That sword does have a second edge, though. I remember my bewilderment during the primary season about people who claimed to be Democrats yet repeated slagged both of the Clintons with a fury and hatred that shocked and repelled me. I can understand if you prefer Obama; he has many good points and Hillary Clinton isn't perfect by any measure.
Given that I grew up during the Clinton Presidency, more or less, and those were good years for my family, I just couldn't understand the hatred. The only successful Democratic President in 32-40 years (8-10 elections!) and the way supposed "Democrats" were talking about him, and some still do...I just couldn't understand, and I still don't. Please, please, please give me the day when the worst thing our President did was get a blow job in the White House. I'll take that over tens of thousands dead in Iraq any day, year, or century. (I'm including the Iraq casualties.) It makes me want to choke someone with a certain blue dress. Fortunately I'm not violent. (No, I don't have a crush on Bill Clinton. I'm aware he was a crappy husband. But he was a very good President.)
The way I see it, they both campaigned hard, they both went below the belt now and then but not nearly as much as they could have, they both failed to focus on the issues enough (perhaps because there was so little to discuss on that front: "I believe yadda yadda". "I second that." Boring debate material!) I don't see any reason to hate either of them.
Yeah, there are racists in Hillary's train. There are sexists in Obama's (and sadly his contains several prominent members of the MSM, which is infuriating -- but at THEM, not at Obama.) I'm just glad we have candidates for a change that piss these people off.
Sorry to ramble, but I don't get the hate for either of our candidates, or for either of their spouses. Heck, I don't even get the hate for McCain; oppose his platforms yes; stop him from getting elected yes; but hate him? No way. He seems like a guy I'd actually enjoy having dinner with, as long as we didn't talk politics. And I sincerely admire what he's suffered for the US. Which does not entitle him to my vote but definitely earns him my respect.
So in short...er, again...I don't get the hate. (Well, I hate Chris Matthews. But he's not running for anything, he's just a jackass.)
Well, it sounds like you've exhausted yourself and should just drop it and walk away and not do yourself any more damage. I'll still willing to at least converse with her (I'd very much like to) if there were some way to do so besides writing a diary screaming, "Hey Catfish2, call me!!"
I still can't find any way to send personal messages on the board. What am I missing, if anything?
In looking at her comments I get the impression she's mostly an angry Hillary supporter (sorry if I oversimplify, catfish2). I don't see anything actively supporting McCain, but I could easily have missed something, or several somethings, since I rarely have time to do more than just skim.
But if she's actually an angry Clinton voter she's exactly the kind of person we need to reach. Hey catfish2, if I'm not completely misrepresenting you, want to chat? I promise absolutely no name calling or browbeating. I'd like to hear how you view myDD if you're willing to share.
(Er...Is there a way to have a private discussion on this board with another user?)
(Sorry for the long reply? Why? I love thoughtful replies!)
I think you kind of slipped past the point I was trying to make with my syllogism about tuna fish. Let me see if I can clarify the logic by using actual political examples:
1) I respect John McCain.
John McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Therefore, I want to overturn Roe V. Wade.
The first two statements are true. But the conclusion drawn from them is false because the first two statements are not connected. (Yes, I respect John McCain. I won't ever vote for him because of his political stances, but I do personally respect him.)
The syllogism I think you are proposing in return is:
1) I voted for Hillary because I always vote Democratic.
Obama is a Democrat.
Therefore, I will vote for Obama.
This syllogism would be true, but is dependent on the "I always vote Democrat" clause. Take that out and the syllogism falls into "possible true, possibly false, impossible to tell" territory.
Any time statement (1) is a Democratic policy plank AND the person is self-identified as a Democratic party line voter, then (2) and (3) will follow. But everything depends on (1). Because the only thing we really know about the first statement, for a lot of Obama-resitant Hillary voters, is that they liked Hillary. We don't know WHY they liked Hillary. We don't know if the reasons they liked Hillary can be transferred to Obama or not.
Try this one:
1) I voted for Hillary because she is female.
Hillary supports Obama.
How do you finish that last? "Therefore Obama is female?" Clearly wrong. (...I'm fairly sure, LOL...) "Therefore in order to support women I must support Obama"? Kind of dubious -- the Democratic party is obviously more favorable toward pro-choice women, but I don't think EITHER Obama OR McCain is either (a) sexist, or (b) a champion of women's issues. I admit that both of them seemed disinclined to take women's problems seriously, as it's an issue that matters to me, but I'd put it behind UHC (or something closer to it) and Iraq as "voting booth issues" for me.
Anyway, to make a long and pedantic point short: There are many reasons people might vote for Hillary that are NOT directly transferable to Obama. And yes, there are plenty of people who would rather stay home than vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils. It's their choice. It's not the one I'd make but it's their vote, and it's not my place to dictate how it should be responsibly used.
So to really grasp the point, take the "open" syllogism:
1) I voted for Hillary in the primary because (Reason A)
Hillary supports Obama
Therefore (Result B)
You'll find a lot of Reasons that lead to the result "Therefore I support Obama". You'll also find a lot of reasons that don't lead to that conclusion at all. (Including the ever popular "I voted for Hillary because Rush Limbaugh told me to." You can see how that does NOT lead to "Therefor I support Obama.")
As a Hillary primary voter and currently an Obama supporter (Unity ticket promoter), I'm a little tired of hearing this particular line trotted out when it makes no logical sense. (I mean the "X is voting for Barack, so why aren't you?" where "X" is some former Hillary or even McCain supporter. But usually a Hillary voter.)
It goes like this:
1) I love my cat. (I supported Hillary)
My cat likes tuna fish. (Hillary supports Obama)
Therefore, I like tuna fish. (Therefore, I must logically support Obama.)
Except I despise tuna fish (except as sashimi.) And although I deeply respect Hillary Clinton, she doesn't control my vote. My reasons for supporting Obama are practical; I'm not enthusiastic about him, I continue to prefer Hillary Clinton, but I'll take either of them over John McCain by several thousand light-years. Simple as that.
So it's a big mistake to go up to a former Hillary supporter (self-identified PUMA or not) and say, "Hey! This other person here supports Obama! What's YOUR problem, loser??!" I think you can see the problem that question presents for a friendly discourse.
The best thing you and others can do to defang the PUMAs is to get behind the Unity ticket and bring Hillary Clinton aboard the ticket. (Yes, I think Obama can handle her. Yes, Bill too. Give Obama some credit, eh?) This won't make all of them happy, but it will bring some of them over and will make the protests of the others sound even more hollow.
And it will help with what I think of the "silent PUMAs" -- Democrats who aren't, at the moment, convinced to vote for Obama but who have probably never visited a blog in their lives. There are a LOT more of those people than there are active PUMAs and they carry much, much more weight at the polls. Those are the folks Obama needs to reach out to. And you as well. Posting here isn't going to reach ANY PUMAs. The only ones who show up here do it to be disruptive (primarily. Might be a couple of exceptions, I'm not sure -- haven't been here that long myself.)
Anyway, a bit first step toward reaching more "silent PUMAs" is not to trot out the "Get on the bandwagon, vote for Obama like my Grandma!" line.
The PUMAs are irrelevant; the media just likes them because they're "colorful" and the media benefits from pushing the "split" in the Democratic party.
The only voters to worry about -- and try to reach -- are the undecided Democrats and the moderates and independents who are NOT among the luna-bloggers. They probably have no clue what a blog even is.
Really...just ignore the PUMAs! They don't matter. Think about how to reach the people who are actually reachable. Pummeling Pumas is Pernicious, Pedantic, and ultimately Pathetic. Pass on it.
I thought this blog was dedicated to progressives, not just to Democrats? Isn't that what it says in the site description?
As long at catfish is supporting a progressive seems like she has a right to be here. Obama's not the only progressive out there....(Also, don't mean this in a critical way, but he's not looking terribly progressive these days, except by comparison with McCain.)
I don't really like to see anyone getting dogpiled on...It makes the pilers look bad.
Anyway, I'm not giving up on UHC just yet. Like I said in an earlier (hidden) reply, I dont' assume the Dems have thrown out UHC, just that they're keeping a low profile on it. (I think that's a tactical mistake myself -- they should be pounding McCain HARD on this one, not letting him slide by -- not sure why they aren't.) Still, with Hillary Clinton in the administration in some position (we can pretty much be assure she will be), and Elizabeth Edwards there, and maybe some help from Dennis Kucinich who has some good plans, plus the support of a Dem president and Congress....
Let's just say I want more emphasis on this topic, but I rate my chances of seeing advances in the area from the Dems as MUCH MUCH higher than seeing them from the Republickers. The Repubs are just yelling about how the gummint wants to take all your money to save some lowlife's squalling brat...you know, like Rage's daughter... (Rage being the lowlife, and his beautiful baby being the squalling brat not deserving of medical attention.)
It was sore for THREE DAYS and she kept insisting it was dislocated. Made the doctor X-ray it twice. Poor guy must have been going nuts. "Arthritis" he says. "No, I know what arthritis is like! It's not like that!"