But not about Obama. I'm concerned that even after many, many comments pointing out that Obama had a long press conference this morning, the diarist absolutely refuses to acknowledge that what she reported as fact is simply not so. Linfar, ignoring facts doesn't make them go away, and you're pattern of ignoring Obama's press conference and every single comment pointing it out in this diary makes you look like it's more important to you to prove that Obama sucks than it is to look at the situation honestly. I really can't think of another explanation for your lack of responding to every single comment pointing out that the key "fact" in your diary is faulty.
Firstly, I didn't see this diarist suggest that he/she doesn't like Clinton's politics, so my response is in hypothetical terms about hypothetical people like yours was. Maybe some people didn't like their perception of Clinton's political style as opposed to her policy platform but like Sebelius' style/public persona?
I think you are making a successful argument that many PUMAs are sincere. I am still convinced that their position is not rational. Like conspiracy theorists, they connect dots that have no connection, ignore evidence that is contrary to their mindset, and therefore base their conclusions on a schema that doesn't exist outside themselves. On top of that, they predict outcomes that have no historical basis (i.e. this protest will help reform the nominating process). While I didn't have a problem during the primary with people who saw Clinton's candidacy primarily as an opportunity to get our first woman in the White House, now that her candidacy is over, I have very little sympathy for supposed progressives who would like to sabotage the more progressive of the two parties in order to prove an illogical point.
You think that saying the primary system can be changed so that race and gender politics are eliminated is rational?
How exactly does one accomplish that goal by changing anything systematically? Would the system automatically deliver a fatal electric shock to any public figure that uses race and gender politics?
As far as reforming the primary system so that it's more "fair", I agree that many people in the party would like a uniform system nationally that gives proportional representation to voters directly. It would hopefully help to eliminate the feeling of being "cheated" when a candidate winds up in second place.
I think Hillary would be a solid choice for VP if increasing electability was the only factor in that choice. Hillary would also be a very solid choice for taking over if something happened to Obama. But the nagging problem in my mind is that Obama might not want to set himself up to have to compete for decision making power and media attention with his own VP and her spouse. I don't know Hillary personally, so therefore am basing my assumptions on my perception of her character as presented in public. My assumption is that she would want to be a very active VP with public executive responsibilities so as to effect policies that are important to her and to set herself up for a shoe-in for the nomination when Obama's done. I think the key factor in Obama's choosing her is if he thinks having a VP like that would be beneficial for his administration or a hindrance.
I think it's just as easy to blame Clinton for dragging the primary out as it is to blame the netroots for "backing the wrong horse". The fact is, it was a long, expensive primary and we're in a tough economy. I don't think money problems at this time are an indication that there isn't enthusiasm. And if Hillary had won, we'd have started out June negative 20 million instead of positive 30. I also question your judgment about whether the party "backed the wrong horse" when Obama is ahead of McCain so consistently in many swing states and putting the Republicans on defense in so many places.
yes, I know what you mean about homophobic humor. As a public school teacher (and just as an adult in our society), I encounter it and have to educate about it all the time. We're way behind on that issue in our society.
It seems like you feel disturbed because the diarist tried to use humor to point out how some priorities seem out of whack in the PUMA camp. Specifically, it seems like you don't think the issue of sexism should be treated lightly. It shouldn't, you're right. Nor should racism, homophobia, etc...
I think the point of the diary is that all of these social ills exist, and we, as a society will be still working them out long after the youngest of us is dead. The standard PUMA argument that because sexism still exists in our society and it was present in a variety of forms in the primary we have to stop everything and punish Obama even though he is more likely to promote progress toward equality on all fronts. It does not seem that you "buy" the PUMA line of reasoning, but this diary was a response to it, and yes, there has been an invasion of late of people spouting off this illogical argument in one form or another.
Think about it this way: It is my belief that racism cost Obama more votes than sexism cost Clinton, even if sexism in the public sphere was more noticeable. I am aware that this assertion is difficult to prove, but it is my opinion. If a group of people were continually bashing Clinton (whether as a senator or a nominee) day in and day out because racism exists and showed up in the primary and cost Obama votes, would that be rational? If people were attempting to paint Clinton as something she isn't and slamming her every move without every acknowledging her efforts to improve our county because they are so angry about racism in the primary, and it seemed that no amount of reason could get through to this group, wouldn't it be at least in the realm of "ok" to try to use humor to shine a light on how strange their behavior and priorities are?
I'm not saying that you're wrong about sexism being a serious issue. I agree with you on that. I just think you're wrong that this snark is an attack on the seriousness of sexism. Instead, it's an attack on a group of irrational and deluded people who want America to suffer through more Republican rule to punish Obama for sexism in society.
I guess I just don't see the point in agreeing that racism/sexism went down against both candidates, and then saying a big BUT, JUST IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE, WHAT THE OTHER GUY DID WAS WORSE, (but please, no flame wars).
Anyway, we both agree with the main point of this thread. We should just leave it at that.
I've also spent time trying to understand how there came to be such a wide chasm in our party. Although I think that the people in the PUMA movement are actually a fairly small but very loud minority, the ideas that they cite as sources of anger resonate with many more, and they therefore have something of an audience.
I voted for Edwards in the primary but after Edwards dropped out I donated to Obama's campaign. I didn't even bother to get a sign or bumper sticker, so I don't consider myself to have been an enthusiastic supporter. I supported Obama because I liked his foreign policy rationale (I didn't see it as one speech in 2002), and I thought he was bringing new democrats into the party in a way that would give him a good chance of winning while building the party ranks. I never saw him as perfect, and I don't think I have ever even tried Kool-Aid.
My opinion is that the chasm widened to a difficult point starting in late February. At that time, after Obama's string of wins, the calls for Clinton's departure from the race, or at least her softening of her attacks, were beginning to grow louder. There became two very different ways of looking at the state of the race. Many in the media and in Obama's camp assumed that Obama had the nomination wrapped up, and only became more negative about Clinton when she seemed to be tearing down the very likely nominee for no good reason. On the other hand, Clinton's fighter/hero status was growing legendary among those who supported her as she refused to let anyone else suggest that she stop fighting for what she believes in. The more she fought on in March, April, and May, the more she became perceived as a hero/fighter against the male dominant society telling her to quit, while at the same time she built her image as the out-of-touch, power-crazed politician that refused to acknowledge that she had lost the fight.
Then she gave up. That left a very passionate following of supporters with intense loyalty and anger as well as the other side of the party who was more ready to move on and start dealing with McCain.
I remember noticing in myself some anger at bittergate. I couldn't understand why she would want to create a right-wing attack perspective that could be used effectively against Obama in the general. I remember venting to a friend who was supporting Clinton and through that conversation I remember beginning to understand that the fighter/hero characterization is just as valid/invalid as the insane power-hungry characterization was. I was lucky I had this friend and had the conversation at the right time. I think it helped me be able to frame the rest of the primary in my mind so that even though I still was rooting for Obama, I could admire how Clinton was increasingly inspirational, and I can understand to some degree the leftover feeling of being cheated that some Clinton supporters still feel. I don't, by the way, think it's accurate to claim that she was cheated, but I have some idea why, emotionally, that makes sense.
Like you, Sricki, I am at a loss for how to narrow this chasm. I think when we put politicians up on pedestals and look up to them as something more glamorous or evil than egotistical politicians we set ourselves up for irrational consequences. Unlike some suggestions I've seen on MyDD, I don't think it's solely up to Obama-primary supporters to make nice until Clinton-primary supporters forgive. But I do think that conversations would go better if more Obama-primary supporters took some time to try to emotionally understand the inspiration that Clinton created, even if they think it was counter-productive to have kept fighting the way she did.
All that being said, I have faith that with time comes emotional distance, and by November, most people will be ready to vote for their own perceived political interest. In the mean time, I think one of our jobs as conversationalists on this site is to counter attempts by sneaky McCain supporters to leverage the chasm that exists to try to persuade some who are not enthusiastic about Obama that it might not be so bad to support McCain, or that staying home or writing in Clinton would be a useful protest. We need to see this for what it is: opportunism by Republicans.
OK, Barack hired the wrong guy for that project apparently. But does it "concern" you that Clinton didn't manage her campaign finances very well and spent millions on Mark Penn?
Anyway, the point is, it's not about whether there's a difference of opinion about Obama or Clinton anymore. It's about if there's a difference of opinion about Obama or McCain. Clinton has given up the fight. She's not a candidate anymore. It's Obama or McCain. Of course there's nothing wrong with dissent, but I would not call your reference to $100,000 misspent dissent. I would call it circulating an obscure and irrelevant republican talking point on a democratic site.
I have two questions for you: are you supporting Barack Obama or John McCain for president? What are your reasons for supporting who you support?