I’m not talking about all Obama supporters. I’m talking about the fanatics like Liberal and Shayna. They may not be typical Obama supporters but they unfortunately stand out from the crowd.
Why? Liberal always stands out when he has an issue he believes in and I am as surprised as anyone that he’s supporting Obama; however he’s made his reasoning clear.
I submit, he would have the same passion for Clinton, if she was he’s candidate, as he does for Obama…would you still call him a fanatic?
Shayna has always backed up her claims with verifiable facts. Ok, she’s a cheerleader, but she’s a cheerleader who has her pom-poms nice and orderly and in a logical row.
Sorry, but if having passion for candidate; even if it’s over the top, lowers your opinion for the candidate themselves; then you have pretty much assured no candidate worth supporting will be elected.
In my mind, the main difference between the passion that Obama and Clinton supporters have for their respective candidate is that Obama doesn’t feed the negativity. Does it exist, yes…but as you will agree; he doesn’t appear to actively promote it.
Clinton and her campaign does and I think it’s that act, that has driven away so many of her supporters…and quite frankly she entered the campaign with high negs.
:dubious: There’s no equivalence there, you know.
As a true Democrat who never ever ever votes Republican, perhaps I can shed some light. I prefer Hillary to Obama. I will vote for him on election day without any reservations. But let’s assume that it was Mike Gravel instead, a nutcase with a heart of gold. I’d still vote for him because the people he would appoint would be doing the day to day decisions and anything is better than a member of the American fascist party, aka, the GOP. The GOP has not been the party of Lincoln or TR for over 100 years. They think business is business of America and that liberty and privacy are for the rich and powerful members of their little club: e.g. the commutation and soon to be pardon of Scooter Libby soon after the election.
There are many well meaning people who “vote for the character of the candidate”. Well, I think that is misguided. Even local candidates completely hide who they are at campaign events. We didn’t get to see what a colossal dick W was until Jan 20, 2001 or shortly thereafter, as his poll numbers plummeted until 9/11.
For me the government is about policy, not the personalities of the candidates. (I like Obama’s personality a lot better than Hillary, but I like Hillary’s policies and her relentless drive better.) While foreigners in the past might not have been able to tell the difference between Dems and Reps (W sure changed that!), equal treatment under the law and non-special treatment for big business are big issues for me.
The Dems are hardly perfect, but they actually exist on the issues that I care about.
I apologize for putting you off. As I’ve said repeatedly, Hillary supporters among Dopers are obviously not like some of her fans that we’ve seen on the news. I’ve been very careful to exclude you and others here from my observations.
Specifically?
I’ve already said I plan on supporting Obama. I can separate my opinions about some of his followers from my opinions about him.
For the record, I am not one of his “followers”.
Probably for reasons similar to why a true Republican would ever vote for a Democrat in a national election. There are several Dopers, and plenty of other people, who fall into that category.
I think the people you’re talking about, though, are voters who would vote a certain way purely out of spite. IMO, we’re just hearing a vocal minority when it comes to that.
I agree - that is one of the reasons I’m causiously optimistic that Obama may in fact be our next POTUS. 
I briefly considered the possibility of a Clinton/McCain election, and at that time I was forced to admit that between the two of them I was less afraid of McCain starting a new war, even though I didn’t think either of them would end the current war.
Then, McCain explained his hundred years war plan, followed by a five year war plan, and I decided . . . eh, no.
But, I fall off the other end of the Democratic Party platform from most. I think grand designs to better the world should wait until after lunch. And I define after lunch to be after every single person in the United States has had lunch. I also think the rich should pay more taxes. Being a Rich American is a great deal. It should be expensive. The rich should be concentrating on keeping poor Americans well enough off that armed revolution in the streets remains an unpopular option. And they should be happy about it, too.
By the way, my definition of rich is everyone who falls above the poverty level, and lives in the United States. (Some of you Canadians, too, by the way.)
So, yeah, I might vote against the Democratic party, but the it’s pretty much less likely than snow in hell. I really don’t like Democrats. But I can’t even begin to express how much of an advantage that gives them over how I feel about Republicans. Individually, I can accept them, but once they start hanging around together in groups, I want a gun.
Tris
Here is one…
I would have voted for Clinton. If it is between Obama and McCain…I will vote for McCain.
I’m not really a true Democrat though…and Clinton is not nearly as liberal as Obama IMO.
That much is certain, though I doubt we agree on what liberal means.
May I ask why that is the case? Don’t you think Clinton is closer to Obama than she is McCain?
Let me add a question to that…do you support the war? If not, isn’t ending the war and getting our people home, rebuilding the economy…etc; more important than Obama being ‘more’ liberal than Clinton?
If you do support the war then, nevermind.
McCain was posturing to Iran today whilst speaking to an Isreali lobbying group. Yeah, go ahead and vote for him. Especially if you want to see in Tehran what we did in Bagdhad.
McCain is not going to invade Iran. That’s absolutely ridiculous. Congress wouldn’t let him even if he wanted to (which he doesn’t).
It’s not invasion we need to worry about, it’s some sort of action the POTUS can take on his own authority – such as an airstrike – which would quickly and inevitably stir up something Too Hot to Handle.
Not to mention the possibility that he might strike the wrong target… Oh, you mean they’re Persians?
The post I was responding to indicated an invasion.
But I don’t think McCain would have a trigger finger. I’d worry about Clinton more than McCain on that.