An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Obama’s Obstacle With Clinton Supporters: Fingers In The Ears

Screaming_.jpg

Maureen Dowd’s account of the Unity rally bringing Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama and former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton’s camps (purportedly) closer together has this telling and symoblic excerpt about the reaction of one Clinton supporter:

When it was Obama’s turn to speak, Carmella [Lewis] announced loudly, “I wish I had ear plugs.” Then, as Obama tried to ingratiate himself with the Hillary partisans in the crowd by saying that because of the New York senator, his daughters “can take for granted that women can do anything that the boys can do and do it better and do it in heels,” Carmella put her fingers in her ears.

This is a metaphor for all that is wrong with 21st century American politics.

As Obama tried to curry favor with Hillary, looking over at her sensible, sturdy shoes and marveling, “I still don’t know how she does it in heels,” Carmella tore up a tissue and stuffed it in her ears.

Forget about open-minded. This is also closed-eared…

When Obama pandered with a line about how he wouldn’t “perpetuate a system in which women are paid less for the same work as men,” she put her hands over her tissue-stuffed ears.

“Maybe she’d like what she heard if she listened,” sighed [Obama campaign manager David] Axelrod.

And then this:

She told The Times that she and her friends were all voting for John McCain and that Hillary was just doing what she had to do.

“But I have a gut feeling,” she said with macabre faith, “that something’s going to happen so that she becomes the nominee.”

It’s difficult to believe that the former Clinton donors who are making it clear at meetings and in anonymous quotes to reporters that they won’t contribute to Obama and the Clinton supporters whom polls show are now in the minority of Clinton supporters who are actively working against Obama are going to help Clinton if she chooses to run in 2012. Rather, all of these reports are documented and circulated so, if Obama loses, the finger of blame will be pointed at some in the Clinton camp for not putting party principles first in the battle against the Republican Presidential nominee.

Dowd also nails it on former President Bill Clinton:

They did not, however, commiserate about Bill Clinton, who is in a self-pitying meltdown about not being Elvis anymore, trying to shake down Obama for more — more apologies for perceived snubs and more help paying off the $22 million Clinton debt.

It’s hard to fathom why Obama should be mau-maued into paying off the debt that Hillary and Bill accrued attacking and undermining him, while mismanaging the campaign and their nearly quarter-billion-dollar war chest so horribly that one Hillaryland insider told The New Republic that it bordered on fraud.

But the former president can’t stand being a loser, so he’s taking it out on the winner. When it comes to Bill, there’s a lot of vanity but very little humility in Unity.

The bottom line: if, as some polls show, this could be a close election (some other polls show Obama way ahead) and every vote counts, then Obama faces a tough road in winning the votes of people who aren’t really opposed to his stand on issues or his general principles. They just are opposed to him.

Even Supreme Court 5 to 4 decisions won’t change their mind.

And how can Obama make his case when they have their fingers in their ears?

  • vwcat
    Obama cannot make his case. And the fact that the media gives these fringe loonies any legitamacy by writing about them will only spur them on.
    After they go on their orgy of spite and let's say they succeed and get McCain elected if any of them even complain because the court is packed with conservatives, civil rights and legislation for women are rolled back, they can only look in the mirror at what their spite brought.
    If they have a mirror to look in because the economy will be in such a shambles by then.
    And if they believe this will help Hillary will only be deluding themselves because no democrat will forgive them for what they did and therefore will not give Hillary a second look in the 2012 primaries. they will blame her for the lunatic fringe supporters who brought this on.
    More and more I believe this is not about Hillary. It is about themselves and their monumental egos. They are so wrapped up in self absorbed 'it's all about me and what I want' and satisfying their own delusions it ceased being about Hillary a long time ago.
    Hillary is only an excuse for them to wallow in self pity and gorge on their own selfish need for attention and acting out.
    If it was truly about supporting someone for president and that person lost, they would know that is politics. And that only one can win.
    the whole subcult that has gone into a state of delusion and even has gone so far as to commit crimes and vandalism in the name of Hillary are acting more on their own selfishness and self obsessions.
    these two diaries pretty much sums up the PUMAs and their craving for attention and using Hillary as an excuse for acting on their selfishness:

    http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/29/93837/5...

    http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/29/94036/5...
  • Silhouette
    Don't you think the title of this article should be reversed?

    Millions of people do...:)

    Try to imagine this just for a moment. You have two applicants for a job in a company you have that is struggling, on the brink of financial collapse and vulnerable to takeover from other companies. You want desperately to save it.

