What would it take for Clinton supporters to back Obama?

As a Hillary Clinton supporter on progressive blogs like MyDD, DailyKos, and my once favorite Americablog, it's felt like a roller coaster ride that just will not end. When Obama misspeaks or Clinton exaggerates, many of us fight it out, often saying some very hurtful things to each other. Tempers flare and some get their feelings hurt. After about a week, some of us start trying to find middle ground and ways to unite Democrats against the Republicans. Sometimes it's out of a genuine desire for unity, sometimes it's to draw attention away from the candidate who's in hot water. Then, Obama or Clinton commit some new gaffe and the cycle repeats. Some will say that's just politics.

Today, I was listening to a progressive radio talk show host who was talking about Obama's latest blunder. I use that word because Obama himself has said he could have chosen a better way to express his thoughts. This host brought up Hillary Clinton's newest television ad that attacks Obama's blunder. He went on to make the point that there are several things about the Clinton campaign that Obama could use in his own attack ads. But, for some reason, he has chosen to miss these golden opportunities. Old-school politicians would have jumped on these in a heartbeat.

Is this an example of the new kind of politics that Obama and some of his supporters have been talking about? Obama could have easily made an ad talking up the whole Mark Penn/Columbian Trade situation. But, he hasn't and I'm considering the idea that instead of missing a golden opportunity, he truly is displaying a new kind of politics. Surprisingly, I find myself reconsidering my stand on Obama.

As much as I agree with Hillary Clinton, I believe she may be stuck in the politics of yesterday. Unfortunately, it's similar to the politics of the current Republican party.

However, I still support Hillary Clinton. It's a contradiction, but, for the first time, a part of me wants to support Barack Obama. Unfortunately, the new politics he seems to demonstrate aren't enough, and I still can't throw my full support behind him. Something's missing and I wish I could name it.

Therefore, here's a challenge to fellow Hillary Clinton supporters. What, if anything, would Barack Obama have to do to gain your support? Please take this seriously and don't consider it a concession. I still think Clinton can win. If you have nothing positive to add, please don't comment, and I thank you for taking the time to read this diary. To Obama supporters, we know that Clinton has an almost impossible task ahead of her to win the nomination. Please do not lecture or tell us how misguided you believe we are for still supporting Clinton.

Tags: Hillary Clinton Barack Obama Unity (all tags)



I'm neither a Clinton or Obama supporter,

but my hope is that it only would take Obama or Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

McCain is Bush on steroids.  That is enough for me to support either when the nomination happens.

by TomP 2008-04-15 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm neither a Clinton or Obama supporter,

I have said it before and i will say it again 25%, thats it the most Clinton or Obama supporters poll that say they would cross over is 25%.

that is NOT what people want to spin when they say oh He can't get us clinton voters, or when Obama supporters say we would never vote for her.

actually yes, most of you will, only a small minority will cross, and I bet HALF of those who say it now, deep down know they probably still WILL vote democrat.

its why Hillary and Obama aren't to worried they know the party will unite.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-15 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Remember what he said about Joe Biden in a debate when Biden was accused of making a racially insensitive remark?

That's how a democrat should behave

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Remind me again !!

What did he say about Sen. Clinton when some low level hack from his campaign accused her of racially preferential treatment in her tears ?

Or when he jumped on the bandwagon that was flogging her for having dissed all blacks with the MLK/LBJ flap.

Is that how a democrat is supposed to behave ?

My answer to what would it take is simple:  I want an honest answer from Sen. Obama on the race baiting indulge in by his campaign.

by SevenStrings 2008-04-15 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b
I want an honest answer from Sen. Obama on the race baiting indulge in by his campaign

For what it's worth, I think that's a valid point

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:42PM | 0 recs
It is much more than valid

It is non-negotiable for me.

There is very little difference between the Democratic and Republican parties on the issues (economics, environment, etc. etc.).  Yeah I know, most of you will be shocked to hear that, but you should see some of the differences between political parties in other countries.  Both parties are both controlled by fairly corrupting influences (or, have we forgotten Dan Rostenkowski).  I am not unduly bothered by a "McCain Supreme", and I do not think Sen. McCain wants to fight for 100 years.  And even though we have Al Gore in our party, we achieved very little on the environment in the 1990s (Note: I am not blaming either VP Gore, or P Clinton for this).  And on the economy ~ we are screwed regardless of who the President is.

The big difference between the two parties used to be:  Democrats would lose votes, rather than drive wedge issues based on race, or sex, or sexual orientation.

Not any more!!

by SevenStrings 2008-04-15 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

Respectfully, I think you are looking at only one side of the picture.

Obama's campaign has played victim politics in this campaign on race, sometimes fairly (Bill's Jessie Jackson comments) and sometimes not (including some of those you mention, though I don't agree with all of them).  That said, Obama has never appealed to white racism to win votes, and that's what the republicans do.  

Clinton and her campaign have played plenty of victim politics too, on gender gender lines.  You can't say that's not true, can you?  You may regard her points as legitimate and even empowering -- and fair enough. But lots of Obama supporters would say the same thing about him.

My point is that both campaigns have been less than perfect in this regard.  I hope you will reconsider and see that this is not an issue that should be non-negotiable.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I hate to rehash the history of racebaiting again, but to summarize my feelings:

First, consider the motive for race-baiting

(a) The Clinton campaign had zero motive to insult blacks.  Any racebaiting indulged in by them would only serve to drive away the black voters away from them.  And they were certainly smart enough to realize that (I hope you will give them credit for that much, at least).  Therefore, I tend to think of the examples you cited, and others (The LBJ/MLK flap, Pres. Clinton's Jesse Jackson won So Carolina too etc.) as not racially motivated.

(b) The Obama campaign had every reason to race-bait, specially after NH.  They needed to shore up the black vote, or else he would not even make it to Super Tuesday.

Next, you brought up the gender issue.

I believe, and I think most people would agree, that gender has been a net negative for Sen. Clinton.  Yes, she is favored amongst women, but an even larger number of men think women should Iron shirts.  Race politics has been a net positive for Sen. Obama ~ that is the difference.

And so, I do believe that Sen. Obama's campaign has been the one to drive these wedge issues.

Finally, if you believe that both campaigns have been less than perfect, then you too should sit this fight out (in my opinion, of course).  On racepolitics, a less than perfect nominee is not acceptable...at least to me.

by SevenStrings 2008-04-15 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

Again, respectfully, you are applying a real double-standard here.  I think you are making the same argument that Ferraro made, and I think it's mistaken for the same reason. (Let me be clear that I absolutely don't mean to accuse you of any racial bias).

There are a lot more white people than black people in this country, and a lot more women democratic voters than men.  Hillary has played the gender card to her favor.  Obama has played the race card in his favor.  There is a symmetry there.

You say that gender has been a net negative for Clinton.  Given that more than half the voters in democratic primaries are women, I'm not sure that's true.  At the very least it's debatable.

But how can you say race has been a net positive for OBama?  He's gotten most of the black vote, but Clinton's whole argument on electability is that he can't get the white working class vote.  And there a lot more of those folks than black folks.  Period.  And that's exactly Clinton's possible motivation for raising race issues (like the Jessie Jackson comment, which I think was over the line) -- to cast OBama as merely the black candidate who can't get the white vote, delegitimizing him in the eyes of white voters.

