Hillary Supporters unite part 2; no bashing please

[DISUNC]

HILLARY!

 

[JARNJ3]

I for one have no problem with our thread's visitors from other camps. If they want to come by and have a civil discussion I think that's great. I just don't like the laughing at us (with us is okay), cutting us down, or the Hillary bashing. There are plenty of other thread for that kind of activity. Most of us play nice until we're pushed.

Seconding this. We all have to come together at the end of this - and it will be hard to do if we feel disrespected.......

 

[JARNJ3]

Interesting article by James Carville:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e22ab770-1ab8-11dd-aa67-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Democratic divisions will be hard to bridge

ByJames Carville

Published: May 5 2008 18:20 | Last updated: May 5 2008 18:20

The contest for the Democratic nomination is being largely portrayed as an historic confrontation between the first ever electorally-credible African American and the first ever electorally-credible woman running for president of the US. That in itself is sufficient to warrant blanket coverage, consuming interest and at times hysterical commentary on what is without question an unprecedented contest.

However, all of the coverage is missing what is most fascinating about this race. It is not the biographies of the two remaining Democratic candidates, or the number of voters who have been energised by the primary process, but the way in which the rivals are erasing and redrawing the lines of demarcation that exist within the Democratic party.

Readers should keep in mind that in parliamentary, multi-party systems in which proportional representation allows parties to cater to smaller subsets of the electorate, contradictions exist mostly within the government. However, the US two-party system makes the parties so broad that it is all but inevitable that contradictions will exist within the parties themselves.

The contradictions within the Republican party are visible on the surface and, in the view of Democrats, have delightfully led to all manner of internecine hand-wringing. The evangelical Christian and social conservatives find themselves in a marriage of convenience (does this violate a marriage’s sanctity?) with economic conservatives, who in turn wonder about the single-minded obsession of the national security-focused conservatives. Consider it as the Pat Robertson Republicans versus the Rockefeller Republicans versus the Reagan Republicans. All represent different wings of the party and, as you might guess, a bird with three wings does not fly so well.

But the Democratic party, like any family, also has its own contradictions. Although the divide is less obvious, it is still significant and is a major factor (in addition to the talent and uniqueness of our candidates) in both the closeness and the caustic nature of the Democratic primaries.

There are two main parts of the Democratic party. The first and fastest growing is what I refer to (somewhat uncreatively) as “Party A” Democrats. Party A Democrats tend to be urban or suburban. They are traditionally better educated, white, more affluent, heavily female, socially liberal and reform-oriented. Examples are candidates such as Adlai Stevenson, Eugene McCarthy, Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean.

The other side of the party is a more broad coalition of working class people who are generally less affluent, less educated and look to the federal government to soften the harsher edges of capitalism. They tend to be either urban or rural. I refer to them as “Party B” Democrats. They favour increased funding for federal programmes from Medicare to unemployment compensation to subsidised student loans. This wing of the party has included labour unions, older voters, African-Americans and non-college- educated young voters. Party B Democrats have been much more responsive to classic “I’m on your side” Democratic rhetoric. Candidates from this faction include Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Bill Clinton and (uncomfortable as he seemed in this ideological space) Al Gore.

In the past, the less affluent, pro-government wing of the party has consistently won. But what makes this race so wonderfully complex and textured is that Barack Obama, an almost prototype Party A Democrat, reaches right into Party B and yanks out African-Americans – a group that makes up almost a quarter of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton, whose message is almost exclusively Party B, pulls a significant vote among older, educated white women, who most of their lives have been firmly in the Party A camp. Those who dismiss this as identity politics fundamentally underestimate the impact – an impact that could be felt long beyond 2008 – of this contradiction within a contradiction in the traditional factions of the Democratic base.

Underlying all of this is the inevitable game of electoral chicken that is almost certain to erupt at the conclusion of the contest. The winner, with help from the loser, is not only going to have to bridge the fissures within the party but also to find a way to re-embrace those racial and gender identity voters who now find themselves aligned with a new wing of the party. If Mrs Clinton wins the nomination, do the Party B African-Americans who have embraced Mr Obama’s campaign feel comfortable remaining in the party and voting for Mrs Clinton? Conversely, are the Party A, older, college-educated white women comfortable embracing Mr Obama’s candidacy after supporting Mrs Clinton so fervently?

Only time will tell and it is certainly not as simple or easy as it seems. When you consider that African-Americans make up slightly less of the Democratic party as self-identified evangelical or social conservatives do for the Republican party (about 25 per cent), you get a sense of how serious this could be for Democrats. One can only imagine where the Republicans would be without that percentage of voters, and the same can be said of the Democrats.