    The job agency (democrats) send you two applicants. One applicant is very handsome, young, looks very promising on the surface. He is well-spoken and seems to have an answer for every question put to him. And if he doesn't have an answer, he promises to look into it and get you one very soon. You like him. He leaves you feeling hopeful, confident as to his abilities...

    Applicant number two comes in with a slightly less likeable first impression. Her voice is a litte raspy, she seems a little too direct, pushy maybe even, but her command of the company's inner workings is machine-like, automatic and practical. She leaves you also feeling confident but less enamored than with applicant number one.

    You know you have a Board Meeting and you have to present the best applicant for the job. So you begin your background check to make damn sure the applicant you choose is the best possible one for the job. Things to consider are the size of the mess the company is in, the fact that it's recovery will be long-term at best and you assess how technical the problems are that it faces...the nuances. You know the applicant you pick MUST be thoroughly experienced...moreover, there is no time for on-the-job training. This CEO must hit the ground running 100mph as if they've done this their whole life.

    Applicant one (Obama), left you with a warm feeling for hope and change in your belly; but upon opening his resume', you begin to wonder where he is coming from on hope and change. You note that even though he espouses minority rights (an important factor in your company) you see that he rose to a high position in another related company (Senate) by smashing fellow minorities. You begin to become concerned; but still you put it aside because there is something quite winning about him. Then more flip-flops start emerging.... he is young and almost too-smooth..something isn't sitting right..

    Applicant number two's resume' reads like company policy. You see that she not only has experience in the company's busniness before, but that she was the top confidant of one of it's best CEOs in the company's history. Although she's a bit abrasive, the financial performance of her and her associate stands out as the best the industry has ever seen. Your company, teetering on the brink of financial collapse, up to its ears in foreign worries...you know which candidate the Board (majority of dem voters) is going to want. You know the only safe bet to run the company is the less-initially likeable brassy applicant with experience and 15 years seniority on the more smooth and "likeable" one.

    You make your decision and you stand by it. No amount of pleading on behalf of the lesser applicant will move you. You (the superdelegates) know that if you present the wrong applicant (Obama) for the most dire problem facing the company (economic recovery), that the Board (the voters) will fire you (not re-elect you in your next term).

    People do object to Obama for good, solid reasons. We aren't stupid. We know that some people are really good at the con. This is something that comes with age and maturity. We don't want an obvious con man slinking into the most important position in our country. We want to err on the side of tried-and-true. Imagine that in these troubled times? Emotional? How about methodical.

    We have eliminated one of the applicants for the job. It's a done deal.
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Silhouette's post simply proves the point of Joe's post.


    We aren't stupid. We know that some people are really good at the con. ...We don't want an obvious con man slinking into the most important position in our country.


