Comments on: Reasons Why Clinton Voters Still Won’t Support Obama

By: obamaman

obamaman — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:19:44 +0000

Where were you PUMAS when Bush stole the election. I mean you really have to listen to yourselves. And I really think thats a reflection of whats wrong with our country. Spoiled brats that dont get their way and cry till Mommy sticks her tit in your mouth. YOU
MEAN TO TELL ME THAT THE MORALS AND VALUES YOU HAVE IN YOUR HEART WOULD LET YOU VOTE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS OF OUR COUNTRY GOING TO HELL, JUST BECAUSE YOUR MAD THAT YOUR CANDIDATE DIDNT GET ELECTED. YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE ROE V WADE THREATENED AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GO AWAY(IT HELPS WOMEN ALSO). MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS GO TO IRAQ FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS. I personally believe that most of this dissent is made by the republicans. Think about it. When you want to over throw a government you get some of the people that feel like they don't have a voice,add some propaganda and presto you have an organization backed by the opposition to derail the government.. Hey we did it in Iran a long time ago why not elections. I think McCain was Around in those times, I know some Bush was. Point is don't be fooled into thinking these people have your best interest at heart. Most of the public defenders of Clinton that run these groups Voted for McCain or Bush and contributed to their campaings. Again you have a computer research a little instead of taking everyones words for things.

By: Holly_in_Cincinnati

Holly_in_Cincinnati — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:05:10 +0000

This email address is protected by EarthLink spamBlocker. Your
email message has been redirected to a "suspect email" folder for
Holly R. In order for your message to be moved to her Inbox, she must add your
email address to a list of allowed senders. She cannot do this until you send
her a message.

https://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/addme?a=h...

By: obamaman

obamaman — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:03:06 +0000

Hey Holly. Stop listening to all the hear say and look up some facts for yourself. Barack sits on 3 out of 4 foreign relations Jobs in the senate. He has more public service years than Hillary Clinton. 6 years for her and 8 years for him. You cant count being the husband of the President considering she doesn't have the same security clearance as her husband(and still doesn't). Please look up Barack cpmplete record before you fall for George Bushes politics plan and vote awy your right and keep the country going in the same direction. We have to many problems in this country to let Republicans run it for another four years.

By: TMZ

TMZ — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:04:39 +0000

I'll add if it ruins Hillary's chances to win later on then so be it. She was treated unfairly at times. But all that aside. I would rather not have Obama in office. Hillary was already ruined by the Party. To me this has shifted from being about her to being about Obama. As I said this election is all about him. I'll even add that if another black candidate ran I would have voted. But Obama is no Jesse Jackson. And I hold nothing against those who vote Obama, but like voting for Bush, they are very mistaken and democrats made a poor choice.

By: TMZ

TMZ — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:58:43 +0000

Here's a reason why not to vote for Obama. They have a lot of mean supporters who are wanting to always argue with you and who say nothing is wrong with their candidate and who hate Hillary. You can't say anything for they walk on eggshells. You get angry and want to blow up at them. Ignorant people who are a disservice to their candidate. Listen to Paula Adele youtube clips and she will tell you why she is for McCain. My reason is simple I like him better than Obama. I am skeptical of Obama. Everyday it is something else with him. He isn't doing much now to get anybody new on his side. Even some smarter people know his weakness. I get why people support him that were for other candidates, it's just cause of the war and a bunch of maybes. Like that he will fix the economy. We shall see if he is elected. But to me his negatives out way his positives. I'll add that to me it is his politics, but I get why some may go against him out of spite instead. This election is not really about McCain, It's about Obama. He's made a lot of supporters and has made a lot of people who dislike him with passion.

By: katiec

katiec — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:38:36 +0000

Any Hillary supporter that says they will vote for McCain, the king of flip flopping, the master of voting against anything that will promote Womens Rights, a hugh
participant in getting our country in the mess we are in, a supporter of this
unjustified war (any any other that will come along), creating a deficit that
will be a hugh burden to our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.,
destroyed our economy and is taking part in eliminating the middle class insults voters intelligence. And disgusts the people who really believe we need a
change. The people who can see beyond pettiness.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:43:21 +0000

Frankly, my grandchildren were more mature at the age of 3 than the displays and attitudes I've seen from the Clinton supporters. Sorry, but I've read Silhouette's posts, Holly's posts and gone and checked out the Clinton "support" sites that are pushing for signing her name in or voting for McCain. Color me unimpressed. Those sites are vicious, venal, insulting and extremely short on facts. I was quite forcibly reminded of comments sections on Redstate, Powerlines and Little Green Footballs at its nadir.