As President George W. Bush could tell you, it is one thing to call yourself a uniter, it is another to actually unite people. For the Democratic nominee, it is going to be one demanding, difficult job requiring an inordinate amount of patience and skill. But then again, that is what a president has to do.

The writer, former campaign manager for President Bill Clinton’s 1992 election, now co-hosts XM Radio’s 60/20 Sports and is a CNN political contributor

I've decided that if Obama wins the nom - I'll vote for him - but I am NOT happy about it. For the first time - I will be voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate........

 

[JARNJ3]

One more - before I have to go back to work......

This is from Ed Koch. And it explains the super delegate dilemma.

May 06, 2008
Will Voters Accept Obama's Explanations?
By Ed Koch

Tomorrow evening we will know the outcome of the Democratic primaries in two important states that could decide the political fates of Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In Indiana, a primarily white state, we will know whether white voters, who are close to 75 percent of the population of the U.S., accept Senator Obama's explanation of why, after first stating, "I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother," he now rejects Wright after Wright's appearance before the NAACP and the National Press Club.

Obama went on to explain: "The person [Wright] I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church.

"But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today."

He has not explained why he sat in the church's pews for 20 years without complaint.

Do voters accept his explanation on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" on May 4th, when he said: "Well, you know, previously, there were a bunch of sermons that had been spliced from a collection of sermons for 30 years. And that's not who I thought he was. That's not what I thought defined him. He's somebody who's a Marine, he's somebody who has served on city colleges boards, somebody who was a respected pillar in the community. And so I thought it was important to--for him to explain or at least provide some context for some of the things that he had said previously. But when he came out at the press conference of the National Press Club, not only did he amplify some of those comments and defend them vigorously, but he added to it. He put gasoline on the fire. And what that told me was not only was he interested in using this platform to continue to make statements that I fundamentally disagree with and that offend me, but also that he didn't have much regard for the moment that we're in right now here in the United States where we can't be distracted or engaged in this divisive, hateful language."

Or, do voters believe, as some do, including me, that Obama cut his ties with Wright because of Wright's attack on Senator Obama in which he made clear that Senator Obama, in his opinion, was like every other politician, a hypocrite who is willing to say whatever will get him elected? Wright said at the National Press Club on April 28th, "We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected. Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors."

The interview with Tim Russert, regrettably, did not touch that area of their disagreement.

I believe that, if he is the Democratic candidate for president, Senator Obama will lose in November. There are many people in the Democratic Party and its leadership who feel that way. They are told that, nevertheless, the party must accept Obama even if he arrives at the convention with fewer committed delegates than needed to win the nomination. They say that to deprive him of victory under all of these circumstances would so enrage his supporters that they would either stay home in November or cross party lines and vote for Senator John McCain.

Many superdelegates who will be making the decision to nominate the Democratic candidate will be told that they will permanently damage the party by causing a defection of the black vote if they deprive Obama of victory. There is no doubt that were the superdelegates to do what they were appointed to do - provide to the best of their ability a candidate who is perceived to be best able to win in November against the Republican candidate - they will be vilified by many Democrats if they do not select Obama.

A lot is riding on tomorrow's vote. If Indiana goes for Obama, the ballgame is over and he will be the candidate under any and all circumstances. If North Carolina also goes for Obama, that will be the icing on the cake and we will still call his black support, even if it exceeds 92 percent, as it has in some other states, racial pride.

But politics is a complex business. If Clinton carries Indiana and then goes on to win Kentucky and West Virginia, her chances will greatly improve. Stay tuned. It ain't over till it's over.

Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.

 

[punkin]

Interesting article by James Carville:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e22ab770-1ab8-11dd-aa67-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1




I've decided that if Obama wins the nom - I'll vote for him - but I am NOT happy about it. For the first time - I will be voting against a candidate instead of for a candidate........

Yes, whoever gets the nom will have to unite the party, but it will not be easy. All OS bashing aside, I just do not trust Obama after the whole Wright debacle. Now on the other side is McCain, who is enough of a professional politician to know he has to swing to the center as soon as he's elected (despite assertions to the contrary, he's no W). I have not yet decided who will get my vote in that case. Since I can't decide which candidate to vote against, I may just sit it out (for the first time in my life).

On the other hand, it's a long way to November, maybe someone will surprise me or maybe (more likely) Hillary will get the nom and all this hand wringing and whining is moot.

 

[DISUNC]

One more - before I have to go back to work......

This is from Ed Koch. And it explains the super delegate dilemma.

This is what drives me CRAZY......

Many superdelegates who will be making the decision to nominate the Democratic candidate will be told that they will permanently damage the party by causing a defection of the black vote if they deprive Obama of victory.

You hear this all over the media.

What makes anyone think that if they go with Obama, that the "Blue Collar" Hillary supporters WONT DEFECT and be PEEVED???
So its OK to PO the Blue Collars but not the Black vote???

No matter what they do, 50% of the voting party will be peeved. And wheter counted or NOT...In all reality HILLARY DID GET MORE VOTES!!!

Will the SD's really go with Obama, KNOWING HE WILL LOOSE, just so they dont get the Black Voters deprived????

This argument makes no sense to me.

 

[punkin]

This is what drives me CRAZY......



You hear this all over the media.

What makes anyone think that if they go with Obama, that the "Blue Collar" Hillary supporters WONT DEFECT and be PEEVED???
So its OK to PO the Blue Collars but not the Black vote???

No matter what they do, 50% of the voting party will be peeved. And wheter counted or NOT...In all reality HILLARY DID GET MORE VOTES!!!

Will the SD's really go with Obama, KNOWING HE WILL LOOSE, just so they dont get the Black Voters deprived????

This argument makes no sense to me.

The Black vote has been one of the most solidly Democratic blocs. I can see why the SDs don't want to lose it for future elections. This is a tough one because the party is pretty evenly split down the middle and neither candidate is actually "winning" no matter what vwrevy thinks.

 

[Planogirl]

Sigh.... It still appears that the best solution would be a combined ticket. That looks as likely as an ice cube surviving a trip through hell but what else will bring the party together?

 

[punkin]

Sigh.... It still appears that the best solution would be a combined ticket. That looks as likely as an ice cube surviving a trip through hell but what else will bring the party together?

Sigh....

 

[Uncle Remus]

This pretty much sez it all:

Ed Koch:

I believe that, if he is the Democratic candidate for president, Senator Obama will lose in November. There are many people in the Democratic Party and its leadership who feel that way. They are told that, nevertheless, the party must accept Obama even if he arrives at the convention with fewer committed delegates than needed to win the nomination. They say that to deprive him of victory under all of these circumstances would so enrage his supporters that they would either stay home in November or cross party lines and vote for Senator John McCain.

Many superdelegates who will be making the decision to nominate the Democratic candidate will be told that they will permanently damage the party by causing a defection of the black vote if they deprive Obama of victory. There is no doubt that were the superdelegates to do what they were appointed to do - provide to the best of their ability a candidate who is perceived to be best able to win in November against the Republican candidate - they will be vilified by many Democrats if they do not select Obama.

Then the question will be who is divisive to the Democratic party?

 

[punkin]

Then the question will be who is divisive to the Democratic party?

If 50% are pulling in one direction and 50% are pulling in another, neither side is divisive. It is merely an even split.

 

[Hound 109]

This is what drives me CRAZY......



You hear this all over the media.

What makes anyone think that if they go with Obama, that the "Blue Collar" Hillary supporters WONT DEFECT and be PEEVED???
So its OK to PO the Blue Collars but not the Black vote???

No matter what they do, 50% of the voting party will be peeved. And wheter counted or NOT...In all reality HILLARY DID GET MORE VOTES!!!

Will the SD's really go with Obama, KNOWING HE WILL LOOSE, just so they dont get the Black Voters deprived????

This argument makes no sense to me.

Me neither.

The possibility of 20-30% of working class "god lovin', gun totin'" vote defecting to McCain (with a BO nomination) is every bit as likely as the posibility of 20-30% of the black vote & the youth vote staying home on election day. The SuperDs will have to weigh both of these possibilities in their decision.

Further - They will have to weigh the damage that....not elevating FL & Mich voters to equal status would cause (since by definition if they don't "count" their vote....their vote will be - in their eyes - deemed unimportant & irrelevent). Especially in the General Election.

Selecting HC brings these swing states back into the tent & likely ensures their electoral votes in the Dem column....Selecting BO gives FL (& possibly MI) to the Elephants.

FWIW, a certain DisUnc & I were going ballistic on this remarkable & myopic "disenfranchising" of two important swing states 2 months ago....the week BEFORE Ohio & Texas.

The problem is still there (sitting in the middle of the room like an - ahem - Elephant) & perhaps the best way to "fix" the mess is for the Super Ds to "reach out" to our problem children (FL & MI) by honoring their vote (which would result in HC earning the nomination).....& ensure a democrat in the White House in 1-09.

 

[Hound 109]

Here is my OFFICIAL Call for tommorrows Primaries!

North Carolina
Obama win by 4%! *


Indiana
Clinton win by 5%!
:

I'm getting the same feeling as I got with Ohio & Texas. Indiana will be Ohio (which was thought to be leaning towards HC...but in fact HC romped) & NC will be TX (where Obama was expected to win....& didn't.).

