What will you do?

by AK Democrat, Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:00:57 PM EST

For all the Clinton supporters out there--what say you when she concedes?

First, let me assure you I am coming from the right place.  My sole interest is in a Democrat sitting in the White House next January.  If Hillary Clinton is on the ballot the first Tuesday in November, I'll vote for her.  If instead it's Barack Obama, I'll vote for him.  That seems simple enough, and it's been my position from day one of this campaign.

When Senator Clinton conceeds this race--say, June 5th--and urges each of her supporters to rally behind the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, Barack Obama--

--WHAT WILL YOU DO?

The Gauntlet is at your feet.  You can seize it, harnessing all the enthusiasm and energy you've used so persuasively and effectively for Hillary Clinton, redirected towards an eventual Barack Obama presidency.

You can walk away from it, deciding instead not to vote, so fresh and raw are the wounds of this campaign.

Or you can pick it up and throw it back at her, instead insisting the woman has driven you to such lengths on her behalf MUST have lost her mind and no amount of cajoling on her part could convince you to accept her defeat as she has, to throw your support to the nominee as she has, to dedicate yourself fully and completely to the defeat of John McCain as she has.

Is this how you will choose to honor your candidate?  By ignoring her final campaign wish?

I know the vast majority of her supporters will do the right thing and support Barack Obama.  Maybe you hold your nose when you vote for him--we've all had those candidates--and maybe you don't even actively campaign for him, but you certainly wouldn't undermine him and lead us directly to a John McCain-Bush III Presidency, right?

Both sides are full of impassioned people.  Charges of racism and sexism abound--and we know that, in the media at least, both have manifested themselves many times.  We can neither deny nor change any of that.  This was going to be a watershed campaign, a moment where we (perhaps) found out whether it would be harder for a Woman or a Black Man to win the Presidency.  Bill Clinton himself said he wanted to vote for one or the other for President one day--and lamented that God should force such a decision upon him in the same year!

So, it's all done.  This isn't a Unity diary, not exactly.  This isn't a Denial diary, either.  This is a challenge:

What will you do when forced to face the reality of hearing your candidate withdraw from the race for the nomination and urge you, in the strongest possible language, to support the other candidate?  Will you honor and respect their wishes?  As you have followed, and called, and donated, and canvassed, will you now LISTEN and do as she asks?

I don't want to pressure you too much--there's still plenty of time--but the stakes couldn't possibly be higher.  Choice, Iraq, the Economy, and Health Care all hang in the balance.

Please listen, not to me, not to any blogger, not to any talking head.  I'm asking you--BEGGING YOU--to listen to your candidate.  There's wisdom in that.

A little practicality, as well.




Tags: clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 137 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 2)

Well put.  I hope it does some good.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:03:33 PM EST

The right thing for me (1.85 / 7)

I'm really tired of these "do the right thing" speeches. Everyone has a different idea of what "doing the right thing" is. Stop with the preaching, I'll do what's right for me and you can do what's right for you.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:06:18 PM EST

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

Sure.

But why are you here?  If not to try to fight for what you believe in?

Why is what the OP is doing any worse?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:09:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

I am. That's what I just told you. I'm fighting for the Democratic Party. The party that is now turning it's back on many constituents. I'm fighting with the only tool I have; my vote.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:16:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So you're idea is (none / 0)

for the party to instead turn it's back on many other constituents?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're idea is (none / 0)

Sorry, but I don't walk in lockstep...At one time Democrats had the reputation of not walking in lockstep.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Which is why (2.00 / 1)

Democrats always lost.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

True. (2.00 / 1)

Which is the worse of the two evils? Going against your beliefs in order to score a win for the party or going along with the party no matter what? It's a hard call; for me, I choose not to go against my beliefs and values.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What ARE you beliefs and values? (1.00 / 2)

cause it seems to me if you beliefs and values don't fit in with the Democratic Party nominee, then you're probably not a Democrat.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What ARE you beliefs and values? (none / 0)

It's really not your place to decide that.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and it's not your place (none / 0)

to decided that if Obama gets the nomination, the Democratic Party turned it's back on it's constituents.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right.... (1.66 / 3)

It's not my place to decide. It's my place to vote or not to vote. I choose not to vote for Obama.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What ARE you beliefs and values? (none / 0)

That's absurd. Just because Obama is my party's nominee, doesnt mean he represents my values and beliefs. It is democracy, not autocracy.