Holly says that experience trumps all, so McCain should be elected. It doesn't matter if that experience has taught him nothing but to support about 80% (To be generous to McCain.) of Bush's policies. Remember that Bush had much less experience than Obama in public service. Yet McCain's vast reservoir of wisdom has done nothing but teach him that Bush's policies are the way to go in most things. So what good is any of that vaunted experience? He wants Bush's tax cuts. He wants Bush's economic policies. He wants Bush's Supreme Court nominees. So why don't those who find McCain so wonderful just push for a way for Bush to run again? Obviously they must love his first two terms. Why else vote for a continuation of his policies on most issues? Anyone?

By: My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Reasons Why Clinton Voters Still Won’t Support Obama

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:35:19 +0000

[...] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama still faces a big problem: many Senator Hillary Clinton supporters still aren’t supporting him and their feelings seemingly override any partisan concerns over what a John McCain administration might bring in terms of … [...]

By: test » Blog Archive » Reasons Why Clinton Voters Still Won’t Support Obama

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:27:52 +0000

[...] Why Clinton Voters Still Won’t Support Obama unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptBarack Obama still faces a big [...]

By: Aquater

Aquater — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:35:05 +0000

You are a huge fuss!

By: janinedm

janinedm — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:22:10 +0000

Personal pet peeve. I have blogger friends who tend toward longish posts and I hate when people comment without reading. I'd take a million its/it's switches if people just read.

By: janinedm

janinedm — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:20:03 +0000

It also makes it difficult to call it "Joe's list." I don't even agree with Traister's article. I'm just saying I don't think you read it until after you were called out.

Also, there is no indication that Joe made his statement as a derivative from Rebecca's in any way. It was self-contained and must be treated that way.

I'm using Netscape. I see indentations that denote block quotes.

By: Aquater

Aquater — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:07:05 +0000

Janinedm's point would be truely applicable if Joe had shown any concerns about Rebecca Traister's list. But he did not. What he said under “Danger for Obama” does not indicate any disagreement with the list. And he goes on to use the list. Such a tacit approval of the list makes it difficult to shift blame to the so-called original maker of the list. In any case the logical point still stands. Naturalistic fallacy in a statement remains intact regardless of the maker of the statement. Also, there is no indication that Joe made his statement as a derivative from Rebecca's in any way. It was self-contained and must be treated that way.

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:49:08 +0000

roro30 makes an efficient synopsis of why women are angry and frustrated.

When supporting feminism is represented by supporting a particular woman, though, it gets complicated, because that woman is also a person and a politician. I'm not sure what "support on our own issues' means when it comes to supporting particular candidates.

It is true that signs of sexism were largely ignored by the media and in commentary. At times, such claims were ridiculed. That's something that should, indeed, be highlighted. It's a far stretch, though, to conclude that inattention to sexism was the primary determinant of the support Hillary failed to get. There were so many other issues involved (the Clinton brand and past, campaign tactics, etc), it's impossible to seperate out the direct effect of sexism. Let's not forget, also, that voters had to choose between two candidates. As one was black and the other a woman, one bloc's hopes were inescapably going to be thwarted.

The most important issue now concerns how to handle the disappointment.
Who should be blamed? It's the blame heaped on Obama that is the most troubling. Okay, rivalry always produces a degree of animosity. How that translates into gender issues, I fail to see. If Hillary had won, could she justifiably be accused of racism, even though she intimated that race would be an issue in the election Aside from deliberately losing, what could Obama have done to demonstrate his support of feminism while oppposing Hillary as a competitor?

There is another kink in evaluating sexism's role in the outcome. How can the negative effects be honestly weighed against the benefit provided by support gained simply because Hillary is a woman? Disappointed women can't look at only one side of the scale, if they go about this clinically.

The truth is, IMO, that our culture is alarmingly backward about gender, race, as well as class. Actively encouraging progress is urgent. Choosing how to do it is even more crucial. Advocay is good; overkill is counter productive.
For example, if women don't want to be described as shrill and catty, they shouldn't be shrill and catty in their advocacy.

By: Holly_in_Cincinnati

Holly_in_Cincinnati — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:11:19 +0000

I'm angry that the Democratic nominee is so unqualified for the Presidency that I may have to vote for the G.O.P. nominee.

By: roro80

roro80 — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:26:37 +0000

Did anyone actually read the linked article? Even I identified with quite a few of the items listed, and I am planning on happily casting my vote for Obama in November. (In fact, my spouse and I both liked both candidates, and decided to each vote for one of them.) Despite liking Obama and rolling my eyes at certain tactics of the Clinton campaign, I think that a lot of the “angry at…” comments would apply to me, especially those that speak to the sexism of the coverage, and how so many men who are considered “progressive” collectively stuck their fingers in their ears and told the women-folk to stop being so sensitive every time the issue was brought up. It became utterly and sadly clear that women's support of mainstream progressive issues is very welcome as long as we don't expect support on our own progress. Disheartening, to say the least.

By: janinedm

janinedm — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:25:52 +0000

As a woman who read Joe's article, I know that that is not his list. It is Rebecca Traister's list. This is Summer; politics move slowly enough that you can read a blog post fully before commenting on it. However much time it took you to write your comment, it would have taken less time to read Rebecca Traister's article on Salon (which I happened to read and disagree with).

By: vwcat

vwcat — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:19:59 +0000

As a white 50 year old woman I am so sick and tired of these Clinton supporters. No other demographic who have experienced a let down because a candidate they supported have gotten so much attention. And that is exactly why these spoiled babies are acting the way they are. They want everyone to drop everything and give them unlimited attention and coo poor baby.
My god! It's a damn election! It's politics! Not a feelings session at some therapists office.
Get over it. Get over yourselves.
What these women need is lessons on politics and how it's done. Not more hand holding and babbling over their feelings!
These women need to understand that the world does not revolve around them and to quit with the excessive self obsession and wallowing in self pity!

By: Aquater

Aquater — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:12:28 +0000

Joe's “reasons” are all emotional whinings: personal anger is the only common element running through them. Joe could do better than putting it in such prejudiced manner. By reducing women's disagreement to personal anger he has confirmed the gender stereotypes. If he is unable to penetrate women's thinking on the topic, he should say so but not opt to convert it to emotion in a stereotypical male manner.
I signed in recently to TMV thinking that here perhaps is a real moderate voice above party-mongering. But the irrational tone of articles against Kristol and Joe's own stereotypical reduction of women's intellect to anger smacks of male liberal leaning in the site. I will consider dropping out if the liberal bias persists and both sides are not given their intellectually honest dues.
To clarify, ideological dogmatism occurs when the other side is painted in a distorted way. If you are rational, there won't be a need to do that. Because you will then be engaging in an honest debate guided by reason and not partisan dogma. There is one criterion to find out if you have not understood someone and have engaged in premature and illicit “criticism”: The other party strongly disagrees with your caricature. I am sure women who are concerned here would reject Joe's caricature of them as simply emotional whiners.

By: christoofar

christoofar — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:06:59 +0000

1. They are angry because their candidate lost a close contest.

She ran a poor campaign. Be mad at her, not Obama.

2. They are angry because their historic opportunity is over.

Says who? Are women giving up now?

3. They are angry about rumors that Obama may choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

They are angry at "rumors"?

4. They are angry that we started to talk about sexism only once Clinton stopped being a threat.

Again..how is this Obama's fault? I guess we can overlook Bill & Hill Clinton's racist comments for the time being, cuz that's different.

5. They are angry at the media’s repeated denial of sexism, and they are angry at Keith Olbermann.

OK, great .What does this have to do with Obama again???

Well....I guess these angry women could switch over & vote MCCain, since he's proven himself to be quite supportive of issues important to women....