I recently posted a goodbye to the crazies in the Hillary Clinton camp but would like to see if my main thesis that it is a small slice of her supporters is correct.
For my Twenty-Three Percent theory to pan out, it means that Seventy-Seven percent of Hillary’s supporters need to be reasonable and rational. I have seen evidence around here by people I would have thought to be intractable previously.
I think the same thing about Barack’s people and even McCain’s people (though the percentages probably differ.) Every candidate will have those lusty fools who can’t seem to lay down their arms. I will admit to having been one of them on occasion, though less so when I started using my own name. That tends to make one more cognizant of their words. Internet time is a long time to live down things you have written that are stored in a database somewhere.
Really, my only question is this: Are the polls right? Are most of Hillary’s millions of supporters willing to vote for Barack should be become the nominee?
If that is the case, I want to ask you a favor. Can you post more often to counter the dipshits among you? Can you call those dipshits out if they continue to derail our efforts to move forward as a unified party?
I see more and more Obama supporters calling out our own nutjobs. We can make it a joint effort to clean things up around here.
Seventy-Seven Percenters unite!
I completely agree. I tried to post something earlier, but i did it wrong like a dumbass (see Blank post entitled “Clinton supporters: what is the end game?”)
A big part of this fight is the idea that the general is already cliched for the democratic candidate. Well, it isn’t. Obama could still lose the general. I would be pissed off, but if it was a fair loss, what the hell could I say?
the problem is that the 23 percenters never considered that Clinton could lose. to those that felt that way, we are now in the twilight zone. it is a nightmare scenario where they have lost the opportunity to be a sure winner. I am sure the 77 percenters have a laundry list of things that they can agree with Barakarate supporters were bad moves. for instance, If Hillary cared so much about Michigan and Florida, she would have raised hell before the pimary season started. I can venture to guess that this was due to the arrogance of her campaign people thinking “we don’t need those states anyway. We’ll have this thing clinched by super tuesday”
It’s too late.
Obama. Drank. Your. Milkshake!
I think Hillary has received terrible advice from extremely well-paid advisers since arriving at the senate.
There is plenty of evidence from early in Hillary’s development (and some of her first lady and senate causes) that points to a more progressive mindset than some of her votes would indicate. I actually think she succumbed to voting in ways that go against her natural grain in order to win political battles that never materialized. No politican makes these decisions in a vaccum.
Getting elected given her advantages coming into this race should have been a snap, but she relied on incompetent people while running against a formidable opponent. Though I don’t blame them for not anticipating the seriousness of the Obama challenge. No one saw it coming. Barack put together a team of professionals who redefined the game and was able to raise unprecedented levels of donations from 1.5 million voters.
I just hope the vast majority of both candidates supporters can come together to defeat McCain in November because there will be a ton of resistance from the system. It will take money and time and patience. The half of the democratic party who supported Barack isn’t enough. We need all of Hillary’s folks, too.
Her seventy-seven percenters are the only ones who can help make that happen.
I think that the issue for the Obama supporters is not whether Clinton supporters will vote for him in the end–I expect that they will–but whether they will be enthusiastic about it (maybe, maybe not.)
Note that I voted for Gore even though I thought he was an idiot, I voted for Kerry even though I thought he was stiff and boring, and I’ll vote for Obama, even though I am totally unimpressed by him. Just don’t expect enthusiasm from me–it just is not going to happen. And don’t try to fix blame for the lack of enthusiasm by accusing me of being old, or racist, or a dumb woman, or any of the other TV explanations for why people might prefer Clinton.
I actually would define your reasons or accuse you of being anything. I am also glad you would give Barack your vote. It is unrealistic to think that even enthusiastic Barack supporters are going hit the phones or the pavement.
However, I often wonder why he doesn’t impress some people, because prior to his candidacy I was pretty jaded as well. He also impressed my Boomer parents and World War II generation grandma and Gen Y brother. Our entire family is a committed group of cynics and skeptics who take nothing and no one at face value, though we always try to be fair and rational. Not always succeeding at either, but at least trying.
I came to supporting Barack after extensive research on his record and by reading his books and by watching him run this race. I think the fact that a 46-year-old black man named Barack Hussein Obama has damn near defeated one of the most powerful democratic brands in modern memory is nothing short of an f-ing miracle.
His candidacy impresses the hell out of me and everyone I know. None of us are all that easy to impress. How much more does he have to do in order to be “impressive” to you?
Would “not” define your reasons or call you anything. I hate not being to edit comments.
What’s the first part of the old saying, charty or something “starts at home”?
Please lay down your arms and stop the name calling. The use of “dipshits” is not helpful.
As I wrote in your last post, on two recent occasions, I sat next to Hillary supporters at our County level and Congressional District level conventions. I was almost child like in my waving of my Obama sign and stomping my feet, just as they in turn waved, chanted and enthusiastically followed the Hillary “pep team.” BUT, as I sat and talked with them I did (do) not have animosity toward them and, I believe, the same goes for them.
So, to the extent that I believe Obama has the qualities and skills to be a better President, our fellow Democrats may feel the same about Hillary.
They are NOT our “enemy.”
Let’s focus on what matters and be positive!
Sorry, Dave, but it is not incumbent upon me to not call a dipshit a dipshit.
You’ll notice I used the term liberally to apply to all dipshits alike, no matter who they are voting for. No one candidate has the corner on obnoxious supporters. I am personally deciding to ignore all such comments, but noted that it seems supporters of both camps should call out their more extreme brothers and sisters to account.
This blog wasn’t a call to them anyway, because they won’t ever vote for Obama. See the comment below.
The blog is a call to everyone else who can actually have civil discussions and can agree to move forward to victory in November. I agree that the vast majority of both candidate’s supporters will come together behind Barack once he crosses that magic threshold.
I also voted for Gore and Kerry. But I won’t vote for Obama.
In my view, Clinton is a sure winner in November. Just because she made campaign mistakes doesn’t mean Obama is a better candidate for GE. And while he’s got “the math”, the truth is that the math is the result of Clinton’s mistakes, not Obama’s greatness.
The very fact that Clinton continues in the race will ensure that voters in remaining states feel their vote makes a difference. That’s great for Democrats. I have more respect for Clinton because of this. I have even less respect now for Obama’s fanbase call for her to quit.
As far as I’m concerned, the party is energized and will improve its position in Congress across the board. They will be much stronger, more confident and more assertive in dealing with President McCain, so I’m not worried about his foreign policy, supreme court or other ideas.
With or without my vote, McCain will win. I have no intention of voting for Obama and I wasn’t the one to burn the bridges.
Just curious – who do you think was burning bridges? I’m an Obama supporter, but I don’t believe the candidate or his campaign has been particularly disrespectful, rude, or nasty towards Senator Clinton or her supporters. At least, no moreso than Clinton has been towards Obama.
The same cannot be said for all Obama supporters, and certainly some have been crude, misogynistic and insulting on internet boards. Just as some Hillary supporters have launched racist barbs at Obama. But neither candidate should be judged by the most extreme of their supporters.
Both camps have used pointed barbs at each other: Obama noted how the Democratic Party lost Senate and House seats under Bill’s administration; Clinton said that “certainly” John McCain crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, while implying that perhaps Obama has not. And there are other examples, I’m sure.
But don’t vote for McCain (or sit home) just because you feel Obama or his supporters have irreparably burned bridges. If you honestly believe McCain would be a better president than Obama, then that’s a valid reason to vote for him (although I’d still prefer that you stay home in that event).
But not supporting Obama because of spite or anger, especially if that anger would more justly be directed at certain Obama supporters instead of the candidate himself, would be self-defeating, and I hope you wouldn’t do that.
As far as I’m concerned, Obama himself has burned the bridges. He wrapped himself in soaring rethoric to drive up emotion in his supporters and he protected his weaknesses by undermining Clinton’s personal character and integrity.
Thanks for the calm reply, even though I sharply
disagree with your perspective.
Certainly Obama has sought to use soaring rhetoric. It is a powerful tool, and when used well (say, by F.D.R. in restoring hope that we could pull out of the depression) it can help move the country.
How would you say Obama has undermined Clinton’s personal character and integrity?
My take on his campaign is that he’s pointedly avoided throwing the sort of mud we would expect from the GOP if Hillary is the nominee. He has criticized parts of Bill Clinton’s record as president, and he’s criticized Hillary for her Iraq war vote, but I don’t recall Obama making an issue out of Hillary’s her past associates, nor do I recall him ever implying that McCain might be more fit to be president than Hillary.
Obviously your vote is your choice. And while I’ve not been thrilled by the tactics I think Hillary has used, that would not prevent me from voting for her should she win the nomination. While I think there are significant differences between her and Obama, and I can understand reasonable people will differ over whom they think would be the stronger candidate and better president (note those two don’t have to be the same person), I still firmly believe either would be far better than McCain. I hope that we could at least agree on that last point.
“…wrapped himself in soaring rhetoric…”
Ummm, welcome to politics and while you’re at it check out the Greeks and the beginning of it all. If you can’t soar in rhetoric then, well…wrong biz. Look at the ones who did versus the ones who couldn’t or wouldn’t – I’ll take my Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, JFK, RFK anytime.
We’ve really gone down the rabbit whole if we’re criticizing good speech-making in politics.
Why are you here – unless you have the soaring rhetoric to change our minds?
…hole – or guess whole is also appropriate.
“…McCain will win.”
What exactly are you making that prediction based on?
If you were a person who months ago thought that there was no possiblity that she could lose, maybe it is time to stop making political predictions.
Also, are you saying that someone who makes mistakes when campaigning is better than someone who does not?
I personally love watching any sport involving fighting and grew up boxing, taking martial arts, and playing fighting themed videogames in arcades. For me, this has been no different. Tyson lost to Buster Douglass because he underestimated him. Marvin Hagler beat Tommy Hearns because Hearns brawled instead of boxed. Foreman Beat Moore because Moore did not have the will to take that last shot and keep standing. Roy Jones Jr. got old. Whatever you want to call it, a loss is a loss. As Guile used to say “Go home and be a family man.” In a fight, you can always find a way to explain why the winner won or why the loser lost. If McCain wins and you sit out, I will not blame you. You have to ask yourself, however, did your personal feeling about politics contribute to a mindset that helped thousands more Americans die in the Middle East? That is just one of the huge issues at stake in this next election.
McCain and the GOP are now like a cornered animal, and right now is when they are most dangerous. Not voting is what made Kerry and Gore lose when the GOP was at it’s most confident. Now that they are afraid, every vote does count, because they will try to make as many votes as they can not count.
Honestly, imagine McCain is the Joker (Nicholson) from the Tim Burton Batman movie, and you are LT. Eckhart. Think about the future!
Perhaps that’s the difference between our views then. I don’t consider this nomination a form of spectator sport.
Lalo35adm: I hope you come back into the Democratic fold, and vote Democrat in November. Democrats need to unite, no matter what the Obama campaign or his supporters may have said.
What’s the deal with your avatar though? It looks like Barack as Lincoln. Is that what it is? But you seemingly hate Barack. I don’t get it…
I don’t think I’ll “come back”.
Even if Obama assures his GE win by picking Clinton as a VP, I will not vote for him.
You say this as if this is a new stance for you to take. Truth be told, you were against him from the beginning. Obama didn’t burn any bridges, you did.
“Even if Obama assures his GE win by picking Clinton”
Well Jason, chalk one up for the 23 percenters.
Lalo35adm: Again, what’s the deal with your avatar though? It looks like Barack as Lincoln. Is that what it is? But you obviously hate Barack. I don’t get it…
You don’t get it?
You see, Lalo35adm thinks that it’s Lincoln’s fault that Hillary lost the nomination. If he had never freed the slaves, she definitely would have wrapped up the nomination by super tuesday.
Clinton made the mistakes and Obama didn’t. This is, at the very least, one way he is better than her in a side-by-side comparison, isn’t it. Tired and worn out just as much as Clinton, Obama didn’t hallucinate non-existant sniper fire.
Yes, you did. You’ve just burned it. By not voting for Obama, you are embracing the party of Hoover, Nixon, Mike Foley, Larry Craig and Divid Duke, whether you like it or not. If you’re a Democrat, it’s your responsibility to build that bridge back.
You burn it, you build it.
I speak only for myself, but if that is the way you feel Lalo35adm, good riddance.
>>>As far as I’m concerned, Obama himself has burned the bridges. He wrapped himself in soaring rethoric to drive up emotion in his supporters and he protected his weaknesses by undermining Clinton’s personal character and integrity.
Well, that’s actually pretty soaring rhetoric itself and, as you say, doesn’t convey a great deal beyond emotion. Could you please provide specifics – concrete examples – of how Obama “undermined Clinton’s personal character and integrity.”
I have to tell you that I could provide quite a number of concrete examples of how her personal character and integrity were undermined …. but the actor in those instances was Clinton, not Obama. I’m wondering what I missed that struck you which, apparently, such force? I’ve been following this campaign pretty closely but I honestly can’t come up with an example of something such as you describe.
By my count you have now posted five blogs in a row to “call out” or otherwise draw negative attention to supporters of a candidate other than Obama. You at times have taken strides to say there are idiots in all camps, that you yourself have been idiotic at times. But you continue to make these posts, and comments within, to draw attention to others. To ask others to reign in their “crazies.” Where exactly is your post asking Obama supporters to call off their nutjobs? To ask Obama supporters to refrain from dancing in the endzone (as you know I believe you are in a not so subtle way)? To ask for Obama supporters to start directing their anger and frustration at McCain and the Republicans? If you truly believe your own words, if you truly think that there is blame to go around, then why so many posts directed outwardly? Any chance you might trying looking inward? Not just at yourself but also at those you might claim kinship with? Until then you appear to me to be just patting youself on the back with one hand and flipping off everyone else with the other. My honest un-snarkey opinion. You do not seem sincere to me. You still appear sanctimonious and obnoxious.
An honest if self involved assessment. Not a single one of any of my last five posts have even been directed at Hillary or her supporters. That is the problem, you guys think everything is about you. It’s not.
Yep…utterly insincere. What a shame.
All you do is continue to make my point for me that some people are incapable of taking all the available evidence and then coming to a reasonable and rational conclusion.
My poor, poor Jason…
That’s exactly what was done. All available evidence proves that you are simply an insincere, sanctimonious Obama supporter. Incapable of moving on.
No doubt, come November, come January even, you’ll will be in the same place. Spinning your wheels. Refusing to take care of your own house. Asking, no… demanding change from others while sidestepping it for yourself or those of your ilk.
Obama has been engaging McCain – but has to walk that tightrope of not dismissing Clinton ‘too soon’ even though she has lost. We have eggshells to walk on while you have the Party to walk on.
It’s that annoying closure thing – until she leaves – gracefully or not – there can be not goodbye to her and hello/goodbye to McSame.
What’s going to cause Obama to lose the general election if he’s the nominee is not Clinton supporters. It’s Obama, and more likely, his arrogant, self-righteous supporters.
He’s a very weak candidate. He lacks the support of the Democratic base, and has only gotten where he is by three things:
— a manipulative, Hillary-hating press
— college town Dems in caucus red-states
— crossover votes from Republicans and Independents, which– MSM propaganda aside– have helped him alot more then her.
That’s a helluva basis for a nominee. Obama hasn’t even carried one big blue state but his own!