I think that only goes for the most orthodox of Democrats. A lot of Dems and Republickers I know cross the party line when they feel like it. Here in Massachusetts we've had a lot of Republicker governors despite being among the bluest of blue states, and that wouldn't have happened without a lot of crossover voters. (Now of course we have Deval Patrick.)
Anyway, people of "moderate" party affiliation react to "orthodoxy" the same way that mainstream religious people react to James Dobson. So I don't think the Orthodoxy Argument is going to gain you much. I mean, registering as a Democrat or Republicker isn't like taking a sacred oath written in blood.
Just read the Wiki page. Gotta say I think it's kind of a petty thing to be worried about given issues like Iraq, health care, the housing crash and the frightening leap in cost of living expenses due primarily to oil prices.
Sort of looks like it started as a Bushism, then someone in the Democratic party took umbrage, and the Republicans (Republics? Republickers? -- ooh, that last one sounds dirty...) said "Hey, it annoys them! Start using it as much as you can!"
Anyway, if you want to play that game back at them, start using "Republickers" everywhere, LOL.
Er. No. Maybe I've just been listening to too much political TV and picked up that quirk by accident, or maybe my mind just went "I'm a Democrat, my party is the Democrat party." (I see how that does sound more awkward than Democratic, I will say.)
Well, I get what people were saying now, but it's not the case. I'm just really new to blogging and don't know any of the terms and abbreviations yet. (HR = ??) This is my first foray into the fascinating yet frightening world of political blogs.
"These so-called PUMA democrats can, as far as I'm concerned, go vote for any one or any platform they so desire."
Er. Well. Yeah, of course they can. It's the way things are done in the U.S., last I checked (despite what the Supreme Court thinks.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "coddling" the PUMAs. If you mean yelling at them on MyDD -- well, any of them that are actually here I suspect are completely immune to any of your opinions or rhetoric.
The point I was hoping to make is that paying attention to them is coddling them. Attention is what they want. If you want them to go away, pretend they don't exist, and pretty soon they won't. Or at least, they'll be seen as powerless as they really are, and they won't get any news coverage.
If you really want to piss off an attention hog, ignore him or her completely.
Sure, but they're a tiny (if loud) part of the "I voted for Hillary in the primary and I'm not sure I'm voting Obama in the GE" group.
And they're just using HIllary as political cover for their own gripes. (I think some of their gripes are legit, but I don't think they should be claiming they're doing it "for Hillary" because they clearly aren't.)
The point is that we're at war and there's no way the troops are going to come home for at least a year after the Inauguration, most likely not for at least two to three years despite Obama's best efforts. That means someone is going to have to manage the war, and, hopefully, an orderly withdrawal.
So who do you choose: a decorated military veteran, the son and grandson of Admirals, who suffered five years of torture for his country and has has served as the Naval liaison to our government --
Or a guy who sits in his church and listens to sermons that contain "Godd-mn America" other very offensive (and stupid) statements and can't even be bothered to object?
I put this comparison up here not to say I agree but to point out why I think it's a really, REALLY bad idea for the Obama Campaign to go down this road. I also think it's morally reprehensible, just like it was when the GOP did it to John Kerry, but if you're not swayed by that argument because you want a victory so bad you don't care what has to be done to get it, at least consider what a bad tactical move this is.
Obama absolutely cannot benefit from a direct comparison of his "patriotism" and McCain's "patriotism."
Anyway, I don't know if I explained that well or not (I'm falling asleep at the keyboard) but that why I think it's not only a really low move but also a politically foolish one to try to make light of McCain's war experiences.
I wish diarists would stop making the assumption that having supported Hillary in the primary means you have somehow promised to blindly follow her in whatever she does.
I know lots of Hillary primary voters who just don't like or trust Obama. Period. The only thing Hillary has to do with it is that they thought she was the better candidate (and still do, really.)
It's a serious mistake to assume that these voters are "doing it for Hillary" when they stay home or vote McCain. That's really not it. They just don't like Obama. You're not going to reach them by telling them they're betraying Hillary or Hillary's ideals because that's never what it was about.
If you want to bring them over, my suggestions would be:
1) Don't assume they're Hlllary's mindslaves. Accept that they have doubts about Obama that they think are reasonable and troublesome.
2) Attempt to address their doubts about Obama the person. Don't wave the liberal platform at them; if that was what they were voting on, they'd already be voting Obama, reluctantly or not. Assume that they hold some liberal views and some conservative views and that they aren't in love with anyone's platform right now.
3) Attack McCain's policies, not the man himself. There are a lot of people who just like and respect the guy, regardless of his party affiliation. Attacking him personally is going to make Obama look cheap and slimy, even if it's only his surrogates doing it (Looking at you, Clark!)
The Hillary supporters who are currently not going to vote for Obama are, mostly, not adherents of some kind of Hillary cult of personality. (Of course some are -- or more likely are hiding behind her due to their own personal grievances -- but really, not that many. Mostly just the loud ones.) They don't object to Obama because he defeated Hillary; they object to Obama because they object to Obama. After all, if they really liked him, they'd have voted for him in the primary, right?
Like most elections it's going to come down to issues of personality, character, and trust. Obama's recent behavior isn't weighing well on these issues, and if he doesn't shape up he's going to go down in flames in November.
Ugh, are you serious? First, it saddens me to see the Democrat party stoop so low as to Swift Boat McCain. If Obama can't win without that....maybe it's better he shouldn't.
On a more practical level, I can't think of anything more likely to put off undecided voters than to attack a man who spent five years being tortured as a POW. Obama has NOTHING that remotely compares in his life history. He really should have stayed far, far away from this.
It's beyond disgusting. I can't believe I used to respect Clark, and even supported him as Obama's VP.
If the Democrats can't win without turning into the Republicans, they can forget about my vote. What the hell does the Democratic party stand for, if not rejecting Republican values and attitudes?