Let me be clear that I don't necessarily mean to say that this was Clinton's actual motivation.   It's a theory that is logical, but I don't want to accuse her of it because I don't know what's in her head.  But when Obama saw this happening, it's hard to ask him to just sit on his hands.  Sometimes, he overreacted.  But sometimes, he was justified.  I mean, surely you will agree that his speech after the Wright controversy broke was appriate and not a wedge, right?

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

It is true that there are more white people than black people in the US.  However, there are not that many more white people than black people in the Democratic primary.  If you can capture a 80% of the black vote, and be competitive in the rest, you win the primary.  You will probably lose the GE, but that is another story.

The race gap is very very strong.  The gender gap is not so strong.  The symmetry you speak of, is only there if you really want to see it.  Yes, women have been favoring Sen. Clinton by a small margin.  But a larger number of men have been motivated by misogyny.  And yes, she has been beaten up by the press in ways that only a woman can.

Pres Clinton (I really wish people would stop referring to him as Bill) did minimize Sen. Obama's win by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's win.  It was a valid comparison, in my opinion ~ you cannot govern effectively (and you will have a hard time getting elected) if your supporting coalition is a 80% of blacks, and a smattering of other races.

For Pres. Clinton to have cast Sen. Obama as merely the black candidate who cannot get the white vote is no more racist than for Sen. Obama to cast himself as the 46 year old black candidate
who cannot get the white vote.

And, just so we can keep it straight.  The "she dont cry for black people" & the MLK/LBJ flap preceded all this.

by SevenStrings 2008-04-15 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

First, factually, the democratic primary voters are in the ballpark of something less than 15% black and something more than 55% female.    http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_ dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080410-3topline.pdf&a mp;id=3879

You are corrrect that " If you can capture a 80% of the black vote, and be competitive in the rest, you win the primary."  It's a truism.  But it is notable that Obama is the first black candidate in history who can be "competitive in the rest."  It's not that he's campaigned free from racism, but that he's managed to overcome it by being an incredible individual running an amazingly good campaign.

It's also true that if you win 65% of women and are competitive among the rest, you can win the nomination easily.  And that's exactly how Hillary has won where she has won.

Second, I think your assertion that that "Yes, women have been favoring Sen. Clinton by a small margin.  But a larger number of men have been motivated by misogyny." is simply unjustified.  There's no proof of it.  Hillary has faults are not the result of sexism just like Obama has faults that are not the result of racism.  I can just as easily claim that Obama has lost more white voters due to racism than he's gained in black voters due to his playing the race card.  I think it's probably true.  But it's a proposition that can't be proved either way.

But regardless of how either candidate would have done in an imaginary world, there is no question that Clinton is using her gender and victim politics to get votes just like Obama is using his race and victim politics to get votes.  Her pool of voters is much bigger; he's just been more successful at it, because (in my opinion) he's a more compelling candidate who has run a better campaign.

At the end of the day you are more sympathetic to Clinton's claims of gender bias than you are to Obama's claims of race bias.  Fair enough; we all have our own experiences.  But my goal here is just to ask you to pause and look at this from the other perspective.  Think about it this way:  you are claiming it was unfair for Obama to play the race card and use race as a wedge, but you are playing the gender card right now and claiming that Hillary should get our support because she was the victim of sexism.   It's the same thing.  And I'm fine with that.  But it's not right to say one side of this is all light and goodness and the other is all bad motives.

Finally, a discussion about who did what to whom first is simply not helpful.  Neither is perfect; both are better than McCain, and both are fully worthy of a democratic vote in November if they win the nominating contest.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I am not interested in a discussion on who is or isn't better than Sen McCain.  That is not my concern when my non-negotiable concern is that I will not support race baiters~ I do know that Sen. McCain has never indulged in race baiting.  In fact, Sen. McCain has been quite honorable in his refusal to demagogue immigrants, and his having adopted a "black" child etc.

It is very hard to discuss your "double standard" problem when you keep shifting your rationale.  Your original beef was with Pres Clinton's Jesse jackson remarks.  I pointed out these remarks are nearly identical to Sen Obama's remarks in SFO.

Do you accept that ?

And a discussion of who did what to whom IS, indeed, helpful.  Your claim that it is not helpful is contradicted by what you said upthread ~ that Sen. Obama was merely reacting, on occassion, to what was thrown at him.  He could not have been reacting, if he was initiating the whole thing, could he ?

Also, I am not asking you to support Sen. Clinton because she has been the victim of sexism.  I am merely asking you to accept that she has been.  I am  not asking you to support or not to support anyone!!

One more point: I will agree that Sen. Obama has run a good campaign.  That, unfortunately, just means that he is better at marketing and PR.  And I do not support candidates based on who has a better marketing effort, however.

Like I said before ~ race baiting is the non-negotiable condition!!

by SevenStrings 2008-04-16 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I appreciate you continuing the conversation.  Thank you.

My point about Pres. Clinton's Jackson remarks was that, at least some of the time, Obama's racial offense was legitimate.  I agree that sometimes it's been overplayed.  I don't dispute that sometimes Obama's stepped over the line and played the race victim card when he shouldn't have.  But sometimes it's legit, too.  If you don't agree on the Jackson comments then I'm sure you will agree that his speech after the Wright issue was an appropriate response.  

While I agree Obama has stepped over the line, I think calling it "race baiting" is a bit much, since that term connotes the invocation of white racism to stop progressive candidates.  Here, what Obama did (and what I think Clinton has done) is to position himself (or herself) as a victim of racial (or gender) politics in order to consolidate support among his racial (or her gender) group.  It's not exactly high politics, but it's not a Willie Horton ad either.

Whether the reaction to the Jackson comments in particular were legitimate or not doesn't really doesn't have much to do with my point that I believe you are applying a double standard.  What I'm saying is that is that Clinton is doing the exact same thing with her gender that Obama has done with his race.  

I don't think you've expressed disagreement with that point.  (Maybe it's held silent).  But I guess the question for you is why this kind of so-called "race baiting" is non-negotiable but Hillary's parallel "gender baiting" is not only acceptable but righteous.    That's the double-standard.

As to who did what first, I don't see how it relates.  Clinton's gender-victim stuff wasn't the result of Obama's race-victim stuff; they are pretty much independent.  I'm just saying I think they are morally equivalent.  And, while you may not agree, I'm just asking you to consider it from the other point of view and see, from that vantage point whether you might reconsider whether you cannot vote for Obama because he responded to perceived (fairly or not) racial animus in a way that consolidated his black support.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-16 01:04AM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

First, I don't think Sen Clinton's gender baiting (as you put it) even exists.

Yes, some women are preferentially voting for her, just as some blacks should vote for Sen. Obama... out of racial or gender pride.  Racial pride, or gender pride, is a positive thing..when it invokes positive emotions ("the best 2 words in the English language are...Madame President"), and it is a wedge issue when it is used to invoke a false sense of outrage ("she has dissed all black people").

The point is: has she done anything to drive those sentiments as a wedge issue?  What, specifically, are you objecting to.

My impression is: the only ones using gender as a wedge issue are those in Sen. Obama's camp.  I can cite these examples:

(a) She has tea with ambassadors
(b) If she cant take care of her own house, how will she take care of...
(c) If I was a woman, I would be ashamed of her

That is where the "gender baiting" really occured, but once again ~ I would not apply the word "gender baiting" to that either... it was minor in comparison to the race baiting

You think Sen. Obama has merely played the race-victim.  I think you are twisting yourself into a pretzel.  Pretending to be a race-victim, so as to drive up outrage in order to drum up support...is race baiting.

by SevenStrings 2008-04-16 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I can see we are talking past each other.  If you really think that Hillary doesn't done anything to stir up gender as a wedge issue, and that the only one injecting race into the race is Barack, I don't think I can convince you of anything.  Best of luck to you.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-16 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I would have felt better if you had provided me with specific instances of Sen. Clinton using gender (or race) as a wedge issue (instead of just stating that it was obvious).  

But no matter.

Best of luck to you!!

by SevenStrings 2008-04-16 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

I disagree.  If the Clintons could turn Obama into just another "black candidate," all of whom have been failures in Presidential politics, then it would make him unelectable.  

Also, your talk of the Clintons' motivations assumes them to be the 100% politically calculated people they're stereotyped as.  But is that really the case?  Did they have a good motivation to give only token resistance in all those states?  Seriously...it was dense!  Why should we assume everything they've done to be perfectly calculated when they didn't run this election in such a manner, overall?  Sometimes an off the cuff remark is just that.  I doubt Bill said "I'm gonna compare Obama to Jesse, today!"  

Second, Hillary's cries of sexism have been far more obvious.  The idea that "five guys" were ganging up on her in a debate or that the boys want her out of the race...could she be more transparent?  Yet no one seems to mind this behavior, where Hillary plays the victim of a sexist world out to get her.  

I think it's pretty evident that neither campaign is completely innocent in this.  That's disappointing, but true.

by freedom78 2008-04-15 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

When you cite "Bill's Jessie Jackson comments", I think you are confusing demographics with racism.  

by ChitownDenny 2008-04-15 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: It is much more than valid

If someone said that blacks tend to be criminals, it could be cast as a demographic comment.  But I would still contend that the comment would be racist.

Bill's comments had the effect of suggesting that the limit of Obama's appeal was his race, and that he could not win white voters.  I think that's a sentiment that's rooted in racial politics and is over the line.  And it's also strongly disproved in Wisconsin and Virginia and elsewere.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 09:03PM | 0 recs
Sen. Obama disagrees with you...

It's true, he said, some people are resistant to a message delivered by a 46 yr old black man named Barack Obama!!

by SevenStrings 2008-04-16 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

What an idiot! YOU SAID:

"What did he say about Sen. Clinton when some low level hack from his campaign accused her of racially preferential treatment in her tears ?"

Well if its a low level HACK why the hell do you care, on top of that it was months ago. GET OVER IT!!! Your country is in a melt down and you are too busy splitting hairs. Why did you even bother to leave a comment. We dont need hate mongers, its bad enough gotta deal with republicans. If you wanna hate Obama FINE just have a damn good reason other than I LIKE HILLARY MORE...

by edtastic 2008-04-15 06:04PM | 0 recs
go jump in a lake...
the water may revive your brain!!
by SevenStrings 2008-04-15 11:10PM | 0 recs

I flip back and forth, Hillary jumped on this bittergate.

Obama did not put out an ad with each time Hillary told the bosnia tale and then the video from abc and ask "do you think she only misspoke?"

yeah obama has given up some good shots, and yeah sometimes I am happy that he has and sometimes I wish he did to get this over with.

In the end I am glad he doesn't do it. He will never really get credit for it, but part of the reason this primary has been mild is Obama has given up ALOT of chances to make ads, like Hillary just jumped on this week.

by TruthMatters 2008-04-15 03:08PM | 0 recs

He gets credit from me.

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:17PM | 0 recs

"Obama did not put out an ad with each time Hillary told the bosnia tale and then the video from abc and ask "do you think she only misspoke?"

It's nice that you believe that Obama is innocent regarding Bosniagate... but, in fact, his campaign is the one who pushed the story to begin with.  

See his March 11 press release pushing her Bosnia "lie", along with other shots at her foreign experience claims.

from the March 11, press release.


Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

This is before it blew up in the news of course.

In my opinion the story would not have existed if not for his campaign. I think you need to admit to yourself that Obama is not at all innocent when it comes to "Republican-style" attacks on Dem competitors.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 03:26PM | 0 recs

I think it's relevant to note that the Obama pushback on Bosnia (and Clinton's other putative foreign policy accomplishments) was defensive. That is to say, Clinton had just run the 3am ad and suggested that he may not have crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold, while she and McCain had a lifetime of experience that clearly qualified them. Moreover, the video is what exposed the serious misrepresentation, not the fact that Sinbad and Sheryl Crow joined her for the trip.  

by DPW 2008-04-15 03:35PM | 0 recs

Noted, but defending yourself is one thing and attacking your opponent is another..  we can say he was defensively attacking perhaps, but we certainly cannot say he is innocent of attacking.

She says he's inexperienced, his campaign does its best to label her a liar.. one's a more vicious attack than the other in my book.  He's attacking her character, she's not attacking his.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 03:44PM | 0 recs
"Elitist" IS a character attack.

by nwgates 2008-04-15 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: "Elitist" IS a character attack.

Perhaps, but you're not refuting my point.

Which is a more vicious character attack?  

Liar, "willing to do anything", racist



by Apostle 2008-04-15 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: "Elitist" IS a character attack.

But she DID lie!  Seriously.... that bosnia sotry was a bald faced lie.

In any case we all need to come together

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: "Elitist" IS a character attack.

There you go... that's the attitude exactly.

What's the thought, it's not a character attack attempting to tear down another Democrat?

I assure you Obama has more than one documented lie in his past.  Clinton supporters could go out of there way to say "Obama's a liar! No wait, he really is a liar!" at every opportunity.  I think, generally speaking that we don't.

So yeah, you attack my candidate by smearing her character and now you want me to hold your hand.  You're not good with people.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 05:14PM | 0 recs
Sounds like you need a bit of a reality check

Yeah, Clinton supporters don't call Obama a liar at every opportunity at all
Except for that 12 point nonsense thing on HillaryFactHub. Or Tenure-gate. Or countless other times the campaign itself has done those very things.

Here's the facts:
Obama has been very reserved about personally speaking out against Clinton and her character. His campaign did, and really, that's part of their job to point out her missteps to the press. He NEVER personally went after her for Bosnia. The only negative ad he ran against Clinton was a radio ad, and it was a response to her very negative ad regarding his "praise" of President Reagan. The same tiff had him on the offensive at the debate. Outside of that, he's been very reserved. Over the weekend he counterpunched by casting some glancing light on Hillary's missteps so far. Hillary, on the otherhand, has be more than happy to publically and loudly bash Obama and his character - from saying he hasn't past the Commander in Chief test, to Shame on You, to calling him "elitist" at any chance she gets lately. There has been a distinct and noticeable difference in candor between the candidates themselves, that much is not debatable.

by TheSilverMonkey 2008-04-15 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: "Elitist" IS a character attack.

Show me the evidence that she intended to speak untruthfully.

It would have been an absolutely idiotic intention, with huge risks balanced against a tiny gain.

Long-term human memory is extremely unreliable.  It's like shooting free throws from 40 feet.  You hit every now and then.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 06:04PM | 0 recs
Get outta here

If her memory capacity is that bad, she has no business running for President.  I'd rather she were a liar than someone with that ability to distory reality.

by nwgates 2008-04-15 08:46PM | 0 recs
If someone called me elitist

it would be a safe assumption that they are attacking my character.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-15 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: If someone called me elitist

This is coming at the end of a campaign where the Obama camp's central strategy was tearing down Hillary's character.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 04:17PM | 0 recs
I will vote for him..

if I have to.  But I am bitter and angry about the way Hillary has been treated.  

by JustJennifer 2008-04-15 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I will vote for him..

I empathize with you.

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I will vote for him..

Thank you for your vote.. I am angry with HRC but will vote democrat in the fall.

We will come together

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
I will vote for her

I am bitter and angry about the way Hillary has attacked Obama, but I will still vote for her if she gets the nomination. McCain would be a disaster.

by berkeleymike 2008-04-15 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Obama is an arrogant pompous ass who thinks we OWE him this job.  I owe him nothing.

I will vote Democratic in November but I don't think I ever will be an Obama supporter.

by wblynch 2008-04-15 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Thank you for your vote... I feel the same way about HRC but will vote democrat

We will come together

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

How do you feel about McCain's campaign getting their talking points from the Clinton campaign. She is out Republisizing the Republican's. Do you feel our best chances are being Republican dark rather than Republican light?

by ImpeachBushCheney 2008-04-15 03:59PM | 0 recs
Can't happen

Oh, bullshit.  Campaigns create ads on issues they think they can get traction on - period. And there is literally no way that the Obama campaign can get enough votes out of the fact that Clinton's chief advisor went to a South American country to advance his own personal business at the expense of Clinton's campaign. As for Tuzla, it's harder to use that against Clinton because Clinton is a known entity in the US. You can't brand her with that, because Americans know that she's one of the hardest working people around. There's no ambiguity about that. Everyone over the age of 30 has been confronted with a story or a memory they have as being fundamentally false.

I will point out that Clinton hasn't run ads using the Wright footage. Or using footage of Obama stuttering and stammering in a dabate and saying "look" 42 times in a row. Or footage of his coarse-mouthed wife talking about how she's never been proud of america until now. Or footage of the riots in Pakistan and Obama being burned in effigy alongside Tom Tancredo after his bone headed comments about Pakistan. Or Rezko - she hasn't run any ads of Rezko. Rezko spent $625k of his own money helping a US senator buy a home he couldn't afford and he's on trial for bribery. You think there isn't a doozy of a campaign commercial there? What about obama's campaign accusing Clinton of race baiting? That's won't go over well with a lot of Clinton supporters eighther.

Obama is running the nastiest campaign I've ever seen. There is no front on which I hold him in any regard whatsoever. The campaign Clinton has run has been more high-minded, more decent on every single front.

by Little Otter 2008-04-15 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

I agree with you completely.

To wit: if Clinton had leaked the Wright story and pushed it in the beginning of the campaign this race would have been over before it started.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

I'm sorry, but I think you are being hyperbolic.  

"Obama is running the nastiest campaign I've ever seen. "  How can you justify that statement?  He hasn't run a single negative TV ad.  His "negative" radio ads (two that I know of) were quite tame, as were his mailers (and certainly no worse than what his opponent has done).  Are you really saying that he has been nastier to Hillary than Bush was to Kerry?

I respect that Hillary held her fire on many points.  But Obama has too.  This race is not at the high level I'd wish for, but it is hardly the nastiest  campaign in modern history.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 04:18PM | 0 recs

"Hillary will do or say anything" is tame?  Do you realize the implications of "do anything?"

What's not tame?  "Hillary eats black babies?"

by Trickster 2008-04-15 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Tame?

The "say anything" argument is almost exactly the mirror image of Clinton's repeated refrain that everything Obama says is "just words."  I'd love it if you can tell me why one is much worse than the other.

But both pale in comparison to the stunts the GOP has pulled.  You know, swiftboating??  Taking a real war hero and saying he's an unpatriotic war criminal who hates america?

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

"Everyone over the age of 30 has been confronted with a story or a memory they have as being fundamentally false."

People may forget where they left their keys or even remember staying at a different hotel while on vacation 20 years ago.  Sane people do not have faulty memories about being shot at.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-15 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

That is 100% true

I was shot at (well not me.. in the wrong neighborhood... it was the car in front of me).....and I've never forgot it

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

She didn't say she was shot at.  She said the was "under sniper fire while landing."  If you think that through, it means somebody told her they were under sniper fire, because a passenger in a flying airplane would not hear a bullet being fired from the ground or see the shooter.

Being told something is about 100X less visceral than having bullets whizzing past your head.  Human long-term memory is absolutely abysmal, and plenty of studies show it.  It's ludicrous to construe intent to tell a falsehood from her statement.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Can't happen

Snipers don't fire at planes, they fire at people.  And if she were actually told that she was under sniper fire you think she would have stuck around on the tarmac to listen to an 8 year old read her a poem.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 05:26AM | 0 recs
Its amazing how perspectives differ

In my mind Hillary has run an incredibly dishonest campaign and Obama has run an amazingly clean one. I feel a lot of anger towards Hillary. That is one reason why I switched my support to Obama after Edwards dropped out. But either of them is so much better than McCain would be, who promises us more war and more of Bush's domestic policies. I think for any of us to refuse to vote democratic because of our anger at the other candidate, it will only hurt the country and the entire world. Let's unite when the nomination is over and end this nightmare of Republican rule.

by berkeleymike 2008-04-15 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Its amazing how perspectives differ

If Obama wants my vote, then he needs to tell his thugs to stop booing, to stop with the misogyny and he has to stop with the misogyny. Then he has to acknowledge the misogyny and acknowledge that racism is not the reason people vote for clinton. And then Michelle must apologize to Hillary for trashing Hillary's marriage and for saying she wants to scratch Bill's eyes out. When those two can rise to that fairly minimal standard of emotional maturity, then we can talk about me voting for them.

I won't vote for McCain but I will NOT vote for Obama. He's run a thug campaign and he's done nothing to reign in the thuggery. Remember, Clinton supporters are telling pollsters that they will not vote for Obama in twice the numbers that Obama supporters are. And we're in blue states. He isn't entitled to our votes. If he wants them, he has to earn them. He hasn't done that.

by Little Otter 2008-04-15 07:25PM | 0 recs
NIce Diary

As an Obama supporter, I'm not really the target audience for this post, but I do appreciate your effort to be fair-minded and invite (what will hopefully be) a constructive discussion.

It's worth noting that Obama's campaign has used some distasteful tactics on occasion, although I think on the whole his campaign has shown reluctance to get too nasty. And, on those occasions when his campaign did take the low road (e.g., Jesse Jackson Jr.'s comment on MSNBC), I--along with some other Obama supporters I know--have emailed the campaign to protest. I'd like to see more encouragement from supporters to keep it clean. And, at least online, supporters have too often been willing to undertake negative strategies rather than offer positive arguments for their preferred candidate.

by DPW 2008-04-15 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

I will not under any circumstance support Obama after 30 yrs of voting democratic. I will write in Hillary.  Shame on him for this fraud of Hope.

by orion1 2008-04-15 03:27PM | 0 recs
Saint Obama?

New politics? Now that's funny because what is going on it TYPICAL old politics. The Front runner defends and the outsider attacks.

Plain an simple.

I watched Obama last night giggling and laughing at his opponent attack (man the guy is arrogant and he doesn't hide it well), I can tell you honnestly I have never been closer to voting for McCain.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-04-15 03:29PM | 0 recs
Queen Clinton?

You forget how arrogant Clinton was right up until Iowa, when she was humbled big time.  

Remember how everyone was talking about a coronation instead of an election?  She seemed so unbeatable, and acted like it.

That's the posture you take when you're in the lead.  It is galling to those not in the lead (and their supporters), but that's the way it goes.

But to act as if Clinton's never been appallingly arrogant in this primary season is beyond absurd.

by LawStudent 2008-04-15 03:51PM | 0 recs
Bet you get flamed for this.
They may call you a traitor.

But I agree with almost everything you said. I reached a breaking point recently and realized that, while part of me will still be devastated if Hillary loses the nomination, I'll not only be able to get behind Obama when the time comes -- I'll even be enthusiastic about it. Now I know I can happily back either candidate for the GE.

By the way, I was talking to a couple of Obama supporters last night, and we're considering starting a group (yahoo or somewhere similar) to promote anti-Republican diaries on these blogs. Most people are still so wrapped up in the primaries, important information about McCain rarely (if ever) makes it to the rec list -- especially here on MyDD. We'd like to change that. If we set something up, would you be interested?

by sricki 2008-04-15 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Bet you get flamed for this.

I would be interested.

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Bet you get flamed for this.
Excellent. I'll let you know as soon as I find a place to set up.
by sricki 2008-04-15 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

him winning the primary

by CardBoard 2008-04-15 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

haha.. good one!

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:52PM | 0 recs

Take it from a former Edwards supporter: it's heartbreaking when your guy drops out. It's just truly the crappiest thing. You go through various betrayal narratives and then wind up at a place where those horrible people didn't deserve him in the first place.

But I'm here to tell you it can be done. At the end of the day, what matters is that Obama - or Clinton, should that happen - are both orders of magnitude better than that epic fail John McSame.

I'm so hungry for a Democrat in the White House I can taste it. Come November, I think almost all primary partisans will feel much the same way.

by MBNYC 2008-04-15 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Heh.

You know, it's not as if I don't know what it's like to have a candidate I support in the primary lose.  I've had it happen plenty of times, and I always jumped on the winner's bandwagon with great enthusiasm.  So your experience of moving from Edwards to Obama doesn't move me.  I've moved easily plenty of times.

Not this time.  I would probably vote for Obama were he to receive the nomination, but enthusiasm is impossible at this point.  And to the extent I remain active in blog-commenting, I am not going to be singing Obama's praises unless he changes his ways.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 06:11PM | 0 recs
I understand.

I started out being deeply skeptical of him, too, and there are still some things I don't like. I've never agreed with any candidate 100%, and I don't expect to.

But overall, he's run a good, effective and clean campaign, more so I think than Hillary. He's got millions of people newly involved in the process.

I'm deeply involved in Democratic politics in my state, and I can tell you that what the Democratic Party needs here and elsewhere is that bottom-up, grassroots approach that Obama has brought to the race.

I don't expect to convince you, and it's not my place to try. But I'll hazard a guess that when it's all said and done, you'll be happy come November and beyond.

by MBNYC 2008-04-15 07:05PM | 0 recs
I voted for Hillary Clinton

in my primary and continue to support her strongly.  I feel she has the preparation and energy to be a very successful president.

I will vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee for several reasons, namely:  The Supreme Court, abortion rights, Iraq, the economy.  We just can't have another Republican messing up the country and the world for another four years.

by Radiowalla 2008-04-15 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

There are some things about him that I just don't trust.  It maybe even isn't his fault, but there is just too much Elmer Gantry about him to make me feel comfortable.  I have a deep and lasting skepticism about messianic figures, and he has a whole lot of convincing to do for me to believe that he is anything more than an empty vessel into which the hopes and dreams of the progressive movement have been poured.  Something inside me sees him or hears him and starts screaming "fraud! charlatan! snake-oil salesman!".

I am too cynical to believe...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-15 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

I have decided though that I will vote for him if I must, but I will be very suspicious...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-15 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

I found your comment simply amazing and honest. I can identify with a lot of what you said. I have a mistrust of Obama and I don't really know why. I'll go out on a limb and guess that a lot of Clinton supporters take one look at Obama and think "Fraud!" without really knowing the root cause. However, what could Obama do to change that?

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

He lies or shades the truth very frequently when he's saying something other than a set speech.  Stopping that would be a good start.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

As a child I was more or less forced to attend several big tent come-to-jesus meetings, and spent a lot of time in right wing churches of one kind or another. I, too, think of Elmer Gantry when I watch Obama, but I know why: I've seen so many of them in my life and Obama unfortunately has that style.

But that's most likely a superficial thing rather than anything of substance. At least I hope so. Because come November I'd like to be happier about my vote if it turns out to be him that I'm voting for. Even so, I know I'd be more enthusiastic if it weren't for the venom and dishonesty displayed by so many of his supporters in the lefty blogs. They really turned me off big time, and even though I've largely removed myself from their influence I've not been able to lose the jaundiced eye with which I now view him.

On the other hand, I greatly admire Michelle and trust that she would have more sense and better taste than to fall for an Elmer Gantry. ;-)

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

Unless she turns out to be "the girl" that he worked with.  What was her character's name?  Jean Simmons played her in the movie...

by jarhead5536 2008-04-16 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

Ah yes. "Sister Sharon Falconer". LOL. Interesting point.

Ever read the book? The movie was good, the book was better.

by Swedie 2008-04-16 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Revotes in Michigan and Florida!

by WAREHOUSE553 2008-04-15 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

=)  Add me to that list.

And throw in an honest attempt at universal healthcare.

Probably too late on both those scores unfortunately.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Setting aside for Florida and Michigan, on which I've written extensively elsewhere (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/6/17172 7/5140 and http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/5/4932/ 56020), please consider this:

Wouldn't you have to agree that, whatever your disagreements with Obama about mandates, he's much better on that issue than McCain?

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

"Wouldn't you have to agree that, whatever your disagreements with Obama about mandates, he's much better on that issue than McCain?"

Yes, his plan is definitely better than McCain's.  But, in all sincerity, I prefer to wait for a genuine attempt to reach universal healthcare rather than settle for a half-way compromise which I feel will be a step back from ever achieving a truly universal system.

by Apostle 2008-04-15 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Wow, that's a bold statement.

I thinh your assumption that Clinton's political strategy is a necessarily stronger one is incorrect.  

Clinton could shoot for everything and get nothing, and then we'd be set back another 20 years.  This is exactly what happened during Bill's presidency.  On the other side of the coin, if Obama's plan is enacted and mandates turn out to necessary (due to significant free riding) then there's an easy path to adopt them.  

Perhaps that's wrong and it's better to shoot for everything.  But at the very least there real room for disagreement here.  And I really think that accepting a McCain presidency because you think Obama's health care program isn't perfect would be a blunder.

by OaktownDad 2008-04-15 08:43PM | 0 recs
For the democratic process
to finish (all of it) and for Obama to be the clear victor after the process.

and for Obama supporters to stop asking such arrogant questions AND for Obama supporters to support an actual democratic process and to shut there pie holes until that process has played out (all of it).

How's that?
by linc 2008-04-15 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Some kind of gentleness, some kind of agreement on issues we all fight for. Some knd of sense of agreement that we're all working for the same things in the end.

by Gabriele Droz 2008-04-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
To support Obama

Obama has benefitted with the media and the blogs doing his dirty work for him, and they have slung some of the most vicious crap against Hillary.  So if the "new kind of politics" is having surrogates go 10 times more disgusting than the candidate ever could, count me uninspired.

But it is ludicrious to support or not support someone based on the tenor of their campaign.  I choose not to support Obama because I just don't think he's qualified for the job, and I fail to see the circumstances in which I would come to a different conclusion.

by DaveOinSF 2008-04-15 03:47PM | 0 recs
Dirty jobs

Well said. I concur.

by grlpatriot 2008-04-15 03:55PM | 0 recs
I'm less blithe about that

One of the reasons our party has held the moral high ground is because our politics have always been relatively clean.  I'm afraid that if Obama wins, then the template will be set for the future that character assassination works as well in Democratic primaries as in general elections.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 05:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

Another 10 years experience in the Senate.

by ellend818 2008-04-15 03:49PM | 0 recs
I guess you didn't vote for the other Clinton then

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-15 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess you didn't vote for the other Clinton

The other Clinton had plenty of experience as a governor.

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:37PM | 0 recs

5 times elected Governor of Arkansas.  Influential head of the National Governors Association.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 05:31PM | 0 recs
Point taken

And I suppose that 8 years in the Illinois state senate and 4 years as a senator isn't as impressive as Bill Clinton's 5 terms as governor.

Experience is relative.  It's a shame you wouldn't have voted for FDR. After all he was heavily criticized for a lack of experience by republicans and democrats alike. And oddly enough he was criticized on a lack of a substantive platform.  He simply claimed that he would lead the country out of the great depression.

His resume is actually much less impressive than Obama's.
3 years in the New york state senate.  
4 years as Governor of New York.
1 failed run as a New york senator.
1 failed run for the vice presidency.

Imagine if during the 1932 election we had the electorate playing at punditry, rather than voting for ideas and ideals.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-15 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Point taken

You left out Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 7 years, including during the entirety of World War I, in Roosevelt's biography.  That's not a small omission. In fact I would say that it is, beyond doubt, the most impressive experience either man brought to the table if you are comaparing him to Obama.  The second most impressive was Roosevelt's 4 years of executive experience as the Governor of the nation's largest state.*  Roosevelt had been prominent in national politics for 19 years when he was nominated--16 if you don't count the 3-year break in the middle when he contracted polio and learned to live in a wheelchair.

Obama has been in the Senate for 3-1/4 years, nearly half of which he has been running for President and not spending a lot of time around the old capitol building. As for the part-time job as a state legislator, that's nice practice but not much of a qualification for high office.  

I mean really, I know we can all have a good larf about Tuzla, but what is Obama's foreign policy experience?  Is his explanation that he lived in Indonesia from ages 6 to 10 really the best he can do?  And you're gonna put that up against the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during all of WW I?

I don't think so.

*Gubernatorial experience is generally weighted quite a bit more than congressional experience,  This year will see the first sitting congressperson elected President since 1960.  Since the last Senator was elected, four sitting governors (Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II) and three sitting or ex-vice presidents (LBJ, Nixon, Bush I) have been elected.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Point taken

Illinois STATE senator?

Are you joking?

There must be thousands of those.  It's like being a city councilman.

by switching sides 2008-04-16 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Point taken

well you're entitled to your opinion.  I think that means he has a longer history of legislative experience than Hillary Clinton.  Since I don't count sleeping in the white house for 8 years.  The reason I don't count it?  Only because she wants to take credit for everything good and reject everything bad.  

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-16 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Point taken

I don't know if you can officially count all of those 7 years as assisstant secretary.  After all during 2 of those seven years he was still running for the senate.  I'm assuming by your own criticisms that those distinctions are really important to you.

by Tenafly Viper 2008-04-16 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take?

I guess you didn't vote for Hillary then who has significantly less elected experience than Obama

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 04:59PM | 0 recs
Experience n/t

by dhonig 2008-04-15 03:52PM | 0 recs
It Would Take A Miracle

to get me to vote Obama. If he's the Democratic nominee I likely won't vote. It would violate too many of my principles to vote for him; I just don't think I could do it.

by portia9 2008-04-15 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It Would Take A Miracle

Please swallow hard and reconsider.

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:38PM | 0 recs
Its too late

for hell to freeze over...he has already lost me.  Voting McCain in November for sure.

by vtluvr 2008-04-15 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Its too late

Please swallow hard and reconsider.

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Its too late

I hope you reconsider.. the blood of many young americans might end up on your hands

by CaptMorgan 2008-04-15 04:59PM | 0 recs
No guaruntee of less blood with Obama than McCain

I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that there will be less blood with Obama.

The person who has to get us out of Iraq will be hated by a large portion of the electorate. Obama has to be loved. When giant egos get rattled they can make rash, aggressive decisions in an attempt to regain their dignity.

Yes, I know McCain has talked about being in Iraq for 100 years. But we DID have troops in Germany and Japan for decades following WWII.

by catfish1 2008-04-15 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: No guaruntee of less blood with Obama than McC

100 years in Iraq isn't the same as in Germany.  The presence of our forces in these countries is one of the fundamental reasons why we're hated and why some turn to violence against us.  

Unless Muslims suddenly STOP being offended by our presence on their soil (even a peace time presence), Iraq can NEVER be like Germany.  It's a completely different situation.  You can't just substitute country X for country Y like McCain wants to do.  It's ignorant of all other factors, and those factors make all the difference.

by freedom78 2008-04-15 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Its too late

You love Bush that much? And don't tell me that McCain is some big departure from Bush. He's a mildly more competent version of George W. Bush. Either vote Obama (if he's the nominee) or write in Hillary Clinton. But don't vote for John McCain unless you want right-wing judges and permanent occupation of Iraq.

by elrod 2008-04-15 05:10PM | 0 recs
He'll have it

because there is no way I want to see a President McCain. It's just that simple. We have to come together once this is over and focus on the task at hand. However, I am incredibly saddened at the treatment that Hillary Clinton has received at the hands of many in the media and many Obama supporters. The viciousness is most evident on DailyKos and HuffingtonPost. It is disgusting but I will not take it out on Senator Obama.

That won't stop me from doing everything I can to help Hillary win!

by LDFan 2008-04-15 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: He'll have it
I hear you! I, too, have not stopped supporting Clinton, but I have already voted in a primary, so, I'm done with the primary fight.

I think one of the things that stops me from throwing all of my support behind Obama is this strange kind of mistrust I have of him. What's strange is I can't really put my finger on the cause of the mistrust.

I also agree that media and some progressive blogs have been horrible to Clinton, even before all the other candidates dropped out. I think it stems from the vicious lies and mistrust created by the Republicans during and after the Clinton administration.

by zenful6219 2008-04-15 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: He'll have it

I agree that many in the media have been very sexist in their treatment of Hillary. I think there has also been plenty of racism in the treatment of Obama, especially in the frenzy over Reverend Wright, who made his comments in the context of the long history of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and unequal treatment by the criminal justice system. In that context "god damn America" makes more sense than "god bless America". The media in general does an awful job covering everything. It distorts everything, obsesses over trivialities, is run mostly by an old white boy network and gives us nothing solid on which to base our views. The one person they haven't run rampant on is John McCain who is probably as dangerous as Bush.

by berkeleymike 2008-04-15 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

Well written diary.  We've got two great candidates, and I can honestly say that either one of them will make me very proud if/when they become president.  It really sucks that we have to choose one over the other.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-15 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

It really does suck, doesn't it?

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:40PM | 0 recs
most will back obama

Most dems will back Obama because they are democrats.

Some of us won't for a variety of reasons.

I have two issues that I grapple with each day:

#1 - Emotional..  I love Hillary. I know I'm not suppose to LOVE a politician. But I do. I've been working my ass off for her (voluntarily) and I've given alot of my hard earned money to her campaign. I travel for her, make calls for her, hold house parties for her, made a website for her, all all this has been going on for over a year!!! My life has been on HOLD. I've had many sleepless nights over this.

Every day I hear a new story as to why she can't win or be the nominee.

So - I blame Obama for standing in my way of seeing my dream come true. He's young and inexperienced enough that he could have waited another year or two, but alas, he didn't.

This is HER one shot and I will not be able to forgive him for standing in the way of my dream to see the First Woman President. Not just any woman - THE woman. THE woman that I have been waiting to run since the 90's.

#2 is Logical.

I simply can't vote for someone with such little experience. He is naive and I don't trust him. There are too many things about his background that bother me - I get the feeling that he shows up as one person, but he's really another person.

While I don't agree with McCain on most issues - I actually think he will be a different pres than Bush and he may even be good for the Republican party (not that I care about them - but I do care about the country) - bringing them to the middle where they need to be.

I just don't see Obama as a LEADER, he seems weak, wishy-washer, a follower.

BUT - I would vote for him under 2 conditions:

#1 - he is the VP under Clinton or

#2 - she is the VP under Obama.

by nikkid 2008-04-15 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: most will back obama

There have been times I have been inclined to give McCain the benefit of the doubt. But considering everything I've ever known him to say about himself is in opposition to what he has voted for, I don't think it's worth the chance. We know Obama won't move too far to the right. There's at least a 60% chance McCain will. Not only that, but even ONE young, moderately conservative supreme court nominee will be ruinous.

by vcalzone 2008-04-15 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: most will back obama

I've never given McCain the benefit of a doubt; I know too much about him.

But I agree with the rest of what you said.

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: most will back obama

Yes, I agree 100%.

Majority of Clinton supporters will back Obama.

That's already a given & you can take that to the bank.

However, anywhere from 20% to 30% of Clinton supporters will NOT support Obama in the Fall.
( Half would vote for McCain while Half would just stay home)

And this will almost surely hold true with Obama supporters as well if Clinton somehow wins the nomination. She woul have a similar problem. But still significant enough to cause a Clinton defeat.

Bottom line, either way- Democrats
will have an extremely tough time winning in november.

Without a Solid, United, democratic party- Obama nor Hillary cannot win.

And the way things are, no one can force supporters to comeback home/

by latinfighter 2008-04-15 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: most will back obama

I would be in favor of a unity ticket myself, but what does a unity ticket do to your argument that you "can't vote for someone with such little experience".  Obama could pick a VP candidate with much more experience than Hillary to round out the ticket.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

One question I'm curious about from Clinton supporters: if Obama does win, do you want Hillary to be VP?  Or would that be an insult of some sort?  What about Sebelius?  Or Wesley Clark?  

Full disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter, will support the Democratic nominee no matter who it is, and would probably more actively support Hillary if she made Obama VP but would support her either way.

by bosdcla14 2008-04-15 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

If she was VP on the ticket, I'd manage to hold my nose and vote for him.  But if Hillary's not on the ticket, I will not vote Dem in the top spot.

At this point, I don't know if either could win the GE.  If Hillary's on the ticket, though, I'll work for it, even if she's only VP.  Obama would never ask her though, so it's a moot point.

by RobinLB 2008-04-15 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

IF Obama wins the nomination: Personally, I wouldn't like Hillary to be Obama's VP.

1) It would be a waste of her talent and ability.

2) From a purely practical standpoint, she's too old. We would need someone younger to have a shot at the office after Obama's term is finished.

Pensively, wouldn't it have been great if Obama had waited before his run? Then we could have had the first woman Prez followed by the first African American Prez. We would have avoided the particular nastiness of this primary. And they would both have been wonderful in the job.

Oh well...

by Swedie 2008-04-15 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

I agree that it would be a waste of her talent and ability, but I assume that it would be like Bush/Cheney, where Cheney really runs the show.  Obviously, it would be Hillary running the show from behing the scenes.

But I'm glad there are some people who won't vote if she's only the VP.  It'll be hard for me to do it, because at heart, I know you're right.

by RobinLB 2008-04-15 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No Way

Barack Obama is a malignant narcissist. I wouldn't trust him at the top of any ticket; not now, not ever.

by Tennessean 2008-04-15 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: No Way

You do realize this Tennessean believes that about Hillary Clinton. But unlike you, I know that the Republican Party is the most destructive force in America no matter who leads. They have ruined this great country and will cause it even greater harm if given more power. Even though I loathe Hillary Clinton, I would not hesitate one second to vote for her over McCain or any other member of the criminal Republican syndicate.

by elrod 2008-04-15 05:14PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama Agreed to Take VP Slot

I would vote for a Clinton/Obama ticket.

I will vote for Hillary Clinton for President.

Anything other than those two choices, and I'm voting PRESENT in the Presidential race in November. I'll support my down-ticket Dems in my state, and vote on referendums, etc.

But, that's it.

Clinton as President.

Nothing else will do.

by Tennessean 2008-04-15 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama Agreed to Take VP Slot

Are you aware of the fact that Obama voted "Present" at the request of Planned Parenthood which created that strategy? (Planned Parenthood in Illinois themselves have stated this, not just the Obama campaign). They wanted as many Democrats as possible to vote Present rather than No to give cover to Democrats who were unwilling to vote no. A "Present" vote in Illinois has exactly the same effect as a "No" vote in terms of defeating bills.

by berkeleymike 2008-04-15 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What would

First off i think BO and MO egos are to big to put HRC on the ticket as VP.  They think they own the democratic party and this was why MO said she didnt think she could vote for HRC and why BO constantly rips into Bill Clinton.  That aside.

James Carville made what i thought was a very insightful comment on MTP (or as I like to say Russart is a dick) and said whoever the candidate is his or her number one issue will be to smooth over the hard feelings of the other candidate.

So based on your thread what will it take to get the last 25% of HRC?  It will take BO to reach out and show some respect for the Clinton's and her supporters and not his typical selfserving smug atititude.  Now i am sure BO supporters dont see this but i can tell you alot of HRC supportes do.  And he is going to have to convince this HRC dems to vote for him or he will be toast.

The truth is there are two types of voters who may bolt from BO. Hard core HRC supporters and have had it with BO shit.  And working class dems who feel very comfortable voting GOP in the GE and are not comfortable with a northern liberal.  SO BO will need a two sided plan to address both of these voting groups to get their vote.  

Personally i dont think he has it in him to show and real remorse about how he has attacked HRC and i dont think he can do this.  The Sammatha Strong HRC is a monster imho really sums up how BO and MO see the Clinton's.  And after BO wins if his supporters do the Witch is dead thing you can be sure these voters will split

If that happens, and i assume it will, we can all kiss Nov good by.


by giusd 2008-04-15 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What would

Hillary Clinton is a northern liberal. Why would working class Democrats turn away from Obama in favor of Hillary Clinton if they dislike northern liberals? Trust me. I live in Tennessee, and NOBODY here sees Hillary Clinton as non-northern and liberal.

Obama will definitely need to tread Clinton and her supporters with the utmost respect. Frankly, I'd love to see a public promise to put her on the Supreme Court. That would be more meaningful than a VP slot.

by elrod 2008-04-15 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: What would

Really I live in Tennessee and she is running neck and neck against McCain here. She won the primary by 17% over Obama. So tell me what makes you think that Obama has support in Tennessee that she doesn't.

by RedstateLib 2008-04-15 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: What would

I'd like to see Hillary as VP but a promise to put her on the court would probably not be a good idea.  First there are a lot of other influential people helping Obama in hopes of getting that spot.  Its better that there be some uncertainty as to who will get it to keep these people drumming up votes and money.  Second, Hillary will be too old to be a good Supreme Court nominee.  The Republicans have started putting up young conservatives like Roberts and Alito.  We need a young vegetarian non-smoker who has 100 year old relatives on his/her family tree to outlive these guys.

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters

It would take either seating the full, elected delegations from MI and FL. Or holding revotes in those states. Anything less is vote stealing. Obama's proposal for a 50/50 split was revolting. Beyond that, I will have a great deal of trouble voting for Obama. Real reservations about him. And the way his campaign has trashed Hillary.

by DaleA 2008-04-15 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters

If Hillary had lost FL/MI and had stuck by her support of the DNC sanctions would you have voted for her if the delegations had been seated?  His and her stances are more a function of who won the states than who is a more principled champion of Democratic values, don't you agree?

by DreamsOfABlueNation 2008-04-16 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

I am a Democrat for 28 years. I wanted Al Gore to contest this election. When he did not run, I wanted Hillary. I always thought Barack doesn't have substance and/or experience. He represents the extreme left wing of the party. I hate both the extreme left and the right. I wanted a moderate. I will not hesitate to vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. When Barack praises Regan policies why not we support McCain? His criticism of Bill Clinton Presidency is very arrogant without substance. For me county comes first before my leaning towards political party.

by Avistan 2008-04-15 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b


by LadyEagle 2008-04-15 05:56PM | 0 recs
Obama cannot win my support

After all we learn about Obama, his wife, pastor, Rezko, Bittergate, health plan, his advisers and many other things, he has no chance. He has to go back to IL, run for governor, learn how to govern, and return in 2016 and we may check him again. But I personally think his political career is over and I do not want to see him again running for office...

by engels 2008-04-15 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take

I'm 52 years old and I've never voted for a Republican even for dog-catcher.  My solidification as a Democrat was re-doubled with the Gingrich Revolution, and then re-tripled with the Bush Maladministration.

But I've got some serious, serious problems with Obama.  I have no clue who he is or what he really stands for.  I don't believe a word he says.  He has run by far the slimiest campaign I've ever seen from a Democrat, and I mean he scores a 90 on the slime scale and the old record was probably about a 30.  He has the least meaningful experience of any major candidate at least from FDR on--and I have looked up the biographies of all of them--and I see no sign that he knows all that much about American history or 20th-century history.  He is a very good speaker, but there are better around, and although he's very good with words, he can be way too cute at times, just like Bill Clinton and even a little bit more so.

It makes me wonder where my Party is going that it can exhibit such enthusiasm for this person.

My status as a yellow-dog Democrat has never been based on zeal for the Democratic Party.  As I have always said, the Democratic Party doesn't represent me, but I can live with it, whereas the Republican Party is inimical to me, my way of life, and everything I stand for.

I have gotten behind plenty of losing candidates, from Gene McCarthy to Mo Udall to Teddy Kennedy to Howard Dean.  Every time I shrugged at defeat and immediately lined up behind the winner with tremendous enthusiasm, because I always knew it was somebody who was going to fight against the Republicans and Republicanism, and it was always somebody who campaigned fairly and cleanly, at least in a comparative sense.

I realized some time ago that I would never find such enthusiasm about Barack Obama, and that I was likely to just sit on the sideline during the fall campaign, and that if the race turned out to be close in my state, I would trudge to the polling booth on election day and pull the Obama lever.  As it kept getting worse and worse, and I kept feeling more and more estranged from my so-called "peers" within the Party, I began to question my commitment to the Democratic Party--although there was still really no question about voting for McCain, who I know well as just another slimy Republican who has profited from skillful media manipulation to create a false image as a uniting centrist.

It's still getting worse.  I think my connection to the Democrats is severely injured, maybe permanently.  I don't feel as if it's my party any more.  It's a bunch of people who trash my heroes, the only heroes Democrats have had in the last 40 years.  People who jump to defend Reagan, who is worse than Satan to me, because their prince throws kind words at him.  People who just don't seem to give a damn about truth or campaigning with ethics.  

It still seems unimaginable that I could vote for McCain, but I will say this, boggling at myself even as I say it--I'll actually be listening this fall when McCain describes what kinds of Supreme Court justices he would nominate.  If he says something half-way acceptable, I just might pay attention.  I really really don't want to vote for Obama.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: 52 year old

You dont know who Obama is so your not going to vote. Well unfortunetly that is your failure the man wrote 2 books. Not one but TWO BOOKS. What the hell do you need. Just because he is new to you does not mean he is a figmant of your imagination. You perhaps need to expand your mind to incompass what is apparent to at least half of the democratic party. We did not know Bill Clinton either, we actually believed he was honest. But ya know what honest or not we still like em. Dont let your inabilty to relate get in the way putting America on track.

by edtastic 2008-04-15 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: 52 year old

Thanks, edtastic.  I'll admit I didn't read his books, but from what I understand "Dreams of My Father" was admittedly fictionalized and his other book was a standard politician's running-for-office tome which I never bother to read.

However, I have watched him like a hawk since I learned he might be running for President.  I have logged scores of hours of watching Obama in various televised settings.  I read about 15 political news sources daily, and I have maintained a healthy curiosity about Obama and read numerous feature articles about him, his life, and his experience.  His website kind of scares me, but I have browsed around it for a couple of hours.  And I continue to wonder who he is.

I began this process with an extremely favorable inclination toward Obama.  It has been beaten down bit by bit as I learned more.

I think your response assumes many things about me that I did not state.  I find it notable that you decided, without inquiring as to details, that the reason that I relate to Obama differently than the way I have related to every other major Democratic candidate for the last 40 years has something to do with me and my ignorance and nothing to do with Obama.

by Trickster 2008-04-15 06:36PM | 0 recs
He wrote Dreams at age 35

The second book was a syrupy collection of quotes. It was really sophmoric.

He is smart, but not curious. And he also appears to not realize what he does not know, a very dangerous quality.

I will force myself to vote for him, but McCain is standing right there only a few feet away and sorry, McCain is a moderate.

by catfish1 2008-04-15 06:43PM | 0 recs
The new politics is old politics

If Obama wins the nomination fair and square, I will vote for him.

But this "new politics" crap that Obama is holier than thou is what totally turns me off of the guy. His attacks on Hillary have been more personal and more negative than her attacks on him.

I subscribe to email from all three campaigns. His has been the more negative campaign.

by catfish1 2008-04-15 06:18PM | 0 recs
I'm voting for Nader

If Clinton loses, I'm voting for Nader.

It's that simple.  I'm not voting for Obama, he is exactly the type of politician I loathe.

He says one thing and does another.

At least Nader has etchics.

by switching sides 2008-04-15 11:07PM | 0 recs
You mean to back Obama over Clinton?

It can't be done. No way. Never.

Even before all this back and forth over who said what about whom, it was an easy choice.

Hillary Clinton supports universal health care. Barack Obama does not.

But Obama has run a nasty, divisive campaign. I'll never forgive him for the deliberate attempts to portray Hillary and Bill Clinton as race-baiters. I'm annoyed at his holier-than-thou mentality coupled with his incredible hypocrisy. His huge self-conceit is amazing for someone with so few accomplishments. I can't stand the way he looks down on the rest of us.

Clinton isn't without her flaws. But nothing will get me to support Obama over her. Nothing.

by OrangeFur 2008-04-16 12:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What would it take for Clinton supporters to b

I guess a fair question to ask is what would it take for Obama supporters to back Hillary?


by colebiancardi 2008-04-16 06:34AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads