Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Hillary's "Democratic" support

dmd76's picture

After months of being told Obama supporters aren't true Democrats and progressives, that the Obama campaign is only about him, we finally have the numbers to prove, once and for all, that if any campaign is a cult of personality, it is Hillary Clinton's:

A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

28% of Sen. Clinton's supporters would vote for McCain over Obama in the GE: the John McCain that voted for the Bankruptcy Bill, that supports the Surge and wants to bomb Iran, that would appoint judges like Alito and Scalia to the Supreme Court. That's a hell of a progressive movement Sen. Clinton's building. Undoubtedly, this is all Obama's fault.

0
No votes yet

Comments

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Like the venom that has been spewed at Hillary and her supporters by some (very vocal) Obama supporters?

I have said for months that my biggest problem with Obama is his supporters.

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

Specifically, the chair of her fundraising committee who called Obama an affirmative action case.

And her would-be de facto Vice President who said Obama doesn't love his country.

Nope, didn't care for that at all.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

So to get back at mean Obama supporters, 28% of HRC's supporters are going to vote for four more years of the same shit we've endured for the past eight? How mature! How enlightened! How progressive!

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

So to get back at mean Obama supporters, 28% of HRC’s supporters are going to vote for four more years of the same shit we’ve endured for the past eight? How mature! How enlightened! How progressive!

As you've incorrectly assumed, to spite the OFB is not why I vote. It's not about you but about me. But can you not see that a remark like yours feels like the same shit we've endured for the past 8 years? I don't care to be abused by the right or the so-called progressive left.

I don't honestly think I could vote for BO if it were today, any more than I could ever vote for McCain. I don't like the guy.

You could have done better by responding, for instance: "Wow! I had no idea this was that big a problem, how can we -- you and & I together -- solve it, what needs to happen or what can be said to make you feel better about who I think Obama really is, what he can do for this country?" Beyond a vague bring-us-together, that is.

[I'm 61 years old and believe by now that I know some bullshit when I hear it. I also realize that nobody gets to the top of the BS pile that is US politics without being able to shovel some of it. But I'll leave the party altogether if it continues to abuse or berate me any further, and that includes expecting me to be around for them later when they aren't for me now. I get it.]

But instead you sarcastically belittle and talk down to me much like George Bush when he said to a guy at a 4th of July church picnic: "Who cares what you think?" To refresh your memory, http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/featu...

It doesn't work. It pushes me away. Why would you do that when Obama's unity position must appeal to you at least a little?

They're blind and they're blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Blind, blind
Blind, blind, blind, blind, blind

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

I was responding to the comment directly above mine, where myiq2xu excused Hillary supporters for claiming to support McCain in the GE because Obama supporters were mean (in your words, "to spite the OFB"). It's a ridiculous, immature attitude, and I mocked it accordingly. I agree with you 100%, your vote should be about you, not me. Why you took my comment personally, I'm not sure.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

you wrote: Why you took my comment personally, I’m not sure.

Because I'm an idiot?

My full apologies offered to you, I misunderstood.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

Like the venom that has been spewed at Hillary and her supporters by some (very vocal) Obama supporters?

Says someone who posts on www.hillaryis44.com?

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Those Clinton supporters--overwhelmingly working class whites (i.e. Reagan Democrats)and Latinos, I believe--would vote for McCain over Obama not out of loyalty to Clinton, but because they honestly believe McCain would be better (Latinos have reason to vote for McCain due to his stand on immigration reform). They have no idea how bad he really is since the media has created this "maverick" myth.

Regarding Obama supporters: Listen, the vast majority of supporters take their cues from their respective candidates. If Obama is truly about hope and change, then why does he inspire so much bullying? If Obama can truly move the masses, why doesn't he speak out against his supporters who are going batshit against anyone who dissents? Why does he remain silent?

Even if one discount his supporters (Burn down Denver if he's not the nominee!), there's still plenty to dislike about the candidate himself. For me, the OFB bullies are secondary, but obnoxious (at best).

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

Bill Clinton never said that. He was commenting on a HRC v. McCain race, just as Obama regularly does. Clinton doesn't attack Obama for not including her in those remarks, which could be interpreted (i.e. distorted) as a slight in itself. Bill Clinton said it'd be nice to have two people who loved their countrr so they can focus on the issues--not distractions.

The only way one can interpret that as a slam--especially a call against Obama's supposed lack of patriotism--is to assume that if Obama is not being praised on equal terms as Hillary Clinton by her supporters/surrogates, then it's an attack, which is preposterous. And if Obama is so vulnerable to "attacks" on his patriotism, perhaps he shouldn't make himself so damn vulnerable by, I don't know, having a long, close friendship with a mentor who spews tirades that many consider to be...anti-American. Perhaps he could use some of that magical "judgment" of his to protect his own ass or, at least, not shoot himself in the foot.

And who called Obama an "affirmative action case" (in those words)? If you want to be outraged, how about that supporter who said to vote for Obama because he's black or that other supporter who said Obama was the first black leader not to present himself as a victim? Oh, right. That'd be Kerry and MacCaskill, respectively--Obama's supporters. Right.

We won't even get to the Obama supporters who spew casual misogyny (e.g., McPeak), because as we all know all bigotries are not made equal: racism is bad; misogyny is fine.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Davidson, since you give the "burn down Denver" example, I assume you are asking why the Obama campaign doesn't speak out about comments on a blog left by some guy on the internet. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

By the way, I'd love to hear why you think working class whites will vote for McCain over Obama.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

dmd: why you think working class whites will vote for McCain over Obama.

Davidson: the vast majority of supporters take their cues from their respective candidates.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Clinton has always held onto more democratic voters than Obama, that's been true since at least January. See here - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archive... - where Clinton held onto 83% of Democrats and Obama only 74%.

Obama has based his campaign on appealing to independents and Republicans, on promising "unity" and so it is not surprising that some Democrats don't feel any particular partisan loyalty to him. Add to that the idea that when some Clinton voters say experience is important to them, they aren't kidding.

I suspect that's particularly true for older voters. When I've done voter outreach on behalf of Clinton, older voters - and this goes back to New Hampshire - had almost disdain for Obama, seeing him as someone who hasn't done anything. Now, that may be unfair, but after all of these months if you look at exit polls, he hasn't really improved his standing with these voters. He needs to deal with this issue beyond simply reciting his Iraq War speech and he hasn't.

And I suspect Obama has added to these problems with Wright and in the states of Florida and Michigan. Those two things are self-inflicted wounds, IMO.

Generally, I don't think dems who are indicating they won't vote for Obama are driven by loyalty to Clinton, other than the extent to which Obama has pissed off some women but that's a bigger issue than Clinton and goes more to their feelings about Obama. So his polling weaknesses has to do with Obama's weaknesses as a candidate. Just as I don't believe democrats won't vote for Clinton in November out of some loyalty to Obama and that includes African Americans.

To the extent Obama is being hurt in current polls by loyalty to Clinton, might I suggest it may not be the best electoral strategy to constantly indicate that Clinton's voters don't matter - that the idea that she should quit because the male establishment, led by the Blogger Boyz, says so, that Obama can take her votes for granted (I'll get her votes, she might not get mine), and the constant inferences that Clinton voters are racist might not exactly be helping Obama? Insulting voters rarely makes them feel more inclined to vote for you.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

I'm sure Senator Obama would have (charismatically!) asked me to knock it off - for purely selfish reasons, if nothing else. I'm doing my best to play nice now.

I think we've all known people who somehow manage to bring out the worst in us. Hillary seems to have that effect on a lot of people - including Democrats.

I won't deny there's a sizable component of misogyny in it. There's just something Nurse Ratched-y in her voice and demeanor that many men find simply unbearable. I freely admit it's our problem, not hers - and has no place in political debate among adults.

But there remains the larger problem of what, for the sake of convenience, we may call her Clinton-hood. Bill sold just about all of us down the river [i.e. "don't ask, don't tell", NAFTA, Glass-Steagall, etc.] without ever losing that aw-shucks grin we originally found so endearing. And now Hillary - who claimed to be the policy-wise antidote to the last 7 years of our national nightmare - is running on racial smears, hypocrisy [see signature below], and preposterous lies about foreign policy experience.

We are now very desperate for change - a change that we perceive (fairly or not) Hillary as laboring day and night to take away from us. Desperate people are not always well-mannered.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

joc's picture
Submitted by joc on

Obama really is better than Hillary at getting Democrats to unite with Republicans.

tom's picture
Submitted by tom on

in early polls like this. Anyone who does is risking making a fool out of themselves. I suspect, all ugliness aside, the supporters of the two candidates will unify behind the nominee, whoever it is, by November. Now, unfortunately, because of the disfranchisement of voters in Florida or Michigan, whoever the nominee is may have trouble winning the general. I still can't believe Obama's political gurus can't see that for the problem that it is. If I were him I'd have been working hard to get a re-vote in those two states. It can only help him, right?

I mean, come on folks, what Democrat is going to vote for McCain the Doddering Fool after the media has actually paid some attention to him? And we've all had to watch a few of those trainwreck campaign stops of his?

Personally, I think McPeak should be fired from his position for his intemperate and silly remarks myself but that's my opinion. Obama doesn't have to take my advice.

However, I suspect McPeak will start embarrassing Obama fairly often if they keep him out on the campaign trail. Then, of course, he'll suddenly decide he needs to spend more time with his family and that will be that.

I also think it's about time for everyone on both sides of the blogosphere to take a chill pill. You should've read the absolute silliness I got back in an e-mail exchange from the nimrod running Buzzflash these days. It was as hateful as anything I'd ever read by a crazy right-winger. Judging from the hysterical things I'm seeing written over at Buzzflash these days I suspect he's losing readers and in financial trouble. (Hmmmm. I wonder why that would be? Hmmmm.) However, that's just my suspicion. I stopped reading Buzzflash a few weeks ago and it's becoming a sad state of affairs in the lefty blogosphere.

Between Markos, Josh, and Buzzflash being absolutely in the tank for Obama, this campaign is clearly taking its toll on the folks I considered reasonable and even intellectual comrades-in-arms.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

there it is. It's Obama's fault that Hillary supporters flock to McCain, and a credit to Hillary that Obama supporters can look past the candidate and support the party.

it is not surprising that some Democrats don’t feel any particular partisan loyalty to him

Actually, it is 28% of Hillary supporters (and not just "some Democrats") that don't feel any particular partisan loyalty to Obama. You'll see that each candidate has the exact same percentage of Democratic support among current supporters in the GE against McCain (96% to 3%).
In other words, Clinton's Democratic supporters are comparatively more loyal to their candidate than Obama supporters, and Obama's Democratic supporters are comparatively more loyal to the party than Clinton's.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

polls polls polls. months away. before the conventions. nope, not really grabbing my attention, these polls.

look, this is going to be an "historic" election no matter what. it's gonna be nigger/white guy or ballbuster-dyke/white guy or even something really "funky" like nigger/spic or cunt-dyke/spic.* no one can predict what a majority of white americans will do with such a choice. forget party. seriously. there are so many ways that this could be a completely off-the-charts/prediction models election it's not even funny.

i'm starting to get annoyed and i'm going to express it now. let's have less "this poll says...." posting, shall we? they're really boring, for those of us not deeply invested in "proving" one of them is better than the other. now that this nation lives in a controlled, corrupted, unfree media environment, one in which cheating and lying are standards for most gov't and media leadership, and in which there is no more reliable exit polling, and the gov't and media corporations work together, openly and actively, to manipulate the perception of what public opinion "is," well, i hope you get my drift. polls are far down my list of things that "matter," and i wish i could read about fewer of them. the only one happens in the fall, and we're still not sure that's going to be counted correctly. if we have to talk about the comparison of numbers, isn't that a better focus?

*and just because i don't want there to be confusion, i am using these terms ironically, to highlight how it is that i feel too many americans really think as they consider the candidates. obviously these words do not sum up my view of the candidates.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

How dare those Hillary supporters
new
Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:57.

…refuse to vote for our beloved Obama after we shat all over them for the past six months.
The nerve!

The most dispiriting this about this campaign is the endless self-concern of "citizens" who worry only about their own feelings, perceived slights, and grievances. My concern is that the US stop killing children in Iraq. Whether a candidate or his or her supporters are "mean" to me, does not enter into my calculations. Grow up.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Sorry you can't experience the OFB as normal humans do. It's quite a unique thing to see the kool-aid drinkers all chanting in unison about ponies.



Kind of turns you off on this Obama guy.


I submit the following as creepy evidence:

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Damnit!

Why are any of you taking the time to discuss a poll like this.

It means NOTHING!

Especially, here at Corrente. There isn't anyone among the Senior Fellows who haven't said repeatedly that they will vote for and work for Democratic success in both the congressional and the presidential general election in November no matter who appears at the top of the ticket.

ribonucleic, I appreciate your humor and intelligence, and I hope you come back often to comment here. Although Edwards was my guy until he suspended his campaign, I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, (you can check my personal blog here to see my stated reasons),but what seems absent from your analysis is the possibility that people can disagree about whether or not Clinton has been running a racist campaign, or that she deliberately "lied" about her foreign policy experience, or that she is Rovian, or a hypocrite, and I'm not happy with her campaign, mind you, but there are answers to each of the instances you bring up. Nor do I agree with your analysis of the Clinton presidency, even in the brief form you present it. I don't have time now or I'd be more specific.

None of that means I would choose Clinton over Obama, but I also reject the notion that only one campaign is responsible for the mounting concern we are all feeling about whether or not Democratic chances are being negatively affected by the increasing negativity of both campaigns.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

When Paul Lukasiak writes a treatise on how Republibamacrats are hijacking the Democratic nomination process, there aren't enough accolades in the English language to shower on him. When I write one post showing that Sen. Clinton's Democratic supporters are not (today) all that loyal to the Democratic party, everyone gets all exasperated: "enough with the polls! won't anyone think of the children?!?!"

I never made any claims about electability, mainly because I agree that a poll 8 months out is meaningless. If you want to keep battling that strawman, though, go right ahead. The point I did make was that the narrative that's been enthusiastically endorsed here (not by everyone, but by a majority), that Obama supporters don't care about the Democratic party, that they only want Obama to get elected, is more correctly applicable to Sen. Clinton's supporters. I'm quite certain that far fewer than 28% of her Democratic voters would actually vote for McCain if it came down to it, but today (the only time polls such as these are worth anything), they claim to support the Republican candidate over another Democrat.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i am commenting about polling frenzy in general.

i appreciate your efforts, such that i think they are important. and paul's. and everyone who posts on polls. i said how much that is above. i have had these thoughts for a while now, and they are not directed at any one person. just the Legion of you who think that "Today's Polling Results by So and So!!1!!" are attenting-getting. they're aren't, not to people like me. what else can you share with me, that you think is important in the political process today? i already know what you think about the dem candidates; we'll see in the fall if you're right. i can wait until then and would love to hear your opinion on something else.

RedSox04's picture
Submitted by RedSox04 on

The Obama train is going off the rails, eh?

The simplest explanation for this poll:

Obama and his supporters appear to be a coalition of black voters and elitist free-market Ivory Tower types. The latter group has been with Obama since before Iowa, while the former group joined Obama's campaign either after Iowa or after the "Hillary is racist" coverage began to break.

Regardless, to an average, down-and-out person voting first on economic interests, and second on other issues, I gotta imagine that Obama, who is proposing a shitty health care plan and a shitty subprime mortgage plan, and who generally just pooh-poohs all over the Clintons' legacy, which is generally thought of as Monica and a good economy, comes off as a tad removed from the problems they face.

Add to that that your average Obama supporter will tell you that the number 1 reason they support Obama is a "change" away from the Clinton and Bush years, when most people, especially lower income Clinton supporters, actually look somewhat fondly back on the Clinton years, and you kinda have a strong reinforcement of the view that Obama is the candidate of the Ivy League types, and you know what that means for the average person.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

... to the candidate who finishes ahead in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, fundraising, grassroots support, viral videos, and suave-aliciousness, I would suggest that the Party's idea of democracy and mine no longer coincide.

Yes, the superdelegates are going to have to give the nomination to somebody - and the other side will be very angry and disappointed.

But Obama actually won, you see. Unlike Hillary's, his people will actually have just cause to get pissed off.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

The straw that broke the camels back, huh? How unfortunate for me. I think a poll that belies the million and one posts about obots and such might be of interest, at least to some.

RedSox04, care to clarify your remarks? How does any of what you said explain the poll? Maybe you just needed an excuse for a little anti-intellectualism. Because you know, we haven't had enough of that these last eight years.

manahmanah's picture
Submitted by manahmanah on

This gallup poll in particular. Head to head polls by state are marginally more insightful if the goal is a Dem victory in November.

States in which BO leads JM but JM leads HRC:
CO, IA, MI, NH, NM, NV, WI

States in which HRC leads JM but JM leads BO:
AR, OH (slight)

OxyCon's picture
Submitted by OxyCon on

How dare those Hillary supporters

Submitted by OxyCon on Wed, 2008-03-26 14:57.

…refuse to vote for our beloved Obama after we shat all over them for the past six months.
The nerve!

Submitted by rootless on Wed, 2008-03-26 15:03.

The most dispiriting this about this campaign is the endless self-concern of “citizens” who worry only about their own feelings, perceived slights, and grievances. My concern is that the US stop killing children in Iraq. Whether a candidate or his or her supporters are “mean” to me, does not enter into my calculations. Grow up.

McCain is moderate on stem cell research, global warming, immigration and other issues important to me.
His resume is his own, he didn't pilfer and pad it the way Obama, the fraud did.
In my opinion, McCain would make a far better President than Obama ever could.
Just because you have so much emotionally invested in a fraud, doesn't mean others have to see things your way.
You grow up.
This whole post is all about Obama supporters feeling like victims again. You could actually call the whole Obama movement a cult of those who feel perpetually victimized.
Like immature brats, they taunt and do endzone celebrations everytime Obama wins some outpost state like Wyoming, then have the gall to tell Hillary to bow out of the race even though it is nowhere near over yet.
If Obama would have manned up at the beginning of the campaign and made his association with Rev Wright known, he wouldn't have made it past Iowa. But he concealed this fatal problem in a selfish act, hoping he could sweet talk his way out of it when he was finally forced to confront it.
Obama arrogantly said that Hillary starts the campaign with 47% of the country against her. Well, now that Americans know all about Obama's poor judgment in his personal associations, he has 52% of the country against him, per Rasmussen polls.
Obama also arrogantly said his supporters wouldn't vote for Hillary, but now we see the opposite is true.
Obama's chickens have come home to roost.
Sorry if this fact ruins you day.

OxyCon

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

How can you begrudge Obama's supporters a little endzone dance after managing to win with such an awful candidate?

But more to the point, may I respectfully ask why Hillary - despite being so clearly superior - wasn't able to prevail there?

Did Obama's legions infiltrate some mind-clouding voodoo juice into the water supply?

Or was campaigning amidst the tumbleweeds and John Deere hats beneath the notice of such an august personage as Hillary Rodham Clinton?

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

That Rethuglican liar McCain couldn't talk straight if tried.

He couldn't formulate a policy, or remember a fact, if he wanted to.

He's a shill for the fourth branch of goverment, and owned body and soul.

I would say mind, but you have to have at least a couple of brain cells of your own to have a mind.

Any Democrat who jumps party if their own favorite doesn't make it is a traitor to the Nation and the World, because McCain will lay waste to America and the entire planet.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"maverick" who's not like other Repubs, and some post-party "unity" nonsense, i'm not surprised at all.

and there's really not that big a number diff in the people who will go McCain from both Hillary and Obama--20 and 28 percent?

Submitted by lambert on

Glad we could put that censorship thing to rest. Even at the cost of a group haka by the usual suspects.

Yeah, WDTSBQ?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Thank you for the apology. I'm relatively new at this and need to be clearer when I'm responding to a particular comment. I'll try to do so in the future.

scarshapedstar's picture
Submitted by scarshapedstar on

Blown up so many asses. There's no way in hell any registered Democrat is going to cross over in November. It would be Naderism without the cloak of morality.

People are very invested in this primary, but as the old Hebrew saying goes, "This too shall pass."

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

How very Bushian of you: you feel you are being criticized, but instead of addressing the criticism, you pat yourself on the back for allowing free speech. Way to add absolutely nothing to the conversation.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

While I understand the need Obama has to try to dampen enthusiasm for the Clinton years, I can't help but wonder if he runs a risk of bashing Bill Clinton too much. I say this based solely on the worst kind of evidence, anecdotal, but a common refrain among the white working class voters I canvassed in New Hampshire was that the Clintons were the only politicians who cared about people like them. Given that some of these people's adult lives had occurred over a span of time when the presidents have been Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, that's not a crazy belief for them to have, especially given the brutal recession that took up the last part of Carter's admininstration. There was a personal connection these folks had with the Clintons and I wonder if Obama hasn't been hurt by his personal attacks (as opposed to policy disagreements) on the Clintons. It's one thing to tell these people that Hillary was wrong about Iraq, it's another thing to tell them that Bill Clinton - the only president in recent memory who did try to better their lives - is a racist Joe McCarthy.

I honestly don't worry about supporters of either Dem voting for McCain out of loyalty to their democratic candidate. Clinton will support Obama. Obama will support Clinton (I don't care what he's hinted at). That will mollify most people driven solely by their support of the other candidate. But I do worry that candidates will say or do things that will turn people off of them, not out of loyalty to the other dem, but because it makes the voters dislike them.

The key to the election, IMO, is exposing McCain for the crazy, economically inept, hypocritical warmonger that he is. That should help solidify Dem support for either candidate. There's no reason why 527s and others can't start that now and, in fact, have started that now (and good on Jane Hamsher for her FEC complaint). With strong outside hammering of McCain, the candidate should be fine even if chosen at the convention. Nobody pays any attention to politics over the summer anyway.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

But [if Obama has the most delegates when the convention starts then] Obama actually won, you see. Unlike Hillary’s, his people will actually have just cause to get pissed off.

No sir.

Victory conditions for the Dem nomination are 2025 delegates, not leading in delegates when the convention starts. If neither candidate has that, then the primary election part of the race was a tie, and the superdelegates will be necessary to break the tie.

That's how it works, unless you have enough votes to change the rules on the floor of the convention.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

And neither candidate will reach it with pledged delegates alone. On this we can all agree.

I simply ask you on what basis you would ask an uncommitted superdelegate to vote for Hillary despite Obama finishing ahead - as he is all but mathematically certain to - in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, etc, etc.

You can get back to me on that.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

The superdelegates are under no obligation to vote according to any algorithm anyone comes up with. They are not machines.

I expect they will do something similar to what we all did: make a decision as to which delegate they think is best based on everything they know about the delegates, including things like electability, fidelity to the party platform, trust, downticket effects, experience... and yes, personal loyalty and any deals they may have made (this is politics).

Submitted by lambert on

If so, how?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Wins big in PA

Wins big in W Va.

Wins in Indiana, Kentucky

Obama starts to fall in the national polls.

Remaining superautomaticwhatever delegates announce for Clinton; Clinton immediately invites Obama to be VP.

Obama declines, pledges support to Clinton thereby defusing AfAm anger.

Odds of this happening? 3:1 against, maybe lower, but much more than zero. She should keep going because half the Party still wants her, because she may still pull it out, because Obama can use the exercise, because anything he gets called on now he can get some practice in handling. If he can’t handle it now we should find that out; it will be much worse from the Republicans.

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Well any Democrat who votes Republican is an asshole, or barely a Democrat to begin with.

With that aside, how can the OFB believe Obama can unite Democrats and Republicans when he can't even unite Democrats?

Submitted by lambert on

Turn it around:

And is there any doubt that Hillary is a fighter, tough as nails, and works like a dog? And not a quitter?

I don't think so. Cue the Hillary Hate. Whatever.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Remember when bashing John Kerry for giving up so easily in '04 was all the rage? All those lefty bloggers calling for Fighting Dems? Yeah, now not so much...

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

How can Hillary supporters claim she is the True Choice of Democrats when they have less loyalty to the party than Obama's? Are they (the fickle HRC supporters) Democrats or assholes?

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Factoids that suggest that more Democrats will turn out for Obama are proof that he's more electable.*

Factoids that suggest that more Democrats will turn out for Hillary are proof that she and her supporters are destroying the party.

___

* As I noted above, he supports this argument: my supporters will stick with me, but hers might not stick with her, so vote for me.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Remember when we didn't ignore the difference between a closely contested national election for a Constitutionally mandated office and a political party's closely fought nomination process? Those were awesome times.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

And is there any doubt that Hillary is a fighter, tough as nails, and works like a dog? And not a quitter?

She seems easily rolled to me. AUMF, Flag Amendment, Kyle-liarman - just say she needs to look strong on NATIONAL SECURITY and she caves.

She's smart and a hard worker, I give you that. Watch the way she deals with the CodePink questioners (who are obviously terrible misogynist hillary haters) and see if you remain comfortable.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Factoids that suggest that more Democrats will turn out for Obama are proof that he’s more electable.*

Factoids that suggest that more Democrats will turn out for Hillary are proof that she and her supporters are destroying the party.

No. Both support the theory that all this wild rhetoric is fucking dangerous. Advocate Hillary, critique Obama, who cares - but try to remember that it is imperative to carry the other sides supporters in the general.

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Remember when we didn’t ignore the difference between a closely contested national election for a Constitutionally mandated office and a political party’s closely fought nomination process? Those were awesome times.

Perhaps I'm just stupid, but I literally have no idea what you mean by this.

But despite my lack of understanding your point, you use the phrase "closely fought nomination process." I agree with that description, and I hope you are not one of those people urging "That Stupid Bitch" to drop out of this "closely fought nomination process."

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Firstly, I think Clinton should stay in the race. Whatever. What does it matter what I think?

That people were disappointed when Kerry didn't fight harder in 2004 says absolutely nothing about whether Clinton should fight harder or drop out of the Democratic primary race. You make the comparison to paint those people who are calling for Clinton to drop out as hypocrites. In fact, the two situations are completely different. In one case, you have two Democrats fighting for the nomination of the Democratic party in a race that some think has become impossible to win for one of them. By their calculus, the nomination fight is, for all intents and purposes, over. The call to end the race by having Sen. Clinton concede makes sense in this light. I don't happen to agree, you don't either, but it isn't Hillary hatred that's driving these calls to concede. In the other case, you have a Constitutionally mandated office up for grabs, one that is decided by the (I know this is a simplification) will of the people, and the validity of the vote was called into question. In that case, absolutely, Democrats (and really, everyone) should demand that the results of the vote be accurate, and that was why people were disappointed when Kerry gave up so easily.

By the way, who are you quoting when you say "That Stupid Bitch"?

Submitted by lambert on

WWTSBQ? A humorous distillation of the wit and wisdom of The Boiz On The Blogs....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Gotcha. The election for POTUS and the election immediately leading up to the election for POTUS couldn't possibly be more different in terms of importance, the need for legitimacy, and the need to fight to the end.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

According to the media, I'm envisioning the battle scene from the last Lord of the Rings movie.

The forces of Mordor with Sauron leading them battle against the world of men and lay siege upon Minas Tirith. I'm sure you can all guess which one (Hillary or Obama) is represented by Sauron, ringwraiths, orcs, and the Witch-king. And equally easy to guess which candidate is represented by Gandalf, Merry, Pippin, and Aragorn.

Meanwhile Gollum (clearly played by McCain) is secretly sneaking into the DNC headquarters of Mount Doom to steal the One Ring, you know the one, it's the One Ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them.

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

That's exactly what I mean. Because the idea of a candidate dropping out when their chances of winning are slim has never been suggested until now. Damn Obama and his devious schemes!

You seem to be confused by the fact that elections are used to select the president and the candidates for the presidency. One type of voting is a constitutional right of every citizen, the other, one method among several possible to aid in the selection of candidates by the various political parties. One is significantly more important than the other, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Submitted by lambert on

dmd76 writes:

One type of voting is a constitutional right of every citizen, the other, one method among several possible to aid in the selection of candidates by the various political parties.

I take it, then, that you have no objection in principle to automatic delegates exercising their judgment in the nomination process?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

Caught in his own web...

BTW, how are Obama's chances of winning without superdelegates? Slim, I'd say...

Fredster's picture
Submitted by Fredster on

on the subject of cross over votes, that some of HRC's supporters are indicating they'll vote for McCain.

Count me as one of them...possibly.

I've read, watched and listened to the candidates to the point I'm ready to pull the plug until I get to the voting booth in November. My original candidate-of-choice was Edwards. He dropped out. I looked at who was still standing and I made my choice of Clinton.

I have not liked what I've seen on the Obama side regarding some of the attacks on Clinton. These attacks may not have come out of his mouth but they came from his surrogates. Then came the mess with the good Reverend Wright and story #1 from Obama, then story #2, blah, blah blah. And...I really don't care to hear about Michelle Obama's complaining of her schedule what with getting the kids to riding classes or whatever and then talking about the high price of organic fruit. Puhleeze! Most folks are worried about how they are going to divy up the take-home pay to put gas in the car and food on the table, much less whether it's organic.

