Recent Comments
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
- Jill Zimon: Steve – thanks for the comment – I agree. Voters need to be allowed to...
- Jill Zimon: Anastasia – what you said.
- 10 Worst Places for Women to Work (4)
- Jill Zimon: @Dick thanks for commenting, no question – she is an expert in that regard.
- Jill Zimon: @Westwood – thanks for the comment – I apologize for the delay in...
- Zimon to Run as Coffee Party Candidate for County Exec and Synagogue, AJC, Ohio Bar & NASW President (10)
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
... - steve goldberg: I almost choked on my hamentashen!
- Jill Zimon: Hi Steve – have a good Pesach and great to know you are reading this still.
- Attn ODP: Step Away From the Pre-Primary Endorsement in Brunner, Fisher matchup (3)
- Jill Zimon: Adrienne – thanks for sharing that. I guess we’ll wait and see!
- Adrienne Deckman: Here is what I wrote to the ODP, for what it is worth: I am appalled at the...
- Mandel: Public’s frustration w/Dems will have more impact in states with “bigger Jewish populations” (4)
Print This Post
Jun
4
I’m not a Daily Kos reader but a WLST reader passed along this link and it is an excellent blog entry. I strongly recommend people read it.
Here’s an excerpt:
Yes I was a “Deaniac,” though I hated that term. However if it fit anyone, it fit me. Dean was the first candidate I donated to and I donated up to the legal limit (as a kindergarten teacher, that is a significant amount of money for me) I had spent most weekends and many weeknights tabling at farmer’s markets, running meet-ups, blogging, doing whatever I could. I even bought myself a plane ticket and went to Iowa for the first two weeks of the “Perfect Storm” I was smitten with the Dean campaign. I had even been selected as a Dean delegate for my district.
To say I was “emotionally invested” in the campaign is to put it mildly.
So even though Dean had dropped out of the race right before the straw poll. I was going and I was going to vote for Dean!
I had already cried my eyes out with my fellow Dean supporters and I thought I was getting ready to move on, but I wanted one last night to vote for Dean and since a lot of the people I knew from Lamorinda were Dean people I thought he might win the straw poll and I thought that might help me move on.
Her advice now:
So while I think the women threatening to vote for John McCain need to stop and think and get some perspective, and while I hope the super delegates stop this thing before Denver, and while I’m all for Obama at this point (and have been since Edwards dropped out) I think we need to cut these women some slack.
They are grieving. They have until November to work through this. Telling them to get over it and “fall in line” right not isn’t productive and isn’t compassionate. The super delegates need to “fall in line” this week, the voters can take some more time to grieve. It would help if there candidate is as gracious as mine was in dropping out, but if she isn’t then we need to be a little more patient with her followers. Wait until after the convention to start working on them. Even then take it gently.
Go read the whole thing and thanks to the reader.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:15 pm June 4th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton
Comments
19 Responses to “Former Deaniac gives great advice”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I read this diary at Kos and liked it, too.
It would be interesting to know how many of the bitter Clinton supporters, the ones who are threatening to vote for McCain this year, criticized Nader sympathizers in 2000. I’d bet there’s some overlap there.
Howard Dean?
From NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
Clinton said tonight she wants to take some time before making decisions and encouraged her supporters to e-mail their views. If they do, that would increase her bargaining clout with Obama over her future role in the campaign.
Several people close to her say she does want to be asked to be on the ticket — and would like to run as vice president.
They say she would need to sit down with Obama in private and assess his level of interest, but tonight Howard Wolfson says that will not happen tomorrow.
She will be consulting supporters and party leaders first, as she decides how to proceed.
Clinton will definitely stay in DC tomorrow. No plan to go to New York. And there are no planned meetings with DNC Chairman Howard Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“I’d vote for SpongeBob SquarePants over Howard Dean,”
Sponge Bob would have been able to soak up the tears,
Dean is also party to the party problems, he is the chairman, why bring him up?
Why did Hillary stay with Bill, why did the party make the guy who destroyed a very good chance at the white house a chairman of the party?
The GOP is smoking cigars and drinking scotch; dang so easy this time.
Jill: Thanks so much for posting this. I chose Sen. Obama as my candidate early in the process, so I’ll admit to some irritation at the Clinton Supporters Count Too organization. I saw them as petulant little children who were standing in the way of the “real” work to be done in advance of the general election, and I was frustrated that we had to deal with them at all. But this essay really puts things in perspective and makes me realize that I would have very, very similar feelings, and those feelings should be respected in anyone, regardless of their candidate of choice. I hope (and think) that Sen. Obama and his staff understand the mindset of these voters and act accordingly between now and November.
As a former Dean supporter, you can’t compare the two situations evenly. Yesterday Jim Dean sent out an email talking about the same basic theme, how when his brother didn’t get the nomination he was angry, etc.
As I stated on my national blog, it’s different. Dean dropped out sooner, the division did not exist to the level it did now and supporters on both sides were not treating each other the way we’ve seen happen. Nor was there any issues of sexism since let’s face it – no women were serious candidates.
Some very hard feelings were created during the course of this campaign that while it’s popular to blame Clinton for, it’s the voters who determined how long this primary process continued.
It’s easier for me since I was not a Clinton supporter from the beginning to look at this from a less emotionally invested position. However, there are those out there who are not going to come back and for those that decide they can find a way to support Obama? It’s extremely doubtful many of them will work side by side with some of the very same Obama supporters that bashed their candidate to help him win. Nor is it fair to state this is just about Clinton, many of these women have felt the Democratic Party has not treated them equally in the past so the Clinton scenario is not “the only” reason, it’s more of their final straw that broke the camel’s back moment.
Seriously how many of the hard core Obama supporters would turn around and jump on the Hillary bandwagon if it was reversed?
This belief that now that it’s over people will forget what they experienced and magically support Obama is almost comical. Even against all odds when a good number of these people knew she was not going to win? They still voted for her. So this is so not like what happened with Howard Dean.
Further, to be perfectly blunt, the more these women are told to “get over it” the less likely it is that will happen. People don’t turn off or turn on their support like a water faucet if they were truly connected to one candidate. It’s up to Obama and the Democratic party to provide valid reasons that these women should not walk away from the party if they truly want them back.
Keeping the U.S. Supreme Court from going completely over the edge (if it hasn’t already) is one pretty good reason.
Here’s something to consider: this person is writing as someone who was a newbie in politics when Dean ran and admits to being “emotionally invested” in the campaign.
One should not assume that “Hillary supporters” correspond to those demographics. Many have been the backbone of the Democratic party for decades and chose Hillary for clearheaded, unemotional reasons.
I’m an old white woman who voted for Hillary, but NOT because I wanted to “make history,” NOT because “OMG, Obama has a penis!”, NOT because I’m a “racist,” or any of the other lovely things being hurled at those who won’t fall in line and get on the Obama train.
I voted for Hillary because SHE WASN’T OBAMA, and therefore was the only reasonable choice left to me.
I’m not so much PRO HILLARY as I am ANTI-OBAMA.
It wasn’t always this way. His speech at the 2004 convention knocked my socks off too.
Then, this campaign happened and his true character began to reveal itself. At one point, I would have voted for the Dem nominee regardless. Now I’m not sure I can, or that I’ll ever be able to call myself a Democrat again.
And it’s not because I “grieve” for Hillary. See, I have no emotional investment in her whatsoever. I never really even LIKED her. It’s just that she became ANYBODY BUT OBAMA to me, the same way Kerry was ANYBODY BUT BUSH to a lot of people who thought he was a complete ass of a candidate, but he was OUR ass and our only hope to get rid of Bush.
The Democrats are running the country off a cliff again and I can only watch this incompetence play out so many times before I have to wash my hands of the whole thing. And I know for a fact that I’m not the only one who feels this way.
Personally, I’m sick to death of politics and politicians, and I believe they are responsible for the lousy government we have. See, politics is just a power game that has little relation to good governance. It’s all about the excitement of the chase, being on the winning team, conquering territory and all the goodies you can get your greedy hands on, being king and having admirers worship the ground you walk on. And when you get the key to that office, job one is keeping it. Hell, you don’t even need any real qualifications for the job, as long as you’re a good game player. Good governance never makes it to the top of the to-do list.
The Supreme Court argument is bogus. A Democratic Senate is supposed to keep a GOP President in check, by approving (or not) his appointments. And if they don’t do their job, then we’re not getting our money’s worth and somebody needs to be held accountable. If anyone even knows what that MEANS anymore.
In response to Susan: Edwards was my chosen candidate, and then, when he dropped out, I supported Obama. There are things about him I don’t like (e.g., he can be condescending, aloof, and glib sometimes), but I’m curious what bugs you about him.
The biggest issue I have with Hillary is that I think it’s fundamentally unhealthy for this country to have two families running it for 20 or 24 years. I still haven’t heard a good explanation as to why that’s OK.
Susan, the Supreme Court argument isn’t bogus. It means a lot who is nominated in the first place. I agree that the Senate should do a better job of screening people, but the fact is they don’t.
Marwood: the Kennedys are a dynastic family. The Bushes are a dynastic family. Bill and Hillary Clinton are a couple of hicks from Arkansas who have angered the power elite by worming their way into the game. They aren’t the establishment. No matter how many times the contrary is repeated.
And as far as the Senate doing a poor job of screening appointees, Obama liked Roberts and was all set to vote for him until someone told him it would be political suicide. I’ve never forgiven him for schmoozing with Rice and giving her a total pass during her SoS confirmation hearings–one of his first official performances as a US Senator left me very disappointed in him. He’s an unqualified and inexperienced candidate who would have a hard time getting a midlevel executive position in a Fortune 500 company based on his resume and the Democratic leadership thinks he should be running the country? Only because they’re looking at what they can get out of it.
He’s had a myth crafted about who he is that too many people are buying as nonfiction. There are too many questions about his judgment based on his longterm associations with shady characters. And what’s more, the facts are out there for anyone who wants to start connecting the dots. You don’t go from part time state senator to Presidential nominee in such a short time without having accomplished anything significant unless you have some pretty powerful sponsors. And if the media had been doing their job of vetting him instead of swooning, we might have an answer to the question: who OWNS Barack Obama? As it is, it probably won’t matter, because he’s given the GOP so much material to work with that he’ll be done in by the swift boats he doesn’t even see coming, and come election day, we’ll be saying hello to President McCain.
Susan, respectfully, Hillary and Bill do represent the establishment, as evidenced by their apparent belief that she was entitled to the nomination this time around.
Obama may be inexperienced compared to some, but Bill didn’t have a heck of a lot of experience when he became President, either.
Time will tell whether Obama becomes a good President, if he gets the chance. But a lot of people think he has great potential.
Is he my ideal candidate? No. Edwards was my first pick. But he’s better than McCain, by far, and, in my view, better than Hillary.
I have no doubt that he will get Swift-boated, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he loses to McCain. I’m already dreading the prospect that Ohio will tip the election to McCain.
All I’m saying is that if Clinton supporters stay home or vote for McCain, there are some very real costs to this country, starting with the Supreme Court. I know, too, that if the situation were reversed, and if Clinton were the nominee, a lot of Obama supporters would be staying home, and we’d be having a similar conversation about the relative merits of Hillary.
Marwood, ALL politicians suffer from entitlement issues. That doesn’t mean they’re “establishment.” It means they’re narcissistic. Think of establishment in terms of “old money” and “new money.” The Clintons are regarded as interlopers by the power elite that have been running things since long before the Clintons appeared on the national scene. The Clintons are nouveau riche. How dare they crash the party.
We the People get tired of being condescended to, and would like to think we have some actual say in how we are governed and who does the governing, but time after time we get thwarted and are after a while forced to face the fact that we are mere serfs.
Back in the day, I belonged to the “hope and change” wing of the party, and we managed to seize the process and nominate McGovern. That didn’t end well, you might recall, and progressives haven’t been able to claim many successes in the ensuing almost 40 years. The biggest success was two terms for Bill Clinton, with a little help from Ross Perot. Now, the Clinton legacy, our one bright (not perfect)spot, has been trashed by those who needed to trample on it in order to achieve the latest version of 1972. Except the delicious twist THIS time is that the “hope and change” candidate has actually been enabled and promoted by the moldie oldie power elite, those clever devils.
And I expect it to end just like 1972.
The Clintons certainly have money now and, to a lot of people, it doesn’t matter whether it’s new or old. Fact is, they’re rich. Obama’s relatively rich, too, just not “Clinton rich.” At least not yet.
Compared to the Bushes, the Clintons are nouveau riche. But to a lot of Obama’s supporters, the Clintons (and McCain) are the establishment. It’s all relative.
I agree with you that politicians are generally narcissistic. For me, it’s an uncomfortable realization that I probably wouldn’t like as people a lot of the politicians whom I support. Obama and Hillary both no doubt have huge egos. I don’t see a lot of humility there. The same goes for Edwards, too, I suppose.
I see the Obama supporters as simply wanting a better future, and that involves breaking away from the recent past (including the Clintons). Is there some naievete wrapped up in that? Sure, but there was with McGovern, too (as good a man as he appears to be).
And I don’t disagree with you that this could end up like 1972, with Ohio leading the way.
I just pray that doesn’t happen.
Obama could lose. But I don’t think Hillary stands a better chance of beating McCain.
Having money doesn’t mean you’re “establishment.” Remember, the establishment was pissed that the Clintons cracked the code and crashed the gate, and they weren’t going to let them do it again. No, the establishment picked a different horse to back.
I honestly would have preferred NOT to have been backed into a corner with Hillary as my only choice. But in the filthy world of politics, the most competent people and those with the most integrity don’t make the final cut. Hillary was merely the lesser of two evils for me. Is Obama a lesser evil than McCain? I can’t say with certainty that he is, and I’ve finally reached the limits of my patience with the party for putting me in this position AGAIN.
Even if by some miracle Obama DOES get elected, don’t expect anything to really change, because the same old people will still be holding the reins. They’re the ones who decide who gets to be king, and they make sure you remember who brought you to the soiree. If they let Obama win, it will be because they deem him useful to them.
“Personally, I’m sick to death of politics and politicians, and I believe they are responsible for the lousy government we have. See, politics is just a power game that has little relation to good governance”
says Susan.
Sure this is the Nixon-Rove model of enemies and no the politicians aren’t alone in responsibility – there’s a little matter of voters. You’re playing the game right now. I’m up to my ears in politics because I don’t like what you’re describing.
You veer from there to some model of old money Party hating the Clintons. There are a lot of people who don’t like the McAuliff/Clinton model of 50%+1 vote and top down management – they’re not old politics, this is a new thing and not very popular with the old hands. You’ve got your constituencies mixed up and your arguement keeps going around and around to make a point that you can’t get any political analyst to make. You can continue to make it, but the players in this little drama of a Primary make it wrong.
The Party – DNC – did not put you in this position, Primary vote did. You say you voted Hillary as lesser of two evils and turn around and say Obama is and you’re unhappy. I expect to have to chose from flawed human beings at best and make a measure of that. I don’t look for Saviours.
I should stop shaking the tree.
Interesting comments on which I have not commented.
Obviously I think what this person wrote has something to offer. I didn’t even know who Howard Dean was until AFTER the “scream” – never saw it, still don’t really get why it was such a big deal but know that my older brother was pretty devastated about the fall of Dean. I think my parents were into Dean too.
Thanks for sharing all the personal experiences from that time.
My shtick is frequently to try, emphasis on try, to imagine what it would be like if I went through and or felt like someone else – I thought, for this one person, she did a good job. I never thought she was speaking for everyone and I think there are plenty of examples of a broad range along the spectrum of disappointment and anger in comments throughout the last two or three weeks of blog posts about the Dem primary on this blog.
I think that’s important – to read about how others are reacting. Knowing it doesn’t mean you too have to feel that. But it is part of realizing that not everyone feels the same way, which should be obvious and often isn’t or is ignored.