Why the white hot fury of Clinton supporters toward Obama after the loss?

Great Debates
141

First off, I am not surprised that many Clinton supporters cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama. I don’t think any other candidate in a party primary in recent memory has done so much to make their opponent seem utterly unpalatable and incapable of holding the office they are running for, and even praised the opposing political party’s nominee as being better prepared to be POTUS than the opponent from their own party, as Hillary Clinton has done in this primary.

Shame on her. The day she praised McCain as being better prepared to be POTUS than Obama, she stepped over a line that should not be crossed during a party primary. (Of course, her rationale was most likely that this scorched-earth approach had the following benefits: (a) Damaging Obama’s credibility to be president as much as possible was the only way to win enough of the remaining states and superdelegates to win the nomination, given the lead he had at the time, and (b) Even if this did not work out, she damaged him enough so that McCain will win in '08, giving her the chance to run again in '12. But, whatever the reason, what she did was despicable.)
Regarding media bias, if the media didn’t want a woman running, why didn’t they back Edwards over Clinton? In fact the media almost completely talked only about Clinton vs Obama, even when Edwards was still in the race. How does that jive with the accusation that the media was sexist? If they were sexist, they would constantly talk about Edwards vs Obama, ignoring Clinton, in the early stages of the primaries. But they didn’t. They talked about Clinton and Obama because they saw how much these two candidates resonated with the voters.

Regarding the assertion that the DNC, the media, Obama, et al conspired to “steal” this primary from Clinton, I feel that
(1) Having superdelegates may be stupid
(2) Having caususes may be stupid
(3) Having a system that counts delegates instead of the popular vote may be stupid
(4) Disqualifying the delegates from Florida and Michigan may have been stupid
But these were the rules that were in place when the primary started. The rules were not put in place to ensure an Obama win. Only in hindsight do some of the above seem to have favored Obama. To say, after the fact, that these rules should be changed to suit the needs of the Clinton supporters is preposterous. Yes, these rules should be changed for future primaries, but for this one, the current rules should stay.

One thing I find interesting is that, by some calculations, Clinton supporters are convinced that she would have won either (1) If the popular vote were the one that mattered or (2) If the Dems awarded delegates “like the Republicans do”, which is a winner-take-all system.

First of all, even ignoring whether Clinton would have won under any of the above systems, it seems interesting that they are wistfully wishing and praising two diametrically opposed systems. A delegate system with winner-take-all is on the opposite side of the spectrum from a popular-vote system, with the current Dem system of proportional delegate awards being in the middle. Either you praise the fairness of counting the popular vote, or the stability that results from the winner-take-all delegate system, but you can’t wish for both.
On the need to “embrace” Clinton supporters and not vilify them for being hysterical ("NOBAMA!! NO WAY!! NEVER MEANS NEVER!!! HE IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED!!!), I say to hell with them. I personally wouldn’t mind much either way if Obama or McCain were elected, but if these women want to “punish” God-knows-who and “send a message” by voting for McCain, without considering that he will most likely appoint one or two Supreme Court justices, and that thus they may have a hand in, among other things, overturning Roe v. Wade, which is a very important issue to many of them, it is completely irrational behavior, and this should not be glossed over.
Finally, regarding who will win in November, at times it seems that Obama will win easily, but then I think of several factors working against Obama:

  • He is Black and a big swath of the US is simply not willing to vote for a Black person.
  • The situation with Rev Wright irreparably damaged Obama in the eyes of many
  • Clinton defectors may cause more damage than some pundits think
    Given the above, it seems that McCain will win in November. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how this thing unfolds.
142

Christ, this really is like talking to my wife. I keep asking “why are you upset,” and I keep getting opaque answers.

What are you begging me to take seriously? I’m really trying to understand. You don’t have an emotional connection to Barack Obama? So what? Barack OIbama excepted, I’ve never had an emotional connection to any political candidate. It’s never even occurred to me that I should. I’m just looking for someone who will support the policies I support and oppose the policies I oppose. Why does a connection have to factor into it?

I can understand the disappointment of having that connection with a candidate and then not having it come to fruition, but I don’t understand the charges that this candidate has been wronged or had anything unjustly taken from her.

143

For the first time ever in my life the word “treacly” springs to mind. :stuck_out_tongue:

Then sentiment is well taken though.

144

It’s amazing, they cleaned it all up!

