An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes, Finally)

by Angry Mouse, Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:58:51 PM EST

(Note:  This was originally posted at DailyKos earlier today.  The responses were overwhelming, and overwhelmingly positive.  And thoughtful, in unexpected ways.  I've been asked to share it with the MyDD community, so here it is.)

Okay.

I'm ready.

I'm not taking the Hillary sticker off my car.  Not until she's officially out (and even then, you know, fuck it, I just might leave it there.  'Cause I'm still damned proud of the day I went to my caucus and voted for Hillary Clinton for president.)

But I'm ready to say it.  I'm ready to go there.  

I'm ready to vote for Obama.

Yesterday started like any regular day.  Democracy Now! in the morning.  (I found that show very shortly after 9/11, and it was the relief I needed from the drumbeats for war.  I have not stopped listening since.)

Then I shuffled down the hall to my office, since I work at home, and in between working, and playing with my cats (typical blogger, of course), I read the news, the blogs, more news, more blogs, blogs, blogs...

And then I read this great diary by Deoliver47.

I highly recommend it.

Deoliver47 wanted to know Does the D in MyDD stand for Dixiecrat?

And this simple question -- which was not even really the subject of the diary, as the diary addressed, very eloquently, matters of race and the history of the Dixiecrats -- was the moment things started to change for me.

Because it was the first time that I saw myself, an HRC supporter, through the eyes of the Obama supporters.

In the comments there followed a discussion of MyDD and other seemingly pro-Hillary sites.  And the "civil war" between the different 'bots.  (And no, I do not condone name-calling from either side.)

There was a lot of blustering.  But there were a lot of questions, real questions.  You really didn't understand us.  But a lot of you wanted to try to understand.  And better yet, to try to reach out.  

And so I saw comments like this:

Here at DKos, it seems to me that I see a renewed effort to keep the discourse on point.

And this:

I started to delete it before i posted it but i had the whole righteous indignation thing going ... sometimes we get emotional and can't let go... even if it would be for our own good.

And this:

I find myself heading over every day or so to see what's being said. I'll often substitute the word "Obama" for "Hillary" in a diary as a way to hold up a mirror to my own thoughts. Could that be me saying those things if my candidate was losing? ...if I felt backed into a corner?...if I thought the dream was slipping away and I had no power to stop it from happening?

And this:

Have I been guilty of doing what I deplore in the other side?  I've been angry enough...

And this:

I won't excuse the behavior and statements made on MyDD, but the hardcore Obama supporters on DKos can be just as bad.  I used to wonder how Republicans could be so blinded by party loyalty that they could still support Bush after all he's done, but the Obama hero worship around here has convinced me that it could easily happen for Democrats as well.  

And this:

I have been stunned with what I have read over there.

And so I tried to explain myself.  I do not dare to speak for other HRC supporters; I certainly do not want to be lumped in with the worst ones.  But I responded:

This HRC supporter isn't hiding.

First, thank you for your diary.

Second, let me try to answer the question posed about what is going on with MyDD (et al.)

The vitriol against HRC on this site -- and others -- has steadily increased for quite some time.  It's been difficult to have reasonable conversations about the candidates without it rapidly turning into flame wars.

Then there was Alegre's "strike", and a lot of Obama supporters took delight in that.  A comment in defense of HRC was often met with snide remarks like "Aren't you supposed to be striking?" and "Scab!"

Tempers are high all around.  I think a lot of the anti-Obama attitude is more about responding to Obama supporters than to Obama himself.  

It's the meta about the meta about the meta...and it's all pretty stupid.

There are some non-strikers.  I am among them.  But then, I've also come to accept that Obama will be the nominee.  I may not be happy about it, but I'm not going to reject reality just because it's not my first choice.

But I also understand the frustration of my fellow HRC supporters.  They are ridiculed, teased, insulted, chased away...And what might have started as genuine admiration for their preferred candidate has now turned into pure stubborness.  

They don't want to concede to you, the pro-Obama blogosphere.  That's sad, but I think that's what happening here.

I have conceded, in as much as I have accepted that HRC is not going to be the nominee.  That doesn't mean I'll stop defending her when I think it is justified, or that I will stop asking questions about Obama that I think are warranted.

But we are not all as bad as the worst of us.

We are not all as bad as the worst of us.

That is the point, isn't it?  We -- the activisits, the bloggers, the ones who spent hours upon hours at caucuses, who donated money we couldn't afford -- we've become so personally invested in the outcome of this race.  And it is personal.  I'm a woman who, for the first time, could actually see a woman in the White House.  You're damn right it's personal.

But I also know that when I went to my caucus in February, and I watched two very old black men sitting together, smiling, beaming, I choked up because I imagined -- and could appreciate -- they probably felt the way I did.

Of course it's more than that.  It's not just because either candidate is or isn't anything.  Black, female, old, new.  

Let's face it:  If we're here, in this virtual community where we sit around like a bunch of geeks talking about minute details because that's what gets us off, so to speak, then we're probably better read and more informed than the general public.  

We would not otherwise be here every day, fighting over every single word, digging up links, quoting laws and speeches, would we?

Now, two weeks ago I wrote a diary in which I conceded that Hillary would not get the nomination.  I called it A Moment of Silence for the Clinton Campaign.  

I acknowledged that Obama would be the nominee.  And I asked:

Please celebrate your victory with graciousness.  Please understand that for some of us, for many of us, there is a great sadness in realizing that Hillary Clinton will not be our nominee.  She will not be our president.

And I explained that I, at least, and probably other Hillary supporters, do need a moment (or a week or a month) of mourning our loss.  It is a loss for us.  As I'm sure many of you would feel if Obama did not win the nomination.

But I also tried to end on a high note:


I believe the party will come together again.  This country is amazingly resillient, and if we can unite after a long, deadly, bloody Civil War, we can certainly unite after a contentious primary battle.  

But as you celebrate, as you dance on her grave, as you post your diaries of triumph, try to have a little respect for those of us who consider this a loss and a disappointment.

No matter how much hatred you have of Hillary, her campaign, her supporters, and yes, even her husband, it is important to try to be gracious winners.  

I think even Obama himself would agree with that.

Since then, I have seen a change.  It is starting to happen.  Sure, there is vitriol still out there.  There always will be.  But I think, as Hillary supporters start to come to terms with reality, Obama supporters also are coming to terms with reality:

We need each other.

In past weeks, when anyone dares to express a "concern" about Obama, they were typically labeled as "concern trolls."  Or directed to Obama's website.  

But something different happened last night in this conversation.  A commenter actually invited me to explain my concerns:  

If you don't feel that posting your concerns here will be constructive or might result in you getting unnecessarily attacked, maybe you can ask someone like barath, or myself, if you can send us an email with your concerns and we can have a spirited, and hopefully enlightening discussion that way...We're not all vicious. :)

No "fuck off, troll."  An actual invitation to discuss differences.

And so I did (and fully welcome additional responses in the comments here):

My main concern about Obama has nothing to do with domestic or foreign policy differences, or any of the dumb little "gaffes" of the primary season.

What I'm uncomfortable with is, strangely, the very thing that I understand holds so much appeal for so many people.  

Simply, it is his talk of moving beyond partisanship, reaching out across the aisle, working together, compromising, finding common ground, et cetera.

I can appreciate that sentiment.  I think it's noble.  It's idealistic.  It's very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (which is a movie I love, by the way).

But...

I don't want to compromise.  I don't want to find common ground with the same people who think intelligent design is as legitimate a theory as evolution.

I don't want to come together with the people who think it's okay for pharmacists to refuse to do their jobs because contraception violates their "morals."

It's contentious of me, I know, but I don't want to get along with those people.  I don't want to compromise with them.

They are wrong.  Plain and simple.

And I haven't heard Obama explain how it is possible.

Politics is partisan business.  It's been ugly for most of my lifetime.  The persecution of the Clintons was wretched, and the Republican rule during the Bush years has been no better.

But that doesn't mean I don't want a president in the White House who will say, "On science, there is no compromise.  Take your Intelligent Design bullshit and shove it."

So I don't see how this unifying, post-partisanship thing works.  And I'm not sure it's even what I want.  Would I hate Karl Rove if he were fighting on my side?  I don't know.

Do you know what happened?

There was no hate.  There was no vitriol.  Instead, I received real, thoughtful, kind responses, especially from Bandaloo, Chumley, GMFORD, Dapremonster, and fumie, who even said my concerns were "legitimate."

They acknowledged my concerns.  Validated them, even.  And tried to help me understand them.  (Again, I invite more contributions on this subject in the comments below.)

What a difference.

What a relief.

We are coming together.

The final step, for me, was this morning.  I read kid oakland's diary on the rec list about his experience at the California Democratic Convention.

And kid oakland knows it too.

We are not all as bad as the worst of us.

And we are going to come together.

And we will put the animosity, the anger, and divisiveness behind us.  

We're not Republicans, for crying out loud.  We don't carry 30-year grudges.

We MoveOn.

So here I am, finally, finally able to express my concerns about Obama, have my peace and quiet to mourn the loss of possibility that I saw in Hillary, and have intelligent conversations with people with whom I do not agree without it getting ugly.  (And we've all seen how ugly it can get around here.)

So.

I'm voting for Obama in November.  I'm not drinking Kool Aid just yet, but if you'll keep being patient with me, I just might help myself to a cup before too long.

Note:  In the comments at DailyKos, eclecticbrotha recognized that having an anti-Hillary sig line (or anti-Obama sig line) was not conducive to the Great Make Up of 2008.  And he/she changed it on the spot.  Others have followed suit.  I thank eclecticbrotha for leading the way.  And if you agree with what I've said, I ask that you to do the same.  If your sig line is an anti-Democratic candidate sig, change it.  Make it about McCain.  Make it something positive about your preferred candidate.  Time to stop bickering, start healing, and get ready to win in November.




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008, elections, primaries, DailyKos (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 222 Comments :: Post a Comment


Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 26)

I know I'm talking to a different audience here, but the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful, so let's at least try to be as civil as they were.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:03:37 PM EST

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 5)

I read it over there first....and was impressed by the comments/discussion it prompted.

I voted for Edwards....but, will be proud to vote for Obama or Hillary come November. Both are WORLDS better than McCain.

Good On Ya!


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

Really agree.  One thing that has really gotten lost in all this is how radical McCain is, how in so many ways he's much crazier than Bush.  He makes soothing noises on campaign finance, but doesn't even follow the laws he wrote.  And then on the big issues, war and the economy, he wants to go further in the Bushian direction than Bush did.  

So let Sen. Clinton campaign as long as she would like, but I like the new trend of both campaigns focusing on who can hit John McCain harder.  And don't say "I will be a better candidate against McCain" SHOW US that's the case by going after him.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

I don't know if I will be able to vote for Obama if he's the nominee.  But I do know that I don't have to make that decision now or even soon.  Primaries are for falling in love.  Falling in line comes later.  There's plenty of time to find unity after Denver, for either side.  The loser will be working for that too, remember, and I hear he's really inspirational.
***A

by adrienne4dean on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

Primaries are for falling in love.  Falling in line comes later.

I really like that way of putting it. That's certainly how I felt in '04 when Dean went down.


I'm only here to look for engels. Screw the rest of this big blue craphole.
by sricki on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:05:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (1.75 / 4)

but the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful

- Really ?


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 6)

Really.

In fact, a lot of ardent Obama supporters even went so far as to apologize for some of their own over-the-top comments and tone.

If you're not one of the strikers, I highly suggest checking it out, just to read the comments.

It reminded me of why I started reading DKos in the first place.  


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

That's good to hear.

You wrote an outstanding diary. Thank you.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come to Obama (1.42 / 7)

I was wondering, do you people baptize by immersion, or is pouring water over the forehead sufficient?


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't beat a "Come to Obama" (2.00 / 6)

moment to make the wreck list at the place that connot be named.  Reminds me of old time revival meetings where the sinners are celebrated once they've seen the light.  


by Tolstoy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:13:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I totally understand your sentiment. (2.00 / 1)

But the conversation that took place today was really not about Obama as messiah.  People were actually addressing the concerns I described about Obama, and even admitting to their own concerns about him.

(And no one was called a concern troll.)

And a lot of people apologized for their own bad behavior.

And a lot of people acknowledged that it is time to step back from the hate and reach out to the other half -- whoever that is.

It was the kind of conversation I think anyone -- even the most strident HRC supporter -- would be proud of.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking of apologies (2.00 / 2)

I'm inclined to agree with Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft:

Kid Oakland does not care about voters or disenfranchising them, unless of course they give him an excuse to make up a story in order to criticize Hillary Clinton.

Now he wants to self appoint himself the conciliator. When he apologizes for his dishonest blogging, I might start listening to him.

As of now, he is the LAST blogger who should be involved in any reconciliation discussions. --Big Tent Democrat

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/3/ 23/124058/229/188#188


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of apologies (none / 0)

Have you ever read Kid Oakland?  I think not.


by Tunk on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have read Kid Oakland (2.00 / 1)

and I'd better leave it at that.


by OtherLisa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have read Kid Oakland (none / 0)

Have you ever been to Oakland? CA that is?


by Tunk on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 12:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you know Armando (2.00 / 1)

(Big Tent Democrat)'s reputation?  Self-avowed online asshole.  Likes to snipe at everyone.  Though he does know his legal stuff.


by corph on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I totally understand your sentiment. (2.00 / 4)

I think the comments above have a lot to do with your choice of title -- the "Comes to Obama" phrase.  It sort of plays into the messianic thing, no?

One other thing, while I appreciate your diary and I did read it at dkos, was heartened by many of the comments, etc. it might be useful to try the visualization/substitution technique again with this diary while asking this community (in your first comment) to

the conversation at DailyKos was pretty great and respectful, so let's at least try to be as civil as they were.

I appreciate what you're saying and while I don't think you intended to come across as condescending, I did find it to be such.  Imagine if you were writing a "An Obama Supporter (Finally) Comes to Hillary (Yes Finally)" diary on dkos.  What kind of reception do you think you would have gotten?  Now, when you come here with your "Comes to Obama" diary, take note of the responses you get here, and then tell me that you're getting a less civil reaction here.  Let's be fair and honest here.  "Let's at least try to be as civil as they were?"  Argh.


by joanneleon on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes... (2.00 / 4)

The "Come to Obama" phrase personally really creeps me out, and these sorts of sentiments were one of the things that turned me off Obama way back when.

I'm still singing Dixie Chicks and Drive-By Truckers when it comes to the Orange Place, I'm afraid, and actually, when it comes to the Obama movement in general. My feeling is, some of these Obama supporters who went too far finally realize that they might actually need Clinton people to elect their candidate.


by OtherLisa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are totally right. (none / 0)

Thank you for pointing it out.  I'm editing the diary right now.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are totally right. (none / 0)

Damn.  It was in the comment, not the diary.

My apologies that I cannot change it.

I expected that the reception of this diary on this site would not be as warm as on DKos (for what I think are obvious reasons), but you were right to call me out for such a presumption.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come down to the banks (none / 0)

dunk yourself in the Kool Aid.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 4)

With all due respect, unfortunately I cannot agree with you. At this moment looking at the DailyKos diaries on the homepage, the number of diaries resembling I_hate_Clintons or anti_Clinton rants far more exceed anti McCain ones. To say that Senator Obama's supporters at DailyKos have changed is incredulous and would require real stretch in imagination.


by louisprandtl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 3)

But here you are, posting amongst many, many more anti-Obama diaries than anti-McCain diaries.  Do you believe that MyDD performs to your standards?


by haystax calhoun on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Understood. (2.00 / 3)

Look, there is still plenty over there that I don't like.  I can't even read postings by Kos anymore.  He's starting to sound like Andrew Sullivan, in my opinion; he is far too gleeful about any bad new for Clinton.

But there were hundreds of comments -- and not just one-liners, but real comments -- that made me think the tide could start to turn.

It gave me hope (I know, I know, that dreaded word), and that's a start.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Now that was an honest reply (2.00 / 2)

which deserves rightfully all the praises. Yes Markos is a liberal blogging phenomena, however his postings recently are hard to read.

I'm glad you're "hopeful". I'll keep an open mind..


by louisprandtl on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Understood. (2.00 / 3)

You rock Mouse, but I don't think it's over...not by a longshot! PA, WV, KY, PR, IN, OR, all are in play :) Don't move over to Barack just yet!


by LDFan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:17:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

Have you looked at the MyDD diary list lately? For a good part of the day yesterday, 3 of the 5 recommended diaries were by a single person -- alegre. No kidding. And you can guess what she was writing about.
by xtrarich on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:57:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If MI and FL are not seated in a meaningful way (2.00 / 3)

-- that is, so their votes are counted as is, or re-voted before June --I will consider withholding my vote in November, although it would surely cost me a lot of skin at home.

This is not about tactics and who's ahead; it's about who we are as Democrats; and I have voted D in every presidential election since McGovern.

I don't think I'm one the Democrats want to lose, but I could be wrong.


The fascist takeover of America has already occurred; but the people have not yet realized.
by magnetics on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:15:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent point. (2.00 / 2)

I don't blame you at all.  I think the issue of FL and MI is real and problematic.  I don't know what the solution should be -- but I think refusing to include FL and MI in a meaningful way is a huge mistake.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:26:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (none / 0)

Even as a supporter of Senator Obama I agree that not counting FL and MI in a meaningful way would be a mistake.  The problem is that "meaningful" often gets interpreted through strictly partisan lenses.  At worst, this will be solved after the nominee has been chosen by the super delegates.  It still remains extremely unlikely that we will go to the convention in Denver with this issue outstanding.

The only thing I would ask Senator Clinton's supporters is that if the two states that were penalized in this fashion were instead Virginia and Colorado, would she be calling for re-votes?  Why would we or should we expect that Senator Clinton would behave any differently from how Senator Obama has?  Do any of us want a candidate for November who is going to do the arguably right thing if it gives McCain a significant political advantage?


by Fearing Blue on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:51:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (2.00 / 2)

Did you realize that New Hampshire also disobeyed the rules and moved their date up- So the rules are rules mantra by DNC is pure hypocrisy- No matter how you cut it-FL & Michigan should be counted - If they aren't it will not be a legitimate nominee.  
Senator Obama won many caucus states-those of us who have traveled around the country know how unfair and undemocratic that process is.  There will be books written when this is over- the most unfair nominating process in my 60 years- The media has been obviously biased- As a Democrat I'm very angry-this is not my party any more.   Being deeply involved in the campaign as a volunteer for 14 months I have been in hotels with media and inside campaign people (all the campaigns) spent many late hours talking about what was going on.   It is simply shocking how little the average voter knows about the dirt and big boy egos involved- After this is over I will never again work on a political campaign- We've been hoodwinked and bamboozled.
by Menemshasunset on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excellent point. (none / 0)

All I'm asking is for you to take a step back and recognize that were the situation reversed, the candidate you support would be doing exactly the same thing.  I don't think either candidate is pariah, nor do I think either candidate is a saint.  Both are politicians, and as such, for the most part, I expect them to do what is in their best interests politically.

And, regarding caucus states, I agree that the system should be changed, but it wasn't this time around and both candidates knew how they worked prior to the pimary.  Historically, caucuses have favored candidates with the most institutional support, which leading up to the primary season was Senator Clinton, noting that she had a super delegate lead of almost 100 before any votes were cast.  The fact that she lost the caucuses, and that she lost them so badly, seems to points to poor management of her campaign resources.  Senator Clinton certainly didn't give up on caucus states because she thought they were undemocratic.  That argument only came into play after she started losing.


by Fearing Blue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 0)

I understand, and I re-post a diary for you.


Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:27:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 0)

Congratulations.
Great diary, you made me cross post and old ass diary of mine.
I hope you read it, thank you for your diary.

Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:42:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 1)

I love this post.

I read it over at DKos first.  It's so warm-hearted and plain and even-handed (which is probably hard for you; I know it's hard for me as an Obama supporter).  There's no trace of sanctimony and you're not reserving the right to take back your sentiments or accusing one side more than the other and it's just so... nice.

Anyway, great diary, and it's especially great for Obama supporters to read, because if nothing else, we'll think twice before provoking people or responding to provocations or being snarky or mean-spirited no matter who started what.  At least I will.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:28:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tips? Recs? Hugs? - OH YEAH! (none / 0)

Awesome diary, Mouse!

Never forget - McCain is the enemy - lets concentrate our energy on defeating him.


by jwolf on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (2.00 / 2)

A warm hello to you AngryMouse.

recs and tips and mojo

"Neci" Deoliver Velez


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:40:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Do you see what you started? (none / 0)

I'm assuming you're the same one...

Thanks for everything.  I tip my hat to YOU.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:35:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you see what you started? (2.00 / 1)

Yup, it's me. And I changed my sig too - thanks to you.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you see what you started? (2.00 / 1)

Love the new sig.

Reconciliation is the new black.  Pass it on.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:51:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sigs (none / 0)

love your's too!


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:25:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tips? Recs? Hugs? Flames? (none / 0)

Thanks for a GREAT diary! I would tip and rec you, but I got "tased" and lost some capabilities here... :-(

This is a diary worthy of the Rec list (and not because it's pro-Obama) with excellent, thoughtful analysis and heartfelt writing. (I don't think a few rambling sentences and a Lou Dobbs video meets the grade.)

I understand your concerns about Obama's "reaching across the aisle" at a time when we just want to kick the Rethugs in the crotch. We do need to heal the country though. Many families are so divided now because of politics. We all need to unite and it starts here with the Democratic party.

by power of truth on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good stuff. (2.00 / 3)

Rec'd.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:05:14 PM EST

Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

No Rec. option in the sidebar when I pull up the diary? Sorry.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:06:52 PM EST

Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

Try changing your password. That resets the system.


www.payd.org Keeping PA Blue
by dannybauder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmm.... (none / 0)

Many folks lost their ability to recommend diaries. Sounds like a casualty.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (2.00 / 7)

We Edwards people have already taken this step. I'm here to tell you it can be done :-)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:16:01 PM EST

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 5)

Ditto!!
(though, in private...I still pout)

;)


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:19:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So do I :-) (2.00 / 6)

And despite some initial huffiness, the thought of voting for McCain never crossed my mind, either.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:27:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (2.00 / 2)

Some Edwards folks landed in the Clinton camp, and may not be ready to do this again. =)


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:23:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They may have no choice. (2.00 / 2)

That's just the way it goes: one person is going to win, and it looks like it's going to be Obama. That's just the nature of it.

Sorry.

But if it's any consolation, I was depressed for two days or so when Edwards dropped out, and then I pulled myself together, and moved on. I was never one of the hardcore devotees, but hey, the point is that at the end, the differences between the various Democrats are as nothing to the differences between all Democrats and McCain.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Understood (2.00 / 3)

Half the Democratic party will have to one day give up on their candidate.  The only thing I was taking issue with was the implication that all Edwards folks went for Obama.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was an Edwards person, for Clinton now (none / 0)

Because of her health care plan. That is a deal breaker for me.

I guess most of the Obama supporters HAVE health care already, that's why they don't seem to care about it.


by splashy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They may have no choice. (2.00 / 0)

I think the stakes may be a little higher for some.

I started out as an Edwards supporter.  It was'nt that hard for me to cross over to Obama and I'm glad I did.  At this point I have so much time and effort and passion and hope and worry invested in his candidacy, but all 43 presidents look like I do.  I can't know what it's like to have that extra part of myself bound up in it.


by Mostly on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:36:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We? (2.00 / 2)

We Edwards people have taken what step? For Obama? Not me, not unless he is in the GE.


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We? (2.00 / 0)

See ya' there.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The step in question (2.00 / 0)

is realizing that the person you passionately believe in isn't going to be the standard-bearer. I feel safe in predicting that half the Democratic Party, give or take a few, will have to make that step pretty soon.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:16:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The step in question (2.00 / 2)

Many feel safe in predicting that nominee will be Hillary.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome. (2.00 / 1)

In which case, she has my vote. But many more feel safe in predicting that we're looking at Obama.

(cue hysterical he-can't-win tripe)


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hysterical tripe? (2.00 / 1)

Try some cold, hard facts:

Obama is Weaker General Election Candidate

* Florida: Clinton 44 percent - McCain 42 percent; McCain beats Obama 46 - 37 percent;

* Ohio: Clinton beats McCain 48 - 39 percent; Obama gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;

* Pennsylvania: Clinton tops McCain 48 - 40 percent; Obama leads McCain 43 - 39 percent.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?Rele aseID=1164&What=&strArea=;&s trTime=0


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And other polls (2.00 / 1)

show the inverse. We can keep this up all night.

Are you even going to vote for the Democrat yourself? Or is it all about getting your way in the primary?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:14:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Facts are facts (2.00 / 1)

Be my guest to post your "hysterical tripe" and next "loyality test."


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:46:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've been through this (2.00 / 0)

with you folks. Before Iowa, back when Hillary was inevitable and this whole primary thing was just a beauty contest with a foregone conclusion, the "loyalty oath" was a mantra of the Hillary-ists.

I seem to recall that you were one of the practitioners of that art, Vox, though  I could just be misremembering that. I'll confine myself to saying that there are some life lessons to be learned here for you folks.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The step in question (2.00 / 2)

Do you want the support of Obama's supporters then?  That's the point.  There is still a chance that Hillary could win and we are getting close to the time when it will be decided one way or the other.

Whichever way it goes, do you think we should all agree that we are Dems?  Or do you think Hillary could win in November without Obama supporters?  That's a rhetorical question as we both know that whoever wins needs the entire party.

So let's all get on the same side, the Dem side.  That way, however it sorts out we'll all move on to beating McSame.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And bravo (2.00 / 0)

for that.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:06:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just wondering (2.00 / 5)

Why was it important for you to reject Hillary's candidacy entirely?  As I read your diary, it struck me that one could have had much the conversation, but along the lines of acknowledgement that your candidate might not win.  For you, though, it seemed important to declare your candidate impossible, and make some sort of formally announced switch.

This has coincided with a carefully orchestrated media/surrogate bombardment which I admit has been draining even for me.  And while I have certainly considered the nomination of Barack Obama likely, and asked myself what I will do, and why, I see no need to abandon all of the reasons I support Hillary.

So, I was wondering if you could elaborate on why you chose this route?


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:17:57 PM EST

Oh, no no no. Let me explain. (2.00 / 3)

I am not rejecting HRC.

She is still my first choice.  And as I explained in the comments section over there, I'd certainly do my happy dance if she won the nomination.

But short of complete blow-outs in the remaining states, I don't see how she does that.

This is not about abandoning Hillary.  This is about coming to terms with Obama.  That doesn't mean I prefer him; it simply means I am learning to accept him.

But, as I also said many times throughout the comments, I fully support HRC remaining in the race until the polls close in Puerto Rico.  And I fully support those who continue to work for her campaign.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for clarifying (2.00 / 6)

For myself, I went through this thought process shortly after TX/OH.  We knew the road would be uphill from there, and, contrary to everything the media has told us, since then, not much has substantively changed.

I recognized that there would come a time when one candidate would have to step down.  And I tried to ask myself honestly what principles should guide that decision.

So, here's what I came up with.  Others may adopt or reject this, but this is my own framework.

(1) I expect my candidate to make a popular vote argument.  In a democracy, the voice of the people should be paramount.

(2) I expect my candidate to make a compelling case for why she would fair better in the general election than my opponent would.

And I had two pre-conditions in my mind:

(a) I expect a fair contest to procede to the last vote, on the issues.

(b) I expect a solution to MI and FL that both campaigns feel is fair.

That was my thinking then, and it remains my thinking now.  I feel this is fair.  I feel that if Obama supporters apply this framework to their own candidate, it is fair for them as well.  Since then, nothing has happened that either guarantees or precludes (1) and (2), for either candidate.

In fact, by promising that FL will be seated, but that no re-vote will occur, Howard Dean may have just cut Obama's popular vote lead in half.  The trouble is with MI.. I cannot conceive of any way in which the outcome of MI is considered legitimate by both sides unless there is a revote (one which I think Barack is likely to win, I might add).  This is why I have consistently said that, given the nature of this contest, what is in the best interest of both parties is to ensure the results are considered fair by both sides.

So these principles will guide my decision, as to whether Hillary should step down, or not.  But they do not help me addressing a harder question - which is whether or not I can give my vote to Barack Obama at this point, given all that I have learned and felt and worked through.  But that will be a personal decision for me to wrestle with, and not something I seek to impose on others.

What I do, unabashedly seek to impose on others is the notion that a fair contest is in everyone's best interest.  By echoing the message that Obama is already our de-facto nominee, it felt to me like you were giving up on that premise, which would be a shame (in my opinion).  I'm happy to admit that I got the wrong impression, though, if that is what you're telling me.


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

On pretty much all points.

I have come to accept Obama as the eventual nominee, but that doesn't mean I have stopped caring about FL and MI.  That doesn't mean I have suddenly accepted any arguments about what superdelegates should or shouldn't do.

However, when it became clear there would be no revotes in FL and MI, it became clear (to me) that it would be all but impossible for HRC to win the nomination in a way that I would consider fair.  That is, she would need to be tied or ahead in pledged delegates and/or popular vote.  That seems an impossibility without FL and MI.

And that's when I started this process of trying to accept Obama as the eventual nominee.  

But, as I've said before, we all have to come to it in our own way, on our own time.  And I certainly don't expect everyone else in the blogosphere to get there today just because I did.

So keep fighting for HRC, please.  But also prepare yourself for the moment when the fight will be over.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (none / 0)

I guess the part I'm still not quite following is why the popular vote is all but impossible for HRC, especially if Obama's lead is cut in half by the acceptance of the FL primary results (which not only seems likely according to Dean's statement, but honestly seems fair, unlike MI where a revote is required imo).


by bobbank on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 2)

The race for the nomination is measured in delegates.  That''s always been the case ever since we stopped doing back room deals.  The popular vote thing would be like a football team claiming to deserve the win based on total yards of offense rather than points.

Changing the rules in the middle is not "fair to both sides".

If the popular vote had been agreed upon as the goal ahead of time then different strategies would have been pursued throughout the contest.  That's why I have very little sympathy for the 'caucuses are undemocratic' complaint.  Nobody changed the rules by having caucuses.  Obama's team was more effective in its strategy based on how the competition was to proceed in each state.  No surprises were unleashed.  They competed by the same rules as they were understood ahead of time by all involved.  

Hilary touts her experience.  If, in the face of that experience advantage, Obama's campaign was able to better strategize and perform based on the differing realities of competing in each state (primary, caucus, weird ass primacaucus); doesn't that count for something with regard to his worthiness as a candidate?  

I think that taking that away from him by suddenly switching to some other metric after the race is almost complete is not fair and would be seen as illegitimate by the voters if it was used to justify giving the nomination to someone other than the delegate winner; possibly more illegitimate than not seating Florida or Michigan.

Ok, so there is not such thing as more or less illegitimate.  Change that to seen as illegitimate by more people.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

The race for the nomination is measured in delegates.

That's correct.  It is not measured in pledged delegates.  Those are two different things.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

Agreed, they are 2 different things, pledged delegates and superdelegates.  Popular vote is metric entirely unrelated and should remain that way.  To try and impose some popular vote metric on the superdelegates would be wrong for the reasons listed in my previous comment.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 3)

That is not what I said.

Let us be crystal clear on this.

This is a delegate contest.  The person who is able to hit the "magic number" of delegates wins.

I am not pointing out that pledged delegates and super delegates are different.  I am pointing out that pledged delegates can only determine the outcome if one candidate is able get more than 2,0XX of them.  Neither candidate can do that.

There is no precident, rule, or even guideline that says, in a race this close, superdelegates ought to go on auto-pilot.  Now, more than ever, they need to be thoughtful about their approach.

You happen to favor the notion that superdelegates should obey the pledged delegate count because your candidate adopted that strategy.  My candidate adopted a strategy that is more relevant to the general election, in that she secured big states with heavy electoral votes to offer.  For that reason, a popular vote argument is the one I favor.

What I'm asking you to understand is that neither one of us is more "right" in the techincal sense than the other.  And there is no way you could accuse superdelegates of "stealing an election" if they nominated the person who had gotten the most votes.  Putting it another way, popular vote is no more or less "related" than pledged delegate count is.

I will take issue, however, with your implication that popular vote should be dismissed.  A core progressive principle is to maximize direct democracy to whatever extent possible.  So this is an example in which your amibition for your candidate has caused you to compromise on one of these bedrock principles.

I would suggest that, if we start allowing particular politicians to come before principles, we are not going to find ourselves in a good place.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:15:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

I disagree with your characterization.  It would be a progressive value to count the popular vote in an election where that was the metric used to measure victory.  To claim that it applies in a nomination race (which is what we are currently engage in) is to change the rules in the middle of the game.  I don't let my kids do it at 'Chutes and Ladders' and I won't respect it under a banner of "Progressivism" either.  Its an honor thing.   It's the same reason I oppose the seating of Florida and Michigan delegates. It is not about Obama or Clinton for me as you say it is.  If you didn't win by the rules then you didn't win.

For SDs to incorporate popular vote as part of an SD's decision is one thing. To claim it as a metric to which they should be beholden is to try and take the nomination by an illegitimate means.  To say that Hilary should get extra GE credit for winning only the big states that every democrat wins in the GE anyway is... misleading.  Do you honestly believe that New York and California go republican if Hilary doesn't get the nomination?  Honestly man...


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

Either way, it appears that we are not going to agree.  I don't really care to screw up the vibe on this thread.

As I have said several times around here, my main concern is getting a democrat, any democrat, into the Oval Office so that our democratic legislative majorities don't have to fight a veto pen in their attempts to reinstate the constitution, end the war, address global warming, appoint judges to SCOTUS, etc.

I have been laughed at before for saying that I believe the president's job is to essentially look and sound good in front of a camera and to be familiar with how to sign their name.  I know that it's hard to remember back before the horror that is unitary executive but, back when the constitution was being obeyed, the power to define policy through law was in the legislative branch.

I will vote for the democratic nominee.  


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 2)

Please link for me the DNC rule that says the candidate with the most pledged delegates should win.

Of course, you cannot find such a rule, because no such rule exists.  So who is guilty of trying to "change the rules" here?  You are playing a game of make-believe in which "rules" that don't really exist, but just happen to conveniently suit your candidate, must be enforced, even at the expense of what's morally right.  That's shameful, frankly.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (none / 0)

Your candidate is seeking to introduce a new metric that supposedly the SDs should use as the deciding factor, not mine.  Try and be a little honest here.

Before you  get all worked up about your self-serving morals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTY_bp1dT A4

Where was this moral imperative when Hil's team helped craft the agreement that they find so reprehensible only now?  At least Obama can claim that he's had the honor to live up to the agreement.  And you want to accuse the candidate who has honored his word (and signature) of morals of convenience?!  Hilary is the ONLY candidate out of the 10 to decide now, midway through the game, that the agreement shouldn't stand.  You couldn't have this more backwards if you tried.

By June it'll be a nonissue anyway.  Perhaps not being as good as her word is a reason why.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 1)

seems to be a moot point now that superdelegates are swinging Obama's way. Obama is closing on the SD gap and adding to his overall lead. The SD's are starting to decide and it's not going Hillary's way. (Look at SD decisions since Feb 5th, or March 5th.)

The fundraising numbers were just released. Obama essentially "doubled her up", $40 million to $20 million. (Plus she has debt and he has $$$ in the bank.) Obama's been spending this money on ad's in PA, and the polls show the race in PA tightening.

by power of truth on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We are in agreement. (2.00 / 0)

There are a lot of "ifs" there.  And even if Obama's lead is cut in half, he's still in the lead.

Look, I'd be thrilled if there were a way for HRC to win.  

But I need something more than the judgment of the superdelegates.  I need her to have the lead in something -- pledged delegates, popular votes -- something.  

Otherwise, if the superdelegates select her, while it is within the rules and within their rights, I don't think the damage it would cause would be worth it.

The superdelegates would essentially be saying, "We know she's the one who will beat McCain.  You're going to have to trust us."

And even if, in my gut, I agree with that sentiment, I don't think that's a good move for the party.  I think it would be a lot harder for Obama supporters to get behind HRC in that circumstance than it will be for HRC supporters to get behind Obama if he maintains his lead in votes and delegates.

And what if HRC loses in November?  I can't begin to imagine the size of the exodus from the Democratic party -- all the voters who were promised that the SDs knew what they were doing and were thus justified in choosing HRC.

Even with FL and MI, it's a hard case to make.  Without, I think it's impossible.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:15:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But... (2.00 / 3)

But now you've changed the subject.

What I asked you was why you concluded that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win.  You said this was your belief:

I have accepted that HRC is not going to be the nominee

This does not say "if HRC is not the nominee, I can accept it".  It says in stark terms that she is not going to be the nominee.  I asked you why you thought so.

Your response is:

But I need something more than the judgment of the superdelegates.  I need her to have the lead in something -- pledged delegates, popular votes -- something.

Well that is a redirection of my question.  We don't disagree that superdelegates need a legitimate reason to choose her.  And we seem to agree that popular vote is one such legitimate reason.  That is why I told you that including FL cuts Obama's popular lead in half; that actually makes it conceivable that she could bring him to a tie on April 22.

You say this is too many IF's.

But politics is the art of the possible.  If you believe she is the best qualified candidate, then might I suggest that you owe it to her not to pronounce her prematurely dead?  If there comes a time when her nomination is possible only through brute political force, I will join you in believing that she should step down.  But we aren't there yet.

So I've asked why you think we are there.  What convinced you of it?


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:53:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A few things... (2.00 / 2)

First, I do not want her to step down.  I want the voting to continue until all the states and territories have had their say.  

Second, there is a big difference between possiblility and probability.  Is it possible that Hillary will beat Obama in all of the remaining states by 20 points or more?  Yes, it is possible.

But it is not probable.

And as we've seen again and again, in states where HRC has a huge lead, Obama has been able to shrink that lead.  Every time.  Obama is very effective at closing those gaps, even if he can't overcome them.

And she needs those gaps.  She needs really big gaps.  It is the only way she can overcome his lead.

Possible?  Yes.

Probable?  No.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:30:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, you're changing the subject (2.00 / 3)

There is a difference between possible and probable.  I agree.  Here's what you said:

HRC is not going to be the nominee

Now if you were thinking about probabilty, you could have said anything from "HRC may not be the nominee" (pro-Hillary version) to "HRC is probably not going to be the nominee" (pro-Obama version).  But that isn't what you said.

Look, it's quite clear to me that you're a smart and thoughtful writer.  So I presume you choose your words carefully.  That is why I pressed you on this point.  I think I have my answer now anyway, so I can stop asking if you like.

Cheers.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Only in regards to the Florida and Michigan aspects and popular vote totals (FYI - Im an Obama supporter - though originally Richardson).  I'll save the rest for later if I can get around to it.

I can not agree more on Florida and Michigan.

Id love to see some equitable solution, especially for Florida (Michigan grandstanded themselves and should pay the price).  But I honestly struggle with 'what is fair'.

I put more emphasis on pledged delegates than popular vote - mainly because Im a rules kind of guy (my job is actually making sure people follow rules so I get a bit worked up about it) and the rules of the game are delegates, not popular vote.  That said, the supers can choose however they want and Im sure some will use popular vote as part of their decision matrix.

I do not see counting the Florida popular vote or pledged delegates as 'fair' from the original contest (maybe as a fraction, 33%?, but not in whole or even half).  I have a lot of miniscule techincal issues with the Florida 'results' that make using those vote totals inappropriate, in my most humble opinion.

1) Florida, in view of its original election time slot, would have only had two candidates left on the ballot who hadnt conceded - Obama and Clinton as Edwards was out by then.  The 'invalid' (for lack of a better term) election had everyone still in.  How do you allocate the votes for the others?  So the vote should have been Clinton versus Obama, not all versus all.  I believe this would have changed the dynamic of the vote.

2) The vote was advertised as 'invalid' and voter turn out/participation as compared to other democratic contests was significantly less, statistically relevant so, implying that it was an incomplete election based on expectations and other turnouts.  So there is an impact on the 'invalid' results that it was a not a completely participated in primary.

3) No campaigning by any candidate.  No matter what we each saintly believe about our candidate and hatefully believe about the 'other' candidate, none of the candidates campaigned in Florida.  I believe this also had an impact on the results.  I do not believe it is 'fair' to count a vote where no campaigning was done.

I could go on, but I have real concerns with trying to use the 'invalid' contest results in any fashion.  That said, I believe Hillary would still win Florida.  I also believe that if it had been a head to head contest with time for campaigning, Obama would have closed the gap a bit.

So I really, really struggle trying in any way to use the 'invalid' elections results, especially from a popular vote aspect in any valid count.  It just isnt right.  But, I do believe the supers will be able to factor in a popular vote win for Clinton in Florida and if Clinton crushes Obama from here on out and closes (or overtakes) the pledged delegate and popular vote totals she will have a very strong argument for the supers and one that would be very hard to dismiss.

But I honestly dont think there is a 'fair' result left, short of a re-vote (with delegate punishment) which looks highly unlikely.

So thats my take on Florida and popular vote (in a rambling, incoherent nutshell).


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:19:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 0)

Thanks for your well-reasoned post.

Just to add one more point about why the popular vote is not a metric we should consider - remember the reason for this mess in the first place: each state is fighting to be "more important" than other states.

If caucus states knew that the popular vote was going to be the deciding metric, don't you think they would have run primaries instead of caucuses, because that way their voters have the largest possible impact on the outcome?

Delegate count was the agreed upon metric by all parties, so some states chose to do caucuses.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:50:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 2)

Delegate count is certainly the metric that will determine the winner.

Pledged delegate count is not.  It is only a subjective factor, in the same way that popular vote is, or in the same way that "electability" or "momentum" could be.

I'm going to stick with this point because I notice that Obama supporters are very eager to confuse the fact that this is a delegate contest (we all agree) with the premise that pledged delegates should be what determines the winner (we do not agree, and now apparently Dean and Pelosi do not agree with that either).  It's a subtle word-trick, but I'm not going to go along with it.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I actually didn't make any distinction in my post between pledged delegates and superdelegates.  It's just tiring to type pledged delegates every time.  Anyway, I really don't care what the superdelegates do, because I think they'll probably break down 50/50 or so and won't end up mattering; I agree that they do, within the rules, have the right to vote for whomever they want.

Even Obama said this today, when Chris Matthews asked him about it; he said something like "once all the primaries are over, I'll leave it to the poo-bahs of the party make their decision, and then we'll unite and move on."


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Bob,

I don't think it's necessarily a 'trick.'

Above, when describing the arguments you want to see made, you wrote:

(1) I expect my candidate to make a popular vote argument.  In a democracy, the voice of the people should be paramount.

Well, in making the 'popular vote argument,' it seems likely that your candidate will be countering the 'pledged delegate argument,' which is part of the argument my candidate will be making. While I agree that the 'voice of the people should be paramount,' it isn't in US federal elections, and hasn't been. So we have rules.

You're absolutely correct that every delegate vote is equal, and as the SDs are free to vote as they choose, a delegate victory can come without a lead in PDs. BUT, my candidate and his supporters are as free to make the PD argument as your candidate and you are free to make the PV argument.

There's nothing tricky about it, in my book.


by vadasz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 2)

While I agree that the 'voice of the people should be paramount,' it isn't in US federal elections, and hasn't been. So we have rules.

And these rules allow the SD's to use whatever criteria they like.  So, since we agree that the voice of the people should be paramount, and since these rules allow SD's to use that criteria, then let us urge them to use it.

Makes sense?

BUT, my candidate and his supporters are as free to make the PD argument as your candidate and you are free to make the PV argument.

Yes, we agree completely.  The point I'm making, which you understand, is that neither one of these arguments is definitive.  For a variety of reasons, I personally feel, and have argued, that popular vote is more compelling under these circumstances.  But that is my choice.  And the crowd that says this is over based on PD's needs to recognize that is their choice, but not a rule or de-facto standard.

Putting it another way - no one can fairly accuse the SD's of "stealing the race" if they award nomination to the person with the most votes.  So this is a valid criterion, as are PD's.

What I find "tricky" is the jumbling of the fact that this is a delegate race with the falsehood that the person with the most PD's wins.

Hope that clears this up.  I think you and I fundamentally agree on all of this.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:38:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

I would definitely say we agree in principle (which, I guess, is a start).

I think the reason many (most?) Obama supporters make the ellision you refer stems from a few related (although not necessarily contingent) issues:

--as you've pointed out, it's a race for delegates and whoever breaks the 2025 barrier wins;

--traditionally, the winner has been the person who broke that barrier based on accumulating delegates via the caucus/primary process;

--obviously, the candidate who did that in the past was the one who had the most PDs;

--thus, this year the person who gets the most PDs is the winner in the traditional sense, even if that person is not the winner in the strict sense of breaking the 2025 barrier.

Like I've said, I agree that rules are rules and the SDs vote as they choose and those votes count. I think you're right that the four items I've listed above are, in a sense, 'jumbled' because, after all, a delegate vote is a delegate vote.

But you can see, I think, how it would be easy to make the leap from A (in the past, the person with the most PDs won) to B (this year, the person with the most PDs should win).

Throw into the mix the very deep emotional investment that backers of both candidates have in this election, and that's when terms like "stealing" and "unfair" start getting thrown around.

But I think it's good to have these kinds of conversations now because I want to understand the rationale of Clinton and her supporters on this before it has a chance of actually happening. So that if it does, I will be far less enraged and will be more willing to support her in the GE.


by vadasz on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:02:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I have consistently enjoyed dialogue with you, vadasz, and this has been no different.  I think you present a rational argument for weighing PD's.  I reach a different conclusion, and that is often something that two people of sound mind and good intention will do.

The only thing I am trying to establish here is that the Obama camp needs to recognize that I am no more trying to "change the rules" by talking about popular vote as they are when talking about pledged delegate.  A case can be made for either being an important criterion, and a case cannot be made that either is definitive.

I think the debate between Clinton and Obama supporters is allowed to be more constructive and less confrontational when we reach a consensus on that particular point (recognizing that we are free to disagree about which measure SD's should weigh most heavily).


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

To bring up the popular vote argument is NOT to try and change the rules.

To try and crank up the popular vote totals on Hilary's side through any claim that the farcical january contests in Florida and Michigan should count IS trying ti change the rules in the middle of the game.  This years the rules were agreed on (and designed by) and signed to by all of the candidates before Iowa even kicked off.  Hilary didn't see the "disenfranchisement" issue until after she started getting her butt kicked.

To argue that SDs should use PV as THE metric to determine their vote IS to change the rules in the middle of the game.  To argue it as A metric is not.


Government derives its power from those that it governs.
by lockewasright on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

no one can fairly accuse the SD's of "stealing the race" if they award nomination to the person with the most votes.

I disagree, at least somewhat.  The concrete element of the primary race has always been about maximizing PDs.  SDs have always been sort of a mystery element that were likely to just pile behind the winner established by the PDs.  Of course, this time the PDs aren't going to be enough to establish the winner, so the SDs suddenly come to the fore.

My problem is that it's somewhat unfair to -- at this point -- decide the race based upon popular vote, when going into the race it was about maximizing PDs.  I suppose you could argue that focusing too much on PDs was a risk, but given the nebulous nature of SD voting (PV?  state-based? district-based? electability-based?), I don't think it would have been reasonable for any candidate to attempt to read the minds of SDs and campaign with any of their potential metrics in mind.

So yes, at this point in the race, for the SDs to coalesce around the PV as their primary metric seems questionable and a bit opportunistic for Clinton, as it seems to be the single metric by which she stands a shot at eeking out a lead.  If, in the end, that becomes THE metric by which the nominee is chosen, I will feel -- at least to some degree -- that the nomination will have been stolen.


by ChrisKaty on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:07:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Well, you feel the objective of this game is to maximize pledged delegates, because that is what your candidate's strategy was.  I'm not saying it is wrong of you to think that way, but I'm observing that your thinking is naturally influenced by what serves your candidate best.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Well, that's what everyone's strategy was, because as I said in my post, that's the only reasonable strategy to have as a candidate.  The race has always been about delegates, so candidates focused on the delegates they had direct control over -- the pledged delegates.  Up-front no one knew what metric the SDs would employ to determine their vote (though the presumption was that PDs would be paramount in their decision), so focusing on them would have been nonsensical.

If it comes down the popular vote being the ultimate deciding factor, that seems like a pretty big switch from the original objective of the game.  Within the rules, to be sure.  But when all the candidates can reasonably focus on are the PDs, making it about the PV at the last minute seems questionable to me.

Also, I think claiming I only think this way because it's advantageous to my candidate is a bit insulting -- it implies that I have no intellectual honesty of my own.


by ChrisKaty on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I did not say you "only think this way" because it serves your candidate's ambitions.  I pointed out that it naturally influences your thinking.  I tried to choose my words carefully, so please refrain from putting different ones in my mouth.

And, despite your opinion, it is not true that everyone pursued a strategy of shoring up delegate count by seeking out states that were uncontested by competitors, and which will not matter in the general election.  Barack's strategy was based on finding a unique and smart way to win the primary contest.  I don't fault him for that.  I acknowledge that Hillary's campaign failed to take this seriously enough, and remained too focused on general election politics, rather than primary warfare.

So, Obama's campaign played the game better.  That's what PD count tells you more than anything else.  And if, for you, the buck stops there, then that is a reasonable position that you are more than welcomed to hold.  My own position is different; I feel that in a contest this close and this historic, I think the will of the people, as expressed by their votes, means more to me.

Note that in my original framework, this was not my exclusive test.  I also said that I wanted a demonstrable advantage in general election performance.  I feel it is totally reasonable for me to say that, if my candidate got the most votes, and if my cnadidate shows better performance v. McCain, than we should nominate my candidate.  Frankly, I think that is so fair that I have trouble understanding why you would disagree with that.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Apologies, you're correct that you didn't say "only".  I was reacting more to your initial sentence along the lines of "you feel this...because your candidate...".  Regardless, I know it wasn't your intent.  Sorry for overreacting.

And, despite your opinion, it is not true that everyone pursued a strategy of shoring up delegate count by seeking out states that were uncontested by competitors, and which will not matter in the general election.

Haha, well that's a pretty biased way to put it, but yes Obama definitely look for places where he had the potential for big PD advantages and really worked those.  Plenty of those were in states that will (or could) matter in the GE.  Regardless, if you go back to my original statement, I do think that it's absolutely true Clinton (along with all the other candidates) had no other goal at the outset than getting as many PDs as possible, and all other metrics were effectively irrelevant.  She may not have done it as well as Obama, or thought that she'd accomplish it via bigger wins in bigger states, but everyone knew it was about the delegates (and most likely just the PDs) at the beginning of the race.  It was only after February that it became clear that it would hinge on SDs.

I feel it is totally reasonable for me to say that, if my candidate got the most votes, and if my cnadidate shows better performance v. McCain, than we should nominate my candidate.

Entirely reasonable, and I do agree with you (though we may differ on how much better vs. McCain qualifies).  If Clinton vs McCain is outperforming vs McCain vs Obama in polls by 20-30 points, and holds a clear PV lead, her nomination is entirely reasonable.  Being well within the margin of error this far out from the GE vs McCain and eeking out a tiny popular vote lead doesn't strike me as being sufficient for overturning Obama's PD lead, however, and I think that's far more likely to be the case.


by ChrisKaty on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

The caucus part in regards to 'popular vote' totals has also been an intruiging spanner in the works as well.  From what I understand most caucuses do not report vote totals so they are not included in any of the current totals being bandied about.  Am I correct in this?

If so, is there any summary of which caucus states are not included in any popular vote total and if estimates exist for those states re: total votes cast and vote breakdown by candidate?