That being said my choice is HRC. Should she not be the nominee, when I get into the voting booth I'll have to decide: "Hmmm, is it B.O. or McCain or...leave blank." It will be my choice.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

on the subject of cross over votes, that some of HRC’s supporters are indicating they’ll vote for McCain.

Count me as one of them…possibly.

Enjoy the 100 years war. I hope you understand that I'm expecting you or your children to take my kids place in the draft.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

The quote isn't a who but a what
Submitted by lambert on Wed, 2008-03-26 23:36.

WWTSBQ? A humorous distillation of the wit and wisdom of The Boiz On The Blogs….

Because, of course, "liberals say ... " and "leftists believe ... " is a standard of right wing rhetoric.
Much easier arguing with a self-created caricature or appointing some nut to be representative of the other side than actually debating the other side, no?

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

You got me, Lambert, it's exactly how I believe the superdelegates and pledged delegates should vote. If say, one of the candidates is discovered to be a neo-Nazi between now and the convention, I expect all the delegates to vote for the other candidate. Barring some electability squashing scandal, I fully expect the vast majority of pledged delegates to vote for the candidate they were pledged to (because of how they are chosen). The superdelegates will have their own reasons, but I think a consensus will be reached one way or another. As long as that consensus doesn't exist, both campaigns should be making their case as loudly and forcefully as they can. And, VC, neither candidate can win with out the superdelegates, so both candidates have exactly 0% chance of winning without their votes. Not sure what your point is.

I forget, which are the ones Mark Penn calls "automatic delegates"?

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Yeah, it's a very convenient way of discounting anything their opponent says. We're all woman-hating assholes so what does it matter what we say. Maybe I should start referring to Obama as "That Fake Nigger" when commenting here, my own little humorous distillation.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

What we see here, but is more marked on Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft, is how all sorts of staples of winger rhetoric are now in use to denounce Obama. The whole "cult" thing has been a commonplace winger motif when discussing the left for years.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The Obama "_____" thing is not a rightwing fabrication. The perception of _____ishness grew out of these things:

* The incessant hype that calls Obama "the one," "transcendent," etc., plus the "conversion testimonials" and all that, and the blatant religiosity of his rallies
* The brutish relentlessness of starry-eyed, uncritical Obama supporters on public forums like DU and DKos that freaked the living shit out of fellow liberals like yours truly

I saw that it was _____ish long before that term started showing up in the media, and I only began using that term after a zillion posts went up on DU that scoffed at the suggestion.

Submitted by lambert on

1. I say "Boiz on the Blogs"

2. rootless immediately raises the ante to "... the left..." and frames this as a standard right wing tactic.

Let me invest a little time on this; however useless for rootless, it may help some of our readers:

The Boiz on the Blogs -- for those who came late, that's a play on The Boys on the Bus, about pack behavior by journalists in political campaigns. Our leaders on the A list, with the notable exception of some intact bloggers like Lord Eschaton, Jane, and, on his good days, Kevin Drum, seem to me to be behaving in much the same way: as a pro-Obama pack. I'm not the only one to have noticed it, or to have called bullshit on it.

By rootless's logic, one could never label or even notice pack behavior: You'd have to examine each individual wolf, one at a time, and make a judgment about whatever it was doing. That's not a recipe for helping people understand the world. Perhaps that is rootless's goal, at least insofar as this campaign is concerned.

In fact, what rootless really seems to have a problem with is inductive reasoning:

Making generalizations based on observations of individual instances.

The reason "the left" is so stupid is not because its a generalization -- the tools of logic can be used, for good or ill, by both right and left -- but because it's a bad generalization that ignores the fact that -- obviously, as on this thread -- there really is not a single, unified "left" about which generalizations can be made (unlike "the right," which has much more Unity and is much more cohesive, because of its well-funded network of institutions).

As far as "bot," I word I don't use, anybody who was purged from Kos knows exactly the behavior I'm talking about. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck: One induces. "Here," and elsewhere.

Yawn.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Voodoo Chile's picture
Submitted by Voodoo Chile on

And, VC, neither candidate can win with out the superdelegates, so both candidates have exactly 0% chance of winning without their votes.

Both have the exact same chance of winning without superdelegates, yet only one is required (by you) to drop out. Interesting...

Not sure what your point is.

The feeling is more than mutual. You have this big hang up about the POTUS election being so important (I agree) but the election to pick the two people running for POTUS is not important at all, and can be dicked with as long as it is to your liking. I can't even begin to understand how this distinction came about or why it's important, so I can't make sense of any of your larger points. Yes you've tried to explain it, no it didn't make it any clearer.

RedSox04's picture
Submitted by RedSox04 on

STFU. Seriously. I'm not threatening you, so don't make any stupid ass arguments about freedom of speech or censorship, etc.

Everywhere I fucking go in the blogosphere or media, except 1 or 2 sites, I see the same standard pro-Obama spin. This site, and a couple of others, are my refuge from that bullshit, that has Obama as the candidate who doesn't take money from lobbyists*, who is against the Iraq War*, who is a progressive organizer*, who doesn't deign to muck around in negative politicking*, who brushed off Hillary's obvious racism*, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

So when you complain about all of this anti-Obama messaging, please stop whining. I just don't see it. It's become standard discourse among Dems I know to call Hillary a "bitch", to assume she's calculating, to claim without any evidence but a MoDowd column and some Drudge Report crap that Hillary will employ the "Tanya Harding" [sic] option (because Obamabots can't spell either), and to otherwise employ the generic asinine talking points from the 1990s that are btw endorsed by Sen. Obama himself.

So if you have some substantive criticisms, please make them here. If you just want to talk bullshit, then go do it at Kos or some such.

RedSox04's picture
Submitted by RedSox04 on

A conveniently omitted talking point from every Obamabot I know in the pledged delegate argument: he has a guaranteed lead because of two things-- 1) disenfranchising the voters of Florida and Michigan; and 2) he builds a lead in the caucuses, particularly in those states that allow crossover voting.

