Adding a little perspective to the intra-party divide

TNR’s Jonathan Cohn noted a story today from University of Chicago professor Harold Pollack, who volunteered for the Obama campaign over the weekend.

I spent today canvassing in Schererville, Indiana, with my 11-year-old. We were trolling neighborhood garage sales talking with people as we went door to door. In Indiana, people sell hot dogs, coffee, and soda at garage sales, which piqued my daughter’s interest more than the Norman Rockwell prints.

One of the garage sales had a sign: “All proceeds go to liver transplant patient.” The son-in-law of the garage sale holder has cirrhosis and being treated at Northwestern, where he is on the transplant waiting list. As this woman told the story (she was confused on some details), he had been working as a plant supervisor but had somehow lost his job. He had been making COBRA payments of $1000/month, but had lost that, as well. He is now in the waiting period for federal disability, and he is being inundated with bills.

I gave the lady some numbers, paid $20 for a cup of coffee, and left. She’s an Obama supporter, but boy I’d vote for Hillary if I had to despite everything if this meant I didn’t have to hear any more such stories.

Cohn added, “That message, I hope, reaches supporters of both candidates, so many of whom are telling pollsters they wouldn’t vote for one or the other.”

I hope so, too. Under a McCain administration, and given his meager healthcare policy these stories would remain rather common. Under either Clinton’s or Obama’s plan, they wouldn’t.

It’s the latest in a series of reminders on how clear the partisan choice should be.

I first started hearing from some Democrats in January that if their preferred Dem candidate lost, they couldn’t possibly support the intra-party rival. I not only still hear it, I think I hear it more and more frequently all the time: “I support my Dem, but if he/she isn’t the nominee, I’m out.” Maybe that means support the conservative, neocon Republican candidate; maybe it just means staying home on Election Day. I cringe just a little every time I hear this.

I realize a whole lot of Dems see the candidate they don’t support as beyond the pale, and offensive to the point of disgust. That’s become a little easier of late, as we’ve begun to see even more differences emerge between Clinton and Obama, on substantive and stylistic issues.

But on their worst day, “the other” Dem is still so much better than McCain it’s not even close.

On everything that matters — foreign policy, economic policy, judicial nominees, the environment, healthcare — McCain is wrong and the Dems, depending on your perspective, are either largely or completely right. One side offers more of the same; the other offers at least some degree of change.

From time to time, keep Pollack’s story about the guy in Indiana in need of a liver transplant in mind. Ask yourself if you’d be willing to vote for the Dem you like less if it meant not having to hear any more such stories.

I like to think the answer is clear.

Update: Just after posting this, I saw a TPM item from a reader who expressed a sentiment I’ve seen many, many times:

…I have to say, as someone who was marching in New Hampshire in 1991 for Bill Clinton, who ran the campus Democrats for his ’92 campaign, who interned in his White House, who argued against impeachment at every turn, who even defended the pardons, who has been an enormous and unwavering admirer, and who has been disgusted with his own parents for their seemingly irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton, there is something about the way she has run this campaign. From having people on her campaign raise Obama’s drug use, to her jumping on the bandwagon for every right-wing cheap shot, to her new populist, “got no truck with economists” stance, its been craven. More craven than I could possibly imagine.

If somehow against all odds she got nominated, I’d vote for her, but I’d do so utterly unconvinced that the quality of her leadership wouldn’t bring about disastrous results no less than the disastrous results that McCain’s wrongheaded policies and own cravenness would bring about. Yes, her policy positions would be much better than McCain’s. But if she’s this divisive, this self-preserving, this craven, I think the results can still be horrible, even with policy positions that are much closer to mine. At this point I feel like it would be the hardest vote for a Democrat I’d ever cast.

Now, I’m a Democratic fundraiser. And as detailed above, a very long time Clinton supporter. If I’m this repulsed, if it seems this craven to me, and I’m this pessimistic about her leadership, can I be alone?

I’m starting to really loathe Hillary, especially for her explicit attacks on intellectualism lately.

But yeah, anyone who supports their Dem nominee first, and McCain second, is an astonishing fool.

I sure as heck wouldn’t canvas for Hillary but I would definitely vote for her.

The real issues are way too important to let anger guide your vote.

  • That goes for people who vote for third-party candidates, too, if their states are in any way closely divided between the McCain and the Dem candidate.

  • McCain thinks the “market” will work great in making insurance affordable. The market doesn’t work if insurance companies don’t want your business.

    My Blue Cross Insurance used to cost three times as much as it does now because I was working for a small company without clout and was over sixty, but under sixty-five. Blue Cross could discriminate against older people.

    Then our little company was purchased by a HUGE corporation and suddenly Blue Cross wouldn’t dream of discriminating against me.

    EVERYONE needs the clout of a big corporation — or a government — in dealing with insurance companies. Going it alone or in a small group is no protection. Where else in the world can a person be impoverished by health care costs without ever being sick or injured?

  • The nightmare scenario in this is that She-Unworthy-of-Naming brings about a “new order” of neocons; uber-hardcore’ quasi-Progressives who will do collectively, in the name of the Democratic Party and its ideals, as Bush has done to the GOP. Such a whiplash effect, led by a Dem version of Limbaugh; of Hannity; of Rove and of Cheney and of all the assorted other sycophantic cretins, bloodsuckers, and pod-Liberals, would bring about the cartain and permanent-minority status of the Democratic party, and lead to a overwhelmingly-invigorated GOP quicker than you can say “triangulation….”

  • At this point I feel like it would be the hardest vote for a Democrat I’d ever cast.

    Here, here. Although, should she manage to steal the nomination, I plan to make a killing marketing clothespins to Democrats.

    I feel like it runs deeper than this, though. I’m starting to feel like a party that embraces the likes of Hillary and Lieberman may not be the right party for me.

    I’ve seen the question written here before, why do we need a third party with the same platform as the Democratic Party? Maybe because the platform isn’t the problem; it’s the candidates with no integrity to adhere to that platform that we lack.

    Honestly, at this point I don’t believe a word of what Hillary says nor do I assume she has the conviction to live up to any of her campaign promises.

    Fortunately, being well grounded in reality, I know I won’t have to make that choice.

  • The coldest chill that I feel regarding a McCain presidency (or his VP should McCain further descend into senility or suffer a stroke) would be his ability to nominate more right-wing ideologs and garden variety lunatics to judgeships throughout the country. While he might be thwarted by a Democratic congress in most other events, enough of these nominations will slip through to dramatically continue the reformation of our legal system. Particularly worrisome are the probable retirements within the Supreme Court within the next eight years. Surely, Obama or Clinton will reverse this nightmare.

  • And I wouldn’t vote for her. Sorry if that makes you flinch. But it is not a small-minded refusal to vote for her but a matter of priorities.

    My biggest concern is her foreign policy agenda, which pretty much parallels Bush’s, as well as her failure to stand up to him as a Senator. Over and over again she voted to support his unConstitutional agenda. And, while not a policy issue, I cannot tolerate her lying, buffoonery/self-puffery, and vindictiveness — those characteristics certainly predict problems in how she’d be as a president. I believe she would run the government with the same characteristics in play just as she’s campaigned. And about “her” health care plan? She doesn’t seem to have changed much since the 90s when she was unable to get the health care reform bill into shape and passed by Congress — she insisted it be done her way (those same characteristics), and so it failed. She seems to be wholly unable to work with others to achieve important goals.

    On some domestic issues I think she’d be better than McCain, but I’m convinced that some of GW Bush’s devastations of America, primarily the economy, restoring America’s Constitutional government, and America’s foreign policy, MUST be dealt with before America can focus on domestic issues. A failure in any one of these arenas means failure in all the rest.

    So, if by chance, HRC were to win the nomination, particularly if it’s won unfairly,I really don’t know what I’d do. On the issues that concern me most, there’s hardly a sliver of daylight between her and McCain. If I wouldn’t vote for him, I don’t see any reason to vote for her either.

    And perhaps I should also say that I’m an Independent voter, so I have absolutely no “given” loyalty to the Democratic party. I know this takes me out of the mainstream, but I also know there are a lot of us.

  • I’m a Pennsylvania Obama voter who has been very disappointed by the Clinton campaign. Their desperate tactics seem a direct result from running the most poorly managed campaign from a front-runner ever — they never recognized Barack Obama as a major competitor and were left to campaign against the themes of hope and change than Bill Clinton himself represented in 1992.

    I even prefer Hillary’s health care plan to Obama’s but feel that he would be better able to get elected and then provide the leadership to get health care reform enacted.

    However, to me there is no question that this country cannot endure the third Bush term that John “McCentury” McCain represents. Besides Iraq and an inclination to start a war with Iran, tax cuts for the wealthy and endless deficits, I don’t want to see another GOP Justice Department that continues to bury the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.

    This election is too important to not vote Democratic!

  • Maria said:
    That goes for people who vote for third-party candidates, too, if their states are in any way closely divided between the McCain and the Dem candidate.

    If Clinton manages to become the nominee, McCain will almost certainly be the next president. Clinton may be able to fool enough Democrats to keep them from voting for the scary black man. But there’s no way she can beat crusty-but-lovable Grandpa McCain when she needs to win over the 40+ percent of the country that has a negative opinion of her — especially without African American voters who will think she stole the nomination.

    I live in Maryland, and if the vote there is close enough that my vote matters then the election is lost anyway. So I’ll be voting for the Green Party as a way to try to drag the Democrats back to the center.

    Our country has been left teetering on the brink of disaster by Republicans and their stupid ideas and by Democrats and their craven enabling of the Republicans. We need a radical change of direction. We need to tear many of our institutions — education, health care, energy, foreign policy — down to the foundations and build them again from the ground up. I hope Obama can do this. I know Clinton can’t and that she wouldn’t be inclined to even if she could.

  • I’ve always been an Obama supporter, but pledged that I would vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Her actions and comments over the last few months make that extremely difficult. BUT I would still vote for her, if push came to shove, because we simply cannot afford another Republican president. I have my concerns about the Democratic party as well; frankly, power corrupts and absolute powers corrupts absolutely. Early on in the founding of this country, there was a major objection to “political parties” because they result in division, not unity. I honestly don’t know what it’s going to take to turn this country around from the horrendous path it’s on, and I’m not at all sure that it’s possible at this time. But we have to continue to try, as long as we are American citizens and also continue to live in the U.S. But frankly, I’ve been thinking seriously about leaving my country for quite some time now, because I have deep concerns about the “writing on the wall” that I see.

  • The lesser of two evils is still evil–and the Clintons seem intent on bearing the closest possible resemblance to the evil from which millions of us once tried to defend them. As Jimmy Carter put it, they’re always there when they need you–as sex addict Bill did after he decided getting his rocks off was more important than the nation’s business.

    If you live in a competitive state, I guess the responsible thing to do is close your eyes, think of the Supreme Court and the thousands of Democrats who would staff the bureaucracy, and vote for that lesser evil; if you don’t (as I don’t), I sincerely believe it’s preferable to cast a protest vote. Myself, I think it would be perversely satisfying to vote for former Clinton persecutor turned Libertarian Bob Barr over Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit.

  • Our country has been left teetering on the brink of disaster by Republicans and their stupid ideas and by Democrats and their craven enabling of the Republicans. We need a radical change of direction. We need to tear many of our institutions — education, health care, energy, foreign policy — down to the foundations and build them again from the ground up. I hope Obama can do this. I know Clinton can’t and that she wouldn’t be inclined to even if she could.

    Steve T., I couldn’t agree with you more that this is exactly what needs to happen, because to do less….well, things have simply gone too far.

  • Of course if this is the feeling of a large percentage of Obama and Hillary supporters, then a unity ticket is the answer.

    The undeniable fact is that neither Obama or Hillary supporters are going to evaporate when the contest is over. The candidate which comes in a close second place will not evaporate. The runner up will not leave the Democratic Party. The runner up will be nationally very well known and loved by important Democratic groups. The voters who supported them picked them over at least McCain and possibly over all Republican candidates.

    The result in PA has shown that Hillary can say anything and her supporters still back her. Recent polls show that Hillary is slightly more popular with Democrats, but Obama brings in independents and Republicans.

    As bad as Hillary may appear to Obama supporters, she is drawing Democratic voters! More than half of them are voting for her. If Obama needs to push through his health plan in the Senate, Hillary will either be in the VP slot, or in the Senate. Where would it be better for Obama?

    BTW: we need an attack dog as VP. For this negatives don’t matter.

    Personally I think this whole last two months as been an effort to revive her brand, to at least pull even with Obama. I think she did it. She would make a great VP right now.

    Months ago I thought it would be easier to attack a unity ticket, but now I think the opposite. Both candidate have shown that they have a loyal base, both at least 42% of the primary voters in recent contests, this is shown by the daily tracking polls. Obama appears to dip up and down, but Hillary cruises close to her base. But both recover well when hit with seemingly very bad news. But during the attacks, McCain never gained any real advantage over either candidate. (Except last week Obama went down over McCain)

  • I think I’ve seen more enmity thrown at Hillary over the last three months than at George Bush over his disastrous seven years as president. Huffpo is positively fomenting this hatred with inflammatory lead stories coming every single day, scouring the Clintons.

    There is absolutely no comparison. The policies of Bush and his would-be carbon copy successor are destroying this nation. Either Democratic candidate will end the hemorraging. Either is infinitely better than McCain.

    This feud is playing right into the hands of the neocons, who now see a good chance of winning what was once probably the longest shot in election history.

    What I don’t understand is this: How can there be so much rancor when Obama has been the clear leader for months, when by any stretch of the imagination, Hillary has been out of it, defeated? There is no contest. Hillary won’t give up, true, the media plays us like a fiddle, true, but Obama has prevailed. He won. It’s over. It’s time that all of us got behind him, and stopped slamming Hillary. Hillary is not running against Obama in the general – McCain is.

  • If Obama is the nominee I will vote for Obama.
    If Hillary is the nominee I will vote against McCain (by voting for Hillary)

    Same results (I will vote Dem), but big difference in philosophical objective.

  • Obama has prevailed. He won. It’s over. It’s time that all of us got behind him, and stopped slamming Hillary. Hillary is not running against Obama in the general – McCain is.

    From your lips to Herself’s ears.

    Obama has done a pretty good job of focusing on McCain, his real opponent. But you know, when you’ve got an also-ran doing the Black Knight thing, attacking you with no acknowledgment of reality and no regard for the party’s chances (his, hers or ours), you really do have to respond. It’s not surprising that your supporters will respond, too, particularly when those attacks are so amazingly Republican in their style and content.

    I know it’s over. You know it’s over. Obama knows it’s over. But right now we still have yipping Pekineses attached to our ankles. Shall we not even try to jiggle them off?

  • hark said:
    What I don’t understand is this: How can there be so much rancor when Obama has been the clear leader for months.
    (snip) It’s time that all of us got behind him, and stopped slamming Hillary. Hillary is not running against Obama in the general – McCain is.

    The rancor comes from proximity. If someone you don’t know and who lives on the other side of town from you steals your car you get angry. If your nephew, whom you’ve given birthday presents to, steals your car you feel angry and betrayed.

    Clinton hasn’t just argued that her policies are better than Obama’s policies. She has argued — repeatedly — that Republican John McCain is better qualified to be president than her Democratic opponent. Clinton hasn’t just just tried to demonstrate that her character would make her a better president than Obama. She has repeated anti-Obama lies and distortions coming from the Republicans smear machine.

    She has tried hard to ensure than if she’s not her party’s nominee, then no one from her party will win.

  • What I don’t understand is this: How can there be so much rancor when Obama has been the clear leader for months, when by any stretch of the imagination, Hillary has been out of it, defeated?

    Uh, hark, you might want to mention that to Hillary…she doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. And she’s still viciously attacking Obama, running on Republican political frames.

    THAT’s why people are so pissed at her right now.

  • One side offers more of the same; the other offers at least some degree of change. — CB

    And how do you know that? When it’s become impossible to trust anything that comes from one of those “others” mouth? She’ll say anything without meaning it; how am I supposed to believe that she’ll offer even the smallest degree of change? Add to that, that the only way she can get the nomination is by chicanery, and how am I supposed to contain my gag reflex long enough to vote for her?

    I won’t be staying at home in November, nor will I be voting for McSame. But I won’t be voting for Madam McClinton, either. I’ll be voting for the strongest possible Dem Congress (Senate especially), to block as many of McSame’s crazier nominations as they can.

  • Maybe that means support the conservative, neocon Republican candidate; maybe it just means staying home on Election Day.

    There’s no difference between those two proposals. Both help elect McCain.

    I’m forcing myself to remember that more and more these days as Clinton seems intent on doing everything she can to piss me off.

  • No you’re not alone but the compromise involves such important issues like judicial nominations and cleansing the DoJ and all the other cabinets. We aren’t electing kings and queens and whoever gets the nomination will still be responsible to the party and the party’s agenda. Many on this site feel that if you object to the name calling and insults that you disagree with their perspective when in actuality I object to smearing the candidates when it is totally unnecessary to make a point. It only arouses the emotions of anger, fear and hate. Clinton supporters and Obama supporters will still have to find ways of coming together when this is all done. It is the responsibility of voters to change whoever we elect when they fail to deliver and to try to push them in the directions that are important to them. Our influence should go beyond the ballot box.

    This race isn’t even close as far as McBush is concerned as the real presidential election is in the democratic primary, for McBush offers more of the same and worse. Either of these candidates far surpass him on all issues but there will have to be more of an effort after the election should Clinton win to get the policies we favor in place (that is just my opinion) but at least there’s a chance of doing that whereas with McBush there is no chance.

    There is now a concerted effort to get non progressives (whether dem or repub) out of office by challenging them in the primaries as groups have formed to target these people in their own districts. More and more the real issues are all based on class differences between the ultra wealthy and the rest of us, between the USA corporation and America, metaphorically speaking and party members will align themselves on one side or the other regardless of the D or R after their name. War is not the answer and neither is the gouging of Americans by the profiteers controlling our energy and medical needs. It will come down to allowing a few hundred greedy people controlling our life’s necessities or millions agreeing through a collective arrangement to share them. Sooner or later.

    We either head in the right direction (a dem as president) or continue over the cliff with McBush and the neoconservative corrupt Justice dept.. Don’t let the hype of the campaigns destroy the goal of getting a dem elected president. Remember, Supreme Court Justices are elected for life, but you know all this.

  • As much as I dislike the hatred that Obama supporters spew and as offensive as they are, there is no way in hell I would ever, EVER vote for a republican. Any democrat that says he is going to vote for McCain if Obama or Clinton doesn’t win, is not really a democrat or they are simply so caught up in support of their candidate that they are being dishonest about what they will do in November. A large percent are probably really republicans just looking to stir up trouble anyway.

  • If I’m this repulsed, if it seems this craven to me, and I’m this pessimistic about her leadership, can I be alone?

    You know, as much as I dislike (there’s an understatement!) both Clintons, if there hadn’t been a better alternative, I would – as late as the first week of January – been willing to vote for her, however reluctantly.

    Unfortunately, entirely by her own doing, we have arrived at the point where it’s time to remember what Eugene Debs said in 1912:

    “It’s better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don’t want, and get it.”

    I do not want any part of Hillary Clinton’s proposed foreign policy. Israel-uber-alles is the policy that has gotten us into trouble in the Middle East for the past 40 years, and we don’t need to feed a war with Iran when the Taliban are (according to a friend of mine on his second tour in A-stan) even more capable and competent than they were before (able to stand against American units), and Iraq continues to spin out of control. We don’t need any more triangulated fantasies there unless we really do want World War III.

    I do not think she is any more capable of working to build legislative coalitions to pass major legislation like health care now than she was in 1993. In fact, since her “imperial” tendencies have only become stronger in the past 16 years, I think there is an argument to be made that she is likely less able to do so. Remember, those Senators and Congresspeople have their own power bases and they will not repond positively to being told “go do this!” by any President (it’s why we have the separation of powers) – this is particularly true of enough Democrats that if they are combined with the Republicans who won’t go along with anything anyway, she has no working majority of sycophants to do her bidding. There are a lot of elected Democrats who do not agree with her top-down system. It is highly unlikely that voting for Clinton will accomplish anything for that poor guy in Indiana who needs the liver transplant, or anyone anywhere else.

    I do not want another administration where personal loyalty is valued above actual competence. We’ve had 8 years to see what a bad idea that is. We’ve seen in her campaign that the Clintonistas are as stupid and incompetent as the Bushies.

    I’ve seen here more and more in the past week – and noted the same phenomenon elsewhere – that people are beginning to see that concentrating on taking over the Legislative Branch decisively (i.e., filibuster-proof Senate and veto-proof House) could indeed happen. Do that and it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House.

    Letting Hillary Clinton go down in flames this year is probably the only way of getting rid of the two them permanently, outside of putting a bomb in their airplane (which I do not advocate). In the long run, getting rid of the most pernicious pair of people in the Democratic Party is something best done sooner than later, like lancing a boil.

    McCain in the White House with the Democrats solidly in control of the House and Senate is a defeat for the Republicans and an end to the Clintons. Perhaps not a lot good will get done for another 4 years, but the most awful possibilities are also taken off the table. Not a fun choice.

  • aristedes (#7) –

    I will respect your position on Clinton and McCain, even though I don’t agree. But let me put the Presidential vote to you this way:

    On the policies that are important to you, who do you trust more — Democrats in Congress or whoever will be in the White House?

    Because a President Clinton would be much more likely to sign legislation sent to her from a Democratic Congress than President McCain (*shudder*) who would likely veto some of the best parts of it.

    The empowerment of a Democratic Congress is one of the best reasons to vote Clinton over McCain (not that it will come to that), no matter how similar you think Clinton and McCain may be in their other Presidential duties.

  • Libra*** she would still be answerable to the party which is us. You forget that the executive can do much damage in spite of opposing party majorities in congress. Just look at the EPA or for that matter any of the other cabinets, or the Justice dept or state. The dem party needs to control the WH and if Clinton were there make her answerable to the party’s platform. I don’t want the lesser of two evils to be a decision applied to the Supreme Court nominees, who are elected for life. FDR changed after getting into office and we got the New Deal. It would be the same with Clinton. It’s a joint effort and it would be nice to have a dem president and a dem congress so we could get by all the obstructionism. You should at least consider giving it a chance because you know what happens with McCain

  • One other thing: does anyone here seriously believe that if Clinton was in the White House she would give up any of the powers that Bush has stolen? Does anyone think they will; be safer from the “national security” apparat that is our modern Gestapo, with Mrs. Clinton running the show?

    Constitutional republics do not do well with imperial-minded authoritarians renning them, regardless of what said authoritarian’s personal plumbing might be.

  • Constitutional republics do not do well with imperial-minded authoritarians renning them, regardless of what said authoritarian’s personal plumbing might be.

    I’ll take Clinton’s “plumbing” over McCain’s.
    Every. Single. Time.

  • I guess the responsible thing to do is close your eyes, think of the Supreme Court

    This is the only shred left to me. I do not think she’d restore the office to its rightful position or the constitution to its rightful place. I’m repulsed that she’s basically endorsed the idea of a “limited nuclear war.” I think her first 4 years would be spent getting herself re-elected.

    Oh shoot. I should have just stuck with the quote. It’s really the only thing I’ve got if this situation comes to pass.

  • btw…I hate the frame “the lesser of two evils”, It’s like saying half the democratic party is evil because they support Clinton. Just because you don’t support her doesn’t make her “evil”. It seems to me that republicans love to hear you refer to one of your own candidates as evil. What else are you doing when the choice you refer to as the lesser of two evils is republican vs democrat? You forget that nearly half of democrats support Clinton and they do not view her as evil or themselves as confused or stupid. Thinking the rest of the world thinks like you do is a mistake I’ve made many times.

    And the stupid comment of “it’s better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it” has no place in politics which is all about only getting a percentage of what you want because in a free society there will always be compromise. There are no perfect candidates. The statement sounds cute but is ridiculous on it’s face. No one gets all of what they want or don’t want. It’s like voting for someone who is against abortions but for war whose opponent is just the opposit and you don’t want either one. And to all those who refuse to even give their opposing dem a chance but still claim to want change, I hope the example of FDR before and after his election would help you change at least your willingness to take a chance because McSame is insane.

  • Aristedes:
    On the issues that concern me most, there’s hardly a sliver of daylight between her and McCain.

    Consider Supreme Court nominees. Perhaps that does not “concern you the most,” but it’s a given that the next US president will have one, possibly two, retirements from the bench. Look what Alito, Scalia and Roberts have done since being seated, and then reconsider?

    KevinMC:
    Besides Iraq and an inclination to start a war with Iran, tax cuts for the wealthy and endless deficits, I don’t want to see another GOP Justice Department that continues to bury the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.

    Throw in the other presidential appointments, (FEMA for example) and a whole lot of what’s been wrong for the last 7 yrs can be quickly corrected with a Democrat in the WH, whether its Clinton or Obama.

    SteveT:
    We need a radical change of direction.

    Voting Green in 2008 won’t do it. Staying home on Election Day won’t do it. Voting Democratic probably won’t do it immediately, but the country won’t be going down the same path it is today if Clinton or Obama win the nod. 4 yrs of McCain will 4 more years of Bush, that is guaranteed.

    impeachcheneythenbush:
    I’ve always been an Obama supporter, but pledged that I would vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Her actions and comments over the last few months make that extremely difficult. BUT I would still vote for her, if push came to shove, because we simply cannot afford another Republican president.

    I’ve always been an Edwards supporter, and I agree 100%.

    anonymensch:

    If you live in a competitive state, I guess the responsible thing to do is close your eyes, think of the Supreme Court and the thousands of Democrats who would staff the bureaucracy, and vote for that lesser evil;

    Man, I thought *I* was cynical – but you called it. =)

    Tom Cleaver:
    McCain in the White House with the Democrats solidly in control of the House and Senate is a defeat for the Republicans and an end to the Clintons. Perhaps not a lot good will get done for another 4 years, but the most awful possibilities are also taken off the table.

    McCain in the WH is the Single. Most. AWFUL. Possibility.
    Period.

    Hopefully, we don’t have to find out for sure whether I’m correct.

    Awesome comments – agree or disagree, don’t keep silent! America needs you, now more than ever.

  • joey said:
    You forget that nearly half of democrats support Clinton and they do not view her as evil or themselves as confused or stupid.

    Sorry joey, but if there are “Democrats” out there voting for Clinton because they are worried that Obama may be secretly a Muslim or an anti-white militant, then yes they’re stupid.

  • Hillary’s position on Bush’s “unitary executive” powers:

    http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=1793

    “Clinton not sure whether Unitary Executive has gone too far”

    MP

    I said I wouldn’t vote for Hillary or McCain so you present an option that’s meaningless. And majority Democratic Congress will be elected no matter who the nominee is.

    It cannot be “business as usual” after the GE. There is much that MUST be set right before we can settle in and solve domestic problems. As I implied before, unless Hillary does a sincere 180-turn on her foreign policy, Constitutional matters, and the economy, I think America will just continue to plummet, no matter what kind of relationship Congress and a new president have.. We’ve been warned time and time again — America’s current state is not static, bad enough as it is. It must be dealt with.

    And Hillary’s not capable of or interested in that — her pandering gas tax move is a demonstration of what she thinks will help the economy..

  • You paranoid Obama supporters are sounding crazy. Why don’t you just go ahead and say Hillary Clinton is worse than Hitler and Stalin and Mao. You are already saying the most disgusting things about her. Go ahead and make that last little leap.

  • GuyFromOhio said:

    SteveT:
    We need a radical change of direction.

    Voting Green in 2008 won’t do it. Staying home on Election Day won’t do it. Voting Democratic probably won’t do it immediately, but the country won’t be going down the same path it is today if Clinton or Obama win the nod. 4 yrs of McCain will 4 more years of Bush, that is guaranteed.

    If I was living in a swing state I would probably be thinking differently. But if Maryland is in play the election is already lost.

    By voting for the liberal Green Party I’m trying to give the “establishment” Democratic leadership a reason to protect themselves on their left flank instead of allowing them to continually shift to the right in response to attacks from the corporate-controlled media and the Republican smear machine. As long as Democratic leaders believe there is no penalty for embracing the “Republican Lite” policies of the DLC (All the policies – half the meanness), nothing much will change.

    The country is being driven toward a cliff, and the only result of giving power back to the DLC will be that the foot on the accelerator is lifted to reduce the speed from 60 mph to 30. The result will be the same, it’ll just take a little longer.

  • Actually, the BIG question is what will Obama supporters do if HRC wins the Democratic nomination unfairly., if Obama has more legitimate popular votes and more pledged delegates and superdelegates, but the nomination is “given” to HRC because of backroom wheeling and dealing? Like trying to force the Rules and Bylaws committee to seat Florida and Michigan delegates based on the counts in their invalid primary numbers. Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan primary ballot.

    All we can do is hope that the end result is seen as fair by voters.

  • Tom: Constitutional republics do not do well with imperial-minded authoritarians renning them, regardless of what said authoritarian’s personal plumbing might be.

    Guy: I’ll take Clinton’s “plumbing” over McCain’s.
    Every. Single. Time.

    Not me, not on this one.

    I’d consider Clinton, the former First Lady who has stated (and voted) the position that Congress owes the president some deference, far more of a threat to retain the Cheney/Addington Presidential SuperDuperPowers than McCain, a 25-year legislator who has favored campaign finance reform and disclosure.

    It’s not that I think McCain is particularly honorable. And heaven knows he’s worse on countless policy questions. Plus the vast majority of his governmental appointments–from the SCOTUS to entry-level analyst positions in the cabinet agencies–would be far, far worse than those Clinton would likely appoint. If I did live in a contested state, with all of this in mind, I probably would try to hold down the vomit and vote for The Restoration.

    But on this particular question of who is more likely to honor the Constitution, respect checks and balances, and even put the national interest ahead of party/personal loyalty, I believe McCain is the better choice.

  • I was just thinking about this issue on the weekend and I’ve really gone back and forth on it. The only argument I respect for Hillary’s candidacy is that she is a tough candidate and will do what it takes to win (though I also prefer her healthcare plan a little bit). This argument made zero sense to me when she was losing, but now what she is gaining somewhat on Obama (even though probably way too late), it earns my grudging respect. It’s a sad state when the only reasoning I accept for a candidate is based on cynicism. I know she is dishonest and a gross panderer (gas tax relief, blech), but sadly that is so often a strength in politics.

    A month or two ago I was completely outraged at her style and negativity but now I’m back to the state where I would vote for her if she won the nomination, because even if i I don’t want her as my president, damn she’s worked for it and she would give McCain a tough opponent. I would return to my apathy and loss of faith in politics, but I would vote to again slow down the downward trend of our nation. She would do nothing to truly fix this country and our corrupt politics, but the upgrade in competence she presents would come with little tweaks that would make it better.

    If she won the nomination I would vote holding my nose and I will _never_ actively support a Clinton again in any way shape or form, but passively, she will again get my vote as a lesser of two evils.

    I hope I don’t have to experience a sad election like that yet again.

  • On McCain: McCain was fine until he turned into Bush 2.0 which completely disqualifies him. I don’t want the “Bushies”, their policies and their politics around anymore.

  • John McCain’s “principles” are not any more impressive to me than those of Hillary Clinton. I might believe his instincts are better than GWB’s, but he does not act on his better instincts if they run counter to his chances of getting elected as the 44th president of the United States. He is Hillary Clinton without the campaign skills.

    As I have said before, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her for one reason alone – the ideological balance of the SCOTUS for the rest of my natural life. This is no small thing for me (I know this is true for others who have spoken about it above). The general election is not about my personal feelings about Hillary Clinton – that is what the primary process is for. My opposition to her was rooted in the notion that we do not need another “restoration” choice. I believe in my core that we need new blood. But, the Republic needs a Democratic president this time around; in my eyes it is that simple. If HIllary gets the nomination, I will cast my vote for her. But, I have to say, I believe that if she does get the nomination (absent some truly shocking substantive revelation about Obama between now and then), she will have had to decimate her party in the pursuit of that nomination. If that is the case, I fear my vote will not matter. I think that will make fundraising tough for her (this liberal coastie will tell her to pound sand), and I do not think she and Bubba will be able to reunite what they have torn asunder. That thought is always in the front of my mind as I watch her campaign.

    In this vein, I thought this was an interesting post:

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/5/4/113136/7425

  • But on this particular question of who is more likely to honor the Constitution, respect checks and balances, and even put the national interest ahead of party/personal loyalty, I believe McCain is the better choice.

    Agree. Plus it is of concern that Clinton is much closer to the religious right than McCain. In a race between Clinton and McCain I would rank Clinton as the more conservative candidate. (This is based upon civil liberties and social issues as opposed to economics. Clinton would obviously be more liberal on economics, but her plans are so flawed that I’d prefer McCain who would do little, and therefore less harm, than Clinton).

    Returning to the selection I quoted above, another major difference with regards to Constitutional issues is that McCain would face a Democratic Congress which would hopefully place restraints upon the president, while Clinton would have a passive Democratic Congress. In the case of two terrible choices–Clinton or McCain, I’d prefer to have Congress and the president controlled by different parties.

    The analysis of the main post makes sense for partisan Democrats. To them it is clear that Obama and Clinton are far closer to each other than McCain. What this analysis misses is that such partisan Democrats make up a minority of the voters. Bill Clinton could only win thanks to having a three way race.

    Independents, and many of the new Democratic voters, would see this differently. While Democrats will see Obama and Clinton on one end of the spectrum and McCain on the other, many independents will rank the candidates in the order of Obama, McCain, and then Clinton.

    Party line votes in Congress give the false illusion that there is little difference between Democrats. In reality a social conservative populist such as Clinton is quite different from a social liberal such as Obama who avoids the extreme populism of Clinton. I, and many independents will vote for Obama but Clinton gives us very little reason to support the Democrats. When her dishonesty is factored into this, it is even harder to consider voting Democratic if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

    Most likely most Democrats will get the votes of the majority of supporters of other candidate. Maybe that will be enough this year with the Republicans deservedly being so down. Long term Democrats should pay more attention to broadening the base to be attractive to independents.

  • I’m in Maryland.
    If Hilary loses Maryland because I vote third party, she wasn’t going to win ANYWHERE.
    The last Dem to lose Maryland was Mondale. He won Minnesota and DC. The other 49 states went to Reagan.

    There’s no way I’m giving thumbs up to Hilary. I have that luxury.

    I’d also like folks to think about downticket races.
    Hilary brings in no new votes for Democratic Congresswomen.men, councilwomen/men, dog catchers, etc. If she wins, all these new fresh faces stay home. They joined on for Obama, not Democrats, but they’ll punch Dem tickets while they are at the polls for Obama. They can’t give coattails to a candidate they don’t show up for.

  • On May 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm, Ohioan said:

    If Obama is the nominee I will vote for Obama.
    If Hillary is the nominee I will vote against McCain (by voting for Hillary)

    Same results (I will vote Dem), but big difference in philosophical objective.

    Anything I added after that post would be superfluous …

  • Comments are closed.