I had no clue there was so much potential nuance in the primary process.  I'll say one thing, its been an amazing learning experience.


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:28:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

Realclearpolitcs has a estimate of the caucus popular vote, but for several states including Iowa, they had to guess because there are no official reports of turnout.

Also, like I posted above, popular vote isn't a meaningful metric now because many states that held caucuses would have held primaries instead if they knew that the popular vote was suddenly going to count.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

Some of what you say is factually incorrect, though.

For example, based on the most popular measure, % of Kerry vote, Florida's turnout was actually very close to what would have been predicted.

Actually Florida results were studied very closely (I believe it was Jay Cost who did this) the results seem fully legitimate (the same was not true for MI according to this analysis).

Likewise, I don't see how you can get into hypotheticals about what would have happened if there had been two candidates.  I could use that same argument to say that Iowa results are invalid by today's standards.  But each State is a snapshot in time.

I will tell you that I would fully support a re-vote as the most equitable solution.  But if a revote is not possible in Florida, we have two options: pretend nobody voted, or accept the results as they are.  It comes down to a question of which is more fair and which is less.  I think clearly counting the results, as they are, is more fair (delegate math can be adjusted to penalize them, of course, but I'm talking about the votes as they were cast).

Michigan is much more problematic because, as much as it would advantage my candidate to say count them as they are, I cannot say this is fair.  In a race this close, we all deserve to know who performs better in a critical state like Michigan.  So I think it benefits all Democrats to be armed with this additional information.  That is why I am strongly in favor of a Michigan revote.


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:04:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I generally agree with your reasoning.  While I think with campaigning Obama would have done better in FL, I'm ok with using the GOP's solution of cutting the delegates in half in FL.

About MI, you're right that a re-vote is the only answer, but I've read that the solutions proposed by Clinton's superdelegates in MI would exclude any folks that voted in the Republican primary.  I don't think that's fair, since many Edwards and Obama supporters probably sat it out or voted in the GOP primary because their candidates weren't on the ballot.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (2.00 / 1)

I havent seen the evidence you refer to re the voter turnout being at expectations, but in the interest of my laziness I will theoretically accept your position with the caveat that I can always change my mind when it suits me!

Seriously though, I will be the first to admit that there are way too many ways to see this thing as fair or not - hence my big problem on seeing a truly 'fair' outcome ever being agreed (because while I can be snarky and blustery, I like to think in the end I am fair minded).

Because to me, to be fair, you have to bring in hypotheticals because the Florida vote when it occurred was invalid.  It was not supposed to be there at that time in the primary cycle and if it had held its ground per the rules the dynamic of the vote would have been completely different.  And therefore its impact and role on the democratic nominee process would also have been vastly different.

I agree those results are a fair snap shot at that time of 1) the candidates name recognition and 2) influence resulting from the outcomes of the previous contests.  But Floridas opinion was not supposed to be taken then, the snap shot was taken before it was supposed to have been, so its not representative of what the dynamics were supposed to be.  

So while I want to slightly validate those results as representative of some reality, I cant see fair as including them fully or even as the only measure, because its gives complete validity to something that was not valid in the context of the complete race.

I think we will probably agree to disagree, but we both probably agree its a mess.

One question for you though, whats your take on a penatly for Florida?  Do you think there should be any delegates taken away?  If so, how many and of which kind (i.e. 50% of both pledged and super delegates or 50% pledged 0% super, or 0% of both, etc.).  

Personally Id like to see at least a 50% reduction in both if not 50% in pledged and 100% in super (the reason I punish supers more is they should take a principled stand for the DNC on this and accept that they were out maneuvered into having to do this primary move, but moving the primary was worth the price because something else important to their state was passed - paper trails.  So to me its a kind of a fall on your sword honor thing).


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:53:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

I don't have any strong opinion about delegate penalty, except to say that it seems some penalty is appropriate.  Cutting in half seems to be the minimum penalty available to the DNC per rules (then again, if they are following their rules, they have to cut Iowa, NH and SC delegates in half also).


by bobbank on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heres a part of my framework (none / 0)

You know what I dont like most about this whole mess is that it seems so damn arbitrary.

All I hope is that no matter what happens this primary cycle that the DNC gets all these issues fixed for next time.

I think future primaries are going to be more like this one than previous ones (in duration aspect).  The amounts of cash that are being raised and the importance of the issues at hand are going to make them competitive longer.

And I also like the idea that more, if not all, states are going to get to participate, I think it really can energize the party (of course there are some potential pitfalls as well, but everything is a little good and a little bad).

Id love to see some new radical way of getting this primary nomination process done, but Id defiitely make sure its shorter in duration than this year.

Sorry, went off topic a bit there.


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:15:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, no no no. Let me explain. (none / 0)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Throughout this diary I sensed more than some nebulous "acceptance" of Obama's inevitability.  It struck me as a concerted attempt to influence Clinton supporters with an ostentatious display of reasonableness.

I'm sorry, Angry Mouse.  I've admired your work in the past.  But I think you're deluding yourself with this diary.


by creeper1014 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:10:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 4)

Excellent dairy, however, I am not ready to concede that HRC cannot win. There is still time and I will have to support her and contribute to her campaign.


"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."
by LadyEagle on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:19:09 PM EST

That's okay too. (2.00 / 2)

We will all come to it in our own way, in our own time.

And I certainly appreciate the HRC supporters who are not ready to concede yet.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Speaking of Concession Speeches (none / 0)

One can only "hope" your "I was a Hillary supporter, then an Obama supporter, then a Hillary supporter" diary is as passionate when Hillary become the nominee.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It'll be even more passionate... (2.00 / 0)

because I would love to be able to support her in November.

But, just to clarify, I have not stopped being an HRC supporter.

It's just that for me, it is time to accept that Obama will be the nominee, so I need to learn how to support him.

But hey, you find a way to make her the nominee, and I'll be first in line to do the dance of joy.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Contradiction in terms (1.00 / 1)

A "supporter" who doen't "support" generally isn't invited to dance at the Inaugural Ball.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Contradiction in terms (2.00 / 2)

Maybe you're right.  But my learning to support Obama does not mean I have to be against Hillary, does it?

It doesn't have to be either/or, at least not for me.  I can want HRC to be president, but I can also get behind Obama because I realize he will be the one running against McCain.

I guess the main difference is now, when I see a good headline for Obama, I don't have to think it's a bad thing.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It'll be even more passionate... (none / 0)

It took even less time for you to show your true purpose here than I thought it would.

But hey, you find a way to make her the nominee, and I'll be first in line to do the dance of joy.

If you are, as you claim, still a Hillary supporter why would you not be working to make her the nominee?

It is not over, despite your claim that it is and then using that as a reason to change sides.  I find  this disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.  It borders on trolling.


by creeper1014 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Recced (2.00 / 6)

I changed my sig to signify that John McCain is wrong.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:21:02 PM EST

Thank you for changing your sig. (2.00 / 1)

It's a small step, I know, but I think it's a good place to start.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My sig wasn't necessary anti-either candidate (2.00 / 3)

It was just BO>HC>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>JM

But still in the spirit of unity I can be completely Anti-McCain


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That works. (2.00 / 1)

In fact, I think someone cited your sig over on DKos in the comments.

Anti-McCain is perfectly reasonable on these sites.  It's the anti-HRC and anti-BHO sigs that I think need to stop.  

It was inspirational to see, in real time, eclecticbrotha's moment of clarity.  He posted a comment of appreciation, which contained an anti-candidate sig.  And then realized that maybe that was part of the problem.  So he changed it.

And then others changed theirs.

It's a small step, but an important one, I think, in how we start to come back together.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Baloney to me, I like sandwiches.  

To me coming from a research director Hillary, and Obama are worlds apart.  I am a registered Dem but just because someone has (D) in front of their name doesn't mean I vote for them on automation.

I am almost apt to point out the funding proportions that Hillary, and yes even McCain of all evil people are willing to put back into research after Bush's cuts.

Obama numbers are along with Bush's with him throwing money at the grade schools, high schools which has never worked before because that management needs to happen at the district level.

But again Obama says he is a democrat but on several issues he looks very more republican than McCain.


by Iamjustmakingapoint on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:26:35 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 0)

I am a teacher so I kind of like the idea of funding schools:)  There is a vote in a couple weeks in my county for school funding and if it fails about 20% of all employees will have to be let go.  So yeah, from where I sit we need to fund schools.


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

We already fund schools heavily.  The thing is once the money gets to the district level it has been appropriated elsewhere than the schools that need it.

For example the blue ribbon school with high test scores will get the majority of the money for expanding classrooms, new equipment, etc while the failing inner city school gets no money to repair windows, heating or get current books in children's hands.  

No matter how much money the government pumps into grade schools, high schools the poor, inner city, forgotten schools will always be passed over unless something is done on the county and district levels.

As a teacher I am saddened you do not know this.

They need to re-align not re-fund.
 


by Iamjustmakingapoint on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

"But again Obama says he is a democrat but on several issues he looks very more republican than McCain."

Try looking harder. Or would you care to explain some ways that Barack Obama is more conservative than John McCain?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

This diary is on my rec list.


McCain: The Past, Obama: The Future
by KathyM on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:31:22 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

You lost me right here:

"Deoliver47 wanted to know Does the D in MyDD stand for Dixiecrat?"

I stopped reading and think that's a crap thing to try and insinuate.


One cannot and must not try to erase the past merely because it does not fit the present.
by TxDem08 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:33:40 PM EST

Re: (2.00 / 2)

Ya shoulda kept reading.


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 0)

I agree...  I just read it since I was not on there yesterday or earlier today so I missed it.  That was a great diary.  It really was.

Kudos to the diarist... and kudos to this one as well...

Recommended!


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please give it another shot. (2.00 / 1)

I posted a lengthy response to the question posed re: MyDD, which is part of my diary.  

I think, if you have been one of the people who has been annoyed with the blog wars, you may appreciate my response.  

It was in defense of those of us over here who have been supporting HRC.

I did not, in any way, agree that MyDD stood for Dixiecrat or anything of the sort.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:37:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 0)

well then you missed a very good diary.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:39:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Did you see the rec list here on Monday?  The top three diarists had to be banned for that shit.


by Skaje on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 0)

I was pretty shocked at those extreme right talking points, too.  I'm not trying to be insulting or anything, but wow, I was really surprised.  There was a bunch of stuff that Hillary would never want said to benefit her, I'm sure.  I know that goes both ways between supporters of the candidates, and maybe it's easier to see this sort of thing when talk gets more racist, but yeah, those didn't seem representative of HRC's views at all!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:10:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To TexDem (2.00 / 3)

My name is Denise Oliver-Velez.  My nickname in the real world is Neci. My nick here is NeciVelez.

I posted a long comment here the other day to a diary on the rec list which was removed from the list, though not from the site.
That comment was the bulk of my post to DKos.

I realize that it may make some folks uncomfortable, but diaries are a place to explore not only statistics and polls but perspectives.

I happen to be old enough (60) to have lived under Dixicrats, some  of whom became Republicans, many who now follow people like Rush Limbaugh.  Some are still identified as Democrats.  This troubles me.  

I've been reading here for sometime, and have recently posted a few diaries, and comments.

Yes - I was shocked by the level of discourse here - not focused on John McCain, and many diaries filled with both racist and sexist rants, all of which are offensive to me as a female and as a woman and as a person of color, a person of color raised by a white grandmother.

It was my students who encouraged me to come online and begin to speak out in blogs.  
I didn't know the difference between TPM, DKos, or MyDD.   I simply assumed they were sites that were dedicated to electing Democrats.  After I figured out how to give mojos, make comments, and keep track of all the frenetic posting, I began to get a feel for differences.  Yes, Dkos is strongly Barack supportive.  But rarely did I find openly racist remarks that were allowed to sit there un-challenged.  I was critical of the tone of Hillary bashing as well.  At TPM the community is split - and there are some extremely offensive posts there - but it seems to be more balanced.  

I will stand by my response to what I have been reading here.  I have been told that much of what I read was the work of trolls.  But I checked and that didn't seems to be completely true.  

There is a diary here today applauding Lou Dobbs.  A man that has made his goal in life the vilifying of Latinos.  This is very painful.
It also has no place imho on a Dem site.  

Dkos was the only place I felt that I could speak openly about my deep level of distress.  

It was also the only place where I found I could have a sane level headed discussion with someone like AngryMouse.  Many of my friends, women my age of all colors and ethnicities are Hillary supporters.  None of them has ever used racism as a weapon to denigrate his candidacy.  We remain friends, and agree to disagree.  

I have contemplated, when blinded by anger and distress,  rejecting Hillary Clinton as a person I would vote for were she to get the nomination. To sit it out and only vote downticket. It is people like Angry Mouse who made me see how absolutely ridiculous that stance would be, ultimately stupid - and was really a response to those loud supporters who have been openly racist.  I have to accept that those people may be part of the party I belong to - but I will never stop challenging them, and their positions - no matter who wins.  

My life's work as a teacher and anthropologist and women's studies professor these days is to teach young people to understand and reject deeply rooted ideas about "race" (a social construct) and gender/sexism - which is a patriarchal social construct.  To develop in them a sense of cultural relativism, and to get them to look inward, explore their prejudices - of all kinds, and to examine where they learned them and the underlying fear that drives them.

You can refuse to read my entire diary.  That's okay.  But accept that AngryMouse was very brave to come here and discuss how she feels, and why.

You can reject my observations and feelings too.  
But I'm not leaving here.  I will attempt to keep my tone reasonably level.  I will post diaries that support my candidate from time to time, but plan to focus much more on how to win against McCain and how to turn states to a color we all love.

I will also continue to critique diaries that are openly racist/sexist where ever I encounter them.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing racism,sexism,homophobism, ageism and ethnocentrism.
by NeciVelez on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A lot of nice thoughts here (2.00 / 7)

And I might revisit this diary if and when Obama actually locks up the nomination, or gets into a 95%+ position.

But you've bought the propaganda.  This thing is a long way from over.  Don't be a quitter.

Fight nice.  But fight.  Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

It ain't over til it's over, and it ain't over yet.


by Trickster on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM EST

Re: A lot of nice thoughts here (2.00 / 2)

And don't forget to rage, rage, rage against the lying of the right.


by interestedbystander on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 0)

Great diary, (Not) Angry Mouse.  Rec'd.


by Rumproast on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:39:23 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 3)

you know why I am not worried about the party uniting?

Diaries like this, sure it wont be right away, but the party will unite in the end.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:04 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

A week ago I would have doubted that, but I am starting to feel that we are putting our verbal shotguns down and considering how to team up against McCain.  This was and still is a brutally close affair, but I think people will come together when the final bell is rung.


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An HRC Supporter (2.00 / 3)

Mouse,

I read you original post over at KOS but did not comment, there were plenty.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a Obama supporter.  

I won't go into the reasons for my support of Obama as that's not what this post is about.  

The main reason for my post is to thank you for sharing your thoughts and feelings with such candor.  

Any canidate, society, all of us are lucky to have people like you around to force these "mirror moments"

be well


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:56 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

Great diary. We need to start agreeing again.

Recommended, and I changed my sig from pro-Obama to tell the truth about the republican nominee.


www.payd.org Keeping PA Blue
by dannybauder on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:46 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (. (2.00 / 1)

There isn't enough mojo in the world for this post.

Great stuff.  And spot on.


by a gunslinger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:57 PM EST

Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 1)

I've been offended as you by some of the insults and slurs used against HRC supporters.

But the comments on DKos in response to this diary amazed me for many reasons, including the number of apologies.  People were actually apologizing for the way they've behaved recently.

Many olive branches are being extended.  I think it would serve the country well if we start accepting those olive branches.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:12 PM EST

Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 4)

Sorry to be so crude, but their apologies are just words. And right now those words don't even mean that they are about the General- just that they want to promote one story of a new Obama supporter.

If they really meant those apologies, would they have slurred HRC and her supporters so badly or tolerated it?

No, I don't think they mean it. What brings us together and what will bring us together in the general election is common interest, the same thing that brings together manufacturer and retailer.

And I think the sooner everyone recognizes what a soulless profession/hobby/interest politics is, the better off we all are.

When this is all over there will be a lot of hugs and kisses, but it will really be one side bowing down before the other because there's something even worse coming down the street. It'll happen, but it's nothing to feel good about.


by Beet on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:19:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 0)

One part of me thinks you are one of the most cynical posters I have met in a while, but the other half is scared you are right about the reality of politics and the Democrats as a group.  


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You could be right. (2.00 / 2)

But I'll tell you something -- if the only lasting effect of my diary is that there are no more anti-HRC (or anti-Obama) sigs, I think that'll be a vast improvement.

But I think a lot of the comments were heartfelt.  So...we'll see.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You could be right. (2.00 / 1)

I did like the diary. I think there is a genuine upside to healing for a diary like that to be recc'd. But there's no way it would have been recc'd if there had been a different, more neutral title, more in the spirit of your diary itself.

I really think blogs can be great sources of knowledge about how groups interact. I hope one day both Markos and Jerome will allow the databases of their sites to be opened up for analysis. Social 'scientists' can learn something.


by Beet on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:59:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 1)

"Sorry to be so crude, but their apologies are just words."

Using that logic...isn't it 'just words' that have you upset in the first place?


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (none / 0)

Yes. I guess the point is that they are only offered in the context of Angry Mouse's shifting to Obama.


by Beet on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 1)

Well, I voted Edwards and my loyalty from here goes to the Democrat in November (whoever it is). I think anything that furthers the goal of electing the Democrat is a good thing. I am not able to judge each online apology on it's validity, so, I choose to accept them all at face value and move on. Though it is hard to remember sometimes, they really are just words on a screen (good and bad), we must not lose sight of the goal.

;)


by Kysen on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:08:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 2)

Actually, my understanding is that the conciliatory comments actually preceded Angry Mouse's diary on this subject.  (I was part of that original thread of discussion.)


by barath on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Barath, my dear... (2.00 / 1)

you were part of my inspiration.

I tip my hat to you.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Barath, my dear... (2.00 / 1)

Glad (and honestly, surprised) I could be of help.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:52:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The may be contextual (none / 0)

But does that mean they are not genuine?  

Hillary Clinton is fighting for FL & MI delegates in the context that having their votes counted will benefit her campaign.  Does that necessarily imply that she does not genuinely care about the voters whose votes have not been counted?


by anevarez on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The may be contextual (2.00 / 3)

Well she cares more about winning than whether the FL & MI delegates are counted. As does Obama & as would Edwards. In fact, if seating those delegations made no difference in the outcome, no one would care. So if Obama were behind and he had won FL & MI, his campaign would be arguing that they should be counted too. And his supporters would be among the most vocal screaming about disenfranchisement.

However, there's a difference between the campaigns themselves which are expected to argue the position favorable to them (for who else will?) and people who may be supporting one candidate or the other but still have the ability to detach themselves and restrain themselves in their tactics and rhetoric.


by Beet on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:37:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The may be contextual (2.00 / 2)

great post, the idea that these candidates are operating on anything other than an insane drive to win is hilarious.  They are politicians and the roles would be reversed if things were different.  No one is a saint in this primary, except Mike Gravel.  Fear the Gravelanche!


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to be clear... (2.00 / 1)

this isn't about shifting to Obama (or away from HRC).  This is about accepting Obama.

HRC is still my first choice, but I am coming to terms with the fact that my first choice is not going to be the nominee.

And it's time for me to learn how to be an Obama supporter.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, no. (2.00 / 1)

A lot of these very thoughtful comments were made in response to another diary last night.  That is what inspired me to write the one I posted this morning.

The tide, from my view, was already starting to turn.  


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The tide is turning? (2.00 / 1)

We should be able to tell in 24 hours.

I see 2 negative diaries about Hillary right next to yours recc'd right now.

I don't see any negative diaries about Obama currently on the myDD rec list.


by Beet on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:35:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is turning? (2.00 / 2)

My conciliation is (and generally always has been) with fellow voters.  In addition, I've always troll-rated personal attacks on Hillary as a person over at Daily Kos, and debunked smear articles against her (for example, there were many diaries written about the Dick Morris claims about Hillary, Chelsea, and 9/11; I debunked those diaries immediately).

However, on the matter of her campaign apparatus, I'm less sanguine.  So I am ok with diaries that discuss less savory aspects of her campaign apparatus if those complaints are legit, since the primary contest is still ongoing and just as the Clinton campaign isn't going to let the Obama campaign slide on anything, the same is true in reverse.

So while I believe one of the diaries about Clinton on the rec-list at Daily Kos right now (about overcharging weirdness) is ok, the others are not.


by barath on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:00:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The tide is turning? (2.00 / 1)

There are currently four diaries by Hillary supporters plus this one.


by interestedbystander on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:37:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Can't this happen after one of them drops out? (2.00 / 1)

As an Obama supporter, I think you have a firm grasp on reality.  It would be the same if the roles were reversed.


by XoFalconXo on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 2)

You are generalizing.  Not all Obama supporters/kosites were calling Clinton supporters racist, etc.

In fact, how is your generalization of Obama supporters any different than their generalization of Clinton supporters, some of whom were more than happy to feed in to the racism of the campaign if it helped their candidate?  Can you honestly deny that their some of Clinton's supporters were in fact exhibiting racist behavior?

It is sadly ironic that calling someone a racist is considered more offensive than saying Obama is only winning because he is black, which is in fact a very racist comment, and is a product of the modern right wing form of racism which preaches that black people cannot succeed on their own merit.


by anevarez on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 1)

I don't think they are "suddenly" doing anything.  I think they are accepting reality gradually, as I am.  

I think they are starting to accept that they can't do it alone, that they need us, that we have to be united against McCain -- and that yes, they may have crossed the line in the heat of battle.

Only time will tell, of course, but I am, for the first time in weeks, quite hopeful.


by Angry Mouse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 1)

I'd never been called racist in my life before I posted at DailyKos.

After having been faithfully lurking at the site since 2004, it was depressing to have such an unpleasant experience when I decided to engage in the discussions there.

So, I moved to MyDD (different handle, as well).  I am still visiting and contributing at DailyKos, but the community has clearly been blighted as a result of this primary process.  Once I'm able to write diaries here at MyDD, I think I'll be staying for good.


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:49:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

my "firsts" (none / 0)

I have never been called a racist before either until I was repeatedly beat up at the DK and not for being negative about Obama -- but for posting defenses of ugly Rushian bullshit about the Clintons.  Somehow, attempting to correct against anti-Clinton right wing propaganda had become "racist".

but the most startling moment was back in February when a flock of comments on a progressive blog asserted that

  1. sexism no longer existed
  2. sexism was never all that bad
  3. statistics that show sexism exists are rigged
  4. any claims of sexism are "whining"
  5. use of the term "feminazis"
  6. no white woman has ever suffered as much as any black man because in comparison white women had it made because they slept with white men
  7. any woman who still contends sexism exists is playing the "victim"

Then, there was the ageism, a seldom discussed issue --

  1. "baby boomers" destroyed this country
  2. all of Clinton's support is coming from "empty nesters" with "no responsibilities"

Back in early February I posted three diaries in a row on DK, not attack diaries, literally begging the folks there to see what they were doing, the alienation they were forcing, in their vitriolic attacks on not just the Clintons, but her supporters.  

Yes, MyDD has gotten out of control, but put it in perspective before you level this playing field --

it's wrong and I stopped doing it long ago, to use terms like "Obamaton", to refer to Obama supporters as "cultist" or assume they are all young or elitist.  However, I would vastly prefer to be assumed young, elitist, over-educated, over-enthused and/or black than...
racist, "low-information", war-mongering, a throw-back, a "victim", a "whiner", a "feminazi", a closet Republican, a Dixiecrat or someone voting only on gender.

Go ahead, seriously, and try to tell me the insults and the ugliness has been equal from both sides.  

Now, the healing is supposed to begin.  Well, I can't help but play the "victim" here and suggest it's going to take alot more than a cursory apology and a bunch of flowers to forget the black eyes from being thrown down the steps every day for two months.  And it's not just about me, it's about my ideals, everything I've ever stood for and fought for being kicked down the steps with me.

REAL healing is going to start with looking at the true nature of the damages done -- fearlessly, openly, honestly -- not by sweeping it all under the rug with "you made me hit you" and "let's just put all that in the past".

Does it matter how I think or feel as an individual?  Hell no.  But it does matter what tens of millions of potentially disenfranchised "dixiecrats", "low information voters", "professional victims," "bored empty-nesters" and "closet racists" think and feel about their choice between Obama and McCain and a couple frames of bad bowling, a day's worth of apologies and admonishments from white haired white guys to get along aren't going to cut it.  


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:16:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 0)

I'm not actually aware of what was said to you (and I'm too lazy to search through all this), but I think you're viewing this through too combative of a lens.  I think it's entirely appropriate that as the campaign (appears, at least) to wind down, those who have supported the likely victor extend the olive branch.  Would Obama supporters expect Hillary supporters to come groveling back saying "We were wrong about Obama, turns out he was a good enough candidate to win"?  Of course not!  You're pissed off and disappointed that things aren't looking so good for the candidate who inspired you and won your support.

I just realized that might be why this diary seems to have drawn so much attention, because it kind of flips the script on the whole "apology" situation, but that's beside the rambling point I'm getting to.

Simply put, while I hope I never personally said anything that offended you about your candidate (and knowing full well that the democratic nominee needs ALL democrats come November to win), I can honestly tell you that I'm sorry if Hillary loses because she would have made a great president and I know how badly so many people want her to win.  I really really hope that whoever loses the primary isn't knocked off the political stage, because they both are really good for democrats and America as a whole.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:27:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, there were a lot of apologies. (2.00 / 2)

Not all of us.  I have never believed and never said that the Clintons are racists.  They just aren't.

A lot of Obama supporters came to him from other candidates.  He doesn't have the exact same strengths of our original choice so we had to learn what his strengths are.  All the original candidates brought something special to the table but the special things were different from one to the other.

To illustrate what I mean about Obama supporters coming to him from other candidates, look at the Dem/President graph on pollster.com.  You can see when Obama's polling numbers started to rise.  When Gore stopped being included, Obama started to rise, then Edwards dropped out and Obama rose even more.  Obviously he picked up support at those times.

We are not Kool-aid drinkers, or cultists or blindly following some messiah-like candidate.  We are mostly pragmatists.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:13:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well put. (none / 0)

I made a decision early on that I morally could not support a candidate in the primary who voted for the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Al Gore was my first choice. When he didn't sign on I supported Kucinich -- not in a delusional way -- Kucinich simply added a voice that I felt was important to the debate (had he been given a chance to debate). Believe me, you have to sport some pretty big boxing gloves when you're a Kucinich supporter. After Dennis dropped out, I came around to Obama. The more I've gotten to know of him, the more excited I am about his candidacy. Now I would choose him over Gore and coming from me that says a lot. I have nothing against Clinton's supporters. Some of them are even friends of mine, and friends of mine aren't racist.
by grasshopper on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great Diary (2.00 / 3)

Seriously, thank you for this.  I have always respected the HRC supporters who are focused on why Senator Clinton is the best candidate, and you clearly seem to fall into that camp.  Too often, folks on both sides of this debate move away from that kind of advocacy, and that's when we all really lose.


by HSTruman on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:13 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) (2.00 / 2)

As an Obama supporter here at MyDD - I can add that Clinton is surely still alive in this and could win...at the point...I wonder...will the HRC folks feel the need to extend the olive branch. There is plenty of venom coming out of HRC supporters here...I believe this will need to be a two way street - depending on who receives the nomination.

I will not vote for McCain - but I will surely want to get excited about Clinton if she is the nominee.

I am in Wisconsin...I think you will need me, too.


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:41 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 0)

Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I was waiting fairly patiently for a comment like this.  Took me until the end of the comments actually which might just be a record on this site, and therefore saying something.

There are supporters of different stripes on both sides.  Some name-call, some don't.  Some have well thought out arguments, some don't.

But the sheer hypocrisy of your comment is kind of boggling my mind to be honest.  You decry the Obama supporters for being mean all the while you call them Obamites (whatever that means)...  

I have seen both Senators called racists on this site.  I have seen both candidates supporters get called racists on this site.  It is not appropriate for any of the name calling to exist or to continue.  But to imply that it has been one-sided is simply wrong.

As to your "Let them grovel" comment, I am not of the mind to grovel at the moment, but to be honest, if Obama gets the nomination and the race is tight versus John McCain, I might be willing to, just in an effort to save the country.

Of course, I am also not an Obamite (whatever that is), so I do not know that you would accept groveling from me anyway.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:20:34 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

You get obamanite pins at the cult meetings every monday.  Also, if you bring five friends you get a robe with Obama's face on it.  Haven't you gotten the messages about this?

Disclosure:  I am a huge Obama supporter, just felt like being a smart alex.


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

Well heck, if it's anything like the Stonecutters were on the Simpsons, that would be cool....

"Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!"


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Everyone has been a huge butt head to each other in this primary.  As an Obama supporter I am 99% done being mad at anything Clinton or her supporters have done or said.  I am sure my side has said a long list of stupid things as well.  I said some pretty crappy things to Clinton supporters way back in 07 and I wish I could take them back.  Maybe I would feel more like you if the situations were reversed.  

Regardless, try to at least see that a large number of Obama supporters are trying to bridge the divide and make peace with all of you.  We are not asking you to "swoon"  but rather take a deep breathe and remember we are on the same side even if we piss each other off sometimes.


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Funny, I don't recall the Obama campaign ever calling Hillary Clinton racist.  I think I would have remembered that.

Anonymous people on blogs do not speak for the candidates.


by Skaje on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:59:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair (2.00 / 1)

I've heard SUPPORTERS from both sides accuse each other of 'racism', and it's inflammatory and unprovable. You can say you consider of comment 'racist' etc, but unless there's a whole ideology of racial superiority or fear behind it, the accusation rings hollow.

But I HAVE NEVER HEARD the Obama campaign accuse anyone of being racist. I'd like to see your proof. You might have felt they 'implied' that - but Obama has made a point of trying to avoid a racially divisive campaign. He needs to, to win. And given his background, it would be self contradictory to play one race against the other.

So unless you have proof that the Obama CAMPAIGN has accused people of racism, please retract this


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:03:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: To be fair (none / 0)

Have I gone made? Or has everyone else? Can you tell me please, no matter how cruel and unfair that comment is, how it is racist? Or particularly sexist?

It's not Obama. It's clearly on off the cuff remark. But racist? It's so subliminal. So if that's the best you've got... I think you prove my point


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

They have, repeatedly.

The absurd argument that "typical white person" was racist?

The fox-like soundbiting of Wrights sermons to make things appear racist that were not?


by wrb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:11:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

you know... to be honest, I read some of your previous comments to see how even-handed or unifying you are yourself as a poster...  the answer was, not very.  Hoping carnivorous space aliens abduct Governor Richardson because he did not endorse Clinton but chose Obama...  seriously...?

I am not too heart-broken that you did not find my charge of hypocrisy "unifying"...  It was not intended to be.


"If you ever post anything on that website again, I will shove a motherboard so far up your a$$...!" C.J Cregg
by JenKinFLA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:17:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Welcome aboard.  I suspect once you let yourself you'll get really excited about the potential here. Lots of diversity and a lot of really decent committed people.


by Annabella on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:36 PM EST

Well, I've never called anyone a racist (2.00 / 3)

but I was told repeatedly that I belonged to a cult because I supported Obama (note: support only began after Edwards dropped out), and that it was my candidate who was the racist because he "emphasized his blackness" and "had no idea of the white experience in this country."  

Both sides have been harsh toward the other at times.  I truly am sorry the race took the turn it did, and yes, do want you to support Sen. Obama if he becomes the nominee (just as I plan to support Hillary).  McCain is in many ways another 4 years of Bush, except George Bush never sang about bombing Iran to the tune of the Beach Boys.  

I hope you're not saying that you're OK with a McCain presidency because some people said mean things to you in the comments of blogs.  To me, that seems like an overreaction.    


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:38:55 PM EST

Re: Well, I've never called anyone a racist (2.00 / 1)

m8srv98:

Have you ever called an Obama supporter a cultist, a fanatic or a zealot?


by cal2008 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You said... (2.00 / 1)

so much of what I've been thinking the last couple of days and haven't made time to write.

Thanks for your thoughtful words and conciliatory tone.

Time to start focusing on McNuthead so we can protect the Supreme Court.


Be a Jan fan! Schakowsky for US Senate.
by passionateprogressive on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:48:09 PM EST

Re: You said... (2.00 / 1)

McNuthead...I like it.  I actually spit soda all over the textbook I am supposed to be reading.


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 3)

Terrific diary. The person who commented about substituting Clinton for Obama is dead-on. I always try to do that (I once commented here that every Clinton supporter on this site has a doppelganger Obama supporter on dKos.)

Two things:
1. I also changed my dKos sig yesterday, without even knowing about your diary, but for the same reasons.

2. I'm not worried about the kumbaya/post-partisan thing. Back when I was an Edwards supporter, I complained that Obama would be eaten alive, and that like you, I didn't WANT conciliation with republicans. I want to trample and conquer their ideology, not partially incorporate it.

But you know what? I'll let you in on a little secret...I don't really think Obama's going to be a moderate who splits the proverbial baby on major issues. I think he'll be reliably liberal, but will analytically take into account other viewpoints.

In other words, an Obama policy decision may look like this: "I understand and respect your position, so let me explain why we should do it my way..." And that'll be that.

Not in a million years do I see him wavering on choice, the environment, Iraq, stem cell research or any of the other issues we hold dear. But I do see him as at least giving respectful lip service to his opponents. And who knows, maybe hearing a fresh perspective might actually make republicans think differently about these issues.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:09:39 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Johnny, one of the reasons I can't get behind Obama is that he HAS wavered substantially on the environment. His original platform included support for corn-based ethanol and liquid coal. This changed a month or so into the campaign to reflect a better "Green" position but I'm left with wondering, why did he have those terrible positions to begin with? Was it that he didn't know? Didn't care?

There's so little actual record that you sort of have to take him at his word, and that keeps changing.


by OtherLisa on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:23:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

And just last month, Hillary wasn't sure if mountaintop removal mining--which devastates the environment--was really a bad thing.

But I really have no doubt that either one of them would be strongly pro-environment. On their League of Conservation Voters scores:


By contrast to McCain, Clinton earned a score of 73 (out of a possible 100) from the League of Conservation Voters in 2007 and Obama scored 67. The average score for Members of Congress in 2007 was 53.

Comparing the overall voting records of the three presidential candidates, Clinton's lifetime score from the LCV is 87, Obama's is nearly the same at 86, and McCain's is a distant 24.

They're basically the same. Notice that McCain's lifetime score is at a 24, less than half the average. And for 2007, McCain got a big, fat, whopping zero. He was too busy running for president to care about the environment and missed all the votes.

So while I certainly respect your preference, please remember that our candidates are pretty similar, and infinitely better than McCain.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:40:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

But you know what? I'll let you in on a little secret...I don't really think Obama's going to be a moderate who splits the proverbial baby on major issues. I think he'll be reliably liberal, but will analytically take into account other viewpoints.

I think thats right.  "Bipartisan" means reaching across the aisle, not meeting them halfway mechanically(like the media does for "balance").  He's basically saying you can do things the right way (which is pretty liberal overall) even if you have a R next to your name.  

Then again, this was a bigger block for me to not support Clinton since that ("triangulation") was a hallmark of the Bill Clinton administration.  Perhaps Hillary Clinton would be more steadfast but I haven't seen anything that indicates that.  


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very nice (2.00 / 4)

As one of the stubborn HRC supporters, I thoroughly enjoyed your diary.


by zenful6219 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:24:32 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 5)

Mouse, I really like your diary in the context of healing some of the wounds that have been picked at by the primary contest.

I am, however, disappointed as a Clinton supporter, to see that there are those among us who feel that any of the remaining paths Clinton has to the nomination are illegitimate.  Nearly all of the remaining contests heavily favor Senator Clinton, and with FL almost undoubtedly being counted as legitimate in the popular vote (and a possible revote in MI) it seems extremely likely she will be ahead when the polls close.

I don't know.  I guess I just feel like it's a long ways from over.

But this is still a good diary :-).


No candidacy is more important than the right to vote.
by hornplayer on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:44:05 PM EST

Clarification (2.00 / 0)

With all due respect...how do you figure this:

"Nearly all of the remaining contests heavily favor Senator Clinton"

I figure Obama is favored in NC, OR, MT, and SD - and has a good shot in IN and maybe even PR. I would say Clinton is 'heavily' favored in KY and WV and maybe PA (although that is shifting a little from 'heavily' to 'solidly' favored for HRC).

Not sure about Guam!


We don't need a thinker. We need a doer: someone who'll act without considering the consequences. (H.J. Simpson)
by Newcomer on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:39:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a nice diary (2.00 / 3)

It's beautiful in many ways.  I don't think the race is over though.  I'll vote for the Democrat in November irrespective of the nominee's identity.  But a Hillary lead in popular vote is a strong possibility at this point and with the continued succession of polls showing Obama losing (badly) many big swing states (PA, FL, OH) to McCain with Hillary being palpably stronger, there's going to be a lot to consider for "neutral" superdelegates.


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:50:03 PM EST

Re: This is a nice diary (2.00 / 2)

he isn't losing badly in PA or OH.  He is tied in Ohio and winning PA.  Seriously, who is going to go off of GE polls right now?  They change with the wind.  Now if either was getting completely blown out I could see the merit of that, but both have realistic paths to winning the general.  I concede the popular vote point, if she can pull that off she has an argument to make and I can understand why she would stay in.  Would you be comfortable with Obama saying the same if the roles were reversed?


by Xris on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a nice diary (none / 0)

"Would you be comfortable with Obama saying the same if the roles were reversed?"

Absolutely.  If Obama had a slim defecit in pledged delegates but a clear lead in the popular vote, I would think he'd be entitled to be the nominee.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, i am not ready yet eom (2.00 / 2)


by Prisoners dilemma on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:51:17 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 0)

Sort of like being called a cult member.  I can see where you are coming from however.


by tired of dynasties on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:29:25 AM EST

Maybe as someone (2.00 / 3)

who has never had their preferred candidate make it through the primary process (or been in a state where I could ever even meaningfully vote for my preferred candidate) Ive always been at the losing end of the stick, so Im a pro at sucking it up and moving on.

Even in this primary, my preferred was probably Richardson, but somewhere along the way I became a hard Obama supporter (or probably better put, a non-Hillary supporter - and I have my reasons and I believe they are valid based on issues important to me so its not just reflexive hate or anything).

All sides have been nasty at some point in time primary and this is part of the problem I have with a long campaign and this campaign continuing on to the convention.  Its just leads to tribalism and competition.

I had my reasons for non-Hillary from long ago and pretty much nothing was going to move me.  So what was I going to say for a the entireity of the primary period?  I mean, essentially, the primary has been over for me from the get go.

So we get in camps and then we have nothing else to say to the other camps and because we have nothing else to say to each other and all we are amongst ourselves is an echo chamber and we know we cant sway the other camp, we have to show how 'bad' the other camp is.  We have to racthet up the rhetoric, we have to take umbrage with every slight, we have to see sinister motives with every slip of the tongue, we have to infer the worst of our opponent and blindly assume the best of our candidate.  It gives us something to talk about, it makes us more righteous felling in our support of our candidate and allows us to hate our opponent.

Only when we lose 'our' candidate can we begin to see that the sun will still rise, rain will still fall and life will go one with its ups and downs and we can start to move on.

I may be non-Hillary in the primary and will be bummed is she wins the primary, but I'll be damned if Id vote for McInsane or anyone that isnt a dem.

Some may take that as false magnanimous-ness (is that a word?) on my part since I think my guy has it in the bag, but its what I feel.

So kudos on a wonderful diary.  I think its the right sentiment at the right time on both sides.


by pattonbt on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 12:49:11 AM EST

while OUR dream will never die, (2.00 / 4)

its good that we are pro actively seeking to not repeat our loss to Ronald Reagan with a Carter vs. Kennedy feud. We must rally around the flag like the Tsongas, Brown, and Kerrey supporters did in 1992 and put us in the White House for the first time in 12 years, and got us reelected to a second term for the first time since 1936. For that same reason, notice how all the McCain supporters went back to Bush in 2000, and got him close enough to steal the White House in a close election.

We need to rally the troops: our army overpowers theirs in manpower, fighting conditions, and most importantly: MORALE!


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:24:39 AM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

Great diary, Angry Mouse.

Had I not lost my ability to rec diaries, I'd be hitting that button.

If everyone starts being nicer to one another, will you need to change your screen name?


by jdusek on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:19:26 AM EST

Hear hear (2.00 / 1)

Loved all of it.

Great diary !!!


by hebi on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:00:15 AM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Thanks so much for this diary, and referring me back to the 'Dixiecrats' diary. Both our testimonies to those things that make us human - the power to leap out of our stereotypes, and think afresh. Without that there is no hope for democracy and reasoned debate.

This is a brave and wonderful diary, and should be remembered, regardless of where the diarists support ends up.


Moose Juice; debate without hate
by brit on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:02:56 AM EST

Nicely said Angry Mouse (2.00 / 2)

Deoliver47 would be proud! Thanks for elevating the discourse and focusing the battle on McCain.


by dannyinla on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:46:45 AM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.  I know flim flam man with I see one.

With that said, if Obama is the nominee (that that's a BIG IF), I will hold my nose and vote and work on my ex-patriot life in another country.  

The only candidate who can really make the changes we need and the guts to do it is Hillary.  I'm sorry your feelings have been hurt, but that's okay.  You'll come around when Hillary is the nominee.


by stefystef on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:02:24 AM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 2)

So you didn't leave the country when Bush was elected (after what happened in Florida in 2000), but a President Obama would be provocation enough for you to buy the ticket?

For all of the talk about race and gender in this contest, when the dust settles I hope Dems are smart enough to figure out that this primary season has been a replay of the "party stalwart" vs. "young insurgent" contest for which the Dems are famous.

If Clinton had split the <45 vote with Obama this race would have been over weeks ago.  Likewise if Obama had gotten half of the ballots of those over 45.  If Obama gets the nom his winning formula will be this: he got the voters the insurgent usually gets plus the African-American vote.

And here's the thing.  I'm curious how many Clinton supporters today turned out for RFK, McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, and Howard Dean.  Have no problem with anyone who is supporting Clinton today (and no, I don't think she should withdraw now, etc.).

The only way Obama can get the nom, though, is by winning the primary season.  Who thinks if he arrived at Denver 100 delegates behind there would be any chance he could get the nom through superdelegates?

Understand the anguish of those who think Clinton is the better candidate, she's the best chance Dems have of electing a woman, and so on (like many I live in a household divided, and I know these sentiments are sincere).

It's a dicey proposition, though, when someone argues that the candidate who got a majority of those <45 is not a "real Democrat".  Think the race and gender issues have obscured this.  

Not saying the votes of younger people should be regarded as more important, but before any Dem votes for McCain I hope he or she spends time talking to those who supported the other candidate to see if there was something he or she overlooked.  Is that a pledge we can all take?


by IncognitoErgoSum on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 0)

Well said.  Its a primary and some people on both sides have said stupid stuff.  At the end of the day, very little divides Clinton and Obama in policy substance.  If you care about pushing the country back towards a more progressive trajectory (especially in the judiciary), then we need to come together when the dust settles.


by quixote27 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

you know, this kool-aid business is getting a little old. Not all Obama supporters are cultists, anymore than all HRC supports are racists. They are both ridiculous lines of attack--over generalized and not based in facts.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your (none / 0)

petulance does not offend me, it is spelled expatriate, and you cannot be an ex-patriot without first having been one.


Take your fear and shove it, it ain't workin' on us no more.
by Quicklund on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:44:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

NICE DIARY (2.00 / 6)

I am not ready to give up on Hillary yet.  I still believe she has a chance.  But I am ready to give up on the Hillary vs. Obama civil war.  I confess I am one of the folks who have said "I will vote for Mccain if Obama is the nominee."  (I have not said it in the blogosphere, but to others I have).  I wont really EVER vote for Mccain.  I was just angry that things were not going right for Hillary.  

When you read between the lines of some of the anger being spewed back and forth between Obama supporters and Hillary supporters, one thing is clear : Both sides are VERY PASSIONATE about their candidates.  

I still hope we can bring all of this Passion together and have our dream ticket.  Maybe I am dreaming.


Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:36:33 AM EST

Re: NICE DIARY (none / 0)

well said


NO 100 year WAR, NO McConnell run Senate, & NO GOP-led Supreme Court!!!
by Veteran75 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You hit the nail on the head. (none / 0)

You don't have to give up the fight for your candidate -- just the civil war within the party.

It is so heartening to see people on both sides realizing this distinction.

Thank you for reading.


by Angry Mouse on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Hillary is a whore",,, (none / 0)

"I'd clap and Cheer too"

Comments posted on the Kos today in reaction to Randi Rhodes suspension...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/3/1 34314/8399/639/489573

Posted by Sun Dog & Parent...

I'll stick with MYDD thank you very much


by LDFan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST

Re: "Hillary is a whore",,, (none / 0)

I don't understand.  You link to a diary by a first timer, which contains a healthy dialogue about (1) whether her comment was appropriate/taken out of context and (2) whether she deserved to be suspended for it.  Of course there were some ignorant comments - just as there are here too - but the majority of people either were trying to explain its context in a respectful manner or agreeing that what she said was inappropriate.

At the end of the day, I think her comments crossed the line myself and a suspension is appropriate.  But an open convo about that doesn't devolve into name calling seems perfectly fine.


by quixote27 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pundicrat not parent... (none / 0)


by LDFan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:03:11 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Very admirable diary. Thank you.

And also thank you for the link to the Dixiecrat diary. It is one of the bet I've read.

I skipped it at the time because from the title I expected it to be a flame.

I suppose being from a state that never has a role in picking the candidate, we tend to be a but passive-- we'll support whoever the other states have picked and their isn't much point in getting invested in primary candidates.

However I've seen growing anger around here about the intra-party bloodletting.

Rightly or wrongly it is perceived as coming almost exclusively from the Hillary camp.

On my local forum, whenever a righty said something misogynist or racist he got stomped by everyone until about a month ago.

Then people stopped defending Hillary. The last Hillary supporter, a 60 year old woman who had posted at least one nice thing about her every day for a year recently came over to BHO, citing his "more positive" campaign.

Less talk of racism, fewer attempts to distort Wright's sermons, less of "cultists" or ""Obamabots" or "empty suit" on the wider internet would sure have helped Hillary here. But I fear it is too late.


by wrb on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

It sounds as though you have caved to pressure from Obama supporters rather than you actually supporting Obama. I just don't see Obama as someone who can actually enact any meaningful legislation. You can't give somebody guts- you either have them or you don't. in some ways, Obama is more elitist than Nicolas Sarkozy. I guess the only poistive about the Obama campiagn is that hopefully this will create a new third party after a number of Dems abandon Obama in November.

My choices (if Obama is the nominee):
A. McCain
B. Nader
C. Barr
D. McKinney


by bsavage on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:55:02 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

All due respect, your comment doesn't make much sense.

First, The President (Obama, as you posit) doesn't enact meaningful legislation - that's Congress' job.  If you care about meaningful legislation, you want a strong Democratic President with really good coattails that will help increase the Democratic majority in the HoR and the Senate.  I personally think Obama has better coattails, but I think a cogent argument for Hillary can be made as well.  No argument for Democratic coattails can be made with your other choices.

Second, voting for McCain and hoping he's elected will actually make it HARDER to enact meaningful legislation because we will have divided gov't with a President likely to veto any and all progressive legislation.  

Third, don't even get me started on the judiciary picks he could put into place.  Not only will your choice make it harder to enact meaningful legislation, it makes it more likely that progressive legislation will be REPEALED.

Fourth, a new third party?  Nader or Bob Barr?  Barr was one of the most socially conservative politicians in Gingrich Congress. Seriously?

Unless you are someone who champions more conservative politics, I fail to see the point you are making.

P.S.  Not trying to rip on Hillary folks here, just trying to point out the problems with this logic.


by quixote27 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

No im not a conservative- however what Im hearing from Obama campaign and its supporters is that my vote wont matter anyway because they can makeup the diff by the large ammt of Indies who will vote for Obama.

As for the other candidates- I hate Obama that much. Just to be clear- I Will Never Vote For Obama. Got it? I like all my local and state Dems but not him.


by bsavage on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:33:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Worst of us indeed (none / 0)

Got it. And I'll remember, as the diary told me, that the rest of the Clinton supporters are not all as bad as you.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 11:34:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst of us indeed (none / 0)

No they certainly aren't. And in a sense, bsavage is right. We will make up his/her vote. With people who understand the huge issues at stake in this election (ie war, reproductive rights, the economic recession). With people who want to push a democrat agenda- with either Barack OR Hillary as President.


by cecilybecily on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (2.00 / 1)

Ya know m8srv98...your comments ...well one of the attributes of this place is retrieving past comments/diaries...
Nice try though...
On the subject of this Diary..

Here is a person who will probably never be able
to transfer her passionate support of Sen. Clinton's candidacy to Sen. Obama. Nor should this person.
However,; her articulate view should be accepted on that level....articulate.


"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST

"There's mony a slip (2.00 / 1)

twixt the cup and the lip." Robbie Burns
I'm too old and experienced to assume anything until it's all over.
by ellend818 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST

Great Diary (none / 0)

Good message that provoked a thoughtful discussion from both sides.  Rec'd


by NewOaklandDem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) (2.00 / 2)

Mouse - nice diary. Well thought out. But this Hillary supporter cannot support BO. Ever. There was too much damage done in this campaign. The media bias was beyond the pale. The DNC was disgraceful And I do not think BO will be good for the country. I, of course, will not vote for JM. So, this old dem will be on the sidelines. I cannot vote for the democrat just because...he/she is a democrat. And the way the party handled the primary - the FLA/MI thing for example - makes me want to not be a democrat. But thanks for your thoughts...Meanwhile, I'm still working for Hillary...Cause I think she still has a chance...so sorry you've thrown in the towel. She could use your support more than ever right now!


by susanclare on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:34:48 PM EST

Re: An HRC Supporter (Finally) Comes to Obama (Yes (none / 0)

"But this Hillary supporter cannot support BO. Ever."
Sen. Clinton is first and foremost a proud candidate in the Democratic Primary.
If folks truly believe in Sen. Clinton..you must also believe in her vision of the Democratic Party.
For anyone who abandons Sen. Clinton's Party simply demonstrates you never really believed in what she represented.
"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie
by nogo war on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:52:35 PM EST

Sorry, I don't buy it (2.00 / 2)

First things first - I am a Democrat, and will vote for whoever the nominee is.

Now then, nothing makes me chuckle more than someone with limited posting history who appears to be one thing, and then "sees the light" and becomes something else.

I've seen this movie dozens of times.

Never mind the phony racist stuff.
Never mind who has a better plan for universal health care.
Never mind the copycat speeches.
Never mind the professor who was not a Professor.
Never mind the Selma - Kennedy thing.
Who cares about Rezko.
Who cares about the Hillary - MLK - JFK manufactured outrage.
Who cares that Obama supported Cheney's enery plan.
Who cares about NAFTA-gate.

And so much more.

The light suddenly came on, the music played, and presto chango...another wonderful conversion.  Truth be damed.  Intellectual honesty...who cares.

And then the credits roll.

Tune in next week, same time, same channel, same show.


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 02:02:59 AM EST

My concern is health care (none / 0)

Obama would leave too many out of the picture. People WILL die, and it will cost more because people are left out.

That is why I still support Clinton, hands down.


by splashy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:33:43 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: