Phanton Disenfranchisement

Dana Goldstein reports from the Hillary Clinton rally outside the DNC meeting:

That's not to say the rhetoric wasn't a tad overheated. Dozens of people said they wouldn't vote for Obama if he prevails. "Count me now, or don't count on my vote," read the sign carried by Cindy Malzan, a 51-year old from Buffalo, New York. "No."

It seems to me that it's one thing if Clinton backers from upstate New York want to argue on behalf of Clinton backers from Florida and Michigan that delegates selected in those states' illicit primaries should be seated. But it's really a bit bizarre for Malzan to be acting as if someone is casting doubt on the validity of her vote. Nobody is dispute Clinton's right to her delegates from New York or California or any other state where the won a properly conducted primary.

Meanwhile, people who are seriously drawn to Hillary Clinton's plans on health care, climate change but also think they might vote for John McCain in the fall rather than the candidate with plans that are very similar to Clinton's are being a bit confused. People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

Comments

Fire the Phanton torpedoes!

What?

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 4:21 PM

People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

Yeah. They're doing it wrong.

Posted by brent | May 31, 2008 4:21 PM

It's time to stop worrying about these morons and get ready to win the general.

Posted by Andy | May 31, 2008 4:21 PM

But, Matt, that implies that these folks are thinking with their heads. They are not; they are playing the victim, and if/when McCain wins in the fall, they will say 'I told you so' and blame everyone but themselves.

Posted by bostondreams | May 31, 2008 4:23 PM

Meanwhile, people who are seriously drawn to Hillary Clinton's plans on health care, climate change but also think they might vote for John McCain in the fall....People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts....

Consider a third possibility.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 31, 2008 4:25 PM

Is this what Molly Ivins used to mean about getting the white hot phantons?

Unfortunately, a certain segment of Clinton supporters are desperate to justify their tantrum. Facts and logic need not apply.

Even more unfortunately, the candidate, her husband, and her top supporters have been fanning these flames for weeks.

Posted by Jim | May 31, 2008 4:54 PM

Unfortunately, as Ms. Malzan demonstrates, there are more utter morons in this country than simply the 28% or so who still approve of Bush's performance.

Posted by Glenn | May 31, 2008 4:56 PM

Fire the Phanton torpedoes!

Actually, I think Matt meant to type "Phaeton," in reference to either the son of Helios who perished while driving his father's chariot, or the luxury car with disappointing sales marketed by Volkswagen in the early 2000's.

Once again, the exact meaning escapes me. I sure wish I'd gone to Harvard so I could understand all these complex allusions Matt makes.

Posted by James Gary | May 31, 2008 4:56 PM

"[HRC supporters] really need to think harder."

No one has ever accused HRC supporters of being deep thinkers. Don't ask them to do the impossible now.

Posted by Smartifus | May 31, 2008 4:58 PM

Do you honestly think Hillary's supporters who say they'll vote for McCain rather than Obama are REALLY interested in any rational basis for their protest and for voting? This is all emotional for them. They're loopy. They're not voting for her based on her policy positions, or even because they really care about feminism. They're angry people who have latched onto a cause. I bet they're not even really clear on what their cause is. They're people who have a lot of hate in them, and need somebody to focus their hate on. I always thought these people gravitated to the Republicans. I guess I was wrong.

I think it's interesting that Hillary's most vocal voting bloc is also her craziest. ANd I think it's interesting that she's attracted so many nuts. I wonder what percentage they take up, and I wonder how it compares to Obama's base or McCain's base.

Posted by izzie | May 31, 2008 5:06 PM

People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

I've occasionally stopped by a local feminist pro-Hillary blog; its response to this line of argument is: "The Obama supporters are threatening us." In their eyes, Matt, you're not making a rational argument; you're bullying them.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 31, 2008 5:07 PM

McCain won't be replacing Stevens with Alito or Roberts. He won't get it past committee, which the Democrats own.

There's no downside for Clinton's supporters--or indeed, anyone who thinks Obama would be a disastrous president--to voting for McCain instead. Indeed, McCain would probably be a welcome brake, something that moderate Democrats might prefer.

Don't be a good Democrat

Posted by Cal | May 31, 2008 5:11 PM

I was at the RBC meeting. Left at halftime (i.e. lunch break). Talked to many protesters outside this morning. While Hillary herself can say and act in ways that make you wonder if she's lost it, you can safely assume that she's simply determined to be positive and do every last thing she can to win the nomination. But she's always said she'd work her heart out for Obama. Somehow that hasn't trickled down to her most ardent supporters. There was one woman I talked to from Massachusetts, I believe, who (get this) was convinced Obama would not beat McCain. And then, in the same breadth, she said she would walk over to McCain's office and volunteer for his campaign just to ensure that Obama wouldn't be elected. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy and they don't even recognize it.

Luckily, there were only a few hundred people out there at the height of it all. So maybe these were just the craziest of the crazies, and the dem. party's better off without them.

Posted by jim | May 31, 2008 5:26 PM

McCain won't be replacing Stevens with Alito or Roberts. He won't get it past committee, which the Democrats own.

Right, because if there's anyone who knows how to stand up to a Republican President, it's Harry Reid and the Democrats. John McCain's not getting anything past them, nosiree!

Posted by Glenn | May 31, 2008 5:28 PM

Yeah. F*ck all you maniacs who would rather have a 3rd Republican presidency over Obama. Just f*ck off and die.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 5:31 PM

So maybe these were just the craziest of the crazies, and the dem. party's better off without them.

They were handing out pamphlets accusing Obama of homosexual affairs, drugs, and murder. I shit you not. If these people are anything resembling your average Clinton voter, this country is well and truely fucked.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 31, 2008 5:33 PM

Am I the only one who isn't worried? The people who elected to spend this fine Saturday outside of a hotel entrance with signs... well, there ain't more where they came from. I feel pretty strongly about Obama. Strongly enough to donate a bit, maybe make a few calls, but buy poster paper and a train ticket? Not so much. If Hillary prevails, I'll hold my nose and pull the level for her anyway. Everyone needs to grab a beer and put on some ska music.

Posted by al | May 31, 2008 5:34 PM

They're people who have a lot of hate in them, and need somebody to focus their hate on. I always thought these people gravitated to the Republicans. I guess I was wrong.

No kidding. What do you think all the talk about political correctness for the past generation has been about?

Posted by McGuff | May 31, 2008 5:34 PM

Real American's don't fall in love with politicians. That's one of the main problems with Republicans by the way. While Bush love was bizarre Hillary love strikes me as exceeding odd as well. It's one thing if you figuring you get a job if your candidate wins but beyond that within a party it's crazy to vote for the other out of spite.

In the end those spite votes will be tiny to non existent me thinks.

Posted by rapier | May 31, 2008 5:51 PM

I actually swung by the Marriott this morning on my way out of DC. That crowd was just not sizable enough that it should be influencing anyone's opinion. I'd put it at around 200-300 demonstrators, with about 150 press people reporting on them. They all fit comfortably on about a quarter of a block worth of sidewalk and some grass . . . weren't able to shut down the street when they tried . . . couldn't chant loud enough to drown out the police officers' whistles. In terms of the protests I've seen, it was a popcorn fart.

Don't worry about them.

Posted by southpaw | May 31, 2008 6:00 PM

Cal - McCain won't be replacing Stevens with Alito or Roberts. He won't get it past committee, which the Democrats own.

I disagree in that if McCain does not fight for Court Centrist nominations against more Ginsburgs or Breyers - he faces revolt of his backers the likes of which the immigration backlash will pale to.
The alternative, if "Lips" Leahy and other Dem hacks on Judiciary refuse to appoint highly rated by the ABA, Centrists, is to nominate enough that even though they are well-regarded by the public - will be blocked by partisanship and then everyone shifts the debate to the long vacancies on the Supreme Court and elsewhere in Federal judiciary created by petty Democrat intransigence and obstructionism - is crippling the administration of justice. That is something that could badly damage the Dems as they try and rebuild their reputation as the Party of good governance.

There's no downside for Clinton's supporters--or indeed, anyone who thinks Obama would be a disastrous president--to voting for McCain instead. Indeed, McCain would probably be a welcome brake, something that moderate Democrats might prefer.

But I strongly agree with your second point, Cal.

All signs point to a heavy Democrat majority in Congress, with dominance of many areas by hard Left activists and black Congressman for Life in charge of many key committees by virtue of seniority determined that its going to be 1976 all over again as they steamroll a weak, inexperienced President little able to either cheer or rubberstamp their agendas. Not every Lefty is as responsible and ethical as Russ Feingold, and not every black Committee Head is a well-respected Charlie Rangel.

Plus you have Obama with some fairly dangerous foreign policy policies, and a President likely to appoint judges based on who the ACLU and Muslim Students Association submit and agree to.

McCain might serve as a break to crazy excess that Obama will not.

Posted by chris ford | May 31, 2008 6:01 PM

Well, the Obama supporters really are being kind of awful, not just to Clinton but to Clinton voters. The ones who aren't being disgustingly sexist are calling Clinton supporters "low-information," and it's all pretty off-putting (and it's certainly a little puzzling to see people like Paul Krugman called "not a deep thinker" and "low-information").

I'm a Clinton supporter who's excited about voting for Obama in November. He's my second choice but that doesn't mean I don't like the guy. But WOW his supporters on the blogs are some kind of awful, implying through word and deed that they don't just reject Clinton, they reject women. As a woman I find that alienating, to say the least.

There's really not that much you can do about other people's choices, but there's a lot you can do about your own. And when you forgo substance over personal attacks you're making a choice to keep the temperature a lot higher than it should be.

Posted by Melinda | May 31, 2008 6:07 PM

How about the Osama supporters who state that they won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination? Apparently, in the dream world inhabited by Mr. Yglesias, these folks are okay.

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2008 6:11 PM

Melinda, all you have to do is read the comments above and below you to realize that Obama supporters are hardly the only ones saying dumb things.

Posted by Persia | May 31, 2008 6:14 PM

How about the Osama [sic] supporters who state that they won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination? Apparently, in the dream world inhabited by Mr. Yglesias, these folks are okay.

I can't speak for Matt, but as a sensible person I can say, no, those people are crazy too. But unlike Clinton, Obama is going to get the nomination, so it doesn't really matter what those crazies think.

And incidentally, select Clinton supporters, showing up and calling Obama "Osama," slave to "the ACLU and Muslim Students Association," doesn't really dispel the idea that hardcore Clinton supporters are often racist and anti-progressive. I say this as someone who likes Clinton almost as much as Obama: you guys are doing her and yourselves no favors.

Posted by tomemos | May 31, 2008 6:16 PM

Re tomenos

As I have stated on many occasions on this blog, I am not, repeat not, a Clinton supporter and did not vote for her or Osama in the Virginia primary. I don't think that either of them can win in November as the country is not ready for a woman or black president. I support a draft for Al Gore who can win in November.

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2008 6:23 PM

Sorry, SLC, I guess I've missed your greatest hits. My loss.

"the country is not ready for a woman or black president."

Least of all yourself, apparently.

Posted by tomemos | May 31, 2008 6:27 PM

Persia, obviously Clinton supporters are saying some really dumb things, too. But I don't see how that makes it okay to unload on Clinton supporters more generally. Obama's going to be the nominee and that's a good thing, and because it's really pretty much settled it's time for his supporters to start showing some of the grace that he does and even if you're not quite up to trying to build bridges, stop burning the ones still standing.

Posted by Melinda | May 31, 2008 6:29 PM

The nascent Cal-Chris Ford axis forming above is instructive.

Posted by live | May 31, 2008 6:29 PM

Chris Ford, ye racist sod, I say again: appraise me er yer parent's address so I can come and drag ye from yer fetid basment room and thrash ye.

Ye have no honor. Yer garbage wrapped in skin. Ye have a constant poopy smell about ye that's the root er all yer troubles with women.

I'm waiting fer yer post, ye turdish ex-celtic. I'm callin ye out. If ye have a thimblefull er self-respect ye will communicate with me via this here website and prepare to receive yer pirate style beatin.

Posted by ol' one eye | May 31, 2008 6:30 PM

MARK MY WORDS...!
Our economy is really going to to be on the dung pile, if Obama wins? He directly told the general public that he becomes president, he will sign into law a new AMNESTY. Although none of the Presidential contenders can be really trusted, Obama will be true to his word. That means if Democrats don't get to gut the border fence, as they are right now? The raw truth is it will not matter? As taxpayers will be forced by federal law to support the 15 to 38 million illegal immigrants already here. That means big business has won and they just collect the profits.

While the man or women in the street will have a giant financial yoke around their neck, to pay billions in even more welfare programs. Senator Obama will have condemned America to a bleak future, for not only subsidizing millions of poor, non-English speaking, uneducated foreign nationals. Our government skims quietly of your wage packet 356 billion dollars, to support illegal low income workers annually and appease big business and that cost will become a pittance.

The compounding effect is millions of more itinerant labor and families, will breach the border and no patrol, or army will be able to stop the momentum. Thats why we must stop OBAMA with the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) Tell your Democratic representative to sponsor it now. January 2009 will be far too late!

Posted by Brittanicus | May 31, 2008 6:34 PM

And f*ck you too, SLC, you little arrogant prick who always pretends like you and only you can speak for Israel, as if your little child-like squeals of "Hama Rules!" somehow proves your worth to call the Democratic nominee "Osama".

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 6:35 PM

Matt, you really need to reconsider all this if you believe the Hillary supporters are thinking at all. What they're doing is emoting. That's what they've been doing all along.

Posted by Just an Observer | May 31, 2008 7:09 PM

Re El Cid

Mr. El Cid can go fuck himself.

Posted by SLC | May 31, 2008 7:34 PM

People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

These are the same folks who declare that Oprah and young female Obama supporters are "gender traitors" because they supported a male candidate. I imagine a great many of them are beyond their child-bearing years and could give a fuck about the rights of "gender traitors".

It's all goes back to the "If I can't have the toy, I'll break it." mentality. Can you imagine this group of people was calling others "cultish" just a few short months ago?

Seriously, fuck them.

Posted by ben | May 31, 2008 7:42 PM

There certainly seems to be a lot of intercourse going around on this blog entry....

Posted by JRVJ | May 31, 2008 7:42 PM

SLC: Like I give the slightest sh*t what you think. Still, though, I've never called you a murderer or terrorist.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 7:47 PM

There certainly seems to be a lot of intercourse going around on this blog entry....

Only foppish elites prefer discourse to intercourse.

Posted by ben | May 31, 2008 7:49 PM

But Melinda, you say that the Obama nomination's basically wrapped up. Not that Clinton would acknowledge that. Why you ask Obama supporters to show Clinton the grace that neither she nor far many more of her supporters than Obama's supporters show is not clear; it's certainly not an equitable standard, and it certainly doesn't seem any more guaranteed to maintain bridges than those supporters would indicate - given how strangely they've behaved throughout the course of the primary, and even now.

Posted by Just an Observer | May 31, 2008 7:51 PM

The crowd is very small. A few hundred people, maybe 400 at most. And this after Team Clinton was bussing them in. That's not exactly threatening street cred. It's a very angry and very emotional minority. Most will come to there senses when Bombs for Baghdad McCain considers conscripting their kids and plotting his court picks.

Posted by Richardson | May 31, 2008 7:51 PM

They wont. Because they dont have any real support for that position. There were 13 Clinton endorsers on this committee but only 8 voted against the resolution. The resolution originated from the Michigan democratic party, not the Obama campaign so if HRC wants to challenge this she would be challenging the RBC, the Michigan dems and the Obama campaign. For what? 4 delegates? The resolution implicitly acknowledges that a primary where there is only 1 major candidate on the ballot where voters were told even by that said candidate that the primary wouldnt count, is inherently flawed. Not. Going. To. Happen

Posted by SallyM | May 31, 2008 7:56 PM

Hillary owes a public apology for the disgusting behavior of her supporters. They acted like a bunch of thugs, hooligans, and brigands.

Posted by jerry | May 31, 2008 7:56 PM

Hillary owes a public apology for the disgusting behavior of her supporters. They acted like a bunch of thugs, hooligans, and brigands.

I'd be happy with her conceding on Tuesday night, followed by a long vacation for both her and Bill.

Posted by ben | May 31, 2008 8:07 PM

I don't think anyone's ever accused Americans of being smart.

Posted by brenna | May 31, 2008 8:09 PM

Let me offer a crazy suggestion: perhaps HRC supporters who actually travel to a DNC rules meeting are not exactly a good sample of HRC supporters in general in terms of their current judgement.

To use a reverse analogy, remember the Oregon exit polls that had a relatively high number of Obama voters who said they didn't want HRC to drop out? Compare that to MY and many of his commenters.

My point being, everyone's hardcore supporters are overreacting to each and every event, particularly if you put a microphone or keyboard in front of them. The vast majority of both candidates supporters are quite pleased with the chance to elect a Democratic president in November, and don't really get caught up in this white noise. And very shortly, when HRC endorses Obama, some people here, I would hope, will realize they have been a bit over-the-top with the demonization of the Clinton's.

p.s., Since MY hasn't gotten around to an NBA thread; for all you Celtic and Laker haters, to quote an esteemed columnist, "Suck on this!"

Posted by Andruw | May 31, 2008 8:28 PM

Here's one of the protesting Clinton supporters.

She sez that (1) Obama's negatives cause him to be a weak GE candidate and (2) this will force her to vote for McCain "as an American".

More of the "If I can't have it, I'll break it" mentality.

Posted by ben | May 31, 2008 8:28 PM

It is interesting that someone would claim that caucus states are non-democratic because they take so much time out of your day, and then they travel to D.C. and protest...with the obvious goal of having more than the one-person-one-vote impact on the voting process.

Both states rejected the possibility of a caucus. Michigan even scheduled a caucus. Florida rejected $800k for a caucus.

Posted by tomj | May 31, 2008 8:41 PM

Hillary needs to pull her head out of her rear-end and officially endorse Obama on Wednesday.

Obama has beaten her fairly and squarely. She needs to end her kamikaze mission and urge her fanatical supporters to get in line behind Obama.

Posted by jerry | May 31, 2008 9:01 PM

I love people pretending to vote for John McCain out of spite on feminist grounds. Because, you know, it's really likely we'll ever nominate a female candidate at some point if Obama loses.

Seriously, if Obama loses it will be white men for the next 20-30 years. Nobody will want to roll the dice again until the Boomers are all dead.

Posted by Soullite | May 31, 2008 9:15 PM

People who are seriously drawn to Clinton on feminist grounds but are considering staying home in the fall so McCain can replace John Paul Stevens with another justice in the mold of Alito or Roberts really need to think harder.

Do you really think these people are thinking anymore, or that they can be reached by a rational argument?

-Kartik

Posted by Kartik Chandran | May 31, 2008 9:22 PM

They were handing out pamphlets accusing Obama of homosexual affairs, drugs, and murder.

ah, yes. i've never met a rabid Clinton supporter in person, but one from New York (supposedly) used to frequent my local area's (hattiesburg, Miss'ippi) newspaper message board & flood the boards with all sorts of deranged accusations. He's supposedly gay one minute, responsible for the cold-blooded beating death of a gay man in Chicago the next, "42%" Arab/Muslim (wtf? 42%?), a drug dealer and user, an Arab Manchurian candidate, all sorts of weird stuff.

some people, for whatever reasons, will never vote for Obama, just as some people, for whatever reasons, will never vote for Clinton. all we can do is hope there are far far more sane people than children voting. i do wish the Clinton supporters who say they'll either sit at home on election day or vote for McCain think long & hard about 4 more Bush(-lite) years.

Posted by jeremy | May 31, 2008 9:26 PM

Hillary's campaign has been 100% about glorifying Hillary, so why would you expect her core supporters to care about anything else?

Posted by aleks | May 31, 2008 9:32 PM

I thought it was awesome that Rev Wright convinced Allah to pour heavy rain onto the Hillary demonstrators.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 9:36 PM

The injury inflicted upon Senator Clinton today ranks as one of the worst tragedies in United States history.

Posted by Tim K | May 31, 2008 9:43 PM

Re ole one eye's comment "If ye [Chris Ford] have a thimblefull er self-respect ye will communicate with me via this here website and prepare to receive yer pirate style beatin."
------------
I suggest you strap Chris over a cannon, go find a goat and have the goat throw in the Jolly Roger as well.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 9:45 PM

So -- what are the odds that Hillary will run as John McCain's VP?

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 9:48 PM

Re Tim k's comment "The injury inflicted upon Senator Clinton today ranks as one of the worst tragedies in United States history."
-------
Yes. The death toll from the Civil War and Pearl Harbor pale by comparison.

Posted by Don Williams | May 31, 2008 9:53 PM

That was one of the fake Tim K's, I believe.

Posted by El Cid | May 31, 2008 10:00 PM

So -- what are the odds that Hillary will run as John McCain's VP?

People here love saying this, for some reason. Try this: pick the biggest number you can think of. No, bigger than that. Now add about twenty zeroes to it. Call that x.

1/x is the chance that Clinton will run as McCain's VP.

Posted by tomemos | May 31, 2008 10:08 PM

I don't buy that a significant chunk of people who've voted for Clinton won't vote for Obama. Not to say that we won't need all the votes we can get. Losing any percentage of votes from people not voting at all or voting McCain could cost us the election. But these people? Jeepers. They're professional victims and cookoo for cocoa puffs.

Posted by Lilybelle | May 31, 2008 10:41 PM

I really think the demographics of a McCain Clinton ticket would be crazy. I imagine it would split both parties and Bob Barr would walk away with like 20 percent of the vote.

Posted by Ben | May 31, 2008 10:53 PM

Well it’s just a matter of destructive incitement – a Hillary or bust plan, I mean, what was she thinking? That it was Hillary or SCREW the Democratic Party! In that she could learn a lot from Howard Dean I think.

All she has to do is heal the Party – is give the word, but I guess that is too much to ask for, huh?

It's a freedom of speech thing - until you allude to destruction - and there is NOT a US Constitutional protection for that kind of destructive speech. So JUST like Bush - the Clintons have something very much in common, they both care nothing for laws or ethics.

Posted by Me-again | May 31, 2008 10:55 PM

Guys, it's hardly worth getting excited over the two hundred sad sacks who turned up to demonstrate their credulous imbecility. That's a pathetically small demonstration, and says nothing more than that a tiny fraction of the population either needs meds or has a bad combination of them. These are the nuts who find images of Christ in old pieces of toast. Believe me, if it hadn't been HRC it would have been some other short-lived form of gratification.

Yes, there will be some crossover to McCain of "Democrats". That happens in every election - people cross the party line. As for why - look at the idiocies offered by chris ford etc and ask yourselves how strong your faith in human rationality and decency really is. Sure, defections happen - but that ain't news. Generally, about 5% or so of the voters switch, and there's no reason to think that it won't happen this time. That's where the last bitter Clintonites will fit - the garbage pile of insignificant statistics.

As for the howls of "Denver" -I imagine these poor souls find it terribly exciting to learn a new word, and even more so when they demonstrate how to say it on national TV. Doesn't mean they know what "Denver" means, you know. *s*

Posted by telchar | May 31, 2008 11:04 PM

Oh, and does ANYBODY feel sorry for Harold Ickes?

Because I do, that Bitch Hillary - poor Harold had to go embarrassing himself on national TV, thanks to a very selfish person by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton - at long last, Hillary, you have no shame dear, no shame at all.

Posted by Me-again | May 31, 2008 11:14 PM

the bourgeois dandies are outraged
shocking

Posted by llanidloes | May 31, 2008 11:26 PM

D Democrats
N Now
C Cheat

Brazile's own words!

Posted by nobama | May 31, 2008 11:34 PM

"But WOW his supporters on the blogs are some kind of awful, implying through word and deed that they don't just reject Clinton, they reject women. As a woman I find that alienating, to say the least."

I've seen that, but I've also seen irresponsible and absurd rhetoric from the Obama camp, too.

I have to say, I've been utterly mystified by all this. It seems to me that it really all comes down to the dangers of the cult of personality. All these people who are being so uncivil and acting irrationally feel personal loyalty to either Obama or Clinton. They take everything personally. It's very much an example of what that UK writer Matt linked to a few days ago wrote about, that Americans form political affiliations and vote based upon low-information gut-instincts which are strongly bound to whether the like a candidate or not. It's depressing.

I watch no television and have so little faith in the signal-to-noise ratio of what candidates say in public appearances—even in Obama's case, whom I do agree is better than most—that since this election season has started I've not even a single time watched a candidate speak on television. I have zero exposure to the candidates' personalities. I've formed my judgements entirely on the basis of what I understand their respective policies to be.

And I think I'm far better off than most other people for this. I have no personal investment in either candidate. Neither one of them "makes me feel good". JFK made people feel good, but so did Hitler. That's a pretty sorry basis for forming a voting decision.

I haven't been particularly happy, policy-wise, with either Obama or Clinton. I would have supported Edwards had he not been a southern white man, a political type I'm keen on seeing ushered out of its domination of American politics. I'm a feminist who'd very, very much like to see a woman president; but I think that a black president would do more for black people than a female president would do for women and would be good for America in general because of its very historically unique "race problem". I was a strong supporter of Bill Clinton and have always liked Hillary. I'm not convinced that she's as far to the right as she's seemed to have moved—but then, I'm not going to rely upon that suspicion. Yet Obama isn't exactly a leftist, either.

My point is that with either of these candidates, we could do better, but we could also do a lot worse. As Matt often points out, they're better then the Dem presidential candidates we've been given to work with in the past few elections. And they can both be counted on to be a vast improvement over the current administration or over McCain.

But I've had a lot of trouble being sympathetic to Clinton's choice to continue the fight to the detriment of the party as a whole after it became a mathematical certainty she couldn't win without a large number of superdelagates voting against the pledged delegates. And her argument to sit all the Florida and Michigan delegates, recognize none of the Michigan "uncommitted" votes as being for Obama, all after she previously had not objected to the punishment of these two states and all that entailed...well, this has all struck me as being almost unbelievably dishonest and self-serving. I find myself pretty angry at Clinton, and I'm not happy with that.

Nevertheless, it's overwhelmingly likely that with this decision Clinton will be forced to concede the nomination in a few days. Once that happens, it is absolutely imperative that all Democrats put this feud behind us and GOTV to ensure that McCain isn't elected. Because, besides the national travesty that a McCain administration would be, the damage and unpleasantness among the left if Obama loses will look a lot like the feud between Nader supporters and their critics after the 2000 election, only much, much worse. And that will be very, very bad.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | May 31, 2008 11:57 PM

Part of me is kind of happy to see these two states have a say, but then again it just shows that the Democrats are afraid of enforcing their own rules. If you kick and scream loud enough, they'll cave. Florida and Michigan broke the rules for two primaries in a row and end up having the same punishment both times (the first time proudly enforced by MacAullife, Clinton's campaign chair who likes to talk about people's dad's being dead while they're still alive). What is going to stop MI and FL or any other state that wants more attention from doing this again?

Meanwhile, after whining about a cause she never really believed in, Clinton nets something like +50 delegates while not really bringing herself any closer to the nomination. Edwards gets +6 delegates out of this and he's instructed his delegates to go to Obama. Obama is now currently just 67 delegates away from winning. Clinton is 241 delegates away from winning. Considering Clinton still has the very people who stripped FL and MI of their delegates running her campaign, thus proving she doesn't care about the moral issue at play here that she deems so important, what was the point of all this? It was a temper tantrum.

Posted by Reality Man | June 1, 2008 12:20 AM

That was one of the fake Tim K's, I believe.

Really, what the hell is the difference any more?

Posted by calling all toasters | June 1, 2008 1:39 AM

Fake Tim K.'s can vote in the American election.

Posted by GM | June 1, 2008 1:49 AM

I don't buy that a significant chunk of people who've voted for Clinton won't vote for Obama.

Well, a pretty significant chunk of them are people who were voting for Hillary to set McCain up against the weakest possible opponent.

Naturally they will vote for McCain in the fall, but they were going to do that, regardless.

Posted by Chet | June 1, 2008 1:50 AM

The Democratic Party lost its soul today. It looks like Obama will be the nominee, but thankfully McCain will be the new President. Millions of voters have left the party to become independents. When the Democrats corrupt the process against their best candidate, they deserve to lose.

Obama's lead in delegates came about through the undemocratic caucuses with over 1 million people participating. The primaries had a turnout of 32 million voters. This isn't a winning formula for November.

The other important story was Obama resigned from his church. This action confirms the duplicity of the man. He can't spin his way out of a 20 year relationship.

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 1:58 AM

Except that Clinton has won more registered Democrats than Obama at this point. The only closed primary he won was Illinois.

Posted by Obama loves Republican voters | June 1, 2008 2:26 AM

For the idiot above, a lot of states where Obama won their primary (like Georgia) don't let voters register for a party. To also believe this metric, you would have to discount caucus states that don't release their popular vote total. This is another pseudo-metric of the Clinton camp that aims at deception instead of honesty.

Posted by Reality Man | June 1, 2008 2:48 AM

Also, the candidate who has shown a greater ability to get crossover voters who plan on voting for them in November is the more electable candidate. Clinton has 0 crossover appeal. Nominating her would have been a disaster.

Posted by Reality Man | June 1, 2008 2:51 AM

What's funny is that if Hillary is in a position to run in 2012, she's burned a lot of bridges with her talk of which states count or don't, and the current meme of caucuses not counting when compared to primaries. The ads just write themselves.

Posted by daveNYC | June 1, 2008 3:24 AM

Reality Man

You are delusional. The caucus states have released their popular vote total. The Democratic Party is incapable of leading this country. The party died the day they let Obama take charge. McCain will receive our full votes.

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 4:30 AM

Andruw:

...everyone's hardcore supporters are overreacting to each and every event...

True! And (some) Obama supporters are no less abusive than (some) Clinton supporters. But the difference is that Obama discourages them and Clinton encourages them and buses them in.

At Huffpo a commenter noted that he had tried to post a plea for unity on Hillary's website, and it was moderated out. I checked the lead article on that site and indeed found no unity statements (meaning that they must be deleted) and that what is left is basically: (1) take it to the convention, (2) start a new party, (3) vote McCain.

So she's definitely fanning the flames. If I were an undecided superdelegate the different behavior of the campaigns this Saturday would have decided me.

Posted by Hans B | June 1, 2008 6:19 AM

Reality Man

You are delusional. The caucus states have released their popular vote total. The Democratic Party is incapable of leading this country. The party died the day they let Obama take charge. McCain will receive our full votes.

That's completely wrong. There might be estimates, but there are no official popular vote totals from four of the caucus states. It's a bogus argument and dishonest at best. Funny how we never heard how terrible caucuses are until Clinton lost them. My guess is you aren't a Democrat anyway, Clinton supporters I know personally are bright, strong Democrats. They have better sense about 'em than you've displayed.

Posted by drosz | June 1, 2008 8:00 AM

But WOW his supporters on the blogs are some kind of awful, implying through word and deed that they don't just reject Clinton, they reject women.

Yeah, there was sexism, but if anything it worked in Hillary's favor, firing up her supporters and handing her the victim card. Who knows how much the Matthews flap helped push her over the top in New Hampshire. But to claim Obama supporters "on the blogs" are simply rank misogynists? Um, no.

The other important story was Obama resigned from his church.

That is a disappointment. Obama should have stuck to his guns. Alas, stupid fucking idiots are a major voting bloc.

Posted by Lucy | June 1, 2008 9:16 AM

drosz,

Go to Denver and choke on some Rocky Mountain Oysters!

Posted by MCG | June 1, 2008 12:04 PM

Hillary will forever live in my heart. It boggles the mind that they've allowed a black man the nomination.

I'll be supporting Mr. McCain in the fall.

Posted by Tim K | June 1, 2008 12:16 PM

Clinton supporters I know personally are bright, strong Democrats. They have better sense about 'em than you've displayed.

Hahaha. I guess you've never visited www.hillaryis44.org before. Where the terms "Obamasluts" "Maggot" (a/k/a Osama-Obama)and "Obamacretins" are common place.

What I saw made my skin crawl. These people are even more vile than I would have ever imagined. Really scary stuff. And Obama should be very afraid. Their hatred is off the scale.

Posted by Louise | June 1, 2008 12:23 PM

And let's consider the alternative, that through some awful chain of events Mrs. Clinton manages to hijack the nomination and become the nominee: well, she voted for the war that got us into this mess in the first place, she opposes one of the key civil rights movements under consideration today (gay marriage), and she has shown that she would consistantly lie to the American public without the slightest qualm. Which makes her different from the current administration exactly...how? Why WOULDN'T Obama supporters stay home. In fact, if that happens -- Dude, stop by on election night. We can order pizza and watch the first season of GOSSIP GIRL on DVD.

Posted by Spencer | June 1, 2008 12:40 PM

@Louise:

ewww, that's a terrible website. Terrible content *and* design standards.

And ...what? They claim *Obama* said: "My supporters won’t vote for Hillary but Hillary supporters will vote for me" - but correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't that Hill's argument for a while?

Posted by Jay | June 1, 2008 12:47 PM

"...that they've allowed a black man..."

That pretty much sums up a lot of Ms. Rodham's supporter's anger right there. "How could the Democrats treat black people as equal when we all know they aren't?" "He 'stole' the election (by following the rules and competing as an equal)." "It's her turn; he should wait 4 years." "He's going to turn this country in Zimbabwe" - because everyone knows black people can't run their own countries.

I have never been more shocked and appalled at what I have heard during this long and bitter campaign. The only thing that has prevented me from sliding into a Bush-election depression is the realization that there are as many if not more Americans who 'renounce and reject' this kind of thinking. They may not live in Ohio, Kentucky or West Virginia, but thankfully they live in many other places in our great country.

Posted by Mitch | June 1, 2008 12:51 PM

The only closed primary he won was Illinois.

Sure, except for Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon, and Utah. I may be missing a couple. You can probably add South Dakota to that list on Tuesday. Obama has about as many closed primary wins as Clinton.

But other than that, your argument is irrefutable.

Posted by Marc | June 1, 2008 1:07 PM

droz

The caucus figures might be estimates, but they are near the 1 million marker. That is not in dispute. Five million people did not participate in them. Obama's delegate lead is a result of a process that encourages fewer voters.

Obama resigned from his church, but will he fire Axelrod? His campaign manager heads a fundraising committe at Father Phleger's church. All these connections between Obama, Axelrod, Phleger, Wright, Farrakhan, and Ayers are all casual? The company you keep matters. It defines your value system. All these men are peas in a pod.

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 1:31 PM

your argument is irrefutable.

It is indisputable that Clinton has won registered Democrats. About 54-46.

Posted by Cal | June 1, 2008 1:49 PM

MCG: Hehe, what a douche. I'll tell ya what, Nancy, I'll be sure to share some nuts with ya when we have to smash Clinton's political future into the ground before your very eyes. See ya in Denver. Better bring something bigger than that intellect of yours; it'll be a long week for ya. No worries, though, the SDs will end your candidate's hopes quicker than that.

Louise: Yeah, those sites are full of hate mongers, but the Clinton supporters I personally know, i.e. have seen them and interacted with them in person, are reasonable and well adjusted folks. What I've seen over there, hehe, and with this MCG character, and the past 24 hours? Not so much.

nobama: Hey, I'm not saying his associates are golden, hell, I don't recall mentioning anything about anyone's associates in this discussion.

My point was the popular vote tallys are flawed in any event because there is no official tally. You can vote for who you want based on what you want, but you you are not entitled to saying things that aren't true, well, you can, actually, but it's not cool. If you want to believe that and you truly think it's the truth, that's fine, have at it. But I, and many, many others have differing views. People can make up their minds which is closer to the truth.

PS wouldn't this be much easier if we finally decided to have a Nationally scripted primary in which the DNC could act as an offcial tallier? This is exactly what is wrong with our system. Close elections have very great difficulties being legitimized.

Posted by drosz | June 1, 2008 2:40 PM

Matt, I haven't read the comments yet, and I'm sure this has been said already, but allow me to anyway.

Thinking has absolutely nothing to do with it, harder or otherwise. These people feel seriously aggrieved and their reaction is purely emotional.

Not sure what to do about that other than hope they calm down and start to see reason.

Posted by abrxas | June 1, 2008 2:59 PM

We are not talking about flawed popular vote tallies. There are estimates of how many people participated in the caucuses. You're right, they are not written in stone, but they come awfully close to the actual number. Obama won in a system that favored less voter participation.

Why is this important? The Democrats will nominate a candidate that cannot win because he is unpopular with core Democratic groups There have been numerous articles written about this.

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 3:04 PM

nobama: Appreciate the reasoned discussion.

True, there is less participation, however there is no way to prove that had there been a primary instead, there would be greater turnout and the result would be different. And right now, both candidates are being hurt within core Democratic groups. It should end soon IMO simply for that reason. Hell, if the SDs want to give it to Clinton, do it. If they want Obama, do it. But for god sake, just do it. I just told a fellow Dem (I think he is anyway) he was douche, this is going on too long.

Posted by drosz | June 1, 2008 3:13 PM

Obama won in a system that favored less voter participation.

Which is the system we have. It's the system that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton, as well as the DNC, approved going into the primaries. It's the system that was agreed-upon from the beginning.

That was the time for Clinton and her supporters to register their objections. Her argument (and yours) now that she won in an alternate universe where we have a system of universal primaries is fundamentally more damaging to democracy than any of Obama's caucus wins could ever be.

And, doubtless, has we entered the primary season with a system of winner-take-all popular votes, Obama's election strategy would have reflected that.

If you have concerns about how Obama won the nomination (which he has), then the time to address them is 2012, for next time. In this election, everybody agreed to the rules going in, including your lady, and changing them after the fact is far, far more destructive to democracy than any caucus could be.

The Democrats will nominate a candidate that cannot win because he is unpopular with core Democratic groups

Which is the nice way of saying "only Clinton can win, because white racists will vote only for her." Well, news flash, they're all going to vote McCain anyway. I think Obama is basically a shoe-in for president, but even accepting your argument for a moment, Clinton doesn't add substantially to the picture; if anything, she's already irrevocably lost the support of African Americans. They simply won't vote for the woman who cheated the system in order to screw a black man with the lead in delegates and popular votes out of his nomination.

It's not worth getting worked up about, though, since she simply won't be able to do it.

Posted by Chet | June 1, 2008 5:18 PM

nobama = paid GOP troll.

SLC = Kahanist cunt.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 1, 2008 6:06 PM

My reason for bringing up the caucus system is to prove that Obama won more delegates with less voter participation. For months, I have read that he won by bringing in more voters. That is untrue.

Your side has misjudged the Hillary voters. The DNC cannot unite a party when they have shut out their best candidate. I agree with you, some people will not vote for Obama because he is AA. But, for the great majority, McCain will get our votes because he represents our values. I question Obama's judgment because for 20 years, he was a member of a church that preaches hate. That video of Wright, Farrakhan, Phleger will play hour after hour during the campaign. Voters have to feel comfortable with their chosen candidate. If Kerry can be swiftboated by veterans, Obama's uncles will leave a more devastating impact.

You write about cheating the system. How do you think Hillary's voters felt when Obama received her delegates from MI? The DNC is so petty. Listening to the rules committee, they were more concerned about the phantom voters from MI and FL than the ones that actually voted. The DNC's agenda is to select Obama and the heck with everyone else. Therefore, millions of Democrats have left the party and become Independents.

He is unpopular with core Democratic groups, so how does he win in November?

Phantom Obama voters, where are you?

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 9:10 PM

Well, if caucuses are now illegitimate, someone ought to take that up with the DNC and the various levels of elections boards, because in all of their views they're fine and legal.

But apparently Obama foes feel it's perfectly fine to punish citizens who live in states which implemented caucuses, and that their participation counts for nothing.

As for this right wing nonsense about 'he kant git Demcrap voterz', yeah, it's going to take about 1 hour after the convention to clear that particular said of myth turds up.

Posted by El Cid | June 1, 2008 9:39 PM

But, for the great majority, McCain will get our votes because he represents our values.

Really? What values of "ours" might those be? Militarism? Plutocracy? Adultery? Not sure what you mean here.

Posted by Lucy | June 1, 2008 10:01 PM

The caucus argument is bogus.

Caucuses are very legitimate democratic exercises in voting. They are older than our nation itself. And they have an important role to play in party building that cannot be matched in primaries. And this year they are particularly great exercises for the party because the turnout was absolutely massive in all caucus states. And that is now a massive new number of people that the state parties are in contact with to add to their lists.

Caucuses have many important roles to play and to diminish them because they may adversely affect the particular demographic your candidate is campaigning for is odd.

There is nothing that would have stopped Hillary from actually even contesting the caucuses, they didn't even bother. There was nothing stopping Hillary from investing in a GOTV effort in caucus states, like Obama did, to encourage more of her supporters to participate. However, there is one thing we know which is very clear, states that had separate caucuses and primaries (WA and NE), Obama won both, so one cannot argue that Hillary would have actually won those states.

Posted by debrazza | June 1, 2008 10:17 PM

What values of "ours" might those be? Militarism? Plutocracy? Adultery? Not sure what you mean here.

FYI: 'Bortion, 'borrion, 'bortion, and gays, gays, gays.

Posted by James Gary | June 1, 2008 10:32 PM

For months, Hillary's voters have been characterized as almost non-existent. Why are we voting for her when Obama has wrapped up the nomination? We believe in her plans to lead this country. In our judgment, her experience as First Lady and Senator have made her a better candidate.

Many of us have been loyal Democrats. All that changed on May 31 when it became clear that the party belongs to Obama. The DNC's shameful treatment of Hillary meant the party had abandoned us too. It wasn't the Republicans that mistreated her, it was our own party.

I can't speak for everyone, but I am voting for a candidate that represents my values. I can live with McCain's adultery, militarism, and so on. When Obama and the DNC stood by while rampant sexism was directed at Hillary, I became an Indpendent.

Time Magazine ran a cover with Hillary on the railroad tracks. If they had placed Obama on those tracks, there would have been such an outcry. The DNC cannot expect loyalty when this type of abuse is acceptable.

Posted by nobama | June 1, 2008 10:43 PM

I can't speak for everyone, but I am voting for a candidate that represents my values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

Good luck with that.

Posted by scythia | June 1, 2008 11:03 PM

Sorry, I meant to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

Glad to know he speaks for you.

Posted by scythia | June 1, 2008 11:05 PM

"The DNC's shameful treatment of Hillary meant the party had abandoned us too. It wasn't the Republicans that mistreated her, it was our own party."

Was this about Hillary or about following a process? The process started before it was clear that it was politically disadvantageous to Clinton. At that point Clinton and her allies did not dispute it. Their 'principled' opposition to the decision only started when they realized that it was politically useful.

So, at what point did a process that Clinton and her surrogates supported become mistreatment of her?

"I can't speak for everyone, but I am voting for a candidate that represents my values. I can live with McCain's adultery, militarism, and so on. When Obama and the DNC stood by while rampant sexism was directed at Hillary, I became an Indpendent."

So, you're supporting someone who wants to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe vs Wade on feminist grounds?

"Time Magazine ran a cover with Hillary on the railroad tracks. If they had placed Obama on those tracks, there would have been such an outcry. The DNC cannot expect loyalty when this type of abuse is acceptable. "

A Fox News commentator openly advocated assassinating Obama. I don't blame the Clinton campaign for that, or the DNC. I blame Fox News. Neither do I blame Clinton or the DNC for all of the dismissive press coverage of Edwards.

How is Obama or the DNC responsible for negative press coverage of Clinton?

The only person in this race that hasn't been the target of grossly inappropriate comments is John McCain.

If you want an administration that will be worse than Bush in terms of waging endless war, outlawing abortion, fiscal mismanagment, etc., by all means vote for McCain. But I can't see what would make you support Clinton to begin with, if those are your priorities.

Posted by justaguy | June 1, 2008 11:31 PM

Time Magazine ran a cover with Hillary on the railroad tracks. If they had placed Obama on those tracks, there would have been such an outcry. The DNC cannot expect loyalty when this type of abuse is acceptable.

The DNC is responsible for Time Magazine covers?

Get out of town.

Posted by Lucy | June 2, 2008 12:07 AM

"The DNC is responsible for Time Magazine covers?"

Yeah, I can see the drive to want to have someone to blame when your candidate doesn't win. But unless a campaign crashes and burns, it generally isn't due to any one thing, person or group. Rather its a death of a thousand cuts.

If it weren't for unfair press coverage, if it weren't for Mark Penn's poor strategy, if it weren't for her Iraq vote, etc. etc. I'm sure people could come up with dozens of individual things if, had they been different, would have seen Clinton in the White House.

But at the end of the day, there's nobody to blame. She fought hard, but she fell short. Maybe you think that everything wasn't fair, but nobody was handed the nomination, and if you're looking for fair you shouldn't involve yourself in politics.

What are your priorities? Clinton as an individual, or the policies that she supports? Do you want to hurt the person that won the nomination, or do you want whats best for America? If you support Clinton's policies, the two cannot be the same thing.

Posted by justaguy | June 2, 2008 12:42 AM

You are damn right, the DNC is responsible. They stood by and let their best female candidate be smeared. Would they tolerate racist ads or slurs against Obama without coming to his defense?

What's best for America? In the past, I always voted for Democratic candidates. This campaign has changed my thinking about politics. It has become a crusade. I'm voting for a candidate and not the party. Hillary has earned my vote. An Obama Presidency would be bad for America.

Posted by nobama | June 2, 2008 2:48 AM

It struck me--this nobama sounds familiar. The thudding cadence, the implacable animosity toward Obama and devotion to Hillary, who, with her terrible swift sword, would avenge the whole history of sexism with one fell candidacy. Profundities like "the Democratic Party lost its soul today." The willingness to throw the election to McCain because "an Obama Presidency would be bad for America", because "Hillary is the best candidate", because how dare he! Now you wish to nurse your grievances, go on a "crusade", because it's just not fair that Hillary didn't win because SEXISM! Let's face it, the most important thing about this election is proper deference toward Hillary Clinton. And if she doesn't get her due, by god, let's elect McCain, who represents "our values", like crusades!

Is that you "mary"? Just like I remember--stolid, injured, impervious. I just know I'm right.

Posted by Lucy | June 2, 2008 9:07 AM

drosz,

My apologies. Upon second glance, I now realize that you re-posted "Reality Man's" hissy fit and responded to that. If I have read your entire post, I would have realized that they weren't your words.

Reality Man- go to Denver and choke on some Rocky Mountain Oysters.

Posted by MCG | June 2, 2008 9:50 AM

For the idiot above, a lot of states where Obama won their primary (like Georgia) don't let voters register for a party. To also believe this metric, you would have to discount caucus states that don't release their popular vote total. This is another pseudo-metric of the Clinton camp that aims at deception instead of honesty.

Reality Man, I live in Georgia, and am a registered Democrat. The primaries in GA are open in the sense that you can, no matter how you're registered, vote for one party only, and if there's a runoff in that party, you can only vote if you voted for that party in the original election. Lots of Dems in my district crossed over to get rid of Bob Barr, since we were getting a Pubbie anyway.

HRC has turned out to be the unsubtle Machavellian many GOPers long ago declared her to be. I hope I never want anything in life, other than to live, as bad as she wants to be prez.

Posted by ed from ga | June 2, 2008 11:18 AM

For the idiot above, a lot of states where Obama won their primary (like Georgia) don't let voters register for a party. To also believe this metric, you would have to discount caucus states that don't release their popular vote total. This is another pseudo-metric of the Clinton camp that aims at deception instead of honesty.

Reality Man, I live in Georgia, and am a registered Democrat. The primaries in GA are open in the sense that you can, no matter how you're registered, vote for one party only, and if there's a runoff in that party, you can only vote if you voted for that party in the original election. Lots of Dems in my district crossed over to get rid of Bob Barr, since we were getting a Pubbie anyway.

HRC has turned out to be the unsubtle Machavellian many GOPers long ago declared her to be. I hope I never want anything in life, other than to live, as bad as she wants to be prez.

Posted by ed from ga | June 2, 2008 11:20 AM

Now that Irack Hussein Osama has taken over the Democratic Party, only McCain and the blessed White Knights can save America from this dark, radical, sexist menace.

Posted by nobama | June 2, 2008 1:26 PM

"Is that you "mary"? Just like I remember--stolid, injured, impervious. I just know I'm right."

Yes.

And I recognized your slutting around for Osama. Traitor.

Posted by nobama | June 2, 2008 2:18 PM

Oooooh mary played the traitor card!

You've come a long way, baby!

Posted by Lucy | June 2, 2008 2:36 PM

I think this goes a bit deeper, and is not merely a question of some supporters being 'a bit confused.'

If the best arguments given to Clinton supporters for voting for Obama are rooted in of fear of what McCain would do as president, that's not really a vote FOR Obama, it's a vote AGAINST McCain. Similarly, some people are voting AGAINST Hillary, not FOR Obama. Some may call that semantics, but voting for "Change for the sake of change" is how Germany got someone like Hitler - change is necessary, BO and HCR supporters agree on that, but change TOWARD WHAT is a very important point. Obama may be a great Democrat and a great leader, but then why hasn't he been able to capture most of Hillary's base? Those people aren't going away in and after November, so will he just ignore them (like Bush does)?

It's a little like someone giving you the choice between being fed and being sheltered. The conversation might go:
"Well, I don't want either."
"Too bad, you have no choice."
"I refuse - and you need to stick around, so give me another option."
"We don't need you, take a hike."

It's practically a dare.

If Hillary supporters feel powerless to influence their own party, a natural reaction is to bind together to show they are valuable and powerful. The idea is to get the party's attention. This calls for a tough choice - support a candidate you vehemently hate (McCain), or cast your vote the way you were told, little girl. President Wilson would have a few words of wisdom for those who would take on women in a game of political chicken.

In many cases, Hillary supporters are identifying with her as a woman - they see her getting beat down, being told to 'sit down and shut up' and it strikes a chord deep inside. They consider that no woman has ever held this office of the highest executive in the United States, and some recall that raise, promotion, job, or commendation that they did not get because they were a woman. One of the more interesting themes of the DNC rally outside the Marriot was the number of women talking about how 'this isn't my party, this is not the party i want to belong to'. Almost immediately after these statements came another declaration - not a question, not an idle thought, not even a general hopelessnes or hesitation: "We need a new party." Maybe this could split the Dems; maybe a lot of Dems will join the Independants.

Either way: Hell hath no fury, and wow are they pissed.

Posted by DNC RallyGrrrl | June 2, 2008 4:33 PM

I think this goes a bit deeper, and is not merely a question of some supporters being 'a bit confused.'

If the best arguments given to Clinton supporters for voting for Obama are rooted in of fear of what McCain would do as president, that's not really a vote FOR Obama, it's a vote AGAINST McCain. Similarly, some people are voting AGAINST Hillary, not FOR Obama. Some may call that semantics, but voting for "Change for the sake of change" is how Germany got someone like Hitler - change is necessary, BO and HCR supporters agree on that, but change TOWARD WHAT is a very important point. Obama may be a great Democrat and a great leader, but then why hasn't he been able to capture most of Hillary's base? Those people aren't going away in and after November, so will he just ignore them (like Bush does)?

It's a little like someone giving you the choice between being fed and being sheltered. The conversation might go:
"Well, I don't want either."
"Too bad, you have no choice."
"I refuse - and you need to stick around, so give me another option."
"We don't need you, take a hike."

It's practically a dare.

If Hillary supporters feel powerless to influence their own party, a natural reaction is to bind together to show they are valuable and powerful. The idea is to get the party's attention. This calls for a tough choice - support a candidate you vehemently hate (McCain), or cast your vote the way you were told, little girl. President Wilson would have a few words of wisdom for those who would take on women in a game of political chicken.

In many cases, Hillary supporters are identifying with her as a woman - they see her getting beat down, being told to 'sit down and shut up' and it strikes a chord deep inside. They consider that no woman has ever held this office of the highest executive in the United States, and some recall that raise, promotion, job, or commendation that they did not get because they were a woman. One of the more interesting themes of the DNC rally outside the Marriot was the number of women talking about how 'this isn't my party, this is not the party i want to belong to'. Almost immediately after these statements came another declaration - not a question, not an idle thought, not even a general hopelessnes or hesitation: "We need a new party." Maybe this could split the Dems; maybe a lot of Dems will join the Independants.

Either way: Hell hath no fury, and wow are they pissed.

Posted by DNC RallyGrrrl | June 2, 2008 4:36 PM

I think this goes a bit deeper, and is not merely a question of some supporters being 'a bit confused.'

If the best arguments given to Clinton supporters for voting for Obama are rooted in of fear of what McCain would do as president, that's not really a vote FOR Obama, it's a vote AGAINST McCain. Similarly, some people are voting AGAINST Hillary, not FOR Obama. Some may call that semantics, but voting for "Change for the sake of change" is how Germany got someone like Hitler - change is necessary, BO and HCR supporters agree on that, but change TOWARD WHAT is a very important point. Obama may be a great Democrat and a great leader, but then why hasn't he been able to capture most of Hillary's base? Those people aren't going away in and after November, so will he just ignore them (like Bush does)?

It's a little like someone giving you the choice between being fed and being sheltered. The conversation might go:
"Well, I don't want either."
"Too bad, you have no choice."
"I refuse - and you need to stick around, so give me another option."
"We don't need you, take a hike."

It's practically a dare.

If Hillary supporters feel powerless to influence their own party, a natural reaction is to bind together to show they are valuable and powerful. The idea is to get the party's attention. This calls for a tough choice - support a candidate you vehemently hate (McCain), or cast your vote the way you were told, little girl. President Wilson would have a few words of wisdom for those who would take on women in a game of political chicken.

In many cases, Hillary supporters are identifying with her as a woman - they see her getting beat down, being told to 'sit down and shut up' and it strikes a chord deep inside. They consider that no woman has ever held this office of the highest executive in the United States, and some recall that raise, promotion, job, or commendation that they did not get because they were a woman. One of the more interesting themes of the DNC rally outside the Marriot was the number of women talking about how 'this isn't my party, this is not the party i want to belong to'. Almost immediately after these statements came another declaration - not a question, not an idle thought, not even a general hopelessnes or hesitation: "We need a new party." Maybe this could split the Dems; maybe a lot of Dems will join the Independants.

Either way: Hell hath no fury, and wow are they pissed.

Posted by DNC RallyGrrrl | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

ugh.. aplogies all- didn't mean to post thrice! Friggin browser...

Posted by DNC RalluGrrrl | June 2, 2008 4:42 PM

Thanks for your comments, DNCRallyGrrl. Personally, I believe that the burden of unifying the party after a hard and a close-fought race lies with Obama, the winner. I am an Obama supporter, but I recognize that yelling at people who feel aggrieved is not a winning strategy.

Posted by Peter H | June 3, 2008 11:01 AM