Where did the big talk of change vanish? Why is it choosing Obama as the lesser evil being encouraged?

People on this website talk about how bad McCain presidency will be. No one here talks about how good Obama presidency will be. Do you know why? Because no one has any clue what Obama will do.


by Sandeep on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:19:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have no clue (none / 0)

what Clinton would do. Public opinion is so erratic and she tends to do whatever public opinion goes.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I have no clue (none / 0)

We are talking about Obama, presumptive nominee. Lets try to stick to the point, if we can. Unless you are saying you have no clue what Obama presidency will mean.


by Sandeep on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:16:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. (2.00 / 7)

Going against your beliefs in order to score a win for the party or going along with the party no matter what?

We no longer have the luxury of standing on principle while republicans run the country into the ground. I'm sure the nearly 3 million people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 were proud of how they were taking a stand. We saw how that turned out.

In an election, you sometimes have to lower your expectations--or even have your heart broken--in order to avoid an alternative that's far worse.

Deaniacs had to abandon one of the most genuine, unabashed progressives in many years once Kerry became the consensus "most electable" candidate and won Iowa and NH. Edwards supporters (like myself) had to abandon a true fighting progressive  once it became clear Obama and Clinton were sucking all the air out of the room.

But we move on, even if we're personally let down. Being a proud, vocal Democrat means we care more about these things, and therefore feel even worse when they don't go our way. But being a proud, vocal Democrat also means we understand that recapturing the White House is the only goal that matters.

We cannot afford 4 more years of Bush-style presidential politics. No more erosion of our freedoms; no more embracing of torture or crusading through the Middle East; no more Gilded Age economics. No more of any of it.

If the shoe were on the other foot, we Obama supporters would be pissed, too. And just because Hillary would be the nominee doesn't mean we'd all get along with you, either. But our squabbling, petty bullcrap means nothing compared to the damage republicans will do if we don't win in November.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

If you we're really concerned about winning in November you would be extremely alarmed about how Obama is doing with rural America. Obama supporters just shrugged their shoulders when they saw the results of the WV primary. Apparently, you're really not all that concerned about winning in Nov.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

Both Obama and Hillary have weaknesses in different areas.  Pointing out only Obama's weakness in Appalachia (in the primary, not the GE) does not take into account his ability to draw in new voters and appeal to moderates and conservatives that Hillary drives away.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

Even Clinton admits she has baggage, but were talking about votes. IMO, Obama was doing really well prior to Rev. Wright, I even liked him prior to Rev. Wright but it's been down hill since.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

No doubt Obama's appeal has somewhat declined since Wrights sermons were aired, but Clinton's image has also suffered with much greater numbers of voters characterizing her as untrustworthy or phony after her Tuzla fabrication and her reversal on the DNC sanctions of FL/MI.  It seems to me that Obama still holds an edge over Hillary in terms of electibility notwithstanding the toll that this long campaign has exacted on their respective candidacies.  At the very least I can't take seriously claims that Obama's appeal has been so damaged that the party needs to overturn the pledged delegates and hand the election to Hillary because even if she did enjoy some marginal edge over Obama in electibility, the perception of such a backroom coronation  would lead to a widespread view that she won the nod illegitimately, effectively wiping out any advantage she may enjoy.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

No doubt Obama's appeal has somewhat declined since Wrights sermons were aired, but Clinton's image has also suffered with much greater numbers of voters characterizing her as untrustworthy or phony after her Tuzla fabrication and her reversal on the DNC sanctions of FL/MI.

Perhaps you haven't been reading the latest exit polls:

When asked by the exit poll whether Clinton was honest and trustworthy, 63 percent said yes and 35 percent said no. When asked whether Obama was honest and trustworthy, only 45 percent said yes and 53 percent said no.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp? Page=/Politics/archive/200805/POL2008051 4a.html


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:19:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

You're actually citing Brent Bozell's outfit as a truthful and legitimate source?


by darwinsjoke on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

I guess so -- it's a CNN poll. I think there was another poll that had similar findings. I could look for it if you'd like.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:54:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (1.50 / 2)

It's not a CNN poll, it's a CNS poll, big difference.  Only one is legit.


by Builderman on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (2.00 / 1)

No it's not. Check the link inside the link, or if you prefer, check the following:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/epolls/#WVDEM


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

Did you read the first part of that sentence that you highlighted?  I stated that this long campaign has harmed Obama's image somewhat and only then stated that Hillary's numbers have also tanked because of the election exposure.  The poll you site does nothing to contradict that.  But if you want to see a poll showing how little Americans trust Clinton then see:

http://people-press.org/reports/display. php3?PageID=1291

"The proportion of Democratic voters describing Clinton as honest fell from 65% to 57%, and the percentage describing her as phony increased from 29% to 35%."

When asked to sum up Hillary in 1 word the 2 words that came in 2nd and 3rd place (after experienced) in terms of being said the most were "liar" and "untrustworthy".


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

I love the fact that the Pew Research Group link you provide is entitled: "Obama's Image Slips, His Lead Over Clinton Disappears."

You can cherry-pick the data all you want -- the fact of the matter is that it's Obama's image that is declining, even as the media and certain Dem insiders try prematurely to anoint him the winner of the nomination.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

I did not say that Obama's image was not damaged.  I simply said that Hillary's was damaged more, and if you read the poll (the title notwithstanding) you will see that.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's doing just fine (none / 0)

pre Rev. Wright, he still lost Appalachia..see Virginia/Maryland. He's exactly where he was pre-Wright, only a different part of the country is voting.

You'll see in Oregon.

If he's doing so terrible in rural America, why is he winning rural Iowa, Minnesota, Great Plains, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Idaho, rural areas of California, Arizona, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (none / 0)

Apparently, you're really not all that concerned about winning in Nov.

I knew I shouldn't have wasted my time with you.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (2.00 / 4)

And Senator Clinton won't competitive in several areas that Senator Obama will be.

Were you this worried when she ignored North Dakota, Idaho, and so forth?

We aren't going to actually win every state.  I absolutely cannot believe that you're at the point that you're terrified that Obama might lose because he didn't, what, tank a huge amount of time and resources to go from losing by 41 points to 34 or something?

To be entirely pragmatic, Appalachia doesn't much like Senator Obama.  He can try to contest that in the general, and I expect he will.  But that doesn't mean he has to win a particular state or two to win.

Your candidate plans on contesting fewer states than Obama does anyway.  The argument you are making does not make a lot of sense.

Look at the map that Jerome has up.  Flip Virginia and New Mexico, or Virginia and New Hampshire, or Ohio and Obama wins.

Notice, there's no Appalachia in those scenarios?  And in plenty of other scenarios.

I don't have to like the situation for it to be true.  The two candidates have different strengths in the general.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alarm bells should be going off (2.00 / 1)

LOL Idaho. I will write a blank check for you when Idaho becomes a battleground state.


by Sandeep on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:22:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: True. (2.00 / 1)

Very well said.


by mnl1012 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So you're idea is (none / 0)

"Sorry, but I don't walk in lockstep..."

Just when we think you're gonna zig, you zag!


"No matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party because we must win in November." -Hillary Clinton
by fugazi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (2.00 / 1)

Including new voters does not exclude old ones.

I understand you feel excluded.

You are not.  No more so than you make yourself out to be.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (2.00 / 1)

I'm fighting for what I believe in...I have no problem with you fighting for what you believe.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:30:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except that you (none / 0)

keep running around here threatening us with "demise" if you don't get your way.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:31:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except that you (2.00 / 1)

Hey, If Obama is strong enough, he'll win without my vote. Good for you.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He will (2.00 / 1)

win without your vote, so your threats are just wasting space.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I answered the question. (none / 0)


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I answered the question. (none / 0)

So since you say you don't need our votes, quit whining.

With all we know about Obama now, he wouldn't have won half the states he did.

He's going to get trounced in the GE.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:35:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I answered the question. (none / 0)

That's funny, because a recent poll out of California reveals that if the primary were held today, Obama would have won by 6%.  He lost CA back in February.  That seems to belie your point.

Care to present any evidence to support your claim?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I answered the question. (1.00 / 2)

cALIFORNIA, LMAO

I notice you cherry picked the one state in the union where his position would be strengthened by being proven a radical nutcase.

In swing states he has unredeemably worsened his position.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

You ignored what I said.  You responded to something I wasn't saying.

How exactly have we excluded you?  I want an answer, please.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:41:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

You're nothing more than a voter; a measly little spec just like me. You don't have the ability to exclude me. Only the Democratic party insiders do. They are the ones playing God/Supers...They chose to ignore Clinton and supporters.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

they chose to ignore YOU.

When it comes to that, Clinton and her supporters were defeated in a close race. They will, by and large, accept it and move on.

You will say you were ignored because even though you lost, you weren't given a victory, and if you're going to hold your breath hoping the party is going to listen to YOU, then you're going to suffocate because you have given no reasons why the Democratic Party should reward YOU with first place even though you were part of the team that can in second.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:53:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

OK, so they can ignore me and I can ignore them. You are beginning to see the light. What's the problem?


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:05:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

Ignore them?  You lost.

They aren't ignoring you.  They're just not going to give the nomination to the candidate that blew it.

And they shouldn't.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:03:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

That's fine, and I can vote or not vote. We just went in a complete circle. :D


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

But it doesn't work that way.  What you choose effects everyone, not just yourself.  If we get stuck with another horrible republican next year, we all lose.


by Gene In PA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:10:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (none / 0)

Not necessarily. If many stand together, we will get the attention of the party. It's up to party insiders to pay attention or ignore. If the party chooses to ignore, it's at their own demise, IMO.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If many stand together for what? (none / 0)

is my question. Will you get the attention of the party or will you get labeled sore losers.

If Obama wins, he's going to win this legitimately.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If many stand together for what? (none / 0)

Great....I personally don't have to vote for him though. What's the problem? The diary asked what everyone planned to do, I told you and now you're pouting because I'm not supporting Obama.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:40:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I'm wondering (none / 0)

why you're still here. Very soon this blog is going to evolve into one dedicated in electing the Democratic party's nominee and expanding our majority in Congress and advocating for our agenda...none of which you are doing by witholding your vote.

If you're still here in hopes that by you saying you're not voting Obama if Clinton wins, we're all going to go "OMG, we'd better give it to Clinton because so many Democrats will stay home or vote McCain otherwise" It's not going to work.

You're not standing up for the Democratic Party, you're standing up for Hillary Clinton, and that's all your standing up for. The Democratic Party DOES NOT live or die with the Clintons.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:50:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I'm wondering (none / 0)

So I'm suppose to shut up and accept. Heh, the Democratic party sure has changed.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's the door (2.00 / 2)

tell me how this is different from the Democratic Party in the past?

Tell me. In every race, there is a winner and there is a loser.

Tell me how this differs from Udall/Carter, Kennedy/Carter, Mondale/Hart, Kennedy/Humphrey, Tsongas/Clinton, Bradley/Gore, Dean/Kerry?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's the door (none / 0)

This constant demand for Clinton to get out by party insiders...that's what's different. FYI, Obama doesn't have enough delegates.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's the door (2.00 / 1)

Bill Clinton didn't have enough delegates to claim victory either in April of 1992, a full two months before he would secure enough delegates to claim the nomination, yet Bill's staff and the media was calling him the presumptive nominee.


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's common sense (none / 0)

campaigning to the convention not only destroys Obama's chances at the White House, but hers too if she were able to pull it off in Denver.

There's no way she wins in November if she gets the nomination in Denver.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:26:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, the Democratic Party has NOT (2.00 / 3)

changed.

You just didn't get your way this time.

In the past, supporters of Bobby Kennedy, Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Dick Gephardt, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean, John Edwards all had to shutup and accept the winner or stand down. It's the same this year.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, the Democratic Party has NOT (none / 0)

That's irrelevent. The question was; "What will you do"

Not vote...What's the problem?


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, the Democratic Party has NOT (none / 0)

You're being a particularly sore loser.

It begs the question exactly what is it you believe in if you'll so quickly surrender it to John McCain (or at least you'll do your bit to increase his odds of victory) just because you feel slighted.

I mean, what did Obama do to you that hurts so damned much?  Not try like hell to win over the demographic that seems to have a propensity to vote for a candidate with whom they have in common during a highly contentious and polarizing primary?

He didn't need to do it in order to win.  Is Senator Clinton jumping through hoops to win black voters at this point?  What about so-called "upscale" whites?

Exactly how is it that she has behaved better than has Obama in "ignoring" the other party's groups?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:01:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I'm wondering (2.00 / 3)

It's about selflessness sometimes...Shit I was an Edwards guy...And still think he's one helluva of a Democrat and would be a great POTUS, but the voters said otherwise...I moved on and supported Barack, we need a Dem in the WH....


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I'm wondering (2.00 / 1)

Whatever. You can chalk it up as anything you like. If Obama is such a great candidate, he doesn't need my vote.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, that's a relief (2.00 / 1)

Since Hillary is such a great candidate, according to you and others, she doesn't need my vote either.

There, now we're even and McSame is the next POTUS.

A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.
by DemsRising on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

except that you're "preaching" (2.00 / 2)

"preaching" to party insiders

as for a demise: the last three special elections were real bummers.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: except that you're "preaching" (none / 0)

Heh, there's a lot of people preaching to party insiders including Obama supporters.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't have to "preach" (2.00 / 2)

The only "preaching" we're doing is reminding them, we're winning.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We don't have to "preach" (1.00 / 1)

Threatening


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:55:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's no threat (2.00 / 3)

Obama will come out on top and when he does, he earns the nomination. That's not a threat, that's a fact.

A threat is; "If you don't give it to us, we will leave the party"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:58:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

taking to the streets (1.00 / 0)

I can vote or not vote, leave or stay...that's a reality.

Al Sharpton called for riots in Denver if Obama is denied the nomination <----now that's a threat, a danerous one at that.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Al Sharpton threatened riots (2.00 / 3)

in my hometown since I was like 7 years old. It wouldn't be a day of the week in New York if he's not threatening riots and Al Sharpton isn't commenting on this blog

but since you brought up the riots threat, a friend of mine just switched from Clinton to Obama. Why? Because she attended a Clinton fundraiser in New York where someone asked her if she'd join in to "hold Denver hostage" during the convention. When she said no, she's supporting Obama if he wins, they told her she was stupid and naive for continuing to let men walk all over her.

Hold Denver hostage, eh? Seems like those threats come from both sides.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Al Sharpton threatened riots (1.00 / 0)

That's heresay; Sharpton's threat is fact.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: taking to the streets (none / 0)

Al Sharpton threatens riots on a regular basis.

This is not special.  Deal with it.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That was Limbaugh (none / 0)

Limbaugh, "Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (Singing to the tune of White Christmas) I'm dreaming of riots in Denver. ...But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, 'There will be riots',or something to that effect... Al Sharpton".

Sharpton actually said ,"Well, you not only would see people like me demonstrating, you may see us talking about whether or not we can support that ticket" Which is exactly what some HRC supporters plan to do...


Ida B. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.-Mark Twain
by Ida B on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (2.00 / 1)

How about doing what's right for the country?


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The right thing for me (2.00 / 1)

I am, IMO.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well MyDD (none / 0)

may not be the place for you when Clinton concedes.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well MyDD (2.00 / 1)

So be it.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:25:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamathugs lmao (1.00 / 3)

They love to threaten us.

Well, its not going to work.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamathugs lmao (none / 0)

"Threaten"?

How, exactly, have we threatened you?  Threatened you with what?  What have we said we are going to do with you?  To you?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obamathugs lmao (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, because we're the ones who would install Scalito clones in the Supreme Court.  We're the ones who want to stay in Iraq in perpetuity.  We're the ones who think the last seven years have been just stellar economically.

Obama and his supporters are not our opponents here.  George W. Bush, his friend John McCain, and the entire backward Republican Party are.  A vote for the Democratic nominee ensures a future for reproductive rights, a solid commitment to a stronger economy, and a rational foreign policy.  A non-vote, or worse a vote for John McCain, only sends our country further backward.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:12:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obamathugs (none / 0)

are trying to get a Democrat elected in 2008, you're trying to get Hillary Clinton or nobody.

MyDD is a Democratic blog, not a Hillary blog, if she's out and you're goal is not to get a Democrat elected, then you shouldn't be here.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. (2.00 / 3)

I feel like a lot of the "unity" diaries fall into one of the three categories.  The first is the preachy "you need to do the right thing" diary, such as this.  The second is the "we kicked your asses, so get over it" diary.  The third is the more respectful "we are all Democrats and lets talk about  how much we hate McCain" diaries.

At this point, preaching to Clinton supporters or telling us to "get over it" when a) Obama hasn't even won and b) there are still five more primaries is a bit condescending.  I think it is telling that in the last three competitive primary cycles, the only one in which the nominee went on to victory was  in 1992, when Bill Clinton did not secure the nomination until June.  In 2000 and 2004, the nominees were determined much earlier and went on to defeat.

Everybody just needs to stop panicking and let this play out.  We all know where this is going.  Preaching to the Clinton supporters and or excoriating them for refusing to jump on the Hopemobile only makes things worse.


Another Clintonista against John McCain
by psychodrew on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The diary simply asked the question (2.00 / 1)

what will you do if and when she concedes.

As an Obama supporter, early on, I was asked that CONSTANTLY before 90% of the states voted.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Agreed. (none / 0)

What will you do?  Will you honor your candidate's wishes, or not?  It really is that simple...

FYI The "Clinton did not secure the nomination until June in 1992" meme is not entirely accurate.  On March 10, he had a very significant lead; on April 7, it was all but clinched.  Also, you're comparing a very front-loaded process in 2008 to a much more balanced 1992.


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
by AK Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 11)

My mother-in-law is a very strong HRC supporter.  Not anti-Obama in any way but just passionately supportive of HRC.

She's said that she'll max out to Barack in the fall and GOTV wherever is necessary.  The costs are too great for any of us to sit this out against McSame.


by Pat Flatley on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:10:18 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 3)

Damn straight!

No matter what, we need to make sure there aren't any more Scalitos on SCOTUS.  One Scalito replacing someone like Stevens would likely mean the end of Roe v Wade to start - and all sorts of trouble after that.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bravo (2.00 / 2)


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 10)

Nice diary, and it is the absolute truth. The reasons I supported Hillary is because she is a progressive Democrat--and while I love her to death and I believe would be an amazing President, certainly anything would be better than McCain, and Barack is going to be a good President as well.

I'm tired of having to deal with the GOP in the White House. The whole nation's future depends on what happens in this November, and Barack HAS to win.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:13:26 PM EST

Standing Ovation!! (2.00 / 1)

Bravo!

This is what an adult does.


"McSame: He's Constipated and Ready to GO!
by Al Rodgers on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

I am. That's what I just told you. I'm fighting for the Democratic Party. The party that is now turning it's back on many constituents. I'm fighting with the only tool I have; my vote.


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15:34 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

What constituents is it turning its back on?  How has it done this?  How has it evinced an intent to turn its back on them?

Not nominating the rich, well-heeled white candidate does not mean that blue-collar workers need not apply.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let it rest. (2.00 / 1)

You aren't getting anywhere with soyousay, and I think he/she is just seeking attention at this point.  You aren't going to persuade him/her with words, only time will (or won't) change soyousay's mind.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 4)

I will always vote for the Dem nominee. I've done that since I cast my first vote in 1972. Have I been disappointed with the choices available at times? Yes, but the welfare of my country comes first above any tantrum I might want to throw.

Especially this election. McCain would be a nightmare and seriously damage this country. If Hillary was the nominee you damn right bet I'd vote for her. I may support Obama but I'll not be a part of destroying this country by pouting and electing McCain...Never, ever.


by Bastet on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:16:16 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 4)

Bravo.

I'm admittedly an Obama supporter, but this is the first time in my life that my primary candidate ended up winning the nomination.  It's just a reality of politics.  I've fought my ass off for every Democratic nominee.


by Pat Flatley on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:18:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 2)

Agreed, Pat, although this is actually the second time I've been on the winning end during the primary season (I was hardcore for Al Gore).

I couldn't even consider a vote for McCain.


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
by AK Democrat on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 3)

Most are going to vote for Obama. The ones that won't are just particularly loud, as tantrums tend to be.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:16:59 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

Any stats to back this up or just a hunch?


by soyousay on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 2)

More of a reflection as to how things have gone in the past. Just look at this site. The people who threaten to abandon the party are a minority, yet they're the ones flooding the diaries with tantrums. When people actually conduct anonymous polls, the results are far more rational.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

I betcha no more than 10% of Hillary supporters will be backing McCain after the conventionl
by Cheebs on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

Good luck with that 10% assumption.


by bsavage on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

A modest hope that most of you have some better angels than graemlyns of discontent.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

I may consider re-registering as an independent.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:21 PM EST

We'll try to miss you (1.66 / 3)


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

This is the initial impulse - it always is for anyone whose primary candidate comes up short (read: mine almost all the time).  But then it's time to think of the kids and the grandkids.  

Do we want our kids stuck in a war in the Middle East?  Do we want our daughters and granddaughters (god forbid) to have to resort to an "illegal" alley abortion because they made an awful mistake...that one night?  Do I want my kid saddled with billions of dollars of debt?  

Um, no.

Democrat in 2008.  It could be Mike Gravel.  I don't care.  No John McSame.


by Pat Flatley on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Jesus... (2.00 / 3)

...even McCain supporters turned out to vote for Bush in 2000, after Bush accused McCain of fathering an AA child...I'm certain our party is stronger than the GOP...


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:36 PM EST

Re: Jesus... (none / 0)

Exactly.  Thank you.

What Rove/Bush did to McCain in South Carolina was 1000000000000000000x worse than anything we could imagine during this primary.  And these people went to the mattresses for Bush.


by Pat Flatley on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't. I switched to Gore. (none / 0)


by JimR on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I didn't. I switched to Gore. (none / 0)

But did you switch to McCain from the Democrats in the first place?


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

Would you please provide me with links to any other dairies you wrote prior to this one? I would like to see the tone of those dairies before I answer this question.


"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."
by LadyEagle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

Please tell me you are not basing your decision on who to vote for/or not to vote based on one diarist at Mydd..


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

No. It runs much deeper.


"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."
by LadyEagle on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

The issue right now is not who the Hillary supporters will vote for, but rather the issue is unifying the party. It is up to both candidates to show the leadership necessary to unite us. If the party is united the rest will fall into place.

I really don't think that "hold your nose and vote" is what this party needs. I think we need an energetic, united party where everyone can breath together, and no one has to hold their nose. To even mention that is demeaning to your candidate as well as to the people you are appealing to.

I would suggest that from here on, before we post any diary or comment, we should ask ourselves, does this post serve the cause of unity? And unless you can answer yes, don't post it.

If we are truly unified, we win, and if we are not unified, no amount of cajoling is going to make a difference.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:38:42 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 1)

Agreed on all points--but I'll take "hold your nose and vote" over "stay at home and disengage" or, worse, "vote for McCain."


"The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."
by AK Democrat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

The problem is that without a united party, you are likely to get a lot of the latter two.


The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -- Thomas Jefferson
by pollbuster on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:40:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 2)

I am 90% sure I will vote for whichever of them wins the nomination, as I always have in the past.  I support Obama, I have reservations regarding HRC, mostly based on her positions on some of the issues, but I had reservations regarding other Democratic nominees and still voted for them in the general (I think the only time "my" candidate won the nomination in the past was when the Party selected Gore.)  I will vote for the Democratic nominee in either case because the election is about what is best for our country and I believe that either candidate would be preferable to the alternatives.  The other 10% uncertainty is in the case where I learn something between now and November which leads me to believe that the Democratic nominee would not, in fact, be the best President in the field, in which case I shall vote for whomever I think would be.  I am concerned that some of the diaries and comments I see seem to want to quash concerns on the issues if they are not in line with a particular candidate's stance.


"Information is the currency of democracy." -Thomas Jefferson
by bigsky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:43:30 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (2.00 / 2)

Although I have been an Obama supporter from the beginning I want so say that if by some unexpected occurrence Clinton could possibly win the nomination (even considering that questionable math might be involved in that outcome) I would vote for her in a heartbeat.

McCain has no redeeming qualities.

MCCAIN HAS NO REDEEMING QUALITIES.

I feel like I can't stress this enough!!


by mydoubleds on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:48:54 PM EST

Re: What will you do? (none / 0)

I'm voting for the creepy old bald guy