The Appeal of Hillary Clinton

[McCamy Taylor]

Someone posed this question as their thread header “What is the appeal of Hillary (Clinton)?”

This is a good question. To understand that, first we have to know who exactly are the Democrats who cling to her the way that Barack Obama accused them of clinging to guns and religion? I mean, Barack Obama is a perfectly good candidate. He bears the stamp of approval of respectable Democratic Party elders like Ted Kennedy and Pat Leahy and John Kerry. The press just adores him. He is rolling in cash. He is a great public speaker. He has been compared to JFK. He has low negatives. Why can he not wean close to half of the Democratic Party from its Hillary Clinton addiction?

How can a woman whom the right wing and the left wing both characterize as a bitch, witch, cheater, ice goddess, laser beam eye wielding demon monster so completely bamboozle so many people in so many states for so long with so many respected, educated , credentialed people in politics and the press and on television telling them what utter morons they are?

Hmmm. You know, that is part of the problem right there. America is the land of the rugged individual. The land of “You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.” And the minute that anyone----politician, TV news pundit, supporter---starts to ridicule another American for their political belief, you can expect that person’s resolve to amplify by about 1000%. In some things—like clothes and movie stars--- Americans join the bandwagon. But when it comes to religion and politics, we take those topics personally. That was why our mothers told us not to talk about them at the supper table.

Now, some groups are more ruggedly individualist than others. Young people tend to try very hard to fit into the herd. What’s that I hear? “No, we don’t!” they exclaim in unison! That is because young people nowadays want to fit into the anti-establishment mold. But there is no group in America that advertisers love more than young adults, because they care about their clothes and their music and making sure that they have the right look and style. This is biologically programmed so that they can mate and procreate. Don’t worry. Once you have kids, you will not longer give a shit about whether or not you fit into the right crowd. Older Americans are extremely individualistic. That was why Faulkner wrote about them so lovingly. They were more likely to show kindness towards their fellow human beings, even if they were poor or Black. Hell, even if they were criminals or sexual deviants. They were less likely to give a damn what the neighbors would say.

People who feel alienated from the dominant culture---the poor, the oppressed, minorities, gays, women---are also likely to have a streak of individualism. They have learned that if they judge themselves based upon the values that society presents to them, then they suck. They are the bottom of the heap, worthless, scum. People do not naturally want to have bad self esteem. So, they learn to judge for themselves. They think for themselves. They do not automatically listen when some guy in a suit with a title says “You should do this.” They have learned that those words do not apply to them. So, an endorsement that comes from Ted Kennedy or Pat Leahy means a lot less than one that comes from the local union organizer or the woman who runs the AIDS outreach.

Ok, with this in mind, let’s go look at some polls and see who Hillary’s most stubborn supporters are.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080423/ap_on_el_pr/primary_exit_poll_glance

This article says that each candidate kept their usual base in Pennsylvania. African-Americans voted for their economic self interest—that means Obama, since his election will go a long way towards erasing their second class citizen status. Unions do this all the time, so I don’t see why Blacks should get any grief over it. Unions, women, older people, blue collar workers went for Clinton, people making more than $75,000 went for Obama. He pretty much split the college vote with her. He got the urban residents and more left wing Democrats. She got the more middle of the road and suburban and rural Democrats.

Funny thing. While Huffington Post tries to blame Obama’s “bitter” remarks for his loss:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/exit-polls-obama-loses-to_n_98094.html

Even that article admits that he lost the same low income demographic in previous primaries and the yahoo article says

Remember those rural Pennsylvanians who Obama called bitter? Well, rural Pennsylvanians, who are overwhelmingly white, favored Clinton over Obama by similar margins to suburban voters, while Obama won among urban Democrats. But while more rural Democrats thought Clinton was in touch them than Obama, the majority still felt Obama was on their wavelength.

So, it isn’t anything that Obama said that turned them off. It is just that Clinton turned them on more. This is important. It means that Obama will not necessarily have a problem attracting these voters in the fall. However, if McCain has the same elusive quality that Hillary Clinton possesses, he might snatch these so called “Reagan Democrats”

Note: I personally dislike the term “Reagan Democrats” I think that it refers to the fact the Democrats ignored some of the neediest Americans because they had no money and so they were easy for the Republicans to exploit. Calling them “Reagan Democrats” is a put down. It implies that they are all ignorant racist, rednecks who cling to their guns and churches. From here on out I am going to refer to them as “Orphan Democrats” as in L’il Orphan Annie.

What is the discreet charm of the junior senator from New York?

Here is the scene at the New Hampshire victory celebration as described by MTV

http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/01/09/hillary-clinton-supporters-jump-for-joy/

They just called it! Many thought it wouldn’t happen, but it did: Hillary Clinton has won the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
The atmosphere here at the Hillary Clinton HQ in Manchester has gone from calm, quiet confidence to total elation, with hugs, smiles and high-fives all around the room. Not even those on the outskirts of the room are standing still. It is hysteria. People are literally jumping for joy. From where I am standing it is a sea of hands — hundreds of them all clapping to the chant of, “HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY!”
And then she appears, the face of a victor. Perfectly poised and with a big smile, her first gesture is that of thanks to the crowd. Both Chelsea and Bill take the stage briefly and both warmly embrace her. Then it is time for her victory speech.
The crowd quiets down immediately, everyone listening intently, hanging on her every word.
Snip

She ends with the words “This country is worth fighting for!,” and the crowd goes ballistic. She remains onstage for a minute, clapping along to the song “American Girl” by Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers before walking offstage under an explosion of red, white and blue confetti.

This country is worth fighting for. Rumor has it that John Kerry was persuaded not to challenge the 2004 election, because he was told that the press which swiftboated him would call him a sore loser and finish what was left of his political career. Since Hillary Clinton has never cared what anyone, including the news media says about her, you know that she would have demanded a recount and more. She would have challenged the election all the way back to the Supreme Court. And if Scalia and his gang had been forced to steal it again, then maybe Pelosi and her wimps would now have the courage to impeach.

With Karl Rove advising John McCain is it any wonder that the most disenfranchised, alienated portion of the American Democratic Party is scared to death of another stolen election? Or that it is pinning its hopes on a political family which has proven that no matter how many dirty tricks the Republicans use, they will fight back? Everyone knows election 2000 was stolen. Half the country thinks 2004 was stolen. The 2002 elections were hacked in Georgia. 2006 should have been a bigger landslide for the Democrats.

John Kerry put the fear of gentlemanly politics in America’s needy Democrats---the “Orphan Democrats.” He won that election, but he did not fight for his victory. His own career and dignity were more important to him than the people who needed him---that is what the people who make minimum wage and have no health care think. They got burned on the good looking guy in the suit. They want the fighter this time. When Obama said of Hillary recently that she put the knife in him and gave it a twist, he might have hoped that he was going to steal her base, but he only ended up reinforcing that which they loved about her----her fighting spirit. It would have been better for him to try to call her a wimp and a quitter.

Another one of the attacks that just reinforces Clinton’s support among her base is the charge that she did not deliver health care the first time, and now she wants to try again. Her supporters do not see this as a negative. After she failed the first time, did she go out and reinvent herself the way that Newt Gingrich reinvented himself as a conservative to get elected in 1978? Or as George Wallace reinvented himself as a segregationist to get elected? Hell no! Clinton is still 100% Clinton. She waited until she got her chance, and now she is back to try it again. When you are an “Orphan Democrat” you appreciate dependable things, like politicians with principles.

