A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clinton

by Todd Beeton, Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:48 PM EST

I understand that many supporters of Hillary Clinton have grave reservations about Barack Obama as president and honestly, it would be nice if people on both sides of the candidate divide would respect and acknowledge this fact rather than dismissing it with knee-jerk accusations of racism or "troll!" It's a reality. Now, if you are one of those currently considering voting for John McCain yet have been fighting fiercely for Hillary Clinton in the primary, listen up.

You are welcome here...But...don't expect to have a forum to argue in favor a John McCain presidency. This blog has always been open about its rasion d'etre: electing Democrats, and John McCain is no Democrat as his positions on choice (he's against), war (he's for) and healthcare (he believes the market should handle it, cuz that's worked out so well so far!) make clear. So, you are welcome here; pro-McCain diaries are not.

Hillary Clinton has time and time again urged her supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee and has made impassioned pleas to her supporters NOT to vote for John McCain. Here she was addressing the issue in March:

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

"Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please."

"It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country." [...]

Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."

"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party," she said. "When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks, we're going to be united."

I would think any passionate supporter of Senator Clinton's would take this plea to heart and understand that voting for John McCain would be a direct slap in the face not only to her wishes for the fall but also to everything she's been fighting for in this primary campaign.

Quite frankly, a John McCain presidency would be a devastating blow to the agenda Hillary Clinton has laid out and intends to pursue regardless of the outcome of this primary, whether as VP or Senator or whatever the future has in store for her. A vote for John McCain is a vote against everything Hillary Clinton has been fighting for and hence, everything her supporters have been fighting for because ultimately a John McCain presidency would make it all the more difficult for Hillary Clinton to manifest the policies she's laid out in such incredible detail over this past year, whether on energy, healthcare or the war.

Now, as for the argument that McCain will be a better president with the large Democratic majorities in Congress, the question must be asked, "a better president than what?" Bush? OK, sure, but imagine what our politics is going to become with a Dem congress and a President McCain: all about compromise and contrition. Yet look at what bi-partisan compromise has gotten us over the past several years: the war in Iraq, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, the Cheney energy bill, and the list goes on and on. The transformation that the 2008 elections hold out for us requires the marginalization of Republicans, their relegation to a vocal minority to allow the Democratic agenda, which is the American agenda, to be advanced unfettered without compromise. Electing a Democratic president to support the agenda of our Democratic majorities in congress is the only way to fulfill not only the progressive future we all want, but the progressive agenda Hillary Clinton has been fighting for.

So to Hillary supporters considering defecting to McCain, I say, vote for John McCain if you will, but know that doing so is voting against the very agenda you've been fighting so hard to advance and against the very candidate you've been fighting for to win the Democratic nomination.




Tags: 2008 presidential election, hillary clinton, john mccain (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 196 Comments :: Post a Comment


Dem in Novem. (2.00 / 11)

Bravo.

This Dem always has and always will vote Dem.


by dannyinla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:38 PM EST

I don't think there is a democratic party (2.00 / 1)

 Republicans and right wing cable TV stations picked  our candidate.
the democrats are called racist, uneducated slugs.
by internetstar on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think there is a democratic party (none / 0)

What the hell are you talking about? Some Democrats are racists, but no more than about 5%. Most Democrats support one of two great candidates for the Presidency for very good reasons. Republicans have done all they can to screw up our primary, with Limbaugh only the latest. But this nomination has been decided by Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents.


by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 7)

If you want McCain, got to a republican site and shill there.  This site is SUPPOSE to be for Democrats, not Republicans.

Good post, Todd.


by tracey webb on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:15 PM EST

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Well, I have read many Obama supprter comments that said they would vote for mcwar if she was the nominee.

I told them the same thing.

Anyhoo, she will lead once again and unite the party.

It would be great if Obama would actually lead on an issue like gas prices.

I mean, if your going to bash mcwar's gas tax holiday, at least propose something else .

Step up and lead.


by gotalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 3)

Please cite where the Obama supporters said that.

It's funny how the majority of Obama supporters in poll after poll would not vote for McCain versus Hillary's supporters.

Hmmm.


by sweet potato pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:10:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (1.83 / 6)

kos, the huffington post, tpm and many others.

The hatred of the Clintons was absolutely disgusting united with the corporate media.

And now you need the Clinton supporters, the voters in Florida and Michigan and blue collar workers.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can unite the party instead of relying on Clinton to take the lead as usual.

I guess he will give another speech.


by gotalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 9)

been to hillaris44?? How about taylormarsh?

Hell, how about here?

The hatred that has been directed at both candidates is disgusting- so lets not pretend it is going in one direction.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 5)

exactly, I never understood why people would base their votes on what their supporters say.  Hillary supporters have said some vile things about Obama, but I would still vote for Hillary in a heartbeat.  


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:25:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 1)

I agree completely.  It never even occurred to me that I might vote McCain over Hillary.

Not.  One.  Time.


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
by AK Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:39:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (1.66 / 3)

A link buddy.  This vote for McCain bullshite was started by HRC supporters, namely Taylor Marsh.  Obama supporters do not advocate supporting McCain.  We would stay at home or write in his name before we would vote for the conservative on the ballot.


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This not true. In fact Sam Stein's story (2.00 / 4)

was unfortunately incorrect (that's an deliberate understatement to avoid a flame war). Quoting Taylor Marsh:


So one more time with feeling and for the dense, singling out Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post in particular, as well as the people in charge who allowed his irresponsible nonsense to be posted without a comment from me, or at least the evidence of some effort on his part to get a comment. If Obama is the nominee, which is quite possible at this point, I simply cannot go from making the case against him, which is very strong, to making the case for him. His supporters and fans will have to do that. But I want no part of enabling another foreign policy, military or national security disaster, which is where I base my vote. So, I will do everything in my power to make the case against John McCain.

To repeat, I'm an American first, a Democrat second. Clinton is the only candidate I believe in. But this country cannot withstand a McCain presidency. That's the bottom line. All against McCain it will be.


http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=27640


by louisprandtl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Point Taken (2.00 / 3)

She is however responsible for the moderation of her blog.  Just as Mydd and DKos are responsible for the content on theirs.  If someone posts bs, it's up to the community to get rid of it, which is why Todd posted the article about not courting votes for McCain on this website.  I would hope Taylor Marsh has a similar system for moderating comments.  I wouldn't know because I don't populate her site.  I do give her credit for denying her support of such an effort.


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Point Taken (2.00 / 1)

Nonsense. Jerome isn't responsible for anything stupid I might say any more than Taylor Marsh. The only person responsible for stupid words is the one who said or wrote them.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey (none / 0)

you have a lot of nerve going around tring comments. Check out the guide lines pal.
by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey (none / 0)

These are the full guidelines:

http://www.mydd.com/special/trusted

"Zero is for comments that are offensive, script-generated, or otherwise content-free and intended solely to abuse other readers."

A 1 is generous when a person is offensive and posts comments solely to abuse other Democrats on this site, Obama or HRC supporters.


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh I see (2.00 / 1)

thats why you went around and tr'ed ever Obama supporter comment that has suggested or called HRC a racist or race-baiter. Thank you for your nanny patrol- its a great service to the objectivity of this site and the people that use it.
by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the good laugh. n/t (none / 0)


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

OK (none / 0)

for you, I will tr.
by linc on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:29:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (none / 0)

Thanks.  It's a badge of honor coming from you.


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK (none / 0)

Oh please can I have another from you?


by zep93 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:23:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hey (none / 0)

Well, it probably should have something in it about TR-ing comments that others simply do not agree with since that happens all the time.


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:26:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 2)

And now you need the Clinton supporters
Exactly.

The BS meter starts a running, it reads like this;"for the good of the country" and "I would vote for Clinton." Then there's this one; "A true Democrat would vote Democratic."

Two month ago, there was a lot of this; "Don't let the door hit you on the way out"

Fascinating.


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

It's not like every Obama believes the same thing or says the same thing, no?


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

Did I say that?


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've seen your comments on TPM (none / 0)

Talk about hatred.  Damn. Pot, meet kettle.


Obama leads the popular vote too
by kellogg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

I'm confused. Who is mcwar?


by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

McCain.

Geez.


by gotalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

Sorry, I thought you were calling McCain a she.  I guess I read it wrong.


by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 3)

He did. Windfall profits tax on oil companies, middle class tax break.


by Mullibok on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

Short term?


by gotalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

he skipped short term because it was pandering rather than meaningful help for people.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 1)

So, he has no short term alternative solution.

Well, he will need one.


by gotalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 4)

Setting aside who's voting for whom and why, I want to tackle the policy for a second here.

Costs are soaring because demand is shooting up and supply isn't increasing at the same rate.  There really isn't much ANYBODY can do in the short term that's going to fix this problem.  We're simply using a frightening amount of petroleum in stupidly inefficient ways.  Lowering the gas tax, or eliminating it, will simply encourage more and more use.

We need to pour money into mass transit infrastructure, into bike lanes, and into other sources of energy.  The pain we are feeling from high gas prices sucks (and I'm paying it too!), but it does serve a useful purpose.  It is changing human behavior, and it will continue to shove us towards more efficient and sustainable systems of living.

What we're doing now is idiotic, wasteful, and unhealthy.  High prices are largely part of the reality that we have created, together, by insisting on each adult having at least one car, generally inefficient, and a commute of 20 minutes or more.  It's only possible when energy is cheap.  Once it isn't, everybody is going to have to adjust, and live differently.

There is no short term fix.

This is in no way related to whom I support. It isn't about that.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

Unfortunately, probably not in my lifetime...and where is this money we're going to need to "pour" into infrastructure going to come from ?

Also, the soaring cost of fuel probably has just as much to do with it being traded as a commodities future than simply supply and demand. People are making money speculating on oil.


by Lacy Davenport on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:34:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

Futures have little to do with the price -- if trading were reduced to the spot market, you'd have speculators there as well.  Forwards and futures are incredibly useful tools for suppliers and consumers to use for risk management. Farmers, airlines, independent gas stations, jewelers, etc. regularly use futures to hedge the risk of unpredictable price changes.  

That said, there is plenty of speculation in commodities right now -- especially energy & industrial and precious metals.  I'm not sure how you stop this, nor whether speculation is a bad thing.  (Many who are buying are convinced that oil isn't getting cheaper anytime soon -- got a good argument that they're wrong?)

Bottom line: oil suppliers & nations (eg. China) are all trying to lock up supply and demand keeps growing.  Oh, and the Mideast isn't getting any more stable (Iraq rumblings, Iran speculation, Hezbollah, Pakistan worries...)


by Twin Planets on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (none / 0)

If you want a short-term solution you should be encouraging the hell out of speculation. If speculation becomes a vertical bubble, price will likely collapse. That's the nature of markets.


by neverfox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 1)

His short term proposal is to accelerate the first part of his stimulus package, which includes a $1000 working class income credit.


by noop on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bravo!!!! (2.00 / 2)

Don't you think if there was a viable short term solution, it would have been proposed by now?

There isn't a quick fix for every problem, despite what politicians like Hillary Clinton say.  There is no way to make gas affordable right now, short of the government rolling out an enormous program to subsidize the cost of it.  Responsible politicians tell the truth rather than passing off a meaningless idea as a real solution.


by KevinT on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:19:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Short-term gas/oil price solution (2.00 / 1)

$500 tax break for singles, $1000 for families to help cover inflated gas, utilities, food and housing.

No taxes [or even tax forms] for retirees/disabled earning under $50k. Think of what this means to retirees working part-time for minimum wage at WalMart, paying for supplements to Medicare, paying deductibles and trying to live independently, and paying taxes on their WalMart wages and social security when it reaches some pitiful level of income. Same for the disabled who can find some paying and accommodated work.

All amounts to a lot more than approx. $30 under Clinton and McCain's plans.

Interim plan: raise CAFE standards, subsidize healthcare for employees of automakers that develop alternatives to gas engines.

Long-term it's elimination of combustion engine and fossil fuel and food products for fuel.

That's all I can recall off the top of my head; it's in his speeches, town hall responses and on his website.


by VCubed on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

pablum. (none / 0)

I have yet to hear of an Obama supporter who will vote for McCain.

Puhleeze.


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:13:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote (2.00 / 3)

thanks Todd!


I would say at this point we're starting to see a little desperation on the part of the woman who I support... NY Governor Paterson
by obamaovermccain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:00:04 PM EST

I think that VOTE FOR CHANGE (2.00 / 6)

is going to help Down the ticket Dems.

The more Dems we register the better.  

Also, I totally agree that a vote for John McCain is a vote against Hillary.  John McCain stands for the OPPOSITE of what Hillary stands for.


by puma on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST

I would rather drink Drano (2.00 / 11)

than vote for John McCain.

And it has nothing to do with Hillary at all.  I would say the same thing if she had never been a candidate.


by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:06:09 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (none / 0)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with what Todd is implying about grave concerns regarding Obama. Why? He has a record, he is a democrat what is the problem?  People who hate him are always going to hate him for their own reasons.  A large part of it is racism and just plain ignorance. Go to his website and learn about him if there are such grave concerns.

I know that you are trying to help the situation Todd but that sentence alone was very damaging.


by sweet potato pie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (1.70 / 10)

Oh please. What is the problem?  He's not qualified, that's the problem.  Record?  8 years as a part-timer in the Ill. sentate and in the US Senate barely long enough to find the men's room.  Racism?  Millions of white people have voted for him proving we've come a long way since the 60s,  Plain ignorance?  Just look at the plain ignorance of some of his supporters who think he's the second coming or the campaign is just a political version of American Idol and anybody who can text message is ready to run the world.

As for Todds's post, there's nothing there which could "damage" Obama.  OTOH, there is much there I find condescending to activist Democrats who are Hillary supporters.  This isn't our first election and we don't need lectures.


by Tolstoy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 1)

p.s.  If you're really a Democrat please use a capital "D".


by Tolstoy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 2)

...and all that loud rock and roll music too!  Damned kids!


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These young people today n/t (none / 0)


Obama leads the popular vote too
by kellogg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So I guess ... (2.00 / 7)

Abe Lincoln, with one term in the House was not qualified?

FDR, with time as a State Senator in NY, and a one term Governor, was not qualified?

Teddy Roosevelt, who was Governor of NY for 1 yr, and VP for 6 months, before becoming President, was not qualified?

And Richard Nixon, with all of his time in Congress, and 8 years as VP was super qualified?

And George W. Bush, with 6 years as Governor of Texas, was qualified?

This "qualified" crap is just that ... crap.  Judgment is what matters.  The character of the person is what matters.  And I'd take Obama's character and judgment before McCain's.  


GeauxBama!
by DailyKingFish on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I guess ... (none / 0)

Lincoln was perhaps the greatest President in American History.  

Obama would NOT been fit to wipe Lincoln's shoes.  

Just because ONCE a great man rises to the challenge, doesn't mean EVERY IDIOT can do it.

BTW, Lincoln showed he HAD PRINCIPLES way BEFORE he ran for President.  Martin Luther King showed HE HAD PRINCIPLES before he gave his famous speech.  

Obama is an ego-centrice WHO HAS DONE NOTHING , but him and his fans think he is Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK, MLK combined.  

REALLY!  Get outside and get in touch with reality.   There is no substance to this guy's campaign, just a bunch of slogans and marketing strategies, like Bush.  The most scary thing about him is that I don't know what he stands for.  He himself doesn't say, and there is no experience, nothing to say what this guy stands for.  

Obama is not about civil rights (as MLK was), not about equality, not about any principle greater than him.  Obama is about Obama.  


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I guess ... (none / 0)

Please have a little perspective. You're using a vague unsubstantiated argument to claim that Obama's positions are vague and insubstantial. Doesn't that seem a little bit unfair to you? The fact is that while Obama doesn't have a lot of time on the national stage, he does have a wealth of relevant experience.

I'd recommend you spend a little time reading up on Obama. The "no experience argument" just doesn't stand against a constitutional law professor with four years as a community organizer, eight as a State Senator, and three years in the U.S. Senate. The fact is that he has more time than Clinton in elected office. He's also had several major accomplishments during his time in office, such as sweeping death penalty reform in Illinois and the "Google for government" law in the U.S. Senate.

I certainly appreciate and admire your strong support of Hillary Clinton. But that's no justification for belittling Obama's accomplishments and trying to paint him as something much less than he his. The man is no second coming, but he's certainly a skilled politician, a strong and dedicated Democrat, and with the party behind him will win this election.


by noop on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wipe Abe's Shoes ... (none / 0)

You're absolutely right ... because old Abe would NEVER have degraded someone like that.  

I suggest you read Team of Rivals, if you haven't already.  It's a brilliant take on Lincoln's presidency, and how he brought the country together.  


GeauxBama!
by DailyKingFish on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I guess ... (none / 0)

Richard Nixon, with all of his time in Congress, and 8 years as VP was super qualified?

Although Nixon will forever be remembered for Watergate, his foreign policy was strategically brilliant.  

We Democrats often call for engaging in diplomacy with countries hostile to the U.S.  What was detente if not this?  What was the opening to China?  

Nixon faced terrible criticism from his own congressional Republicans for exactly these moves, yet he saw them as strategically sound because of his experience.  And I know of no serious analyst today who argues that the opening to China was an error.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:35:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So I guess ... (2.00 / 1)

Oh, I have a few regrets about the overtures to China, as lead-filled toys and appliances go into our landfills, and their workers now don't even have free public schools, never mind healthcare. Nixon, brilliant in foreign policy? Sorry, can't agree, while I'm trying not to weep as I dodge to not step on all the homeless vets in my city, and I remember how many millions we murdered.

If Nixon is supposed to justify voting for McCain over Barack, I hope you or your children don't pay the ultimate price if that's your choice: destruction of the soul, if not their lives. War is hell, get it?


by VCubed on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:30:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 5)

Says who he's not qualified?  Anybody who's Constitutionally capable of running for President is qualified. The question is, who's "best" for the Presidency. And that includes questions of judgment, experience, character, policy, ideology, intelligence, management style and persona.

All three candidates are "qualified" for the Presidency. Next year, when I turn 35, I will be "qualified" to be President.  


by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:09:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (none / 0)

"He's not qualified, that's the problem."

Based on what, precisely? He obviously knows enough to run an effective national campaign with enormous GOTV efforts on the ground. He knows enough to keep his campaign staff harmonious (or at least, keep them from fighting in public). He knows enough to win all but one caucus, where organization is key. He knows enough to bring 1.5 million donors onboard.

He knew enough to be against the war for all the right reasons (concern about an exit strategy, concerns about a Shia and Sunni civil war, concerns about Iran, concerns about taking our eye off the ball in Afganistan, and, knowing that Powell would be bringing the A game to the UN, he knew the argument about WMDs was not made).

He knew enough to know that the people of this country wanted something different.

He knew enough to win against the best known name in democratic politics.

He knew enough to win against the greatest machine in democratic politics.

I understand that you believe Hillary would be the best candidate. There's no point in arguing that. But I think it's a little insulting to Senator CLINTON to suggest that the opponent that has beaten her isn't qualified.

Because, what does that make her?


by EvilAsh on Mon May 12, 2008 at 06:05:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 3)

Todd used the phrase "grave reservations" for a reason, and I agree with him. I'm a strong Obama supporter, but if Hillary had won the nomination I would have had my own grave reservations about voting for her. However, I decided from the start that I would vote for whichever Democrat won. I'll admit that some of the more negative campaigning made me rethink that decision, but I always came back to the fact that any Democrat would be a vastly better choice than McCain. A protest vote just isn't worth the damage that four more years of Bush will do.


by noop on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 6)

Whether you or I think they are justified, it is a fact that many Clinton supporters have grave reservations about Obama.  I certainly don't attribute them primarily to racism or ignorance, especially those who post here.  I for one appreciate the graciousness of Todd's post.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:35:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 8)

One more thing:  when someone offers you an olive branch, don't split hairs; take it.


John McCain vows to overturn Roe
by soccerandpolitics on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent Point s&p! (2.00 / 2)

The vast, vast majority of Hillary supporters will not do the bitter things that some of them are saying right now.

November is a long way from now. The most important thing for all American progressives is to get ourselves together and organize behind Obama to defeat 4-8 more years of repressive, right wing government in our beloved country.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now if you could just get (2.00 / 2)

Jerome to understand this as well.


by Tatan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:08:32 PM EST

Re: Now if you could just get (2.00 / 2)

I really wonder what Jerome is going to write about if Obama is the nominee...


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now if you could just get (2.00 / 2)

I guess we'll see. He's basically said he'll still be very critical. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more criticism trained on McCain, but that's just me.


by Mullibok on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:29:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He already is the nominee (none / 0)

for every practical purpose. Jerome has been queried several times if he will support Obama and, to my knowledge, has demurred.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not sure what you're referencing... (2.00 / 1)

Jerome has made it clear several times he'll vote for Obama if he's the nominee.  


by telephasic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Now if you could just get (none / 0)

Jerome has said he'll continue to be critical.  I wouldn't have a problem with this except his idea of being critical always involves trying to build up the narrative that Obama is a weak candidate.  

This will be, needless to say, counterproductive in the GE.  I'm hoping he shifts more towards constructive criticism.  You know, actually discussing what Obama could do to overcome the shortfalls he sees in him.  


by telephasic on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:26:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well said (2.00 / 2)


by citizendave on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:08:53 PM EST

You're a class act, Todd. (2.00 / 8)

Ultimately, we're all Democrats.


by Ramo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:10:26 PM EST

Re: You're a class act, Todd. (2.00 / 1)

Ultimately we all believe in the progressive vision of a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic society.

Our divisions aren't as significant as our common vision.  We are united in bringing about a sustainable world that recognizes and respects all people.

Anyone who votes for McCain votes for someone who pees on that vision.  He is a disgusting toady who panders to the greediest of Republicans.  What ever our differences are is minor compared being united in bringing about the kind of changes that will make our progressive vision a realty.  Don't lose sight of the original goal folks.  Too many people are too thin skinned about their candidate.


by Gilpin Guy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 2)

it is embarrassing that this even needs to be front paged on a democratic blog.

i also find it embarrassing that it wasn't written by jerome.


by elie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:11:14 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 1)

I thought Jerome had written similar stuff.  He seems to enjoy tweaking Obama supporters but mainly I pick up from him that, since his first/second choices did not make it, HRC is a better candidate.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll never vote for McCain (2.00 / 1)

but at the same time, I'm not going to vote for Obama (as if my vote in AZ would make a difference)


by Coldblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:11 PM EST

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (none / 0)

Your AZ vote may make a difference if Napolitano is Obama's VP.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:56:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not a chance (2.00 / 1)

She came out for Obama and he lost in the Arizona primary.


by Coldblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (2.00 / 2)

Your vote always makes a difference. In your case, three reasons:

1. Unlike Obama, you don't show up and just vote "present". You take a stand, not a calculated political position.

2. Every vote for the Dem nominee in AZ will narrow the pre-assumed victory margin of McCain in his home state. If we can't hand him a defeat, let's at least hand him an embarrassing squeaker there.

3. Your vote for the Dem nominee, no matter whom, shows you finally focused on the 90% the two have in common and not the 10% they don't.


by RickWn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (none / 0)

I could have done without the #1 on your comment...

Seriously, can we put the "present" flap to rest...?  If NARAL does not have a problem with Obama's record on abortion rights, neither do I and neither should anyone else, unless they are pro-life.


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:36:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (2.00 / 2)

Arizona is not the cakewalk for McCain you think. The last polling matchup had him under 50% in Arizona against Obama.


by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wanna bet? (none / 0)


by Coldblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (none / 0)

Holy crap.  Are you serious?


by The Distillery on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll never vote for McCain (none / 0)

If Obama beats McCain here in Arizona, the GE will be a Dem landslide.


by Ian S on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain /Hillary Clinton (1.00 / 5)

Listen, I should have any reasons to hate Obama, because I satisfy the majority of the targeted demographic for his campaign. I'm 30 years old, working towards a second graduate degree, and African American male. However, the financial part is what I missing from him. He campaigns off of generalities. I'll probably vote this Fall, but it may not be Obama. No one gets a pass this time around. I do not care how dark his lips become.


by Check077 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:54 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain /Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 1)

what are you missing from him in regards to the financial part?

Go read his website, there is plenty of meat to digest their regarding his issues.

The fact that anyone who visits this site says "I'll probably vote" is kinda crazy too...but I'll let that one go.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain /Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 3)

Dark lips? What?


John McCain on social security.
by heresjohnny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:39:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Baloney! (none / 0)

If you're working toward a second graduate degree and you can't even write coherent, grammatically correct sentences, then I fear you have wasted your educational investment.


Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven?
by NM Ward Chair on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (none / 0)

... I thought that was the course of action least favorable to the progressive agenda.

Please don't presume.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:03 PM EST

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (none / 0)

Please explain how you could possibly think otherwise.


by Mullibok on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (2.00 / 1)

Simple, once McCain is elected he'll absolutely ruin the country and/or planet and everybody will be screaming for a progressive in 4 years time, at which point Hillary can run and tell everybody she told them so. Electing a progressive candidate now just doesn't make sense, especially when Hillary > Democratic principles.


by grass on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (2.00 / 2)

Dude, if after eight years of George W. Bush, this country elects a Republican AGAIN, then this argument has been absolutely shown to be a complete and utter failure. In fact, I remember people saying it circa 2000 as well.


by Mullibok on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (none / 0)

This was exactly the argument of the Nader 2000 campaign.

Anyway, the point of all this is to make the world a better place. Electing Democrats is just a means to that end. If you want to "absolutely ruin the country and/or planet" in order to get the candidate you like in 2012, you're kind of missing the point of politics.


by vinc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it was snark (none / 0)

i feel that the planet has taken quite enough as it is from Dubya.


by grass on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (none / 0)

Please explain what auxiliary premises you employing in concluding that the answer is clear-cut.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:01:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I wouldn't vote for McCain if ... (none / 0)

Ok, McCain and Obama take opposing positions on almost everything, and McCain's are more conservative every single time.

Simple enough.


by Mullibok on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:58:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If true, how does that lead to your conclusion? (none / 0)


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A (1.16 / 12)

I will vote for Hillary as the nominee or as a write-in. I will never vote for Obama. The more I learn of him and his corrupt chicago background the more comfortable I am with the prospect of suffering 4 years of McBush. Obama is a corrupt nothing without Hillary for a muse. He is all reaction and excuses and unsupported promises.


by dannybill on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:35:45 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A (2.00 / 4)

Wow. Think of the people who will die in Iraq courtesy of McBush. The people who will die in America because of his ridiculously poor health care policy. (I know that Obama's isn't perfect but it will most certainly save lives). Think of the country suffering as he plunges it into trillions of dollars more debt so he can give tax cuts to the rich. It must be nice to be in a position insulated enough so you can help McCain by refusing to vote for the Dem (whose ethics problems are minor and no more than the BS charges the GOP leveled against the Clintons), but there are lots of people in the country and in the world who will actually feel these consequences. Please try to care about them.


by Mullibok on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please rethink this. Thus far there is nothing (2.00 / 2)

out there to connect Senator Obama to any corrupt deals including Tony Rezko's dealings. Knowing somebody does not automatically make somebody corrupt. There are some unhinged comments made by his former pastor which only extreme right wing like Hannity would link to Senator Obama to cast negative aspersions. Personally I think he is a remarkable man and capable of doing great things for this country. I've differences with some of his policies in terms of Healthcare, Defense, Foreign policy and Economy where I thought HRC is a much stronger candidate. If I find time in next few weeks I do plan to write on them.

However if Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee he is way better all hands down in liberal and progressive policies than what his opponent Sen. McCain has to offer. Although I've to say most of HRC supporters anger are due to what some extreme fringe elements amongst Obama supporters are doing. I just read a diary at Dailykos where Bill Clinton was called Jim Crow which is very unfortunate and not deleted.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/10/ 163655/054/213/513374


by louisprandtl on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A (none / 0)

Corrupt?

That's a serious charge.

Let's see some strong evidence.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:11:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A (none / 0)

Again with bashing Chicago...?  Really, it is a very nice town...

So is San Francisco before you decide to go down that road...


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:39:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A write-in for Hillary is always an option (2.00 / 2)

Besides, according to some Obama supporters, they don't need Hillary supporters at all.

OK, say I, suit yourself -- plenty of space on the bench along with Kerry and Gore.


by dcrolg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:43:06 PM EST

Re: A write-in for Hillary is always an option (none / 0)

So you vote based on who supporters you like better?

That makes a lot of sense


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I vote for the candidate I believe: HRC (2.00 / 1)

so, if Obama is the nominee, I will write in for Hillary unless she is on the ticket.

Its pretty simple for me and very clear.  


by dcrolg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:01:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I vote for the candidate I believe: HRC (none / 0)

So by that logic you think voting for Nader was a good idea in 2000 and 2004?

Or is it just that you are more loyal to Hillary than the Democratic Party?


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wouldnt know -- I didnt believe in Nader (none / 0)

I believe in and vet those candidates who policies, performance and potential fit my own standards for my vote.  Hence, I voted for Gore and Kerry.

Nader, though, clearly indicated  the problems we have with our two party system.  The only absolute, mutually exclusive category which can be rationally applied to the 300 million souls in this country is gender.  Expecting the same for party affiliation and party loyalty is superfluous.


by dcrolg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll just have to disagree... (none / 0)

because I believe that anyone who votes third party or write-in is making a huge mistake and might as well not vote. Unitl there is a viable third party the only decision that makes sense is to vote for the candidate that is closest to what you want between the repbulican and the democrat.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Primaries vs Third Party Politics (none / 0)

The lack of viable third parties is why participation in the primary process is so important.  It is the best way citizens currently have to actually get a candidate they really like.  The thing is, once the nomination is over, you really need to step back and reevaluate the choices based on who is left standing.  We haven't actually concluded the primary process yet (though it is obviously getting there) so it is still a bit difficult for many of us to do that dispassionate re-evaluation.

I know many people on this forum have reservations regarding Obama, but if he becomes the nominee, I encourage you to step back and really compare his record and platform to that of McCain.  More importantly, compare the policy teams each have surrounded themselves with.  "Bush's third term" is not just a slogan.  Obama supporters need to do the same thing if Clinton pulls out an unexpected win... and don't even bother responding with how impossible that is, it does absolutely nothing but offend Clinton supporters.   If Obama's victory is so certain, there is nothing to be lost by just staying calm and letting the process wind down.

Personally, whatever you think of Obama the candidate, the fact that he has brought so many new Dems into the process, even at the primary level, is very encouraging.  Yes, some of the newcomers are a bit brash and even rude... but I also suspect some of the worse offenders are really redstaters  trying to divide the Democrats.  Whatever the reason, lets not do the Republicans dirty work for them.  Be forgiving of your fellow Dems when they lose their cool, and keep your focus on defeating the neocons in November.

Peace


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:06:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps -- but there's always the House, Senate (none / 0)

elections -- which are, arguably, more important that the presidency


by dcrolg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:21:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perhaps -- but there's always the House, Senat (none / 0)

I think they same general guidelines can apply to down-ticket races.  Be active in your local primaries, but then when your senate/house/gov/etc candidate does not win, step back, reevaluate, and vote for the better candidate in the general election.  Above all, we need to avoid 'revenge voting', even on a subconscious level.  That sort of 'voting from the gut' is what got us eight years of Bush.


by protothad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wouldnt know -- I didnt believe in Nader (none / 0)

There are a whole lot of people who would disagree with you about that gender comment.  Good luck with the write in campaign, hopefully Hillary beats out Mickey Mouse.


by AllergicToBS on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A write-in for Hillary is always an option (none / 0)

You absolutely have every right to write-in HRC and I don't think that makes you less of a Democrat.

Just curious.  If Obama is indeed the nominee and HRC is out there working hard to campaign for him, would that be meaningful to you?  If she says the best thing for the country is to elect BO, would you consider voting for him?


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unless she's on the ticket, no (2.00 / 2)

Given all the remaining Democratic Party support she brings, she deserves to be on the ticket with Obama.  If not, so much for his ability for uniting, his much-bally-hooed bipartisanship abilities and differentiating political acumen.  

It would validate much of my suspicions as to the hubris of his candidacy and his eventual ineffectiveness as a leader.  

I tend to vote on the caliber of the candidate and not strictly along party lines.  At times, there have been Moderate GOPers of more quality than some Democrats


by dcrolg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that makes a lot of sense (none / 0)

your candidate tells you to vote a certain way and you don't abide. That's not showing much loyalty.
by ab03 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:15:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why should voters (none / 0)

show loyalty when the party "leaders" have shown none?

I know Hillary puts party ahead of everything but not all of us are like that. There are only so many cheeks one can turn.


by LatinoVoter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:54:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that makes a lot of sense (none / 0)

your candidate tells you to vote a certain way and you don't abide. That's not showing much loyalty.

Allow me to answer this point in two ways.

First, Hillary Clinton must necessarily endorse the Democratic nominee to remain viable within the party.  Ordinary voters need not.

Second, I like Hillary and think she would make an excellent president.  But that does not mean I embrace every single one of her positions.

Speaking for myself, my presumption as a Democrat is that I will vote for the Democratic nominee.  Presumptions can be overcome.  I will be watching how the general election unfolds before making any endorsements.  My hope is that Obama moves to the mainstream in deed as well as word.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:45:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Loyalty: GOP falling in line behind Bush (none / 0)

I believe we've seen the effects of the loyalty of which you speak.  Democratic loyalty is no more valid or righteous than GOP loyalty.

Many a scoundrelly thing has been made "righteous, correct and patriotic" due to loyalty.

I remind you that this country was founded by disloyalty and dissent.  I would be unpatriotic to diverge from such intent.


by dcrolg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Loyalty: GOP falling in line behind Bush (none / 0)

very late response, sorry for the delay.

Thanks for your answers.  I agree with all the posters who basically said that HRC "needs" to show loyalty the Democratic party but that voters do not.  The last thing we need in this country is blind loyalty.

I respect your decision.  If BO is the nominee, I hope he can win your trust and your vote.  


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon May 12, 2008 at 05:07:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for a dose of sanity.

I hope people take the message to heart.


by DeskHack on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:57 PM EST

For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 1)

A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clinton
That's a nice try but it's not true. If Clinton is no longer in the running it goes like this; A vote for John McCain is a vote against Barack Obama. It's as simple as that. People try to complicate issues.

That being said, I don't plan to vote for McCain or Obama.


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (2.00 / 2)

really? where did Hillary stand on the war? and where does McCain stand? if they don't stand on the same side?

and where does Hillary stand on the Bush tax cuts? and where does McCain stand?

vote for McCain if you must but please don't pretend that McCain doesn't completely stand against everything McCain stands for. or you think Hillary stops working for her goals if she is not president? you think if Hillary isn't the nominee she won't be against the Bush tax cuts anymore or the war in Iraq?

Voting for McCain is saying he is right on the issues, and thus Hillary was wrong when she said McCain was bad for the country.

vote for McCain but be adult enough to admit its completely against what Hillary stands for.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

Policy apparently doesn't matter to soyousay.


by elrod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

Freedom is more important to me than anything else.


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oh (none / 0)

well you probably shouldn't vote for obama. he HATES freedom
by ab03 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:16:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: oh (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the heads-up.


by soyousay on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

That's fabulous.. so tacitly doing your part to help John McCain makes perfect sense given he just loves freedom... well, his own freedom, and corporate freedom, and the freedom to be super-wealthy on the backs of the poor and middle class....


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:44:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

Irrelevant. A person has a right to vote any way they want to for any reason he/she has. That's why register Democrats are permitted to vote Republican in the GE and vice versa. There's no disclaimer to voting that states that if your candidate doesn't win the primary, you must support the person with a similar stance. You can vote any way you want to or not vote at all...It's the American way. No guilt trip here. :D

I'll say it again, I'm personally not voting McCain or Obama but IMO, if a Democrat votes McCain, they have every right to do so; as Americans, we need not walk in lockstep.


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:17:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

I never said they didn't I said don't pretend voting completely against Hillary's platform is not voting against her.

just because you don't see her name on the ticket doesn't mean you aren't still voting against her ideals and principals.

those HRC supporters who want to vote for McCain are free to do so, they just shouldn't pretend its a complete slap in the face of everything Hillary has stood for and against for the last 16 months of her campaign, and her entire adult life.


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote (none / 0)

I never said they didn't I said don't pretend voting completely against Hillary's platform is not voting against her.
It's not voting against her; that's just a line politicians (and bloggers) use to keep the vote within the party. Also, just because one politician claims to have the same views as another isn't neccessarily the case. A person might have reasons to question a politicians integrity.

they just shouldn't pretend its a complete slap in the face of everything Hillary has stood for and against for the last 16 months of her campaign, and her entire adult life.
You have no idea what is important to each individual voter. It's obvious that you are lumping all voters into one category.


by soyousay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clin (none / 0)

I don't think arguing with someone who has made a decision like this really does anything.  Folks will decide to vote for Obama or not, they have to come to it in their own time, or not at all, and probably many are just lost to the Democratic party for this cycle at least.  Everyone knows the arguments but it comes down to comfort.  I would have had a very difficult time voting for Hillary after this campaign, I think I would have but am not 100% sure.  I know she would have had to convince me, and I would have listened closely.  Maybe Obama can convince some who are dead set against him now, I don't know.


by mady on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hate what Hillary has become (none / 0)

but I would have voted for her in the GE if she were the Democratic nominee.  Why?  Because the stakes are too damn high to risk losing the Supreme Court for a generation or more.  Seriously!  Our liberal and centrist justices are effing old!  Do you really want to risk a woman's right to control over her own body??

Hillary lost.  Get over it.  Vote for Democrats, because there's really no other option if you don't want the US to become a theocracy like Robert A. Heinlein predicted.


Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven?
by NM Ward Chair on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks Todd (2.00 / 4)

I suspect that many who aren't ready to take your words to heart now may remember them in the coming weeks and months. Thanks for offering them.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:56:03 PM EST

Re: Thanks Todd (none / 0)

Gods I hope so.


Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven?
by NM Ward Chair on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 4)

People's votes belong to them, and no one else, to use or not as they see fit. But promoting McCain on a site like this should be beyond the pale. The other side would never allow their webspace to be used to promote Obama.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:59:37 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (1.11 / 9)

You know how Obamabots did every nasty thing they could to dismantle Clinton? Guess what? Some can probably be brought back into the Democratic fold, but there will also be lots of Clinton supporters who are going to use this opportunity to bring Obama down like the way they brought Clinton down.

As an independent, it has turned me off the Dems completely. I will  not consider ever supporting a party so divisive and full of hate.


by Swing Vote on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:12 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 3)

I'd like to ask what the Obamabots did that dismantled Clinton. She lost the delegate race, which is all that mattered, and the Obamabots had no effect on that. The voters decided.

Besides, you're implying that the Republicans are less divisive and hateful? There are plenty of gays, immigrants, blacks, and other minorities that would laugh at that implication.


by elvigy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You can thank Jerome for a lot of it..... (2.00 / 2)

"You know how Obamabots did every nasty thing they could to dismantle Clinton?"

Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics

What Crashing the Gate advocates is essentially a bloodless coup inside the Democratic party: a sidelining of the high-paid consultants who have advised Democrats straight into minority status; an eviction from the party's inner circle of the shrill single-issue advocacy groups (like NARAL Pro-Choice America) that demand absolute fealty to their positions, even if it means losing an election; and an influx of new ideas (and cash) into the party...

It's an indictment of how the Democratic Party does business, and a vision of a new politics rising out of keyboards all across the country....

Moulitsas and Armstrong have written a lucid, concise, and deeply insightful book that exposes the Democratic Party as a moribund Beltway-centered apparatus stuck in neutral with greedy consultants, old campaigning tactics that no longer work, and party elites who grasp their ever-shrinking fiefdom and resist anyone who dares to challenge their authority....

Actually, Jerome armstrong should ask that his name be taken off that book since he now supports the very embodiment of the corrupt, old, establishment in Hillary Clinton.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (none / 0)

You think Democrats are divisive and full of hate...?  

Well, feel free to try on the Republican party... they're united and full of themselves...


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What I don't understand (2.00 / 1)

I see why some Clinton supporters may not vote for Obama.  Fine.  But why are you posting on a blog that exists for the sole purpose of getting Democrats elected?  Even aside from the prospect of McBush, I don't get why someone would spend time on this blog if they don't intend to vote Democratic for the most important political office in the country.  If your allegiance is to Clinton over the party (and that's your prerogative if it is), then why not move to a blog that exists for the sole purpose of getting Clinton elected?


by Oly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST

You don't understand ... (none / 0)

... because you have substituted tropism for reason.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You don't understand ... (none / 0)

This is comical.  I never said that "reason" had anything to do with it.  I just echoed Todd's point that MyDD is about electing Democrats, and added that it's odd that people whose allegiance to Clinton supersedes their allegiance to the party would be so active on this site.

The goals of this site are tropistic, not my reason.


by Oly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:09:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tropism blocks you from understanding ... (none / 0)

... that which you complained (above) that you don't understand.

Reason would allow you to understand that committed progressive Democrats can have reasons for the decisions they make, even where your decisions differ.

But as a tropist, understanding is not your objective. Understanding (of anything) does not serve you. Why did you bring it up?


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Tropism blocks you from understanding ... (none / 0)

What a complete load of BS.  You still haven't addressed the issue, all you say is that you have reasons, and that I can't understand because I'm a tropist.  But you haven't spelled out your reasons, so how could I understand?

Furthermore, your ad hominem "tropist" line isn't even clear.  Is the accusation that I'm a typical "Obamabot" who gravitates toward empty rhetoric at the expense of reason, or that I gravitate toward a straight party line at the expense of reason?  If the former, then you have no clue what you're talking about (you can see my post below), and if it's the latter, the purpose of this site is tropistic.  In either case, your perceived cleverness is coming at the expense of clarity.

And, seriously, what's up with the last line?  My question, while being intentionally provocative, invited an answer, so by definition understanding was my objective.  And then the "understanding (of anything) does not serve you" bullshit?  As if anyone who does not agree with you has a complete lack of intellectual curiosity?  Get over yourself.


by Oly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, very cute! (none / 0)

You first disclaim reason in favor of tropism ("the goals of this site"), and then go off the rails when I address you as a tropist.

Again, simply, your understanding is blocked because your capacity for reason is chained to a tree somewhere. Unleash the dogs of reason, and you'll find that many different conclusions are consistent with the premises on the table.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we're not one big happy (1.50 / 4)

I don't waste time on the delusional and hateful self-propogating KOS and similar.sites anymore but ocasionally comment on sites that are open to a dialog. I do so in solidarity with the vast constituencies that have been stepped on by a party that can not come together to use its majority to effect any change in the direction of America yet is able to use its spare time to disparage and attempt to dismantle the Clinton constituencies. The Obama mantra for months has been reminiscent of Bush's year 2000 "stop the counting I'm ahead" tactic. They wanted Hillary to drop out long ago to avoid Obama having to disclose more weaknesses in actual competition. Dean's pathetic leadership on MI/FL, "superdelgates" attempting to influence voters, "superdelegates" going against the preferences of their constituencies, red state caucus "wins" being given more weight than democratic votes in must win states, etc. The poison of the Obama blogospherè and Air America/Ed Schultz. The dem party has lost my respect. I'm voting for Hillary no matter what. Even she cannot change my mind now.


by dannybill on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we're not one big happy (none / 0)

Maybe you should take a break from blogging...

Not that I am telling you what to do, but you are actually hating on Democrats based on the blogosphere...

Go outside and plant something and take a break.


"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 Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:49:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we're not one big happy (2.00 / 1)

FWIW, I am 51% Obama, 49% Clinton, and because I have so much respect for Clinton, I also don't care much for dailykos these days.  At the same time, I see the same stuff on this site that I see on kos, just in favor of Clinton.  If Clinton was ahead, I guess that kos would be filled with people proclaiming that they would write in Obama, and I'd be posting this comment over there.  In other words, nothing I said discounts the reality that far too many Obama supporters are badmouthing Clinton.  That is true.  In fact, the nastiness on each side is what has prevented me from completely backing either candidate.  But as a Democrat, I would vote for whichever candidate had a (D) by their name, if for no other reason than SCOTUS.  I'd much rather have a flawed Obama than the despicable McCain.  As Roberts and Alito have shown, this country is fu*ked if we have to endure another Republican administration that gets to replace Ginsburg and Stevens.

Regarding the "stop the counting I'm ahead" tactic, I think both sides are desperately spinning the results and trying to control the public perception of what those mean.  This tactic by Obama is regrettable, as is Clinton's "if we had the Republican rules" tactic.  However, I recognize that both are just efforts to play the political game.  From my perspective, both camps are guilty of trying to "disparage and attempt to dismantle" the other candidate's constituencies.  That is how politics works, and I think that most people can see that both camps have done this to some extent, although they have done so in different ways.

Once again, however, I keep wondering why people who won't support the Dem nominee bother on this site.  I can appreciate that MyDD welcomes open dialog, which is obviously hard for Clinton supporters to find nowadays.  But still, if the Democratic party has lost your respect, why are you on a site that is dedicated to getting Democrats in office?  It just seems like the wrong forum.


by Oly on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A voice of reason (2.00 / 1)

Todd, thanks for the thoughtful and important post here. It needed to be said. Hillary will be saying it a lot starting in 2-3 weeks.


by JD Lasica on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:20 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 1)

Are people actually advocating for McCain on here?

I guessed I missed it.

With that said, I'd never vote for McCain. But I will definitely NOT vote for Obama. I sure as hell am not adding to his margins in NY.

I'm actually looking forward to not feeling any emotional attachment to either candidate so I can watch the news and the shows and not stress like I did in 2004 and when Obama or McCain are having a bad week, I can just listen and feel totally unvested.

Relaxation...


by GregNYC on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:44:55 PM EST

nobody has to vote (2.00 / 2)

but don't act like you're doing something good because of it. tell me something, how did you treat nader supporters in 2000, 2004?
by ab03 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:19:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (none / 0)

Personally, I'm invested in the good of the country and the planet, must be nice to only care about the personalities. Crack open a cold one for me.


by AllergicToBS on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:12:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll vote for the Democratic Nominee (2.00 / 2)

Doesn't matter who.

The Republican disaster must end this year.


by grigs on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:54:24 AM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 1)

IF you have to force unity upon voters that means there is a problem. I'm not a supporter of Obama nor will I ever be, and the same goes for McCain, however there is a third option: Cynthia McKinney. I hope every Clinton supporter, and donor stays away from Obama. There is nothing more I love in politics than a fight and being anti-Obama is one of the greatest. On election day, I will choose between Mckinney or McCain and I hope the rest of the people of Ohio will follow suit.  


by bsavage on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:25:03 AM EST

False Logic (2.00 / 2)

The choice is not just between Obama and McCain. There are other options. One is writing in Hillary, which is looking more viable all the time. There are other parties: Green and Libertarian for example. So the whole premise of the diary is false:a not vote for Obama is not a vote for McCain.

My first real impression of Obama came last fall with the McClurkin incident. Had heard him speak before and found I could not listen to his revival style of speech. But realized he was just another sleaze from Chicago politics who happened to have a good delivery. The announcement about McClurkin spread like wildfire. At the great orange satan, diaries went up protesting the appearance. And we were meet by hordes of Obama supporters telling us to STFU. They told us that for AA's, fagbashing is a tenet of their religion. Then they launched into assualts on gay people in general. And many of us in particular.

This gave me a very poor impression of Obama. His campaign continued to ignore the gay community and refused to speak to the gay press. No prominent or even marginally well known gays or lesbians were on his staff. His supporters have tried every now and then to stir up gay support. Their efforts seem to misunderstand situations. One person here maintained that DADT took away the right gays had to serve in the military. And don't seem to have been very successful.

Hillary has been a long time friend of our community with many, many public lesbian and gay associates. Obama has none. Obama supporters have told me means I am 'strange', 'crazy' and so on for noticing this. So, I will stick with her until she decides to quit. Then I will either write her in come November or vote minor party. Obama's hope may be that her supporters write her in rather than vote McCain.

The least little whiff of homophobia is a deal breaker for me. From my perspective, there is no difference between the AA church and the Church of Jesus Christ Aryan: both are hate groups and should be condemned. Hillary has a long and distinguished record with gay people. Obama has none. But he does have a fairly strong string of associations with gay bashers.

Gay rights and concerns are my main focus. And guide my vote. To say that not voting for the Dem nominee is betraying Hillary is simply false. There are many options beyond McCain.


by DaleA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:25:11 AM EST

Re: False Logic (none / 0)

Writing in Hillary or voting third party would have the effect of helping McCain to win.  Do you really believe that gays and lesbians would be better off under a McCain presidency?  


by Captain Bathrobe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Logic (2.00 / 1)

I sincerely doubt we would be worse off. This homophobic filth we call the 'AA church' is no different from what McCain brings. So, no points for Obama here.


by DaleA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:43:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Logic (none / 0)

We would not be worse off. The only candiate who has shown a gay posivtive focus is Hillary. So, my only choice is to vote gay positive.


by DaleA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:26:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: False Logic (none / 0)

Lawrence v. Texas?  McCain has said that he would love nothing better than to appoint more justices like Scalia.  Stevens and Ginsberg will retire soon, and the Federalist Society judges McCain hopes to appoint would vote to overturn Lawrence in a heartbeat.  I sincerely doubt Obama would do the same.  


by Captain Bathrobe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (2.00 / 1)

I will support the Democratic nominee.  Period.

Electing McCain would be the equivalent of four more years of Bush.  

Staying home in a snit because your favorite candidate didn't win would also be the same thing as voting for four more years of Bush.

I can't imagine that anybody here would really want to do that.


by Captain Bathrobe on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:33:11 AM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hilla (none / 0)

Todd, this is a great post.  I love how you're being accused of being some kind of Obamabot.

Perhaps this is a bit of a non-sequitur, but I watched John McCain on the Daily Show the other day, and I do have to say that it was refreshing to see a Republican who is not a total cretin.  To be sure, a McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, but I was reminded that there is one upside of going through 8 years of the worst presidency in the history of the United States: it can only get better.  That thought alone gives me great comfort.


John McCain the flip-flopper...
by chinapaulo on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:10:29 AM EST

heh, (none / 0)

i may or may not vote for mccain, but i'm CERTAINLY not voting for obama.

i've weighed the pros and cons. at this juncture--a rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity to shift the country leftward and to get some real progressive policy enacted--obama is likely to squander our golden opportunity in one or both of two major ways:

(1) his GE chances are dire, especially since he's way past the point of no return in terms of alienating a large and growing number of clinton supporters, like me; and

(2) he won't be able to handle the job of governing--it's way too much right now and he will, in all likelihood, screw it up royally. i'd rather mccain do that for us than a so-called "Democrat."

letting an inexperienced 3rd party impostor like obama hijack and destroy our brand--assuming, arguendo, his joyride miraculously manages to vault him into the white house, which i consider less likely by the day--is ultimately tantamount to signing up for an inevitable 12 years of neocons after the guy's first administration.

i'm willing to deal with mccain until the party gets its act together and nominates the real dem who is likely to win AND get progressive policies enacted.  obama is the epitome of a 3rd party candidate, so why doesn't he get out of the dem primary and run as one, instead of hijacking and exploiting our brand for a free ride? no thanks.

p.s. i'm also not going to let my party's nomination be dictated by an utterly corrupt media that can, and in all likelihood will, turn on obama. they want obama for a reason (hint, hint, nudge, nudge: it's probably the same reason they wanted kerry and demolished dean).

p.p.s. (sigh) oh clever, kewl obama, he and his fratboyz sure had a big bag of fun there with his repulsive, misogynistic, race-baiting strategy, didn't they? it sure must've been fun while it lasted, and it succeeded marvelously for him, too--in securing the nomination and ensuring all but certain defeat in the GE! i'm sure they'll all guffaw just as obnoxiously when they discover in november that payback's a b*tch.


by nance on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:34:51 AM EST

Re: heh, (none / 0)

Your incoherent rambling make no real arguement.  Why would a democrat not vote for the democratic candidate?  You make no sense.


by skinny mcthin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: heh, (none / 0)

Where is all of this anger coming from?   I really don't understand what Obama did to piss you off so much.

So basically you are saying that he won't win because you aren't going to vote for him as an alienated HRC-supporter? That's brilliant logic. Your argument against voting for him is driven by your not voting for him.

And how exactly is he going to screw up the country? Need I remind you that he has run the best ship in this campaign while HRC has had to loan money to her campaign twice and had horrible planning for a post-Super Tuesday run? The job is about thinking ahead and organizing well.


by neverfox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 01:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kudos (none / 0)

to all those who are not necessarily myDD habitues but who have nevertheless managed to sufficiently tune in to the guiding mindframe of the site to understand WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT and to contribute relevant comments, be they constructive or not.

It's too forced and convoluted for me. I can't do it.


Not this time.
by jedley on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:58:41 AM EST

The only support for McCain at MYDD... (none / 0)

Tis coming from some Hillary supporters.

This is not directed at Todd. To those questioning Obama supporters who might vote McCain if Hillary wins, cite one MYDD Obama supporter who said he or she would do it.

I could care less about other blogs. One can't expect Obama to control the crossover supporters who voted for him. I want to see how many Democrats who support Obama would support McCain if Hillary wins. MYDD's membership is pretty much Democrats. I haven't seen any evidence here.


by Pravin on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:19 AM EST

Thanks. (2.00 / 1)

You'd think that would be obvious; but thanks for saying it anyway.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:26 AM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is ... (2.00 / 1)

A vote for Obama has, and will continue to be, a repudiation of Hillary Clinton. Isn't that what he wanted? Well, now he's got it.

I have difficulty respecting the notion that I am supposed to just ignore all of that and come up with a cover for voting for someone who has, at the very least, tarred her as a racist-- someone who's lived on the forefront of the Civil Rights movement as a student at Wellesley when Obama was a little kid.

I will not vote for McCain. I have no intention of voting for Obama. I know where Hillary's coming from in saying the things she's said about a united party. But she doesn't control how I feel about her opponent. It's as simple as that.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is ... (none / 0)

Agreed. I will vote for a third-party candidate, but never Obama.


by doyenne49 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is ... (none / 0)

You are why this country had 2 terms of Bush. Thanks for being such an idealist. You can't see the forest for the trees. Go and vote for a third party so that your vote can be oh so progressive when it accomplishs nothing for HRC's own causes.


by neverfox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is ... (none / 0)

And you are part of why Obama is going to have a tough time bridging the divisions he's wrought. Enjoy.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Vote For John McCain Is (none / 0)

Do HRC supporters really think Obama is THAT much worse than her? On what basis is he SO bad that you wouldn't vote for him? He may differ from her at times but he has a lot more common with him than McCain. I thought that was fairly obvious.


by neverfox on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:50:36 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: