Plug away!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:52 am by Zuzu
Hi, all. Susie gave me a set of keys to the place while she’s recovering from nerve damage. Get better, Susie!
I thought I’d start off with a little exercise. A number of you have been saying in comments that it’s over, that Obama’s the nominee, that Clinton supporters just need to face reality. For the purposes of this exercise, we will accept that Obama is the nominee.
Next, we move on to the assumptions. For the purposes of this exercise, we will assume that Paul Krugman is correct when he says:
The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year.
So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?
Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.
Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks.
Mrs. Clinton needs to do her part: she needs to be careful not to act as a spoiler during what’s left of the primary, she needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod, and she needs to campaign strongly for the nominee once the convention is over. She has said she’ll do that, and there’s no reason to believe that she doesn’t mean it.
But mainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party.
So, here’s the exercise for Obama supporters: Given what Krugman has laid out above, what is your plan for reaching out to disgruntled Clinton supporters? What do you think Obama should do to reach out to these voters? And finally, please explain the reasons why disgruntled Clinton supporters should vote *for* Obama.
Please note — I said for Obama. I’m not looking for reasons to vote against McCain, or to preserve the status quo on Roe v. Wade, or to put a Democrat in the White House, or anything else. I know those arguments. I want to hear why Obama qua Obama is worth supporting.
As succinctly as you can, provide positive — and preferably policy-based — reasons to vote *for* Obama in November. Thank you!
The best I can come up with is, Vote for Obama because, if you’re a Clinton supporter, his vague centrism and entirely too meek policy proposals should feel completely familiar to you. I probably don’t have a future in advertising.
ummm,
personally, if certain people that have jettisoned friendships because they wanted hillary and lost the election ever deign to try and fix up those friendships they threw away, I will be happy to buy them a round and take up right where things were before they went off the deep end and lost their perspective on politics–and, by extension, life.
On the other hand, I am not sure if you know this or are being deliberately obtuse.
but, in the case of losers in primary elections it is the LOSER that is the one that is supposed to pledge support to the winner.
so, when Romney et all dropped out of the race, they all pledged fealty and support to the person that beat them, John McCain.
The question should be, how are YOU going to support Obama when HRC bows out and how will you do your best to insure that we defeat the GOP in fall.
you have a far more difficult task, and submitting an exercise in which you take “minor” issues off the table such as roe v wade, a dem in the white house, etc. is a silly waste of time.
you have to get over the defeat, realize that the people have spoken, and suck it up.
Policy-wise, they’re virtually identical, like Chris says. Personally, the guy with a MUP, there’s a better chance of anything actually getting done. Issuing orders from the White House has exactly zero chance of getting anything done (except hopefully maybe an Iraq withdrawal).
Ah.
“Pledge fealty.” Down on your knees, lads. But seriously —
Can anybody answer Chris’s question? It’s a good one.
(1) My plan for reaching out to Clinton supporters is what it always has been - treat them as fellow Democrats who share the common goal of ending the Bush nightmare, re-establishing the moral prestige around the world with a sane foreign policy, and in cooperation with an expanded congressional majority work for progressive social agenda.
Senator Obama needes to remain focussed on the positions that Senator Clinton and he share. Fraankly, save for the overly partisan in the tussle, those differences are few, and with a Democrat in the White House, Hillary’s and Barak’s policies will stand a decent chance of finding some consensus backing, should unity be maintained.
Clinton voters should vote for Obama prcisely because they know that a Democratic President makes all things possible. Goals such as Universal Health Care, responsible trade policy and yes, women’s issues have a chance with an Obama Administration, none with a McCain-Bush third term. This is not a negative reason… to find a possibility or resign oneself to impossibilty is, in fact, a positive choice.
hat is your plan for reaching out to disgruntled Clinton supporters? What do you think Obama should do to reach out to these voters? And finally, please explain the reasons why disgruntled Clinton supporters should vote *for* Obama.
“[Hillary] needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod.”
Too late for that, Mr. Kruman, unfortunately. And I don’t think the various Hillary “scandals” were “trumped up”, though some may have gotten more attention than they deserve. But that’s a different discussion.
As to why Hillary supporters should support Obama, I don’t think we can fairly take all the various issues mentioned off the table, as they are the primary reason to vote for ANY Democrat this time around, much more important than the individual personalities involved. Which is why I’ve said all along I’ll vote for Hillary if she’s the nominee (yes, even now), despite whatever antipathy has been generated during the primary campaigns.
Three major reasons to vote for Obama:
1) Supreme Court
2) Supreme Court
3) Supreme Court
Whup! There it is. Those appointments last a looong tiome. The Court already hangs in the balance, and with two or three McCain appointments we can pretty much kiss our country goodbye. Obama, or Hillary, are what stand between us and the abyss. Simple as that.
Obama should certainly reach out to the Clinton camp. There’s talk of her as VP, but I think that might be a disaster in the election (you can’t campaign as the candidate of “Change”, however vapid that may be, and appoint Hillary to be VP - ostensibly a representative of what you’re runniing against).
So … how about that all important Supreme Court? Justice Hillary Clintion? Has a mighty fine ring to it. Compared to the unprincipled nutjobs on the right of the Court, Hillary would shine like the star she is, deep down. Her better angels could take free flight, unfettered by political maneuveriing, and she could be a great force for good, where her country needs her most. Sounds like a win/win scenario to me! Do it Barack!
Policy wise they are not virtually identical. Both are flawed centrists. On domestic policy Clinton is probably a bit more liberal, although Obama has the more liberal voting record in the senate. On foreign policy Obama is a true progressive who has routinely taken positions which obviously leave him open for criticism from the right – the war in Iraq is wrong, bin Laden is the enemy and I will concentrate on him, Iran, Syria and N. Korea are no threat to us. Clinton is hard to tell apart from John McCain. From AUMF, her insistence AUMF was the right vote until very recently when the reality of losing the Democratic nomination forced her into a gritted teeth half-hearted denunciation of said vote, her statements on Iraq, and her having received more hard money from defense contractors than McCain and Obama combined she is NOT progressive in the least in her foreign policy.
Frankly, if you call yourself a progressive yet this late in the game you’re still acting as though the candidate who has made the most forceful calls for a less militaristic foreign policy in years owes you something before you’ll vote for him I suggest the Green Party. Your purity should never be sullied by having to vote for such a “fauxgressive”. Of course, what I’ll never understand is how anyone comfortable voting for Clinton can act as though compared to her he is Newt Gingrich. Had Clinton won I would have had no problem voting for her. And the idea of demanding a reason for voting for her from her supporters would never have entered my mind.
And Lambert, really cute dismissal of steeveboy’s comments. The problem is he raised a perfectly legitimate point. Not one I’m saying you have to agree with, but really now, “down on your knees…”
Strawman much?
The cries of “unity!” and “supreme court(tm)!” sound more like crude attempts to threaten me into voting for an unappealing conservative candidate. And if I’m going to vote for a conservative, why shouldn’t I just take my despotism without the base alloy hypocracy?
John McCain
Obama the despot.
Thanks for your insights.
As I see it, “disgruntled Clinton supporters” can be broken up into to classes — those who can be communicated with and those who cannot. Obama can appeal to the first group by emphasizing the policy areas where he and Clinton agree and disagree, by emphasizing a commitment to the advancement of feminism and equal rights, and by pointing out those areas where he is demonstrably better than Clinton (such as a more nuanced approach to diplomacy) and McCain (such as nearly everything). One good place to start is to emphasize issues like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which has been stymied solely by the Republican Party’s intransigence. I would also be thrilled if he picked Kathleen Sibelius as his running mate or at least made it clear that she will have a place in his cabinet.
The second group of Clinton supporters (which is mercifully small) includes Lambert and his fellow travelers, and frankly, I have no idea what can possibly be done to get them on board at this point. And since corrente appears to have degenerated into the progressive equivalent of Free Republic, I’m not sure I even want him on board. If Hillary Clinton were to go on national television and start screaming “OBAMA IS A MOOSLIM DARKIE!” over and over again while wearing a tin foil hat and smearing her face with her own feces, it would not be enough to get Lambert to abandon her candidacy. And he as the temerity to accuse Obama supporters of being cultists!
…what is your plan for reaching out to disgruntled Clinton supporters?
You might want to ask Joe Lieberman’s supporters how the “outreach” process works.
I would think a clinton supporter like Lambert would have removed the phrase “down on your knees” from their playbook long ago.
nah, lambert can go lower.
You’ll see.
“The cries of “unity!” and “supreme court(tm)!” sound more like crude attempts to threaten me into voting for an unappealing conservative candidate.”
That’s just plain silly David. Is it a threat to point out the reality of the Supreme Court? Never mind the personalities involved, that’s all window dressing. Look at the facts (dammit!). Obama will clearly appoint less regressive, repressive, neanderthal justices than will Mccain. If you don’t get that, then you’re truly beyond the reach of rational discuaaion. Mccain is a lifelong conservative Republican (despite his bogus “maverick” public image). Obama … isn’t. That in itself says it, but on top of that, it’s pretty out there to view Obama as actively conservative, for reasons Bob already pointed out above. Besides, I thought Obama was one of those Radical Black Muslim Christians. You know … one of THEM!
Supreme Court. Supreme Court. Supreme Court. It’s not an electioneering threat. It’s a reality. Deal with it. I already have, and will vote for whoever the Dems nominate. So should any sentient non-rightwing American. Get over yourself already, it’s not about you, it’s not about Hillary, it’s not about Obama; it’s about the future of our f***ing country. Yeesh.
Given what Krugman has laid out above, what is your plan for reaching out to disgruntled Clinton supporters?
I think the first thing is to find out what, other than a Clinton candidacy for President, makes these supporters disgruntled. How much of this is Obama, how much of this is Democratic Party, how much of it is media, how much of it is policy, how much of it is the status of the world today… there’s more than one reason, so a public pursuit of the problems and an addressing of what Obama can do - in a positive manner - by both the Obama campaign and those who are disgruntled needs to be undertaken.
What is determined at this point should determine direction after that. But this is more than mending fences, but providing the inclusion that is necessary for more than an elective coalition, but for a governing coalition.
Please note — I said for Obama. I’m not looking for reasons to vote against McCain, or to preserve the status quo on Roe v. Wade, or to put a Democrat in the White House, or anything else. I know those arguments. I want to hear why Obama qua Obama is worth supporting.
Those are reasons for voting for the Democratic Party nominee for President in general. You only get one, and if Obama is it, then those count.
Beyond that, I think the entire theme of “change” is a powerful theme to approve and to move forward with. I have no rose-colored glasses, I don’t believe the change in an Obama administration will satisfy most of us. Neither do I believe that case is true for any other Presidential candidate that ran in the Democratic Party primaries this year. Change means changing the powers that be and building the power of the vote in Washington. A Presidential candidate that wins on the theme of change will filter that theme down. Two years from now, will we see more candidates that support the status quo, or more that will seek further change? I wish I knew the answer to that, but I think the best path towards greater change is for a candidacy based on such to succeed in electoral politics. Of course, then the candidate must back up the talk with action. I guess I am hopeful that we are in the process of unleashing the electorate to higher expectations of governance and higher knowledge of results. I’m not sure where that means we’ll end up, but that feels like a good thing.
Part of what is policy can also be seen as procedural. If a process is more open, it will impact the policy. In general, I see a commitment to open politics and government from Obama that will be entrenched by the voters who support his campaign, and if he is elected he will not be able to divert from it, although I don’t believe he will try to do so. I guess I’m just not as comfortable with the same holding true in a Clinton Administration, and I desperately think that this openness is something that can revive our political culture from the zombielike discourse we’ve had over the previous 10 years.
personally, if certain people that have jettisoned friendships because they wanted hillary and lost the election ever deign to try and fix up those friendships they threw away, I will be happy to buy them a round and take up right where things were before they went off the deep end and lost their perspective on politics–and, by extension, life.
On the other hand, I am not sure if you know this or are being deliberately obtuse.
but, in the case of losers in primary elections it is the LOSER that is the one that is supposed to pledge support to the winner.
Ah, but if we accept that the loser in this scenario is Clinton, then she’s already said, over and over, that she will do everything she can to get Obama elected.
Voters, however, have pesky free wills, however. And the LOSER, as you so charmingly put it, will not need those votes come November. The winner, however, will.
And “be thankful SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT SUPREME COURT” as a reason to vote *for* Obama is, well, made of FAIL. Like I said, I know the reasons to vote for the Democrat and I know the reasons not to vote for McCain. What I’m looking for is a reason to vote FOR OBAMA.
Are you that mired in your hatred of Clinton that you can’t come up with a list of positive reasons to vote for your guy? The most positive-sounding thing anyone’s come up with so far is “change,” but change from what? Change to what? Change accomplished how?
As for the Supreme Court: what indication has Obama given of his thinking on this subject? Who are the people he’s likely to nominate? What do they stand for?
It’s almost June, people. After a year of campaigning, is this the best you can come up with? Pitch the guy already!
“personally, if certain people that have jettisoned friendships because they wanted hillary and lost the election ever deign to try and fix up those friendships they threw away, I will be happy to buy them a round and take up right where things were before they went off the deep end and lost their perspective on politics–and, by extension, life.”
Great way to reach out, steveeboy.
“[Hillary] needs to bow out gracefully if, as seems almost certain, Mr. Obama receives the nod.””
Was it on some other planet that Senator Clinton said she would support Obama in any way she could, and work to unify the party, if Obama won the nomination?
The whole thing where people are running around saying that they won’t vote for the other guy seems artificial. I can’t really see that many people NOT voting for the other candidate, if push comes to shove. Because it ALWAYS comes down to, “But the opposing party is bad,” and third party is biting off your nose to spite your face.
The party system needs an overhaul.
Of course, none of this brings me to why I should enthusiastically support Obama.
I think the first thing is to find out what, other than a Clinton candidacy for President, makes these supporters disgruntled. How much of this is Obama, how much of this is Democratic Party, how much of it is media, how much of it is policy, how much of it is the status of the world today… there’s more than one reason, so a public pursuit of the problems and an addressing of what Obama can do - in a positive manner - by both the Obama campaign and those who are disgruntled needs to be undertaken.
What is determined at this point should determine direction after that. But this is more than mending fences, but providing the inclusion that is necessary for more than an elective coalition, but for a governing coalition.
I should say, this is a good start. You seem to realize that there’s a reason for alienation and that these reasons must be faced rather than dismissed.
I always forget a few words in my comments any more when I’m composing. I meant to say this:
I think the first thing is to find out what, other than not having a Clinton candidacy for President, makes these supporters disgruntled.
“The most positive-sounding thing anyone’s come up with so far is “change,””
Actually, I laid out a pretty good case for the two being about the same domestically and Obama being far more progressive on foreign policy. That doesn’t say you have to agree with my comment, but if a candidate for President speaking out quite clearly and forcefully for a foreign policy based on something other than killing brown people around the globe doesn’t register with you, perhaps you’re not as progressive as you like to claim you are.
Sen. Clinton has made her foreign policy views quite clear: AUMF good; anti-war types bad. Bomb Iran into the Stone Age good: assume Israel can handle its own defense bad. Real progressive. It differs from McCain’s foreign policy proposals how exactly?
And on the alienation - one of the first things that could be done is a sharing of the alienation. After all, even in what looks to be victory, there’s alienation of Obama supporters towards Hillary and her supporters. There’s no ignoring it, but recognition with intent to heal is the only course for future governance by all involved.
All of these arguments leave me cold. None of them are very persuasive.
Supreme Court. Supreme Court. Supreme Court.
This is only useful if you don’t know this story:
Somehow, I don’t have a lot of hope for a progressive Supreme Court under a President Obama.
One good place to start is to emphasize issues like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which has been stymied solely by the Republican Party’s intransigence. I would also be thrilled if he picked Kathleen Sibelius as his running mate or at least made it clear that she will have a place in his cabinet.
IIRC, Sebelius’s response to the State of the Union was uninspiring and a pale comparison to Sen. Webb’s the previous year. And if he’s serious about looking for a VP who can bring strengths that he doesn’t have, she’s not it.
The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act re-states the law as it has been interpreted for many years. But why should we wait for President Obama to resolve it? If he’s the awesome bridge-builder he claims to be, shouldn’t we have seen some of that in action already? There’s no need to treat it like a Christmas Package not to be opened until January 2009.
The question should be, how are YOU going to support Obama when HRC bows out and how will you do your best to insure that we defeat the GOP in fall.
Zuzu’s question was “please explain the reasons why disgruntled Clinton supporters should vote *for* Obama.” “Fall in line” is not an answer. I have my Election Day Clothespin if he’s the nominee. And I’m still waiting for a good answer to Zuzu’s question.
I have read every post on the subject of why Clinton supporters should vote for Obama. We were asked to provide reasons other than “a vote against McCain,”etc…. Exactly NONE has addressed any issues that Obama has except to say that he and Hillary Clinton are similar. I am beginning to think that Obama supporters have no idea what Obama stands for other than Hope, Change, and Audacity. Just because a candidate makes us feel good does not mean he or she will make a good President. I refer you to George W. Bush. Look at the issues. Look at the voting records. Listen, actually listen, to the speeches. Oh, and BTW, how about nominating Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court? That might go a long way in mending the great divide.
and zuzu,
to claim that anyone voting for obama is “mired in hatred of clinton” is more bullshit from you deluded clinton people.
you made up that strawman, now you seem to be over-reliant on it as means to explain how your candidate lost the election.
Its a function of your denial of reality I guess…
responding to your strawmen is a waste of time.
but,
I support someone with the balls to come out against the war when clinton was voting for it.
I support someone that was trained as a political organizer and has organized a nationwide movement of donors and activists against someone that expected a coronation funded by old-school machine fat cats.
I support someone whose philosophy and organizational skills will dovetail nicely with Chairman Dean’s 50 state strategy vs someone whose operatives and surrogates denigrate that strategy.
I support someone that has a foreign policy that doesn’t feature “total obliteration” as its first option.
I support someone that doesn’t pander to voters with transparent bullshit vs someone that pimped for a gas tax holiday.
I support someone that prefers orange juice to coffee and takes shit for it vs someone that suddenly develops a hankering for shots and beers.
AND,
all this aside,
if “somehow” Obama has to drop out of the race like HRC and Fox News secretly wish, then I will be happy to vote for HRC if she is the nominee.
Moreover, unlike a petulant and spoiled child, I won’t demand that you kiss my ass to do so, I know what the best thing for the country is and I can vote accordingly.
That doesn’t say you have to agree with my comment, but if a candidate for President speaking out quite clearly and forcefully for a foreign policy based on something other than killing brown people around the globe doesn’t register with you, perhaps you’re not as progressive as you like to claim you are.
Where’s the clear and forceful opposition to the war after his 2002 speech? This is a serious question. Because he really hasn’t been the anti-war candidate, and since that speech — which cost him nothing politically, given the leanings of his district — he’s been rather silent. He’s voted to fund the war over and over. He’s said he doesn’t know how he would have voted on AUMF, and he’s also agreed with the case for war at other points.
So make the case, with specifics, on how progressive his foreign policy is.
to claim that anyone voting for obama is “mired in hatred of clinton” is more bullshit from you deluded clinton people.
No, not “anyone.” Just you. You’re dripping with contempt for “you Clinton people.” So much so that when asked to talk up your guy, you just whined about Clinton supporters failing to see how evil she is and how they have to do all the work and how deluded they are. And you still do nothing to promote Obama.
Make your case. Be persuasive. If your support of Obama is based on his great qualities and positions, let us know what they are.
Kathy Seivers: “Exactly NONE has addressed any issues that Obama has except to say that he and Hillary Clinton are similar.” See comment 7 above. I guess a truly progressive foreign policy isn’t an “issue”.
“Look at the voting records.” See comment 7 above. Actually, according to most rankings Obama has a more liberal voting record than Clinton.
“Oh, and BTW, how about nominating Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court?” Ok, this all began as a “convince me” post, so let me ask you to convince me of something. Why should a seat on the nation’s highest be given to a second-tier attorney who hasn’t practiced law in two decades, has no judicial experience, no history as a legal scholar or teacher, and no claim to a seat on the court other than as a means of keeping her and her followers happy? Frankly, Harriet Miers had a better resume and – as I’m quite certain you argued at the time - she didn’t belong there. There are far better qualified liberal judges who have spent decades fighting the good fight and thus have earned a place on the Supreme Court. The left doesn’t need another strong, qualified woman pushed aside so Clinton can have yet another birth-right postition handed to her.
For all the claims of Obamania around here it astonishes me how blind you all are to your own mania. She ran and got fewer delegates but she’s the more electable; she’s an incredibly shrewd politician (who forget caucus states bring delegates and had no plan after Super Tuesday); she should be on the Supreme Court (even though calling her qualifications for the court minimal is a stretch).
I think the problem here is the huge disconnect between the two sets of supporters. Those who are lining up behind their candidate appear to not understand why anyone would support the other one. So in this process, I would like to ask Zuzu and others to explain in concise terms why they are so strongly for Senator Clinton’s candidacy without any references to either Senator Obama, any of the pervious candidates, the media, present or past polling, or any Republican. Simply speak to what you see in Senator Clinton that inspires you.
This could potentially give Senator Obama’s supporters a frame of reference to your original question and possibly a way to reach out to you. It could also be a concrete example of the type of argument you are looking for. Perhaps those who are Supporting Senator Obama could do the same thing for their preferred candidate as well.
Bob already hit it on the policy issues. Doesn’t seem to register for some reason, but there it is.
You’re looking for a reason to vote for Obama, but not for a Democrat generally, and I’m saying that’s simply a flawed question, excluding the very MOST important reasons to vote for Obama - and for ANY Democrat. I’m sorry if that doesn’t float the boat of some Clinton supporters, but there it is. Obama’s vote for Roberts was not encouraging, and clearly a political maneuver (Hillary would NEVER make a decision based on politics, right?) … but anyone who thinks he won’t appoint better judges than McCain is smoking crack.
I haven’t been giving specifics about Obama as a person because I don’t give a rats ass about Obama the person. Nor Hillary. I’ve said for many, many years that I’d vote for the Marquis de Sade if he’d support policies that I favor. It doesn’t MATTER who these people are (and we mostly just know their public images anyway). That’s window dressing.
What matters are simple political realities. Like the Supreme Court. Or, not launching unwarranted invasions of other countries and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. (Um, woulld that count as a positive, not killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people?).
I understand that the question was, why specifically should we vote for Obama? My anbswer is that I’m not, specifically, voting for Obama - he wasn’t even my second choice, much less first. I’m voting for the Democrat because that’s the best available option. That’s all. This isn’t rocket science folks.
It’s just amazing. With the exceptions of Bob (I liked his foreign policy point) and PSoTD’s argument for “change” (nebulous, but at least it followed Zuzu’s directions), the other pro-Obama posts boil down to just more Clinton hatred. Hating Hillary Clinton is not a winning message nor is it a strategy for governing.
When are you anti-Clinton extremists going to let go and stop being such sore winners? One of the reasons the right-wing Bush majority fell apart so quickly after his re-election is that decent Americans reacted to his (and the movement’s) emotional position of being the angry, churlish outsider. Once you’re on the inside, with your hands on the levers of power, you have to be about more than just hate, hate, hate. If in victory you can’t be magnanimous to your fellow Democrats, please explain how this “Unity” schtick is going to work?
Good luck, Zuzu. I tried this on my blog, and all the Obama supporters wanted to talk about is how much they hate Hillary Clinton.
“IIRC, Sebelius’s response to the State of the Union was uninspiring and a pale comparison to Sen. Webb’s the previous year. And if he’s serious about looking for a VP who can bring strengths that he doesn’t have, she’s not it.”
If one bad speech is enough to make someone ineligible for national office, Bill Clinton would have never become president. Prior to the 1992 campaign, virtually all anyone outside Arkansas and DLC circles knew about him was that he gave a disastrous speech in 1988 at the Democratic convention. And to those who say Obama is a closet misogynist whose election will destroy feminism, I think Sebelius definitely brings something to the table — a reputation as a popular Western female governor who got elected twice in a red state despite being relatively progressive and without being perceived as having gotten the job via nepotism.
“The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act re-states the law as it has been interpreted for many years. But why should we wait for President Obama to resolve it? If he’s the awesome bridge-builder he claims to be, shouldn’t we have seen some of that in action already? There’s no need to treat it like a Christmas Package not to be opened until January 2009.”
I mention the Ledbetter Act because its an area which, if hit hard, exposes major policy differences between Obama and McCain and between the Democratic and Republican parties, and it is also an area where Obama can brush up on his feminist bona fides, since many of the more rabid Clinton supporters seem to have internalized the idea that he’s some sort of misogynistic pig. Nothing is going to get done on this issue while the Republicans hold the White House and a filibuster-capable percentage of the Senate, so Obama’s best bet is to hold it up as a quantifiable demonstration of how his administration would be better than McCain’s.
You want reasons to support Obama in the Fall?
President Obama will give you 90% of what President Clinton would have:
1. without nepotism or dynastic complaints;
2. without the regurgitation of years of Clinton scandals;
3. without the DLC running the show;
4. without Terry McAuliffe and Mark Penn holding any influence over the Democratic Party;
5. without constant pressure to be a hawk in order to prove that he’s “man enough” to be President;
6. without blatantly telling the entire African-American community that there is no possibility, ever, of a black man becoming president on the Democratic ticket; and
7. without starting his first day in office with a 51% disapproval rating.
zuzu:
“You’re dripping with contempt for “you Clinton people.”
Actually that’s contempt for Clinton’s supporters, not Clinton herself.
Don’t equate Steve’s contempt for Clinton’s supporter’s with contempt for the candidate. Project much?
Don’t equate Steve’s contempt for Clinton’s supporter’s with contempt for the candidate. Project much?
Did I confuse them? I did not.
So in this process, I would like to ask Zuzu and others to explain in concise terms why they are so strongly for Senator Clinton’s candidacy without any references to either Senator Obama, any of the pervious candidates, the media, present or past polling, or any Republican. Simply speak to what you see in Senator Clinton that inspires you.
Sorry, Stuart. We’ve conceded for purposes of this exercise that Obama is the nominee. Which means that it’s your job to convince those Clinton supporters who are reluctant to support him that he’s the greatest candidate EVAH!
yup,
projection, immaturity, and naivete.
Ironic given the fact these are the types of things hurled at obama backers.
again, you have to do what is right for the country and quit asking the candidate that won to kiss your ass.
if you can’t figure out why you need to vote dem this year then you’re beyond help.
The resort to the pathetic Sean Hannity-esque line of argument at this point is pathetic as well.
you also need to quit making shit up and reading it into everything.
I don’t have contempt for people that back hrc, I have contempt for people that back hrc and then claim that anyone who disagrees is:
a. misogynist
b. naive
c. ignorant
d. young
e. a cult member
f. “rife with clinton hatred”
g. an elitist grad student with a taste for “chevre”
h. a hater of Rocky Balboa
but don’t let that interfere with your denial party and your demands that supporters of obama kiss your ass and beg you to do the right thing for yourself, your family, the party and the country.
Er, Historian … I fail to detect Clinton hatred in my posts, since you’re checking for people’s political correctness on this point. If I don’t speak all that positively of her … that’s NOT the same as “hatred”. Is it? No, it’s not. I don’t hate Hillary. But if Obama wasn’t even my second choice, as I said, well … Hillary wasn’t even my third choice. So how much love do want from me for her? They’re frickin’ POLITICIANS for cryin’ out loud. WTF? I don’t get why people are so personally invested in Hillary, or Obama. Theiy’re instruments for damage control, against the right wing onslought we’ve been seeing for several decades now. That’s their function, that’s what I care abbout. Again, this ain’t rocket science.
but don’t let that interfere with your denial party and your demands that supporters of obama kiss your ass and beg you to do the right thing for yourself, your family, the party and the country.
So give them a reason to vote for Obama that’s not based in hatred of Clinton or contempt for them, or getting in line and not getting anything in return.
What makes this guy qualified for President?
zuzu: “If your support of Obama is based on his great qualities and positions, let us know what they are.”
I guess you missed
“I support someone that was trained as a political organizer and has organized a nationwide movement of donors and activists against someone that expected a coronation funded by old-school machine fat cats.
I support someone whose philosophy and organizational skills will dovetail nicely with Chairman Dean’s 50 state strategy vs someone whose operatives and surrogates denigrate that strategy.”
… adding that one of my main objections to candidate Clinton is the fact that the people she surrounds herself with (Carville, McAuliffe et al) are extremely hostile to Howard Dean an the 50 state strategy which has made the Democratic Party competitive in states than the DLC has alway written off. I don’t want a return to that era. Nor do I want a return to McAuliffe policies that have been described for years as “republican lite”. With Obama you’re probably not going to get that because he embraced the 50-state strategy from day one. That’s a policy I support and a reason to vote for Obama (who is my third, perhaps fourth choice).
I also like that Obama will
I’m not seeing that at Clinton’s list of issues.
I also like that Obama will
Day care is ridiculously expensive in the US: in canada, my ex and I pay $49.00 a week for high-quality day care. I’m not seeing anything like this in Clinton’s plan.
So that’s two reasons right there.
What makes this guy qualified for President?
Perhaps the fact that he was capable of organizing a campaign that beat Clinton. As I understand it, this is how Democrats decide who is best suited to run the country.
The truth is you have made it clear that no one can convince you that Obama is fit to lead the country, that’s fine, but ignoring arguments when they are presented and mischaracterizing what others have written does not lead me to believe that you are serious.
Stuart makes an excellent point and shows how dishonest this argument is, you cannot respond to his question in any way that would make an Obama supporter switch to Clinton. You say you will not respond as you have assumed away that possibility. I would therefore think that you will be writing from here on out with that assumption, if not, perhaps you could take a moment to put together the equivalent list you request to show that it is a false question in the first place.
hey zuzu:
Clinton LOST. At the end of the day, the ONLY reason for someone like you to vote for Obama, if you hate the guy that much, is because the Republican is that much worse.
You know, just like those of us who had to choose between Bill Clinton (post-NAFTA, DOMA and don’t-ask-don’t-tell) and Bob Dole did.
I don’t have to convince you of SHIT, but if you decide to vote for MccCain over ANY Democrat in 2008 (except for perhaps Joe Lieberman), you’re a fool and not worth the meat you’re made out of.
It’s not about getting in line, it’s about simple self interst. You’re gonna have candidate A (probably Obama at this point) and canidate4 B (McCain). If you seriously think Mccain is the better option (’cause he has such progressive, liberal policies and shit, right?), then vote for Mccain. If you actually hold any progressive, liberal, huimanist, let’s not bomb another bunch of innocent brown skinned people, views … then that leaves Obama.
Or, if you’re realloy serious about being a progressive, then vote for Nader. Seriously. He can’t win, but he’ll actually reporesent your views. Short of that, if you want to have actual policies, appointments, agendas that lean more progressive than Mccain’s will, the choice is clear. Or … we can contiue on as we have been. “Oh yeah, that’ll work out real well,” as the Seinfeld folks would say.
no, don’t vote for nader,
I did that in 2000 while living in florida and I have regretted it BIG TIME ever since…
In response to Bob/Comment #27:
I’d just like to point out that Clinton is a legal scholar. Early in her career she published several articles in scholarly journals on children’s rights under the law.
it appears that the offer (from this sample) is equivalent to the offer made in 2000, on a similar margin, and there isn’t much substance to the few variations off that basic theme.
i’m not a disgruntled clinton supporter, nor a gruntled obama supporter, and as maine’s electoral votes have been in the bag for two cycles, i don’t have a problem in november, just work down-ticket in our primary and in the fall, in our general.
The most positive-sounding thing anyone’s come up with so far is “change,” but change from what? Change to what? Change accomplished how?
If we look at the Obama history, I think we see a focus - priority - reliance - on using grassroots dynamics to try to achieve change. The how, I think, is somewhat evident - by using people power on the priorities he specifies. Not the power of the moneyed alone, but the power of those who will move to try to achieve something.
This is a move away from the singular focus of financially-focused prioritizing (who can cut my campaign the biggest check) and the talking-head prioritizing (how many “commentators” can I get to push my position on TV) to a who-will-turn-out-the-political-pressure prioritizing.
What qualifies Obama as President? That’s up to each voter to decide. Message, policy, approach, temperment, experience, personality - there’s no formula for best determination. Any comparison of Bush to Obama, is only looking at comparing a small portion of the resume, and not trying to gauge at all the differences in wisdom or temperment or ability or personality or personal history or anything, really. Could Bush have ever dreamed of even soberly reading the Philadelphia speech, let alone write it? I don’t believe that for a second.
What I was going to say was that Obama appears to be bringing new voters to the table, inspiring them to embrace the political process and work for the changes they want to see in the country. I’m mindful of that old FDR story when he told some activists, “I want to do that. Now make me do it!” That’s what Obama’s rhetoric makes me believe he intends, an activist base that can be mobilized to support good stuff, even if it looks like a cult.
But Clinton supporters in this thread may read that and just say “Fine, then he doesn’t need me!” So now I don’t know what to say.
It’s lovely that Mr. Obama got as many voters in the primaries as Ms. Clinton did, but how does that convert into any sort of result? Remember that
“people power(tm)” got us the Bush 2004 actual victory, so getting a large number of voters to the polling or caucus location does not guarantee any sort of liberal result (and this applied to Ms. Clinton as well as Mr. Obama; both of them are center-right candidates who campaigned left of where they govern.)
So, “people power,” yay! What’s in it for me?
Perhaps the fact that he was capable of organizing a campaign that beat Clinton. As I understand it, this is how Democrats decide who is best suited to run the country.
No, that’s how Democrats decide who’s going to face the Republican in the fall. Obama, like any other nominee after a hard-fought primary, now has to unify the party, and I haven’t seen many good arguments here for how that’s going to be accomplished. PSoTD excepted.
Clinton LOST. At the end of the day, the ONLY reason for someone like you to vote for Obama, if you hate the guy that much, is because the Republican is that much worse.
Why do you assume I hate Obama? Projection? I’m simply asking you to make the case to vote *for* him, rather than to simply vote against McCain. And you’re not really doing that well at it. Remember, part of the ground rules of the exercise was that the arguments against McCain or for simply voting for the Dem were given. Your sole task was to talk up Obama. Yet all you’ve done is talk down Clinton, and talk down Clinton supporters — who you assume must *hate* Obama. That’s not a very good start for Unity, is it?
It’s not about getting in line, it’s about simple self interst. You’re gonna have candidate A (probably Obama at this point) and canidate4 B (McCain). If you seriously think Mccain is the better option (’cause he has such progressive, liberal policies and shit, right?), then vote for Mccain. If you actually hold any progressive, liberal, huimanist, let’s not bomb another bunch of innocent brown skinned people, views … then that leaves Obama.
When I vote for a progressive candidate, I like to have some level of comfort as to what his progressive positions actually *are,* though. If his supporters don’t know, how is he going to convince the skeptics?
“When I vote for a progressive candidate, I like to have some level of comfort as to what his progressive positions actually *are,* though.”
You talking about Nader? I’m confused. If you mean Obama, several people have spelled out rather specific positions which Obama holds.
I’ve already made the point that I think your premise is flawed, and the basic reason to vote for Obama is to stem the Republican tide. While you say, “… part of the ground rules of the exercise was that the arguments against McCain or for simply voting for the Dem were given…. ” you don’t actually seem to accept those arguments as givens. If they are, then the case is closed and your question is moot. If not … then those anti McCain arguments are relevant, and in fact constitute my primary reason to vote for either Democrat. So no, I can’t give you an answer that you’ll accept, because my reasons are not the ones you’re looking for.
wow - busy place…
first, I never assume Krugman is correct. he has a strict hrc-agenda and likely was hoping to be treasury secretary in the dreamland of her administration.
hrc’s supporters can vote for whomever they want to. OB will continue to campaign using the same platforms and ideas for the future he has up to today. Beyond what a dem admin will do for SCOTUS, specifically OB has shown a tremendous coattails effect…winning Hastert’s district, and others the past 4 weeks def have the GOP realizing what is in store. But at the end of the day, sure OB will try to reach out to hrc’s bloc and he should count on a genuine show of goodwill from the clinton’s. but their MO is wanting something in return so he will need to tread carefully there to not disturb his many million supports who have not appreciated the clinton’s behavior the last two months.
misogony/sexism? that will be around long after OB starts his admin but I expect him to continue a very classy and above-board actions and treatment towards women. (certainly compared to mr hrc’s reputation…)
zuzu: Why do you assume I hate Obama?
zuzu, I’ve been commenting here for months (years actually, back when this was a sane site) . It’s been nothing BUT Obama bashing. Everything from pretending the word “periodically” has something to do with menstruation (and it doesn’t) to pretending that a nose-scratch is a coded middle-finger” to any other fake-ass controversy. Pardon me for extrapolating from what I’ve been reading here, but when the writers persistently call obama supporters “fanboys”, “cultists”, “ignorant”, “over-educated”, and “elitists”, I kind of get the idea you don’t particularly like the candidate. Or maybe those are compliments, and I’m just from another planet.
zuzu: “I haven’t seen many good arguments here for how that’s going to be accomplished. PSoTD excepted.”
But that’s not what you asked for: “As succinctly as you can, provide positive — and preferably policy-based — reasons to vote *for* Obama in November. Thank you!”
“Your sole task was to talk up Obama. Yet all you’ve done is talk down Clinton, and talk down Clinton supporters.
You’re either a liar or a poor reader:
And in any event, my point still stands. Just like I had to hold my nose and vote for pro-life/anti-stem cell Bob Casey in 2006 because Rick Santorum was SO much worse, Democrats like you who would prefer Clinton will have to be grown-ups and do the same thing with Obama (just like Obama supporters would have to do if the shoe was on the other foot).
But instead, Hillary supporters are threatening to vote for McCain. I’m sure that will work out great for everyone and you can all pat yourselves on the back for your purity while our troops continue to die.
Zuzu,
Your response to me simply shows me that you are not open to the full exercise. “Sorry, Stuart. We’ve conceded for purposes of this exercise that Obama is the nominee. Which means that it’s your job to convince those Clinton supporters who are reluctant to support him that he’s the greatest candidate EVAH!”
I thought my job was to convince you to hold your nose and vote Obama, which is what I am going to do. I voted early in the IL primary for Edwards just before he dropped out of the race (heck I gave money to his campaign the night before he dropped out). Of the two remaining candidates I do not see very much difference except one has Republicans I know voting for him and one has had Republicans attacking her for the past 15 years. That makes the choice pretty darned clear from wherre I sit.
But instead, Hillary supporters are threatening to vote for McCain.
And don’t you think you ought to figure out why they feel that way? Instead of simply berating them for the way they feel, find out what they want and make amends. Listening, rather than hostility, sometimes helps. I know that might be too much for you in particular, but do try.
Also: You might want to separate out people’s criticisms of Obama from people’s criticisms from his supporters.
Your response to me simply shows me that you are not open to the full exercise.
Actually, your response simply showed me that you hadn’t read the ground rules for the exercise. You’re to assume that Obama is the nominee, and that it’s his job to unify the party. You’re the one with a case to make, but you wanted to turn it back on Clinton supporters to say what they liked about her. And this at a time when there are plenty of people who will tell you what has turned them off about the Obama campaign. Though I give you points for recognizing that Clinton supporters aren’t simply voting against Obama but see something in her that they like.
And I explicitly said I wanted more than simple nose-holding. I know the nose-holding arguments. I get them. Take them as given. What I’m looking for, as I have stated repeatedly, are arguments as to why a skeptical Clinton supporter should vote *for* Obama, in particular. Not against McCain, not on a party line, but *for* Obama.
Why is this so difficult?
Zuzu,
And you failed to see that there is such a large disconnect between supporters of the two that an Obama supporter is as unaware of why they would want vote Clinton as you are unaware of reasons to vote for Obama.
As I said a few times I see no serious difference between the two.
This is so difficult because there really is NO major difference between the policies of these two candidates.
It’s really sad to see all the vitriol here. I understand some of the reasons for hard feelings, but at some point reconciliation needs to happen.
I’ve been a defender of Clinton on many occasions, and there are reasons why I voted for her over Obama, but I still see positive reasons to vote for Obama in the GE.
Bob has articulated Obama’s foreign policy approach, and I agree that is one of Obama’s strengths. (Whether he will be able to implement that effectively, I have no idea. But he’s starting with the right positions.)
I think he has run an effective campaign (by which I do not mean “without sin”, but rather mean one that has worked strategically). That speaks to management skills in some way.
I also think that it will be good symbolically for the country to have an African-American leader (just as it would have been good to have a female leader). Leaders are (or can be) role models for the next generation of kids.
So, while there were reasons that I liked Clinton better, I have no trouble seeing positive reasons to vote for Obama. I could list all my reservations etc. etc., and I could defend Clinton against some of the points raised in these comments, but I’m refraining, in the interest of trying to promote some harmony.
This is so difficult because there really is NO major difference between the policies of these two candidates.
I’m glad to see someone admitting this.
So what do you think accounts for the way that Clinton has been portrayed in the race?
um, Zuzu? When those same people are writing posts about obama entitled I call a spade a spade I really don’t need to guess where they’re coming from. It’s kind of obvious.
When the same people write things like “Generally, those who believe they or their families will need some government help support Hillary Clinton, because they believe she will take care of them. The obvious exceptions are urban and rural blacks, who believe Barack Obama will take care of them“ it’s hard not to read that as some belief that Obama will only represent the interests of black people.
“don’t you think you ought to figure out why they feel that way? Instead of simply berating them for the way they feel, find out what they want and make amends.”
“Make amends” for what? What did I do that I have to make amends for, other than not agreeing with Clinton supporters that clinton is the best candidate for president? Tell me: and prove it with evidence. But to meet you halfway: instead of berating you (and I’m not) what is it you want from Obama and Obama supporters?
“You might want to separate out people’s criticisms of Obama from people’s criticisms from his supporters.” Why? None of the writers here at SG do that. Do you have ANY self-awareness AT ALL?
What I’m looking for, as I have stated repeatedly, are arguments as to why a skeptical Clinton supporter should vote *for* Obama, in particular.
I provided you with 2 good examples, neither of which appear in Clinton’s list of issues, and you have failed to acknowledge them.
But maybe the third time’s the charm: Obama will expand the use of drug courts to promote rehab rather than incarceration for first time, nonviolent offenders, and will expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to make child care more affordable for middle class families (and he still doesn’t go far enough).
finally, have any of the clinton supporters who are SO quick to levy charges of sexism even considered that many of us who do not support clinton in fact would love to see a woman for president, just not that particular woman?
“The question should be, how are YOU going to support Obama when HRC bows out and how will you do your best to insure that we defeat the GOP in fall.”
Wow, that was dumb. It says to me that, as I have already surmised, lots of Obama supporters don’t really care about winning the election. Instead, they’re all about being righteous and superior. Instead of responding in a way that reaches out, this clown demands others bow to him.
Here’s my response to steveeboy: my question is response to your question is this: “Fuck you.”
Okay, that’s not really a question.
instead of berating you (and I’m not)
Coulda fooled me. You’ve told me that I hate Obama, dismissed me as “you Clinton supporters,” denied that there’s been any misogyny at work in the campaign and told me that :
I don’t have to convince you of SHIT, but if you decide to vote for MccCain over ANY Democrat in 2008 (except for perhaps Joe Lieberman), you’re a fool and not worth the meat you’re made out of.
Which, again, is not helping. In fact, that’s berating. Is this how you plan to reach out to Clinton supporters?
“Goals such as Universal Health Care”
Obama has made it clear that universal health care is not his goal. He has insurance industry shill Jim Cooper as his health care point man. That is precisely the reason I have little interest in an Obama candidacy.
what is it you want from Obama and Obama supporters?
I’d, first, like to know what Obama stands for. That’s the issue I’ve had with him all along; no matter how hard I look, I have yet to be able to form a coherent picture of what he stands for and what he believes.
I’d certainly like him to take a stand on issues that are important to me, like choice. I simply don’t trust him on choice because he’s adopted anti-choice rhetoric and embraced anti-choice Dems. He had to be talked out of voting for Roberts, and he spoke out against filibustering Alito. Sure, I know about the 100% NARAL rating, but keep in mind that NARAL gives Joe Lieberman and Lincoln Chaffee a 100% rating as well — they simply decided not to count the cloture votes against their ratings. And it’s more than just Roe v. Wade — the right to choose encompasses more than abortion, and those rights have been chipped away steadily for the past 30 years. I want to know what he’s going to do to not just arrest the slide, but restore the rights that have been lost.
I’d like him to explain why he stuck with Donnie McClurkin after the LGBT community complained.
And I’d like some recognition that there has been appalling misogyny at work during this race, from the media and from Obama supporters (and from Obama himself; whether you want to admit it or not, women are hearing what he’s saying and they’re not liking it because it sounds like the same dismissive shit they have to put up with all the time. Hey, if “fairytale” can be racist, at least admit the possibility that “periodically,” in certain circumstances, is a sexist dogwhistle). The few times Clinton has complained, she’s been accused of playing the gender card and taken to task, often in mocking terms. And the DNC has been complicit in its silence.
I don’t think you understand the level of deep anger that many Clinton supporters feel — many, but by no means all of them women — because of the reprehensible way that she’s been treated just because she’s a woman and because of the failure of the DNC to say a damn thing about it. And many of you here show no willingness to try to understand it and reckon with it.
Macjazz
“The supreme court” is not a reason to vote for Obama. It’s a reason to vote against McCain. But you called David “silly”, but your answer is exactly not what was asked for.
DBK writes, “lots of Obama supporters don’t really care about winning the election. Instead, they’re all about being righteous and superior.”
Yep. Reading this thread reminds me of so many others I’ve seen:
1. The insistance that the Clinton supporters acknowledge the deep, disturbing personal and political flaws of Clinton.
2. The insistance that their visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton is not rooted in a double-standard applied to the only woman candidate, or in misogyny, but that they’d “would love to see a woman for president, just not that particular woman?” (How does that scan when you replace “woman” with “African American?” With “Asian American?” With “Latino?” Rings a little hollow, eh?)
3. The inability to offer anything specifically positive that Obama will do, other than not be Hillary Clinton.
Newsflash: it’s not about Hillary any more, although this thread has become yet another referendum on the character, integrity, and worthiness of HRC, once again. It’s all about Obama now. (Isn’t that what you wanted?) He’s got to run with the ball now, and he and his supporters can’t blame Hillary if he blows it in November.
However, I must offer my apologies to McJazz: You’re right, I didn’t give you credit for your sensible responses, and I like your idea of HRC on the SCOTUS. (But, I always thought that would be a great place to park Bill! I think she’s better at legistlation, but your idea has got me thinking…)
zuzu,
maybe you might start with something called a “website”
these are found on the “internet”
you might find such a “website” here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
at that “website” you will find just about every view the candidate has on various web “pages.”
You will find information from this “website” and others like it in the posts of people like Brendan–who has posted several policy positions from the Obama camp right to the comments of this blog.
I suggest you look them up yourself, since you seem incapable of responding to them even when they are posted 2-3 times.
In the meantime,
I’ll be sure to pass along your claims of what all real women believe to my girlfriend, the longtime progressive political activist, feminist, and obama supporter.
I am sure she will want to correct her views and her support of obama thanks to your views– which represent all women.
perhaps, like her, you might develop a more sophisticated view of things rather than claiming that all of hrc’s problems are due to the fact that she happens to have ovaries.
Also,
DBK,
right back at you.
“I’d, first, like to know what Obama stands for. That’s the issue I’ve had with him all along; no matter how hard I look, I have yet to be able to form a coherent picture of what he stands for and what he believes.”
Well, then you should download the very large PDF at his website and read it. It’s publicly available, and written in easy to understand English. Where do you think I got the drug courts and child care information you’re ignoring? At the end of the day, after comparing both his plans to clinton’s I found more to like with Obama. Oh, and I like the way you assume I approve of NARAL. I don’t.
“Hey, if “fairytale” can be racist, at least admit the possibility that “periodically,” in certain circumstances, is a sexist dogwhistle).
I will not, because it is not. Read the dictionary. I challenge you to use “periodically” in a way that means menstruation. Periodically means “from time to time”. Even if you use it in a sentence like “she bleeds from her vagina periodically” that means “she bleeds from her vagina from time to time”. It has nothing to do with the source or cause of the bleeding, and pretending that it does makes you look foolish. “Periodically” is not a synonym for “menstrually”: ask any elementary school health teacher.
I simply don’t trust him on choice because he’s adopted anti-choice rhetoric and embraced anti-choice Dems. He had to be talked out of voting for Roberts, and he spoke out against filibustering Alito.: citations please. And what about this
you don’t like that I say “I don’t have to convince you of SHIT, but if you decide to vote for MccCain over ANY Democrat in 2008 (except for perhaps Joe Lieberman), you’re a fool and not worth the meat you’re made out of”, but that is TRUE of ANYONE. See also, “people who voted for Nader over Gore.” Idiots, all of them.
You’ve told me that I hate Obama, dismissed me as “you Clinton supporters,” denied that there’s been any misogyny at work in the campaign
As for the first, the proof is in the pudding. Do you really want me to start mining the recent archives of this site and start highlighting your own words?
As for the second and third, I never did that: I just reviewed my comments, and I never ever said “you clinton supporters” or “denied that there’s been any misogyny at work in the campaign” once, so please stop lying about my position putting words in my mouth and retract those scurrilous and fabricated allegations. If you feel you’re being berated, maybe you should stop misrepresenting my comments.
I don’t plan to reach out to clinton supporters. if you choose to vote for McCain or stay home that’s your business. But if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.
Nice dodge on the calling a spade a spade and the “urban blacks believe Obama will support them” post by the way. Not that you wrote that particularly reprehensible post, but there’s no defense of that kind of logic. I can’t blame you for not addressing it.
I don’t think you understand the level of deep anger that many Clinton supporters feel — many, but by no means all of them women — because of the reprehensible way that she’s been treated just because she’s a woman
Not just any woman: a woman who voted for the war in Iraq, threatened to “obliterate” Iran, is surrounded by DLC hacks who despise the 50-state strategy that’s made the Party competitive in the south and the west, and goes courting people like Richard Mellon Scaife. You left that part out.
I can name a bunch of women I’d rather see as president than Hillary Clinton.
And stop pretending I wrote things I didn’t, because it makes you look like a liar to anyone who cares to scroll up and read what i actually wrote.
maybe you might start with something called a “website”
these are found on the “internet”
you might find such a “website” here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
at that “website” you will find just about every view the candidate has on various web “pages.”
Maybe you might start by not being such an asshole.
I know what that website says. I know how he answered the RHP Reality Check questionnaire. But I find it curious that you could not refer me to his own website, probably because he doesn’t actually have a section dealing with women’s issues and reproductive rights (which is another problem I have with him).
I also know that when he speaks about choice, he uses rhetoric that the anti-choice forces use. He talks about women having “some” control over their bodies. He talks about what a “mistake” premarital sex is, and how abortion is invariably a great “tragedy” — and that such a decision is not a woman’s to make alone or with her doctor, but a decision she should make in conjunction with her family and her “pastor.”
This is what he’s said when he’s talked about choice publicly, on the campaign trail. Not what his staff has said when they’ve filled out his questionnaires.
You asked me what I wanted from him, and I told you.
by the way, I forgot to close the tag after “I don’t” above linking to my diatribes against the swindlers at NARAL. if chris could close that I would be very grateful.
…adding, it’s really infuriating to be accused of “denying mysogyny” considering I write grants for an agency that does extensive work for homeless women who are victims of domestic violence.
And I forgot to add one more:
4. The longer the thread goes on, the more it’s dominated by just one or two Hillary haters who write progressively longer and longer posts screaming at the blog’s proprietor (or her surrogates.)
zuzu: Maybe you might start by not being such an asshole.
I know what that website says. I know how he answered the RHP Reality Check questionnaire. But I find it curious that you could not refer me to his own website, probably because he doesn’t actually have a section dealing with women’s issues and reproductive rights (which is another problem I have with him).
Liar, or just ignorant?
Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.
For more, see page 35 of his Blueprint for Change
Ya know zuzu, I don’t think you HAVE read where Obama stands, because that took me 2 seconds to find.
Jeez I missed the party here today.
Personally I think time is a great healer. HRC supporters are quite pragmatic and will rally round the eventual nominee. We never wanted a “perfect” candidate.
But since Obama supporters have what they want…
Do you think you could make the grand gesture and take the high road (just as you candidate seems to do)?
I will not, because it is not. Read the dictionary.
The dictionary dodge is a classic.
Nice dodge on the calling a spade a spade and the “urban blacks believe Obama will support them” post by the way. Not that you wrote that particularly reprehensible post, but there’s no defense of that kind of logic. I can’t blame you for not addressing it.
I’m not addressing it because I didn’t write it. You seem to have problems with people putting words in your mouth, yet you have no compunction about putting words in mine.
Not just any woman: a woman who voted for the war in Iraq, threatened to “obliterate” Iran, is surrounded by DLC hacks who despise the 50-state strategy that’s made the Party competitive in the south and the west, and goes courting people like Richard Mellon Scaife. You left that part out.
How do you deal with the level of cognitive dissonance it must take you to get through the day?
uh huh:
1. The insistance that the Clinton supporters acknowledge the deep, disturbing personal and political flaws of Clinton.
as opposed to the numerous hrc supporters here who insist that every obama voter apologize for the us news media and for the existence of misogyny from now back through time to the creation of the universe
2. The insistance that their visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton is not rooted in a double-standard applied to the only woman candidate, or in misogyny, but that they’d “would love to see a woman for president, just not that particular woman?” (How does that scan when you replace “woman” with “African American?” With “Asian American?” With “Latino?” Rings a little hollow, eh?)
there we go with the whole “visceral hatred” thang in which every obama supporter is a sexist pig rather than a thoughtful voter concerned about–say–IRAQ!
NEWSFLASH
I would love to see a woman for president, just not Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Does that make me a misogynist?
I would love to see an African American for president, just not Clarence Thomas. Does that make me a racist?
I would love to see an Asian American for president, just not John Yoo. Does that make me a racist?
I would love to see a latino for president, just not Lincoln Diaz-Bart. Does that make me a racist?
What’s the problem?????
–you better try that one again, you blew it.
I am sure there are some who won’t vote for hillary clinton merely because she is a woman.
On the other hand, in Kentucky 80% of the people that said “Race is important” voted for hrc. Will you be repudiating that support anytime soon and demanding that hrc and her backers apologize for it?
3. The inability to offer anything specifically positive that Obama will do, other than not be Hillary Clinton.
are you blind or did you lose all literacy skills?
for me, the number one issue is the war and us foreign policy. obama’s foreign policy is different than clinton’s
brendan posted several things obama offers that clinton does not.
You seem unable to make any argument other than –by implication–they have the same policy therefore you should vote for hillary because she is a woman and you have your identity invested in her becoming president. it is hard to avoid the conclusion that a certain segment is voting for her merely because she is a woman.
fine, nothing wrong with that, the irish, italians, African america and every other identity group has been doing that for years.
but don’t expect the people that backed the winner to kiss your ass and beg you to do the right thing for the country and to acknowledge all your particular conspiracy views of the world.
you vote for obama in the fall just like I would be voting for hrc with a big smile because that is how you end this nightmare we have been suffering since January 2001.
that’s something your supposed to do just because you are a liberal human with critical thinking skills and because you care about the rest of your fellow citizens.
no one should have to beg you to do the right thing, and no one owes you–or hrc–an apology for choosing a different candidate.
In this case, you lost. Since you claim to be a liberal I am sure you are just as used to it as the rest of us.
Suck it up and move on.
Ya know zuzu, I don’t think you HAVE read where Obama stands, because that took me 2 seconds to find.
That’s not on the main campaign website, it’s on My Barack Obama. And it regurgitates the “respect for those who disagree” crap that I’ve been saying makes me uncomfortable.
“The insistance that their visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton is not rooted in a double-standard applied to the only woman candidate, or in misogyny, but that they’d “would love to see a woman for president, just not that particular woman?” (How does that scan when you replace “woman” with “African American?” With “Asian American?” With “Latino?” Rings a little hollow, eh?)”
Hmm, let’s see.
“I’d love to see an African-American President, just not Alan Keyes or Clarence Thomas.”
“I’d love to see an Asian-American President, just not John Yoo or Michelle Malkin.”
“I’d love to see a Latino President, just not Alberto Gonzales.”
No, doesn’t ring particularly hollow to me. And no, I’m not saying Hillary Clinton is in any way, shape or form as bad as any of the people I just mentioned. She’s not, and I consider her a credit to the progressive movement. But contrary to what many of her supporters here seem to think, it IS possible to have principled objections to a candidate of a minority background without being a bigot or sexist.
I personally think Hillary would make a great President if she could (a) avoid surrounding herself with people I detest whose ideas have been disastrous for the Democratic party and (b) resist her war-hawk impulses. But HRC is not Jesus Christ reborn with ovaries. She does have her share of flaws, both in terms of ideology and character, and just because some Obama supporters consider her particular flaws to be a deal breaker does not make those supporters into sexists and misogynists.
ZUZU: that IS the official campaign website.
See, when you go to Barack Obama dot com and click on the little “Obama 08″ logo on the top of the page, you go directly to his list of issues. Really, it’s not that hard.
If you feel like you’re being berated maybe it’s because you keep writing such easily debunked tripe.
“Dictionary dodge”? words mean what they mean. Periodically does not and cannot ever mean “menstrually”.
“I’m not addressing it because I didn’t write it. You seem to have problems with people putting words in your mouth, yet you have no compunction about putting words in mine.”
I didn’t say they were your words. Go read my comment. You wanted me to listen to the objections of Clinton’s supporters to Obama and I pointed out the ugly racial taint of some of those objections. I never said they were yours specifically. By refusing to acknowledge them you either A) implicitly support them (which I doubt) or B) are embarrassed by them and would prefer to ignore that they’re out there (which I suspect).
Steveeboy, it’s obvious you took quite some time composing your latest torrent of barely coherent abuse, but, alas, it’s deficient in that it doesn’t get very far in actually saying anything about your candidate that makes him any more appealing than anyone else who’s actually running for the presidency. (Well, anyone aside from Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, but it’s not very likely that either of them is even going to get a spoiler award this time around.)
Why don’t you assume that everyone posting here is sexist and homophobic and already knows about and enthusiastically agrees with the way Barak Obama has been conducting his campaign, but wants to know what, if anything, he stands for other than ponies, cake, and control of the Democratic fundraising apparatus.
We love the unity ponies(tm), but what’s in it for us?
dangit steveeboy beat me to it.
so,
a politician trying to garner votes saying he has “respect for those who disagree” makes you uncomfortable, but you want those who disagree with you in the primary to kiss your ass and beg you to do the right thing in november????
what was that phrase you just dropped?
“cognitive dissonance”???????
Redstar @ 43: Hilary Clinton failed the bar exam in DC, then passed it in Arkansas. She briefly taught at the University of Arkansas then went to the Rose Law Firm, a “big” firm in Arkansas, but definitely b-list by national standards. She spent virtually no time litigating in court. “Children Under the Law” was published by the Harvard Educational Review, a prestigious journal but not a peer-reviewed law journal. She is simply not qualified. And by no stretch of the imagination is she a legal scholar. I do believe she is qualified to be president. She will soon have no choice but to stop her campaign, but I don’t question her qualifications for the presidency.
The Supreme Court should be filled with legal scholars, judges with years on the bench, or litigators who have spent decades in constitutional law. Sen. Clinton, for all of her accomplishments, is none of the above.
right,
homophobic!
Unlike the clinton’s who staunchly opposed “don’t ask don’t tell” and DOMA huh?
Separate but Equal Forevah!!!
Zuzu @ 63: I’d, first, like to know what Obama stands for. That’s the issue I’ve had with him all along; no matter how hard I look, I have yet to be able to form a coherent picture of what he stands for and what he believes.
21 debates, a voting record in the Illinois State Legislature and United States Senate, dozens of position papers available at http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
thousands of hours on the stump.
I don’t know, it really shouldn’t be up to a group of commenter’s at a blog to show you what Obama stands for. You think of yourself as a political writer – someone with much to say about American politics. There is so much information on Obama so readily available it’s hard not to know. And yet you don’t.
30Historiann
Once you’re on the inside, with your hands on the levers of power, you have to be about more than just hate, hate, hate.
(Boy, & if you get your hands on the power levers, it will just be love, love, love, right? This is a really dumb argument.)
34zuzu
Sorry, Stuart. We’ve conceded for purposes of this exercise….
(So this is nothing more than a game to you, Zuzu. Figures.)
37zuzu
So give them a reason to vote for Obama that’s not based in hatred of Clinton or contempt for them, or getting in line and not getting anything in return.
(Where has anyone here stated that they “hate” Sen. Clinton, or over at Shakesville, for that matter?)
40brendancalling
I don’t have to convince you of SHIT, but if you decide to vote for MccCain over ANY Democrat in 2008 (except for perhaps Joe Lieberman), you’re a fool and not worth the meat you’re made out of.
(I agree completely. Why is it my responsibility? Sen. Clinton hired all these really pricey advisers & they were unable to get me to support her. They couldn’t convince me of SHIT, why should I have to convince you?)
53zuzu
Actually, your response simply showed me that you hadn’t read the ground rules for the exercise.
(See above, re: games with people’s lives. I wonder if that is how Sen. Clinton felt when she exercised her senatorial power & voted for Bu$hCo’s vanity war? Lots of dead people, anyway.)
68zuzu
Maybe you might start by not being such an asshole.
(Let’s see, as the late, great Ashley Morris said, FYYFF.)
zuzu
“This is so difficult because there really is NO major difference between the policies of these two candidates.
I’m glad to see someone admitting this.”
So why do you need convincing? You just gave yourself the reason to vote FOR Obama right there!
that IS the official campaign website.
I said “main,” not “official.” There was no tag for women under the “issues” drop-down just a few months ago.
21 debates, a voting record in the Illinois State Legislature and United States Senate, dozens of position papers available at http://www.barackobama.com/learn/meet_barack.php
thousands of hours on the stump.
Which is great and all, but I asked you why disaffected Clinton voters should vote for him. I’m asking you, and I’m aware of the position papers. How would *you* persuade a disaffected Clinton voter that Obama was really the best choice?
hey couldn’t convince me of SHIT, why should I have to convince you?
You want your guy to win in November, right?
For brendancalling:
“But if you don’t vote, you can’t complain.”
I’ve been involved in politics since I watched the entire Democratic National Convention of 1972 at the age of 14. I’ve handed out fliers for candidates, knocked on doors, phone-banked, voted in every election, interviewed congressmembers and candidates for office and had those interviews offered as blogcasts, attended debates, written letters, and logged countless miles in protest marches as well as marching in Memorial Day and 4th of July parades.
That little truism about “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain” never made any sense to me and still doesn’t, and I’m one of those people who has been a very involved participant in our democracy. However, I understand why some want to stick an “elitist” label on people who would say “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain”. It’s a matter of being exclusionary or inclusive. This goes to the heart of what zuzu was asking. Instead of saying why people who supported Hillary Clinton should vote for Obama, a lot of the answers have been along the lines of that idiotic answer near the top about how we should all salute Obama because he’s the media-declared winner. What I keep seeing is this “If you aren’t one of us, you are an enemy, and if you ask for a reason to join us, we don’t care about you.”
As I said, I’ve been involved with politics for 36 years and I never saw anyone win a general election by acting like they didn’t want your vote.
“As I said, I’ve been involved with politics for 36 years and I never saw anyone win a general election by acting like they didn’t want your vote.”
That’s because you never saw a candidate confronted by disaffected voters whose support for a rival candidate was so monomaniacal that they would demand that he literally grovel before them in penance for having dared to get more votes than their preferred choice. Today, after everything that’s happened, there is brand spanking new screed up at the fever swamp of Corrente insisting that it is incumbent on Barack Obama — for the good of the party, no less — to withdraw from the campaign and throw his support behind Hillary, and that it is further incumbent on all Obama supporters to swallow both their loyalty to Obama and their misgivings about Hillary and just give her their votes, an intolerable insult when Obama supporters ask them to do the same.
whatever DBK. my point is obvious.
if you don’t participate, you abdicate any control over the results. If you don’t play, you can’t complain.
but really, i don’t care to engage with someone whose resposne to inconvenient facts is “fuck you”.
note to zuzu: you wrote at comment 75, “And it regurgitates the “respect for those who disagree” crap that I’ve been saying makes me uncomfortable.”
Why are you complaining that I’m berating you since you don’t believe in “respect for those who disagree”?
zuzu at 86: “I said “main,” not “official.” There was no tag for women under the “issues” drop-down just a few months ago.”<