Impotent Threats

More and more we are hearing that "if my candidate doesn't win  I will vote for McCain" 

When both candidates are against the war how can this be?
Are these Senator McCain supporters trying to divide and conquer?
I understand people will be upset if their candidate doesn't win but why would you vote for Senator McCain? I personally don't believe it.
These are either empty threats or as I suspect Republican manipulation. For thoes of you thinking of switching to McCain please explain why you would vote for Senator McCain. Do you support more war?
Do you like his health care plan? What attracts you to Senator McCain?

Tags: clinton, mccain, obama, Threats, war (all tags)



Oh no no...

Vote for McCain? Oh no, they have a more nuanced, battle-tested one now. They will merely not vote. As if that isn't just as bad (or, more accurately, half as bad). They figure that way they can act immature but still not get in so much trouble among Democrats that they're chased off from their favorite blogs.

by Addison 2008-04-03 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

So lets stop and think...

Are you trying to GET them to not vote by insulting them?

If you really support Obama maybe you would try and actually act in HIS/YOUR best interest....


by DTaylor 2008-04-03 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

Nothing was written about either candidate's supporters. Don't jump the gun and assume it's not about both sides.

by Addison 2008-04-03 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
My question is why would any Democrat vote for McCain so far I haven't received an answer to my question. My theory is that a Democrat wouldn't switch to McCain because he has such a different
point of view from our candidates. I would still like to hear from anyone considering a switch. Please tell me which issues you admire about McCain and why you would vote for war.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 05:10PM | 0 recs
that would be mostly

independents.  As far as Democrats, I think some might vote against Hillary cause they believe what he says about her and he hasn't thrown his support to her shoudl she win, as she has to him. There are some like me who might not be ethcially able to vote for Barack given the way he's played to his base of Hilary haters.  It's a small part of his base, but he may need to win without my vote, not sure.  I mean, I guess if he wins and Hillary asks me to vote for him, I'll try to.  but he'll need more than my vote to win and so far he's not trying to win my vote.  So I can only think that he plans to win without it.  

by anna shane 2008-04-03 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

Yes what we really need are several more Bosnia threads from BO supporters.  Or maybe one more HRC is a pathological lair.  HRC will do anything to win.  


by giusd 2008-04-03 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

Because the Hilary supporters have never wavered from writing exclusively positive diaries concerning Hilary.  Never would they lower themselves to write nasty things about Obama or continue to resurrect and re-resurrect the Reverend Wright flap, our take his comments out of context, they would never go for about a month accusing everyone who dares oppose Hilary of sexism.  Never would they stoop to claim that Barack Obama is a manchurian candidate, or insist on referring to him as Berry.  If any of that ever happened the rose smell might rub off.

by lockewasright 2008-04-03 05:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I don't and i'm not wondering if I can vote for him because of you guys. It's him, he's encouraging Hillary hate by playing her victim and I don't like it. It's got real consequences for real people. the way you can tell hate from difference in opinion is that the haters conculde that she's a bad person. I'm not against Barack cause he's bad, he's a normal enough pollitician, I'm just not sure if I can vote for someone who uses hate to get people to feel sorry for him.  I'm not against opponents, I'm against stupid opponents? (to paraphrse Obama)

by anna shane 2008-04-03 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

and what if these people look at her tactics and judge them less than acceptable?  What if it is not Obama playing victim for some people and instead they have individually looked at her behavior and found it wanting?

by lockewasright 2008-04-03 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I should also have said that, while you and I clearly disagree, I can respect that you perceive what is going on differently than I do and that neither of us has to be wrong in our perception.  I can respect that you feel the way that you do.  Really, I can.

