Hillary Supporters unite part 2; no bashing please

[WildernessBride]

How come no one is worried about the Hillary Supporters Rioting?

Good question... won't they be mad if she is "denied" her nomination?

 

[mom2twinz3]

No. That is not the way politics is played in this country. i will be very disappointed if Hillary does not win, but I will not protest a democratic process. I will however cast my vote in November for whichever candidate I find least objectionable. Right now that looks to be McCain.

In a sense I agree with you Punkin, I was just really fantasizing about such a thing. But I do think "something" should be said about the sexism.

I don't think for one minute a protest would change or even influence the outcome. I just wish there was a way to express that we noticed and are unhappy about it.

I want Hillary to win, too!

 

[punkin]

Good question... won't they be mad if she is "denied" her nomination?

Do you have any idea how American democracy works? I will be mad. I will be disappointed. But civilized people do not riot just because their candidate lost.

 

[jacksonsmom]

Do you have any idea how American democracy works? I will be mad. I will be disappointed. But civilized people do not riot just because their candidate lost.

There are no truer words then those that I bolded!

 

[punkin]

I am still shaking my head over that. Who are the people who support Obama that they think rioting is an appropriate solution to a lost election? They post on this thread with sarcastic and smilies like there is any chance in heck for an Obama win in November without 100% support from Hillary supporters. Right, antagonize the very people you need. Is this the first election they have ever followed? Do they really not know how the process works?

 

[WildernessBride]

Do you have any idea how American democracy works? I will be mad. I will be disappointed. But civilized people do not riot just because their candidate lost.

Yes I do have an idea about how democracy works...but you act as if anger is only on the side of Obama supporters...I think that is a bit presumptious of you. You all are very upset things are looking bad for Hillary, don't you believe others in America feel the same way...perhaps right now they are planning huge protests for the dem convention to show the world their anger. Stop acting as if your "side" will only be "disappointed" if she doesn't make it whilst the crazy Obama supporters will go off the deep end....please, both sides feel strongly, and your "side" is not the only one which understands democracy.

My question was why don't people think HRC supporters will riot...they seem to be just as passionate as Obama supporters....I don't see how that question says I do not understand democracy....

 

[moon]

Hi folks - Mom is still in the hospital ICU - fighting for her life, on a ventilator (they can't solve why she can't breathe - pneumonia has been treated with antibiotics - but still no lung relief.....). Thank you so much for your positive thoughts and prayers.

Keeping the good thoughts and prayers for your mom!

 

[punkin]

Yes I do have an idea about how democracy works...but you act as if anger is only on the side of Obama supporters...I think that is a bit presumptious of you. You all are very upset things are looking bad for Hillary, don't you believe others in America feel the same way...perhaps right now they are planning huge protests for the dem convention to show the world their anger. Stop acting as if your "side" will only be "disappointed" if she doesn't make it whilst the crazy Obama supporters will go off the deep end....please, both sides feel strongly, and your "side" is not the only one which understands democracy.

My question was why don't people think HRC supporters will riot...they seem to be just as passionate as Obama supporters....I don't see how that question says I do not understand democracy....

Your side is threatening riots. Apparently (according to several posters on this thread) it is being discussed in the national media. Please point me to one source that had Hillary supporters threatening riots. If you think a riot is an appropriate response to a lost election (from either side) you obviously have no sense of how America works. Let me educate you: The loser calls the winner and congratulates him/her and throws all his support behind her.

 

[WildernessBride]

Your side is threatening riots. Apparently (according to several posters on this thread) it is being discussed in the national media. Please point me to one source that had Hillary supporters threatening riots. If you think a riot is an appropriate response to a lost election (from either side) you obviously have no sense of how America works. Let me educate you: The loser calls the winner and congratulates him/her and throws all his support behind her.

YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH when you say that I think a riot is an appropriate response to a lost election. I never said that, ever!!!! Paint everyone with a broad brush works well doesn't it. I need no "educating" from you...who is formally "calling for riots"???? Who, I mean really who, I want to know. You can't tell me that if Hillary continues on, her zealous supporters will not make some sort of commotion at the convention...I really don't think just because you support HRC that you have some sort of moral high ground. You personally may not think a demonstration is called for...but perhaps some of HRCs supporters around the nation will want to go to Denver to protest...or at least be heard.

