A Vote For John McCain Is A Vote Against Hillary Clinton

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.



Display:


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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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.


Yes, I am a Clintonista for Obama.
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.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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.


She was against seating MI and FL before she was for it.
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!


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
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...


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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.


It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song
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.


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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.


Election fraud is treason, nothing less.
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...


Like the nominee, don't like the nominee... Our nominee is still better than John McCain...
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


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
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?


It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song
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.


"Barack did the Constitution just like he did Hillary. He was riding dirty."
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