sure there are, in a primary. but in an Obama v. McCain matchup where the voter previously supported Clinton it's a vanishingly thin space where you can support McCain over Obama. Even on the "arrogant sexist" argument, McCain trumps Obama's "sweetie" by calling his own wife a trollop and cunt, and by laughing when someone asked him of Clinton "how do we beat the bitch?"
There is virtually no points on which a Clinton supporter could support McCain over Obama unless they were merely voting for Clinton as a woman and tend republican in their politics.
perhaps. but the first point is arguably true, and the second is certainly so. it doesn't make him a "bad person"- it does make him incredibly irritating as someone who has some small level of influence amongst bloggers and the media as a whole.
"And if so, Clinton's chances were lost with the closed-door 14-13 (15-14 with the proxy votes included) vote to award Obama half the delegates from Michigan (which led to adopting the MDP resolution instead of the Clinton resolution or going to the credentials committee)."
1. Obama had a 14-13 vote for his 50-50 delegate split request.
Instead of getting the 50-50 split, the group decided to go with the more Clinton favorable MDP position of 69-59.
You're attacking Jerome, who is thoroughly in the tank for Clinton.
given that he's up in WI and NM... even if he did lose MI, he can pick up VA and CO and it's a wash. Obama's electoral map is pretty open, the only places where Clinton has a massively better chance to beat McCain and Obama doesn't is Florida.
yeah, it was really much more the will of the Michigan Democratic Party, which is the group that asked for the 69-59 split.
The will of the people went out the window when Michigan was told that its primary would not count, and this was borne out when it saw nearly 150,000 Democrats vote in the Republican primary on January 15th instead of their own primary where the only choices were Clinton, Uncommitted and Kucinich. This is born out by the fact that Michigan was the ONLY state with a primary where turnout was lower than 50% of John Kerry's total vote in 2004 (in an election where 3 states EXCEEDED the Kerry total and all but 3 were above 60% of the 2004 dem vote). Michigan saw turnout at barely 30% of the Kerry vote.
As the RBC stated repeatedly yesterday, there was no good solution. To take the Obama 50-50 position was to ignore the fact that Clinton won the majority of votes. To take the Clinton position was to ignore the nearly one million Democrats who stayed home or voted to foil McCain after being told their votes wouldn't count in MI. And to take the Michigan Democratic Party's position was to just throw out the results while acknowledging that Clinton won the flawed primary where her only opponent was Dennis Kucinich.
If you can't get that, you're not interested in having a rational debate, and you should expect that people won't view you well for it.