    The rest is a meaningless attempt to justify this kind of attitude with a ludicrous parable.
  • vwcat
    Silhouette, there is an article I read this week that looks at the experience of a state senator vs. a US senator.
    In it, a state senator has to dig into and learn the details of the bill and subject they are voting on. You spend alot of time learning about the subject.
    Whereas a US senator know a smattering of the subject and doesn't really get into the details.
    The staffing of the us senator does all that where the state senator doesn't have that kind of staff and therefore has to do the work themselves.
    So, who is more prepared on subjects facing the country and knowing about the pitfalls and problems states are facing?
    Plus the state senator has to work across the aisle alot more then the US.
    It would be the state senator.
    Obama was a state senator for 8 years and 4 as a US.
    Not only that but, a constitutional law professor for 10.
    hillary was a US senator for 8 years. period.
    Then comparing the way the campaigns are run, one of the ways to tell how the candidate would be as a president and run the white house. Hillary ran bad and incompetent campaign and ran it into record debt.
    Obama's is one that will be studied and modeled on for years as the ideal campaign.
    I think I would sleep much better with someone as competent and cool headed and capable as Obama at the wheel over Hillary.
  • timr
    Maureen Dowd. I can't think of anything to add, except does anyone know if she was really there? She has sent staffers in her place before. I would not believe anything that woman says. If she were to say that the sun sets in the west, I would go and check because she really doesn't have a very good grasp on any facts. Plus she has always hated the dems. Read her columns from back in 99 about Al Gore, and in 2003 about Kerry. She is a dem hater, so whyu on earth do dems read and listen to her? A pretty face covers up an empty mind. SILHOUETTE Last I heard, HRC's voters have gone over to Obama 56% to St johns 33%. Close minded is not the word I would use about those who say they will organize for st john. They make all of the sterotypes about women real. Really, overly emotional, fixated on HRC, believing every lying word out of HRC's mouth. HRC, experience. Aside from 8 years as a senator, what has she done-ON HER OWN- answer. Nothing. OH OH , she was the WIFE of a president. She didn't even get a security clearance. Her experience, she was the WIFE of a gov. and president. Boy, if that is the best candidate that the feminists can come up with, then they are sadly lacking in reality. Other women have become senators-without the name recognition of BEING A PRESIDENTS WIFE, golly, some have even become state governors-ALL ON THEIR OWN. And they didn't mismanage a campaign so badly that they went thru $250 million, and still went into debt to the tune of over $20 million. She was paying her top people Terry, mark penn, etc over $100,000 A MONTH!! She overpaid for damn near everything. She owes penn over $ 10 mil as a vendor-he was working for her, yet he still ran a side business that billed her. YEAH, she sure is the **best** candidate. She spent money like it was water, stayed in 4 star hotels, and the expenses her main men ran up were the same. She ran one of the worst campaigns for president ever. That is why she lost. Obama did not change the rules, in fact she AGREED(IN ADVANCE) that MI & FL would not count-that is until she started falling behind. She agreed that it was the delegate count that was the only criteria-until she found herself so far behind in the delagate count that she could never catch up, then it was all about the *popular vote*, where she claimed she was ahead, but only if you count Mi & FL, and did not count the 8 caucus states. Then it was only Ohio, and Pa that counted. No matter what she did, and how she twisted, SHE LOST! and whose "fault" was that? The "inevitable" candidate, the one who had raised $250 million, the one who had already gotten over 100 SD's to pledge to her. It was her fault, and hers alone that she lost. Hubris and ego told her she was winning, even tho she had no plans for after Super Tuesday-that is where she would win it all(and for gods sake, Penn-her great stratergist-(yes I mispelled it on purpose) DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE FRIKKIN RULES, he thought that Ca was a winner take all state, EVEN THO her camp had agreed that no state would be a "winner take all"-(BEFORE THE PRIMARIES EVEN STARTED)that was the repigs, that freekin dumbass could not even keep that right. And you still wonder that SHE LOST!!! Get over it. She will never be the president, she will, if she runs in 2012, get little if any support. If she is the best woman for president in the entire country, then we are in a lot more trouble than I thought
  • Silhouette
    "Hillary ran bad and incompetent campaign and ran it into record debt."

    She had some help on that from the GOP/BigMedia.

    You might want to look into why that was..

    On the flip side Obama was coddled and propped $ by GOP/BigMedia.

    Two sides of the same coin. And that coin is sabotage.

    The Obama trap.
  • Silhouette
    "Several sources have confirmed the temporary outplacement of U.S. Army psyops personnel started two or three years ago, and they have been integrated into "various sectors of society." The assignment durations have been short-term up to one full year, depending on the mission. When asked, "What were the missions?" responses to WND varied from "No comment.", "... need to know," to smiles, and, in one case, an obscene recommendation.

    CNN is the most watched and widely viewed news outlet in the world. During Operation Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein regularly watched CNN for battlefield intelligence. The symbiotic, intimate relationship between CNN and army psyops specialists has raised many eyebrows, with critics saying it raises doubts about CNN's journalistic integrity and independence...

    ..CNN has not thus far commented officially on the allegations. Megan Mahoney, a CNN spokeswoman recently said, "I don't believe that we would employ military personnel; it doesn't seem like something we would normally do." However, now that the U.S. Army Information Service has confirmed the news, Mahoney said she would have to contact CNN's senior officials.

    Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A...

    Walk right in and enjoy the cheese. Don't mind all those funny metal things all around you, they're just hysterical rantings of angry old white women...

    lol...
  • mlhradio
    I realized something a couple of weeks ago, when I was trying to pinpoint the mindset behind the backwards-thinking, exclusionary group of "Hillary or nothing" groups.

    You know who the current Clinton supporters remind me of? Bush's fanbase.
  • pat1509
    hmm , remember the sniper fire. so much for experience.....PLEASE!
  • Jim_Satterfield
    A "Democrat" who believes something on WorldNutDaily. Please.
  • runasim
    These women are scary. Totally incubating in their own echo chamber, I'm beginning to wonder what havoc they can actually cause at the Dem convention.
    This may be paranoid, but I wonder how actively Hillary is really trying to disuade them from their mania when off-camera.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice/Joe Gandelman | Designed by Elegant Themes | Customized by Tyrone Steels II/Enxit Group, LLC