Indiana - HC by 10.5

NC - HC by .1-.5

 

[punkin]

I'm getting the same feeling as I got with Ohio & Texas. Indiana will be Ohio (which was thought to be leaning towards HC...but in fact HC romped) & NC will be TX (where Obama was expected to win....& didn't.).

Indiana - HC by 10.5

NC - HC by .1-.5

If you are right, I will personally go to the Obama thread, congratulate them on a race well run and ask for a concession.

Seriously though, I think you are right on the money with Indiana. NC - I am not so sure. I predict an Obama win by 3.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

I'm getting the same feeling as I got with Ohio & Texas. Indiana will be Ohio (which was thought to be leaning towards HC...but in fact HC romped) & NC will be TX (where Obama was expected to win....& didn't.).

Indiana - HC by 10.5

NC - HC by .1-.5

I like the cut of your jib.

I'd actually just be thrilled with a win in Indy and positive movement in the popular vote total her way at the end of the day. I do see her having a chance to run the table here out now other than NC which I think will be in the low single digits. There isn't a chance with everything happening so quick the rest of the time for any real momentum switch....kinda like when BO ran off all those states in a row, and it's clearly on her side now.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Media bias??? No way!

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523508

“I thought [Matthews] was engaging and the excitement was palpable in the audience,” said Harvard Kennedy School student Taufiq Z. Rahim. “It was interesting to see a political pundit like him in many ways gush about a political candidate.”

When asked by another audience member how he would respond to the claim that MSNBC officially supports Obama, Matthews responded with typical Hardball wit, “Well, it’s not official.”

 

["Got Disney"]

Hooo Hummmm....sigh also.....It irritates me when they say they don't want to upset the black voters...why not just say Obama voters will be upset as well a Hillary's supporters.

When they use the term "Black voters" that is racist to me. we white folks must not upset the black folks because that would be politically incorrect to due so. They run the risk of Obama supporters not coming out and Hillary's supporters not coming out.

It will be hard for me to vote for Obama because I just don't like him and I feel the same way about his wife. I think she is a racist and also a anti American ( to a point) in wolfs clothing. I cant see me voting McCain unless he makes me have a WOW moment but don't see that happening.

Funny how we have come a long way from loving both candidates to not.
And don't forget even if Obama gets the nomination and if he looses it will all be Hillary's fault because she did not get out of the race when it started...like the first week None of this will be Obamas fault because he is a great leader and the uniter. Geesh....in addition if McCain does a bad job as POTUS that will also be Hilliary's fault because if she got out than McCain would not be in and Obama would have been our President instead...so either way there will be no happiness among the OS...So why not just put Hillary in and avoid all that..that's HOW I ROLL

 

["Got Disney"]

Media bias??? No way!

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=523508

“I thought [Matthews] was engaging and the excitement was palpable in the audience,” said Harvard Kennedy School student Taufiq Z. Rahim. “It was interesting to see a political pundit like him in many ways gush about a political candidate.”

When asked by another audience member how he would respond to the claim that MSNBC officially supports Obama, Matthews responded with typical Hardball wit, “Well, it’s not official.”

I don't watch MSNBC anymore because they are nasty when it comes to Hillary. They throw there opinions in so hard that you would think that Hillary killed there first born I get much better info from FOX ..yes FOX they are pretty even on all the candidates, even McCain. Plus they have good analysts from both the political sides. Except for Dick Morris because he flip flops so much that he has lost his credibility with me.

CNN is okay but there again they are bias. Not as much any more they have kinds got the hint that being bias looses watchers.

And FOX has more viewers than any of them so I like to watch to see what the rest of the US is watching more of and seeing more of ....so to have a better idea of what they are thinking after they watch it.

 

[lvloopingbag]

I guess it is OK if the female vote feels disenfranchised if Obama is the nominee.....

 

[wvrevy]

The Black vote has been one of the most solidly Democratic blocs. I can see why the SDs don't want to lose it for future elections. This is a tough one because the party is pretty evenly split down the middle and neither candidate is actually "winning" no matter what vwrevy thinks.

Exactly right. No democrat can get elected without the black vote, because the white vote historically has gone to the Republicans. It's just a matter of whether or not a candidate can get enough of the black vote to come out to the polls to make up the difference...which is why people in the party leadership are concerned what would happen if they told the black candidate that won more states, more delegates, and more votes that he was not getting the nomination. Think they're disillusioned now? If that happened, I'd be shocked to see higher than a 10% turnout among blacks in the fall.

I guess it is OK if the female vote feels disenfranchised if Obama is the nominee.....

How would female voters be disenfranchised if Obama won?