My comment was directed at the idea that Obama people are the ones who single handedly are causing this anger.  That was the tenor of the comment to which I replied.

by lockewasright 2008-04-03 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I appreciate your reply.

by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
I don't agree with persuing the Bosnia controversy either. It's over but I think you have to agree that Senator Clinton created this controversy. If I was shot at I would remember it.
I honestly think she lied in this situation but of course I could be wrong.
Senator Obama should have known that the words of Pastor Wright would come back to haunt him so I think he is partly responsible for his own controversy as well. let's let it go Senator Clinton is an amazing person that I know for sure.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 05:40PM | 0 recs
No matter which candidate gets the nod

if supporters from the other side don't go vote and then later they're taken away by the neocon storm troopers for even having been part of a democratic blog what I want to know is: later, in between waterboardings, will they still feel all self-righteous about having blown a chance to stop neoconservatism right now all because someone said mean things to them in the comments section?

by lockewasright 2008-04-03 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

most of America backed that war at the beginning, lots of independents worry about terrorism and had a hard time making their minds up between Barack and John in their own primaries. they see the two as outsiders and they're ready to throw the bums out but don't care so much about policy. I have a different reason for being unsure if I can vote for Obama. I'm female and I don't know if I can vote for someone whose rhetoric incites girl-hate in the bad disguise of Hillary hate. Hate's hate and I don't think I can vote for anyone who;s in exploits hate.  In contrast Hilary is upbeat and sunny and she keeps saying what she'd do in this or that crisis, real time, they keep on coming, and she's got the only complete plan for health care insurance and for getting us out of Iraq. he's a middle kind of guy and middle doesn't cut it with health and war.  We need his mercenaries out too, and we need to cancel those no-bid contracts his mercenaries will stay to protect.  Middle is also closer to McCain and makes their differences less striking.  

by anna shane 2008-04-03 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
Thank you for trying to answer the question. Having said that it sounds as if you are not thinking of switching. It sounds as if your impressed by Senator Clinton like so many other voters. I was wondering do you feel Senator Obama hates women or condones anything less than respect.
I look forward to your take on this.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

In contrast Hilary is upbeat and sunny...

Cue Twilight Zone music.....

by RP McMurphy 2008-04-03 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I think some of us are ready to vote for McCain because he is not a charlatan and we know what to expect. He does not talk about new politics and demean in the worst way the first serious female candidate for president. Whatever happens McCain will be the most curteous man in this race.

by alvic63 2008-04-03 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
I find it hard to believe that if Senator Clinton was competing against Senator McCain they wouldn't play hardball on both sides.  The Republican party might try and "swiftboat" her,
Yes Senator McCain might be the perfect gentleman but his supporters and his party would try and crush her while he smiled on. Man or women the parties will try and defeat their opponent. Thank you for answering the question.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

He does not talk about new politics and demean in the worst way the first serious female candidate for president.

And let's be honest, that's what this is really about. Obama has not once mentioned Hillary's gender. However, you identify very strongly with Hillary because of her gender and you're very disappointed that she's currently losing. You need someone to blame so you blame Obama despite the fact that he's run a basically positive campaign. Insofar as he has gone negative, he's railed against the past, the status quo, and called into question Senator Clinton's honesty (just as she's questioned his experience). Well, guess what: there are few people as established in Washington as Hillary Clinton, and, like it or not, she's been perceived as dishonest since long before anyone had ever heard the name "Barack Obama."

by RP McMurphy 2008-04-03 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I am not "attracted" to Senator McCain but am seriously thinking about voting for him. I do like his position on taxes, and am beginning to appreciate his flexibility on other positions and his legislative accomplishments -- some of which have been forged by genuinely non-partisan hard work. If he chooses someone like Romney to run with him as VP rather than pander to social conservatives, my bias will grow larger.

I think it is a mistake to characterize his position as "for war" -- you sound like an Obama supporter who's for a candidate who took the cheapest of shots the other day when he characterized McCain as wanting a 100 years of war. No person in the military who has seen comrades being killed beside him or her, let alone someone with McCain's background in Nam (do you all even bother getting to know the people you are talking about?) will ever be "for" war -- because they know its costs, and what it has done to their friends and families.

If I vote for McCain -- it will be seriously to vote against Obama and the Democratic party -- to send a message:

  • The party system that relies on caucuses is broken, since it obviously has resulted in an unvetted, inexperienced candidate. Obama has run a brilliant campaign but he has manipulated this system to his advantage
  • The party's treatment of MI and FL voters is reprehensible and incompetent, and Obama supporters are not calling out to him to do the right thing
  • Clinton's campaign has been inept but Obama's -- unforgivable
  • Obama showed terrible judgement wrt. Wright, Rezko (boneheaded?) and yet this party seems to want to look beyond such things. Not me. Sorry.

In short, I simply do not want to be associated with a party whose members (esp. Obama supporters)  I increasingly cannot identify with. They seem to be able to project what they want to see in his empty rhetoric, and their behavior toward Clinton and her supporters is appalling. Senator Obama's experience and lack of judgement make him a bit too risky a choice -- given where the country is right now -- in my judgement.

by BostonIndependent 2008-04-03 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
Thank you for answering the question. I really appreciate it. You are one of the few. I can only imagine that anyone who has been to war would never want to put our men and women in harms way. In McCains case I admire him greatly for his service. Having said that when he jokes about Bombing Iran I don't laugh because I believe Iran is a target where innocent people will die.
Yes I'm an Obama supporter as you guessed. The war is a huge issue for me as it is for Senator Clinton. I want our troops home A.S.A.P. Thank you again for your point of view.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-03 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

Thank you for your kind words. The Iraq war is a big issue for me as well. I was marginally involved in the first Gulf war so I know a lot more about the costs involved (Bush senior, Schwarzkopf and his generals actually did that right, but Rumsfeld's doctrinal approach toward planning is what has resulted in this mess we have today). A relative's neighbour has done two tours, and I know a lot of people in the service.

If you say you want our troops home -- you would do well to talk to some of them who have actually been in Iraq. Ask them how they think it should be done, and whether hastily retreating now that we have gone and done this to another country is morally the right thing.

Let us be Americans. Let us own up to our mistakes. Let us show the world that we are engaged, and we care. Let us show terrorists that they cannot claim victory. Let us show that injustice and inhumanity anywhere in the world matters to us a great deal.

As to Iran -- and McCain's comments; I don't know the specific details you may be thinking of, but what we should be fearful of is not Senator McCain so much as the neo-con wing of the Republican party. I think this wing has been discredited, and will only continue to dig its own grave. You cannot let that govern your vote, any more than you should or would let certain radical wings of the Democratic party dictate your choice on issues you no doubt care about. In short, I think McCain's position on Iran is a nuanced one at this time. If you want to see for example why I think that -- consider Israel, and read Haaretz's coverage of a point made in the Republican debate wrt. Iran. Even before we take action on such a matter, I believe that Israel will force us to act, or unilaterally choose to defend her citizens, and as an ally, we cannot shut our eyes and ears to this strategic interest.

A similar fear runs in countries east of Iran. I travel to India and to Asia Pacific a bit, and the  nuclearization of Iran, with the instability at Pakistan has the Indian government greatly worried as well. In short, if we ignore Iran for too long, we may really be in a position of being penny wise but pound foolish. We have to engage them diplomatically now, back up threats with appropriate shows of force and support for our allies who may feel much more endangered than we are.

by BostonIndependent 2008-04-05 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats
I enjoyed reading your reply and I agree racing out of Iraq without considering the consequences would be wrong. What I have noticed about military
people is they have a cando attitude no matter how desperate the situaion is. Having said this I believe we have to listen to them but I think we have experienced that these same military people can be intimidated and manipulated
by politicians. We have created a huge mess in Iraq and the only thing I know for sure is innocent people will die including our soldiers and other people will make lots of money. I look foward to reading your posts in the future.
by Politicalslave 2008-04-05 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I am not "attracted" to Senator McCain but am seriously thinking about voting for him.

Then you are seriously a traitor to the causes you claim to hold dear.

I do like his position on taxes...

If you like McCain's position on taxes then you're essentially a Republican.

If he chooses someone like Romney to run with him as VP rather than pander to social conservatives...

I'm not sure if you noticed this, but Romney's entire campaign was essentially predicated on pandering to social conservatives. But, continue with your nonsense...

The party system that relies on caucuses is broken, since it obviously has resulted in an unvetted, inexperienced candidate.

The result of the process wasn't my preferred candidate, ergo, the system is broken.

Obama has run a brilliant campaign but he has manipulated this system to his advantage.

He hasn't "manipulated" anything. He's simply won based on the pre-established rules. Would you have Obama tell his supporters in caucus states not to show up because it's unfair to Hillary that her supporters won't?

The party's treatment of MI and FL voters is reprehensible and incompetent

The Democratic representatives in MI and FLs' treatment of the party is reprehensible -- what gave them the gall to think that they could renege on an agreement reached with 48 other states in order to increase their own importance?

...and Obama supporters are not calling out to him to do the right thing

There are two possible right things: 1. revote 2. seat the delegations in some way that fails to alter the outcome of the nomination. Counting sham elections is not among the "right things" to do.

Obama showed terrible judgement wrt. Wright, Rezko (boneheaded?) and yet this party seems to want to look beyond such things.

Iraq. Bosnia. Health Care. NAFTA. Bankruptcy bill. Primary election. Norman Hsu. Hugh Rodham. Marc Rich. Johnny Chung. Zoe Baird. Susan McDougal. Sandy Berger.

In short, I simply do not want to be associated with a party whose members (esp. Obama supporters)  I increasingly cannot identify with.

Believe me, the feeling is mutual. Honestly, anyone who agrees with McCain's tax policy is basically a DINO anyway.

by RP McMurphy 2008-04-04 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

Mr. McMurphy - thank you. It is precisely the behavior of people such as yourself that causes more and more people like me to turn away from this party. You don't engage any of my points substantively -- but take the Internet poster-child way of rebutting an argument.

It is also pretty clear that you have not read about where the government spending is right now, and where it will shift should current tax policies be changed. Look at what the AMT is doing to the middle-class, read Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch by Cay Johnston, look at the numbers on Social Security and Medicaid, and the draw down numbers from the DoD on stopping the Iraq war. Have you read through Allston Goolsbee and Richard Thaler (both of whom I respect very much btw) and what they say about the markets and macro economics. (Google 'behavioral economics' or 'behavioral finance' and you will be able to educate yourself).

You call MI/FL sham elections. Perhaps they were. Then call upon Senator Obama to agree to a revote --  Now. Your option 2 -- does not make sense -- because counting the votes as they were cast, could very easily alter the outcome of this nomination. If you have a specific proposal that you have urged your preferred candidate to adopt -- let's hear it. Thus far, all Obama has done through his supporters is to block revotes or any move toward seating the present delegates from MI/FL. If you and your supporters cannot accomplish this simple thing -- i.e. get Senator Obama and his campaign to respond to the way you genuinely seem to feel about this issue, why you believe that he will "hear" your voice after he takes office is beyond me. You have been misled my friend, you just do not know it.

Spend some time on -- it is a great site with "results" -- stuff that your elected representatives have actually done in terms of legislation. Look up Obama, Clinton and McCain.
And you don't need to search for bills that actually became law -- I know the 'but laws require Presidential signatures and both houses etc. etc.'. Even by the merits of whether or not a Senator can work with his opponents to get a bill that he created (an indicator of his commitment, creativity and will to work on issues) passed in his chamber -- you can gauge the actual performance of the people you care about.

WRT> Judgement -- I am not saying Clinton's judgement is not without faults. The very fact that you respond to my points w/ slams against Clinton is telling. Even if you had said "I agree, but Clinton is not much better. Look at Iraq, Bosnia etc." I might have nodded my head and we could have had a better conversation. But the fact that Obama supporters do not engage in conversation -- but just shout down their opponents (which is what happened in caucuses btw), make me fear that not only is he a 'poseur' but that he will bring the most truly corrosive, divisivie and dare I say non-democratic forces into this nation's politics. He will not speak out against such behavior when they are to his advantage and I submit that he will not speak out for "you" when it truly matters to you.

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I am a "traitor" --  perhaps I have been a Republican all along and just haven't had your great wisdom to realize it.   We'll certainly find out in the days to come whether the Democratic party will do the right thing or what it will take to win. Personally speaking I don't give it much of a chance right now.

by BostonIndependent 2008-04-05 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

i'll vote straight down the dem ticket. But honestly, i will hold my nose

by sepulvedaj3 2008-04-03 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Impotent Threats

I'm not voting FOR McCain. I'm voting AGAINST Obama.

by nikkid 2008-04-03 08:34PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads