AMERICAblog: About those supposd Clinton & Obama voters going for McCain
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
Much earlier I said I was with four women today who flat out stated they would not vote if Hillary is the candidate. One is a Republican ready to vote Dem BUT not if it is for Clinton.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Another questions is what is the state of the Democratic party if Clinton secures the nomination by stealing the nomination thwarting the will of the people.
Clinton's theft of the nomination could create the real possibility that the dems lose the House and White house.
So the antoher question is whether the dems could lose the House?
Look at all the repubs like Pat Buchanan, they all want Hillary because the know deep down inside she is a repub and that Obama can and will defeat McCain because he clearly has a differenct messager that appeals to the majority of voters, dem and repub combined.
The democratic risks more than that '08 White House and the '08 House races, the Democratic party also risks absolute destruction if the Democratic party allows Clinton to steal the election from Obama when he lead in states won, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revote is held).
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
"the Democratic party also risks absolute destruction if the Democratic party allows Clinton to steal the election from Obama when he lead in states won, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revote is held)." --tbhull
i called up my friend leroy on the phone I said, buddy, i'm afraid to be alone i got some weird ideas in my head about things to do in denver when you're dead
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Things to do in Denver when your dead, a very underrated movie strarring Andy Garcia and Christopher Walken.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
VERY underrated. :)
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
No, tbhull, the Dems wouldn't lose the house. I know everyone in the blogosphere is overwrought over this, but we represent the tiniest minority of voters. Most voters in these primaries are evenly divided, and the rules allow superdelegates to swing the nomination to either Clinton or Obama at this point. It wouldn't BE stealing even if some would think it IS stealing.
(And I agree the superdelegate rule is a dumb one, but I also don't like caucusing either, since it's so quirky and fewer people can participate).
All the repubs certainly do NOT think of Clinton as one of their own, which you'd know if you talked to any republicans. I have, and they don't care for either Clinton or Obama, although almost all of them said they liked Edwards, so go figure. I think at best you can say that Republican pundits recognize Clinton is the more moderate Dem of the two remaining candidates, and they respond to that, but there is plenty in her voting record and platform that the GOP hates, so she's no neocon.
At this point I believe both candidates have been so damaged by this process that neither of them can win. Both of them had hurdles to begin with -- the very real misogyny and racism that still exists among a certain segment of our population -- and we've become so viciously divided about the candidates that it looks like people won't even WANT to unite once we have our nominee.
Neither of them "feels" right to me anymore.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Try again,
Another question to ask is what is the state of the Democratic party if Clinton secures the nomination by stealing the nomination thwarting the will of the people?
Clinton's theft of the nomination could create the real possibility that the dems lose the House and White House.
Yes, the dems could lose the House in '08?
Look at all the repubs like Pat Buchanan, they all want Hillary because they know deep down inside Clinton is a repub and that Obama can and will defeat McCain because Obama clearly has a different message compared to MxcCain, a message that appeals to the majority of voters, dem and repub combined.
The Democratic party risks more than just the '08 White House and the '08 House races, the Democratic party also risks absolute destruction of the current Democratic coalition party allows Clinton to steal the election from Obama when he leads in states won, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revote is held).
maxstar212
· 1 year ago
Obama supporters are unwilling to wonder why people in the Northeast who are New Deal Liberal Democrats dislike Obama and his empty rhetoric. "Hope" and "Change" repeated many times does not make substance. And "unity" was what Bush used after 9/11 to get daschell to support everything. Unity is not a traditional Democratic party call. We are a party of coalitions. The Gay Rights movement is part of that coalition. We don't get respect without fighting for it, and that is why Obama disrespects us by singing with McGlurkin or refusing to be seen with mayors that will make people think that he respects gay people.
And who are these Democrats who all of a sudden want to disenfranchise millions of people in Florida so they could have a victory. Who bully my poor 85 year old aunt in a caucus, which none of her friends would go to because they were so scared about what is going on. They don't even care about democracy. These are not traditional Democrats. Where did these Obama people come from?
Nigel Elliott
· 1 year ago
If the choice is between "obliterate" or "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran, I think most Americans would choose "bomb, bomb, bomb". It's a gross choice. I'll sit this one out.
Clintonista
· 1 year ago
This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate.
There are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore the Obama Campaigns cries for all Superdelegates to swing for Obama and instead endorse Mrs Clinton. There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton CAN beat McCain in November. Obama cannot if he is on the ticket as President. Him as VP is a different story: http://clintonista.wordpress.com/
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
"This will be the fourth attempt for Obama to knock Clinton out of the race. He’s been incapable of doing so, which demonstrates his lack of feasibility as a candidate." --Clintonista
That's the funniest, stupidest thing I have read all day. That IS saying sumpin
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Clinton had 28 chances to knock Obama out o the race and she has failed, as she will in Oregon and North Carolina, well after the race is over.
Clintonista
· 1 year ago
28 chances of states that either had caucuses or dominated by African American democrat voters like GA, MS, etc... that a dem won't win anyway and won't be factored into the calculus of the general election.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Do those 28 states fail to count, asshole?
Clintonista
· 1 year ago
No, but they matter less in the math needed for the White House. That's what we want right?
PS. Must you be so colloquial in your response?
tbhull
· 1 year ago
i live near you, thus, expalining the local color.
Obama has a much better chance at the WH, but we are not talking about the WH now. What we are talking about (although I understand your reluctance to face the real facts indicatinf a monumental failre of the Clinton campaign) ) is the dem nomination based on the resutls of the dem primaries, caucus or not. In the states that matter (which includes the states completed so far, not including Florida or Michigan unless a revote is held)) Obama has an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegate count, states won and popular vote.
I suggest if you want to continue to support Hilary you move to New York (unless you already reside there) where she can serve your interest as the junior Senator satisfying the agenda handed down to her from President Obama.
Clintonista
· 1 year ago
Clearly, with your last post, I'll be able to dance circles around you in intellectual discourse. I do not, however, wish to dignify your ignorant response with a line item retort.
I am glad I was able to entertain you. As an encore, I'll jingle shiny keys.
vwcat
· 1 year ago
The biggest problem i see with the polling and pundits is that they have no clue, or I should say even less than none, about this election. They don't understand the candidate, Obama and that he is not going to always act and talk and walk like a typical pol. And the same with his supporters. This is the first time they cannot fit supporters or the candidate into neat little boxes.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Always funny when the guy who's losing says the guy who's winning is a loser.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
If Obama taps Hillary...well...there's the only scenario that would KEEP ME FROM VOTING FOR OBAMA.
Fortunately for the winning Obama, he isn't that fucking stupid.
I would like to hear him rule the fascist creep HILLARY out for a potential Supreme Court nomination to boot!
donotmakemecomedownthere
· 1 year ago
Relax. No one will even remember the expression "Hillary '08" by June '08. She's desperately trying to play the middle ground of a decision that has no middle ground.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
let's also face the fact that clinton supporters will support obama more enthusiastically if she is allowed to play this out until May 6. most obama supporters wouldn't mind this so much if she would just get a clue that the enemy is mcCain.
John Aravosis
· 1 year ago
Hell, tbhull, she had 28 chances TO CATCH UP TO HIM! LOL
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
"Hell, tbhull, she had 28 chances TO CATCH UP TO HIM! " --John Aravosis
Jimmy Kimmel telling it like it is about delegate count right now. GOOD STUFF. Informing the kiddies...
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
Clinonista
Please, please I am tired of hearing this crap from Clinton supporters. Obama, in case you haven't noticed, is still leading in pledged delegate, in popular vote and in states won. So Clinton won PA, what does that really mean? I would ask this even if Obama had won this state. Historically, Pa is a Republican state, of course, anything can change in November, but more than likely PA will go Republican in the fall, no matter who the Dem candidate may be.
Jimbo62
· 1 year ago
It's all a game at this point. I think you, John, have pointed this out several times. She can't win the pledged delegates, the popular vote or the number of states. The superdelegates won't overturn the majority of democratic voters and be perceived as taking it away from the black candidate, that would create a huge problem within the party. It won't happen. The most loyal voters within the democratic party are African Americans. It would be suicide for the party to do this and I don't think that appeals to the superdelegates, except maybe the ones who are indebted to the Clintons.
shanobama
· 1 year ago
Excuse me, but Obama has been running against the former first lady and a former president who was well liked by the Dems while in office.
It is a freakin' miracle he is ahead. Tip of the hat to Iowa for starting off with the right idea, and all who support the only real progressive left in this race.
Obama '08
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
I think NC will go to Obama but Howard Fineman said tonight that Elizabeth Edwards is expected to be at Hillary's side during her campaign there. Elizabeth is widely respected and really could make a difference in NC.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
aquarius
Lie I stated elswhere, Elizabeth Edwards is a a problem, but not a big one. The paternalistic well heeled white members of the dem establishment can help Obama but cannot hurt him that much if they support Clinton. Hell, the Edwards clan may do the diplomatic walk of the fence by having Elizabeth supporting Hillary and John supporting Barrack.
Do you think the dems can lose the House if the party establishment allows Clinton to steal the election if Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count and the popular vote count (not counting Florida and Michigan unless a revote occurs)? I think it is a possibility.
