There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Are Obama Supporters Too Clever By Half?

I think so and because of it they've pretty much lost my support for him. Here's why I'm so fed up.

Like Howard Dean, I consider myself part of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. So I find stuff like this deeply offensive. Here's the essential quote that absolutely turned me off (emphasis is mine).
Volunteers are needed in Pennsylvania BEFORE March 24. We have only until that date to register new voters and persuade Independents and Republicans who want to vote for Obama to switch their party registration for the primary. (They can always switch back for the general election.)

The PA primary (April 22) is a closed one, meaning only registered Dems can vote. We have until March 24 to expand our "universe" of Obama voters. After March 24 that window shuts.
What makes it so deeply offensive is that this does not even make a pretense of being an honest attempt to win over moderate Republicans, who would then, hopefully, go on to vote for the Democratic candidate in November. And it's certainly not a legitimate attempt at party building.

Whoever set up this strategy is telling volunteers to register Republicans to vote for Obama just to win the Pennsylvania primary. And their main selling point to those Republicans they hope to recruit is this: "They can always switch back for the general elections."

This helps us in November, how?

It's actually a slimy and deceitful tactic. And it's one sure to have consequences, the first of which is that it gives credence to those Hillary supporters who argue that many of the Republicans crossing over party lines to vote for Obama are not doing so because they want to vote for him in November, but because they want the Democrats to have the weaker candidate for the general election.

Worse, tactics like these undercut any claim that Obama and his supporters represent a fresh new style of politics. After this, can anybody ever take their claims to the high road seriously again?

Registering Republicans, who have no intention of voting Democratic in November, just to pull out a cheap victory in March, proves that those claims were hollow and these people would do anything to win. This is exactly what they've accused Hillary of.

Then to add further insult to injury, in order to accuse Hillary of being the one hell bent on destroying the Democratic Party, another real winner in the logic and intelligent debate department, Rebecca, who by the way has stated proudly that she would rather see the Democrats lose than vote for Hillary, posts this diary, which actually has no original writing but is one long blockquote from conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, who is also the author of The Conservative Soul.

It's amazing how in order to defend or promote their own candidate - you know, the one who is above partisan bickering - Obama's supporters always have to tear down Hillary and they always seem to need to revert to rightwing talking points or conservative pundits' quotes to do so.

It's equally mind-boggling that despite his supporters' claims to the contrary, most of Obama's actual positions are not new or fresh. They are the same centrist, moderate positions that Bill and Hillary espoused when they were a part of the DLC.

Yep, the great saint, Obama, and the horrible hag, Hillary, actually agree on more than they disagree. What's happening is that many of Obama supporters have used him like a coat hanger. They have taken their own idea of what they think Obama stands for, and they are hanging it, like a topcoat, on his persona. But the Obama of their imagination is not the Obama of reality.

For example, although there are a few minor policy differences between him and Hillary, on health care, the economy, and even resolving the war in Iraq, they are not that far apart on any of these issues. In fact, on health care reform, Hillary's plan is the more progressive one. And they both differ with John McCain far more than they do with each other.

The one important difference is that Hillary voted to give Bush the authorization to invade Iraq. Obama opposed the war from the very beginning but he was not in the Senate to vote against the resolution. He has, in fact, admitted that had he been in the Senate, subject to the barrage of faked intelligence reports, he might have voted just like Hillary.

But this is the crux of the viciousness of the opposition to Hillary. The ultra left just cannot forgive her for having voted in favor of the resolution that gave Bush the authority to go into Iraq.

Even Lowell, however, has pointed out that she was not an outlier. She did not break party ranks to support Bush. Just the opposite. The list of Democrats, who, during those awful hours, voted for the resolution, was long and included many in the mainstream and progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It reflected their fear that if the administration's intelligence was correct, they could not afford to make a mistake that would harm the U.S.

Although they, and Hillary, turned out to be wrong and Obama and those of us who opposed the war from the beginning were right, it is important to at least recognize that they were fed lies, all of which were stamped "Top Secret." They were led to believe they knew things we didn't. And so, to them, it made their decision seem like a reasoned response to information the general public wasn't privy to. They were lied to.

But what is more important now is that both Obama and Hillary are in basic agreement about ending the conflict and bringing our troops home. To confirm this view, Samantha Powers, the Obama aide who was forced to resign after calling Hillary a monster, admitted, in the same interview, to the Scotsman, that Obama's pledge to begin withdrawing troops immediately and have them home within 16 months was only "a best case scenario."

So, just as Austan Goolsbee told the Canadian media that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was somewhat overblown for campaign purposes and shouldn't be taken too seriously by pro-NAFTA forces overseas, Powers was admitting in Scotland that his anti-Iraq rhetoric was frequently for the benefit of his supporters over here and also needn't be taken too seriously.

There's nothing so new and refreshing about those political tactics, lying to tell your supporters what they want to hear while telling others something different. Just like there is nothing new or refreshing about encouraging Republicans to register as Democrats just to beat one's opponent in the primary. In fact, those are the oldest dirty tricks in the book.

It's why I am pretty disillusioned with Obama and his supporters right now.

By the way, did I mention that I am now supporting Hillary Clinton for the duration? I am only sorry that all this came about after I voted for him in the Virginia Primary. If I can do a mea culpa for having been taken in, this is it.

Of course, should he be the ultimate winner, unlike his supporters - you know, the ones who keep accusing Hillary of destroying the Democratic Party, while they vow that if Obama loses they'd never vote for her - I will vote proudly for whoever wins, even Obama.

It's because I belong to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

30 comments:

Ed said...

Karen, I have to admit I don't follow your logic. It is not Barack Obama but rather his supporters that you are questioning. There are always questionable people on either side of the debate. Don't let that color your opinion of the combattants themselves. Decide based on what they have to say.

I myself have been fairly outraged by what Hillary has done and said. I said so in my first and only blog entry on my website:

http://edsforum.blogspot.com/

I would love to know what your thoughts are as I have heard little from true Hillary supporters (except my wife!)

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Ed, I went to your blog. It's good. Welcome to the blogosphere!

I pretty much answered you there. But I will repeat some of it again here.

First of all, I was an Obama supporter because I too fell for his soaring rhetoric about hope and change, which we all desperately need.

I still believe he is tremendously talented and would happily support him in the general election.

But Hillary is extremely qualified. Her positions on the issues are actually more progressive than his. On core Democratic values, she reflects them better than he does. He just speaks prettier. And he's more likable.

That old bugabear. Likability. It's defined by the media. They've played us - voter and blogger alike. And we bloggers originally started doing this precisely because we were tired of the mainstream media manipulating public opinion.

But we've proved we can be played and manipulated by an essentially mainstream, DLC free trade, moderate Democrat ourselves. And it's Obama, not Hillary I'm talking about.

It's not just his supporters, though they've done a fine job of alienating me. It's the candidate because ultimately, he has to take responsibility for what his campaign is doing and the message they are putting out.

The thing is, while he hasn't criticized Hillary and even makes it appear that there is hand wringing because he refuses to go negative, his surrogates have been out there dredging up some of the most vicious Republican smears recycled from the 1990s. They've done that all along.

I've given them a pass because, like you, I assumed that it was not Obama's fault that this stuff was being dredged up on the blogs.

But the Obama supporters have done more damage to the Democratic Party than Hillary or Bill ever had.

Believe me, I'll go into much more detail about it in the days to come - stay tuned.

But ultimately, I spoke out and switched sides because deliberately setting out to register Republicans to participate in a closed primary simply to defeat your opponent, and then telling them they can switch back to the Republican side in November is simply not acceptable to any real Democrat. And it should offend Republicans too.

It's slimy and dishonest.

Frankly, the people who concocted that can go follow Ralph Nader over the same cliff they plunged over with him when they caused Al Gore's defeat. Because that's who those supporters real are. And that's what they'll do again if they don't get their way, like children throwing a temper tantrum.

Ed said...

Karen,

I am so happy to hear a well-reasoned critical opinion from the Hillary camp. I respect what you say and will look to that as we move forward. That said, I still do believe that it is the words of the candidates themselves that belie their true motives and character.

To date, Clinton has not particularly ethical in my opinion. But, it was her comments regarding the commander-in-chief that woke me up. I have yet to hear words as derisive coming from Obama himself.

By the way, I agree that an Obama supporter suggesting what this gentleman was suggesting is unethical and deplorable. But I'd love your opinion on Rush Limbaugh asking Republicans to vote for Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas. Personally, I think it was a brilliant ploy and is not unethical as he represents the other side. Thoughts?

Terry said...

Karen,

I just had to write when I read this post...

I am on the ground here in Pittsburgh and I can tell you categorically that what you are describing as the reason for switching to Hillary IS NOT HAPPENING!!!

I personally have met both the Western Pa and the Pittsburgh head of the Obama campaign and am doing voter registration. There is NO discussion whatsoever about getting Republicans to change registration for the primary and then switching back...ain't happening. What we ARE focusing on is registering students turning 18 and other young people as well as registered Independents. You have to understand that the rules are different here in PA than they are in VA..Many registered Independents vote D all the time, they just don't like the label.
And, I have to remind you that there were many Dems who did not agree with Jim Webb as the Dem candidate for VA Senator in 2006 and who didn't want any help from his "Republican supporters." Geez, these people helped us win back the U.S. Senate.


Why are you basing this on the ramblings of someone on a blog? You know better my friend.

Ed said...

Karen, see my further comments also on my new blog as well.

http://edsforum.blogspot.com/2008/03/hillary-clinton-has-shown-she-lacks.html

I enjoy hearing your perspective and I would like to keep the discourse from being personal (words like "Naive"). I look forward to your responses.

Thanks.

Catzmaw said...

Alright, I'm confused. I could understand why you might conclude that Hillary would make a better candidate from your point of view with regard to health care and other issues, but I'm confounded as to why you would buy into the charge that Austan Goolsbee told the Canadian media that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was somewhat overblown for campaign purposes and shouldn't be taken too seriously by pro-NAFTA forces overseas... and that Powers was admitting in Scotland that his anti-Iraq rhetoric was frequently for the benefit of his supporters over here and also needn't be taken too seriously.

Here's what factcheck.org had to say in sum about the controversy:
It's now clear that a Canadian news report that started this flap wasn't accurate. No evidence has surfaced to show that any Obama "staffer" telephoned the Canadian ambassador in Washington, and all concerned deny that any such conversation took place. But it is equally clear that Obama's senior economic adviser did visit Canada's consulate in Chicago on Feb. 8, and that NAFTA was one of the several topics discussed.

Exactly what was said is not so clear, however. The memo says Obama's anti-NAFTA stance was described as just "political maneuvering," but the adviser says he said no such thing. The campaign says the adviser wasn't authorized to convey any message from the candidate anyway. No audio recording or verbatim transcript of the disputed conversation is available, and there's no reason to expect that any exist.
So far I'm wondering where's the evidence against the Obama campaign here? Seems pretty tenuous at best.

What about the Power situation? I'd be more impressed with it if we didn't have former general Keane saying virtually the same thing Power did, except with respect to Hillary. Where's the controversy here? Both Hillary and Obama are promising to bring the troops home as soon as possible, but I've been listening to Obama's speeches. He's used substantially the same language Jim Webb has used, talking about extricating ourselves "carefully" from Iraq. Ben Smith's blog on Politico says that neither Obama nor Clinton will be pinned down on a timetable. Again, what's the big deal? Either candidate would be a fool to be held to a timetable.

Then we have this invitation to Pennsylvania from some over-enthusiastic Obama supporter. I'd put money down on the author being under 23 years of age. The entire thing reads as the thoughtless prattlings of an inexperienced kid who has yet to develop the judgment and discernment to understand the implications of his/her public writing. Such is youth - but why is it Obama's fault?

More to the point, why is this a terrible thing to do, when you have the decidedly older, more experienced Wolfson comparing Obama to Ken Starr for saying Hillary needs to produce her financial records? Obama didn't start the trashing. Hillary is the one who started in with the "shame on you" drama and the manufactured outrage. My biggest disappointment with Obama isn't that she's accusing him of these things, but that he seems not to know how to respond.

There isn't a lot of difference between the positions of Obama and Clinton. There is, however, a substantial difference in style which I believe has a direct bearing on leadership ability and probable success. I used to admire Hillary's toughness, but I am put off by her scorched earth approach to Obama and her "my way or the highway" style of leadership. She seems waspish, mean-spirited, and decidedly unlikely to work effectively with those who may differ from her positions. She tries to bludgeon people into following her and responds to opposition with character assassination and slash and burn techniques.

My vote for Obama was not because I've developed Obamania, but because I've been concerned about Hillary's nastiness. She puts me off and I'm not a woman who's easily put off by other strong women. I'd be find with her if she were just a very strong-minded individual, but there's a lot which is negative about her. I would vote for her in November if she's the nominee, but it would be with far more trepidation than I already feel with Obama.

PWConservative said...

I Am a Republican and actually considered Obama after Huckabee lost, And then I woke up.
Hope is not a National Defense.

Anonymous said...

obama is a well skilled LIAR...

Now some of you are comming down from the intoxicating effects of his rhetoric.
Take some time.. clear your heads and it will be all right.

The obama hangover does not last too long if you can get away from the juice.

After it goes away you will no longer faint at his feet at the alter, you will no longer horde like cattle to hear him speak nothingness. You will realize the venum spewing from his mouth is racist and hateful in the most subtle of manners.

Glad you have awaken to see the true light. Nudge your friends, they need to sober up too.

This drunken infatuation has got to end before it tears this country apart.

The race card has been played, and will be played again and again, until it ruins all the hard work of the past 1/2 century, particularly the work of MLK.

I imagine that MLK would smile to see a black man running for president, listen to his speaches, and be devistated that his message could go so far astray of the well intended MLK.

Catzmaw said...

Anon, you speak in sweeping generalities. Perhaps you could be more specific? Or do you just prefer to trash people who happen to disagree with you about Obama?

Anonymous said...

Hi - The unfortunate part of this campaign is how upset we get over the supporters' comments/actions rather than at anything the candidates did or said themselves. I'll admit that I prefer Obama's style mostly because I'm really tired of all the bickering over the last 8 years. Yes it's style, but style of governance matters I think. And I think he's led a largely good to great campaign. I don't think he's the second coming or a saint or any such Obamamania nonsense. I hope that he continues to stay above the fray rather than give into what I see as the constant goading from the Clinton camp.

At any rate, in case it matters, I thought I'd point out that the original CTV scoop on "NAFTA-gate" mentioned that both camps contacted the Canadians and said similar things:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080306.NAFTA06/TPStory/National

Also, I've admired Samantha Power long before I'd ever heard of Obama. Mostly because of her work on Rwanda. Based on this clip, I think she's being genuine in her explanation that it was a heated campaign, she was caught up in the moment and she's not a politician. I've said worse in the past and bitten my tongue. I'm saddedned because it's really a loss, I think -- she would have been a great advisor on foreign policy issues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx1l0LnI7HU


-wcyee

spotter said...

Apparently you didn't get the memo, Catzmaw. You're not allowed to consider any of HIllary Clinton's many, many negatives. No, only her positives must be discussed. Meanwhile, Clintonites can sling all sorts of slime and trash, because they're just being tough. Even race-baiting, a major no-no for Democrats as long as I can remember, is okay if the Clintons are the ones who are doing it. We must accept their garbage, and march lock-step to the convention, or we, WE, will destroy the Democratic party. (Ironically, that is so even if our preferred candidate has more votes, delegates, money, support, etc.).

Disagree? Think we should expect better of Democrats? Think the Clintons should be held to a higher standard? Then you're unprincipled! Welcome to the ranks of HIllary Haters! You are simply not allowed to rationally point out the many sordid facts of the Clinton's public and private lives, and all the unknowns such as those missing tax returns Hillary is way too busy to produce. No, you're repeating "right-wing talking points."'

What this tortured logic is really all about is a political re-alignment that does not sit well with some Democratic party regulars. Obama recognized this in an interview awhile ago, and was predictably attacked by Clintonites. If you don't persuade independents and ex-Republicans to vote for your candidate, if you don't increase the numbers of Democrats, you will just repeat the losses of the last few years. So saying that ex-Republicans are anathema is just nonsense. (About 18,000 people showed up for Obama in red, red Virginia Beach a few weeks ago. Think they were all Democrats?) Trying to suppress truthful information (on a blog, of all places) on supposedly principled but in fact quite selective grounds will ultimately prove futile. Trying to suppress votes, a key strategy of the Clinton campaign, may allow these cynics to cling to power a little longer, but at what price?

For some reason, some people just can't stomach a genuine groundswell of enthusiasm for a true grassroots candidate. Why? The reasons are many, but they really don't matter. The voters have taken over, and in the long run, in a democracy, the majority wins.

hugo said...

Hi, Karen,

Obama hasn't been attacking Hillary, even though Hillary has been baiting him for a while now.

Others have pointed out already the many dirty tactics that Hillary has engaged in, so I won't repeat them. But please keep them in mind.


You are absolutely correct to be angered by the letter that is asking Republicans to vote in the Democratic Primary. This is not acceptable.

However, as catzmaw said, this is the work on a young, inexperience supporter.

In Obama listserves I and other older people are constantly toning down reckless plans that inexperience supporters cook up.

We need more people like you to be around to lead these young, misguided supporters :)

I ask you to please reconsider your position.

Of course, I will respect whatever position you make. Greetings :)

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

First of all, Terry and Catzmaw, I respect you both a great deal. That goes for most of the commenters here. I also respect your right to disagree with my decision and I'm sorry if it upsets you all. I suspect, though, that regardless of the outcome of this race, we will be on the same side in November.

The author of that offensive diary on Raising Kaine, however, is not an inexperienced 23 year old as you hoped, Catzmaw and others who suggested that.

Quite the contrary, she is a sophisticated and experienced adult who has worked on many campaigns and should know better. This is not the first time, however, that I've publicly disapproved of her tactics.

The only other person I'm going to answer directly is Spotter, a friend of that same person.

Come off your damned high horse. Nobody has spewed more vile and negative remarks than you have about the Clintons.

Earth to Obama cultists, defending yourself and running a campaign, as Hillary has done, is not a stunning betrayal of political ethics.

Every time an Obama surrogate makes a nasty remark about Hillary, it's ok. And it's always pointed out that it wasn't Obama who did it. So, he gets surrogates to do his dirty work. Big deal!

Every time Hillary points out a negative about Obama, even if it's true, she's accused of being negative, unscrupulous and unethical.

It doesn't work that way. That is what's known as a double standard.

I have all the respect in the world for Obama and would vote for him in a general election. And I do not think it is negative or unethical for him or for Hillary to point out the other's weaknesses or to tout their own positives. That is exactly why we have campaigns.

I'm damned tired of Obama cultists thinking this aspect of campaigning is horribly unfair to their candidate. It's not unfair to either of them. The same comment applies to both: If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen now because it will only get hotter in the general election.

Furthermore, several of my most vociferous critics in this comment section, like Spotter, have refused to make the same commitment that I have to support the winner if it's not their candidate. So excuse me if I yawn about their outrage now.

And btw, this is not a realignment of the Democratic Party as some claim. Not even close. This is a fight between two centrists over who is more electable.

And a bunch of wildly enthusiastic Obama supporters running on emotion rather than logic to back them up are turning it into a toxic fight of the century. But they can't name one substantive difference between Hillary and Obama other than personality.

Excuse me if I "tip my hat to the new revolution, pick up my guitar and play, and hope we don't get fooled again."

Anonymous said...

Karen,

OMG I just had to delete the line "I feel your pain" because I don't want to channel Bill Clinton if I can possibly help it. But I understand and empathize with your feeling. It's disturbing to me, as someone who has been a thoughtful, pragmatic Obama supporter since Warner dropped out in 2006, to read the witness some of the johnny-come-lately koolaide drinkers who think politics is more about rhetoric and youtube music videos and "memes" and less about, like, organizing and getting stuff done? It bothers me that I reached a concurrent opinion with some of these people. What is the virtue of trying to be a rational voter if you can reach the same conclusions as a passionated nitwit?

I frankly skipped over most of the folks who commented here because I had a feeling I was going to continue to feel a little bit sickened if I allowed myself to participate in their conversation. I haven't read anything Spotter has written in its entirity since around the 15th of January, and I'm a happier man for it. This comment is not meant as participation in a dialogue.

Instead, I wanted to write to you and give you my suggestion for how I deal with these people: I go and read Tim Kaine's endorsement. Like myself, Governor Kaine's a very-early adopter of Barack Obama's candidacy, and he's a super-clever politician who knows what it takes to win decisively in a battleground state like Virginia, which is not something you can say about a lot of folks. Many of Obama's most outspoken supporters unfortunately serve to remind me of the worst reasons to support Obama, but Gov. Kaine never fails to remind me of the best reasons to support him.

Karen, I hope you'll please continue to stick with me, with Gov. Kaine, and with Barack Obama.

Silence Dogood said...

ps, I should clarify since I hit the wrong radio button at the bottom and since I did actually criticize someone directly that the previous post was made by Silence Dogood.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Thank you SD. I am actually now being lobbied (I've gotten about three phone calls and an email) by both sides.

The truth is, I am astounded by how much it seems to matter to folks what I think right now. After all, Virginia already held its primary. And I'm not a super delegate.

Also, as far as I know, my blog has only one reader from Pittsburg, and I already know she's for Obama.

And I certainly plan to vote for which ever Democrat wins the nomination. That was never in question.

Truth be told, I'm debating not writing about the presidential primaries again because I viscerally dislike the bloodletting going on on both sides now.

Perhaps it's time for those of us who have already had our primaries to switch our attention to the Republican opponent rather than bloodying our own candidates for the general election.

Silence Dogood said...

Karen,

The idea behind the final two paragraphs in your reply is a good one. I'm not surprised to see the number of people who seem to want to "lobby" you because, frankly, bloggers tend to be a fairly self-important lot (present company excluded). Another blogger who gives you a call to rally your personal enthusiasm isn't necessarily trying to act like your support is of super-delegate importance, it simply makes them feel important, too.

See this is why I hate primaries, towards the end I'm always a little bit more cynical about people than I was before.

Anyway, you're going to support whatever Democrat wins, and good for you, that's all we can ask. I'm not appealing to you as a voter or a blogger or for any sort of faux-political reasons. I'm appealing to you as a sane person. I hope you'll remain an Obama supporter for no other reason than that I don't want to be left alone with the crazies. I can't be the only person around to tell them to stop acting crazy--they're going to stop listening to me if I'm the only deflating their self-important delusions of grandeur.

And on the other edge of the blade, there's the risk that if there's not a large, visible non-crazy segment of Obama supporters, people are going to start assuming that I'm fruitloops and cukoo for cocoa puffs, too. And that's simply unacceptable to me. I refuse to be branded as crazy by association. I like Obama but I hate cults and I need someone to hang out with while the rest of the crowd is off getting their matching "Yes We Can!" tatoos(metaphorically speaking).

Ed said...

I imagine most of you on this blog are Democrats from the overall tone of the debate. I am not a Democrat and can say rather objectively how I see the candidates both on character and positioning.

First and foremost, irrespective of who is whining about fairness -- Obama supporters or Hillary supporters -- the overall result of any of the attacks by candidates, surrogates, and supporters is a lessening appeal of the eventual Democratic candidate.

Forget about who attacked whom and why that makes this candidate or that candidate a bad person. As many of you are Democrats, you should agree that the goal here in the nominating process is not only to nominate the best president for the country and the democratic party but also to do so in a way that enhances that candidate's ability to win a general election and to further the party.

From where I sit, Hillary Clinton was initially in the catbird seat and I certainly would have voted for her in the primaries and in the general election. However, she has really gone off the rails since. My view is that Obama is now better positioned to do all of the above.

The two candidates are very similar on the issues. Here are a few important places where they differ in my opinion.

1. Obama has really used the 50-state strategy quite effectively. I think Howard Dean's adoption of the 50 state strategy (with significant opposition from the Clintons)has been very helpful to the party. Basically, the goal there is to stop Democrats from ceding states and districts to the Republicans as 'unwinnable' and to build a solid Democratic base everywhere. Obama has adopted this strategy to good effect and has succeeded in making inroads into States that have been dominated by the Republicans. Take a look at surveyusa.com for a look at the electoral map and states that are up for grabs. This now includes Ohio, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, New Mexico, Arkansas and on. Clinton's Big State strategy is not as competitive.

2. There is invariably the coattails phenomenon whereby congresspeople and Senators can ride the wave of support for the Presidential Ticket. Witness how successful Bill Foster (D-IL) was in picking up Dennis Hastert's old seat in the 14th district of Illinois after significant support from Obama. Word on the street is that many Western representatives, in particular, are keen to ride the coattails of their Presidential nominee. Again, Clinton's focus on the big states has alienated this constituency. I have heard this may make a difference to many western state superdelegates when it comes time to strike their allegiances.

3. Then there's character. Clinton has very high negatives. Her negatives are as high as 48%. Not only is this bad because the Republican base will be more energized against her nomination, but it will now factor into independent, young and black voters assessments. I say this because the mudslinging has turned me off to Clinton. From where I sit, the mudslinging began in earnest only when Senator Clinton realized she may lose the nomination. At that time her campaign said point blank they were going to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama. The high negatives she has now seem substantiated to me for the first time since I saw her on the national stage in 1992. I imagine that the voters who have turned out en masse during the primaries because of their desire for change will be discouraged if she is the Democratic nominee, as a result. Who are these groups: Crossover Republicans, Independents, Blacks and Younger voters. The younger voters (future voters of America) are the most important group strategically in the future.

I will quit there but the message I am sending is clear. Many people like myself will either vote for McCain or not vote at all if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. The reason is that she has run a polarizing campaign focused only on the big states and has, from my vantage point, been the biggest contributor to a negative primary campaign when high turnout signals a desire for change away from the politics of the past 20-25 years.


Your comments, pro or con, are appreciated.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Silence Dogood, that's the wittiest post; thanks for making me laugh. It's a rare gift to be able to poke fun at life's absurdities.

Actually, I'm pretty relieved not to have to get the tattoo as I've always been afraid of needles :)

The Obama supporters, however, aren't all crazy. Ed makes some excellent points. So do Catzmaw, Lowell (on RK), Terry, Hugo, and many others.

Why don't I put a moratorium on writing about the presidential campaign, since the race is already over in Virginia anyway? Then we can all work together in November.

Ed, I hope you do stay around on our side because I think either Hillary or Obama have a better vision of where to take America than John McCain does.

He's a war hero, whom I respect for his sacrifices; but I think he's ill equipped to deal with the severe economic problems coming at us. And either Obama or Hillary will be strong and knowledgeable on defense.

Even there, I think that McCain is wrong on Iraq. He's not the change we need. He represents another Bush term and more of the same.

Ed said...

Karen,

I am reluctant to go with the Republicans. Everyone must remember that if a democrat isn't in the White House, it will mean more right wing Supreme Court appointees, more bloodshed in Iraq and more fiscal shenanigans.

The Supreme court issue is a big deal. The court is already stacked with right wingers. Another Republican is likely to make it that much worse.

By the way, Silence Dogood, that's a good post. For those Obama fans that can take a good joke, here is the SNL skit from Saturday. I thought it was hilarious.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=82L6ljQXq58

vjp said...

Sorry to be late to the party. Karen - you have done a great job explaining why you made your choice. As one of the few Hillary supporters in the blogosphere, I'm glad that you have chosen to support her.

SD - I happen to know you're not one of the ones who is "fruitloops and cukoo for cocoa puffs" - great line!

Crystal Clear Conservative said...

AIAW,

I can't wait for Hillary, because it will be interesting to see how she does against McCain. Polls show McCain leading both candidates.

However, it makes me sick when you have a candidate who has the party label recruiting other parties to register and then telling them to switch back after the election. Whatever happened to party unity? This also applies to the Republicans as well.

Good introspective about your switch.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Vivian, thank you. You have always been one of the most principled bloggers in Virginia. Glad to be on the same side.

Crystal Clear, I agree with you. In fairness, the letter suggesting that Republicans switch over for one day actually didn't come from the official Obama camp.

It appears to have been the work of one Virginia Beach Democrat, who I linked to on Raising Kaine.

But it was enough to make me realize that I simply couldn't defend antics like that. They are unprincipled. And it was as insulting to Republicans as to Democrats.

Like you, I believe in party unity and integrity.

Anonymous said...

It's just laughable to think that someone would switch to supporting Clinton over Obama because of an ethical issue. Clinton has rolled in the mud, personally and via her representatives, so many times this election season that filth will never wash off. Support Clinton for her policies if you choose, but to act as though she has some higher moral ground to stand on -- that's just funny.

LAS said...

AIAW, I wonder if you would care to comment on the latest comments by Ferraro and reaction from the Clinton campaign?

Right now I am feeling so disheartened that I just want to crawl under the covers and wake up sometime after November 4th. What happened to "appealing to the best in us? What happened to "voting your hopes and not your fears?"

For the Clinton campaign (by proxy) to imply that Obama is unqualified because he's a black man who got some sort of special treatment is beyond reprehensible. Yes, I get that she's trying to appeal to working-class whites in Pennsylvania. But when we say 'anything to win" did we really mean ANYTHING?

BTW, first lady and Senator Hillary Clinton, I feel nepotism rear it's ugly head. This truly is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

LAS, I already did comment. I condemned it immediately on RK. I won't go back and try to find that comment. But I also did a post here about it

http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com/2008/03/geraldine-ferraro-must-exit-clinton.html

It's above this one.

Ian Jordan said...

How ridiculous, AIAW. Those Obama supporters probably were not correct in advocating for using such tactics. But hardly does it reflect on the candidate himself. I seriously doubt Barack himself condones any types of these tactics. Not to mention the numerous 'dirty' tricks Hillary has used to try and win. Besides, you should not make your decisions based on some third party's actions but about the candidates and the issues. That kind of clarity led you to Obama in the first place.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

You see, Ian, Obama supporters keep telling me I shouldn't make my decisions based on what his supporters say or do. But if one of Hillary's supporters does something objectionable, they always blame her, even after that objectionable person leaves the campaign.

Nope, you can't have it both ways.

Sure I can make my decision based on the action of supporters if the tactic isn't strongly, firmly disavowed.

Further, if I based my decision on where both candidates stand, I'd remain neutral because on the issues, they are pretty much the same.

The truth is I wanted very much to make Obama's supporters angry. They need a wake up call.

I simply said out loud something that other Democrats, not just Hillary loyalists, have been too afraid to say.

Some of these people are tearing the party apart, offending loyal Democrats, and they are incredibly insulting to anybody who doesn't agree with them.

Yes, the action of supporters who claim they would not vote for the winner offends people and causes blowback. When I supported Obama, I begged them to just shut up and concentrate on the positive.

You can't say your candidate is positive, transformative, inspiring, and the symbol of a new dawn in politics when you yourself are throwing a kitchen sinkful of vitriol at your opponent.

Don't expect a pass when your double standard shows up.

Right now, it's all about his supporters and actions that don't match reality.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AnonymousIsAWoman said...

You know, I can actually delete comments in a way that ensures that they disappear without a trace. They can vanish forever without the little notice that the post was removed by the blog administrator, who would be me.

But I choose to let readers know that I deleted it and to give my reason.

This post was deleted because of the use of foul language.

Equally important, it was deleted because the comment was racist, untrue, and anti-Muslim.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim to start with. He is a Christian.

But the writer of the post not only tried to falsely link Obama to Islam but was also derogatory toward Muslims and even Mormons.

I don't believe in censorship, which is the government knocking on your door and arresting you for what you've written or said. In fact, I don't believe in the government in any way preventing anybody from exercising their right to freedom of expression.

But I also believe in editorial responsibility. So, on my blog, you just can't use X-rated language and make racist statements. Nor can you insult other people's religions. That's why this post got deleted.

Now you know the rules of the house.