Hillary can still catch up and surpass Obama in the popular vote, and I actually think the odds on that are not bad.

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

A conveniently omitted talking point from every Hillbot I know in the pledged delegate argument:

1) Hillary agreed to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan [before her arrogant decision to not bother planning for a post-Super Tuesday struggle put her in the position of actually needing them]; and 2) Neither she nor Bill had complaint one about the caucuses when they got him elected twice. Or until Hillary started losing them all.

Thank you for playing.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post that you did.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

I won't vote for McCain under any circumstances, but I personally do not believe that Obama will appoint better judges than McCain will. Obama has huge problems with women and doesn't mind corporations and Clinton is to the left of Feingold on judicial appointments. I also don't think obama is smart enough or disciplined enough to get us out of Iraq. I've watched him talk and when he doesn't have a speech in front of him, he's one of the less articulate, less well-informed Democratic presidential candidates. So, I don't think he'll get anything worthwhile done in the mideast because the oil people are going to be whispering in his ear and Obama like-a da money.

What all that unity talks sounds like to me is that he's going to move way right once in office to satisfy his "post-partisan" needs. He'll regard himself as a great man if he's responsible for the judge who overturns Roe V Wade. Only Nixon can go to China - that kinda thing.

Personally, I don't see any morality in supporting a candidate like obama who runs a racist, misogynist campaign. He's to the right of McCain on some of his rhetoric.

And then there is the whole First Lady issue. Who do you want representing the nation? Cindy McCain or Michelle Obama who thinks it's funny to joke about scratching a former president's eyes out.

"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

By rootless’s logic, one could never label or even notice pack behavior: You’d have to examine each individual wolf, one at a time, and make a judgment about whatever it was doing. That’s not a recipe for helping people understand the world. Perhaps that is rootless’s goal, at least insofar as this campaign is concerned.

My logic is that citations should be accurate and not just "you know" bullshit.

If people are calling Hillary "that stupid bitch" cite them and we'll see who you are taking as spokespeople for Obama. Otherwise, you are just making a wild smear. Is that hard to understand?

ribonucleic's picture
Submitted by ribonucleic on

Take Lambert. Please! [rimshot]

Ask him why Hillary hasn't released her 2000-2006 tax returns - as she called "frankly disturbing" when it was Rick Lazio doing it.

He'll call you a troll.

Point out that this doesn't answer the question.

He'll tell you to prove you're not a "ratfucker" by signing some petition he likes.

Offer to look at it if he'll offer a single sentence in reply to your question.

He'll call you "herpes-like".

Translation: "LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

But if he doesn't have an insult at the ready, there's always the devastating "yawn".

A formidable adversary, indeed.

"Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so... his Democratic opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, criticized the delay, asking whether he was hiding something."

“They see us from afar, they come to a speech, they watch us on television. And they vote. And that is part of the process. An important part.” - Hillary Clinton

Submitted by lambert on

Thank you for commenting, ribo. Welcome aboard. Help end the war in Iraq. Get your candidate to be the first to sign the Responsible Plan, and post what you did.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

*COuGH* troll *COUGH*

should start referring to Obama as “That Fake Nigger”

who are you quoting when you say “That Stupid Bitch”?

Maybe you just needed an excuse for a little anti-intellectualism.

It’s a ridiculous, immature attitude, and I mocked it accordingly.

I assume you are asking why the Obama campaign doesn’t speak out about comments on a blog left by some guy on the internet. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

HRC’s supporters are going to vote for four more years of the same shit we’ve endured for the past eight? How mature! How enlightened! How progressive!

Submitted by lambert on

See here.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

dmd76's picture
Submitted by dmd76 on

Thank you much for the kind words. To return the favor, everyone who hasn't should read Lambert's post about the Responsible Plan and then take action. It's much more important than Hillary/Obama supporter bashing.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

Well in this regard I can temporarily retract. I agree 100% it is more important to focus on beating McCain than squabbling over HRC/BHO which we have no control over anyways. The supers will pick it regardless, so why all this wasted words on he said/she said.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Superdelegates presumably care about how they're perceived by their base, and right now the only story they're hearing is that they must vote for the top delegate-getter, or else.

If we believe that other metrics -- such as the electoral votes in states won by each candidate -- or that certain intangibles matter, then propagating those ideas could prove quite important.

Also, it's not zero sum. Trying hard to get the best candidate on the ballot is, IMHO, acting to improve our chances in November. I think both camps will agree on that. (Though of course, if the bitch would quit, things would be that much easier).

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

not that it matters what I think, but from a pragmatic point of view, they should be looking at who will generate more electoral college states. Throw out all the RED-RED and BLUE-BLUE states and then see who is better, Hillary or Obama.

I personally think Hillary would not be the best choice for November, but I also think there is no reason in the world to not at least count all the votes (delegates). Neither one of them can win right now. It will come down to super delegate votes, and maybe even second round voting. So, all of this delegate count and big state vs. popular vote crap means nothing.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I personally think Hillary would not be the best choice for November

Would you mind elaborating on that. I personally find Obama a very weak candidate, but I am gladly looking for reasons to vote for him, instead of against McCain. You have provided very insightful and enlightening comments, and would like to hear your thoughts.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I can acknowledge Hillary is technically stronger candidate in terms of both influence, money, name recognition, being white, better vetted, probably experience (both lose out to McCain though).

I think Obama is more puff than substance, but you know, so was Reagan, and anyone is more qualified than Bush. I also recognize that it is possible people are longing for another JFK/RFK and real "possibilities" for the future. Not talking about real policies, but just popular perception, I think Hillary represents more of the same and so does McCain.

Please don't respond and tell me why I'm wrong, I don't care and I'm just expounding on MY perceptions which are different than what I would write if I was defending one candidate over another.

