posted April 14 2008 11:09 PM
I lived in Pittsburgh for many years and Latrobe Pennsylvania for years and passed through many more factory towns in in PA. (And also in Michigan!) When I lived there it was almost a nightly thing to turn on the local news and hear of a factory closing --no exaggeration. What Obama said is just plain true. When the factory closes that the whole town survived on, 'some' people did get bitter and turn towards darker things. I saw it happen. It sickens me to watch McCain and others milk this for all its worth when they know there's truth in it. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. I've been a Hillary supporter so far but this political circus over the bitter remark is making me wonder. If you doubt, I suggest you drive through a dead factory town, as I have more times than I could ever count.
Her branding Obama as elitist was the last straw for me. She has accomplished what years of Republican propoganda could not. She officially disgusts me.
She knows what plays in Pennsylvania. They don't like 'elitist' Dems in Pennsylvania (John Kerry? Forgeddaboutit.) She's running out of cards to play, so she played this one.
The problem is that she is approaching Pyrrhic victory status very quickly. She should win Pa. -- if she doesn't, it's probably time to hang up the campaign, period -- but she knows that to have any prayer, she really needs a resounding victory. The Dems divvy up their delegates proportionally by congressional district, though, so she could win big in the western part of the state and even score a double-digit win in the popular vote...and still pick up a small handful of delegates more than Obama in the state.
I'd also advise Dems to come up with a better attack line against McCain than "the third term of the Bush presidency." That dog don't hunt. I'd press him on his age (he'd be the oldest incoming president ever), his business-loving economic philosophies at a time when most people are hurting but rich people keep getting richer, and his Iraq war support, particularly if things keep getting uglier there.
Hate to admit it but after my experience with the Obama campaign, I will sit this one out if (when?) he gets the nomination. As much as I'd love to support him, I just can't.
I feel the same about Hillary. Nobody could pay me enough money to vote for her.
If she runs for the Dems, I will vote Green or Libertarian or Socialist if I can find a candidate I believe in. Otherwise, I'm writing in "none of the above."
Calvin, seriously?? As much as I can't stand HRC, I will vote for her and persuade others to if she gets the nomination. You would rather let McCain have it? I find that impossible to believe.
I have to add one thing about both campaigns, you can feel whatever you want about what was said but make no mistake -- they were both pandering. True or not, and I am sure what Obama said is true, he said it to a group of rich, liberal San Franciscans who think that about blue collar workers everywhere, that they do turn to God and guns when times get tough. Honestly, I am not sure looking to God is such a bad thing (what is it -- no athiests in a foxhole?). All of this misses the point that he was doing exacting what Hillary did when she responded; he was tailoring his message to his audience.
As for HRC, Phaedrus is right. The last thing people in that area like is 'elitists' and she was doing what she had to do.
To tell you the truth, they have both smeared each other to the point where I really don't want to vote for either of them. This political infighting is not doing the dems any good at all. Whichever one gets the nomination, they are going to have to hump to get the people who supported the other to vote for them.
Yeah. I'd say at this point it'd be nearly impossible for either of them to win this. It's too bad, but I've really started paying a lot more attention to the Congressional and other downballot races at this point. Just sucks how many will probably have to pay the price when the Presidential candidate goes down in flames, and there are no appreciable coattails to ride.
(p.s. I won't vote for Obama either. But my vote also won't matter, for the opposite reason: I live in a state that never in ten million years will elect him.)
This may come off cruel (and I apologize in advance if it does, because over he past 15+ years I've come to respect both of you very much), but based on your posts, I honestly think you may be in the wrong line of work. Party politics must be about winning elections. To do that, individual candidates must make sacrifices when the larger mission (and simple pragmatism) requires it. Republicans always seem to know that. I'm stunned that so many professional Democrats don't seem to understand the concept. Over these past 7 years the Republicans have ruined the economy, ruined the military, ruined our foreign policy, and ruined our civil service. The ONLY objective should be to elect a Democrat this November. Does it really matter who it is! Really?
Like M&M, I have grown to detest Hillary Clinton over these past few months. I think she is selfish beyond words. In addition I've come to recognize her as an elitist and sadly as a liar. It will sicken me if she walks away from the convention with the nomination ... for about a day ... and then I will work my ass off to help her beat John McCain, because I believe I owe it to my children to ensure that this country does not ratify the criminal conduct of the current administration by electing another Republican. To me, it's that important. Why the hell don't the two of you feel the same way?
Skyline, as an citizen of no registered party, I find what you write to be the absolute embodiment of all that is wrong in our current two party system. It's not enough to simply not be Republican. This is what got us here. It's what allows the Republicans to get away with letting their nut cases run their party.
To be honest, if the Democratic party can not get it's shit together enough to beat John McCain, it deserves to be torn to it's foundations.
Sky, my experience with Obama supporters has been that the mildest of criticisms applied to their guy, much less terms such as those you used ("selfish," "slimy"), causes them to become unglued and start in with incredibly heavy-handed personal attacks. So I'd appreciate it if you could cut back on the rhetoric if you want to discuss this with me personally, anyway.
I have a lot of reasons I won't vote for him, none of which I'll go into here - mostly because I don't trust Obama supporters not to become hysterical, frankly - but mostly because it really sucks when you discover that not only can you not trust the Republican Party to be truthful, play fair, etc., but you can't trust your own.
And as far as my line of work? I don't think that's any of your business.
posted April 26 2008 05:32 PM
Sky: Wrong line of work? Probably. I am so burned out on the process and had the worst campaign experience of my life with the Obama people. I know it is petty. I have known Senator Clinton for years and am not her biggest fan either. The Obama thing just pushed me over the edge. I had met him and liked him (a lot) so the realization that his campaign is made up of assholes (not uncommon) hit me harder than I expected. All things considered I should love him and would like to but (again I know this is petty) they really hurt some people I care about and at this point that somehow trumps other things that are more important. Keep in mind, I live in WDC. My state will go for whatever Dem is the nominee so my vote won't matter but I cannot vote for Obama.
The irony is I have spent most of my career telling people exactly what you said, that minor problems mean less than the greater good and no one is perfect. Maybe I just need a break. I wish I could just find someone I really believe in who is also electable.
posted May 03 2008 03:03 PM
I think there are more people than it seems supporting a candidate but willing to vote for either. Honestly, I don't think this protracted primary is doing anyone any good. I'd settle for a coin toss at this point.
I'm with Badbill. If the Dems can't win the presidency after the astonishingly long list of corruption scandals and mismanagement by the GOP in the last 7 or so years then they DO need to be kicked out of American politics.
Last night was pretty exciting. I tried to stay up to hear the Indiana results, but it was still around 80 percent (with the Gary, IN area not yet counted) and 54-48 or so, when I went to bed. The first thing I did when I woke up was jump onto TPM to look at the final percentages. Wow-- two points is crazy.
There are some recent polls indicating that the Hillary supporters are really ticked off and will not vote for Obama, if given the nomination. November is a long way away still, so I hope we can find a way to unite the party before then. I'm optimistic. Maybe part of it is that the Dems (and the press) haven't gone fully after McCain. There's a hell of a lot of scary shit that would come with a McCain presidency.
People need to really sit down and think about a McCain presidency. It would be crazy not to support the democratic candidate. Even if it's a lesser of two evil vote, we could do a hell of a lot worse than Obama.
I'm curious about something. First, what lessons do you believe the Democrats should have taken away from Al Gore's anemic 2000 campaign, and John Kerry's tragic campaign in 2004? Second, how do you believe that Hillary Clinton's current campaign is advancing these lessons?
I think that how you answer these questions may help me understand where you're coming from.
Skyline: What lessons is did the Hillary campaign learn from 2000/2004? Zero. Do you really think she and her advisors think they need to learn anything? If they had they would have looked at other races earlier and had a stragegy that went beyond March 5th.
And I have changed my mind, earlier than I expected but I think I knew it was bound to happen. I just cannot NOT vote. My vote won't change anything but I will vote for Obama. And I second Badbill's comment, if we can't win this one we need to clean our workstations and go home. We need to make it work.
Wish I had your enthusiasm, Calvin, but I just don't. I still won't vote for him. Not after having been called a "cheater" for supporting Hillary by an official representative of the DNC over the weekend. Just before she advocated stealing delegates from Hillary to award Obama, based on some twisted logic about people who didn't vote.
Frankly, I expect this behavior out of the Republicans. But to see it from Democrats has nearly broken my heart.
Before everyone piles on, seriously, listen to this: I don't think it matters who I vote for, because I am 100% convinced Obama can't win. In addition to the fact that many polls bear out this reality, I live in a state which is one of three that have gone with the winner in every election since 1960 (the others are Missouri and Ohio). I'm surrounded by people utterly mystified as to why Obama would trash President Clinton, who's still very popular here. They don't understand why he seems to insist on insulting them (the "bitter" remark). Being called racist continually by Obama supporters isn't helpful. And the blind loyalty to Obama displayed by many of his supporters when asked even basic questions as to his qualifications seals the deal.
In contrast, many folks remember Clinton 1 with fondness (Clinton/Gore won here twice), and they seem to believe Hillary cares about issues important to them like jobs and health care. What many folks see as craven opportunism from her, they are willing to overlook. It isn't as much about principle as the fact that people out here are really hurting from the jobless rate, the $4 a gallon gas, etc., and she speaks to them in a language they seem to understand.
I realize most of you are Obama supporters and your day to day experiences are very different from mine. On this, we may have to agree to disagree. In fact, this story isn't yet over.
Here's hoping the Democratic Party isn't either, despite many outward appearances over the past few years.
posted June 02 2008 02:07 PM
Hopefully, people who are bitter about Hillary will remember that the next President will likely choose three seats on the Supreme Court, and will overcome any bad feelings about the bitter primary battle and realize that there's more at stake than just hurt feelings.
That said, I understand the sentiment completely. I was feeling a little anxious at the prospect of having to pull the lever for Hillary if it came to it.
posted June 03 2008 11:50 AM
I'm pretty leery of the argument that Obama isn't able to win. I suspect that if a person is racist enough not to be willing to vote for a black man, than they're probably unlikely to vote for a woman either.
I can't imagine any good democrat would be willing to either stay home, or worse yet, vote for McCain just out of spite. Those sorts of people will make the Nader voters of 2000 look like saints.
Note to DSF: Millions of Hillary supporters consider this matter to have quite a bit more impact than the phrase "hurt feelings" would imply. Also, if you really think that white Hillary supporters who won't vote for Obama are all racists? I don't think there's much I could convey to you as to how much this attitude in particular will hurt Obama among a few different segments of the electorate.
(Actually, it shocks the hell out of me whenever I read this theory, and this certainly isn't the first time I've seen it. I just have to wonder how in the world Dems ever hope to win anything like a consensus again, because it seems to me that various factions of us live on different planets sometimes.)
Frankly, I don't think it makes me a bad Democrat at all to write in Hillary, regardless of what happens with the nomination. I've already been chastised by other Obamites and told to put the party before the candidate.
Actually, I think what I'm doing is putting the country before the Party. If we lose the concept of fairness in voting, we lose EVERYTHING else. Including the Supreme Court or whatever other issue people want to put forward.
(I have a few other thoughts, to do with racism and how I think the race will play out, but at this point I'm fairly convinced the only thing that will change the attitudes of many on the Obama team is letting the process unfold. Particularly since many Obama supporters on other boards have let me know - quite clearly - that any opinion I have is automatically suspect, by virtue of my support for Hillary.)
I actually never said that all Hillary supporters were racist. But I have heard that many people seem to think that Obama can't win because there are too many people who will refuse to vote for a black man. These are the people I was referring to.
Look, the truth is that both Hillary and Obama have their weaknesses. If one candidate were obviously better than the other, we wouldn't be standing so far down the Primary road, waiting to see what the Puerto Ricans (for Pete's sake) think.
I just can't believe that people who call themselves liberals or progressives would choose to either actively or passively allow McCain to have the chance to put 3 more conservatives into the Supreme Court.
After 8 years of Bush, and all of the bullshit he's done, to allow another Republican -- maverick or no -- in there for another four years is unconscionable.
This has been a fascinating week to watch unfold. I basically find there are two types of Clinton supporters: 1)The true believers, who are deeply disappointed and have a lot to be proud of, and 2)Various Washington/political mountebanks who were with her for career reasons.
She had a lot of those people working for her, which is typical of any presumed front-runner going into the campaign season. A lot of them now are on the outside looking in. Hard cheese, folks. No Cabinet position for you!
The next step for those people is to do the usual complaining about What Would Have Happened If Only She'd Listened To Me. But I believe there was not much at all wrong with Clinton's campaign strategy. It's just that once every few decades, this big ol' truck comes along and steamrolls everything in the political world. She got hit by that truck. It could have happened to anyone.
I'd also point out that, if Obama loses the general election, she's gonna get another shot -- and who stands in her way? Of course, four years is a long time (how many people had heard of Obama four years ago?), but it's also another four years to stop the complaints that, between the Bushes and Clintons, the White House was starting to look a little too royal-family-ish.
I personally wouldn't wish the presidency on my worst enemy these days anyway. Anyone who gets in that office and attempts to establish any sense of fiscal reality is going to face some bruising times.
Not everyone has such fond memories of the Clintons. I remember posting on this board that I was planning on voting for Nader in 1996 and got many of the same arguments levied against Peanut now (some actually from Peanut herself). So, I do support people's choice to vote or not vote for the nominee.
This whole thing is weird to me. I'm an issue-driven voter. I don't sit and watch the speeches on you tube, and prefer to read about potential policies. So, I would have happily voted for Hillary in the general, because she and Obama really aren't all that much different policy-wise.
This board is a little odd just now. I think there are arguments that can be made about the primary on both sides, and many of them come to mind when I read the posts here. But I've been friends with you guys for a lot of years and I'm not going to hurt already hurt feelings by making them. It feels a little stifling.
I thought Hillary Clinton's concession speak this afternoon was classy and hit all the right notes. I don't really believe Obama will select her to run as his VP, but I think she has taken a solid first step in her attempt to heal the party and preserve her reputation and possibly her long-term career in the process.
Peanut, I hope that someday you will look back at the words you've written here with the same sense of concern that I had reading them this week.
Seriously, I'm pretty sure than nobody on Crunchland is racist, but I've heard some very derogatory statements over the past few months. People who work on a candidate's campaign need to understand that they speak for their candidate and that their behavior reflects on the person they are trying to get elected. Some of Clinton's volunteers needed to be taken aside, given the "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" speech, brought by the scruff of their necks to apologize, and been delegated to stuffing envelopes until after the election.
posted June 08 2008 11:02 AM
Wow. I am not sure where I fit in here but I do know that if Hillary Clinton had listened to me we would not be having this kind of conersation. That is mostly because Hillary would not have run for the Senate or the White House. My support was not from my very fond memories of Bill's eight years in office, though I think he was a great president. Nor was it because I felt strongly about Hillary because my heart was never really with her 100 percent. My mother was a die hard Hillary person and there was part of me that wanted a woman president but it always felt like a 'lesser of two evils' kind of thing that anything else and was based purely on my personal experiences. That cannot be the best way to pick a president. So then it also comes down to the devils I know well and really well and experience/age vs. youth/raw talent. And if you think this has you confused you can start to imagine how I feel. Barack Obama came very close to winning me over last year and his personal magnetism reminded me more of Bill Clinton than Hillary ever could.
But we play the hand we're dealt not the one we want and I think we all really know how a McCain presidency would go. He's no maverick and while he is the devil we know, we need only look at the past seven years to see just how well we know him. He may not be a carbon copy of Dubya but we don't need a kindler, greener Dubya either.
DSF: Thank you for posting the very interesting articles about the campaign. I feel like this will get me into trouble but one major problem with the Clinton campaign was they confused their idea of whaty loyalty is with experience. If someone worked, even if it was just for a short time, for anyone else, they were blackballed from the HRC campaign. Now the people directly impacted by this were her supporters but it shows a level of stupidity that hurt her. And it was a step that I have never seen in a primary before. In 2004, a number of Kerry's key people had come from other campaigns. Generally that happens a lot during a primary. I think HRC's core people thought if they could control this, they would wrap up the primary season earlier. Maybe that is too much inside baseball but it has been on my mind for a long time and I needed to get it out.
quote:***An instant classic -- The N.Y. Times’ Mark Leibovich dishes up “Political Memo: Those Loyal to the Clintons Take Note of Who Was Not,” reporting that “Doug Band, chief gatekeeper to former President Bill Clinton … keeps close track of the past allies and beneficiaries of the Clintons who supported Mr. Obama’s campaign … ‘The Clintons get hundreds of requests for favors every week,’ said Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. ‘Clearly, the people you’re going to do stuff for in the future are the people who have been there for you.’ …
One final thought to add, my reality is leading my reality. I wrote that I thought Senator Obama will get my vote but my heart wasn't there and presto, it's there!
Well, you can't hardly blame them for being a little vindictive. If I had the presidency in my grasp 8 months ago, only to have it slip out of my fingers like so many grains of sand, I'd probably be blaming everyone else but myself right now.
posted April 14 2008 11:09 PM
