posted
Somehow I think that if Clinton's pledged delegates started to flock to Obama, she's be screaming bloody murder.
It's the Michigan/Florida thing all over again. When she didn't need them, when she was campaigning in New Hampshire, we were rule breakers, now that she needs us, she's all concerned for our democratic rights. Now she's saying "pledged" means nothing and pretty much all the delegates are superdelegates? Why are we even bothering to vote? And if it goes the other way, I'm betting she'll cry foul and say it's undemocratic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.
The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.
The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?
What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"
posted
I would so like to see this fight over but I don't think its the superdelegates who have the power to persuade Clinton to step aside -- its her financial backers.
How many of her financial backers are willing to destroy the democrats chances of winning the presidency?
Clinton may personally have little to loose by fighting this to the bitter end but those who are bank rolling her campaign do. If they pull their support she simply won't have the option of continuing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering what little grass roots support she has is tapped out, unlike Obama's, I agree with that. But, consider that Obama has been almost entirely funded by grass roots individuals and not by special interests and you might also see why they'd prefer to burn money on their chosen candidate over a guy who won't take their money.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has Obama pledged not to take special interest money or refused donations from big donors? I know almost all of his money has come from small donors but that isn't the same thing as refusing money from the big donors.
The thing that big donors want most is influence. They may think that their money is more likely to buy influence in a Clinton administration than an Obama administration -- but I'm sure they are aware that money given to either Clinton or Obama won't buy them anything in a McCain administration.
If they can be persuaded that the republicans are benefitting from Clinton's campaign, they definitely have the power to pull the plug.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
She loaned her campaign 5 million, but I don't think she is wealthy enough to keep her campaign a float if her backers pull out. So far, Clinton and Obama combined have spent over $300 million on the primary race. She might be able to loan her campaign $5 million, but I doubt she could come up with $50 million which is what it would take to stay in the race until the convention.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Has Obama pledged not to take special interest money or refused donations from big donors? I know almost all of his money has come from small donors but that isn't the same thing as refusing money from the big donors.
I am pretty sure that he will not accept money from special interests. If you donate, you have to electronically sign that you are not a pac or special interest.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand how "I was tired and I misspoke" can explain an inaccurate claim that she landed under sniper fire.
Misspeaking because you are tired is adequate to explain getting the numbers wrong, getting the date wrong, getting a sequence of events wrong or getting the place wrong.
But how many people do you know who, when tired, get confused about whether they were shot at while exiting an airplane. She makes it sound like fabricating a whole story about cork screw landings, sniper fire, bullet proof vests and rushing to the cars was a simple slip of the tongue.
If there had been sniper fire when she departed from the airport in Bosnia, or at some other location at some other time -- then the misspoke explanation might hold some water. But so far that isn't the claim. Evidently, when Hillary is tired she is prone to make up entire fantasy stories and report them as fact.
Is this really who you want answering the phone at 3:00 am?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, why aren't people bringing things like this about Clinton up more? I mean if we're playing Wrights old sermons we may as well dig out the landfills worth of skeletons filling Clinton's closet. From the New York Times archive in 1996:
quote: Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.
Probably requires login, but it's a free registration, so completely worth it. It goes on to mention case after case of Clinton lying to the public. I ran across it because somebody commented with it in response to a blog about Clinton's Bosnia lie.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just can't feel like I support Obama's "change" politics and and still read up on all of Clinton's foibles. While I am certainly aware of her Bosnia comments, I just don't think I care to look at an extensive list documenting her hypocrisy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should also be noted that all of the accusations made in the 1996 piece Alcon quoted, were thoroughly investigated by a special prosecutor Ken Starr. If he found any evidence of wrong doing on the part of the Clintons, he didn't find it sufficiently compelling to bring charges. That fairly well discredits the accusations, at least in my mind.
At this point, I think it would be counter productive, unwise and at least mean spirited for Obama to bring up any of the largely unfounded accusations that were made against Hillary Clinton while she was first lady. That might be good ammunition for McCain in the general elections, but most democrats still view those things as a partisan vendetta that was unfair, unjust and just plain mean.
Even though I don't like Hillary Clinton's politics and don't like the current direction of her campaign and her apparent willingness to sabotage the entire democratic party, I think she has been treated both rudely and very unjustly by right-wing pundits and the main stream media. Reminding me of that makes me more likely to support her, not less.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, I would note, I'm only 21 so I wasn't really paying attention when all this went down (I think I was in 6th grade). I saw that in a comment post and went: "Why am I not surprised there's a history of lying, and why is that history not being brought up by the media now that she's lying about Bosnia?"
Edited to add: And I definitely wouldn't want the Obama campaign to stoop to that level. I'm just frustrated and pissed as all hell at the Clinton campaign and how much of an effect the mud she's been slinging seems to actually be having...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, and clearly I should have done my homework to find out who the heck Safire was. Just goes to show, can't trust the media :/
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may take a look at my figures for the general I did a couple of weeks ago and see if there's been any change. The polls are weird, though.
Rasmussen has consistently shown McCain ahead of Obama, while Fox News finds McCain back of Obama.
I didn't look at McCain v. Clinton as hard. The big curves (this is pollster.com's National plotting) have converged between McCain and Clinton.
There's been a lot of variation in the Pennsylvania primary polls. Of course, they are 4 weeks off. Hold onto your butts.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a lighter note, comedian and writer Andy Borowitz has found gold in Clinton's "mistake" about the Bosnia trip (Language-wise, the links below don't require any warnings, but I haven't read the rest of the site):
quote:Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who has been accused in recent days of padding her foreign policy resume while First Lady, admitted today that she may have exaggerated about an encounter she said she had with al-Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden in 1998.
quote: Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.
"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."
quote:In response to a question about whether he believes his wife's account of the events in Bosnia, Mr. Clinton said, "All I have to say about that is Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright Reverend Wright."
quote:The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
Oh bloody hell. Clinton needs to drop out, now. And she needs to throw her support behind Obama when she does it. Otherwise the Dems are so very screwed.
Hell at this point I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Obama dropped out in a valiant effort to keep the Dems from coming apart, but in my opinion that would be infinitely worse than Hilary not dropping out. We'd come apart anyway. In that case the front runner would have dropped out to prevent the second place candidate from tearing the party apart in a terrible-two size fit of "I want, I want, I want!" That would be obvious to so many Obama supports that there's no way they'd vote for Hilary. Myself included.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just the heat of the moment. Remember the conservative wing, up to 1/3, of Republicans saying they would vote for Clinton over McCain?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I just don't understand how "I was tired and I misspoke" can explain an inaccurate claim that she landed under sniper fire.
It can't. But that sounds a heck of a lot better than "I lied" or even "I exaggerated and embellished."
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. Especially since this kind of thing is the bulk if the "experience" on which she is runnning.
Now I could see it as a mistatement if she had landed under sniper fire elsewhere and just got the trips conflated.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
I feel like the statistic would be even more pronounced the other way.
I can't tell you how many Obama supporters I know who are not democrats and are specifically supporting Obama. The majority of them would not vote for Hillary in the general, and possibly wouldn't even vote at all.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Sen. George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential nominee, said Tuesday it would be easier for a black man to be elected to the White House than a woman.
The former South Dakota senator has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whom he has known for decades since she helped campaign for him. She is in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama for the party nod.
"I have a feeling that in this country where we're at today in our thinking, it's going to be harder to elect a woman than to elect a black man," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I wish that weren't true ... I'd love to see Hillary as president."
I can't help but wonder if *this* little bit is meant as a sign that maybe his enthusiasm might be going in a different direction:
quote:He says he likes Obama but didn't know much about him when he endorsed Clinton last year.
"I think very highly of him now," McGovern said.
Of course, there aren't too many people his endorsement means much to. "Many people" would include me, and I actually put on a suit and tie to canvass for his campaign when I was in high school.
Still makes for a messy little story for Clinton.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting reading all the comments on this blog and similar ones; many Hillary supporters believe it is Obama tearing the party apart and that he is "a sham" or "has no integrity." Lots of people say if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, they'll vote for McCain....I'm sure Hillary herself is one of those.
And by interesting I mean annoying, bewildering, and infuriating.
Edited to add: If Clinton gets nominated, I think I'm just not going to vote. There's no way I'd vote for McCain (though I confess I like him a lot more than many of the other Republican former candidates) strictly on policy issues. On the other hand, my conscience and just general disgust with the political machine is convincing me that I will not vote for Hillary either.
It's all so divisive and...for lack of a better word, crappy. I apologize if anyone's offended, but I really think this whole election has the potential to be simply crappy. >_< I doubt she'd win even if I did swallow the bitter taste in my mouth and vote for her. Blah.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what I would do if Clinton wins the nomination. I started out this as "Both are good choices, but Obama is the better choice". Seemed obvious to me that if Clinton won, I'd stand behind her.
But her actions during this election have pissed me off. Especially the "Obama is standing in the way of Michigan and Florida! He doesn't want your votes to count!" rhetoric. The reality is so far from this that I question her integrity, judgment, and overall character.
If the Republicans had nominated Huckabee or Romney, I'd still be voting for Clinton. McCain isn't nearly as distasteful as those two for me though.
I probably just won't vote at all.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The increasingly ferocious standoff between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama could take a toll in November, says a new survey from Gallup:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
I feel like the statistic would be even more pronounced the other way.
I can't tell you how many Obama supporters I know who are not democrats and are specifically supporting Obama. The majority of them would not vote for Hillary in the general, and possibly wouldn't even vote at all.
Not to mention the African American voters and young voters who, instead of donating and volunteering for years to come are liable to not even show up. At best.
The democratic party needs to think beyond this election as well. What difference will the engagement of those groups make for future elections?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I just don't understand how "I was tired and I misspoke" can explain an inaccurate claim that she landed under sniper fire.
It can't. But that sounds a heck of a lot better than "I lied" or even "I exaggerated and embellished."
It's not like the story is something that just came out of her mouth once, either. From this Salon.com piece:
quote: In an earlier interview with a Pittsburgh radio station, she said:
I did misspeak the other day. This has been a very long campaign. Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else. The military took great care of us. They were worried about taking a First Lady to a war zone and took some extra precautions and worried about all sorts of things. I have written about it in my book and talked about it on many other occasions and last week, you know, for the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke. The Obama camp wasn't letting her slide on that, either. Burton e-mailed reporters to say that Clinton had actually given a similar account on multiple occasions. The full e-mail from Burton: MARCH 17: Clinton: “There Was No Greeting Ceremony, And We Basically Were Told To Run To Our Cars. Now, That Is What Happened." "Everyone else was told to sit on their bulletproof vests," Clinton said. "And we came in, in an evasive maneuver... There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened." [CNN, 3/17/08]
MARCH 17: Clinton, Speaking About Her Trip To Bosnia, Said "I Remember Landing Under Sniper Fire. There Was Supposed To Be Some Kind Of A Greeting Ceremony At The Airport, But Instead We Just Ran With Our Heads Down To Get Into Vehicles To Get To Our Base." Clinton: "Good morning. I want to thank Secretary West for his years of service, not only as Secretary of the Army, but also to the Veteran’s Administration, to our men and women in uniform, to our country. I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady. That's where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children." [Clinton speech (remarks as delivered), 3/17/08]
FEBRUARY 29: Clinton Said That The Welcoming Ceremony In Bosnia "Had To Be Moved Inside Because Of Sniper Fire." "At the rally, she belittled the idea that Mr. Obama's 2002 speech 'at an antiwar rally' prepared him to serve as commander in chief. She said he was 'missing in action' on the recent Senate vote on Iran and as chairman of a subcommittee responsible for NATO policy in Afghanistan. Contrasting that with her own experience, she evoked foreign battlefields, recalling a trip to Bosnia as first lady, when the welcoming ceremony 'had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.' She said she had traveled to more than 80 countries and was 'on the front lines' as the United States made peace in Bosnia and Northern Ireland and helped save refugees from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo." [NYT, 3/1/08] VIDEO
DECEMBER 29: Clinton [said] That When She Went To Bosnia, "We Landed In One Of Those Corkscrew Landings And Ran Out Because They Said There Might Be Sniper Fire." Clinton, in Dubuque, Iowa on December 29, 2007, said "I was so honored to be able to travel around the world representing our country. You know, going to places that often times were, you know, not necessarily a place that a president could go. We used to say in the White House that if a place was too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the first lady. So, I had the time of my life. I was the first, you know, high-profile American to go into Bosnia after the peace accords were signed because we wanted to show that the United States was 100 percent behind the agreement. We wanted to make it clear to the Bosnians of all backgrounds. Plus we wanted to thank our American military and our allies for a great job. So, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire. I don't remember anybody offering me tea on the tarmac. We got there and went to the base where our soldiers were and I went out to a lot of the forward operating bases to thank our young men and women in uniform and to thank the Europeans, including the Russians who were part of that effort." [CNN, 1/1/08]
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I'm not sure what I would do if Clinton wins the nomination. I started out this as "Both are good choices, but Obama is the better choice". Seemed obvious to me that if Clinton won, I'd stand behind her.
But her actions during this election have pissed me off. Especially the "Obama is standing in the way of Michigan and Florida! He doesn't want your votes to count!" rhetoric. The reality is so far from this that I question her integrity, judgment, and overall character.
If the Republicans had nominated Huckabee or Romney, I'd still be voting for Clinton. McCain isn't nearly as distasteful as those two for me though.
I probably just won't vote at all.
I hear you, X; that sums up how I feel as well (although I'd already come to this opionion about Clinton before the FL/MI thing got nasty). I think, though, that instead of simply not voting I'll probably do a write in for Obama.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point, if Obama doesn't get the democratic nominee, I'd like to see him run as an independent. He already has the volunteer network he'd need to get on the ballot in every state and the grass roots support to make winning possible.
Of course, that option would most likely give the presidency to the republicans, so perhaps it wouldn't be such a good idea after all. The republicans have done so much damage to the country during the last 8 years that I'm not sure we can survive another 4-8 of having them in power.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's interesting reading all the comments on this blog and similar ones; many Hillary supporters believe it is Obama tearing the party apart and that he is "a sham" or "has no integrity." Lots of people say if Clinton doesn't get the nomination, they'll vote for McCain....I'm sure Hillary herself is one of those.
What I don't understand is what grounds Clinton supporters have for this. I can point to all sorts of instances of where Clinton played dirty or went negative or showed little integrity or consideration for the greater interest of the party. What can they point to with Obama? The Wright stuff? I thought he was pretty honest and thoughtful with that, he handled it about as best as anyone could have possibly done I thought. What they want him to disown his pastor because some snippets of his pastors more inflammatory sermons got taken out of context? Gimme a break.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:MCCAIN: I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with, and I don't believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those, as well.
HANNITY: He's been — but he's been going to the church for 20 years. His pastor — the church gave a lifetime achievement award to one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, Louis Farrakhan. Would you go to a church that — where your pastor supported Louis Farrakhan?
MCCAIN: Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.
posted
I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alcon, I think a lot of that is just bluster to pump up the candidate of choice.
Clinton is continuing to talk about faithless pledged delegates switching their vote:
quote: And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.
Story today in Time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725514-2,00.html If she won because of superdelegates, that's one thing. I and I guess most Dems could live with that, even if we weren't happy about it. But if she won through a significant number of faithless pledged delegates, she would be committing political suicide and guaranteeing a McCain win.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WtIP, I think that if you look at the history of the thread, you will see that most Obama supporters did not start off as Clinton bashers. There is some real distress at her tactics.
And nobody is going to "shoot you". I would be interested in your perspective on some of this, though. What do you think about the Bosnia speeches, for example?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please.
So? If Hatrack were a primary itls b 95% Obama. We have the facts and the facts say a certain thing and that thing makes us believe that Hillary more and more is shooting herself, the dems, in the foot the longer this drags on.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please
WIP: The Hilary bashing is more often than not in response to Hilary bashing Obama. It didn't show up until HRC start going so very dirty and negative towards Obama and that pissed all us Obama supports off to no end. The bashing isn't often even bashing but merely pointing to things the Clinton campaign has been doing and going "WTF?!"
Before Clinton went all negative I didn't support her but would have voted for her in the general, I would have said I didn't like her, I wasn't a fan of her trying to steal Obama's message when she didn't get it -- didn't understand why so many people liked Obama, and I had a feeling that she would go the way she has, but I wouldn't have straight up bashed her. Now I'm pissed as all hell at her.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: I'm a Hillary supporter, so shot me. Odds are Obama will be the Candidate for President for the Democrats. And yet I find myself being turned off by the idea of voting for him. Really for me it comes down to a backlash against Obama supporters. Go to Digg.com I bet you find something like 5 anti Hillary front page post. It's like that constantly. Or here. Just stop the bashing please.
If you don't like hearing Hillary bashing, pray she isn't elected.
I'm a Bush supporter and it can really build you character, a la Happy Gilmore in a batting cage.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: That's just the heat of the moment. Remember the conservative wing, up to 1/3, of Republicans saying they would vote for Clinton over McCain?
Bingo.
There's a lot more to those polls about people who won't vote for each other than you can see at first blush. A lot of it is heat of the moment anger, and then there's the fact that a lot of Obama's supporters are from the middle and a few from the right that wouldn't vote for Clitnon regardless of her actions, in the same way that there might be some McCain supporters who will stay home as well.
But I think if this all ends by May, which it very well could, there will be six months for this to all blow over, and for Clinton to suck it up and go out and campaign for Obama (if he wants her to), and try to heal some of these wounds. It's happened in nasty primary fights before, and things have gotten better by November, and this is no exception. In the end, when a lot of people who vote on policy issues look at Clinton, Obama and McCain, anything Obama might have done during the campaign will pale in comparison to that divide and a lot of them will come back home.
I'm not necessarily worried, yet, but the numbers will start to scare me a lot more in a few months.
Wowbagger -
I've yet to see anyone on Hatrack say anything negative about Clinton that wasn't prefaced with a pretty damned good reason. She is doing a lot of negative things that a lot of people here do not like, and voicing that opinion isn't necessarily bashing, or if it is, then it isn't uncalled for bashing, it's earned. There have been a few things Obama has done that I haven't liked either and I've said so, as have others, when he's done them.
It just happens that Clinton has done a lot more of them than he has. Though now I'm curious as to what the Clinton people have to say about Obama, specifically.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Before Clinton went all negative I didn't support her but would have voted for her in the general, I would have said I didn't like her, I wasn't a fan of her trying to steal Obama's message when she didn't get it -- didn't understand why so many people liked Obama, and I had a feeling that she would go the way she has, but I wouldn't have straight up bashed her. Now I'm pissed as all hell at her.
This is how I feel, and I'm sure a large portion of Obama supporters share this feeling. I've read similar posts a few times in this very thread. (Maybe Lyrhawn??)
The main reason I never supported her is I've always thought she is too polarizing and would be a risky candidate in the general election, not because of policies. Clinton's tactics have increased her negatives among Dems nationally. How that's supposed to lead to her winning in the general election is a mystery.
posted
I guess in her mind, maybe she's showing how aggressive she can be?
Maybe she's getting pointers from that pop anthropologist who tried to makeover Al Gore with the dark silk shirts, you know, kind of go for an Alpha male vibe.
I know, I'm making it all worse. But if it's any comfort, I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm just one of the few Republicans who doesn't want Hillary nominated.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Had Obama not been in the race, I would have voted for Clinton. I would have had to hold my nose to do it, because for many reasons she is incredibly polarizing and would ensure a record Republican turnout in the polls. I don't think she would be able to work effectively with enough Republicans to get anything accomplished. And I seriously doubt she would do much to reduce the powers of the presidency back to what they were before the checks and balances system got subverted.
But I agree with enough of her policies that I would favor her over the average Republican candidate.
However, here comes Obama. Roughly the same policies. But where she is telling us what she will do, he is telling us what we all can do. She's good enough; he inspires.
I believe that Obama would restore some dignity, restraint, and honor to the White House. I do not believe Clinton would be able to do that, for reasons that aren't her fault and reasons that are. And everything that gets reported about the tactics of herself, her husband, and her campaign make me even more certain of that.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've read similar posts a few times in this very thread. (Maybe Lyrhawn??)
Sounds pretty close to how I feel about it, and I'm sure I've said it before. I started off this election not caring which of them won, I'd happily vote for either of them. I liked Clinton, I loved Obama, and I finally felt like I was in a win/win situation.
Now I think Clinton has done serious damage to the party and the party's chances of winning in November, and I think she has shown herself to be intellectually dishonest. She's skewed the truth too many times to make Obama look bad for me to feel good about voting for her. And I'm seriously pissed about how she's handled Michigan two-facedly in the last few months. I am very angry with her.
That said, I will still vote for her in November, begrugingly, because McCain's policies are anathema to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this should be interesting. Blogs on the Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Clinton donors criticizing her previous remarks on the role of superdelegates and demanding she take a different stance.
quote: Twenty top Hillary fundraisers and donors have sent a scathing private letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chastising her for publicly saying that the super-delegates should support the winner of the pledged delegate count and demanding that she say that they should make an "independent" choice.
I've obtained a copy of the letter, which comes from some of the most influential fundraisers in the Democratic Party, including Hassan Nemazee, Steven Rattner, Maureen White, Stan Shuman, and Alan Patricof.
Excerpts from the letter can be found at the TPM site linked above.
What I'd like to know is just *who* leaked the letter. Was it Pelosi's office or was it one of the donors? That would provide some interesting and useful context.
I suspect there'll be more on this in more mainstream news sources by tomorrow.
I also wouldn't be surprised if this broke in time to get discussed on "Countdown" tonight.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Alcon, I think a lot of that is just bluster to pump up the candidate of choice.
Clinton is continuing to talk about faithless pledged delegates switching their vote:
quote: And all delegates have to assess who they think will be the strongest nominee against McCain and who they believe would do the best job in bringing along the down-ballot races and who they think would be the best President. And, from my perspective, those are all very legitimate questions, and as you know so well, Mark, every delegate with very few exceptions is free to make up his or her mind however they choose. We talk a lot about so-called pledged delegates, but every delegate is expected to exercise independent judgment.
Story today in Time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1725514-2,00.html If she won because of superdelegates, that's one thing. I and I guess most Dems could live with that, even if we weren't happy about it. But if she won through a significant number of faithless pledged delegates, she would be committing political suicide and guaranteeing a McCain win.
The combination of this with the "we want your vote to count!" claim to MI and FL is kind of infuriating. Advocating for pledged delegates to go against the votes that put them there is basically trying to disenfranchise the voters of every state.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