My main thinking on Hillary not being the best choice in November is based not on anything about the Dems or the candidates, but solely on electability and GOTV and GOP instantly gaining tons of donations and motivation that they would not have against Obama. I have spoken with a lot of moderate and hardcore GOP and it seems like all the Clinton mythology is deeply programmed, in addition many approve of Obama. Maybe not to the point of voting for him, but at the very least, Obama against McCain would allow the GOP to see what a lunatic and crappy candidate their McCain is. I think against Clinton, it will be just blind rage and only "anybody but Clinton".

But who knows what kind of dirt and tricks they have planned for Obama, and who knows if we will invade Iran by October. In those cases, it could be Hillary would have a better chance.

I've also stated my "irrational" distaste for BUSH-CLINTON-CLINTON-BUSH-BUSH-CLINTON-CLINTON. (And yes I would be against 16 years of Kennedys as well. And I don't know enough history to comment on Adamses.)

All I do know for a fact is that the DNC will do everything in their power to blow another election. They take a weak GOP candidate, worst economy, worst dollar valuation, unpopular war, hundreds of GOP scandals, horribly unpopular president... and they turn it into a dead-heat in national polls. (All they really had to do was one thing, cut Iraq spending and force troop drawdown, maybe also at least debate impeachment hearings for Cheney and his oil meetings and Plame)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I can agree with your perceptions, and I am sure that those perceptions have a great deal to do with Obama's support.

Just to point out a few of my opposing perceptions. First, the GOP had to wait 12 years before running "puff over substance". I just don't think the electorate really wants that after the past 8 years, and whatever you can say about McCain, he actually has substance. The substance sux, but it is substance.

And secondly, I can't even begin to count the number of people I've talked to since the primaries began in earnest, who felt that they could never support Clinton, and who are now openly advocating for her.

And lastly, while many people are embracing the idea of "radical change" that they perceive Obama is proposing, in uncertain times, people tend to fall back into their comfort zone, and go with the familiar. In Obama v McCain, it's McCain, in Clinton v McCain, it's Clinton.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

I'm 100% with you there, but I do worry that the GOP are getting a huge gift with Hillary vs. McCain. The hardcore conservatives, fundies, etc. will just go nuts over Hillary. Maybe it will turn off moderates and the "good" Republicans will sense a further destruction of their party, but I think it means massive, massive GOTV and donations just to "stop that evil bitch".

Hell look at what the prospect of Hillary has done to the progressive blogs. Imagine in the hands of Rove or frothing wingnuts.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

the Hillary Hatred runs as deep as many people think(I think it remnants have been successfully resurrected for Obama's sake). I live in a fairly red state, the heart of the Hillary Hatred, and I've seen many people dissuaded from their former beliefs of her, men and women. At the rally yesterday, there were just as many enthusiastic men as their wives(many without, lots bringing their daughters). I don't think that many of the Hillary Haters on the Republican side are going to be in favor of Obama. And The Boyz on Blogz are allegedly believers in "Any Dem better than No Dem" so unless they want to loose their remaining credibility, they should line up.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

"I don’t think that many of the Hillary Haters on the Republican side are going to be in favor of Obama. "

I think if Obama runs, many GOP will actually have to think long and hard about McCain (ewww, gross) before they vote for him over Obama. If Hillary is on the ticket, it is an automatic no-brainer vote and also mobilize every breathing person they know to get out and vote and donate to "stop that evil bitch". I've talked to dozens of people in Ohio and they all independently have come to this conclusion. I'm not worried about what Dems will do and who will and won't show up. I'm talking about the massive blowback against the Dems for daring to try and put Hillary in the Whitehouse.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I think if Obama runs, many GOP will actually have to think long and hard about McCain (ewww, gross) before they vote for him over Obama

I think a lot of the reflexive hatred of the Clinton's came from their perceived close association with the black community, so I don't see them getting over that to vote for Obama.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

You think the Clintons were caught in a "too black/not-black enough" meme squeeze?

I chalk up Clinton Derangement Syndrome to the fact that they interrupted the lootin' good times of the GOP after 12 years of voodoo-economics fun, and whatever they did had to be painted as satanic Marxism, no matter what.

IMHO, not much of Clinton hate stems from anything in particular they are or do. There was a machine that was built for hating on the Democrats, and they took the White House just as that machine was chugging up to full capacity.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

My theory is that your have this noise machine chugging along its 20 yr master plan, and convincing everyone about big gov't, more taxes, destroy the economy. Then Clinton comes along and balances the budget, is more fiscally responsible, and turns out to be the opposite of the legend.

So with that cognitive dissonance you have two choices, admit you are wrong and the foundation of your hatred was baseless, or dig your heels in deeper.

One of the most effective hatred psyops of modern times really did a number on Clinton(s). I was one of those people brainwashed into a baseless hatred of Clinton because of my parents, peers, where I grew up, etc. (Though, as I have said I still am opposed to Clinton for both electibility and my "irrational" dislike of having legacy of more power and influence by keeping the Executive branch under the control of two families for decades.)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

admit you are wrong and the foundation of your hatred was baseless, or dig your heels in deeper.

But, with thing as bad as they are now(I don't know if BDB still lives here, to vouch for me, but things here in KY are bad.) But, KY did go for Clinton in 92 & 96, even with the Hater stuff(the machine is very active here). I think plenty of people are nostalgic for the Clinton era. And we are sick of the war(two huge military bases in the state, we get it), and understand McCain wants to continue it.

And we've had a female gov, so it's not impossible that Clinton could do well here(and elsewhere). I know Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, after the Wright thing. People here aren't really racist(though there are plenty), they understand the system has screwed blacks, but they know they are getting screwed too. They feel they should be working with the black community to make things better. But the footage of Wright makes them doubt whether or not Obama is on the level, or if he will work to "screw" whites even more(though a lot of blacks live in poverty, more whites do, esp in a state like KY, though those of us in KY understand that a greater percentage of blacks live in poverty in comparison to whites).

Of course this is all just postulation, no one knows what the electorate will do. I just hope that Obama isn't as weak as I think he is, if he makes it to the GE.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond