penalties if they campaigned in MI or FL. Hilllary did not campaign in FL or Mi, Obama didn't campaign in MI, but did campaign in FL and should be penalized. The votes in FL and MI have been certified and will be counted to the popular vote totals. Obama made a tactical decision to remove his name from the Michigan ballot. This was not a requirement. Obama supporters would like nothing better than for Hillary to exit, for her supporters to jump on the bandwagon and let the new guy win. On to the Convention.......

Hillary didn't give a crap about FL and MI until she saw she needed them
to get ahead of Obama. When the decision was made to punish these 2
states, why didn't she say something then? If she's soooo concerned
about the voters, why didn't she protest way back when the decision was
made?

Now all that' s needed is for McCain to chuckle or snicker on the airwaves and ask aloud, "How long does the cycle take? 28 days? Oh, this is Obama, not Clinton voters..."

Jill, I love the guide- thanks!

t-Steel: I'm with Jill, your addition is PRICELESS and so true!

rureddy: "Obama supporters would like nothing better than for Hillary to exit..."
As an Obama supporter I am happy to let the last contest happens on June 3. But after the people have had their say I do want a quick resolution and the second-place candidate to step aside and not take the fight to Denver. I do expect Obama to receive the nomination, but this is one race where even this late in the game I'm not going to claim that Obama as the nominee is a sure thing.

aba23 and Jill: I too have wondered what the world would look like if the candidates' standings were reversed.

Kathryn, on Roe v. Wade (from McCain's own 2008 Presidential campaign website- you can't get any more authoritative than that):

"John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. "

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b1...

On some of your other points: you are right, some folks will never vote for a black guy and some will never vote for a woman. As far as Hillary's "principles" in wooing the racist voters (and this goes for all politicians and whatever racist/sexist/etc. group there is in the US).... Hillary (or any politician) may not like those groups but those groups do vote and there is common ground that can be had. Hillary can support them on some other issues. If they respect her and if Hillary stands up as a leader and makes it clear that racist behavior is not acceptable, then attitudes will change. (As I said that applies to other politicians, too- I used Hill as an example since she is who you mentioned). What is not acceptable is to let discrimination or racists comments go by unchallenged because saying nothing will be construed as one's agreement with bigoted comments.

StockBoy - you raise an interesting point about which I've gone round and round with many people: the meaning of silence. I don't want to get into it here, but depending on who is being silent and in what context, it isn't always agreement - and even the people involved know that. In fact - I think it might even be a truism to say that it means agreement or support. But again - this is worth a full post and real thought. Thanks.

Jill, you're welcome. It is a complex issue but when one (such as a politician) is communicating with a group of people then there are common reference points and assumptions, which don't need further discussion, to get one's point across. When a politician campaigns her or she is trying to appeal to to that crowd and identify with them (and have them identify with him- or her). So if everyone in the room is a bigot and bigoted comments are thrown about with no clarification or caveats, then I think in that situation it WILL be construed that the politician agrees with the statement.

But I agree with you that silence doesn't always mean consent.

In other circumstances (i.e. with doctors or priests) that silence is meant to be non- judgmental. But in those circumstances the doctor (or priest or whoever) is not trying to win a popularity contest.