Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obama for President

I'm fairly new here so perhaps I should begin by introducing myself.

Hello.

My name is Dawn, and I am a democrat.  I have been a democrat since late 2003 when I awoke to my liberalness as a result of being deeply inspired by Howard Dean's campaign.  He was the first politician I had EVER donated money to.  He was the first person in over a dozen years to inspire me to even register to vote.  And I registered as a democrat so I would have the opportunity to vote for HIM in the primary.

Sadly he was out of the race before my state (Colorado) had had a chance to vote.  And by the time Colorado came up, Kerry pretty much had the nomination sewn up.  Now, Kerry wasn't my first choice (obviously), he wasn't my second choice (Clark), he wasn't even my third choice (Edwards), he was tied for fourth with Ghephart.  So, needless to say, I was quite disapointed and less than inspired with what we all ended up getting.  Regardless I knew that Bush had to be stopped and I resigned myself to vote for Kerry in the general.  By the time November came around I was actually starting to feel pretty good about it.

And we all know how that went.

This time around, I didn't find anyone even close as inspiring. I eventually came around and supported Edwards, but, yet again, he was out of the race before my state even got a chance to vote.  When faced to chose between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton I chose "neither" and stayed home.  It's not that I didn't like either of them.  Quite frankly, I liked them both equally.  I recognized they both had their strengths and weaknesses but on the balance either one would make a fair to good president.  These troubling times may require a GREAT president, but I could take or leave either of them.

It was never important to me WHO won, but it was still very important to me HOW they won.  And it was always important to me that whoever won in November be a democrat.

I have come to accept that the primary is over.  Clinton put up a hard fight and while she may continue to take that fight all the way to convention, the primary selection process is effectively over.  I do not say this as a way of disparaging Clinton or her supporters, who have put as much heart into Clinton as Obama supporters have put into Obama.  And if the closeness of this race has taught me anything, it's that both Clinton and Obama are excellent candidates and we would be fortunate to have either in the White House.  But this is the reality of the situation:  Barak Obama will be the nominee.

This race is now between one democrat and one republican.  It is time for all of us to come to understand what this means:

It is time for Obama supporters to stop trashing Clinton.  And It is time for Clinton supporters to stop trashing Obama.

Bill Clinton said it best during the 2004 primary (at Tom Harkin's Steak Fry which I saw on CSPAN becuase I'm not important enough to get an invite...obviously)  In the primaries we should vote with our hearts, but in the general we need to vote with our heads.

Both Clinton and Obama supporters have put so much of their hearts into this primary that, from the outside looking in, it has been incredible for me to watch.  Sometimes it has been very disturbing, but sometimes it has been very uplifting.  And from the outside looking in I see that both have far more in common with each other than they have in opposition.  

We all want the war to end, and we all want it to end without starting a NEW war.  We want to regain the respect of the world that has been squandered by Bush's careless cowboy antics.  We all want every American to have quality healthcare coverage.  We all want to balance the budget and stop the looting of our public money by corporations.  We would all rather invest that public money more in infrastructure and education and healthcare and less on wasteful and ineffective defense programs and a foreign policy that demands we be the bullies of the whole world.  We all want to take fast and SMART action to eliminate our dependance on foreign oil and our contribution to global warming.  We all want to defend reproductive rights and the rights of those who are already born.  And we all want to further the rights of our fellow citizens who are still given less than the rest.

We all want that.  But, fellow citizens, we will get absolutely NONE of it if we get a republican in the white house.  

It is time to come together.  It is time to realize that United States policies have real consequences for millions (arguably BILLIONS) of people.  It is time to realize that it is less important WHICH democrat we elect than it is to get A democrat elected.

It is time to stop fighting each other and time to start unleashing our collective power on the one man standing between us and the redemption of our country:  John McCain.

I am not saying, as I am sure some of you might think, that Clinton supporters should stop promoting Clinton or that states that have yet to vote should not vote for Clinton.  I am merely saying that Clinton supporters have GOT to stop trashing Obama.  And I am saying doubly so, that Obama supporters have GOT to stop trashing Clinton.  This cycle of anger and contention has GOT to end, and it has got to end with US.

For Obama supporters and for Clinton supporters, it is time to move on.  It is time to put side broken hearts and hurt feelings and do what is best for our country.

To do any less, would be antithetical to being a democrat.

My name is Dawn.  And I am a democrat.  I hearby commit to support Barak Obama for president.

Tags: barak obama, Democratic, general election, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

73 Comments

Welcome

Small note- it's "Barack" with a c.

by KTinTX 2008-05-24 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome

eh.

Half the time I misspell Hillary. (is it one L or two?)

I'm just fortunate my own name is so short.

by DawnG 2008-05-24 08:27PM | 0 recs
donGee?

by bobdoleisevil 2008-05-24 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome

A rec for supporting the best of the two candidates Dawn!

by Deano963 2008-05-24 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome

Good to see you on board, Dawn.

by Major Danby 2008-05-25 12:20AM | 0 recs
You want to be part of this:

from huffingtonpost.com

Barack Obama and the Unmaking of the Democratic Party
      Posted May 23, 2008 | 06:40 PM (EST)

With her overwhelming victory in Kentucky on May 20, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has completed her sweep of the crucial primary states adjoining the Ohio River -- and the fight for the Democratic nomination has entered its final phases. Having picked up a net gain of nearly 140,000 votes between Kentucky and Oregon, Clinton is now well poised to win the Puerto Rico primary on June 1 - and clinch a majority in this year's popular vote, even if the disputed returns from Michigan are discounted. Under those pressures, the Barack Obama campaign and its sympathizers have begun to articulate much more clearly what they mean by their vague slogan of "change" - nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

Without a majority of those voters, the Democrats have, since the party's inception in the 1820s, been incapable of winning the presidency. The Obama advocates declare, though, that we have entered an entirely new political era. It is not only possible but also desirable, they say, for Democrats to win by turning away from those whom "progressive" pundits and bloggers disdain variously as "Nascar man," "uneducated," "low information" whites, "rubes, fools, and hate-mongers" who live in the nation's "shitholes."

Having attempted, with the aid of a complicit news media, to brand Hillary Clinton as a racist -- by flinging charges that, as the historian Michael Lind has shown, belong "in black helicopter/grassy knoll territory," Obama's supporters now fiercely claim that Clinton's white working class following is also essentially racist. Favoring the buzzword language of the academic left, tinged by persistent, discredited New Left and black nationalist theories about working-class "white skin privilege," a vote against Obama has become, according to his fervent followers, "a vote for whiteness."

Talk about transformative post-racial politics.

In fact, all of the evidence demonstrates that white racism has not been a principal or even secondary motivation in any of this year's Democratic primaries. Every poll shows that economics, health care, and national security are the leading issues for white working class voters - and for Latino working class voters as well. These constituencies have cast positive ballots for Hillary Clinton not because she is white, but because they regard her as better on these issues. Obama's campaign and its passionate supporters refuse to acknowledge that these voters consider him weaker -- and that Clinton's positions, different from his, as well as her experience actually attract support. Instead they impute racism to working class Democrats who, the polls also show, happen to be liberal on every leading issue. The effort to taint anyone who does not support Obama as motivated by racism has now become a major factor in alienating core Democrats from Obama's campaign. Out with the Democratic Party of Jefferson, Jackson, F.D.R., Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, and in with the bright, shiny party of Obama - or what the formally "undeclared" Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee and of the party's rules committee, has hailed as a "new Democratic coalition" swelled by affluent white leftists and liberals, college students, and African-Americans.

The Democratic Party, as a modern political party, dates back to 1828, when Andrew Jackson crushed John Quincy Adams to win the presidency. Yet without the votes of workers and small farmers in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a strong Democratic turnout in New York City, Jackson would have lost the Electoral College in a landslide. Over the 180 years since then, only one Democrat has gained the presidency without winning either Ohio or Pennsylvania, with their large white working-class vote. (The exception, Grover Cleveland, managed the feat in 1892, and only barely lost Ohio - but he was dependent on the post-Reconstruction solid South.) Beginning in 1964, when the Democratic solid South dissolved, every successful Democratic presidential candidate has had to carry both Ohio and Pennsylvania, even when Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton picked up southern states.

more......

by suzieg 2008-05-25 12:07AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

Kentucky? Since when has Kentucky voted Democratic?

The white working class, particularly in the "Rust Belt" has not supported a Democrat since Johnson.

The white working class in the south and border states has a long and painful history tainted more than a little by racially divisive politics.

The white working class in the Northeast, Northwest, and North has voted in more than majority numbers for Obama.

The piece you lifted for your post is factually and historically blinkered, cherrypicking results and "factoids" to make a predetermined case.

As such, it should be condemned for falsifying the historical record for partisan purposes.

Fail.

by RedDan 2008-05-25 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

Learn your history people.

I'm in Kentucky, grew up in DEMOCRATIC Kentucky, in SEGREGATED Kentucky, and before the Civil War, the whole south was Democratic, the party of Slavery, then segregation. I grew up during segregation under the Democratic Party. I am not proud of that aspect of our Party at all.

What I am most proud of is that our party had the COURAGE to do an about face and become the party to right it's own wrongs and become the party of CHANGE and of HOPE through the Civil Rights Act, Voting rights act, and the defenders of ALL people's rights under the Constitution for all these decades since.

Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights law he had turned the south over to the Republicans and the GOP began their 'southern strategy" LBJ was correct. The GOP used 'racial Polarization' to do all they could to keep people divided and 'unhealthy' as the RNC admitted in 2005. This article quoted is pure trash.

by Wary 2008-05-25 03:44AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

the article is written by Sean Wilentz, a known persistent Obama basher.

by sbbonerad 2008-05-25 02:15PM | 0 recs
Ruh-Roh...

I'm hide rating this for posting without a link, and not even including the author's name.  

Additionally, putting that up in this inspiring, positive diary was....

Bad form, poor taste and all that.

by JulieinVT 2008-05-25 03:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

nothing less than usurping the historic Democratic Party, dating back to the age of Andrew Jackson, by rejecting its historic electoral core: white workers and rural dwellers in the Middle Atlantic and border states.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why we don't give preferential treatment to the white workers and rural dwellers in our party.  Their vote should count for more than 1.  Or we could make their vote count 1, but give non-white, urban voters something like 4/10's of a vote.  That way, we'd be true to our history.

by deminva 2008-05-25 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

Hide rated for unsubstantiated hate-mongering and spamming a diary seeking to unify.

Note author's name for future divisive trolling.

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-25 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: You want to be part of this:

So you want the Democratic party of Jackson, and "the trail of tears"?

I don't

by wrb 2008-05-25 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Welcome

And it's Democrat with a capital "D".

by Tolstoy 2008-05-25 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Awesome diary. Truly awe inspiring. Highly recommended, and I'd rate it if I could. Kudos to you, ma'am, it's people like you that make me know I made the right choice leaving the Republican party.

by ragekage 2008-05-24 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support

Good evening, and welcome aboard.

You are welcome among us.  Tell us, if you would, what policy matters to you.  It matters to us.

You are among friends.  Let's go fix this country, shall we?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 08:20PM | 0 recs
all policies matter.

It's a mistake to live under the belief that one matters more to the exclusion of all others.  It's like trying to argue your brain is more important than your heart or your lungs or your liver.  It's all neccessary.  It's all vital.

The environment matters, foreign policy matters, fiscal spending matters, education matters, healthcare matters, defense matters, civil and constitutional rights matters, energy policy matters, tax policy matters.

These are all the vital organs that make up our country.  They ALL matter.

by DawnG 2008-05-24 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: all policies matter.

A very fair point.  I meant no offense.  My thoughts on this differ little from those you've expressed.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-24 08:33PM | 0 recs
no offense taken...

...but I think it's important to realize that we can't afford to be "one issue voters" anymore.  We need to take things as a whole. We need to be a bloc.

We may have a particular passion for a particular topic, but we can't treat it like the only subject of vital importance.  We have to take things as a whole.

by DawnG 2008-05-24 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: no offense taken...

Very well said.

by bottl4 2008-05-25 12:23PM | 0 recs
Welcome Dawn

from a fellow Colorado Dem.  And I agree with you about all issues important...hate those polls where they want you to rate the issues.  They're all #1!

What part of the state are you in?

by GFORD 2008-05-25 07:09AM | 0 recs
from one deaniac to another
good work.  recommended.
s.
by synth 2008-05-24 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Welcome! My tragectory was very similar to yours... although I came to be inspired by Obama much earlier in the process.

I'm looking forward to waging the good fight together over the next six months...

by Victor Laszlo 2008-05-24 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

nice diary.  one funny typo though:

"It is time to start fighting each other"

ooops!

(happens to the best of us)

by bluedavid 2008-05-24 08:39PM | 0 recs
oh man!

I even read it all twice.

Thanks for the catch.  Corrected (I hope!)

by DawnG 2008-05-24 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

" It is time to start fighting each other and time to start unleashing our collective power on the one man standing between us and the redemption of our country:  

John McCain. "

- That is a little over the top but I see where you are going with it.

Not a bad diary.

However I am not a fan of all these appeals , I have never been a party line voter , although I have in most cases cast my vote for a democrat here in Tennessee but in presidential elections just like much of Appalachia and Dixie I vote for other reasons than party line voting.

That is why you can get up too about 30% of democrats defecting in presidential elections around here .

If you don't believe you share the values of a presidential candidate regardless of him being a democrat I don't think there should be an obligation to vote for the person.

Thats just one woman's opinion , I am sure many would disagree with that .

by lori 2008-05-24 08:39PM | 0 recs
You don't have to be a democrat...

...to realize that McCain will be a disaster for this country.

Hell, one could argue the disaster is already coming and the next president will have to deal with it.  I don't know if Obama has what it takes to get us through it, but I at least know he won't be pressing the same old policy buttons hoping for a different result (and blaming "liberals" when it fails...again).

That's pretty much all McCain has to offer anyone.

by DawnG 2008-05-24 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...


You don't have to be a democrat... ...to realize that McCain will be a disaster for this country.

- On the contrary I mostly hear the above from liberal democrats .

Moderate/Conservative democrats I know actually think Obama would be the disaster , of course I happen to believe all 3 would make fine presidents in their own ways.

by lori 2008-05-24 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...

All three would make fine presidents, you say. I guess. Unless you're gay. Like me.

That's OK. I wasn't using my civil rights anyway.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-24 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...

. . . or a Veteran like me who is disgusted with McCain's abuse of his POW status.

Veterans know when another veteran hides behind their medals.

by Veteran75 2008-05-25 05:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...

...or a high school teacher like me who is hampered with more mind-numbing tests that show nothing and increase costs, for which we get no money.  And only serve to further remove critical thinking.

by igottheblues 2008-05-25 05:38AM | 0 recs
Or someone who doesn't have health insurance

like me.  Leaving it to the free market means the insurance companies can do what they are doing now, exclude someone who had cancer 35 years ago.  

by GFORD 2008-05-25 07:13AM | 0 recs
Or a guy like me trying to run a business

and having to deal with skyrocketing healthcare costs, a weakened economy and constricting debt capital climate.

by zadura 2008-05-25 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Or a guy like me trying to help the poor

And finding funding slashed more and more each year despite billions going to anti-choice groups providing "abstinence only" education that FAILS to prepare our children for anything;.

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-25 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...

I couldn't help noticing that your opening line asserted that


McCain will be a disaster for this country.

but closed with


all 3 would make fine presidents in their own ways.

I suppose it's all in the definition of "own ways"?

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-25 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a democrat...

She was quoting from the comment above.  Admittedly quotation marks would have made this clearer.

by bottl4 2008-05-25 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support

Recommended.  As someone whose candidate has never won the nomination before, and whose family and friends include many Clinton supporters, I know well how you must feel.

by rfahey22 2008-05-24 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Till Obama officially received the nomination, I'll do my best for Clinton. And when that happens, then i'll do my best for Obama. As for now, the nomination is still going on. Tell me what do you think the narrative will be if 2 mil people showed up in Puerto Rico and Clinton won by 15 points? This will mean that Clinton will officially lead the popular vote regardless whether Michigan is in or not. And i would like to know by then how the Obama campaign will respond. Would they cry foul, take it like a man or try to push Clinton out of the race once more?

This nation is 9 trillion in debt, in 2 wars, manufacturing jobs are moving away, our education is  in bad shape, healthcare cost is escalating and i could go on more and more about the challenges facing the next president. So till Obama clinches the nomination, i'll still contribute and work my max for Clinton and hope that she would bring it all the way to the convention for the sake of this nation.

by stevent 2008-05-24 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

So if Clinton doesn't win Puerto Rico by 15 points and loses the PV, do you agree it's time for her to concede?

I don't think most people appreciate the weirdness of this Puerto Rico contest, btw.  If 2 million people turned out, that would mean more voters cast ballots in Puerto Rico than in 49 out of 50 states (even though states like New York, Illinois, etc., have far larger populations).

Puerto Rico isn't a state.  It plays no role in the general.  It doesn't have Democratic and Republican parties.  Its politics is distinct from the politics of United States.  Have no problem with it's having 55 delegates, but should it really have more influence than New York?

So what would I say?  It doesn't matter.  This contest is not determined by who wins the popular vote.  If turnout in NY is 40% and in RI it's 80%, that doesn't mean we give RI more delegates as some kind of reward.  The popular vote is not the solid metric you seem to think (c'mon, that's obvious just given the different formulas people have come up with to tabulate it).

But that's just me.  What about you?  So if Clinton doesn't win the PV should she concede?

by IncognitoErgoSum 2008-05-24 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Hillary's argument isn't based on the PV so much as it's based on experience, electability, and the post-McGovern role of superdelegates in ensuring activist favorites don't jeopardize the general election.  I don't think she will end up winning the nomination but if she doesn't it won't be because of the PV.

"Puerto Rico isn't a state.  It plays no role in the general.  It doesn't have Democratic and Republican parties.  Its politics is distinct from the politics of United States."

Puerto Ricans are United States citizens and have been for almost a century.  There are a lot of good arguments one can make to attempt a diminution of the popular vote metric, but attacking certain states or territories as unAmerican isn't a good route, IMO.

by BPK80 2008-05-24 11:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

"Puerto Ricans are United States citizens and have been for almost a century.  There are a lot of good arguments one can make to attempt a diminution of the popular vote metric, but attacking certain states or territories as unAmerican isn't a good route, IMO."

I'm not arguing against your point, but did you call out the Clinton campaign when Penn said that Obama hadn't won a "significant state" besides Illinois? In fact, Obama supporters have been almost exclusively hearing that Florida, Michigan, Penn, and Ohio are the only important states (not a quote), so in terms of Puerto Rico, I think the Clinton campaign is going to have to sleep in the bed it made.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Mark Penn is an idiot, to be frank.

I've never had a positive thing to say about him.  

Every state matters.  MI, OH, FL, and PA are the biggest legitimately swing states in the election.  It would be poor strategy to not realize that heading into the general election.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 12:23AM | 0 recs
Popular vote matters

What i am saying is that regardless of her moves, i'll support her till she loses the nomination then i'll go with the unity. If you want to argue about how democratic Puerto Rico is, i'll argue the same as caucus states. They represent only approximately <5% of the votes possible. So if you want to argue about not counting states, then lets not count those with unfair election method. Rules are rules. You don't cherry picked them. This goes to the superdelegates argument too where they can choose whoever they want to support regardless of popular or delegates. That's what they are for. To make independent judgments.

You have to remember that Obama could not seal the nomination without the superdelegates either. So it's all fair game to me. Plus i'm very in favor of this race going all the way up to the nomination. My argument is that it keeps the news on the democrats all the way till September. And remember one thing, me and many like me vote on issues first, candidate second.

As for Florida and Michigan, the rules are that half the delegates be removed but the DNC has decided to go nuclear on it. And Obama removed his name on Michigan for strategic reasons, just as he tried to remove his name from Florida so don't go bsing to me that he is following the rules. It's all politics, and thus i don't have remorse if he is the nominee because he gamed the system and Clinton failed . But at the moment, i'm in favor of including Florida and Michigan into play and that Obama can have the 45% delegates from Michigan. Just that he has no popular vote from there. It's the rules, so don't talk about how unfair that would be.

As long as Clinton is still in the game, i'm in too. If the DNC wants to go nuclear, then it should also removed Iowa, NC, Nevada and SC.  

by stevent 2008-05-25 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

Just one small note.  50% is the suggested penalty in the but it's optional and discretionary.  The Rules as a whole redirect all final decisions to the full discretion of the RBC, Credentials Committee, and even the convention floor has a vote.

Based on the entirety of the rules system, there is no mandatory penalty for either state, not even 50% reduction.

And I'm glad people are being more outspoken about the fact that Michigan being a mess is because it was sabotaged by candidated who strategically removed their names from the ballot because they knew they were not competitive there.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

To be fair, nearly all of the insurgent candidates removed their names from the ballot because they realized that having such a large state vote so early would not give any campaign enough time to make a dent into the establishment candidate, Clinton. Obviously the DNC shared this perspective; that's part of the reason Michigan was not allowed to move up while Iowa and New Hampshire were. And as we discussed, from the rhetoric of the Clinton campaign at the time, she didn't feel the need to remove her name because she knew the primary wouldn't count.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 12:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

This is where we differ. You view her as not removing her names because she knows it won't count. Mind you that the agreement was they won't campaign in those states, and NOT not counting those states. Even before those 2 states voted, words on the streets was that go to vote and Clinton will do her best to make your vote count. So don't tell me about Hillary did nothing to make those voices heard.

And i view Clinton's insistent on not removing her names to be in defiance with the party heads of Iowa and NH. Obama kowtowed to them and he has been rewarded. Now is time for him to face the consequences. Markos has blogged on this topic before he switched his support to Obama, praising Clinton for facing the risk by not trying to remove her name from Florida and Michigan. As i said it's all politics whether you like it or not. There is no moral cause in politics. Only victory and consequences. Now is the time for the Obama camp to face the latter.

It's a pity that the democratic party chooses 2008 to fight over its differences. There will be a lot of healing to do. We are just lucky enough that McCain's team has been so indecisive on strategy partly because they cannot confirm our nominee.  

by stevent 2008-05-25 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

"words on the streets was that go to vote and Clinton will do her best to make your vote count. So don't tell me about Hillary did nothing to make those voices heard."

I would be very interested in any official statement from the campaign stating they would fight for Michigan and Florida before the votes took place. Something significant to that effect could persuade me significantly on the issue, but I doubt it exists. "Word on the street" isn't going to cut it for me in terms of hypocrisy.

"Markos has blogged on this topic before he switched his support to Obama, praising Clinton for facing the risk by not trying to remove her name from Florida and Michigan."

I'll have to find this - I must admit that I don't follow every one of Markos' posts, but that would be an interesting perspective to hear.

"This is where we differ. You view her as not removing her names because she knows it won't count."

Actually, I'm not sure she knew it wouldn't count - that's just what they were saying. It's (obviously) hard for me to get into their heads, but I think that the choice to leave her name on the ballot was just to keep things flexible: if she didn't do well, she could stick with the line that they wouldn't count, and she wasn't losing too much face in Iowa and NH since she signed the no-campaign pledge. If she did do well, she could do what she has been doing (though, obviously, it's not as effective to fight for people's votes after you personally say they won't matter) and do an about face on her policy regarding the DNC ruling.

"There is no moral cause in politics."

You're probably right. But while there many not be any objective right/wrong answers, the one thing people do tend to use as a substitute is consistently. Conversely, hypocrisy indicates that someone is not advocating for what they believe; rather, they are advocating for what benefits them at that particular moment (pandering).

Thus, Clinton's claims of disenfranchisement and comparisons to election fraud in Zimbabwe (what I would call moral claims)  are undercut by her own self-serving approach to the issue.

Her loss of credibility - particularly with superdelegates - are the consequences to Clinton's political machinations, as you indicate go along with choices made on the basis of purely politics.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 01:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

This is probably the Daily Kos post they're talking about (from January):

Who is playing to win?

Winning is important. The last thing we can afford as a country is another 4-8 years of continued Republican rule. If nothing else, Justice Stevens is not long on the bench, and losing his vote in the Supreme Court would inflict the nation with a solid conservative majority for generations. So who is doing everything possible to win?

Hillary Clinton, by far. She's not limiting her campaign's ability to raise money (nor her supporters' to give it) by accepting public financing. Obama has opted out for the primary, but has said he'd accept it for the general if the Republican did so as well. Why give Republicans veto power over what the Democrats do? Given our better ability to raise money this cycle, why would Obama willingly surrender that advantage to the Republicans? That's not playing to win. Edwards is the opposite, saying he could opt out of public financing for the general, but already opted in for the primary. That means that unless he's opposite a similarly limited Republican (i.e. McCain), he'll be at a gross disadvantage all summer as he has less than $20 million left to spend until September.

What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1 /2/12427/74720

by skohayes 2008-05-25 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

You're confusing the reason for scheduling the four small states early with the reason for penalizing Michigan.  Michigan didn't lose any delegates because it's a "big" state; the RBC voted to strip them of their delegates because their primary was earlier than allowed.  It was intended to inspire a revote, but that clearly didn't happen either due to the DNC's negligence or in some cases, candidates' surrogates actively blocking a revote.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 12:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

The reason that Michigan and Florida were penalized for moving up (and not the four other states that did) was precisely because they are large states.

The whole point of allowing (or not penalizing) a few select states (which we agree should not be the same every four years, but what are you going to do when the DNC can't enforce anything) to go before the deadline is because they are either small (catering to retail politics) or diverse (more representative of the democratic base). Florida and Michigan are neither of those, and so they are penalized.

Re-votes were definitely intended to happen with the DNC ruling (though that was rather naive of them), but that's certainly not good enough of a reason to penalize two states while permitting four other states to do the same thing.

by gcensr 2008-05-25 01:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Popular vote matters

"me and many like me vote on issues first, candidate second"

When was the last time this nomination race revolved around an actual issue?  It's been nothing but
sparring about "character" since Edwards dropped out.

by looty 2008-05-25 02:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

I'm not sure the Obama campaign has tried to push Clinton out of the race.  What are you talking about?

Of course plenty of Obama supporters have, as well as Democrats concerned about the increasingly divisive nature of the contest.  I'm concerned about this myself, esp the talk about taking it to the convention, which could only undermine the Democratic ticket in November.  

But I don't remember hearing Obama's campaign apply pressure on Hillary to get out.  I remember Obama saying she should continue the campaign as she sees fit.

I'd appreciate knowing if there's something I've missed.  Thanks.

by Matt Smith 2008-05-25 02:18AM | 0 recs
Rec!

Welcome aboard.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-24 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

I have been a Democrat all my life and I've voted for the Democratic party nominee for president everytime since 1972.

I will NEVER vote for Obama.  Never...

by wblynch 2008-05-24 11:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

The dead in Iraq will thank you.

by mikeinsf 2008-05-25 01:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

as will the young women forced into back-alley abortions...

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 09:37AM | 0 recs
munch. munch. crunch.

congrats on an inclusive and unifying diary.

by far better than all the candidate trashing as of lately...

by alyssa chaos 2008-05-24 11:23PM | 0 recs
Nice

Nice diary.  

Still, I'm not sure the nomination is over if, as the chatter suggests, Hillary wants to go to the convention.  My support for her is strong enough that I'm with her until the primary race officially ends.  Then I support the Dem nominee.  

That, however, won't stop me from raising criticism where appropriate, particularly with the gravity surrounding the Michigan and Florida debacle and on "electability" based arguments.    

by BPK80 2008-05-24 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Obama

I must admit I am surprised to see a "coming to Obama" diary from you. Based on your past comments, I would have thought you were already solidly in the Obama camp. Maybe you were heavily "leaning" that way for awhile?

FYI, I started out backing Dodd, now back Clinton, but would vote for Obama over McCain in a heartbeat.

by itsthemedia 2008-05-25 12:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Great diary. Just  rec'd

And you're right: this is important  for billons of people.

by french imp 2008-05-25 01:00AM | 0 recs
When is Your Baptism
Wherein I finally take the pledge. Sheeze.
A Moonie? a scientologist? an Obamie?
by hypopg 2008-05-25 03:56AM | 0 recs
Re: When is Your Baptism

nice completely idiotic comment.

by JenKinFLA 2008-05-25 09:37AM | 0 recs
Hear! Hear!

Nice diary.  Would rec if I was still allowed.

by rf7777 2008-05-25 04:48AM | 0 recs
Wonderful diary...

Dawn.  Well written and appeals across the board.  I would love to rec if I could, so you will have accept the phantom kind.

by igottheblues 2008-05-25 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

Welcome to the light comrade!

by fightbull 2008-05-25 07:16AM | 0 recs
Nice job

Great diary. I would say clearly say that's it's more on Obama supporters than Clinton supporters to begin to unite the party. Obama to his great credit has done his part in the last few weeks, being very gracious to Clinton and her supporters, talking about the historic tough campaign she has run. However many Obama supporters still take vitriol towards Clinton, lieing and using sexist language. Those people have be reigned in, or at least greatly diminished, or the cycle will continue.

Clinton supporters need to take responsibility too and stop demonizing Obama in rediculous ways, but the onus in uniting has to begin with the supporters of the almost certain winner. It's easier to be a gracious winner than a gracious loser. Treat Hillary Clinton with the respect she has earned and deserves. She has broken barriers for our daughters, sisters, and mothers, don't forget that.

by Christopher Lib 2008-05-25 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice job

It's a tough thing, settling back down after a tough competition.  And as much as the winning team's fans are relaxing, they still get just as riled when one of their players is hurt in the final minutes.  And the losing team's fans get even more incensed by each late-game penalty.

You comment is good, and that is the intention I believe of most people on both sides.

As part of that we also have to understand that the late-game hits aren't going to stop completely, and not make too much of them.

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-05-25 09:39AM | 0 recs
Well said!

I wonder how many other on this site count themselves as original Deaniacs?

by Sumo Vita 2008-05-25 08:08AM | 0 recs
I'm one.

In fact, the only quibble I have with this diary is that, as a Dean supporter, I found Bill's "fall in love and then fall in line" comment at the steak fry in '03 to be condescending bullshit.  I await the moment when he smiles and tells that to his wife's supporters.

by zizzybalubah 2008-05-25 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

For many people, their right to vote is solemn obligation. For others, it's not worthy of a second thought. Some never even register. A few even try to use is as a weapon against those who would dare to vote for someone else after they've explained how their favorite candidate is better.

I admire Dawn and others like her for their thoughtful approach to our solemn obligation as citizens, regardless of who she ultimately decides to vote for.

On Memorial Day we honor those who have gone before us for their work and sacrifice, but on Election Day we show our real respect.

Please don't vote to punish anyone. If you decide to do that anyway, keep your intentions secret - so you don't look so bad.

by xdem 2008-05-25 09:28AM | 0 recs
Well said

Everyone has the right to vote for whom they want for whatever reasons they want.  But, continuing to hit people over the head with a protest vote intention is bad form.

by lombard 2008-05-25 12:34PM | 0 recs
Why do you hate women?

(snark)

by Bush Bites 2008-05-25 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Wherein I finally commit to support Barak Obam

"a "new Democratic coalition" swelled by affluent white leftists and liberals, college students, and African-Americans."

Don't forget that Obama is preferred among western, northern midwestern and new en gland working class whites.

They are not core constituencies?

by wrb 2008-05-25 03:02PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads