Clinton on voting for McCain: ‘It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country’

March 28, 2008

There’s been some discussion this week about whether Hillary Clinton, despite a record of reliable Democratic partisanship, might actually prefer that John McCain win in November if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. This occurred on the heels of a Gallup poll that showed that a whopping 28% of Clinton supporters are prepared to vote for a conservative Republican if Clinton doesn’t win her party’s nod, a far higher percentage than that of Obama supporters.

Yesterday, Clinton offered some very helpful remarks that pushed the narrative in the other direction.

Hillary Clinton pleaded for partisan unity on Thursday, urging Democrats not to abandon their party to vote for John McCain if their preferred candidate fails to secure the nomination.

Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.

“Please think through this decision,” Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word “please.”

“It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country.” The crowd applauded loudly.

“First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense,” Clinton said. “You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support.” But, she added, the “significant” differences between her and Obama “pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain.”

“I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party,” Clinton concluded. “When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we’re going to close ranks, we’re going to be united.”

See? Was that so hard?

For a while, it started to look like the Clinton campaign was taking a few too many steps to help McCain out. Clinton said McCain had the experience to be president, while suggesting Obama may not. She said McCain passed her commander-in-chief test, while suggesting Obama did not.

Christopher Orr added this unpleasant list of recent data points:

1) Matt Drudge hyped a photo of Obama in Somali garb that he claimed (and the Clinton campaign declined to deny) Clinton staffers had been circulating.

2) Bill Clinton went on the Rush Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas primary — after Limbaugh had spent days urging GOP voters in the state to cross over and vote for Clinton in order “rig” the election and ensure that Democrats nominated the weaker of their two candidates.

3) The Clinton campaign has been circulating an article in The American Spectator alleging that an Obama adviser, former Air Force chief Merrill McPeak, is an anti-Semite and a drunk.

4) When Clinton attacked Obama on Jeremiah Wright yesterday, she did it at an editorial meeting of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the vanity publication of Richard Mellon Scaife, while sitting next to Scaife himself.

Given all of this, I think a lot of Dems were anxious to hear Clinton say exactly what she said yesterday: voting for a Republican presidential candidate would be a mistake for everyone, and Obama is clearly preferable to McCain.

The more people hear talk like this, the less inclined they’ll be to think Clinton is pursuing a scorched-earth strategy. More of this, please.

then why does she seem so willing to destroy — or at least, tear apart — the democratic party to win the nomination? what will she have won?

  • mellowjohn, my guess is that she wouldn’t accept your premise. having had a front row seat for more than a few elections in her time, her experience is as she stated: no matter how hard fought, the party always unifies once it knows its nominee.

    now, maybe this really will be the year that is different. Dean’s camp and Kerry’s camp said they could not unify, but did; but maybe for Obama and Clinton supporters, it really wont be possible. that would be unfortunate, but in fact a relatively unusual thing.

    so if her experience and belief is that unity will be not only possible but probable no matter how bad things get or no matter what people say today, then continuing to fight hard doesn’t have much downside versus the upside of possibly winning in what likely is your only shot at the pinnacle of your profession.

    the logic or illogic of it all depends on your starting assumptions.

  • Maybe I just see this another way, by suggesting that McCain has the chops to be CinC and the experience to be President, Senator Clinton undermines his ability to argue that she DOESN’T. So the grounds for argument in the general move to the economy, where clearly Clinton can tear McCain to pieces (as can Senator Obama).

    And again, we all asking the Democratic candidates to focus on McCain, but everytime Clinton does, Obama’s supporters whine and moan that she’s slighting him.

    So take a deep breath Steve, stop complaining that everything is about Obama, and let Senator Clinton campaign against John McCain anyway she wants.

    If Senator Obama wants to point out that McCain is a forgetful old fool who confuses Shi’ia and Sunni insurgencies in Iraq, or a deceitful bastard who is trying to conflate the Al Qaeda with Iran to start another war, more power to him. Obama and McCain have rotten personal chemistry anyway.

  • Talk is nice, but it would be nicer for her campaign to actually stop the scorched-earth tactics too if they want us to believe the strategy is over. For the moment, I believe this was an effort to keep her newfound negatives down with low-information voters, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Maybe I’m a bit cynical, but I suspect a few superdelegates or higherups in the DNC told Clinton that if she wanted to stay in the sandbox, she had to play nice.

  • It’s a good first step, but I hope she keeps it up. Her recent history of sidling up to the right-wing conspiracy and promoting the Republican candidate need to end and end now.

  • The fact that such a statement is newsworthy and comes at this late date says a lot about how this primary has gone in the past couple of months. Let’s see if the campaign can walk the walk.

  • Lance @#3 said “we all asking the Democratic candidates to focus on McCain, but everytime Clinton does, Obama’s supporters whine and moan that she’s slighting him.”
    You mean like yesterday when Bill was praising McCain and Hillary again?

  • Don’t expect her to stop campaigning. What you describe as “scorched earth” is merely campaigning, something that every candidate has the right to do and would be expected to do if Obama weren’t dictating new rules.

    Notice that no one here is calling on Obama to address the high percentage of his voters who said they would vote for McCain. Notice that this is all about Clinton and not about the unwillingness of Obama’s people to accept whoever is nominated at the convention.

    Does this mean that Clinton is more interested in party unity than Obama? Looks like it to me, but it wouldn’t surprise me, given Obama outreach to crossover Republicans and Independents. He seems to think the party is whoever wants to vote for him personally.

  • Notice that no one here is calling on Obama to address the high percentage of his voters who said they would vote for McCain.

    Notice that neither Obama himself nor his surrogates have done anything to encourage his voters to consider McCain in the first place.

    Unlike the Clintons, who have repeatedly been praising McCain and denigrating Obama in the same breath, Obama has done nothing of the kind. There’s a reason Clinton felt the need to answer that question so strongly.

    The real question, Mary, is whether or not an appeal from Hillary herself can keep you loyal to the party, or are you even more invested in her personal ascension to the highest offices than even she is?

  • Notice that no one here is calling on Obama to address the high percentage of his voters who said they would vote for McCain.
    Last I looked, Hill’s supporters are 10 percentage pts higher to go to Mclame. Hill knows her unfavoribles are up over 50%, she has to dail it down. She just has bill doing her dirty work again.

  • Mary,

    You’ve said repeatedly that you would vote for McCain if Obama was the nominee, but Hillary is asking you to reconsider.

    You’re insulting Obama by falsely claiming that he has no interest in party unity, but you’ve failed to directly address the topic at hand: would you listen to Clinton and reconsider your support of McCain when Obama is the nominee?

  • Notice that no one here is calling on Obama to address the high percentage of his voters who said they would vote for McCain. Notice that this is all about Clinton and not about the unwillingness of Obama’s people to accept whoever is nominated at the convention.

    Mary, Obama goes out of his way to compliment Clinton often, and always seems to introduce any criticism of her, or response to her, with noting that their policies are NOT that far apart (unlike Hillary) and that she would be a vast improvement over Bush or McCain and a qualified, effective President.

  • The supers/party leadership probably told her to stop or they would prevent her from having any chance of getting the nomination

  • john said: “Lance @#3 said “we all asking the Democratic candidates to focus on McCain, but everytime Clinton does, Obama’s supporters whine and moan that she’s slighting him.”
    You mean like yesterday when Bill was praising McCain and Hillary again?”

    Yep, if the Clintons are trying to put Hillary on the same level as McCain, then attacking McCain on POLICY and not ability, that’s fine by me.

    And not mentioning Obama is just what you want? Right?

    Nope, clearly to you any mention of Obama is a slight and any failure to mention Obama is a slight.

    Last poll -I- heard 20% of Obama supporters would vote McCain over Clinton and 20% of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama. I think Obama needs to say voting McCain is a stupid idea too.

  • Calm down, Mary. First of all, I’m really sick of the conventional wisdom that says politics is a low-down, dirty game and so it’s acceptable and, in fact, smart to play it that way. There’s a reality to that, but it’s also a rationalization. A lot of us are fed up with slime and recognize that it’s a distraction. When we allow the game to be played that way we end up making bad choices.

    Second, this is a primary, and opponents are not supposed to damage one another to the extent that it hurts their chances in the general.

    Third, anyone who votes for McCain rather than Clinton, should she get the nod is just as mistaken as anyone who’d vote for McCain if Obama wins the nomination. Hold you nose, take an antacid, whatever, but don’t play games with the future (think Supreme Court) out of spite.

  • Just to be clear here, Mary: according to that poll, 28% of Clinton voters would vote for McCain over Obama, while 19% of Obama voters would choose McCain over Hillary. That’s not a small increase by any means, we’re talking over 50% more Clinton voters would vote for McCain than Obama voters.

    This all begs a very important question: will you vote for Obama or McCain if Obama is eventually confirmed as the official nominee of the Democratic party, and will he have to apologize for his campaign against Hillary in order to get that vote? You don’t seem to think Clinton should apologize for her campaign, so should Obama?

  • Talk is like darkness; they are both cheap, and those who seek only for self at the expense of all else prefer things that are cheap. Clinton’s actions over the past several weeks have demonstrated this, and her “words of wisdom” are little more than shallow rhetoric until she demonstrates meaningful action to match those words.

    Right-wing talking heads will not invest one drop of their airtime to “unify” the Democratic Party. A good “first-step action” would be for the Clinton machine to stop patronizing the likes of Greta and Rush. Otherwise, all this talk of united support only applies if Hillary is the nominee.

  • So Mary, how does it feel to have Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and Richard Mellon Scaife as supporters of your candidate? Doesn’t it make you wonder about whether there are any scumbags Clinton wouldn’t ally with? Just a little bit? Or is there nothing you wouldn’t believe if your cult leader told you it was true?

  • I agre with Mary that Obama should also stress to his followers that voting for McCain would be extremely stupid, no matter how they feel about Clinton.

    Her other point that “scorched earth is merely campaigning” is rubbish.

  • Anybody like how well McCain’s surge is working in Baghdad and Basra this week?

    Hillary came out against voting for McCain yesterday, which she has done publically numerous times, however the consensus seemed to be that she was promoting voting for McCain over Obama should he win. Her campaign claims she was merely pointing out what appears to be an experience gap, any other point of view was interpretation by Obama friendly media.

    Speaking of which, Chuck Todd was on Morning Joe today and declared that much of Obama’s positive public image is due in part to the media’s positive coverage of him, and negative coverage of Clinton.

  • This behavior strikes me bit like Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome. Hillary is complicit in driving a significant chunk of her supporters mad with her consistent praise of McCain and baseless denigration of Obama.

    Now she wants to swoop in and be a hero (sorry, I highly doubt altruism as motive) and be seen as a party uniter when nothing she’s done over the last several months has given that indication.

    Add me to the crowd of ‘wait and sees’ and if she really cared about party unity, she’s drop out and support the nominee already.

    Lance,

    Where is your link on that poll? There is a link in the article for the Gallup poll that puts ‘Clinton or busts’ at 28% and ‘Obama or busts’ at 19%.

  • And while that speech went on, another five or six extortionate letters got sent out.

  • I’m not going to go and find the comment from yesterday, but someone aptly noted that about 50% of people supporting McCain in the 2000 primary were so disgusted by Bush’s tactics that they said they’d cross over in the general. Does it look like that happened?

    1) I’ve been aching for Obama to address this with his supporters for a while. I’m shocked and pleased that Clinton went after that problem first. However, I do agree with Steve that Clinton needs to stop patronizing the Conservative douches who are only interested in the complete destruction of any Democrat running for office.
    2) I think it’s also notable that some of Obama’s supporters are still crossovers from the Republicans and Indies that have been fed Hillary-hating with their oatmeal every day, the type of people who wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstance. I’m still curious to see a study on the demographic of these so-called defectors. Age, gender, race, party affiliation, state residence, favorite superhero, etc.

  • Actually, it seems that Obama gave an interview on ABC yesterday saying there may be “some bruised feelings” but there are only small differences between him and Hillary and all Democrats need to unify around the eventual nominee.

    Obama made a similar point Thursday in an interview on ABC’s “World News.”

    “There are going to be some bruised feelings, whoever the nominee is. We are going to have to come together and remind ourselves that there is a heck of a lot bigger difference between either Senator Clinton or myself, and John McCain,” Obama said.

    He said the protracted contest would not harm the party in the long run.

    “I think short term, there is going to be work to do for the nominee to bring the party back together again. People feel pretty passionate about their respective candidates. I appreciate that, and I understand it,” Obama said.

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/27/clinton_obama_predict_eventual_unity/

    I suspect his statement is getting less press than Hillary’s almost identical one because — unless you’re Mary — people realize there’s been a higher percentage of Clinton people threatening to vote for McCain over the Democrat (28% compared to 19%), there have been more instances of her camp praising McCain, and — most importantly — the idea that Obama won’t be the Democratic nominee and his supporters might have to choose between Clinton and McCain is almost entirely hypothetical at this point.

  • I suspect his statement is getting less press than Hillary’s almost identical one because… -TR

    Obama hasn’t spent the last several months praising McCain and spreading lies about Clinton.

    From Obama, it’s standard fare. It’s only surprising, and therefore ‘newsworthy’ when Clinton says it.

  • These are the first positive words that I’ve heard come out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth in months. MONTHS.

    She’ll perform significantly better in the remaining primaries if she starts acting like a Democrat again and also begins to behave like a person who values truth and honesty.

    One can only hope.

  • Maybe we could take a cue from the candidates playing nice and not pile on Mary on this one. Give her a chance to *listen* to the best thing her candidate has said in some time.

    Senator Clinton, thanks for stating the importance of electing the eventual Democratic nominee… please keep this thought in mind when you campaign.

  • doubtful — I NEVER said I would vote for McCain, nor would I under any circumstances. I said I would vote for Nader or Greens or Peace and Freedom, or perhaps not vote, but I NEVER, EVER said I would vote for McCain.

    When you talk about honest mistakes as if they were lies, you malign a person. I am assuming you made an honest mistake about my previous statements and are not lying to mischaracterize me and other Hillary supporters in this blog. This is a case in point about how easy it is to get confused and misspeak, illustrating the memory-related charity we should accord our candidates when they are talking about the past.

    I vote for the person who I believe would be the best president. That will not ever be Obama because he is too inexperienced and is, in my opinion, a charismatic empty suit who will have little chance of winning over McCain. I will not vote for just any Democrat in order to “heal the party.” I will vote for the person who I would like to see become president. That will not ever be McCain. I may vote for Clinton as a write-in, or perhaps even write-in Gore, or maybe I will just stay home. There are a lot of options besides Obama and McCain. I haven’t decided because that isn’t the decision I am confronted with today — since the nomination process is far from over.

  • Whatever the Clintons say (and they’ll say anything they think will advance them), they behave according to the Tonya Harding strategy. I believe we can beat them in spite of that, but the damage they can do, up to and through the convention, is (and already has been) great.

    Nixon’s campaign manager, Murray Chotiner, believed you don’t enter a campaign to win. Rather, the your goal must be to so destroy the opposition the they will never raise their political head again. That strategy worked in every election except “the new Nixon”‘s attempt to become CA governor, the only time Chotiner wasn’t on board. Nixon left a number of very good politicians in the ditch along which he rode.

    When you battle monsters, it’s hard not to become a monster yourself. And there’s less recovery time now that the convention is much closer to voting day.

  • It doesn’t matter what you say, Mary. A vote for Nader or the Greens or a write-in is a vote for McCain.

    Amen to that.

    Anyway, Mary says she lives in California, so it’s a moot point.

  • Mary, as Ed Stephans said above, a vote for anyone but the Democratic nominee is a vote for McCain. If Obama is the nominee and you vote for Nader, you’re are a Republican. Even worse, you’re not a Republican out of choice, you’re a Republican purely out of spite. Bravo!

    Hopefully, you won’t need Roe v. Wade still in place, or need to live in a country with a functioning economy that’s not in perpetual war. But at least you can feel good about yourself. And let’s just hope neither you or anyone you care about is of draft age once the draft is reinstated for the war with Iran. But at least you’ll have your principles.

    It’s not the Democratic candidate’s or the Democratic party’s job to satisfy your narcissism, it’s your job to vote for the good of the country.

  • Though it sort of makes my skin crawl to take the side of anyone as dishonest and irrational as “Mary,” I have to offer a conditional defense of her position here.

    Context matters. If she’s a resident of a state like Illinois or California or New York, it honestly doesn’t make any difference whom she votes for. If she resides in Ohio or Pennsylvania or Florida, it matters very much.

    Barring a complete 180 in the conduct of her campaign (and, admittedly, this repudiation of McCain is an encouraging step), I won’t vote for Nixon-in-a-Pantsuit, should she manage to take the nomination by politically killing her rival and crawling over his figurative corpse. I think Sam Power was absolutely right in her characterization of the Clintons.

    But I live in one of those deep-blue states which she’ll win anyway if she does get the nomination. Were I in one of the swing states, it would be a much, much more difficult call, and I suspect that after six months of calls to put party and principle over personality, I’d ultimately hold my nose and vote for a candidate I detest because of the Supreme Court, staffing of the executive branch agencies, etc.

    Choosing between lesser evils is always a close call, but ultimately the good of the country should take precedence over one’s own self-righteousness. (And as Democrats, we generally have a lot of painful experience in doing this anyway.)

  • I NEVER said I would vote for McCain, nor would I under any circumstances. -Mary

    I am assuming you made an honest mistake about my previous statements… -Mary

    It was a mistake, and I’m sorry. Not that Nader is any better than voting for McCain, though. It’s essentially voting for McCain, but without the guilt.

    This is a case in point about how easy it is to get confused and misspeak… -Mary

    Sure, but it’s not like I was lying about being under sniper fire. I misremembered who you said you would vote for (Nader) as McCain, but the end result is still the same. You plan to vote for a non-Democrat with absolutely no chance to win. McCain thanks you vicariously for your support.

    There are a lot of options besides Obama and McCain. -Mary

    There are no realistic options besides Obama and McCain, should they be the nominees. You know full well one of them will be President in 2009 and not voting for the Democrat may as well be a vote for McCain. I guess 2000 taught us nothing and there’s no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

    I vote for the person who I believe would be the best president. That will not ever be Obama because he is too inexperienced and is, in my opinion, a charismatic empty suit… -Mary

    In what twisted world do you live in where Nader is more qualified than Obama? Which elected offices has Nader held? Does he have any special background in Constitutional law? I’d really like to see, because I don’t believe it exists, a reasonable explanation of how Nader would be a better President then Obama.

    He’s 74 years old, and most of his relevant experience came in the 1960’s when he worked for Moynihan. I certainly appreciate some of what he’s done in the past, but he’s an out of touch egoist with very little governing experience.

    Yet you can support him with a strait face and call Obama and empty suit. Hell, it would be better if you supported McCain. That would just be vindictive. Voting for Nader is vindictive and absurd.

    And all due respect, your opinion of Obama is dishonest. You’re entitled to it, of course, but not to your own facts. Obama is not an empty suit, and that is a fact. He has a history of experience you choose not to see. You may feel Clinton is more qualified, but repeating the ’empty suit’ talking point is beneath any reasonable discourse.

  • Actions speak louder than words…….and as long as she and her campign keep playing the good cop/bad cop routine with Obama in the press; I will reserve judgement of the veracity of her statement.

  • My opinion of Obama is not dishonest. I lived in Chicago and was involved in community politics there. I’ve met Jessie Jackson, whose Rainbow Coalition was actually inclusive, so I know what kind of politics Obama has played as opposed to the kind he could and perhaps should have played. I know what it takes to succeed politically in that environment, so I know exactly why he attended Wright’s church for 20 years and why he has loaded his rallies with black celebrities, while claiming to be a victim of racial politics. That is dishonest, in my opinion.

    I do not consider two years as a Senator sufficient experience to become President of the USA. Obama’s dealings with Rezko, his acceptance of money from major lobbyists (no different than Clinton) and his identity politics stink. Nader does not have the experience Clinton does, but he is also not bought and paid for by anyone and he has progressive credibility that Obama lacks when it comes to domestic issues. I do trust Nader when it comes to social security or health care, but I don’t trust Obama. I do trust Nader to end the war, but I don’t trust Obama. You selectively interpret certain actions of Obama as support for your preconceived image of him, but taken as a whole, Obama is a people-pleaser, satisficer, conciliator who will not do anything to alienate entrenched interest groups. His handling of the Wright situation makes that obvious — can’t alienate his black supporters but can’t alienate whites either, so he tries to walk the middle ground which is untenable for anyone who expects actions and principles to be congruent. No one can say that about Nader. Further, you might consider it a historical good that Obama is African American. I consider it a historical good to vote outside the two-party system and to send a message to the major parties that they neglect their duty to the little guy only at their peril.

    I cannot bring myself to vote for a less qualified male over a more qualified female candidate. If both candidates were white males, no one would be supporting Obama. If Clinton didn’t have baggage and Obama were not a charismatic speaker, this race wouldn’t be close at all. If the media had done its job, this race wouldn’t be close. The fact that Obama is black aggravates the situation because I do not believe that progress for women in this country must come only after the aspirations of all other oppressed groups have been met. Clinton is so clearly more qualified that this trumped up enthusiasm for Obama comes across as a shameful attempt to evade full political participation by women in our representative democracy.

    You Obama supporters seem to get frustrated with me because I choose to disbelieve the self-serving propaganda Obama wrote in his book and in his campaign materials. It is not dishonest to weigh the type of evidence presented and its credibility. I know there are a lot of newbies to politics in Obama’s camp, but you’d think no one had ever heard of critical thinking over there. Anything he says seems to be accepted at face value, including all the specious criticisms of Clinton. Sheep say Oh-BAHHH-ma.

  • Sometimes I think we should implement a rule that only citizens from the ten states and territories yet to vote get to comment on any thread in the whole Obama/Clinton thing.

    I’ve already voted. I’ve already said I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who gets it (even Gore).

    Hey, let’s have more threads on McCain’s idiotic economic and foreign policies!

  • I lived in Chicago and was involved in community politics there. I’ve met Jessie Jackson…so I know what kind of politics Obama has played… -Mary

    You are claiming that residency in a city and a meet and greet with Jackson has granted you some sort of special insight into Obama’s past, and in the same breath argue that Obama has no experience. You want us to accept that, with no evidence or supporting facts, that somehow Obama is guilty of dirty politics because of the expertise garnered from living in Chicago? Please.

    I do not consider two years as a Senator sufficient experience to become President of the USA. -Mary

    But a couple more years changes everything? Let’s be honest. Clinton and Obama are both blips on the ‘time in the US Senate’ radar. Unfortunately, and you should know this because, after all, you lived in Chicago, Obama has held other elected offices. Clinton, however, has not.

    And experience aside, Nader won’t be president. Not now, not ever. So you can laud his policy positions all you want, he’s not a player in the game, other than possibly a spoiler, but I even doubt that after the Florida fiasco of 2000. Some progressives learned their lesson then.

    I consider it a historical good to vote outside the two-party system and to send a message to the major parties that they neglect their duty to the little guy only at their peril. -Mary

    No one will get your message. The line was disconnected. Helping put McCain in office to send a message isn’t worth it, anyway.

    I cannot bring myself to vote for a less qualified male over a more qualified female candidate. -Mary

    It’s you opinion that he’s less qualified. I happen to think his experience is more suited to being a productive President than hers.

    If both candidates were white males, no one would be supporting Obama. If Clinton didn’t have baggage and Obama were not a charismatic speaker, this race wouldn’t be close at all. If the media had done its job, this race wouldn’t be close. -Mary

    Channeling Ferraro now? Nice. Anyway, I tried to read this a few times, and all I kept getting was ‘blah, blah, blah, blah…’ The circumstances of this race are what they are. You can wax poetically all day about hypotheticals, but it changes nothing.

    And when you insinuate that Obama only garners support because he’s black or male or articulate, you insult me and everyone who support him because of his issues and his approach. I started this race a Dodd support. Was it only because he had white hair? Probably, in your twisted world.

    Clinton is so clearly more qualified that this trumped up enthusiasm for Obama comes across as a shameful attempt to evade full political participation by women in our representative democracy. -Mary

    Oh please. Resorting to calling all Obama supporters misogynists? Give me a break. Absolutely pathetic and especially insulting to women who have chosen to support Obama. You must really get past the gender and race issues that have so obviously clouded your judgment. I find this line of attack disingenuous and nauseating.

    You Obama supporters seem to get frustrated with me because I choose to disbelieve the self-serving propaganda Obama wrote in his book and in his campaign materials.

    No we get frustrated with you because you say crazy things like Obama is an ’empty suit’ despite the mountains of evidence otherwise. I know I wouldn’t, and I don’t think most of the Obama supporters who comment would have an issue with you explaining why you think Clinton is more suited for the job. But when you insult the candidate we have made an informed decision to support and denigrate and belittle his years of experience you also insult us.

  • Mary, says…”If both candidates were white males, no one would be supporting Obama.” By that metric, no one would be supporting Clinton either. The fact is that being a woman and being bi-racial gives both candidates something for the voting public to think about and attract over the “typical” white/male candidate.

    You state, “.. If Clinton didn’t have baggage and Obama were not a charismatic speaker,”, well, sorry, but thats what the situation is and you cant change it now.

    As to “critial thinking” or the lack thereof, well people have different life experiences that they use to weigh the evidence at hand and right now Clinton seems to be lacking; and no amount of denigration (newbies to politics) or other such nonsense to make excuses for her performance will change this.

    I voted for Bill, both times, and was proud of my vote. I abhored what the republicans tried to do to him and what they actually did to the country as a whole; but she is not Bill and needs to stand on her own merit. And she does have plenty of merit. Unfortunately, with everything that has happened in the last year, the deal has soured. As for me it’s the mcbush-lite aspect of her that disturbs me most, but not to worry, if she becomes the nominee, I’ll vote for her because I really care about what happens in this country come January 20, 2009.

    So, now, who’s self-serving…

  • If Hillary Clinton hadn’t shared a bed with Bill Clinton (at least legally…), nobody would take her seriously as a presidential candidate. She’s led on exactly nothing in the Senate. Her next act of political bravery–unless you count brazen dishonesty in the face of videotape to the contrary–will be her first. She’s a pedestrian campaigner and, given her embrace of the likes of Scaife, seems to be as entirely unprincipled as those she seeks to condemn.

    It isn’t that she lacks strengths–through February, every time I saw her in a debate or doing a town hall where her command of policy detail was on full display, I felt better about her as a potential president. But for five weeks now, she’s been relentlessly negative and directly harmful to the cause of her party. That’s unforgivable.

    That this woman, advanced to her once-“inevitable” position largely by marriage and remaining politically viable by her own loudly proclaimed victimhood, is somehow the champion for the legitimate grievances of millions of women pushing back against sexism, comes close to the definition of irony.

    The Clintons are world-class polarizers; in the end, they always want to force you to support them as a means to resisting something worse. Some of us want to try a different approach to solving the problems of the country. Believe it or not, we aren’t “bamboozled” or “tricked” by Obama; we see the flaws in his character (arrogance and too-high self-regard) and the risks of his approach. We are willing to admit he might turn out to have the naivete of Carter rather than the political mastery of FDR or Reagan.

    But we also see his uncommon excellence of intellect and temperament (equally important characteristics for the job; Hillary has the first but is painfully lacking in the second). We appreciate his freedom from past orthodoxies in which Clinton seems to be trapped, and the interest groups to which she instinctively defers (teachers’ unions, bureaucrats, big-money donors) because that’s how she knows the game to be played. And we recognize his potential for transformational progress in the face of huge problems we pretty much know the Clintons, in their perpetual fear of condemnation by Responsible Beltway People, won’t even take on.

    To my original point, though, so long as you’re not in a swing state, be as self-righteous as you want.

  • It’s not what you say that matters it’s what you do.
    Point # 4 is what’s most disgusting for me ( When Clinton attacked Obama on Jeremiah Wright yesterday, she did it at an editorial meeting of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the vanity publication of Richard Mellon Scaife, while sitting next to Scaife himself)
    How in the world would you sit down with the same people who tried to destroy you in the 90’s?
    Rev. Wright was there for the Clintons during their Monica-gate saga.
    What a disgusting thing to do.

  • It’s so weird to think that, assuming Obama wins the Dem nomination, come November Hillary herself will walk into a little booth and punch the ballot next to Barak Obama’s name, YET some of her most ardent followers, who trust and defend her judgement fiercely, won’t follow her request to do the same.

    Are you suggesting that she has bad judgement?
    Bad judgement on such a crucial topic as who to vote for In November?

    This all holds true for Obama supporters too, if HIllary wins.

  • I, for one, will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. I believe the racial tension will increase if Obama is the nominee and/or president. I don’t believe that he would have left his church if Rev. Wright didn’t retire. He has been making these statements for a decade. Only now, Obama is running for president. He doesn’t fool me. I was never a big fan of Oprah either. If she was so concerned about America, maybe she should build nice schools in Chicago so the local government doesn’t have to escort students to school.

  • I will not vote for Obama, if he is the nominee. I would rather vote for McCain instead. I have not heard the meaning of the word CHANGE yet from Obama. I think if we vote for Obama, only Change will be Change in our pocket.

  • I am not changing my mind because of Sen.Clinton. I am changing my mind because of Sen.Obama.

    I am a 50 year old white women . I remember when I was young I heard very negative things about the black race. My sister was older than me and attended high school. I remember my parents where afraid to let her go to school because riots would break out at the high school all the time. My sister graduated by the time I went to school about 6 years latter. Things had changed when I went to high school. I had many friends some white and some African American. The conversations in my home changed also. We learned that all people no matter what their race where was just trying to go to work and feed their family’s. Most people not all -have learned to like each other and play well together. How many times have we heard the expression-I have a friend who is black or I have a fiend who is white or gay or ect. Well, some how by all our mentors in our life we were taught to get along.

    There are some people who are never taught this and they continue to rage war against the races. White and African American alike. They are called bigots! I would never listen to a bigot.
    There are some people who hate the gay community and we all know the the list go on and on.

    Anger grows in the souls of some people and it begins when they are young.

    If someone like Colin Powell was running that would be great but someone like Sen.Obama who had a man preach like this to him for 20 years and he picked him for a spiritual adviser. We need a leader who wants to lead America and ALL HER RACE’S.

    I will for vote for Sen.Mccain

  • I do not care what everyones says but, if it’s not Hillary Clinton –

    OBAMA will never get my vote – I rather vote for an experience mature individual than some kid that just took a walk in the park!

    PLEASE!!! COME ON NOW!!

    You are going to tell me that pretty boy OBAMA has more experience than Mccain.

    I hope Hillary does not listen to Obama’s big time backers and drops.

  • It seems to me like the Democratic party is being taken over by the radical side of it.

    If Hillary wants to campaign and if she needs to say things that hurt, specially OBAMA we live in a Democracy.

    So Hillary is suppose to play nice now for the sake of the Party. I am from Florida and My family is very upset that our vote will not count for whatever their reason is. And being penalize b/c we voted earlier is not justified for our votes to not count.

    Who do yo think most of us like here in Florida?
    Hillary Clinton of course!

  • I strongly support Hillary R. Clinton for President, and will never vote for Obama. The only choice if Clinton not the democratic nominee is to vote for whoever the republican candidate is. McCain is respected and liked by Clinton, and he has integrity, is a patriot and war veteran, and believes in God. Clinton has practiced faith in action all her life and her mentor is God. McCain’s mentor is God. Obama’s mentor and spiritual adviser is Rev. Wright, a man of hate and distorted theology based on race. I was at the rally in Hammond, IN, March 28, and waited almost four hours to see her, and it was worth it! I wish you could have seen and felt the love and enthusiasm of the people gathered in the civic center. She has solid plans for helping the middle class of this region, and all over the nation. Obama should drop out of the race. He’s unworthy to hold any political office. Millions of voters have voter’s remorse regretting ever having voted for him. The delegates have the responsibility to choose the best candidate based on the feeling of the people and information about candidates. Who would ever choose a candidate that refuses to wear the American flag, and who now puts his hand on his stomach because he was criticized for refusing to put his hand over his heart when the Star Spangled Banner is played or pledge to the flag recited? The man is a phony, and his book contains many lies plumping up his resume. He would be a danger to this country if he ever sat in the White House.

  • My note to Senator John Kerry: (I sent to him this morning)

    Dear respected Senator,

    I am Jay Srinivasan and a long term resident of Masschusetts (over 20+ years) and a family of 5, who all are registered Democarts and all live in Masschusetts. During the 2004 presidential election, I volunteered for you fro few days , working the phones from Boston. However I am somewhat dissappointed to find out that you have now endorsed Senator Obama, which is your proorgative.

    However ever since you endorsed Obama, I started getting emails from him asking for donation etc.

    I gave my email address to your campaign and not to Mr.Obama campaign. I am dissappointed my email address has been sent to Senator Obama campign.

    Based on what I have seen thus far, I am NOT inclined to vote for Mr.Obama.

    Senator Obama talks about Change.. I have a nice job and my family makes nearly 300K per year and I don’t understand what CHANGE Mr. Obama wants to bring to my life. I am afraid if I vote for Mr.Obama, only Change I will see is the CHANGE in my pocket, since most my pay check will go for taxes. Mr. Obama has NOT clearly articulated, what is his position on Abortion,Economy, foreign Relations, policy towards Israel, Outsourcing etc. I am totally convinced he has no clue on what he plans to do once he gets elected.

    In spite of your endorsement as well the endorsement of Senator Kennedy and Govenor Patrick, still Mrs. Clinton won by double digitals in Massachusetts. She won in spite of lack of support from the ledership in Massachusetts. I am hoping that you will respect the will of the people of Massachusetts and vote for Mrs. Clinton during the convention as a super delegate. (No I am not part of Mrs.Clinton Campign). I am just an ordinary Citizen.

    Once again I am dissappointed your campaign gave my email address to Mr.Obama campign.

    If Mr.Obama is the democratic nominee, I would rather vote for John McCain instead of Mr.Obama, since Mr.McCain has more credentials than Mr.Obama.

    Respectfully submitted

    Jay

  • Jay,

    When writing letters to senators, try to:
    1. Use spell check.
    2. Have someone with a college degree proofread your letter.
    3. Not embarrass yourself.
    4. Understand that between Mr. and McCain or Mr. and Obama, there is a space.

    If your main concern is that change will come to your pocket if you vote for Obama, then you are moronic, since you should not be a Democrat to begin with. If you are worried about your alleged “300K” per year income (though with your spelling and grammar in a letter to a senator, I doubt it) being hit by taxes, then you are in the wrong party. Clinton and Obama are nearly identical in their stances on taxes.

    On a more informal note,
    Instead of whining like a little girl to your senator because your choice for president is losing (and assuming you are a democrat), be an adult and back the nominee of our party no matter who it is, especially since their stances and proposed policiesare so, so similar.

    • Comments are closed.