Another thing that hurt Hillary and will hurt McCain is that they just don’t grasp that we live in age were everything they say is always available to anyone who wants to look at it. Things like the Bosnia sniper debacle or that “McCains problem with youtube” video thats been going around would never have happened on any election prior to this one. Bold faced lies can and will be caught now.
The Republicans, especially, seem to have this particular disease running rampant. They haven’t quite grasped that they can’t go on a Sunday show anymore and simply deny that they said something six months ago that’s been proven false because someone, somewhere is going to find it on the internet and post it on a blog.
I meant it is their own doing because their states chose to flaunt party rules. Because despite knowing the penalties they chose to go ahead anyway. Because they refused to have any kind of do-over. Because they now hate caucus states despite having no issue for the last 30+ years they have been caucusing and because their own candidate, for whatever reason, chose to ignore those states in her campaign (note her own campaign people have already been quoted as saying that ignoring those states is at the very top of their list of reasons why they failed so even they recognize it as their mistake).
I am missing the part where middle-aged women are being told they are irrelevant (not being snarky…if you could explain more on that I’d be interested).
As for a working class person I think the Dems expect you to pull their lever because it is precisely that group whom they (at least say) they are there to help as opposed to big business of the Republicans. That seems like earning your vote but maybe I am misunderstanding.
I’m not trying to beat you up here. I believe most here just want their side understood. It can get a bit heated but in the end I think these threads help. They help me at least on a variety of levels in sorting out all the clamor even if it is still a bit of work to get through.
True.
And of course they will be replaying Rev. Wright ad nauseum for all its worth.
Cuts both ways.
Folks, I think that Suse is trying to explain how Hillary supporters feel–what their perceptions are. I think it would be great if we could avoid a tone of blaming the messenger. And I think it would be really great if we could get past the idea that every disgruntlement on the part of every unhappy female voter is somehow wholly traceable to the machinations of HRC. Not only is it implausible, it’s also, for strategic purposes irrelevant–the idea is to win over these voters and make them feel welcome, not to antagonize them by demonizing a woman they admire.
Here’s something I read on the internet today which I think reflects how many people feel about her:
*"[Hillary Clinton] ran an historic race, a historic campaign that shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere who know now that there are no limits to their dreams. What’s more, she inspired millions of women and men with her strength, her courage, and her unyielding commitment to the causes that brought us here today – the hopes and aspirations of working Americans.
“Our party and our country are stronger because of the work that Hillary Rodham Clinton has done throughout her life, and I look forward to working with her … to make sure we lay out the case for change and set a new course for this country.”*
PUMA up to their old tricks?
Well, before anyone starts getting all fired up about the post-menopausal hordes, these words were uttered in today’s Boston Globe by none other than Barack Obama.
I find two things really bizarre about what’s going on here. First, I find it completely bizarre that people who are so clearly enthusiastic about a candidate can be so genuinely and passionately moved by his virtues and yet so utterly incapable of emulating them.
Second, I’m just amazed that this often vitriolic exchange is taking place between people whom as far as I can tell will vote for the same man, share many of the same ideals, and have everything to gain by listening to and respecting one another.
Back to PUMA for a moment, if you’ll permit me. I ended up focusing on the homepage rather than the blog. What I saw was praise much like that Obama bestowed and also this:
No candidate for president should ever have to face what she faced in order to get to this place in the nomination process. No popular two-term US senator should ever be required to justify or defend his or her presence in a presidential race. No distinguished and admired American, one who represents the hopes and dreams of millions of other Americans, should ever be expected to be ashamed of him or herself for running for office, for competing strenuously, and for challenging their opponent vigorously. No former First Lady, whatever her party affiliation, personal style, or opinions, should ever be treated with scorn, disrespect, or rhetorical violence by the public institutions of American life — our media, our political parties, and our elected and appointed officials. Today is a shameful day for them."
Maybe I’m wrong but to me these seem like the words of people dealing with a very deep sense of grievance and disappointment aggravated by a variety of complex circumstances. I don’t, in other words, think that these feelings can be reduced to Hillary’s manipulations–as though these women would be happy campers if only Hillary had left the race after Super Tuesday.
Folks, every vote is going to count in this race. Do you really want even one voter who really admired Hillary and believed in her candidacy to think of Obama enthusiasts as ungenerous misogynists ready to write them off as too old or too unhip to matter? Can it possibly be that none of these people read boards like the Straight Dope? Do think if Barack were posting he’d be piling on?
Quote the whole letter:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/17/776838.aspx
And I believe you are correct in saying that the Republican party was responsible for moving the primary forward.
The teachers union sued Nevada, not Clinton. And not to keep the Culinary Workers from voting, but because
Certainly Clinton did some things she ought not in the primary, but she shouldn’t be blamed for actions and words that are not hers.
I agree that we’ll be seeing a lot of the “god damn america” video in coming months, but my point was more about easily proved dishonesty rather than embarrassing moments caught on tape. A video of a candidate saying one thing then saying the complete opposite, or worse denying ever saying it in the first place is pretty devastating.
Suse, I just wanted to thank you for that post on the bottom of p2. It was really illuminating.
I’m sorry if you see my posts as vitriolic. Perhaps they do have that flavor and I should be more careful in my writing as at heart that is not my intention. More an issue of getting carried away although I do not think I have been unduly mudslinging either.
The disappointment I get and can understand. The issues, while complex, I do not get from the Clinton side of the fence. I’m sorry but I just don’t. Obama did nothing in the election to steal anything. He played within the rules and in this day-and-age of poisonous politics I think arguably stayed farther above the mess than is we have come to expect from most politicians of whatever stripe.
I agree that party unity is primary. Which is why I am shocked a great many people, who by all accounts SHOULD hate Bush and by extension McCain who is promising to continue many of his policies, would be saying they will vote McCain, write in Clinton or stay home. It is here where I really just do not get it. They want to punish Obama for…what? Winning?
The teacher’s union which endorsed Clinton. It takes someone with proper standing to bring a lawsuit so it would need to be someone like them and not the campaign.
While I do not know I would find it hard to believe the teacher’s union just did it all of their own accord with no input from the Clinton campaign. Even if they did go it alone Clinton could have made statements asking them not to persue the lawsuit or to find a resolution that works as opposed to, literally, disenfranchising a large group of people. She did not do that that I am aware of.
Perhaps allowing those people to vote was bogus and against the rules and the lawsuit was entirely justified and correct in enforcing the rules as established.
But then if enforcing the rules as established is what ought to be done we can take that forward to changing the rules as established with Fl & MI.
Bottom line it looks hypocritical to me.
I have to admit that I’m kind of amused about the official Clinton campaign blog. Last night, when I quoted a bunch of anti-Obama stuff, the last blog entry sat with only 13 comments for a couple days. Today, it has 163 comments – obviously there was a backlog while the site censors did their magic. Whereas before the comment sections were filled with all manner of hatred for Obama and vows to never vote for him, this is what the latest blog comment section looks like…
And not a single “McCain '08/Clinton 2012!!!” post in the entire section.
Whack-a-Mole, I’m sorry if it seemed as though I was singling you out–that wasn’t at all my intention. But thanks very much nonetheless for your care.
I don’t actually think that they want to punish Obama. I think they believe that the only way they can be heard is to withdraw their support. I’m not saying this makes sense; I’m only saying its the vibe I’m picking up and I think I can understand it.
Thats what i don’t get, they act as if they’ve been wronged somehow.
Well, FWIW, your choice come November will be for Obama and not any of the goofs on this or other message boards pissing you off and per your own quotes Obama does seem to be doing his level, typically eloquent, best to hear and appeal to the Clinton voters. 
The only way they can be heard about what? What is their grievance? Why are they calling Barack Obama an “abuser?”
That is what you don’t get. It’s not about punishing Obama. It’s about punishing the party. It’s about finding a place that makes them feel that they are respected, listened to, and welcomed. If Obama can do that, he may get their votes, if he can overcome the perception of inexperience. If not, McCain’s already extending a welcome.
Regarding your other question, I’m not sure I can even describe it. (I just tried, and abandoned a very long attempt.) Maybe one of our more eloquent women could do it.
This is the puzzler, actually. There is no way that anyone who is actually concerned about feminism or women’s issues (including abortion) could possibly imagine that McCain is actually welcoming them sincerely into the Republican Party, along with all of their feminism and concerns about women’s issues (including abortion). McCain is not pro-choice, regardless of the blatherskite he’s trying to put out there. Choosing McCain because you think he (and the Republican Party) might actually listen to you better than Obama or the Democratic Party will is not really that smart a deal if you were to look at it objectively, once the disappointment of Clinton’s loss is past.
Sorry – I should’ve been more clear that my questions were mostly rhetorical. I’m not sure which Brazile and Dean comments you’re referring to.
Anyone who’s going to a Clinton blog and taunting them or insulting Clinton is an ass. For the record, though, apparently they’re not even willing to listen to reasonable requests from their own long-term posters. Here’s a guy who was banned from a board he considered home, for daring to say he would be following Hillary’s lead in supporting Obama.
I just want to make clear that the rest of your reply was in response to someone else’s post(s), so I can’t answer to those.
I’m not blaming the messenger at all, merely pointing out what I perceive to be the misplacement of the targets of Hillary’s supporters’ anger.
I don’t believe anyone made that allegation. As for me, I attributed the debacle of Florida and Michigan becoming a circus 100% to Hillary, and I stand by that. Other sources of anger are clearly coming from other places as well, such as the rude Fox broadcasters, for instance.
And although it may be irrelevant to winning over her voters, this isn’t a thread intended for that purpose, so it’s perfectly appropriate to have this discussion here, as opposed to, as Suse so rightly points out, on one of the Hillary boards.
Why would anyone doubt that Barack Obama would have kind things to say about Hillary Clinton? Why would that praise get anyone here “all fired up about the post-menopausal hordes”? I don’t think I understand what your point was.
How is having this discussion, in this particular forum, not emulating Barack Obama? Are we never, ever, from here on out, allowed to discuss the merits, or lack thereof, of the temper tantrums that some, some, of Clinton’s supporters are throwing? That’s what this thread is for. If you want to see a thread praising Hillary Clinton, I’d like to direct you here.
I won’t pick that whole PUMA statement apart, but suffice it to say, there are parts I agree with and parts I take issue with. But I also don’t see where anyone has claimed that the hurts these people are feeling are entirely due to Hillary’s manipulations. However, some of them are. And it’s those instance where I think Hillary has an obligation to do her part to help heal those wounds. I don’t think anyone else is in a position to do so. How can I help Clinton’s supporters feel better about what happened in Florida and Michigan? I can’t.
I can point out until I’m blue in the face that Hillary used false premises and fake concern to get them all in a tizzy, hoping she could drum up enough emotional currency to get things changed in her favor. But as we both know, that tack isn’t going to work. No, the only person who stands a chance of getting through to the people who feel hurt by that, is the person who caused that hurt – Hillary.
Clearly she’s not to be expected to apologize for any and every hurt her supporters feel; as I’ve already acknowledged, not all of them came from her. But this was a BIG one, and this was the one I was primarily responding to above. I think she has a responsibility to accept her own part in some of the aspects of the pain her supporters are feeling, and be the one to help get them over it. Knowing what I do of her, I have no doubt that we’ll be seeing at least a degree of that over the next few weeks and months (though I hold out no hope that she’ll speak out about FL & MI in particular). Here’s to a more hopeful tomorrow!
…and just when I give up, I find something that speaks to me.
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-mccain-women-jun06,0,5085404.story
I don’t know that voters do it consciously, but this explains my feelings of frustration to me. I’ve honestly considered not voting because I can’t connect with either candidate.
And before you start to berate me for not being logical, it’s not about logic. And it has to come from either Obama or McCain, not their supporters, or it won’t work.
It won’t please you and it isn’t pretty, but it feels like truth.
Way to shatter those stereotypes about emotional, irrational women.
Here’s a very simple question: do you want to keep the right to choose or do you want to lose it?