A lot of Hillary's most vocal supporters claim that they're voting for McCain should Hillary not get the nomination. Can this really be true? I can't fathom how a group of feminists would be willing to allow McCain to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who will undoubtedly overturn Roe v. Wade. Or continue the war. Or continue a million other Republican projects. Is this a sadness and discontent that will dissipate in time? Will Hillary bring them around or will it take a Vice-Presidency for her to release them? What do you think?
Monday, June 02, 2008
Hillary's Supporters
A lot of Hillary's most vocal supporters claim that they're voting for McCain should Hillary not get the nomination. Can this really be true? I can't fathom how a group of feminists would be willing to allow McCain to nominate a Supreme Court Justice who will undoubtedly overturn Roe v. Wade. Or continue the war. Or continue a million other Republican projects. Is this a sadness and discontent that will dissipate in time? Will Hillary bring them around or will it take a Vice-Presidency for her to release them? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
From what I've seen on the news programs today, people don't seem to think that the dream ticket will materialize. To much bad blood for one thing. I worry about what might happen this Fall.
Even my sister, who voted for Hillary and has been extremely critical of Bush's administration, now says she hasn't decided how she'll vote.
I don't believe there will be many Democrats willing to carry on George W. Bush's destructive policies under his anger-management-challenged old designated heir, John "100 Years War" McCain. Any suggestions to the contrary, I think, are voiced out of frustration at Hillary Clinton not winning the Democratic presidential nomination. You're right, Patti, that it wouldn't make sense for anyone who believes in civil rights, women's rights, a sensible and quick conclusion to the lies-inspired Iraq war, and a balanced judiciary and restrained Executive Branch to cast their ballot for McSame.
I was an early Clinton supporter, and still believe that Bush's example shows that it would be good for the country to be without men in the White House for a few years. Or perhaps a few decades. However, Hillary Clinton has not proved to be the best woman for the job. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has shown himself to be an extremely smart, progressive-minded, and articulate candidate--a surprisingly serene politician who can show McCain up for the crude and ill-tempered, no-new-ideas, right-wing flip-flopper he really is. Clinton would have had a harder time establishing contrasts with McSame than Obama will have over the coming months.
I hope to see a woman U.S. president during my lifetime. In the meanwhile, I shall be happy to witness the nation's first African-American president being sworn in on January 20 of next year. That will really send a message to the rest of the world that the United States is ready and willing to change, and to be a team player again. You can already hear in his speeches that McSame wants to carry on Bush's go-it-alone-against-the-world policies, which got us into the Iraq mess. We don't need any more of that idiocy. And Hillary Clinton's supporters know that unless Obama becomes president, the country isn't going to get out of the hole Bush has dug for it.
Obama needs to spend the months between now and November acknowledging Clinton's contributions to this race, showing his policy agreements with her, and demonstrating that he can bury McSame in November. He has the stuff to accomplish all of that, I believe.
Cheers,
Jeff
It's just crazy that anyone could move from Hillary to McCain. That means they supported her strictly because she was a woman. Why do they blame Obama for her loss?
the idea that if HC doesn't get the nomination these folks would go over to McCain makes my skin crawl. It seems the nastiest of politics and the dirtiest of tactics, going "nyah-nyah, we hate you, so we're taking our bat and glove and going over to THAT side" seems the essence of "let's shoot ourselves in the foot because we're peeved" immature, snarky and ugly behavior. It's not what I heard at our leg. caucus back in April and i hope to HELL it's just hurt feelings that won't come out in the voting booth because if it is, JESUS, will they get what they deserve. Gack. Let's try to be adults with our franchise, shall we?
I have to admit that in the last few days I have seen some her frustration more clearly. But if it ain't gonna happen, she's gotta unleash her forces for good and not for evil.
Me, too, Andi. I'm trying to think of a comparable race. I guess when Kennedy didn't shake Carter's hand in eighty, that was close. But he never worked against the ticket after it was over.
This immediately made me think of one of the passages in Ethan Canin's AMERICA, AMERICA -- I'll quote it again because this is a classic example:
“The forgotten of this country have a consistent history of turning on their champions, and I suppose the way working men and women have forsaken the very politicians who could help them most speaks of the primacy of emotion in politics. Perhaps the great decline of FDR’s party, which was beginning in Henry Bonwiller’s time, didn’t come about because Democrats favored a logical argument over a moral one, but simply because they clung to the idea that either one mattered at all.”
The closest was probably the fighting between Reagan and Bush. Have we all forgotten "voodoo economics?" And they ended up being running mates.
I have a question, and I am sure there are some out there that will scream that I even dare suggest this might happen, but here goes; How many Obama supporters will probably not even vote, if he does not get the nom.? There will be some that will think that they/he were cheated strickly because of his race. Yes, that seems ugly, but the reality of politics is pretty ugly once you get past all the slogans.
Oh, I think if I were a black American Obama supporter and he was denied the nomination, I wouldn't vote. I couldn't help but see it as "the man" making it happen. And it is. So sad that these two minorities have been pitted against each other.
Lisa, great quote. Love Ethan Canin too.
I am a year or two older than Hillary Clinton and I am and have always been a radical feminist.
At first I supported Bill Richardson and when he left the race I switched to Barack Obama. (Before Bill Richardson did.) I never considered Hillary Clinton as a plausible candidate. She has not done anything to warrant serious consideration on her own merits. She got attention and a New York Senate seat for being married to a former U.S. President. And that entitlement led to a further sense of entitlement as a presidential nominee.
Her very public and repeated humiliation by her husband, which she chose to accept, shows a deep flaw of character. Her past subservient behavior regardless of the reason, is not the example I want my grand-daughters to think is acceptable.
I have to believe that Hillary's supporters who are threatening to go to McCain are not true feminists. They are disgruntled because they didn't get their way. And if they vote for McCain, that will be the proof.
Lisa, I love your quote.
Ann Arbor, Obama supporters not voting in November if he didn't get the nomination is no uglier than Clinton supporters not voting in November because she doesn't get it.
And I disagree with Patti. If I was Black and an Obama supporter and he didn't get the nod, I'd be doubly sure to vote in November just to remind the pols that the Black electorate is not going away anytime soon. There are plenty of third party candidates, if you don't like the first two choices.
We will get past this race and gender stuff. I am old enough to remember that John Kennedy's Catholic religion was an issue in 1960, and in 2004, Kerry's Catholicism was hardly mentioned.
I want a President who is going to shape a better America for my five (almost six) grand-kids. Race, religion, gender, political affiliation are just labels. Character is what counts.
On a lighter note, Patti, last I reserved A Tree Grows in Brooklyn at the library and as soon as I get it, I let you know so you can put me on the list for Forgotten Book Friday. should be this week or next.
Terrie
People say all kinds of things in the heat of the moment. By the time election day finally comes, people will have said all kinds of things, but they'll most likely vote rationally and for the candidate they think will do the least damage to the country.
Minorities have always been pitted against each other, it's the way of the world, sadly, very effective. The biggest challenge in all things is getting people to feel some sense of connectedness, some kind of 'we're all in this together.'
Been eluding us forever. Are we getting closer?
Terrie-you sound like my daughter, also a New Yorker who's watched Hillary as her senator. So it's not strictly generational.
Also my book group is reading A Tree in August. I hope it's as good as I remember now that I twisted their 12 (24?) arms.
John-Closer, maybe not. But at least we're talking about it some. Has to be a good thing in the long run.
Obama's speech today sure sounded like an invitation to take a Veep slot if offered. If the Clintons weren't such hacks, they would've already made similarly public overtures. Essentially the same policies, overlapping but distinct constituencies.
I don't get it either. I heard a Hillary supporter call in to a talk show today and insist she's going to vote for McCain "on principle" if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. What principle? I just don't get it, but people vote against their own best interests all the time, citing principles and/or values. In this case, I have to wonder if it isn't more sour grapes than principle, but maybe I'm wrong. Sigh.
Linda
I just hope it's the sadness of losing a long hard fight and Hillary will bring them back to the party.
Todd-but can they put their animosities aside? Will Bill step aside? Twp VP are one two many.
Since I remain convinced that Bill Clinton wants to be on the Supreme Court (and will accept UN ambassador as seond prize), I suspect he'd do what it took (his Nixonian long suit). As for animosity, I again draw our collective attention to Kennedy/Johnson, for that matter Johnson/Humphrey, and Reagan/Bush (as "Ann Arbor" also notes here mroe recently).
I guess it'll all play out soon now.
I hope so, too, Patti. Like Al Gore told Howard Dean four years ago, at this point, it's about the future of the country, not any one candidate. I know it's disappointing, but there are bigger things at stake.
Linda
pattinase (abbott) said...
I just hope it's the sadness of losing a long hard fight and Hillary will bring them back to the party.
"Clinton says she's open to being Obama's VP (AP)"
Who called it?
Not, mind you, that it wasn't like watching an anvil teeter and guessing it might fall.
Would you ask her?
Barack Obama all but explicitly did yesterday.
Well, let's see...she has a nationwide organization, she has that overlapping base of support and one might choose to Keep Your Adversaries Closer (you want a resentful HRC in a leadership role in the Senate?)...and if there's one thing she's proven, is that she's a dogged campaigner...damned straight.
I think that whatever (personality) qualms might arise, it makes more sense than to do otherwise.
Post a Comment