As a Hillary voter, I would like to let the Obama people know...

[debbierlus]

That I do NOT want the superdelegates to override the individual state delegate count.

I really do not like Obama. I deeply distrust him, and I am worried that progressives are making a deal with the devil in crowning him the nominee. I am also no huge Hillary supporter, I realize there are many reasons to distrust her as well. I think her domestic, healthcare, & economic policies are more in line with a progressive agenda, and that is why I fell on her side. Neither of these two have a true progressive platform, in reality.

HOWEVER, I realize that the people must make their collective decision and live with whatever the outcome may be. It is unrealistic to expect a total progressive swing in one election cycle, as much as I desire it, and in any case, that chance has passed with these two remaining candidates. McCain is an evil man, twisted and warped. He neeeds to be defeated, and I do not want any one candidate's nomination to supercede the will of the people.

Since Obama has the numbers, he should be the nominee. I don't like it, but isn't just my decision. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. Nothing would please me more. However, I think the reality is that it will take a good fifteen to twenty years before the work we are doing on the ground now creates a true progressive government. I am willing to accept the process.

I would hope that Obama would meet with Clinton and offer her the VP spot, in the name of party unity. It would show maturity and decency and a true committment to a democratic win in November. If she doesn't accept that is her problem, and she will be the one creating the division.

I don't like how things have turned on DU as of late. As a progressive who has done lots of on the ground for election reform and election fraud awareness, it has been surreal to be the target of insults and nastiness due to my support of Clinton. (I am not talking about differing opinion, I am talking about really open nastiness and unwarranted insults that have nothing to do with the dialogue about the nomination process).

I have left open the possibility of supporting a third candidate, IF this goes to the convention and IF these two continue to engage in an ugly battle of wills that completely fragments the party and leaves both candidates bloodied, bruised, and severely impaired to win in November. I believe Gore is the best person for this - but ONLY ONLY ONLY as a last resort, if these two are STILL battling at the convention and they won't work a unity ticket to end the bitterness and divide. If they can't do that, they BOTH are a detriment to the whole party, and their egos will have trumped their committment to uniting and leading. This is an extremely unlikely scenario, however. Probably less then a one percent chance...

So, I will support Obama in November. I will not be happy, but I will do it. I would implore Obama's supporters to please stop with the arrogance and condescending remarks to the Hillary supporters, you are shooting yourself in the foot, you NEED these voters to win. And, Hillary supporters, please realize that the process of democracy and the will of the people should trump any candidate's nomination.

So, please let's call a truce. And, please, please, please, let's start acting like a community again.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Great post, solid reasoning.

Thank you :pals:

[terrya]

2. I'll be delighted to recommend this post.

Solid analysis. Thank you for posting this.

[blm]

3. Debbie, on the trust issue.....

You trust those who protected the secrecy and privilege of BushInc throughout the 90s more than an advocate for open government?

Just on the basis of logic, shouldn't Democrats be on the side of open government accountable to the people instead of siding with closed government that strips us of our power and rights to hold government accountable?

[polmaven]

87. blm...please read the post!

Debbie says that, while she deeply distrusts Obama, she recognizes that THERE ARE REASONS TO DISTRUST HILLARY AS WELL!

I agree with much of what Debbie says. I am supporting Hillary, but I do think that those super delegates who are elected officials should vote with the majority of voters in their own states.

I do not believe that any super delegate should be held to voting for the candidate who has more popular vote over all, country wide.

Any super delegate who is not an elected official should be free to vote for whomever he or she pleases.

I have said it before, and I will say it again and again.....If Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will happily and enthusiastically support him.

I think it is important that each and every DUer make the same commitment...no matter who the nominee ends up being.

[MaraJade]

117. Good for you. . .

"I have said it before, and I will say it again and again.....If Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will happily and enthusiastically support him."

Good for you. There have always been those who will stand for anything . . .but there are millions more who will not.

I have talked to a lot of people in PA who will vote Hillary in the primary and defect if Obama is the nominee. Under
NO CIRCUMSTANCES will a lot of women, working (union) folk, or older folk vote Obama. WE KNOW that we will be forgotten
if we do. His arrogance and hubris has offended many.

The comments of you Obamaites is proving me right again and again.

Good Luck in the GE. . .


:grr:

[PatGund]

118. I understand that....

Because if Hillary Clinton is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I cannot and will not support her. Her arrogance and hubris offended me from day one, and I have seen nothing other than more of that same arrogance since then.

I didn't particularly like Obama either, but he is much more of an acceptable person to me that Sen. Clinton.

[avrdream]

127. You see how it works?

The Repubs are loving this.

[polmaven]

130. Um.....

The comments of you Obamaites is proving me right again and again.

Please...where does it appear in my post that I am an "Obamaite"?

Look at my avatar!

I have been with Senator Clinton from the beginning, and I still am. I am a 57 year old woman in the middle income bracket, who gets up every morning and goes to work, except for when I am laid off.

What I am is a DEMOCRAT!

There is no way that women will be forgotten faster than under another 4-8 years of a Republican administration. Nothing less that the Supreme Court of the United States is at stake in this election, and nothing greater at stake than the well being of the men and women in our military, and their families.

The very fabric of this country is at stake in this election. It is FAR too important to even THINK about not supporting whichever Democrat is the nominee of the party.

Those who would rather leave it to chance than vote for the Democratic nominee - WHOEVER THAT MAY BE - need to re-think their priorities.

[against all enemies]

4. What's the deal with the devil? Are you suggesting that Hillary is

more Progressive than Obama. And I'm not trying to be rude.

[debbierlus]

11. I started to type out a long response, but I decided against it

This post is an effort to acknowlege that Obama has the broader support of the people, and I will respect the collective decision. My journal posts from the past should contain enough references to my concerns surrounding an Obama Presidency. Krugman also had a very good editiorial in yesterday's NYT's about Obama's domestic policies, if you want to delve into the issue.

