Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Jun
1
From last week’s online chat with the Washington Post’s Paul Kane:
Lashing out?: Why? I know that there are many out there who vastly prefer Sen. Clinton to Sen. Obama. I know they think that she’s more qualified and better-equipped to beat John McCain in the general election. I know they think that Clinton has been unfairly treated by the media and that the primary system is all screwed up. I’ve heard all their arguments. And I don’t doubt that they genuinely believe all of these things. My question, though, is this: What realistic outcome are they still holding out for?
Paul Kane: They want their candidate to win. I’m not sure they know how that outcome would occur, but they want Clinton to win, it’s that simple. If Obama was losing this campaign by just as narrow a margin, his supporters would be just as upset. It’s important for Obama supporters to realize just how narrow a victory he appears to have pulled off, rather than running around the country acting like they blew out Clinton. If she had been semi-competitive in the post-Super Tuesday states in February — rather than losing them all 60-40 or worse — it’s highly possible she would be the nominee.
He is 100% correct:
“It’s that simple. If Obama was losing this campaign by just as narrow a margin, his supporters would be just as upset. It’s important for Obama supporters to realize just how narrow a victory he appears to have pulled off, rather than running around the country acting like they blew out Clinton.”
Hattip The Moderate Voice.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:34 pm June 1st, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Democrats, Elections, Hillary Clinton, Politics, WH2008
Comments
22 Responses to “Why candidates’ supporters hold out”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
But why does this, like everything else, have to be a zero sum, 100% or 0 % issue? They BOTH are better than McCain and they both, at some point, need to look to the best outcome for AMERICA, not for Clinton or Obama …..Even “true believers” of either can’t seriously think their candidate is the ONLY candidate that can be President. We have grown up as a country past that thought, haven’t we???
There will be a lot of people who given some space will be as grown up as you suggest. This has been close and some supporters (vs spokespeople) have said unfortunate things. You can also toss into the mix a certain amount of Republican trouble making, which might have been traditionally small change were this not such a close race with some potentially divisive themes.
Cults of personality are not addressable. Messianic thinking takes over and the opponent is simply evil for existing and any nonsense reflecting that becomes truth by definition of the messianic standing. Removal of the messiah is martyrdom and thus intolerable.
I wish there was a simple answer for the way we feel today regarding electing a new president. It’s been going on too long. The war seems like no matter who wins we’ll never completely be out of Iraq. More and more of us in the US see the middle class eroding..our country receiving less respect and our dollar heading south … Who in reality can tackle all the issues we face. We continue to feel and look like a nation loosing it’s place. Bipartisan politics are a thing of the past and without unity….we divide and conquer. Leaving us to question what will get done no matter who is in office? Lobbyist continue to rule the votes.. taxpayers have less and less spendable income with taxes and gas going higher and our future looking bleaker.
While we ponder there is no clear answer and we dam well don’t know who to vote for to better our country. If the party could unify maybe our choices would seem clearer.
My best,
Dorothy from grammology
remember to call your gram
grammology.com
This isn’t true for this Obama supporter. I was really torn about who to vote for in the Ohio primary but I went with Obama because his campaign felt less divisive to me. I want to move on and start thinking about what the left can do to win and I’m angry that we’re not yet united on this. And specifically, I’m mad that Hillary has played such an ugly campaign. From starting out a Hillary supporter, I now just want her to GO AWAY. I was lukewarm for Obama at the beginning of this thing but as time’s gone on, she’s done as much to push me away from her as he has done to win me over. In short, if the tables were turned, I’d be just as anxious for a resolution because even if my favorite candidate weren’t in front, I’d want to move on to the business of winning the election.
Politics is a messy business and outside interests frequently make things more difficult. Both campaigns have had scurrilous and specious charges brought against them and supporters on both sides have been willing to believe the worst without checking it.
I give as example – Obama flipping off Hillary.
From one camera angle it almost looks as though such a thing happened, another angle shot at exactly the same time shows index and middle finger stroking his face. It is stated as fact by Hillary supporters of the more extreme variety. The same can be said of the Clinton campaign, most of the “offense” wasn’t there. Both have made unfortunate misspeaks. Oh well – they will insist on being human and politicians.
are you high? either would be better than mccain (an american hero)? go back to 1968, jump in your volkswagon bus and drop some acid and say “groovy.” f**kin a**shole! obama hates your white guts – you idiot!!
This is what it’s about, folks. Either candidate. Give it some thought.
Volkswagon? Try 1963 Imapala SS409
Joe – you seem kinda new here but I’m getting pretty aggressive with the editing – no name calling or obscenity and vulgarity and profanity.
Btw, got some evidence re: “obama hates your white guts” – my guts are as blue as everyone else’s but you seem to have some concerns. Let’s hear them. Thanks.
1968 was an interesting year for party disunity. Odd choice there, Joe. Back in that day, I had a ’66 Mustang. No, I don’t think Obama hates my guts. As for Obama, I’m still performing a gut check of my own. Jill, hope yours are not blue. Bad sign of oxygen deprivation, strangulation, etc. kevin, some Democrats are now on their third choice of candidate and may have to think about this some, and I know any number that do not believe that either is better on McCain, just on the merits. As for me, I’m still thinking.
Uh oh – what color should my guts be? I know no one’s are supposed to be black or white, right? Red? I thought that means oxidation? Can you tell I have no medical knowledge?
Nice and pink regardless of the color of your skin. Bright red would mean inflammed, and that’s not good, either.
Piiiink. Ah – ok. lol Thanks, Lynda.
This has been a very odd beginning of the day! But good – I am smiling.
My pleasure. Thanks for the opportunity to flaunt my knowledge base.
Kevin – I agree with you, definitely. It shouldn’t be seen as zero-sum and they are both acceptable candidates. I think Kane was trying to draw some folks back to a middle ground, that’s how I read it.
Chuck, you wrote, “Cults of personality are not addressable. Messianic thinking takes over and the opponent is simply evil for existing and any nonsense reflecting that becomes truth by definition of the messianic standing. Removal of the messiah is martyrdom and thus intolerable.”
Yes – I can see how some followers are in this category of thinkers. I’m also seeing people say stuff that reminds me of 2004 – when Bush would say stuff about having a mandate and other words trying to characterize the win as representing so many more Americans than it did.
Likewise I see that in this primary and it drives me nuts. They are separated by barely 200,000 votes out of 17 million!!! That’s statistically not even significant. Now of course every vote is significant by itself, but you know what I am saying – it gives NO ONE a right to suggest that there’s “overwhelming” anything. That kind of talk makes me crazy.
Hi Dorothy!!
I couldn’t say what you said any better. In particular, you wrote, “While we ponder there is no clear answer and we dam well don’t know who to vote for to better our country. If the party could unify maybe our choices would seem clearer.”
EXACTLY. That’s been exactly how I’ve felt between Clinton and Obama – we don’t know who to for for to better our country – they have different styles, not really so much difference in substance. And it’s very hard to know which style is what we need – if we could even ever agree on what THAT is!
Have a great week and thanks for commenting.
Hey Dawn – thanks for reading and commenting.
I don’t know if you read my post that featured Ellen Bravo’s ten reasons why women should vote for Obama, but what specifically do you think of when you think of how he won you over?
how about the fact that in his book he speaks very highly of his father and during the rev. wright fiasco he threw his white grandmother (who help raise him) under the bus. his father was nothing more than a baby-daddy and this is the parent for whom he shows love? the one that bailed out on him at the age of two? he’s a freaking racist. read between the lines. black liberation theology? wtf is that? maybe it will be good if he wins – you can’t blame the man for keeping you down if you are the man. ninety two percent of the blacks are voting for him? they’re RACISTS. that means they discriminate against WHITE PEOPLE!! the super delagates are wussies. this is the very reason they exist – to overrule dumb a$$es who vote for a racist candidate.
so, you think the defeat of the Democratic Party would be a good lesson? Here you are.
I don’t know about a good lesson, Chuck, but I’m beginning to wonder if the Democratic Party isn’t working overtime to defeat itself. I;m still trying to find the rule that says that you reallocate delegates based on supposition. I wish the Party luck with the New Coalition.
The MI vote was so screwed up that the other alternative was to 100% sanction. The Clinton faction at the State Party level blocked caucuses which were the only altrernative in that state.
The blame for this mess lays directly on the State Party of Michigan who was responsible for the Primary in its State.
You keep igoring the fact that the State Legislature does not run the Primary. That is not an opinion, it is fact of Federal Law. Take your complaint to the State Party of MI, not DNC or Democrats in general. All DNC RBC did was to recoginize the decision the State Party of MI worked out with their best tools.
You want what you wanted, not what was right or proper or respects the States who stayed in line. OR wanted to move to Feb 5, DNC refused because our Vote by Mail ballots go out a couple weeks ahead. Our Primary was 5/20.
Well, Chuck, thanks again for showing me the error of my ways. Now I’d like for you to show me where I addressed what I wanted, who runs the primary, and/or the Democratic parties of MI and OR. What I asked was for the rule that applies to the reallocation of delegates. From your response, I assume that the answer is “there isn’t one”. What I would like to have seen was for Clinton’s delegates to go to Clinton and the uncommitted stay uncommitted. After all, it was Obama’s choice to remove his name from the ballot. I actually could have lived with the uncommitted going to Obama as I think everyone else’s name was on the ballot. I am, however, having one hell of a time picture how a committee of the DNC has a behind closed door meeting and decides what voters probably meant and removes delegates from one candidates and takes them to another.