Hillary Supporters: did she convince you to back Barack?

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
So, if a candidate in the general election can only muster 51% of the voters to support him, how can he be expected to lead? Is that a fair extension of your argument?
[/QUOTE]
No.

A large part of the argument for why Obama should be president (as opposed to Hillary or McCain) is that he would superior at building consensus and fostering cooperation. So for example, he claims that dialogue and negotiation with Iran and other foreign powers – when he does it – will achieve more than the approaches of Bush and/or McCain. More broadly, much of his appeal as a candidate has always been that he is a unifier; you will recall that the signature meme of the speech that made him nationally famous was about ceasing to see sharp divisions between “red” and “blue” America.

There is no record of him ever having done any large-scale unifying, obviously, since he has never been an executive and has only been in the senate for half a term. It would seem to be that the challenge of unifying his own party is a good test of whether or not he will actually be able to do the sorts of things he claims he could do as President.

Now a normal, take-no-prisoners hardball politician is indeed free to take a “fuck you, I got 50%+1, I’m gonna do what I want” approach, and indeed I pretty much expect nearly all politicians to do so, whatever their rhetoric. But Obama (we are told by his supporters) is not just another politician, but something else, something more.

My argument, then, is that his failure to persuade Hillary supporters – so much so that there are MORE of these PUMAs now than there were a few months ago (contrary to what common sense and every pundit I know of told us to expect), suggests that Obama does not have the unity-working mojo he claims to have; and the fact that so many Hillary supporters feel not just neglected but actively insulted suggests that he is, in fact, just another politician who feels no need to include or respect other viewpoints any more than he’s made to.

82

Obama has not convinced racists to support him, either. And I do not want him to do so. Your argument supposes that every individual is equally valuable when consensus building. He doesn’t have infinite time to assuage the concerns of every single voter in the united states.

It would appear that most Clinton voters are getting on board with Obama, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the remainder are a lost cause.

The continual flogging of an impossible straw-campaign of infinite unity and instantaneous change is interesting, in that it seems like only his opponents are expecting of him the messiah qualities that they purport to loathe.

83

[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Your mainly PUMA clientele probably don’t come around these boards too much. And from what I know about true PUMAs they are either stealth republicans or thinking that the DNC made Clinton say those things. I don’t believe true democrats were members of PUMA, and further I don’t believe true democrats would ever, EVER vote for a republican after the 8 years we have had…hurt feelings or not.
EDIT:
I should mention on edit that I don’t believe all Hillary fans were PUMAs. I was just using them as an example.
[/QUOTE]

PUMA? What’s PUMA? People Up McCain’s Ass?

84

[QUOTE=Jurph]
Well, part of the point of this thread was to draw them out and to ask them why they still insisted, against their preferred candidate’s wishes, on supporting a Republican. I think the resounding silence shows that the ill will is not nearly as pervasive as this week’s media fad would have us believe.

If the Dems can frame McCain’s VP pick as a bad choice, that will be the talk of the conventions.
[/QUOTE]

Anyone on this board who’s still planning on supporting McCain over Obama knows that you guys don’t really want an answer; you just want another excuse to attack Clinton. Heck, some of you in this thread still insist on believing that every thing she says and every thing she does is some sort of cold, calculating maneuver to grasp more power.

If anyone can lose this campaign for Obama other than Obama himself, it will be some of his most vocal supporters. Especially the kind who threaten vengeance against old white ladies if he doesn’t win. (Blogs are bad. Must…stop…reading…blogs.)

85

[QUOTE=Suse]
Anyone on this board who’s still planning on supporting McCain over Obama knows that you guys don’t really want an answer; you just want another excuse to attack Clinton.
[/quote]

Nobody here is attacking Clinton. The vast majority of us would have voted for Clinton if she’d been the nominee. Any Hillary supporters who would vote for McCain are stabbing Hillary in the back and betraying women in general. Their excuses don’t fly, their hostility towards Obama is asinine and unfounded, and their childish spite is driving them to vote against everything they say they care about.

Joe Biden authored the Violence Against Women Act. John McCain voted against that act.

The Supreme Court is one seat away from Losing Roe.

These women say they want UHC. Do they or don’t they?

They say they want to get out of Iraq. McCain says he wants to stay there for 100 years.

“Excuse to attack Clinton,” my ass. These bitches are spitting right in her face and selling out every ideal she cares about. They don’t give a shit about Hillary.

86

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
PUMA? What’s PUMA? People Up McCain’s Ass?
[/QUOTE]

LOL!! I wish I was in Denver, that would be on a Rally Sign !:smiley:

87

There’s still plenty of Clinton-hate around these boards; look at the speech thread from last night and today. And this from Happy Lendervedder

[QUOTE=]
Obviously, the Pubs want to hurt the Obama campaign. But I think the Clintons might too. They might be saying all the right things up on stage and to the media right now, but I’m not convinced they’ve forgotten the nastiness of the primaries. These PUMAs might be their surrogates who say what they (the Clintons) really feel, hoping it’ll cost Obama the election that they felt should’ve been theirs, and setting themselves up for a 2012 run again.
[/QUOTE]

That’s mild, though, compared to the other thread.

And I wasn’t talking about PUMAs at all. I was merely stating that the posters here don’t really want an answer; they want some fresh meat to tear apart.

By the way, Dio , the sky was blue here today.
Just a test, nothing to see here.

88

[QUOTE=furt]

There is no record of him ever having done any large-scale unifying, obviously, since he has never been an executive and has only been in the senate for half a term.
[/QUOTE]
<sigh> I know you’ve participated in some of these threads, and I’m pretty sure you’ve seen posts that contain links and references to bi-partisan work Barack Obama has accomplished. I’m also pretty confident that you know how to use the internet, are familiar with his website’s url (www.barackobama.com) and know how to google.

So why do you persist, more than 6 months into the election season, in remaining intentionally ignorant about the facts?

First of all, you utterly dismiss his entire career in the Illinois Senate, as if that has no relevance whatsoever. Well it does. While there, he personally championed the most sweeping death penalty legislation in the history of the state – legislation no one, not even his own party, wanted to see passed. And not only did it ultimately pass, it passed unanimously.

And that’s not to mention The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (which lead to the creation of http://usaspending.gov/, by the way), about which was said. . .

And then there’s this rather extensive list of bipartisan work, as well.

Perhaps you’d like to reassess your position.

89

[QUOTE=furt]
A large part of the argument for why Obama should be president (as opposed to Hillary or McCain) is that he would superior at building consensus and fostering cooperation. So for example, he claims that dialogue and negotiation with Iran and other foreign powers – when he does it – will achieve more than the approaches of Bush and/or McCain. More broadly, much of his appeal as a candidate has always been that he is a unifier; you will recall that the signature meme of the speech that made him nationally famous was about ceasing to see sharp divisions between “red” and “blue” America.

There is no record of him ever having done any large-scale unifying, obviously, since he has never been an executive and has only been in the senate for half a term. It would seem to be that the challenge of unifying his own party is a good test of whether or not he will actually be able to do the sorts of things he claims he could do as President.

Now a normal, take-no-prisoners hardball politician is indeed free to take a “fuck you, I got 50%+1, I’m gonna do what I want” approach, and indeed I pretty much expect nearly all politicians to do so, whatever their rhetoric. But Obama (we are told by his supporters) is not just another politician, but something else, something more.

My argument, then, is that his failure to persuade Hillary supporters – so much so that there are MORE of these PUMAs now than there were a few months ago (contrary to what common sense and every pundit I know of told us to expect), suggests that Obama does not have the unity-working mojo he claims to have; and the fact that so many Hillary supporters feel not just neglected but actively insulted suggests that he is, in fact, just another politician who feels no need to include or respect other viewpoints any more than he’s made to.
[/QUOTE]
There are several problems with this attempt at analysis.

One: There certainly is evidence of his ability to pull disparate groups together to work toward a common resolution to a problem on a large scale. The various pieces of legislation (exemplified by but not limited to the Illinois death penalty legislation) in which he has accomplished his stated goals despite entrenched opposition from both his own party and the opposition are evidence of that. The claim is not that he is capable of persuading 99%+ of the population, (whether of the Illinois Senate, the U.S. Senate, or the electorate) to jump on his bandwagon and follow him blindly as though he had the spell-binding qualities of a first-rate demagogue. The claim is that he is capable of working with enough people to persuade a sufficient number of opposing factions to join in a common purpose. No one claims that when he has brought enough unity to a group to accomplish a goal, that there remained no opposition. The claim is simply that he can build strong enough coalitions to overcome that opposition.
Certainly he has accomplished that in the Democratic Presidential race, persuading enough superdelegates and party bosses to provide him the nomination even though Senator Clinton or her supporters had initially established or wooed those people following rules established by Senator Clinton or her supporters to guarantee her the nomination.

Two: I have seen no evidence that the number of PUMAs (or cougars or whatever) is larger, now, than was predicted in June. What I have seen is the typical media driven attention to a small but vocal group of people. Just because more PUMA persons are showing up with miocrophones in their faces in recent weeks does not mean that there are more of them. It simply means that they make great copy for news (and infotainment) outlets who really have a hard time staying focused on serious issues.

90

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Two: I have seen no evidence that the number of PUMAs (or cougars or whatever) is larger, now, than was predicted in June. What I have seen is the typical media driven attention to a small but vocal group of people. Just because more PUMA persons are showing up with miocrophones in their faces in recent weeks does not mean that there are more of them. It simply means that they make great copy for news (and infotainment) outlets who really have a hard time staying focused on serious issues.
[/QUOTE]

Well, thats exactly what I was thinking, but you said it so much better than I could have.

91

[QUOTE=tomndebb]

Two: I have seen no evidence that the number of PUMAs (or cougars or whatever) is larger, now, than was predicted in June. What I have seen is the typical media driven attention to a small but vocal group of people. Just because more PUMA persons are showing up with miocrophones in their faces in recent weeks does not mean that there are more of them. It simply means that they make great copy for news (and infotainment) outlets who really have a hard time staying focused on serious issues.
[/QUOTE]

And it if this perceived tension increased ratings for the Dem convention, all the better.