I’m pretty sure all the supporters that put all those anti-Obama messages must feel betrayed by her. (The PUMA website must have their reactions, but I’ve had enough of that website after just one visit, and I don’t want to visit them to see what they’re saying)

145

I believe if you re-read my post I said they feel as if they’ve been wronged. More on this below.

Whack-a-Mole, I think I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t think HRC lost because of sexism; in fact I’m thinking of changing my posting name to that phrase :wink:

Let me see if I can enumerate a few points about which I think there is some agreement to see where if at all the people still following this thread disagree.

  1. HRC lost but it was a close race.
  2. There was sexism as well as racism in evidence during the process.
    2a. Sexism was largely evident in the media rather than in the Obama campaign.
    2b. Racism was evident in the media and (many would say) was taken advantage of by the HRC campaign.
  3. Obama won because of a variety of factors: e.g., Hillary’s waffling about Iraq, mistakes with her campaign; Obama’s superior appeal and his well-run campaign.
  4. #3 is true even though on the actual issues they were fairly close.
  5. The nomination is now over and there is desire to bring Hillary’s supporters into the Obama camp.
  6. Hillary herself has given a speech toward this end which has been widely held to be gracious.
  7. Barack has been giving speeches praising Hillary which have been widely held to be gracious.
  8. A small but vocal group of Hillary supporters feel very angry and hurt; though it’s early days and some are already following Hillary’s unity message, others are threatening to stay at home/write-in HRC’s name/vote for McCain
    8a. The media, always loving this kind of story, plays it up to the hilt.
  9. These threats leave some Obama supporters utterly confused: why would feminists act against their political interests.
  10. A thread is posted in which the question is asked why?
  11. Much bandwidth is expended. Moderators lose sleep.
  12. Some posters attempt to explain the feelings of these PUMA-type HRC supporters even though these same posters are not themselves members of the group.
  13. These posters try to explain that the disgruntlement of the PUMAnians stems from their feeling fed up with sexism in the media, dissed by the Democratic Party, disappointed that their candidate was treated so harshly and not fully respected–feelings compounded by the belief on the part of some that Hillary would/should have won (if, for example, Michigan/Florida had been counted, or the caucus system had been better)
  14. These posters do not share the views of the PUMAnians but think they understand the feelings that underlie them; there is, they allege, sufficient sexism to understand why people who are already disappointed can feel genuinely aggrieved, defeated, disrespected, alienated, miserable.
  15. Confusion ensues because some Obama-supporting posters assume that #14 is the same thing as saying that Barack won because of sexism, or because he was sexist, or that he must apologize for sexism, etc. etc.
  16. Some posters stay up all night trying to get past the impasse.
  17. All posters agree that it would be a good thing if every voted the Democratic ticket in November.

Okay, does this work?

And if so, who buys me a drink? :wink:

146

This is getting at the crux of the matter here, but even acknowledging that these are feelings and perceptions that you agree may not accurately reflect reality, I still don’t understand the source of these perceptions. I don’t understand why they even feel that Hillary was dissed by the party. They bent over backwards to support her and show her respect. She started off with more superdelegates. The party refrained from nudging her out until the last vote was counted. They acceeded to her demand to play Calvinball with the rules. They think she was treated harshly? Treated harshly by who? Disrespected by who? Certainly not by her opponent and not by the party. I won’t even get into the “what if” issues re: FL and MI (if the queen had a dick, she’d be the king).

I think maybe the question I’m really trying to assrtain here is, exactly who are they mad at, and how is voting for McCain going to get back at those who they’re mad at? Voting for McCain to spite Fox News strikes me as a bit of impaired thinking.

147

Gotcha you are trying to explain a position not necessarily your own.

A position that while you do not buy into you feel you understand.

In stereotypical guy fashion I will say, “I don’t get it.” :stuck_out_tongue: (not you…the PUMAnian position)

Sexism in the media? Mostly assholes on FOX…what’s new about that? But yes, there was some sexism in evidence and yes, totally uncool. But in no way have I seen it as overt or rampant or an issue leveled at Clinton. Did some people not voter for her because she was a woman (knowingly or subconsciously)? Almost certainly. Was it a decisive issue? I have seen no evidence that it was (but that may be impossible to assess accurately…people choose for all sorts of reasons…many most of us would think absurd).

DNC dissed them? How? Where? If anything the DNC capitulated to Clinton in changing the rules which helped her and not Obama. They are pissed because they should have done more? Something else?

I’ll stop rehashing the laundry list as we’ve done it.

Honestly I see the PUMAnians as people who are just pissed their candidate lost. There is nothing unfair in the election. Obama won fair-and-square. Period. Full Stop.

But then most here are all too aware that facts seem lost on all too many people more interested in holding on to their pet notions (I like the folk who still accuse Obama of being a Muslim and then can go on to rant about his association with Rev. Wright and never wonder at the disconnect there).

You’ve done a bangup job Dorothea Book in presenting your case and if you are ever in Chicago drinks are definitely my treat. I just still do not see the PUMAnian position as anything other than irrational (don’t start with the women + irrational…just plain old irrational) and bogus from stem-to-stern.

148

These are good questions Diogenes but I too have a spouse and he’s tired, you’re not offering me a drink, so this will have to wait for another day ;).

Ah–on preview Whack-a-mole is offering a drink. And I will be in Chicago in July!

149

Send me a Private Message here when you know your schedule and I’ll be happy to treat you and your husband to dinner and drinks and make sure we are all dysfunctional the next day.

Maybe we can scrounge up a few other dopers too…or visit the SDMB office here and see if we can corner Cecil (we’ll do that after some drinks…they’ll be more accommodating to us that way). :wink:

150

Fair enough, Dorothea, and I do appreciate your attempts to explain things. You strike me as thoughful and bright and literate, which means you fit in well here.

151

And I keep trying to explain to you that I, personally, am not upset about the nomination. But that I can understand some of the Clinton supporters who are. I get the ones who feel that they are being marginalized because of their age, their gender, their economic and educational status, and yes, their race. (It’s quite obviously offensive to be told that a vote for Clinton equals being a racist, and that experience has been reported by many on the blogs.)

I voted, and left the primaries behind until recently. I didn’t stay current on the vote counts and controversies and all the media coverage. I did it deliberately, the same way I chose the candidate I voted for, because I wanted to avoid the personality politics that inevitably arise when a Clinton is on the ballot. So when the primaries were over and the over-the-top rhetoric began to the point where I couldn’t avoid it, I went to HRC’s blog, and then to other blogs, to try to find out what was going on. What I’ve reported is what I saw there. Some reasons I can’t explain, because I wasn’t following the ins and outs of which states were allowed to move their primaries/caucuses and which weren’t, and some I can. I tried to make some sense of those reasons for those who just see hysteria.

These people connected with Clinton, some because they are older women, some because they are poor or because they haven’t had the benefits of higher education. They remember the 90s as good times and were and are outraged and frustrated at the demonization of the Clintons. It was one thing when the Republicans did it, but now it’s their peers in their own party. It’s seen as a double betrayal.

As for explaining the ‘connection’ issue as it relates to me and those like me, I was trying to figure out why I couldn’t feel excited. After all, my candidate won. I should be happy, right? But I feel detached from the whole process, which is unusual for me in a political campaign. So I tried to analyze the reasons why, and presented them here, because I know I am not the only one who feels uncommitted to this candidate.

Connections work both ways. One is either attracted to or repelled by a candidate and his/her policies, words, actions, etc. (Witness the many threads about Bush, Obama, either Clinton, right here on this board.) I think the key to winning over many former Clinton supporters will be in finding the things about Obama and his policies that can make them identify/feel connected to him enough to make them pull the lever for him. (Or alternately, make them feel repelled enough by McCain to vote against him.) Roe v Wade isn’t cutting it this time; many of the bloggers find it offensive that they should be cast as one-issue voters.

I don’t believe that voters consciously choose candidates based on connections/emotion but I do believe that it is a very strong unconscious factor and one that should not be discounted by anyone who hopes to win this race.

I hope that makes it clearer.

152

Sexism mostly from Fox News, which is right-wing. So, to punish the right-wing sexist media, they will vote the right-wing candidate into office. Makes perfect sense!

Dissed in what way? Some examples?

Is this even true? If she got exactly the number of delegates that those states would have awarded her based on the election results, would that have been enough to overcome Obama’s lead?

Isn’t it a bit late to complain about the caucus system?

Why feel “betrayed” by a system that has been around forever? Change it if you must, in future elections, but this election started with caucuses in place.

Not every feeling has to be validated. Just because someone genuinely feels something does not mean that others are not allowed to point out the irrationality of it, if it is based on delusions of wrongdoing.

153

That’s just obnoxious.

FWIW there are a staggering number of blogs out there and likely you could find one saying just about anything. If some Obama supporters are doing that then shame on them because I would bet my life savings Obama himself would tear them a new one. Not just for bad politics but because I think he would be genuinely offended at that. I bet if the reverse (Clintonites claiming that a vote for Obama was racist would likewise be appalled).

There are always some in every crowd and every camp. Unless you can show a distinct trend of this one or two loons, regardless of who they support, tells us nothing.

I also wonder where in all this hubbub Operation Chaos is?

Well…whichever side of the fence you are on with that it is a rather large issue. But more than that it goes to who is on the Supreme Court for the next decade and that is not the only issue at stake.

154

Suse and Dorothea Book, I think that you are leaving out some reasons that a large group of Clinton supporters are defecting to McCain.

Here is a random posting I found, that reflects the feelings of a very large number of such posts

No disappointment at sexism, no feelings of alienation or of being disrespected and wanting to be heard. Just the fact that they think that (1) Obama does not have enough experience and (2) Obama cannot be trusted because of his affiliation with radicals.

These are the same points the Clinton campaign was trying to get across. Well, they succeeded, and many people simply cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama.

155

Another priceless one

Shame on Clinton for that quote. Shame on her. And shame on people using sexism as an excuse of why she lost and why they are now going to vote for McCain.

156

I have no proof of this, but I think that a goodly portion of these people are trolling republicans.

157

According to Rush Limbaugh, they are. At least, that’s what he asked his audience to do. He asked them to register at her site and post anti-Obama messages.

158

Well actually it doesn’t make sense according to a logic of self-interest but many things done in anger or as a kind of rebellion don’t.

On the matter of the feelings about the DNC I refer you to Suse’s posts.

To be fair, I think a lot of people are calling for reform of the primaries–and not only people unhappy with the result. There have been editorials about it in the NYT for example.

I had not noticed that anyone wasn’t allowed to point out the irrationality (I’ve done it in this thread). And, no, you don’t have to validate every feeling but as I understand this thread these are feelings that some here really want to try to understand.

On the matter of sexism–this is as much a comment to a number of posts on this topic not just to you, Polerius.

It’s one thing to say that overt sexism on Fox and a few other cable channels isn’t a sound reason for not voting for Obama (I’d agree with that).

It’s another thing to say that sexism on Fox and a few other cable channels is a “so what” issue–easily ignored and dismissed. A lot of people feel very differently about that. If you check out the “Mad as Hell” video and others like it you’ll see that that kind of open misogyny–as though it’s simply okay to do–is very much what the anger is about.

The problem is that it’s humiliating for a woman to have to take that kind of exposure. We would not be dismissive if humiliating forms or racism or anti-semitism were occuring, even on a station as abject as Fox, and I don’t think we should about sexism either. But that’s a subject for another day…

159

I suppose it could be phrased better but “Roe v Wade!” is really shorthand for “Someone is going to be selecting 2-3 Supreme Court Justices who’ll be around for much of your life, long after Obama or McCain has left office.”

Roe v Wade is the easy emotional issue to strike for but I’m also concerned about civil liberties such as wiretapping, data mining, habeus corpus, private property rights, etc. I’m also concerned about people who read McCain’s promise to appoint more Roberts/Scalia/Alito style justices and then take the pollyanna stance that “Oh, he probably doesn’t really mean it and will appoint moderates. McCain isn’t really like that…”

The “the Senate will protect us” line doesn’t instill much confidence either. You may as well say “It’s okay if we give that toddler a loaded gun because we can probably stop him from doing too much harm…” Maybe or maybe not. It seems like a really stupid thing to test though given that we’ll be living with the results for decades to come.

160

Shayna that sounds great. I really appreciate your passion and the work that you’re doing.

I hope it’s clear by now that I posted those 2 videos not to rile up anyone but to make clear that media sexism is in fact hurting some people and making them feel very alienated. It really is gross: as you said “Blech”

Suse, I think the lack of connection issue is complicated and I thank you for being so candid.

Whack-a-Mole, it’s not often that I get a dinner invitation online–thanks! I think we should split that tab but I’ll check our schedule for that trip in the next couple of weeks and send you an email when I do.