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
John, you are the one that has it all wrong. You say that you "don't know a single Obama voter who wouldn't" vote vote for Hillary if she got the nomination, but you're begging the question with this and your underlying premise. You insist in your blog posts and elsewhere on pushing the ideas that 1) Clinton can only win the nomination by "stealing" it and 2) that Obama supporters would vote for Clinton even if she wins the nomination fair and square, but that is judged BY YOUR CRITERIA. The problem with this is twofold: First, Obama fanatics like you have now done everything in your power to make it impossible for Clinton to ever be seen as the legitimate nominee. Even BY YOUR CRITERIA, if the impossible happens and she wins 90% of the remaining primary votes, or whatever it would take to put her over the top in popular vote and elected delegates, you and others would find some way to argue that she "stole"the election. Second, based on what I have read in the comments to this blog, other blogs, in poll results, and many other places, I am not at all convinced that Obama voters would vote for Clinton, even if she won the nomination fairly, by your criteria. I don't know the percentage, but certainly anecdotally, many, many, many Obama supporters despise Clinton so much that they would not vote for her under any circumstances and others who don't give a shit about Clinton are just Obama fanatics who will stay home if they can't vote for their idol. ain, anecdotally, but just look at the first comment from aquarius2.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
I have said all along that you cannot view Hillary's negatives in the traditional sense of perhaps being able to overcome them. With Hillary, IT IS PERSONAL. There is no greater motivator of people.
And when Hillary endorses McCain, hires union busting scum like Penn, hangs with Joe Lieberman, attends afreakish religious cult meetings with Santorum and Brownbeck and the rest of the Dominionists... People tend to KNOW HER BY THE COMPANY SHE KEEPS.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
Obama fanatics like you have now done everything in your power to make it impossible for Clinton to ever be seen as the legitimate nominee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I beg your pardon. Hillary Clinton has done everything in her own power to make it impossible to win. She should not have run this year. She has the highest negative factor among every other candidate and has for years - she is the most divisive candidate - and haven't we just had eight years of that division? She is incapable of finding ways to unify the country without flipflopping her own statements, and we've already seen her doing plenty of that along the campaign trail. The Republicans not only predicted she would run for President, but now are actively hoping she is the nominee.
You don't need to be a fanatic for any other candidate to realize that a party hoping to win the White House DOES NOT NOMINATE THE CANDIDATE WHO OVER HALF THE POPULATION STRONGLY DISLIKES. And yet Clinton, knowing she was not popular, decided to run for the office anyway. Is there some reason why she couldn't have waited until the negatives softened? Hell no - and so now we are faced with a negative campaigner who is increasingly unpopular among the general population - and her supporters STILL demand she be the nominee.
So what happens if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee and loses a general election that should have been a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Is it that far to state that it would spell the end of the Democratic party, the realization of the Rush/Ann/Rove dream?
Why the hell did she choose to run anyway? Was the Clinton record in the White House so squeaky clean that there would be no baggage? Was she so convinced that Republicans won't swift-boat her like they've done a million times before, and which she has never been capable of fighting back effectively? If she is such a viable candidate, why is it that she is in second place? What special agenda or message is she trying to have placed into the Democratic platform which will be missing if she doesn't win the nomination?
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
kevinbgood3e,
Well said.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
Clinton ran because she wants a repub (like hersef or Goldwater's ghost) to win.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
peachkfc
Believe it or not, these four women, including myself, were more or less neutral to Clinton months ago. Her tactics and her willingness to "do anything" has turned us off. John can say anything he wants but he hasn't swayed our thoughts, one way or the other, It is interesting to read his take but in the end it is an individual decision.
babyboomer
· 1 year ago
Personally, I cannot bring myself to vote for the best of two evils....I am a person, still of hope for our country only if Honor and Integrity is the basis of a win....this is NOT Ms. Clinton. I have nothing left to loose....I have lost my job, and will be homeless within 60 days... Thus maybe our country will need another 4-8 years of tragic Corperate America,Lobbiest and the Media to make the middle class disapear....sad but true....
The only thing we all have left....hope and raising out of the greed that Clintons, Bushs, and McCains can only see.....
Imagine....
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
I'm sorry to hear about your troubles, and frankly my life is pretty bad right now, too--I've been unemployed for 8 months, can't pay the bills, am hoping to qualify for food stamps, etc. But do you really not see the HUGE difference between ANY Democrat, even Hillary Clinton, whatever her flaws, and any Republican, especially John McCain, Mr. More of the Same?? Do you just want more war, more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, more handouts to the rich and stabs in the back to the rest of us? No matter what, it seems to me that the only hope we have is to elect a Democratic Congress AND a Democratic President, even if half of us Democrats have to hold our noses to pull the lever for our candidate. Otherwise, we have no hope at all.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
tbull
I think is possible the Dems can lose everything. People say they will pull together in November but I don't think so. I think if this race continues it is an open invitation for Republicans to again control the country for four more years.
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
Oh, sorry, I forgot, in what is probably a futile effort to forestall the abuse from the Obama supporters for expressing anything other than party line, so to speak, I should mention that I am NOT, repeat NOT a Hillary partisan. I am a Yellowdog Democrat, I will rabidly support the eventual Democratic nominee, but my candidate is long gone from this race.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
peachkfc
BTW I am not an "obama fanatic" . no more than you are a Clintion fanatic. I supported Edwards until he dropped out. I spent a long time deciding who I would support. I listened to both the remaining candidates and decided I like Obama. What you don't get is that many people intensely dislike Clinton, doesn't make them fanatics, it just says they don't want her.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
And let's not forget about this freeloading boil on our collective asses.
aquarius2, I understand what your saying and I apologize if I unfairly used you and your friends as examples of my point. However, there are many, many others who are Obama supporters who have expressed the opinions I discussed in my post. What bothers me about posts like this from John, who I have been reading for years and whom I admire greatly, is that I think he, as an extreme Obama partisan, is encouraging the worst instincts and reactions from other Obama fans. In my opinion, this extreme Hillary-hating is far more destructive to the Democratic party and the hopes of defeating the Republicans in the fall than anything Hillary herself or her campaign has done.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 1 year ago
agree that there is a tone of schadenfreude in this site's support for obama. it IS possible to criticize effectively without being destructive (i wish hillary understood this). for example, talkleft is a pro-clinton leftie blog that tries pretty hard not to take pleasure in obama's weaknesses and goofs. they are clearly pledged to obama should their candidate lose. that's one way to influence the other side (obama himself is a proponent of this, no?). but what i've realized is not everybody is interested in influencing the other side. it's a personal choice.
having said that, talkleft posts some really dumb analysis. the posts on this site are just ... smarter.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
I dunno, Steve_in_CNJ, I would have said the posts on this site are smarter until recently -- now, though, think about how many posts in the last month have been about numerical analyses, "Hillary can't win because of x% of primaries", yadda yadda yadda -- when none of it matters except the superdelegates at this point. There's been an awful lot of intellectual onanism and Hillary-bashing that keeps dancing around the only real issue left in this campaign -- the superdelegates.
So... is a smart post about a meaningless topic still a smart post?
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
this extreme Hillary-hating is far more destructive to the Democratic party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason why she should not have run this year. Her negatives were high before she ever announced her candidacy.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
Your equation is Martian.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
She has no money. She has over 50% negatives. She is a pathological liar. She lags in delegates. She is behind in the popular vote. Rush and Hannity and Buchanan and all thge neocons love her. Hell even Richard Mellon Scaife loves her now.
I'm sorry. I'm simply not comfortable with Hillary in government AT ALL. Never mind the Presidency
SHE IS THE ONE who CANNOT WIN.
aquarius2
· 1 year ago
peachkfc
No apologies necessary to me. This is about discussion and expressing your opinions. :)
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
That's good to hear. I've received some nasty personal abuse here (and at some other blogs) for what I thought were fairly innocuous, impersonal political remarks. It's very unpleasant and not what I'm interested in, unlike some commenters.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
Besisdes, I don't want a President who can glibly joke about being targeted by sniper fire. That is personal, to me.
SINGING_TROLL
· 1 year ago
There are many out here who HAVE taken fire. She is a pretender of the most vile kind.
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
Sorry, I hate this Disqus comment thing, it's too complicated. My last post was to babyboomer, Today 01:17 AM
shanobama
· 1 year ago
ppeach, if Clinton somehow gets in office and tries to run the government the way she has run her campaign, you can kiss any positive change for average folks good-by.
She cannot even get co-sponsors on her bills in congress, how do you think she will be able to get any knid of consensus for change as president? She is a victim of her own divisive politics. I dont want the country to be a victim too.
Bluestocking
· 1 year ago
I have to disagree with you on this one, John -- or at least, I have to disagree with your apparent opinion that it would be a good thing for Obama voters to turn their backs on Clinton in the event that she were chosen as the Democratic Party nominee by some skullduggery or other. On the whole, I do not want Clinton to be chosen as the nominee -- but I have to say the same thing about Obama supporters that I've already said more than once about Clinton supporters. If Clinton is chosen as the nominee and Obama's supporters turn their backs on her, this will split the party in two and we might just as well offer McCain the White House on a silver platter. Granted, there's at least a faint possibility that McCain could still pull it off even if Obama's supporters were willing to get behind Clinton -- especially, in my opinion, as long as states remain which do not at least require voter-verified paper records for electronic voting machines (22 still have no such legislation). However, why make it easy for him by deliberately splitting the party? America is in critical need of change, and we know without the shadow of a doubt that we are NOT going to get it from McCain. Of course, there's plenty of reason to doubt that we would get it from Clinton if she won the election -- and I actually *do* see the point of standing up against Clinton in the event that she should secure the nomination through underhanded means -- but I still think that fracturing the party would do us far more harm than good, both now and in the long run.
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
To Bluestocking, Today 01:59 AM,
Thank you, my earlier point exactly with better detail.
tbhull
· 1 year ago
No one trusts that Clinton will end Iraq, a war that she voted for and only "camre" out against to counter Obasma's momentum. Clinton is slave to the same masters that want to maintain the stus quo and prolong Iraq to infinity. Just look at all the repub talking heads attacking Obama and praising Clinton. Clinton is a repub in FDR's clothing.
babyboomer
· 1 year ago
Peachkfc Thank you for your kind words..... And I wish you prosperity and light in your journey..... I am not making any decisions out of "bitterness"...I will do anything I can to help ge a Democratic Congress..... But my core belief is this....unless this insanity is stopped in Corperate American, Lobbiest and the Media...our country will go down....and Clinton will not change these issues....unfortunately....it will be more of the same.
peachkfc
· 1 year ago
babyboomer, aquarius2, bluestocking, and others, goodnight, nice chatting with you, but must go to bed. Peace to you all and on to a glorious Democratic victory in November!
hit_escape
· 1 year ago
I think the real damage if super delegates overturn the state's results is the disenfranchising of all the new voters Obama has attracted. For example: I spoke with a waitress who was 35 and had never voted. She heard Obama speak on TV and immediately registered to vote. I asked her what would happen if Clinton got the nomination. Without thinking, she said she would vote for McCain or not vote.
In reality, the waitress is less likely to show up to vote than a democrat who has always voted. Suppose the odds of her showing up are 60/40. If the person that attracted her to vote seems to have lost by back room politics, I will guarantee that the odds of her showing up to vote for Hillary are 0/100.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
hit escape - you are exactly right. And I don't think the Clinton campaign cares one bit about that waitress ever voting unless she is a Clinton supporter. Hillary is establishment - and people fed up with the system are not going to go out of their way to vote for someone who campaigned in support of that very system.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Uhm, John, your own blog has been filled for months with Obama supporters who wouldn't vote for Clinton even if she won the majority of delegates via the primary system. Even back when Clinton had a commanding lead and Obama was a long shot.
And the vitriol from Obama supporters towards Clinton supporters, even here in this blog, has turned off a lot of people towards Obama as well -- most polls I read look like around 30% of Clinton supporters wouldn't vote for Obama, for much the same reasons Obama supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton.
The excitement over these two ground-breaking candidates has turned into something more personal for everyone involved, and we've been "eating our own" for months now. And there are folks on both sides to blame for that, folks on both sides who haven't been treating the other side with dignity or compassion.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
Yes...the Clinton supporters have been so gracious.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
kevinbgoode -- not saying that it hasn't been on both sides, but just responding to the main topic of the post, which is about Obama supporters not supporting Clinton.
There have absolutely been Clinton supporters who have responded poorly as well, it's just this particular blog has been trending more pro-Obama and viciously anti-Clinton pretty consistently over the past few months.
kevinbgoode
· 1 year ago
"Viciously anti-Clinton?" At what point is Sen. Clinton creating this herself? Or is she so completely competent at creating universal goodwill and devotion that it is a travesty that anyone might view her words or campaign behavior in a negative manner without being called "vicious?" I went from someone who didn't care who the Democratic nominee was as long as we dumped the Republicans to someone who doesn't trust Sen. Clinton - and it came from her own words and her own campaign. When she talks about electability, what evidence do Americans have that she is capable of convincing anyone other than her supporters to even listen to her now? If I am forced into a position to hold my nose and vote for Clinton - you can bet it will be one time only - one term only - and I will never do that for any candidate again.
In all of the rhetoric I've seen from that campaign, I have seen nothing convincing that Hillary Clinton has any ability to unite this country to get anything done. The negatives about her (true or not) are so high and so grounded for so long that the divisiveness in this nation will continue. She chose to run knowing that situation - and through all of these months of campaigning, has she made any dent in lowering those negatives? No. Pointing that out is not being vicious - it is being realistic.
Mike_H
· 1 year ago
Yes, viciously anti-Clinton. Even before her campaign did the things you allude to, there was a certain segment of the left, include a substantial segment of commenters in the old A-blog, who were indeed vicious, repeating old GOP talking points and flat-out lies. It was unnecessary and divisive, long before Clinton's campaign did anything controversial.
This isn't anything to be proud of if you are a progressive.
hauksdottir
· 1 year ago
I'm a 57-year-old disabled white female well-educated feminist who will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton... or Chelsea, for that matter. I will not support tyrannical dictatorships of entitled nepotistic cronies who think that they deserve to rule by name or inheritance.
Governing is not a birthright, it is a job!
No more Clintons. No more Bushes.
NO MORE DYNASTIES!!!
Clinton was buddies with Mrs Bhutto and was glad to help her get around Pakistan's term limits. The kid-in-college is their next leader? BULLSHIT! That is no way to run a government! It isn't even right for third world countries and especially not right for America. Are we also going to be saddled with a Presidency-for-Life?
We are not a feudal society where serfs are ruled by the filthy rich. Not yet. We are not an empire where theocrats and patricians rule a fearful and ignorant populace. Not yet.
Obama is not my first, second, or third choice. But he just might turn this country around and reset our priorities. He does have a background in Constitutional Law, so I have some hope that he'll clean out the Justice Department and give it a good scouring. Restore our rights. End torture and close down the chain of black sites. Can he extract us from Iraq? Can he repair our international relations? Can he get us moving on the environment? That I don't know. I voted for Obama in the California primary because I think he'll do more for our Country by bringing in enthusiastic voters and workers, more than one man could do. He surfs, and I think understands that the focus might be on the guy on board, but it is the mass of water that propels the ride. I expect him to ride that wave well.
However, I do know this. Hillary Clinton is another totalitarian war-monger who'll desperately grasp at all executive powers and send America spiraling further down into fascism. Her and that creepy group called The Family thinking they have a divine mission to rule the world.
I will never vote for a wanna-be dictator.
NEVER.
And that includes all the down-ticket races as well.
jr
· 1 year ago
"white solidarity"-Hillary to superdelegates
Doxy
· 1 year ago
John,
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm an Obama supporter who wouldn't vote for Hillary for dog catcher. Three months ago I would have happily voted for her if she'd gotten the nomination, but after watching the way she's run her campaign and some of the lies she's told (Bosnia, anyone?) I wouldn't touch her if she was the last person on earth. I've never been a fan of the idea of dynastic presidencies either, and that' what Hillary would give us.
I won't vote for McCain. I can't do that. But I can NOT vote for president, and that's what I'll do.
All Comments
Clinton's theft of the nomination could create the real possibility that the dems lose the House and White house.
So the antoher question is whether the dems could lose the House?
Look at all the repubs like Pat Buchanan, they all want Hillary because the know deep down inside she is a repub and that Obama can and will defeat McCain because he clearly has a differenct messager that appeals to the majority of voters, dem and repub combined.
The democratic risks more than that '08 White House and the '08 House races, the Democratic party also risks absolute destruction if the Democratic party allows Clinton to steal the election from Obama when he lead in states won, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revote is held).
--tbhull
i called up my friend leroy on the phone
I said, buddy, i'm afraid to be alone
i got some weird ideas in my head
about things to do in denver when you're dead
:)
(And I agree the superdelegate rule is a dumb one, but I also don't like caucusing either, since it's so quirky and fewer people can participate).
All the repubs certainly do NOT think of Clinton as one of their own, which you'd know if you talked to any republicans. I have, and they don't care for either Clinton or Obama, although almost all of them said they liked Edwards, so go figure. I think at best you can say that Republican pundits recognize Clinton is the more moderate Dem of the two remaining candidates, and they respond to that, but there is plenty in her voting record and platform that the GOP hates, so she's no neocon.
At this point I believe both candidates have been so damaged by this process that neither of them can win. Both of them had hurdles to begin with -- the very real misogyny and racism that still exists among a certain segment of our population -- and we've become so viciously divided about the candidates that it looks like people won't even WANT to unite once we have our nominee.
Neither of them "feels" right to me anymore.
Another question to ask is what is the state of the Democratic party if Clinton secures the nomination by stealing the nomination thwarting the will of the people?
Clinton's theft of the nomination could create the real possibility that the dems lose the House and White House.
Yes, the dems could lose the House in '08?
Look at all the repubs like Pat Buchanan, they all want Hillary because they know deep down inside Clinton is a repub and that Obama can and will defeat McCain because Obama clearly has a different message compared to MxcCain, a message that appeals to the majority of voters, dem and repub combined.
The Democratic party risks more than just the '08 White House and the '08 House races, the Democratic party also risks absolute destruction of the current Democratic coalition party allows Clinton to steal the election from Obama when he leads in states won, the pledged delegate count and the popular vote (not counting Michigan and Florida unless a revote is held).
And who are these Democrats who all of a sudden want to disenfranchise millions of people in Florida so they could have a victory. Who bully my poor 85 year old aunt in a caucus, which none of her friends would go to because they were so scared about what is going on. They don't even care about democracy. These are not traditional Democrats. Where did these Obama people come from?
There are good reasons why the superdelegates should ignore the Obama Campaigns cries for all Superdelegates to swing for Obama and instead endorse Mrs Clinton. There’s no question that superdelegates will consider electability as a factor in deciding whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Clinton CAN beat McCain in November. Obama cannot if he is on the ticket as President. Him as VP is a different story: http://clintonista.wordpress.com/
--Clintonista
That's the funniest, stupidest thing I have read all day.
That IS saying sumpin
PS. Must you be so colloquial in your response?
Obama has a much better chance at the WH, but we are not talking about the WH now. What we are talking about (although I understand your reluctance to face the real facts indicatinf a monumental failre of the Clinton campaign) ) is the dem nomination based on the resutls of the dem primaries, caucus or not. In the states that matter (which includes the states completed so far, not including Florida or Michigan unless a revote is held)) Obama has an insurmountable lead in the pledged delegate count, states won and popular vote.
I suggest if you want to continue to support Hilary you move to New York (unless you already reside there) where she can serve your interest as the junior Senator satisfying the agenda handed down to her from President Obama.
OR
Go to http://www.hillaryclinton.com and contribute $10.00
I will not contribute any money to the Clinton campaign until those deadbeats pay the bills they owe me that are 3 months past due.
Cheers,
Clintonista
This is the first time they cannot fit supporters or the candidate into neat little boxes.
Fortunately for the winning Obama, he isn't that fucking stupid.
I would like to hear him rule the fascist creep HILLARY out for a potential Supreme Court nomination to boot!
--John Aravosis
Jimmy Kimmel telling it like it is about delegate count right now.
GOOD STUFF. Informing the kiddies...
Please, please I am tired of hearing this crap from Clinton supporters. Obama, in case you haven't noticed, is still leading in pledged delegate, in popular vote and in states won. So Clinton won PA, what does that really mean? I would ask this even if Obama had won this state. Historically, Pa is a Republican state, of course, anything can change in November, but more than likely PA will go Republican in the fall, no matter who the Dem candidate may be.
It is a freakin' miracle he is ahead. Tip of the hat to Iowa for starting off with the right idea, and all who support the only real progressive left in this race.
Obama '08
Lie I stated elswhere, Elizabeth Edwards is a a problem, but not a big one. The paternalistic well heeled white members of the dem establishment can help Obama but cannot hurt him that much if they support Clinton. Hell, the Edwards clan may do the diplomatic walk of the fence by having Elizabeth supporting Hillary and John supporting Barrack.
Do you think the dems can lose the House if the party establishment allows Clinton to steal the election if Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count and the popular vote count (not counting Florida and Michigan unless a revote occurs)? I think it is a possibility.
With Hillary, IT IS PERSONAL. There is no greater motivator of people.
And when Hillary endorses McCain, hires union busting scum like Penn, hangs with Joe Lieberman, attends afreakish religious cult meetings with Santorum and Brownbeck and the rest of the Dominionists...
People tend to KNOW HER BY THE COMPANY SHE KEEPS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg your pardon. Hillary Clinton has done everything in her own power to make it impossible to win. She should not have run this year. She has the highest negative factor among every other candidate and has for years - she is the most divisive candidate - and haven't we just had eight years of that division? She is incapable of finding ways to unify the country without flipflopping her own statements, and we've already seen her doing plenty of that along the campaign trail. The Republicans not only predicted she would run for President, but now are actively hoping she is the nominee.
You don't need to be a fanatic for any other candidate to realize that a party hoping to win the White House DOES NOT NOMINATE THE CANDIDATE WHO OVER HALF THE POPULATION STRONGLY DISLIKES. And yet Clinton, knowing she was not popular, decided to run for the office anyway. Is there some reason why she couldn't have waited until the negatives softened? Hell no - and so now we are faced with a negative campaigner who is increasingly unpopular among the general population - and her supporters STILL demand she be the nominee.
So what happens if Clinton somehow becomes the nominee and loses a general election that should have been a slam-dunk for the Democrats? Is it that far to state that it would spell the end of the Democratic party, the realization of the Rush/Ann/Rove dream?
Why the hell did she choose to run anyway? Was the Clinton record in the White House so squeaky clean that there would be no baggage? Was she so convinced that Republicans won't swift-boat her like they've done a million times before, and which she has never been capable of fighting back effectively? If she is such a viable candidate, why is it that she is in second place? What special agenda or message is she trying to have placed into the Democratic platform which will be missing if she doesn't win the nomination?
Well said.
Believe it or not, these four women, including myself, were more or less neutral to Clinton months ago. Her tactics and her willingness to "do anything" has turned us off. John can say anything he wants but he hasn't swayed our thoughts, one way or the other, It is interesting to read his take but in the end it is an individual decision.
Thus maybe our country will need another 4-8 years of tragic Corperate America,Lobbiest and the Media to make the middle class disapear....sad but true....
The only thing we all have left....hope and raising out of the greed that Clintons, Bushs, and McCains can only see.....
Imagine....
I think is possible the Dems can lose everything. People say they will pull together in November but I don't think so. I think if this race continues it is an open invitation for Republicans to again control the country for four more years.
BTW I am not an "obama fanatic" . no more than you are a Clintion fanatic. I supported Edwards until he dropped out. I spent a long time deciding who I would support. I listened to both the remaining candidates and decided I like Obama. What you don't get is that many people intensely dislike Clinton, doesn't make them fanatics, it just says they don't want her.
George McGovern says it just right about McCain the Boil
http://www.badlandsblue.com/showDiary.do?diaryI...
having said that, talkleft posts some really dumb analysis. the posts on this site are just ... smarter.
So... is a smart post about a meaningless topic still a smart post?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason why she should not have run this year. Her negatives were high before she ever announced her candidacy.
She has over 50% negatives.
She is a pathological liar.
She lags in delegates.
She is behind in the popular vote.
Rush and Hannity and Buchanan and all thge neocons love her.
Hell even Richard Mellon Scaife loves her now.
I'm sorry. I'm simply not comfortable with Hillary in government AT ALL. Never mind the Presidency
SHE IS THE ONE who CANNOT WIN.
No apologies necessary to me. This is about discussion and expressing your opinions. :)
That is personal, to me.
She is a pretender of the most vile kind.
She cannot even get co-sponsors on her bills in congress, how do you think she will be able to get any knid of consensus for change as president? She is a victim of her own divisive politics. I dont want the country to be a victim too.
Thank you, my earlier point exactly with better detail.
Thank you for your kind words.....
And I wish you prosperity and light in your journey.....
I am not making any decisions out of "bitterness"...I will do anything I can to help ge a Democratic Congress.....
But my core belief is this....unless this insanity is stopped in Corperate American, Lobbiest and the Media...our country will go down....and Clinton will not change these issues....unfortunately....it will be more of the same.
In reality, the waitress is less likely to show up to vote than a democrat who has always voted. Suppose the odds of her showing up are 60/40. If the person that attracted her to vote seems to have lost by back room politics, I will guarantee that the odds of her showing up to vote for Hillary are 0/100.
And the vitriol from Obama supporters towards Clinton supporters, even here in this blog, has turned off a lot of people towards Obama as well -- most polls I read look like around 30% of Clinton supporters wouldn't vote for Obama, for much the same reasons Obama supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton.
The excitement over these two ground-breaking candidates has turned into something more personal for everyone involved, and we've been "eating our own" for months now. And there are folks on both sides to blame for that, folks on both sides who haven't been treating the other side with dignity or compassion.
There have absolutely been Clinton supporters who have responded poorly as well, it's just this particular blog has been trending more pro-Obama and viciously anti-Clinton pretty consistently over the past few months.
I went from someone who didn't care who the Democratic nominee was as long as we dumped the Republicans to someone who doesn't trust Sen. Clinton - and it came from her own words and her own campaign. When she talks about electability, what evidence do Americans have that she is capable of convincing anyone other than her supporters to even listen to her now?
If I am forced into a position to hold my nose and vote for Clinton - you can bet it will be one time only - one term only - and I will never do that for any candidate again.
In all of the rhetoric I've seen from that campaign, I have seen nothing convincing that Hillary Clinton has any ability to unite this country to get anything done. The negatives about her (true or not) are so high and so grounded for so long that the divisiveness in this nation will continue. She chose to run knowing that situation - and through all of these months of campaigning, has she made any dent in lowering those negatives? No. Pointing that out is not being vicious - it is being realistic.
This isn't anything to be proud of if you are a progressive.
Governing is not a birthright, it is a job!
No more Clintons. No more Bushes.
NO MORE DYNASTIES!!!
Clinton was buddies with Mrs Bhutto and was glad to help her get around Pakistan's term limits. The kid-in-college is their next leader? BULLSHIT! That is no way to run a government! It isn't even right for third world countries and especially not right for America. Are we also going to be saddled with a Presidency-for-Life?
We are not a feudal society where serfs are ruled by the filthy rich. Not yet. We are not an empire where theocrats and patricians rule a fearful and ignorant populace. Not yet.
Obama is not my first, second, or third choice. But he just might turn this country around and reset our priorities. He does have a background in Constitutional Law, so I have some hope that he'll clean out the Justice Department and give it a good scouring. Restore our rights. End torture and close down the chain of black sites. Can he extract us from Iraq? Can he repair our international relations? Can he get us moving on the environment? That I don't know. I voted for Obama in the California primary because I think he'll do more for our Country by bringing in enthusiastic voters and workers, more than one man could do. He surfs, and I think understands that the focus might be on the guy on board, but it is the mass of water that propels the ride. I expect him to ride that wave well.
However, I do know this. Hillary Clinton is another totalitarian war-monger who'll desperately grasp at all executive powers and send America spiraling further down into fascism. Her and that creepy group called The Family thinking they have a divine mission to rule the world.
I will never vote for a wanna-be dictator.
NEVER.
And that includes all the down-ticket races as well.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm an Obama supporter who wouldn't vote for Hillary for dog catcher. Three months ago I would have happily voted for her if she'd gotten the nomination, but after watching the way she's run her campaign and some of the lies she's told (Bosnia, anyone?) I wouldn't touch her if she was the last person on earth. I've never been a fan of the idea of dynastic presidencies either, and that' what Hillary would give us.
I won't vote for McCain. I can't do that. But I can NOT vote for president, and that's what I'll do.
Donna