I had a legitimate question...but you just wanted to attack me, well go right ahead, but you will not put words in my mouth that I never said.

 

[deelam]

My question was why don't people think HRC supporters will riot...they seem to be just as passionate as Obama supporters....I don't see how that question says I do not understand democracy....

No I don't think Hillary supporters will riot. We are smarter then that. We will write many letters and some will cast votes against Obama/Obama supporters in protest. This could be the real change coming.

 

[chobie]

Do you have any idea how American democracy works? I will be mad. I will be disappointed. But civilized people do not riot just because their candidate lost.

Civilized people don't vote for a candidate that stands against everything they stand for in protest becuase their candidate lost the primary. It's just mind boggling that some Hillary supporters want to cry about sexism while at the same time vowing to vote for a party that is anti-choice, anti-women and sexist in every way. You are going to protest what you see as being sexism in regards to Hillary losing the primary by voting for a sexist party and a candidate who has promised to appoint more anti-choice judges to the bench to appease the far right base.

You are willing to take a chance at setting women's rights back in protest of what you percieve as sexism in the primary election.

Brilliant plan. You go vote for the anti-women party. That will learn Obama and his smug followers.

 

[deelam]

Civilized people don't vote for a candidate that stands against everything they stand for in protest becuase their candidate lost the primary. It's just mind boggling that some Hillary supporters want to cry about sexism while at the same time vowing to vote for a party that is anti-choice, anti-women and sexist in every way. You are going to protest what you see as being sexism in regards to Hillary losing the primary by voting for a sexist party and a candidate who has promised to appoint more anti-choice judges to the bench to appease the far right base.

You are willing to take a chance at setting women's rights back in protest of what you percieve as sexism in the primary election.

Brilliant plan. You go vote for the anti-women party. That will learn Obama and his smug followers.

I don't think voting for McCain is voting for the anti woman party. If I have to pick the best of two bad canidates, McCain wins over Obama. I trust McCain more then I trust Obama, he is just too Inexperienced.

 

[LuvDuke]

I don't think voting for McCain is voting for the anti woman party. If I have to pick the best of two bad canidates, McCain wins over Obama. I trust McCain more then I trust Obama, he is just too Inexperienced.

All the rationalizations in the world aren't going to cover up "sour grapes".

Btw, McCain just fired 3 lobbyist he had on his staff. That leaves about 50 more to go.

McCain Finds a Thorny Path in Ethics Effort

Sorting out the lobbying entanglements of his campaign advisers is proving to be a messy business for Senator John McCain.

On Monday, just days after it issued new rules to address conflicts of interest, the McCain campaign was furiously sifting through the business records of aides and advisers. The new rules were prompted by disclosures that led to the abrupt departure from the campaign of a number of aides who worked as lobbyists, including some with ties to foreign governments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/u...bl&ex=1211428800&en=88e6ca6f2872149b&ei=5087

But none of that matters because Obama beat Hillary fair and square.

 

[Dolce27]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/
(Scroll about 1/2 down the page. I thought this had some great points.)

You Broke It, You Own It -- Obama Style
guest post by Kristen Breitweiser
originally posted on Huffington Post



Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.



And as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too. This time around, everybody's going to be looking for accountability.

Flash forward to Election Day 08. Can you imagine the backpedaling going on when it comes to explaining how Barack Obama -- the Democratic nominee by math not by sensibility -- loses key states? What will those pundits say? Can they turn to history and defend themselves by saying that Obama won Ohio in the primary? Pennsylvania? Florida? And what about West Virginia? No Democrat has won the WH since 1916 without winning West Virginia and we all know what happened yesterday. What will they use as their rationale as to why they reasonably expected Obama to win those states in the general? Will they be driven mad with their math and just keep repeating that it wasn't their fault -- it was math's fault? (Or will they fall back on the usual suspect and blame it on Hillary?)

Maybe they'll use the argument that Obama was supposed to re-draw the political map. That Obama promised that "all states were in play." And, what if he turns out to be wrong? What if Obama loses those red states (and even some of those key blue states)? Is it possible that after e-i-g-h-t years of George Bush, we will have another Republican in the WH? Is it fathomable that a Republican like McCain could win by a landslide? Right now Jerome Armstrong at myDD has an electoral college estimate with McCain winning 290 to 248.

In August when the Republican attack ads unroll with a screaming, ranting, raving, railing, and dancing like a chicken lunatic Reverend Wright juxtaposed with an angry Obama with an outstretched pointing finger overlayed by Obama's voice saying that he can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown his grandmother, will the superdelegates feel good and justified about their decision to try and kick Hillary out of the race before she won a state like West Virginia or Kentucky? Will those same superdelegates apologize for their bad judgment in thinking a candidate who lost 40% of the Democratic vote in a state primary -- a mere 5 months before Election Day -- should even still qualify to be the best candidate in a general election?

Will those superdelegates admit bad judgment in voting for the candidate that "said" he had good judgment but turned out to have bad judgment once he was aptly defined by the likes of Karl Rove? Because as of May 14, 2008, Barack Obama has yet to successfully define himself to the American people -- he is too busy defining John McCain. (Scary thought: maybe Obama hasn't defined himself yet because he can't. Look at his record. Look at what his colleagues say about him. He rides the middle. He goes this way and that. On the one hand. On the other hand. He himself in his autobiographies even admits to having trouble pinning down his identities -- whether that be individual, political, racial or whatever else.)



Has anyone truly and fairly presented the problem Obama faces by continuously saying "a vote for John McCain is a vote for another 4 more years of George Bush" particularly when most of us don't even know what a vote for Barack Obama would mean? Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that the whole reason McCain is able to run so strongly in 08 is specifically because everybody knows he is NOT George Bush.

A suggestion to Obama: when you are an unknown like yourself with no record to back up your flowery words, you might better your chances of people getting to know you by telling them WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU---not why they shouldn't vote for the other guy. Especially when that other guy John McCain has been in the public eye for years and enjoys a very well-cemented identity.

Just exactly what is David Axelrod's reasoning as to how Obama -- the candidate who "says" he represents change and "outsider politics"-- will fare against the well-documented record of a maverick like McCain who has actually spent his entire career bucking the political system and truly enacted change? Will Obama change his campaign theme? Yikes. Is the Obama campaign strategy being unveiled when Obama states that "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush"? Because if that is the Obama campaign's idea of a "winning" strategy against John McCain, we are in serious trouble.

The truth is probably that nobody really expected Obama to get this far. Not even Axelrod. So they probably didn't (and still don't) have a cohesive strategy in place for how Obama can beat a guy like McCain. (Heck nobody even expected McCain to make it this far in the race. So, if anyone did think Obama would make it this far, they certainly didn't expect Obama to be running against McCain, that's for sure.)

So how will Axelrod run Obama against McCain? Have any of the superdelegates thought about that?

Clearly, Obama cannot run on "change" since McCain corners the market on "change" and being a "maverick outsider". More to the point, McCain, unlike Obama, actually has the long and very real record proving that he is, indeed, an outsider and a maverick bucking the system. Flatly, Obama does not have that same record or proof.

Will it be the economy? Given Obama's lackluster appeal to the lower-income and working class, I sure hope not. I can see the commercials now--it will not take a lot of effort to get the disenfranchised lunch-pail liberals to identify with a hard-worker like John McCain as compared to the elitist, Starbuck-drinking, RedBull swilling, arugula-eating, Blackberry-carrying Obama.



Of course, another choice would be for Obama to run on age. But that is dangerous for many obvious reasons. What? You don't think being coined as the "youth' candidate is a bad thing? Think again because the winning brand is not "youth" when we are in the midst of a recession and two wars. When the chips hit the floor on Election Day and gas is $10/barrel it will be realism not idealism that delivers the WH. And given the fact that Obama's base is already widely known to be made up of predominantly young voters, half of the Republicans work is already done for them. Yup, they would have an easy walk defining Obama as the choice for the young and naïve.

That leaves Iraq, right? A slam-dunk for Obama, right? Not so fast. After witnessing the defying of logic and the suspension of belief in what happened to John Kerry in 04, anyone who thinks Obama's "speech" about the Iraq war from the cozy confines of a Chicago suburb will assuredly prove that Obama is a better Commander in Chief than John McCain, needs to think again. And yes, I know that the vast majority of Americans are against the Iraq war. And yes, I know the Iraq war has cost us billions and contributed to our recession. And yes, I know that John McCain's words about spending another 100 years in Iraq are repeatedly used against him. But, remember what happened in 04. Logic can be defied. Belief (yes, even hope) can and has been suspended on Election Day.

Remember: John McCain is a veteran. John McCain is a former POW. John McCain is a war hero. Moreover, one of John McCain's sons is currently serving in Iraq. So, if anyone thinks McCain is going to mistreat or misuse our troops -- which include his son, they need to think again. Frankly, Obama will look like a fool against McCain because once again, McCain has his real record, history, and even his family to prove his sound leadership and true patriotism. And Obama merely has his words, hope and the video of his wife sounding unpatriotic which will be used over and over and over again.

And that's why so many Clinton supporters are reluctant to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. It's not because they are bitter. It is because they chose Hillary over Obama for two real reasons: experience and definition.

Obama can't gain experience in the next 5 months.

True, Obama can gain definition -- that is if he starts defining himself today and stops leaving his self-definition up to others -- namely the likes of Reverend Wright and Karl Rove.

To me, it's the difference between buying cereal for the picture on the box rather than the ingredients on the nutritional label. Clinton supporters want to know what they are eating for breakfast--they don't get swayed by the fancy packaging that often hides the sugar and artificial additives hiding inside. They check the label. They read the ingredients.

We know what we are getting with Hillary Clinton. We've read the label that has been on the box for years. And, yes, we may not like everything about her, but at least we know what we are getting when we support her. There are no surprises, no baggage left unexamined. Hillary has been in the public eye for years. She has a record that can be followed and seen in plain view. We know who she is. We know that she is a hard worker and a smart fighter who will never give up. And we have a pretty good idea of what she would do as president. Perhaps most importantly though, we know that she wins vital states that have proven to be essential to winning the WH.

But can we rightfully say the same about Barack Obama? He says he has good judgment. But does he? He says all 50 states are in play if he is the nominee. But what if they're not? He says he is a good leader. But how do we know that? He says he is the candidate of change. But what does that really mean? In truth, it's all just a lot of promises and hope that could very well end up short when pitted against John McCain next Election Day

 

[Dolce27]

All the rationalizations in the world aren't going to cover up "sour grapes".

No sour grapes for me. I vote for the best candidate - and if that be McCain -so be it. I'm worried that Obama can do much more damage than good as POTUS... espically with that outstanding arrogance of his.
... and I thought Bush was bad on the arrogance.

 

[kinntj]

Civilized people don't vote for a candidate that stands against everything they stand for in protest becuase their candidate lost the primary. It's just mind boggling that some Hillary supporters want to cry about sexism while at the same time vowing to vote for a party that is anti-choice, anti-women and sexist in every way.
Like the Annie Oakley comment made by Obama!

You are going to protest what you see as being sexism in regards to Hillary losing the primary by voting for a sexist party and a candidate who has promised to appoint more anti-choice judges to the bench to appease the far right base.
I believe Punkin said she would vote for the person she thought would be the best President. I think she's intelligent enough to make that choice for herself. Thank you for pointing that out, but I'm sure she knows what the GOP stands for.

You are willing to take a chance at setting women's rights back in protest of what you percieve as sexism in the primary election.

Again, threats of changing America forever. Not going to happen.

Brilliant plan. You go vote for the anti-women party. That will learn Obama and his smug followers. Your words and yours only.

 

[LuvDuke]

No sour grapes for me. I vote for the best candidate - and if that be McCain -so be it. I'm worried that Obama can do much more damage than good as POTUS... espically with that outstanding arrogance of his.
... and I thought Bush was bad on the arrogance.

Yup, Obama's outstanding arrogance of daring to beat the queen. Oh, the nerve.

Puhleeze, you're killing me.

 

[kinntj]

But none of that matters because Obama beat Hillary fair and square.

Hmmm... in a marathon he's about 1/4 mile from the finish line, but yet his fans want to call it a win. Talk about delusional.

 

[LuvDuke]

Hmmm... in a marathon he's about 1/4 mile from the finish line, but yet his fans want to call it a win. Talk about delusional.

Tell me and the good people here why Hillary should be the nominee and what measure you're using other than SD arm twisting, blackmail or calling in favors?

She's behind in pledged delegate count, super-delegate count, and votes. No, Florida and Michigan don't count, caucus's do, and any Democrat will win in NY, CA, MA, etc.

So how is she going to win this thing? And don't bother countering by asking how Obama is going to win.

Tell me and the good people here how Hillary is going to win?

Btw, Hillary has $31,000,000 in her war chest and $16,000,000 in debts.

McCain has $11,000,000.

Obama has $51,000,000.

 

[Dolce27]

The Obama Supporters on this message board apparently haven't gotten the memo yet - they're now supposed to play nice:

Party Unification
By !Chris Gardner - May 8th, 2008 at 12:06 pm EDT
Also listed in: 8 groups
Party Unification

Hello to all,

It is a well-known FACT; Hillary R. Clinton has YET to concede the race and Nomination to Senator OBAMA. However, with Main Stream Media finally acknowledging the inevitability of Hillary’s departure as a candidate, it is time for this OBAMA SITE to PREPARE for HRC’s supporters to align themselves with our team.

Yes, you have heard correctly, as the Hillary camp and supporters begin to decide WHERE they belong… we must help convince them OBAMA is where they need to be!

Senator OBAMA, in his speech to N.C. began to set the agenda for the party to “repair” itself by offering an olive branch to Hillary and her supporters. He really addressed the healing of all parties and INCLUDED all who do not like the path our nation has currently taken. He was including all members of all parties.

What does this mean to you and me? It is TIME for us to adjust our language about HRC to be more inclusive. Please understand how IMPORTANT this will become over the next few weeks!

As everyone’s mind begins to adjust to OBAMA’s win, HRC’s supporters will begin to recognize they no longer have a warrior who will represent them - www.barackobama.com should be swarming with NEW POTENTIAL supporters who are switching candidates!

They will begin to join groups and insert their dialog into our midst and WE MUST BE READY TO ACCEPT AND WELCOME THEM!

This does not mean we must agree with what they are saying, but we must be ready to make room for them - begin to lose the “Hillary is our enemy” speech and change our message to “More of the same is our enemy” message! This is a message HRC supporters, Independents and Rogue Republicans can relate!

The only way this will work - to keep from alienating former HRC supporters is to change our old message. YOU AND I MUST EVOLVE!

It is time to set our goals on Senator McCain and the Republican Party… YET, we must UNIFY not only with NEW HRC MEMBERS as they sign in to our site, but INDEPENDENTS AND REPUBLICANS!

Yes, you have heard correctly, we must evolve to be inclusive of ALL! The LAST thing we need to do is; give NEW MEMBERS reason to feel as if they do not belong or reason to side with McCain.

My suggestions is: to keep our allies, friends we have made during this sites existence and use them to PERSONALLY email to gripe or complain about a HRC or McCain topics, while KEEPING THE GROUP BOARDS FREE OF ALL HRC or anti-McCain TOPICS.

A SAFE way to do this is to COPY OBAMA’s message, to repeat what he is saying on the group boards while utilizing private emails to blow off steam to those you know are true OBAMA supporters.

This will be a true task to pull off, but we can do it! (MY COMMENT: STILL TALK CRAP ABOUT HILLARY AND HER SUPPORTERS BEHIND THEIR BACKS WHILE WE USE THEM FOR THEIR VOTES.DISINGENUOUS USERS!)


We MUST do it in order to win the election in November. WE NEED EVERY DEMOCRATIC, EVERY INDEPENDENT AND ROGUE REPUBLICAN VOTE!

Therefore, our words WILL have an impact on Senator OBAMA’s chances in winning the election!

Wow, it would be a hoot if there becomes a phrase for OBAMA (like in Reagan day) “Reagan Democrats” to “OBAMA Republicans”!

Do we want to win this election for OBAMA? YES! Do want to win with a landslide victory? YES! Do we want HRC former supporters? YES! Do we want Independents? YES! Do we want Rogue Republicans? YES! Can we change our language to make all feel welcome? YES!

There is a LONG ROAD ahead to November’s election. While on this path, we must assist our leader (OBAMA) in his endeavors to bring our nation together. This means ALL PEOPLES!

Make no mistake; OBAMA has always been and always be, all-inclusive. This means more than those we currently have on this site.

Let us UNIFY now to make this transition as smooth for our leader as possible - always remembering how important OBAMA feels about everyone feeling welcome.

YES WE WILL,
Chris Gardner