I am not going to keep rehashing my reasons for my dislike of Obama.

[powergirl]

5. Thank you for your courage in making this post

I am a Texas Obama supporter. I believe that most of the Clinton voters, like you, really want to do what is best for the country. I was the caucus chair of my precinct and we went for Obama 60/40. We all got along with the Clinton voters and there were no hard words or complaints. The Clinton voters even voted for me to be the chair of the caucus b/c I made sure they had a rep to help me count the delegate votes.

At the end of the day, if Sen. Clinton wins the most pledged delegates, I vote for her at the end of the day. I am a democrat first and I will do everything I can to make sure we don't have another 8 years of the BS we had with Bush. We area all Democrats and we all want to win in November. I'm right there with you.

[dailykoff]

6. Praiseworthy intentions, but no can do.

Hillary has made too damn many McCain ad-worthy comments to put her on the ticket. Overcoming the Clinton campaign is going to be problem enough in November without having her on the freaking ticket to remind everybody what flip-floppers we are.

[Divernan]

77. That would put HRC in position to sabotage Obama's campaign so she could run in '12

"as far as I know." I can just hear her damning Obama with faint praise throughout the campaign.
Plus we have decades of solid national negatives in the upper 40 percent range for HRC.


If it were any of the other presidential candidates - Richardson or Edwards or Biden - I would agree.
But HRC has burnt her bridges and her ambition trumped her party loyalty.

[dailykoff]

106. Yes, unfortunately.

I don't think she's got that team thing down yet.

[MaraJade]

108. And you can just forget about getting the support of most of her followers. . .

Obama has just offended way too many of us. . . :mad:

Good luck with the GE. . .

[dailykoff]

113. I think putting her on the ticket would lose more votes than it would gain.

That's not his fault either.

[LiveLiberally]

7. I respect your position & second your call for community

The chance to share ideas with fellow progressives (even if, yes, we disagree) is what brought me to DU in the first place. But it seems that lobbing partisan diatribes has become a popular bloodsport here of late.


edit: typo

[VolcanoJen]

8. Solid and encouraging.

I hope you'll come around to admire Senator Obama the way many of us do. I think he'll make us incredibly proud in the general election against McCain.

[boston bean]

9. Debbie, you have bought into the argument that pledged delegates are all that count.

It is not, and it has never been that way.

There are other considerations and therefore the superdelegates. If obama could have won CA, MA, OH, NJ etc. big blue states then I would agree, but he has not.

He has won many caucus states that do not represent a democratic majority.

He is not the most electable in Nov. and that is where this thing should turn.

Plus you discount MI and FL. Which disenfranchising millions of voters and only helps obama. That is another consideration.

I commend you on you going along to get along, but your argument is lacking basic some basic long standing democratic principles. This situation has happened before and that is why the superdelegate idea came to fruition.

[Window]

15. Those states you mention almost always vote democratic anyway.

I happen to live in one of them. Plus, they were not won by large margins by Clinton. Obama would easily win them in the GE.

[debbierlus]

16. Let's be real. MA will go for Obama in a New York minute

And, so will California, NJ, OH. True blue states will stay true blue.

Obama has a legitimate lead. If Hillary had the lead in pledged delegates, if she wins by big margins in MI & FL redos & really wins big in Pennsyvania, she might tie the delegate count and it would be a different story.

This should no go past Pennsyvania, and Flordia/Michigan redos.

If by some chance she pulls off a delegate lead, she should win. And, I would hope the Obama supporters would support her as they wish us to do with their candidate.

And, like I said, if these two are going to battle this out to the convention, tearing each other apart and weakening our chances in November, I would like the superdelegates and the pledged delegates to select a unifying third party candidate. I think the threat of Gore alone would put them on a unity ticket in a quick second, and the problem will be solved. The superdelegates crowning either of these two will tear the party in two, and we need to come together. We can't even afford the squabbling we have had - America is going into a depression and we need a democratic in office YESTERDAY.

I am not thrilled about this situation. I think there are many people who have left GDP (former Edwards, Kucinich supporters, I count myself among them) who feel incredibly disenfrancished with candidates who do not reach out and try to speak to them, always the mythical middle. Unity among the party and a committment to working to influence our politicians to a progressive agenda will bring us back together.

[boston bean]

22. MA is going to be a swing state if match up is McCain vs. Obama.

We are not really that liberal.

We have had middle of the road republicans as our governor for the last sixteen years, minus the last election.

I wouldn't count on MA if I were you.

[Breeze54]

48. I disagree. I think MA will overwhelmingly vote Dem.

Massachusetts Is a Tough Nut to Crack for Republicans

(Massachusetts - 2008 Presidential Polls)
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/massachusetts.html

When you think of the quintessential bastion of all things liberal, Massachusetts must come to mind.
Consider for example the 2004 presidential election when John Kerry; who incidentally hails from
this fair state; virtually, mopped up the floor with George W. Bush. The figures show that he won
with 61.94% of the vote versus the 36.78% the incumbent president could muster up. There was
not one county that voted in favor of Mr. Bush and republicans who have long since known
that Massachusetts is a tough nut to crack do not take much solace in the fact that this is
highly unlikely to change.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Kerry did very well in the primary by garnering 72% of the votes, with John
Edward coming in as a close second with 18%. By the same token, the state is not so liberal that
any infighting might be expected, as evidenced by the small number of supporters the far left
Howard Dean was able to rally; 3% - or the racially motivated Al Sharpton with 1%.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Wyoming and Kansas both have middle of the road Democratic Governors

And they ain't going blue in a million years.

I don't think you're actually delusional enough to believe that Massachusetts will be a swing state. I just think you're trying to scare people away from voting for Obama.

[polmaven]

88. I have to agree...

We are NOT really that liberal. If we were, we would not have had to endure 16 years of (R), the likes of :scared: Mitt Romney :scared: !

[TwilightGardener]

19. Why do we allow those 40+ other states to vote? Seriously, why should

they get a say in who is nominated, if only a handful of states really matter?

[DerekJ]

32. Again with this twisted logic!!

Just because he lost a state to Hillary in the primaries, doesn't mean he will lose it in the GE.

[Auntie Bush]

97. I've also wanted to ask.

Why do we have superdelegates if they don't have any use and we have to go by what the delegates say?

[roseBudd]

123. A bologna sandwich with D on it will win NY & CA, and you know it

And Southern States...

[seabeyond]

10. hey... first paragraph is eactly how i feel too, i have just chosen obama

instead of hillary and hoping for a surprise, lol.

i have been aggressive with the hillary supporters. i hope not mean and ugly. i dont think so but then it is in perspective. i am really anti bush/rove and that is what i feel hillary is doing and her supporters instead of speaking out against it (which i would respect) have excused adn justified it. that is the only reason i am aggressive at all with hillary supporters. normally i would respectly leave them alone in hteir choice but i feel they have a responsibility

i hope afterwards when we have our candidate, all will be forgiven by both. i am seeing names in the other camp i really like and admire.

truce is good enough for me

but i am going to speak out again and again when i feel clinton steps over the line and supporters dont speak out

[debbierlus]

26. We should all be able to engage in dialogue - it is the smears & name calling

That are the problem...

I am all for healthy discussion. Even, fist pounding, heartfelt debate ON ISSUES and legitimate points. We NEED that kind of debate.

We have descended into bitterness, and people believe so firmly in their 'side' that they don't even bother to listen to the otherside, even if they are making a honest, objective, point.

[LisaL]

12. The superdelegates are there for the reason. And that reason is

NOT to simply support someone who has the most pledged delegates. Cause if that was the case, there would be no need to have superdelegates at all.

[TwilightGardener]

20. They are there to prevent an "unacceptable" candidate from winning--

Is Obama unacceptable, somehow?

[greyghost]

61. If he can't win the GE he is. Don't think for a NY minute that the

DNC won't have the numbers in their pocket to back their play at the
convention.

They're in the business to back a winner. PERIOD

[Dawgs]

66. If the SD's vote against the will of the people the Dem will have ZERO chance of winning in the GE.

The SD's know this, and therefore, will end up backing the "winner".

[greyghost]

92. LOL! You really don't get the picture. If they feel Hillary has the

best chance to beat McCain, then Hillary it will be. If it's felt that Obama has the best chance then Obama gets the nod.

That's the only reason that they're there.

[MaraJade]

109. No they won't...

Obama has shown a disregard for certain elements of the party and they will defect.
Those votes will be gone, no matter what.

Good luck in the GE. . .

[rAVES]

73. wtf kind of pretzel logic is this?

[greyghost]

93. Welcome to presidential politics.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. They're there because they're arrogant enough to believe they can pick a winner

Just like they did in 1984 when a bunch of them went with Mondale early on and then stuck with him, which ultimately put him over the top.

[greyghost]

94. Actually it dates back to McGovern. They are there to prevent

another occurrence.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. Yea I know, they think they can prevent another McGovern

And they proved themselves wrong by committing to Mondale so early on who lost just as badly as McGovern did.

BTW, Ed Muskie couldn't have beaten Nixon in my opinion. Maybe Ted Kennedy could have but he wasn't running.

[greyghost]

98. Very true.

[writes3000]

13. Debbie, and here's my fairminded offer back

I think the party has to find a way to allow FL and MI to vote. I don't think the existing primaries were fair but something has to be done to give them a voice.

Thanks for speaking up. I personally think if the SDs overturn this, the party will live to regret it.

Love your last line.

[Window]

14. Well said.

:kick:

[Fredda Weinberg]

17. Sorry, but the Democratic Party has commited suicide before. I won't

drink the Kool-Aid.

You postulate that super delegates shoud relinquish their judgment to the popular will. That would negate the pupose of their existence. This is not reasonable.

[TwilightGardener]

21. If Hillary is such a strong candidate, and a better bet, why can't she beat Obama

in delegates? She's unelectable--she's losing, even with all of her advantages.

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. How many candidates started? You have two standing ... roughly equal

But one is suave and articulate and the other stammers when challenged. I've seen 'em both and to me, it's an obvious choice. The only one worse is McCain.

[TwilightGardener]

30. "Roughly equal"? No, Obama is very much ahead in pledged delegates--

the race didn't magically "reset" after Ohio--there was a lot of voting that happened before. And Hillary is behind. She was outmaneuvered by a rookie who had the brains to snap up delegates anywhere he could get them--big states, small states, medium states. He played the game by the rules, and is beating her by the rules, so now the Clintonistas want to CHANGE the rules and paint a different picture. No one is buying it.

[polmaven]

90. I think maybe by "roughly equal"

Fredda means in qualifications?

[annie1]

34. hmmm. something happened like this in 2000.

[IndianaGreen]

18. K&R

Not much I can add that you haven't already said.

[Radical Activist]

23. After all Bill Clinton did to betray progressives

I can't believe any liberals are supporting his wife. I just don't get it.

[debbierlus]

24. Well, we all have our reasons...we have back & forthed this to death

[blm]

29. That's my observation, too. Clintons PROVED they can't be trusted. Obama has shown ADVOCACY for

open government issues.

How on EARTH can any Democrat or lefty assume Clintons worthy of trust over Obama who has surrounded himself with many open government advocates?

[TwilightGardener]

31. I don't get that either, but it takes a truckload of cognitive dissonance

to be a Hillary supporter, apparently.

[pollo poco]

79. It takes a truckload of cognitive dissonance....

To support either of them. It takes two truckloads to believe in the whole fake election process.

[HarveyBrooks]

82. Thanks for your...

contribution to party unity!

[niceypoo]

56. Bill Clinton was one of the most effective Democratic presidents in history

Why don't you just admit you hate his wife, because that is how Obama's 'supporters' show their support.

[Radical Activist]

62. His most lasting accomplishments

are signing NAFTA, the telecom bill that consolidated the media, and welfare reform. All three conservative. Anything he did to balance the budget or help the economy was undone after one year of Bush. No, I don't think informed progressives should buy into the Bill Clinton hype. His charm doesn't work on me anymore. There's every indication that his wife will be just as much a pandering compromiser as Bill was.

[HarveyBrooks]

83. Pandering compromiser?

Isn't that Obama's whole schtick? That he's going to compromise with the repukes to get things done?

[Radical Activist]

91. No.

Uniting the public against corporate special interests is not the same as compromising values as the Clinton's did with their triangulation approach.

[truebluecollar]

125. Uhmm...I'm pretty sure Clinton's presidency rates somewhere...

...around Rutherford Birchard Hayes, Calvin Coolidge, and Martin Van Buren. No fooling, Wikipedia it, Presidential ratings--a survey of professional historians and political scientists put out in 2000 by, I believe, a reputable (ie. neither Heritage/Cato/Hoover) non-partisan study group put Ol' Big Dog smack dab in the middle of average caretaker administrations. Think about it, what lasting achievements did he accomplish in eight years of Bully Pulpitdom? Sure the economy was swell and except for that little Blitz thing on Belgrade, he kept us out of war, but...what did he really do? He was a Democratic President during a Republican Era of this nation's life, much like Ike was a Republican President during a Democratic Era, he governed from the center--he was Republican Lite. He took the bon-bons away from the welfare queens and got all on board with NAFTA and GATT and yucked it up about being the bridge to 21st Century Globalism. When he did try guide the ship of state off the shoals of reactionism and through the straits of progressivism, he was so clumsy he wound up swamped by a tidal surge called the Contract On America. What I recall mostly of his Administration was how full of shit I came to regard him of being and how embarrassing he made it to answer to the name Democrat. All he really gave to the American people was red-faced meat for the Limbaughtomatons and the Screeching Savage Parrots to sink their Pavlovian canines into. So much political football, so many missed opportunities, so much sturm und drang, so much sound and fury signifying...nothing. By the end of his term, folks had had it so much to the point where it seemed like a good idea to 49.9% of the electorate, at least, to hand over the job to George Bush's idiot son--and that will be Big Dog's lasting legacy, his epitaph--HE LOWERED THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. And now Ol' Hot-Flash wants us to return to those halycon days just because she can extrapolate hostessing a State Dinner for Francois Mitterand or Yasser Arafat into WH experience.
Christ, I will have to so hold my nose come November to have electoral relations with that woman.

[NastyRiffraff]

25. Very good post...I agree with most of it

Although I'm not sure about the superdelegate thing. The idea of superdelegates was originally to prevent a destructive result from voters. Sadly, that smacks of the smoke-filled room, with party insiders choosing the candidate over the will of the people.

But it isn't that simple. Some Superdelegates are party insiders, including past and present elected officials, but there are also grassroots activists and simply people who've worked hard and long for the party. And rarely if ever do superdelegates vote as a block...the very definition of a smoke-filled room "coup." There is no party "rule" as to how they should vote, for a reason. Howard Dean has said over and over that they should vote as they see fit. That decision could include: voting for the candidate they genuinely believe is the best nominee, voting for the candidate who has amassed the most delegates and/or popular vote; or a combination of the two. It's a tough and unenviable position to be in, and several superdelegates have even gone public and said flatly that they have no wish to influence the election. Well guess what? They're going to, whether they like it or not.

That said, when all this mess is over and done, I too will reluctantly support Obama. I neither like nor trust him, but I'll support him over McCain.

Obama supporters, when someone says that he or she will support your candidate in the end, but unhappily and reluctantly, this is NOT an invitation for you to hammer that person about why he or she doesn't like your candidate. Please accept the support as given. Obama will need it.

[debbierlus]

28. Respect is the only way to effectively communicate

No matter what...at least people here care DEEPLY about the future of this country.

And, everyone deserves respect for that....

[ekwhite]

51. The general idea of superdelegates is to allow party activists to have a greater voice

People who have demonstrated their commitment to the Democratic party are selected as super delegates, allowing people who have worked for the party to have more say than those of us who show up and mark a ballot once every four years. I generally don't have a problem with this arrangement.

I do agree that the super delegates will not vote against the candidate who has the most pledged delegates and the largest popular vote going in to the convention, barring unforeseen circumstances. They would only vote against the 'popular will' if something were to happen that would clearly disqualify Senator Obama as a candidate. If there were such a thing, Senator Clinton would have already used it against him.

[frogcycle]

33. very well put k/r

you now have one more rec than my post expressing pretty much the same thing! :)

except the vp thing - i think that's a non-starter. The dem leadership should offer her the Majority Leader gavel; let Obama pick a VP he can work with.

[debbierlus]

35. :)

:)

[BluWtrLynn]

36. Between a rock and a hard place.

The Republic seems to be heading down the toilet into a single party theocracy / police state.

We can have Sen. Clinton as nominee. We must then believe that she will act on her campaign promises in stark contrast to the basically conservative, pro corporate agenda she has promoted via the DLC for more than a decade. These are the folks that gave us NAFTA, banking deregulation and supported preemptive military action around the world.

On the other hand we can take Sen. Obama. He gives promises of open government and consensus building. Unfortunately he has little track record indicating a real commitment to progressive ideals and truly secular government. My choice, by a nose.

Presented with this choice, is there any doubt why the folks here need to grasp at one straw or the other? The rage we see on this site is frustration caused by the basically poor choice of alternatives with which we are presented.

My secret hope is that a deadlocked convention might give us Biden, Dean, Gore or Kucinich. A real progressive candidate would, in conventional wisdom anyway, have less a chance of winning the general but at least the Democratic party would not be shattered at a time when they have a real legislative mandate.

[frogcycle]

37. second that emotion

[AbbyR]

46. I will vote for Obama, or Clinton, but I won't like it, and

"My secret hope is that a deadlocked convention might give us Biden, Dean, Gore or Kucinich. A real progressive candidate would, in conventional wisdom anyway, have less a chance of winning the general but at least the Democratic party would not be shattered at a time when they have a real legislative mandate."


Please. From your mouth to the delegates' ears.

[rodeodance]

38. K and R. I distrust BO also. With Hillary I know what her faults are-BO keeps his

hidden like he hasn't any. if if anyone is critical of him they are racist or fuckers or dumbasses. ect ect.

[jlpohio69]

40. Rodeo, agree with you 100%

any poster that is even slightly critical of BO is labled as a racist, cheater, delusional...the list goes on and on and on.

[JoFerret]

70. ...and being easily rolled is NOT one of them

That is probably my biggest "fear" about Obama. That he will fold and roll.

I know he is calculating and ambitious and all that stuff. big deal. i know he is smart and quick thinking and that he really wants to effect change. He is a politician. Hillary ditto. I know he will betray and compromise and disappoint. All that it just par for the course. But i am afraid that with his reach across the aisle mantra he has no idea what is coming his way once he starts to do any kind of standing up to entrenched interests.

[krkaufman]

39. Putting aside everything else, you show wisdom in knowing it's going to take time ...

... to create a true progressive movement.

It is to that end from which some of my support for Obama comes. He is the candidate who is most closely working the 50 State Strategy, being inclusive and bringing in new voters across the nation, and I fear the future of the 50 State Strategy were Hillary to become the nominee, given the Clintons' and DLC's opposition to Dean and his approach from the beginning of Dean's chairmanship.

Americans seem to be fans of the home run, but victory doesn't come that way. You're more likely to strike-out. We need to build a strong ground(er) game. (OK, so the analogy blows.)

Peace.

[sandnsea]

41. Nice post

Of all things I cannot understand, it is the willingness to overturn the will of the people. I really appreciate that you agree that that is unacceptable.

[localroger]

42. I feel exactly the same way, in the other direction

I'm afraid Hillary has confirmed all my worst fears about her in the last few weeks, but if she does snag the nom I'll hold my nose and go to the GE and vote for her. A few weeks ago I wouldn't have had to hold my nose to do it, but what exists is what is. At this time the most flawed D is a thousand times better than the nominal R.

Let us just please all agree that whatever the outcome of this primary battle, we must get the D in, however we little we might like him or her. If this country hasn't been destroyed already, four more years of McBush will surely finish the job.

[debbierlus]

43. I am glad you would reciprocate - we need a dem to staunch the bleeding

America will not survive war with Iran.

[intaglio]

44. Brave post

A hard thing to say but said well.

[Catherina]

45. I disagree with giving Clinton a VP spot, where they differ is too important

but I'm recommending your post because you support democracy by respecting the will of the people. It's not our decision who's going to be VP but I'm willing to meet thoughtful, honest people like you halfway. Your thought process and tone are worth that respect.

[MaraJade]

110. Good. . .

Then it is certain that her followers will defect. . .

[high density]

47. Obama is a "deal with the devil" ... Now let's call a truce

:rofl:

Why this massive distrust of Obama? I don't know why people here keep insinuating that he's a Republican in disguise. Irrational.

[MaraJade]

102. Not a repuke in disguise. . .

just an arrogant person who does not take the concerns of workers, older folks and women
seriously. He only cares about the "college kid" and "youth group."

[MidwestPerspective]

49. Generation Joneser Barack's values trump Boomer Hillary's

Kudos to you as an honorable person who happens to like Hillary. She should be ashamed of herself. So Boomer of her to play loosey-goosey with the rules; tyring to get Obama's elected delegates, tyring to count MI&FL delegates. They agreed FL and MI wouldn't count, and it should be left that way. Hillary and her old-style Boomer approach to politics. Thankfully, Obama---who is not a Boomer, but rather a member of Generation Jones (born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Xers)---doesn't buy into this old polarizing approach and instead conducts his campaign with new-school post-partisan GenJones style politics...

[MaraJade]

103. If it weren't for us BOOMERS. . .

You'd have a lot less rights. WE WERE ON THE FRONT LINE OF CIVIL RIGHTS IN THIS COUNTRY.

You are standing on the shoulders of some major giants. Don't forget that.

[MaraJade]

107. There is no generation "Jones:"

According to experts, the baby boom generation encompassses everyone born
between 1941-1964. I've never heard of this "generation Jones," and I know I'm not
a part of it (1955).

[ekwhite]

50. Kicked and Recommended

I respect your post, and will most certainly work with Clinton supporters towards electing Senator Obama in the fall. I don't believe that Senator Obama should offer Senator Clinton the vice presidency, for strategic reasons. Like it or not, Senator Clinton will bring a lot of negatives to the campaign. While she might serve an useful role as Clinton's "attack dog," that role can be served by others without her negatives. I would prefer someone like Bill Richardson or John Edwards in that role, or perhaps someone like Janet Napolitano or Kathleen Sebelius.

I believe the best role for Senator Clinton would be as Senate Majority leader. She has the guts and in-fighting technique to make a truly effective leader in the Senate.

[JoFerret]

52. There actually IS a real enemy out there

...and it's not Clinton or Obama.

[grantcart]

53. Very reasonable cannot ask anything more than that

I hope that he will grow on you.

[awaysidetraveler]

54. An impressive and bold post... thank you.

The long and short of the Obama idea is inclusion, and with this principle in mind I believe you deserve an invitation
to join in the long and hard process we have in building a progressive future.

Essentially, we will always be responsible in demanding the democracy we require from Obama or any other candidate,
and we will need to incorporate long-term plans of unity to create that progressive platform we all hope to build
over the next twenty years.

You've made that hardest first step of unity and support despite your fears and reservations,
and I'm impressed and humbled by your support for our party's continuation.

[Jim Lane]

55. An alternative unity ticket

I don't think an Obama-Clinton ticket makes sense, given how she's attacked him.

What about Obama-Clark? Obama could go for unity by picking a Clinton supporter. Wes Clark also adds credentials to help counter McCain's.

Clinton supporters, I'm not asking you to concede the nomination, but if Obama is the nominee, do you feel that his picking Clark or some other Clinton supporter would be enough to heal the breach?

[Connonym]

57. I agree that Obama needs to pick a VP candidate who can bolster his foreign policy cred

that's going to be one of the big stumbling blocks against McCain. Off the top of my head Clark is the one who comes to mind.

[MaraJade]

104. Wrong. . .

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Did I say it's wrong?

[Jim Lane]

132. Can you be more specific?

I'm not clear whether you object to putting any Clinton supporter on the ticket, or whether you object to a VP candidate who's never won elective office (a misgiving I have about Clark), or whether you just don't like Wesley Clark.

[PatGund]

119. *PLEASE!!!*

From your lips to the Gods ears!!!

An Obama/Clark ticket would be perfect for this country AND for the world!

[jgraz]

58. A lot of Obama supporters share your misgivings

I just think he's a better strategic choice than Hillary, given her high negatives.

Of course, that was before the last few weeks when Hillary LOST HER MIND. Now Obama is the clear choice, if only to head off the destruction that the Clintons threaten.

However, the real work for progressives starts the day Obama takes the oath of office. All of us are going to have to stay on him donut crumbs on Mark Penn.

[MaraJade]

116. Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance. . .

and vainglory along with it! I don't think that Obama even knows the damage he
and his followers are doing to the dem party.

:(

[quakerboy]

59. Thank you for a spot of reasonableness

in the midst of the ugly.

[Politicalboi]

60. I'm sorry

I cannot see this the way you see it. If Hillary wanted my support she should have thought about that before she went so negative against Obama and his supporters. The only thing I can do now is try to control my anger against those that say anything to support her.

[tishaLA]

63. I have reservations, but I agree.

[TBF]

64. Terrific post -

It will be hard for me to support Hillary due to the negativity she generated (in which she suggested McCain would be a better president than Obama). I've never been a fan of the Clintons, but that aside I find it hard to believe that she can be elected. Although Obama has not gone there, McCain will certainly drudge up all the scandal from Clinton's past.

But the tone of your post is refreshing and I know many feel the same way. I worked as a precinct captain in a large precinct, and sat at a table next to a Clinton supporter to sign in voters. Our precinct supported Obama 75% - 25%, yet the Clinton folks pitched in and helped us register Obama people after they had signed in their voters. We all worked just fine together. Our Obama chair/secretary even worked the crowd to convince everyone to give in to Clinton supporters on a "missing sheet". Something like page "6 of 7" was missing from their table. We though they may have mis-numbered, and knew that eventually it would all be recounted in the end, but put in the minutes that we would grant them those votes because with all the people (over 500 at our caucus) it certainly could've just gotten lost. So, we did have a very good working relationship all night and I wish all of the other precincts had gone as well.

I think we all know when it comes to November that we have to unite in some fashion. If I'm still angry at Clinton (which may well fade by then) I could see myself voting for Mr. Nader as a protest but hopefully I will calm down sufficiently by that time and cast the correct democratic vote. It is not just the next four years on the table - the Supreme Court is on the line as well. Roe v. Wade will be the first case overturned if the next ultra-conservative judge is appointed. John Paul Stevens is not young and that seat will most likely be up in the next 4 years. So, even though Obama supporters are angry we will have to get through this.

[Medusa]

65. Then perhaps you and others like you ought to let your candidate

know how you feel about this issue. Not that Queen Hillary cares, just so long as she gets the nomination as she is in effect, attempting to disenfranchize every single voter who has gone to a primary or caucus in this election cycle, but still, she needs to know how her supporters feel about this issue.

[MaraJade]

115. Arrogance once again. . .

Your lack of respect is showing here.

I've shown this to my husband and he has shown it to others.

Obama has just lost SIX more voters.

Good Luck in the GE. . .

:(

[Arkansas Granny]

67. While I agree with much of your post, I would like to point out the

importance of the super delegates and why they were instituted in the first place.

Rationale For Super-Delegates
The Democratic Party established this system in part in response to the nomination of George McGovern in 1972. McGovern took only one state and had only 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Then in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a dark-horse candidate with little national experience. Super-delegates were implemented in 1984.
Super-delegates are designed to act as a check on ideologically extreme or inexperienced candidates. It also gives power to people who have a vested interested in party policies: elected leaders. Because the primary and caucus voters do not have to be active members of the party (in New Hampshire they can sign up and sign out going-and-coming at the polls), the super-delegate system has been called a safety-value.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/2008elections/tp/super_delegates.htm

It must appear to some that this gives the super delegates an unfair advantage in selecting the nominee, but they are less likely than the general public to be swayed by a candidate who lacks the experience or the ideology to be the nominee.

[Laelth]

69. This is the first time that logic has been tested.

Seriously, since their institution, this is the first time that super-delegates will actually make a difference. And I bet they get abolished or seriously cut in numbers before 2012. This is not working out well. The super-delegates don't want to be publicly responsible for this decision, and I don't blame them. But this year, they will be, and it's going to be very tough on them.

:(

-Laelth

[Laelth]

100. Self-correction.

The super-delegates did make a difference in 1984. From their choice of the establishment candidate, Walter Mondale, we got a butt-kicking at the hands of Ronald Reagan.

Presumably, the super-delegates did what they were supposed to do ... support the entrenched hierarchy over the will of the voters. The result was disastrous.

:(

-Laelth

[Laelth]

68. I understand your frustration with some Obama supporters here.

I was attacked by an Obama supporter in a thread in which I suggested Hillary was going to destroy the Party by keeping the fight going all the way to the convention.

Here's the thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4963377

I have to admit that many of the new arrivals at DU are, to put it mildly, "trigger happy." I suspect many of these supporters are new to this online community and are trying to "score points" against the opposition. That's natural, probably, but irritating nonetheless. If I were a Hillary supporter, I think I would be quite frustrated, because "trigger happy" responses indicate a lack of concern and a lack of interest in open dialog. When someone responds in anger or too quickly they are communicating to you that they didn't listen to you. The Obama supporter who attacked me in this thread clearly didn't really read and digest what I had to say. That's frustrating to say the least, and I am sure it feels worse when you're a Hillary supporter.

But the party needs this new blood. It takes a while to learn how to play nicely. I don't want to run them off, but I don't condone all their behavior, either.

Thanks for the olive branch in the OP. I, for one, am more than happy to receive it. Peace.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[NOLALady]

71. Thanks for a call to unity.

We must keep our eyes on the prize.

We've got to hang together or we will surely hang separately as we're all in this together.

There's too much at stake to snatch defeat from victory. :toast:

[russian33]

72. "you NEED these voters to win"

a lot of Obama supporters really don't get that point...you need us, those of us who campaigned, donated, voted for Hillary and support her, IF he gets the nomination...YOU NEED US! you "friends" across the aisle aren't going to give you the presidency, and the independents won't either...you need US - DEMOCRATS!

[MaraJade]

111. Amen to you!!

Obama people are way too arrogant to realize this. They think that we are nuts and
should never be regarded in any way whatsoever. Compromise isn't in their vocabulary.

And that is where they will fail. . .

I hate to see another repuke Presidency coming at us, but--so be it.

[Submariner]

74. economic policies are more in line with a progressive agenda

Absolutely NOT! More in line with centrists repuke-lite policies for sure, but not at the Liberal/Progressive end of the charts by any measure whatsoever.

You need to read up on BCCI and the Dubai deal. I am a Liberal-Progressive, and those policies do not reflect my moral and ethical standards of government conduct. These shady deals indicate to me that the Clinton's are crooks in bed with Bush economic policies.

[zalinda]

75. And just about every Obama supporter in this thread

had to take a snark attack against Clinton. If you have ever noticed, I NEVER call any one anything other than their real name. I don't care if it's Bush or Cheney, they have names and deserve as least that respect. And yet, over this primary season, every candidate has been insulted by the use of non-flattering nicknames. I don't insult Obama supporters or Clinton supporters, by giving them a nick name either.

That being said. I don't like Clinton, and have grown to hate Obama. And part of the reason is the supporters. I am and will always be an Edwards supporter. Obama supporters were especially vicious to Edwards supporters, and I will not forgive them for that. Clinton supporters for the most part went after the Obama supporters, and the Obama supporters attacked them, plus every other candidate supporter. Instead of being gracious in their winning, they have become arrogant and taunting. It is a real reflection of what I see in their candidate. On that, I see Obama's personality much like Bush's, and that scares the hell out of me. There are too many parallels happening between Obama and Bush, that I find to be uncomfortable, at best.

And, still when an olive branch from a Clinton supporter is offered, Obama supporters take that branch and start whipping the offerer with it. And, it is NOT just new DUers who are doing this, there are many long time DUers who have played and loved this game. This has really turned me off to politics. This whole primary has been one disaster after another, and no one seems to point the finger at who really has caused this.

zalinda

[zalinda]

78. As an Edwards supporter, I hope he DOESN'T

endorse anyone. I can't stand Obama with his fake preacher cadence, but I dislike Clinton just a little less. All the undeserved hate heaped up on her wants me to support her more.

zalinda

[MaraJade]

112. Sheesh!

You noticed this too?

Obama people are very offensive and arrogant. I am simply disgusted with them. I have
the feeling of being doormatted and steamrollered and I don't like it one bit. They
seem to have no feeling about boomers or older folks, and what worries me. :(

[PatGund]

120. I think you generalize.....

I'm right at the cusp of Gen X, (born in 1966).

My three older brothers are all Boomers.

My mom was born in the 1930's

My daughter's mother is a Boomer.

Guess what?

My mom and my daughter's mother are for Obama.

Two of my three brothers are for Obama, (the oldest is a Fundie who still plans to vote for Huckabee)

I've found a lot of older people and "boomers" that support Obama. It's not a Gen Xer thing, You don't speak for all Boomers.

Was he my first choice? No. Richardson was. (I would vote for Clark in a second). Sen. Clinton's seeming arrogance and sense of entitlement put me off of her a while back. I took a second look when Clark endorsed her, but sadly had to disagree with him. Not to mention that the right wing for years now have been promoting her as the Democratic Party's only choice. (Why else did Rush Limbaugh encourage his listeners to vote for her in the primaries - because they know she'll galvanize the GOP base against her.)

I strongly feel that Sen. Clinton brings too many negatives and not nearly enough experience, (sorry, 7 years in the senate vs. 12 as a state senator and US senator?? I don't count her time as first lady as experience), to the table. I'd hold my nose and accept her as a VP to unify the party, but I really cannot support her otherwise. Not because she's a woman, not because she's a Clinton, but because I don't feel she's the best choice to lead this country.

[bluedawg12]

124. Maybe it's about Obama,or maybe his tactics or his fans, but if get's the

nod, it will be hard to pull the lever for him.

The more shitty Obamacolytes I read talking smack the less and less likely it gets.

[bigtree]

76. I'm solidly with you on this

well-said

[Q3JR4]

84. I said it before and I'll say it again,

I don't like either of the candidates. I support Obama because I'm not really looking forward to a run by another Clinton. That being said if Hillary is somehow able to secure the nomination I will vote for her in the next election.

Whomever our nominee is will be 100 times better than *-lite mccain will be.

Q3JR4.

[1trackmindGOP]

85. Obama supporters would welcome it!

I will speak for myself, what you are seeing from Obama supporters is retaliation to Hillary's knee capping attacks...we do not want to get dirty, but we realize our candidate can't defend himself with the same kind of tactics, He has promised to keep it clean and stick to the issues a different kind of politics. Hillary has take so real cheap shots, the kind we associate with the GOP and we do not appreciate her lowering herself to such measures...if she can't win it by being civil, then please, lose with grace and poise. We are essentially doing the knee capping back to protect our candidate of choice...we do not want to see put through the same crap, especially by our own party that the GOP put Kerry through.

[MaraJade]

114. Retialiation. . .that's just great!

You will LOSE the GE. Hillary supporters don't have to vote Obama. They are now
very angry and they will either NOT vote or defect to the repukes.

Good Luck in the GE without us. . .

:mad:

[HughMoran]

86. Darn, I can't recommend this excellent post

Excellent post - I agree 100% - I wish I had seen it sooner so I could recommend it - but I will give it another kick :D

[txaslftist]

89. Fortunately, DU isn't the real world.

The divisiveness and hatred you see directed from one camp to the other here has barely even a shadow of a reflection in the world outside the blogosphere. I talk to a lot of Democrats and Republicans out in the real world on a daily basis, and being a politically minded person, I almost always bring up politics. Most folks who lean toward Obama will vote for Hillary if she's nominated, and most folks who lean toward Hillary will vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

The rabid turf wars here with each side saying "If my candidate loses I'll vote McCain!!!!" hardly reflects more than the outlying opinion of a few nutjobs on either side. There is a contingent who won't vote for their opposite Dem if their person loses, but really, these folks are hardly worth listening to.

Just be at peace knowing that if the GOP hasn't destroyed the world and imposed martial law and cancelled elections by November, then after election day all will be back to normal around here.

[David Zephyr]

95. Well said. K&R.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just resolve this now, put these two together and start up the engines of enthusiasm for Obama/Clinton?

Carrying on this drip, drip, drip of something that is already mathematically determined is simply insane, frustrating and helps McCain.

My anger is not at Hillary, but at Mark Penn and all the parasites whose income depends on prolonging this nonsense and have no problem still taking millions in pay from her donors as they continue and continue.

I want to believe that Bill and Hillary can sit down without Penn, McAuliffe and Carville and together face the situation as it is. Bill has lost so much luster, so much shine and that's a shame.

To those that say that Hillary would conflict with Obama's message of change, I would say this as an Obama supporter: Don't tell me that having a woman as Vice President would not be change. Don't tell me that having a mother as Vice President would not be a cultural quantum leap of change. Don't tell me that having a daughter as Vice President would not be change. And Hillary is clearly qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America.

[varelse]

99. As a Kucinich partisan and Edwards voter, I'd like to thank you

for the tone you have set with this post. Partisans of both candidates would benefit greatly by following this example - and ultimately the party would be the true winner. It's a shame I can't rec it too, didn't see it soon enough.

[MaraJade]

101. You might be willing to support Obama, but he's offended . . .

so many Hillary supporters with his Hubris and many more will not support him at all.

I know for certain that this family (two votes) won't. My husband will switch to McCain, and I will
not vote at all.

I don't like Obama. We won't be voting for him if he is the Nominee. Millions of other's also won't
especially WOMEN, OLDER FOLKS (who he is REALLY offending) and Independents. I am DISGUSTED
with the arrogance of him and his followers who think that if Hillary disappears, we will all march
in lockstep with the Obama folks, who have shown a total disgregard for our concerns and OUR ISSUES.

We'll walk away. We ARE BEING IGNORED AND DISRESPECTED, and we'll walk away.

[cenacle]

126. a candidate is not the same as his or her supporters...

I read this long thread and noticed how it jumped back in forth between dislike for Obama and dislike for his supporters. His supporters are not running for the office, and he has no influence over what they say. I just think it's important to remember that you are not voting for some person on DU who insulted you and is an Obama supporter or, conversely, for some Clinton supporter who talked shit. I urge you to listen to the candidates primarily, read up on their records, follow their responses to our concerns, and let the brouhaha here stay off to the side when making your decision.

Another dichotomy is between those who are primarily loyal to party and those who are loyal to principles. Democrats and progressives. They often, though do not always, overlap. I have not been a Democrat in years but believe in progressive principles that some Democrats, and very few Republicans, work for. It seems to me like the Democratic Party itself is as progressive as pushed to be and, let to wallow in big money donations and special interests of all kinds, sags easily toward the center. I personally like keeping my sense of independence while being well aware of the (sometimes) stark differences between the two parties, and the sad lack of any viable alternative to them, as of yet.

Some say this infighting is bringing McCain closer to the nomination but I'm thinking that it's good that we all believe we have a say and are demanding it openly. That we are opposing loudly the idea of superdelegates making our choice for us. And that many of us are pledging to work for whichever of Obama and Clinton wins the Dems' nomination. I believe we will be stronger for having fought it out good and bloody these many months, and when our attention turns to McCain and those who would give him Bush's third term, such as the lunatic religious fringe, the neo-cons and the mainstream media, we will be battle-toughened to take them on and mop the floor with them.

The journal entry that began this thread was terrific and I am grateful I read it tonight. Thanks, Debbie!

[MagsDem]

105. Except he DOESN'T have the numbers

[PatGund]

121. Neither does Sen Clinton

Right now Sen Obama has the lead. Neither of them have the majority needed - and it's statistically unlikely either will at this point.

[roseBudd]

122. winning is job 1, hillary has high unfavorables, people who dislike will not change their minds, IMO

[Tennessee Gal]

128. People who think Obama is not ready will not change their minds.

We have a quandry.

[roseBudd]

129. Not liking someone is a very potent motivator, ask Rush, the Clenis cost Gore the election

[0007]

131. Makes sense to me!!