Her opponents mock her campaign for being in debt, but even this endears her to her base, since they are broke, too. They don’t trust money in politics. They think Big Business is trying to sell them something. People like George W. Bush and Reagan used to brag about how much cash they could pull in during a fund raiser, and we all saw where their loyalties lay—with the people who donated the money. When Obama supporters or TV newsmen talk about how broke Clinton is and how flush Obama is and say that this means that she must quit the race, this does not make the opponent sound inevitable . This makes him sound like The Man trying to buy another election. When Obama supporters then call the broke Clinton the corporate candidate, “Orphan Democrats” get the feeling that they are being lied to, which makes them wonder Do they think we are dumb, just because we did not go to college? . And when newsmen get on TV and say that Obama deliberately wasted 90 million dollars in Pennsylvania not to trim her margin of victory but to dry up her coffers in order to drive her out of the race, and Obama supporters offer each other High Fives at their candidate’s brilliant strategy, the “Orphan Democrats” are just aghast that this is how elections are won. They grew up hearing tales of Lincoln in his log cabin.

And people wonder why the number of Clinton supporters who say that they will not vote for Obama is growing.

So Clinton is a fighter who never stops and lack of money can not keep her down. What else? Oh yes! She is reviled! Just like the poor folks, and the gays and the women and the immigrant workers. The TV news pundits and the left wing Obama supporters say really nasty stuff about her. Uncalled for personal attacks. The kind of things that “Orphan Democrats” have to put up with all the time as they navigate social security offices and Dollar Stores and public clinic waiting rooms. And she smiles and holds up her chin and does not let it get to her. She is a reminder that in America no matter how much the system is against you, you can win against the system if you remain true to yourself.

America’s favorite heroes are all some version of David vs. Goliath. Right now, Hillary is where her charms can be best appreciated by her supporters. She is the underdog. She is Joan of Arc. She is the Gary Cooper in High Noon . She is Parnell---

----You know, David Axelrod is supposed to know all this. What is Barack Obama paying him for?

David Axelrod knows this too, but he is not telling anyone.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106381/Obama-Education-Gap-Extends-General-Election.aspx

From Gallup Poll, April 2008

Obama Education Gap Extends to General Election
McCain leads Obama among those with a high school education or less
Barack Obama leads John McCain by a significant margin among voters with the most education, but trails the likely Republican nominee among voters with the least formal education.

Snip

Obama's weaker performance among voters with less education is inconsistent with the typical pattern seen in general-election contests, in which the Democratic candidate tends to do better than the Republican among this group.

Snip

The education patterns for the Obama-McCain trial heats seem fairly well established thus far -- McCain has bested Obama among voters without a college education each of the four full weeks that Gallup has tracked general-election voting preferences, and Obama has had a consistently large lead among postgraduates. The two candidates have been competitive among the two middle education groups -- voters with some college education and four-year college graduates only.

So, for some reason, possibly because he is a war hero who spent Viet Nam in a box for his country which makes him seem like a tough guy and a scrappy fighter, McCain has the same qualities that Hillary Clinton has. In the general McCain gets Clinton’s base.

Now, once you start adding vice presidents into the mix, the dynamic changes. If I were the Democratic leadership, meaning the Super Delegates, I would think about two elections, 1972 when George McGovern went into the general without Humphrey’s base—essentially what I am now calling the “Orphan Democrats” and lost. And 1960, when the odd couple of LBJ and JFK put aside their differences to include the entire Democratic Party. Granted, it was a different party at the time, divided along different lines, but the socioeconomic forces at play are not all that different. The Democrats can not win without the “I am mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” vote, and Clinton has proven that she can mobilize that vote like no one else.

Whether or not corporate America wants that vote to be heard is another matter.

[saracat]

1. I wish I could reccomend this a million times . What a great read! Thank you~

Hillary should be paying you the big bucks! You "get it".

[barb162]

97. Yes, let's all face it

Clinton's the better candidate. :)

[guyanakoolaid]

2. The attacks on Clinton are not "uncalled for"

Nobody's attacks have been more outrageous and over-the-line than Clinton's own.

And she burned the bridge to VP long ago.


And... your line about Obama's money coming from "the man" while Clinton struggles with the poor people could not be more over-the-top and plain wrong. Apparently you missed the part where Clinton took in more PAC and lobbyist money than anybody while Obama refused it.

[saracat]

3. Obama certainly took PAC money and lobbyist funding in all his previous races. And it isn't

necessarily clear that he hasn't taken any in this race.

[guyanakoolaid]

6. It's crystal clear he has taken no PAC or lobbyist $ in this campaign

Unless you'd care to try and prove otherwise.

And he may have previously taken PAC money, it's called playing the game, and it's the only way to usually win office. To deny it is a risk and a gamble, but a clear sign you're willing to change how things are done, starting with yourself.

[McCamy Taylor]

10. Ok, a second source (Boston Globe) about how Obama takes lobbyist $$$$

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/

Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.

This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.

"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."

[EstimatedProphet]

104. So it's OK for Obama to take PAC money, but not for Clinton

[McCamy Taylor]

5. Obama Takes LOBBYIST Money (as long as they launder it through a state capitol first)

This is one of the biggest whoppers of his campaign. John McCain is going to have a field day with this one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-crawford/obamas-lobbyist-fib_b_95399.html

Obama is careful to claim in the ad that he does not take money from "Washington" lobbyists. That's because he does take money from state-based lobbyists.

Long ago the media watchdogs, such as Politifact.com, determined that at best it is only half true for Obama to claim that he takes no money from federal lobbyists. He takes plenty of money and advice from those who work for lobbyists, such as former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. More on Craig Crawford's Trail Mix.

So, he will take AT&T money---if AT&T sends it through Sacramento first.

This made him look the same as people like Dennis and Edwards who really didn't take that kind of money but who were operating on a shoestring budget.

[guyanakoolaid]

8. What a red herring - I suppose I'll be waiting a long time if I ask

you to explain how a person employed by a state-level lobbyist can possibly affect what happens in Washington.

:eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

13. Ooo. You are from the Obama camp. Welcome. It is all AT&T money.

[guyanakoolaid]

19. I suppose I'll be waiting a long time...

:yoiks:

[Tyler Durden]

26. Naivete is no longer an excuse.

Money laundering (which goes on in all political campaigns) is not an issue unless you start claiming you don't do it.

It is naive to say "Well, they are STATE lobbyists" and attempt to split that hair.

[guyanakoolaid]

35. It's not that thin a hair to split

He's not taking money from interests who want to influence him. A state lobbyist cannot influence him.

[susankh4]

37. And if you believe that....

I have some oceanfront property here in Ohio for ya.....

[guyanakoolaid]

51. Then you won't mind answering the simple question that so far eludes an answer

How can a person employed by a state-level lobbyist can possibly affect what happens in Washington?

[susankh4]

56. Special interest is special interest, my friend....

whether it is in IL or nationwide.

If a president decides, with his Exelon homie bundlers, to support corn based fuel... it affects all of us. In dwindling food supplies and a growing carbon footprint.

[guyanakoolaid]

57. ahem

How can a person employed by a state-level lobbyist can possibly affect what happens in Washington?

[susankh4]

58. I have already answered this question.

But, if you choose to believe that state level influence of a presidential candidate (or senator) will not affect his decisions in Washington... that is your prerogative.

[guyanakoolaid]

60. You have answered nothing, so I'll ask again:

How can a person employed by a state-level lobbyist can possibly affect what happens in Washington?

[Jakes Progress]

109. How intentional is the dumbness?

This is one of the things most puzzling about the Obama supporters. Are they intentionally obtuse or do they really not think very well.


It is probably futile, but I will try to explain to guy how this stuff works. It goes like this. Big lobbies want to give money to have influence. They filter this through state level lobbies so that it doesn't show up. It's not hard, and it's not very subtle. Unless of course you don't think very complicated thoughts or are so new to things in in such a state of thrall to your candidate that you can really not get it.


As was said before. It's not the taking of the lobby money. It's that it gets this filter so that he can claim he doesn't take it. Notice that he always puts that little caveat about "National" lobbies in there. He knows what is going on. It would be nice if he were up front about it.

[Straight Shooter]

89. Corn-based fuel and Exelon

[susankh4]

36. Tyler is correct on this...

we don't care about the money that comes through legit channels... unless the politician keeps telling us he isn't taking it. Then we see it as a lie. Out and out.

I have long said that Obama's followers here are quite naive if they think he is making all those bucks off their little $10 donations. The little bucks help, don't get me wrong... but somebody is bundling some HUGE sums his way.

Again, it's not necessarily wrong. Just don't try to pull the wool over our eyes on it. That's all.

[donkeyotay]

100. There are some people in this article who definitely affect what happens in Washington

Some of them would seem more benign if they put "lobbyist" on their income tax returns.

Big Donors Among Obama's Grass Roots
'Bundlers' Have a Voice in Campaign
By Matthew Mosk and Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 11, 2008; Page A01

But those with wealth and power also have played a critical role in creating Obama's record-breaking fundraising machine, and their generosity has earned them a prominent voice in shaping his campaign. Seventy-nine "bundlers," five of them billionaires, have tapped their personal networks to raise at least $200,000 each. They have helped the campaign recruit more than 27,000 donors to write checks for $2,300, the maximum allowed. Donors who have given more than $200 account for about half of Obama's total haul, which stands at nearly $240 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041004045.html?hpid=topnews

[still_one]

17. The money Obama got was from small people like ME. 25 bucks a pop

Probably the most outrageous attack from Clinton came when she said that she and mccain were qualified to be president, but Obama wasn't.

That little attack defined Hillary for me. If she gets the nomination, I will vote for her in the general election, but it will be the most reluctant vote I WOULD HAVE EVER CAST

From race baiting, implying that she would take Obama's word for it, if he said he wasn't a Muslim, to subtley questioning his patriotism, that will always define her character for me. She and her husband are trash with a lot of money.

If the Clinton supporters truely believe in their candidate then why aren't they contributing as much money as the Obama camp. Gee, Clinton had the all powerful Clinton machinary behind her campaign. The Carvilles and Richard Mellonscape(sic)

[aquart]

21. LOL! Seriously, you still believe that?

[still_one]

22. Yup /nt

[newfie11]

62. When Hillary was asked on the last debate she said Obama would make a good president

but she thought she would make a better one. I have never heard her say Obama wasn't qualified!! There are so many lies being thrown around it is pathetic!!

[guyanakoolaid]

66. Did you miss it when she said McCain was more qualified than Obama?

Seriously - did you totally miss that? I can give you links if you like.

[Jakes Progress]

115. Of course, she never said that.

But, equally of course, that doesn't matter to you does it?


Seriously - did you totally lie here. She said McCain had more experience. He does. She was pointing out the problems of having a junior senator with bubkis international experience running against the old codger. She said she would make a better candidate to oppose McCain. But in the parsing war, it was got blogified into a matter of endorsement.


For his part, Obama championed Reagan's clarity and optimism, dynamism ,and entrepreneurship. He said Reagan led the country in ways that Clinton did not. Then he said that that didn't mean he supported Reagan's ideas or policies. He said he just meant that he could bring change.


Sort of the same thing of course, but you knew that didn't you?

[cui bono]

123. Of course, she did say that.

But, equally of course, that doesn't matter to you does it?

She said all Obama had was a speech.

I heard it, but then you probably did too, didn't you?

[Jakes Progress]

125. No, she didn't.

Yes, she said all Obama had was a speech. That's not saying that she thought that McCain was more qualified. You can twist it that way. But if you want to, then you must allow the Hillary supporters to twist Obama's words too.


They get to say that he loves Ronald Reagan and wants to have "innovative" and "inspirational" policies just like his. They get to say that he thinks he is better than poor people. They get to say that Michelle has always hated America until people would make her first lady.


We know what he meant. We know what she meant. But if you think parsing sentences and providing meanings that suit your side are wrong when her side does it, you should be decent and honest enough to know that it is wrong when you do it. It's the hypocrisy or saying you are supporting a man who believes in being above petty politics and then doing exactly the opposite of what he says. That's the kind of thing that will kill his chances against McCain.

[cui bono]

126. She said Son of Cain had more experience and all Obama had was a speech.

What else can you possibly get out of that? Sheesh.

[JAbuchan08]

134. You know you are quite right that all Obama had was a speech

that's all the anti-war movement had, was their speeches, and their thoughts.
What good does it do to be right when all you can do is articulate it and hope that obstinate politicians like Hillary listen.

It's too bad Obama didn't have the sense to run for senate two years earlier and oppose the war then. He should have known he would have to do more to counter act the misjudgement of McCain and Hillary than to just make a speech.

[Shoelace]

86. well, yes and no - there are lots of 2300 buck donors too

who gave in increments of 200 bucks or more. You can look up who gave and how much on this govt. site.

http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80003338

You can click on any area in the country, then look at the donations by individuals, how much they gave, etc.
About 200,000+ people gave under $200, 61,500+ gave $2000+ to his campaign.

[cali]

4. another pretentious wordy screed that says virftually nothing and

essentially just makes crap up.

[McCamy Taylor]

7. Hi , Cali!

One of my devoted fans, always one of the first to comment on my journals these days.

:hi:

[cali]

30. Hi, McCamy. For you:

Literary legend, George Orwell wrote an essay in 1946 called Politics and the English Language as something of a cure for the state of writing in publications of the day. PickTheBrain.com brings to light 5 rules from said essay that will bring out your writing from the pack.

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifehack/5-rules-of-effective-writing-by-george-orwell.html

[boston bean]

45. What do you know, Cali takes on another responsibility.

Belittle people with her beliefs on how to write a post.

Get a life, this must really be a thorn in your side, and it shows.

[cali]

47. wah. more whining from the du queen of whinging.

don't you have an Obama relative to attack or something, sweetie?

[boston bean]

49. Hey cupcake, all of my family here in MA, despite Kennedy and Kerry are Hillary supporters. nt

[cali]

53. copying me again.

I'm flattered. Oh, and so what? MA has already voted, and if you want anecdotal, I don't know anyone who voted for hilly here.

[boston bean]

55. If I was really copying you I would call your post "COD SWALLOP" nt

[barb162]

92. LOL! Or usable for fish wrap.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. So they're are Pro-Iraq/Iran War and detest Healthcare for all?

Or are they just racist?

For the life of me, I couldn't understand why Americans continued to vote for Hillary. After that public stunt by Bill globe-hopping with Dubya's daddy; after Hillary was humiliated and went Yike! Yike! Yike! back into a corner when she made a feeble attempt at changing healthcare for all in that first year her hubby was pres, she then kowtows for huge donations to pharmaceutical and HMO $$$s, after her vote for the IWR and the IRAN War Resolution just last year... You'd think "liberal" Massachussetts would know better.

They apparently don't, OR they don't care that Hillary didn't even read the NIE before she helped send over 4000 American troops needlessly to their deaths, nor that over 20,000 American soldiers are permanently disabled, maimed for life when they were 100% healthy before her politically expedient vote.

Oh, and MassDem? Did you know Bill and Hillary are embroiled in a massive lawsuit because of FRAUD committed in 2000 in California now having found its way into the California Supreme Court? Yep. Hillary is caught on tape solliciting fundraising for Hill's 2000 senatorial seat and never came through her part of the "wheeling-n-dealin'" deal. Now they are both being sued FOR FRAUD.

What do you think the GOP would do with that info they themselves dredged up should Hillary - through nothing less than a miracle - win the nomination via U.S. Supreme Court style coupe via SDs?

And here I thought Massachussets was one of the more progressive, smarterliberal states and wanted the WH back in Democratic hands.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

87. my MA branch of the fam all voted for Hillary too

[grantcart]

72. great Cali now give her another book to snip and cut a few irrelevent passages from lol

I would love to give a short quiz to all of the people who rec this tripe to see how many actually read it. It is hilarious to see that in a normal MT thread all of her supporters simply give a brief obligatory genuflection and those that actually engage the subject are overwhelmingly those that completely disagree. Its long, its wordy,its pretentious, its conspiratorial but what the heck its all for Hillary - rec. lol.

[cali]

78. I'd bet most of them don't read it.

what's surprising is the number of Obama people who are impressed by this codswallop. Don't you love what Orwell had to say though? He would have ripped this tripe to shreds.

[dchill]

84. But I thought that the more words it has, the...

truer it is! Ain't that right, GC? Hell, by the time I got to the end of it, I was just filled with the spirit of the True Believer - wasn't you? Course I'm white and a leetle nervous to vote outside my comfort zone, iffen you know what I mean...

:hi:

[barb162]

90. Try following the rules yourself for a big change.

[cali]

99. oh, but I do.

I say things clearly. I don't pull punches, and I don't tart up my prose. I use facts. I make it clear that I'm expressing my opinion and not some immutable and undying truth, and I don't lie or misrepresent.

[zalinda]

117. Oh, but apparently Obama has never read it

He constantly abuses #2.

zalinda

[McCamy Taylor]

101. Cali, who was the better writer, Orwell or Faulkner? Faulkner. Orwell or Joyce? Joyce.

Orwell or Wolfe? Wolfe. Orwell or Hunter S. Thompson? Thompson. Orwell or William S. Burroughs. Burroughs.

Orwell had some good ideas, but he was laying down guidelines for people who needed to write a document, a thesis, a letter of recommendation. He was describing a crisp "British" style of writing. To say that this is the only way to write is to say that Britannia still rules the waves. You will find that writers develop their own style and that this style seldom bears any relationship to any manual in existence. If NanceGregg tried to follow the above list of rules, her posts would be boring. A writer's style is like that of a painter or a musician. It is a medium through which he or she can express a flow of ideas that might otherwise be difficult to put on the page.

Familiar metaphors are a key to writing. They are signs, just like words, with complex connotations. Since my visual art medium of choice is mixed media it almost goes without saying that when I write nonfiction, I will use quotes, snippets of poetry, and familiar metaphors---sometimes in odd contexts or turned upon their head---in order to create new meanings. This allows me to go beyond the usual palette of words as signs. This is my style. If you do not like it, do not read what I write. There are thousands of threads here at DU for your entertainment.


Here is living proof that America is better off for its own style of progressive writers, Gore Vidal refusing to say kind words about William F. Buckley Jr. Do you think anyone in this country would have paid attention to Vidal's prophetic writings if he had followed "the rules"?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080320_gore_vidal_speaks_seriously_ill_of_the_dead/

The correct assessment of any reputation today is so far from plausible reality that it might be a good thing if the hacks of a magazine like Newsweek steered clear of characterizing those disliked by the advertisers; hence his creepy son’s depiction of me as a “bully” when I was simply attending to one, and then—o, joy!—Buckley called me a “queer” and actually threatened me with physical violence, so great was his testosterone level. Next, the loyal son, suspecting that the pejorative use of “queer” is politically incorrect in mag-land, Christopher rambles into a story about his father’s kindness to a Mr. Bauman who had lost his seat in Congress after the congressman had been caught while soliciting Oral Sex from a 16-year-old male (note how prurient Newsweek’s prose is, in describing undesirable people). Chris weeps into his computer as he describes how Dad gave the poor sinner of the flesh an envelope containing $10,000 (I bet?) in cash adding, mysteriously, “He was a knightly man”: Who was—the cocksucker recipient of Buckley’s charity? Or his admirer, Mr. Buckley himself?—Bauman was very right wing, it is said. RIP WFB—in hell.

The unique mess that our republic is in can be, in part, attributed to a corrupt press whose roots are in mendacious news (sic) magazines like Time and Newsweek, aided by tabloids that manufacture fictional stories about actual people. This mingling of opinion and fiction has undone a media never devoted to truth. Hence, the ease with which the Republican smear-machine goes into action when they realize that yet again the party’s permanent unpopularity with the American people will cause them defeat unless they smear individually those who question the junk that the media has put into so many heads. Anyone who says “We gotta fight ’em over there or we’re gonna have to fight ’em over here.” This absurdity has been pronounced by every Republican seeking high office. The habit of lying is now a national style that started with “news” magazines that was further developed by pathological liars that proved to be “good” Entertainment on TV. But a diet of poison that has done none of us any good.

I speak ex cathedra now, ad urbe et orbe, with a warning that no society so marinated in falsity can long survive in a real world.

[tledford]

110. "My mother is a fish."

Since you bring up Faulkner, the subject line above is an entire chapter (thought by the child Vardaman) from "As I Lay Dying." So Faulkner could (to put it mildly) be succinct when it suited his purpose and made his point, he wasn't always wordier than Orwell.

Kind of off the point, I realize, but your post made me think of it and now I have to go re-read "As I Lay Dying," damn you (just kidding on the damn you, I actually am saying "Thanks!").

[JoFerret]

142. Dear Cali

I look forward to seeing this reflected in your prose going forward.

Particularly the bit about omitting unnecessary words.

[saracat]

14. McCamy Taylor is one of the best writers on DU. She is exceptionally

fair and well researched. Her campaign profiles were wonderful. It is really sad that your perceived bias doesn't let you appreciate her writing.

[cali]

29. Taylor's pieces are virtually all "The Emperor's New Clothes"

Like Orwell, I detest this kind of writing. She really, really can't write clearly. Have you ever read what Orwell had to say about political writing? He spoke strongly against this kind of meandering mess. And the OP invariably gets facts wrong. My bias is strong, and it's against faux intellectual, wordy messes.

[boston bean]

46. Me thinks doth detest too much. You must hate

Nance Greggs writing.

I don't, I disagree with her on Obama, but unlike you, I am not BITTER.

[Jakes Progress]

112. There are other models.

Have you ever read anything about writing except Orwell. Love his prose, but if you really read him, you will notice that he often does not follow the advice that you quote. That bit of advice on writing was for a specific purpose. Writing takes many forms and the form should follow the function. Orwell employed a number of styles and forms. He knew what he was doing. You parrot a piece of his work and make it all you know. Your complaints about McCamy's writing is not about her writing. Your motives are transparent, You attack her message without refuting the message. You say that you always use facts and are direct, but your messages are little snips, void of fact or even the simulation of a fact. I know you probably get a lot of huzzahs from the faithful, but your prose and your position are highly unlikely to appeal to anyone not already predisposed to your point of view - which makes them worthless.

[donheld]

137. .

:rofl:

[still_one]

18. well said, and in less time /nt

[hfojvt]

9. I think you missed something

not that I read the whole thing. Did you mention the fact that she's basically an incumbent and that she has her popular celebrity family to support her. Not to mention the Governor. Things like that might help a little.

[still_one]

20. with all that and she went from a 25 point lead to a 10 point victory

what does that say?

[still_one]

11. Not to burst anyones bubble but Obama came from a 25pt loss to a 10pt loss

in a primary that he wasn't even suppossed to be a factor because Clinton was to have locked up the victory by now

You indicate Hillary is a fighter, fine, that does not mean that Obama isn't a fighter also.

Your assertion that the press adores him, really, bull. The only candidate NOT getting hit by the press is mccain. That is who the press is giving a free pass on

Once the primaries are over, whoever is leading in delegates and popular should be the nominee, period

If the loser decides to bring the fight to the convention, then we WILL lose, and deserve it

If that happens it will show the true character of the loser, putting their ambitions before the country and the party

Either way I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but if the nominee wins through a convention fight that is the ONLY thing they will get from me, my vote, they won't get a dime from me

Hopefully, that won't be the case

[Number23]

12. Good LORD, that was the longest post ever....

Since Hillary Clinton has never cared what anyone, including the news media says about her, you know that she would have demanded a recount and more. She would have challenged the election all the way back to the Supreme Court.

I think you're right on the money there. She is definitely a tough old gal.

And the minute that anyone----politician, TV news pundit, supporter---starts to ridicule another American for their political belief, you can expect that person’s resolve to amplify by about 1000%.

I think that's true too, but in many cases it isn't ridicule and people still don't listen. In 2004, GW lost every debate with John Kerry, was reviled by leaders of other nations (except UK and Australia), and not a week went by without at least ten stories being written about what an idiot he was. And he STILL won. I will never understand why with something as important as a presidential election, people make up their minds beforehand and then only listen to things that support their (often uninformed) ideas.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. "...challenged the election all the way back to the Supreme Court."

This response, from the candidate who does not believe that there was any electoral fraud in 04? Who has never demanded accountability from the Republican voting machine companies?

How could she fight something that she doesn't believe exists?

[anamandujano]

15. Nice work! Thanks!

[LulaMay]

16. Wow....that was spot-on! Well done!!

[aquart]

23. Yep. I LIKE that she won't quit.

But, you know what, I also keep hearing what a damned nice woman she is. I so didn't want to talk politics on Passover. I didn't want to find out that any family of mine was stampeding for Obama. To my surprise my aunt told her end of the table (too far from me to hear the details) about how a friend of hers had worked for Hillary for years, and said how wonderful she was to work for.

But I also looked at the husband she forgave and the daughter she raised, and I knew that anyone who called her a "monster" was a fool whose opinion could not be believed.

[Clintonista2]

24. Oh my god

I would spend 1000 recs on this post if I could.

[lligrd]

25. She Voted For The IWR, Brags About being Willing To Obliterate

Iran and uses Rovian tactics on her "perfectly good candidate" Democratic opponent. I used to like Hillary. I now detest her and don't see any difference (short of some corporate imposed health care mandate that will no doubt benefit corporations more than us) to support her at all.

[LibertyorDeath]

27. She is a DLC Corporatist

You would have to be just this side of deranged not to realize she is the candidate of Corporate America!

If you think she's for "the People" THINK AGAIN!!!!!

[Usrename]

28. You are cracking me up with this stuff.

The Democrats can not win without the “I am mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” vote, and Clinton has proven that she can mobilize that vote like no one else.

Why would any of these "mad as hell and I won't take it anymore" folks vote for Clinton?

Why are Clinton's supporters ready to vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nod?

Is this really the way to not take it any more?

:rofl:

[Iceburg]

31. K&R; McCamy ..you are the only poster that brings me back to DU /nt

[susankh4]

32. Her opponents mock her campaign for being in debt, but even this endears her to her base...

since they are broke too."

Never a truer statement was made about why so many of us woke up this morning and sent yet another $25 to Hillary. No, we can't afford it. But... we have our priorities straight. First the president. Then the coffee. I gave up my latte sippin' this primary season and switched to Folgers. The difference goes to Hillary!


"Oh yes! She is reviled! Just like the poor folks, and the gays and the women and the immigrant workers. The TV news pundits and the left wing Obama supporters say really nasty stuff about her. Uncalled for personal attacks. The kind of things that “Orphan Democrats” have to put up with all the time as they navigate social security offices and Dollar Stores and public clinic waiting rooms. And she smiles and holds up her chin and does not let it get to her."

And the worse they treat her, the greater my allegiance. From the off color jokes to the outright slander .... I recognize it for what it is: an attempt to bring down the hardest working politician I have yet to see. Here's a hint to the MSM: your hate talk don't work! It makes her stronger. And her supporters are immune to it, cuz we have already heard so much of it. Take your hate and go home.

Thanks again, McCamy, for a great piece!

[johnnydrama]

38. ah

The i'm horrible at balancing a budget vote.

That has to be the dumbest thing i've ever seen.

People like Hillary because she wastes money at the Bellagio, and owes 10 million dollars to hundreds of vendors.

Becuase most people are in debt also?

Debtors for Hillary?

[susankh4]

40. She is so dedicated to what she does that

she will go into debt for it.

What small business person hasn't been there? We all have. And we understand that.... when you believe in something you do what it takes.

[johnnydrama]

121. sorry

she's not going into personal debt, and small businesses going into debt doesn't mean owing tons of people tons of money.

[leveymg]

33. Hillary "the underdog" - new meme. She won PA because 4yrs ago she was the Annointed Candidate

by the Democratic Party machine.

It is that Party Machine that delivered Pennsylvania for the Clintons -- as happened before in the other big states that are still under the control of that election-losing political machine. I know about that machine, because I've worked for it in various roles for decades.

Yes, HILLARY WINS PRIMARIES in some big states - the ones where the machine is firmly entrenched - but does that carry into the General? She's much less impressive in transition states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, the Democrats need to pick up to win in November.

Hillary the Underdog, the Outsider, the Comeback Kid . . . don't try to feed us THAT line. We've heard it before. Clinton's the machine candidate, and they think they own the Democratic Party. The next two months will show they're wrong.

After the Last Hurrah in PA, she's done.

[durrrty libby]

34. K & R Well Done

[dailykoff]

39. . . . and then Barbie and Ken returned to the Barbie Magic Castle.

I just love a good fairy tale. :loveya:

[JNelson6563]

41. Stupid me, seemed the title indicated a pro-Clinton post

But, like a cheap toy, the packaging was deceiving. No real surprise here.

Julie

[JohnnyLib2]

42. Thank you once again.

As a Dem. who had his start at the time of Kennedy-Johnson, I think there is a huge lesson to be learned. I'd like to think that both Clinton and Obama
are wise enough to use it.

Recommended.

[midnight]

43. “This country is worth fighting for!,”

How can a woman whom the right wing and the left wing both characterize as a bitch, witch, cheater, ice goddess, laser beam eye wielding demon monster so completely bamboozle so many people in so many states for so long with so many respected, educated , credentialed people in politics and the press and on television telling them what utter morons they are? I have grown tired of all the name calling of Senator Clinton by other Democrates. If she is the party's Democratic nominee I will gladly vote for her.

[Perry Logan]

44. One also notices that Hillary's harshest critics are degenerates and traitors.

[cali]

48. lol. what nonsense.

how would you know? and you sanctimoniously claim how well you behave on DU. Hypocrite.

[InfiniteNether]

52. You mean people like me? You must be one of those people

that will vote for McCain if Clinton isn't the nominee.

[guyanakoolaid]

67. One also notices every neocon trick in the book being used by Hillary supporters...

calling people "traitors"... come on. Really?

[blm]

69. Traitors are those Dems who protected BushInc - and Clintons TOP that list.

How WILL Clintons spend all that money that Dubai and Saudi royals, protected along with GHWBush and Jackson Stephens throughout the 90s, dump by the tens of millions into their bank account, anyway?

[RaleighNCDUer]

74. OK, you're ignored

you shit-stirring fuck.

[dchill]

98. So there's really only one of you?

That's good, 'cause us "degenerates and traitors" are really trying to stay under the radar. You should learn to do the same.

[InfiniteNether]

50. Clinton simply cannot do any wrong, in your eyes. Also, so

people like McCain because he is a "fighter"? If so, then what exactly would he fight for that would make him so appealing to Clinton voters? Better healthcare? More jobs? Get out of Iraq?

[mcollier]

59. Missing in this thesis

is the fact that the large population of independents in PA did not participate in the primary. As we have seen in previous primaries, Obama does much better than Clinton with independents... Also,if I remember correctly, Obama won twice as many contests as Clinton, and the margins of victories for Obama on average were much larger than those of Clinton. It remains to be seen in Indiana and North Carolina as to where the momentum is shifting. The PA primary indicated that in the past month Obama closed a significant Clinton lead.

[NJmaverick]

54. The repukes love her, she has hurt the Dems as much as Rove

[LizW]

61. Exactly why Hillary appeals to me.

This is spot-on.

Thanks, McCamy Taylor.

[RaleighNCDUer]

75. Scanning the posts, I thought this was in reply to #54, above.

Which makes more sense.

[Cass]

63. Well said!

:kick:

K & R

[Honeycombe8]

64. Correction to your post: the right wing is not characterizing her as a "bitch." They are orgasmic

over the possibility of her being the nominee. Faux News was practically having a ticker tape parade last night.

Get it? SHE is the one they most relate to, the one they want.

That says it all.

I also find it interesting that the first half of your post, which ostensibly is "explaining" the appeal of Clinton is actually tearing down Obama.

This is why I will never vote for the Clintons. Her supporters say it all.

[RaleighNCDUer]

76. For that matter, neither does the left wing - we have other, more

appropirate appelations.

Whenever the word 'bitch' appears, it is in a post by a hillary lover, complaining about other peoples' attitudes towards hillary. Hillary lovers love that word.

[McCamy Taylor]

108. The left is more pc. "Friendly Fire; The Press v. Hillary pt 4" What was that Final Rule?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/160

Read about how the left calls her something worse than bitch. They call her "monster". "Warmonger" "Karl Rove" Read about how The Village Voice (Obama supporter) started the rumor that Clinton is having a Lesbian affair with a Muslim aid.

[McCamy Taylor]

106. You didn't read my 4 part "The Press v. Hillary" journal. Here is a link to

the first part

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/157

It took four monster length journal to cover the smears just from 1-07 to this spring. Be sure to read part 3, "Leaping Lesbians" which focuses on the right wing attacks on Clinton. The guys and gals on the right call her a bitch, a witch, a Lesbian, a satanist and more. All during the campaign season. They stopped--as if on cue---when Obama passes Hillary in delegates. That is how you play Brokered Democratic Convention.

I also have a three part "The Press v. Barack Obama" in which I describe how the right wing media with some help from the MSM has been laying the groundwork for some nasty big lies about Obama for the general.

[D23MIURG23]

65. Interesting article, K&R.

[bpeale]

70. wow! wish i had more than one recommend for this one!

you're right. this is exactly what i like about hillary clinton. she just never gives up & she won't go away. period. you're making me warm up to hillary clinton, damn you! LOL. right now, i wouldn't support either candidate, but i would NEVER vote for obama. never in a thousand years. i think you've hit a home run with this one! thanks.

[Sancho]

71. First, I plan to vote for the Democratic Candidate...

Second, I think our biggest issue is stealing the elections, and that hasn't been fixed.

I think this was an insightful post. My take on Florida locals (usually white, older, lots of Catholics and church goers, and some union folks) is that Hillary has good health, education, and economic plans. Most people like Obama, but in a real-start-from-scratch election, most of my "neighborhood" would prefer Hillary or John Edwards to Obama for some of the reasons stated in this post. These are consistent voters, but not progressive activists.

I also suspect that some of those independent voters will move to McCain in a general election. If you want to call them Reagan Democrats, that would make sense.

I was A-1 in the 1972 draft (no college deferments after 1971!) and I remember the McGovern support dissolved in the face of LOTS of active opposition to Vietnam, oil embargo, and expensive cold war. Again, this post makes objective sense to me.

Good job.


:dem:

[suzie]

91. Another Florida voter here

As a Florida resident and Democratic voter, it pains me to hear Clinton and her surrogates constantly saying "Obama can't win Florida". Because truth to tell, neither can Hillary. Florida has voted Democratic in how many presidential elections in the last 30 years? And elected how many Democratic governors?

The state now has a popular, even among most Democrats, Republican governor and a strong Republican base. And in the GABAMA part of the state (GeorgiaBama), Hillary Clinton is one of the most hated figures in all of politics. Every last Republican will drag themselves to the polls to vote against her.

I'd totally disagree about the independents. Under the disastrous Clinton years, where every last Democratic Sheriff and County Commissioner had to run with all the baggage of the Clintons around their necks, many parts of the state became completely Republican. So, a lot of Democrats registered as Republicans just to be able to vote in their local primary elections. I think those are a sizable portion of the independents.

But, maybe I'm just selfish--I'd like to see the Party outlast the Depression baby generation. I, too, worked for McGovern. And for the last 8 years, I've been to so many party meetings where I'm the youngest in the room at age 58. With the Obama campaign, for the first time I've actually seen young Democrats appear at party meetings--although they're not particularly welcome.

[RaleighNCDUer]

77. Some adroit propaganda,

and 99% bullshit.

A little bit of truth creeps through, ocassionally.

"McCain has the same qualities that Hillary Clinton has. In the general McCain gets Clinton’s base."

The Reagan democrats. The untrustworthy, who would support a republican for personal gain. The DLC corporatists. Those who can be bribed to forget their principles by a tax cut or a rebate.

[cali]

79. I'd dispute that it's adroit

and I'll dispute that her base will go for McCain. In November when people are struggling even more to feed their families and heat their homes, I think they'll largely vote for the Obama.

[bonnieS]

81. Brilliant!

You ought to get paid for managing campaigns. I love the part about the money--never thought of that.

The part about clinging to someone who's attacked--I have always called that the Elvis factor. You say he was fat? I love him! You say he was drugged? I love him more! You say he had no talent? I'll kill you! This is deeper than the "Don't go out with that boy" syndrome because it involves identity--an attack (especially a sexist one) on Hillary is an attack on all the women who support her, and therefore drives them more firmly into her camp. Same thing works for Obama supporters, as far as I can see, tho for different groups, of course.

I don't like either one of them, but my sympathy for Hillary surfaces whenever any of the words you mention is used. I will vote for the eventual nominee, pining for Kucinich/Edwards.

[SeaLyons]

80. Best read on DU

Thanks very much McCamy Taylor!!

K&R
:kick:

[Skidmore]

82. Well, I fit your description of a good Democrat on nearly all points

only I don't support Hillary. I support Obama, who is also a fighter, and what is more, I trust him to fight for us all. I don't trust Hillary or her husband who have become so enmeshed with the very hard rightwing moneyed interests who were behind creating all of her "experience" of the 1990s. I don't believe it is "her turn" or that she is entitled to the nomination. From what you have said about Obama, you apparently believe he was a trust fund baby. Well, he's not! Obama has had just as many obstacles, if not more, to overcome to achieve what he has to date. Obama will stand for us, he will fight to protect the constitution, and he will not play footsy with the entrenched Bush-Clinton circles in DC. It is time to clean house. I will categorically not vote for Hillary in the GE, and I have voted straight Democratic ticket since my first election in 1972. My parents were lifelong Democrats, as were my grandparents on both sides of my family. I will write in Obama's name and vote for all Dems for local and state government on the ticket, but I will not contribute to a restoration of the Clintons. Period.

[dchill]

83. Your post is way too long, and I'm ...

really tired from rolling my eyes. Now, HERE is the sum total of the Appeal of Hillary Clinton.

1. She's not a black man.
2. She talks in code to dumb bigots, and they buy it because they really, really need an excuse.
3. She draws fellow "victims" to her cause.

Short, sweet, true.

[suzie]

93. Sum total appeal

Word.

[lumberjack_jeff]

131. idiotic.

You are part of a campaign - a campaign to attract voters.

Calling us dumb bigots is beyond moronic. The democratic party does not need your "help".

[dchill]

144. What I have always found, in my experience...

is that the truth really hurts. What doesn't hurt is being called idiotic by someone who hasn't grasped that fact. It's a compliment to be told that I'm part of a campaign to attract voters. Thank you, I feel empowered!

[here_is_to_hope]

85. Nice change up from yesterday Taylor, what a

difference an 8.6 percent win makes...
Yesterday you were fluffing Obama, today he is Satan...

I get the feeling you dont care who wins, as long as you pick the winning side early enough for everyone here at DU to see just how thoughtful you are.






Gosh, you are so smart!

[merh]

94. LOL

a belated welcome to DU, too. :hi:

[AX10]

88. I'm with Saracat. I wish I could get this a million recd's too.

I went to college and graduated with Honors and I still empathize with the outsider.

[barb162]

96. ditto, it's a great post.

There was an interesting point on CNN yesterday that Obama voters tended to have Bachelors but people with Masters and above voted more for Clinton than those with Bachelors.

[Straight Shooter]

95. Thanks, McCamy.

Hillary appeals to me for all kinds of reasons, now that I'm taking a closer look at her. At the beginning of the primaries, she wasn't even on my short list.

I'll be damned if I'll let a bunch of talking heads shape my perception of someone. That goes for Obama, too. He's going to have to sink or swim on his own merits. McCain of course is already at the bottom of the ocean in that regard.

K&R

[donkeyotay]

102. I liked the post. And only 3 Obama supporters called us bigots.

Way back when Hillary unexpectedly won Connecticut (?) the media said it was because she cried. I didn't agree with that assessment. I thought it was because she adopted Edwards' rhetoric and said "I'll fight for you." To me this contrasted with Obama saying how much he liked Republicans and got along with them while he simultaneously criticized dems for not being nice enough. He divided the old (bitter, which at the time was still bad) and the new, ie., loyal to Obama, not to democratic causes.

Race-baiting goes two ways. To have people here suggest you're a bigot if you still prefer HIllary to Barack doesn't do a lot to persuade. Just makes me want to cling more bitterly to someone I at least know is a democrat. If Hillary got the nomination, Obama would run as an Independent faster than you can say Joe Lieberman.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. I've found that my affinity for HRC is directly proportional to the number of times...

... I've been called a racist by BO supporters.

[donkeyotay]

145. We, the people, all of the people

Had a chance to challenge the corporate takeover of our representational democracy, and now it's going to be race-based instead. I hope people can hear me out honestly, and not take what I'm about to say the wrong way, but the corporate and criminal interests that have hijacked our nation are delighted with the prospect of having us fight about race. We had over a decade lost to arguing about abortion. We had the 2006 election given over to a useless and irrelevant scare over gay marriage. You wonder what they could use next to keep people divided while the kleptocrats keep any meaningful reform from taking place. Well, I think it's going to be race. I'm not saying any of these issues - particularly race - aren't important, but I am saying that at the beginning of this primary we were in a strong place, a place where the division was between those buying influence and those who had a Constitutional right to be represented, between corporations and people. Now we're being divided, first young against old, and by the time this hits the GE, it'll be about race. It seems like a giant step backward to me. I always ask, "Who benefits?" I do not yet trust Obama that he represents the people of this country and not the corporate interests who are harming all of us. My doubts are legitimate and based on my political observations. They are based on suspicions of whose corporate interests he represents and are not race-based. To have young people basically calling on old people to crawl off and die, to have young people who want to come right out and call you poor white trailer trash because you don't believe in a hope and change campaign that inspires you with neither, well, it's just sad to see this is all that's left of the democratic party.

It made no sense to me to say that now, and only now, could young people be inspired to be involved in politics. What, working for workers' rights or environmental rights or social justice were never compelling reasons to lend some support to liberals? Now, they're running around like brownshirts with training wheels. Will they work to protect social security or provide for bankruptcy protection from medical bills? Will they now, when they didn't before? One thing clear to me is that if I am going to find it within my conscience to support Obama, I will have to remove myself from DU so that I can see him separate from his supporters. To this end, I respectfully ask the mods to tombstone this poster, donkeyotay.

[Vinca]

103. Doesn't it bother you she's an out and out liar?

Bill, too. And they're so comfortable doing it, they let you get it on tape, play it back to them and then they respond, "I didn't say that." She's one of the least trustworthy people I've ever seen in public life.

[Shoelace]

105. worse than Bush? worse than Cheney? worse than

most of the Republicans that have run this country into the ground and made it a 3rd world country in 7+ years? I don't think so!
It's comments like yours that makes me think twice about voting for Obama.

[Vinca]

107. That's kind of the point. After 8 years of lie after lie after lie after lie,

wouldn't it be nice to have a person who's going to tell us the truth for once?

[Shoelace]

116. did Obama admit to 200,000 bucks from oil company donations?

and Clinton has taken money from Lobbyists too so they've both got their fair share of half truths and little white lies, none of which can come even close to the 8 years of Republican lies and corruption, graft not to mention the endless war in Iraq.

Some half truths from Obama:

Hillary Clinton is "willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance." (her mandate doesn't mention garnishment)

"Hillary Clinton supported NAFTA and permanent China trade. Pennsylvania lost thousands of jobs." (a distinction without difference)

Hillary Clinton's international travels included "no serious diplomacy." (that one is downright false) (Clinton's trips are not all "puffery")

Barack Obama has written and co-sponsored more bills in three years than Hillary Clinton has in seven. (from a chain email which is false info)

A mailer from the Obama campaign "accurately indicates" that Hillary Clinton would "force uninsured people to buy insurance, even if they can't afford it."
(force yes, but she wants it affordable)

"I know that Hillary on occasion has said — just last year said this (NAFTA) was a boon to the economy." (no evidence she said that)


You can read the other side - Clinton's "half truths" at the link. It's an interesting website of value.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/hillary-clinton/attacks/

Truth be told, I'll vote for which ever one is chosen. They are both well qualified to be president. The Clinton presidency did NOT leave this country bankrupt - there was a surplus of 6 billion dollars which Bush spent in less than 6 months. Clinton was a good pres, period!

[GrimReefa]

111. It's the War, jackass!

Clinton is a fighter? Ha! She sure "fought" the unjust and baseless invasion of an innocent country, real well.

Oh, that's right, she didn't.

If she thinks the country is worth fighting for, maybe she could have done a bit more of that when she was in the Senate.

[McCamy Taylor]

113. Recommended reading "The Death of the Author" Roland Barthes

This is for people who read this and find themselves wondering "What are the author's motives in writing this?" I have already said what peculiar circumstance caused me to write this. I received a challenge. Someone else posted a thread asking "What is Hillary's appeal?" I like anthropology, so I decided to see if I could answer this intriguing question. When I write, I seldom plan in advance. I get an idea in my head, and I sit down and begin writing. Whatever I end up with is what I post. If the act of writing this journal follows a model, it would be the tale in which there is a call to adventure. I felt that I was assigned a task. It would not be easy. But I would be a wimp if I did not try it.

I am always interested to see what motives people attribute to me after I write something. Some of them may be spot on. People do things for subconscious reasons, and my writing method is pure stream of ideas. However, this passage from Barthes essay is pertinent:

Thus is revealed the total existence of writing: a text is made of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation, but there is one place where this multiplicity is focused and that place is the reader, not, as was hitherto said, the author. The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm

This is a wonderful essay, very short but it contains, in a nutshell, many of Barthes ideas about modern ways of reading as a liberating experience. In reading, people grow. They learn their own hidden depths. They find out things about themselves that they did not know. The best read like the best visual art or music is one which opens up a world of ideas, like a castle full of unexplored rooms.

When you attempt to say "This is the author, this is what the author intended, this is the definitive text," you close all the doors except one. You deny yourself your own castle.

For example, every time I read a favorite book or watch a favorite movie, I will see something new in it. If I had already decided "This is what it is supposed to mean", then it would no longer have the ability to draw me into multiple levels of thought.

So, as I review what I wrote, it can be read as 1) praise of Clinton to balance the overly negative tone at DU 2) criticism of Obama to balance the overly positive tone at DU 3) criticism of both of them 4) criticism of neither of them but criticism of the election process 5) sympathy for alienated voters 6) frustration with alienated voters 7) fear of striking an overly pessimistic tone 8) fear of lulling people into a sense of false complacency and on and on.

This means that every reaction is a true reaction----but the reactions come from within the reader. Because all I set out to do was to explain complicated human emotions that would cause some Democrats to buck the pressures to get behind a single nominee in order to get on with the general election.

[maddiejoan]

114. Permalinked

and stored in my bookmark folder --under "Art"

This is brilliant stuff (as is the bulk of your writing) --but this one touched me deeply.

[NJmaverick]

118. Hillary appeals to the repukes, because she has done more damage

than they could or have ever done, even Karl Rove has to tip his hat to her

[Stand and Fight]

119. She's got the Warrior-Spirit.

Hillary Clinton does not give up. She fights on even when the odds are seemingly insurmountable. Even when others abandon the principles of this august democracy and call for her to drop out of the race. Hillary Clinton took up fighting for national health care even knowing she'd be villainized by the very real vast right-wing conspiracy. She continued that fight even when the cowards in our own party would not stand by her. She has -- despite the propaganda of the right-wing now mouthed by Obama Democrats -- fought hard and against the odds. This is precisely why I so staunchly supported Edwards and why I now so staunchly and -- YES! -- passionately support Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lately, the Republicans newest allies, some of the most liberal members of the Democratic Party (even on this board), have continued to attack Hillary Clinton. She has become the proverbial red-haired step-child within our party. I can identify with that. Growing up as a foster child and having been told then I would never amount to anything because of my background and my mother's drug abuse, my poor economic background, a horrible temper as a youth, a family that had never gone to college... Foster parent after foster parent said I would wind up on drugs and a nobody. Well, I have always rallied against these notions.

Why do I love John Edwards and Hillary Clinton? Because I see myself in them -- I see that fighting spirit to never give up, to keep pushing forward. After John Edwards abandoned his bid for the nomination, I was thunderstruck to say the least. I knew after a couple of days reflection and research that I had to roll with Hillary Clinton. As an African-American who has experienced more prejudice from my own people growing up, I can identify with being part of the outcast sect.

Imagine -- even if you are not African-American -- what it means to be called a "sell-out" or snowflake" or "Uncle Tom" because you happen to listen to classical music and happen to not be a big fan of hip-hop/R&B, because you are not concerned with dressing in the latest fashions because you simply cannot afford them, or mocked and spurned because you happen to talk in a way that is not seen as "fitting in." Many days -- and especially in junior high -- I came home crying because of the relentless torment I had endured. Even if I said nothing to the tormentors they would go on and on. Sometimes I reacted and I fought back with my fist in my adolescence. As I grew older I bottled up my resentment and bitterness and poured it into excelling academically. I fought. I soldiered on no matter what. That is precisely what I see Hillary Clinton doing.

I am in many other ways different than the typical Hillary supporter. My annual income is over $75,000, I'm relatively young (30), a veteran, white-collar worker (Web Developer), have two years of college and will be going back to school in the fall... The more people on here put Hillary Clinton down, the more committed I grow to her and her candidacy, because quite frankly Barack Obama's candidacy has come to represent everything that has consistently been a road-block in my own life. Am I bitter? Yes! Am I driven to stubbornly support Senator Clinton because of my own past? Yes! Why? Because it seems that the arrogance of Obama's supporters on here are highly reflective of everything I've fought against all my life. Now I see those same fad-driven, arrogant, self-important jerks mocking a perfectly good Democrat -- someone who does not give up and refuses to surrender even though the odds are against her. (Never mind the media that people here once spurned! And now people like Chris Matthews et al are hailed as heroes...) I find it despicable, and I am every more committed to Hillary.

[zalinda]

120. Love this journal

A couple of more points, if I may. Clinton seems like a person who would dig in and work along side of you. It's the same vibe I got from Edwards. I could never see Obama or his wife doing that, they look like it's beneath them to do manual labor. That's important, because we want a leader who would come down in the trenches and work with us if it's needed. That may be why Bush won, all that damn brush clearing. And instead of a working man, the dems put up these people who don't seem to know the business end of a hammer.

I am an Edwards supporter, period. I don't like either Clinton or Obama, but Obama supporters keep pushing me in her direction. I find myself having to defend her because of the stupid things that are said about her. I do realize that Obama supporters far out number the Clinton supporters, but it does get really nasty toward her.

I'm starting to liken this primary to a high school campaign, on one hand you have the cool popular kid and on the other hand you have the nerd. Everyone wants to be seen with the popular guy so they go with him, as if some of the coolness will rub off on them. I've always gone with the nerd, because they've always got the brunt of the abuse. Maybe that's why I can't stand Obama, he's the popular kid, and I've never had any use for them, they've always been style over substance.

zalinda

[autorank]

122. You missed a few (million) points... Incorporate these figures once in a while.

Hillary voted for the war. She supported the war.

She is responsible, as are others who did what she did.

She's responsible for this.

And you presume to talk about her appeal to voters while not discussing this.

Get real!

Suicide Epidemic Among Iraq Veterans
http://tinyurl.com/yoo2zk

In 2005, for example, in just those 45 states, there were at least 6,256 suicides among those who served in the armed forces. That's 120 each and every week, in just one year.

60,000 Iraq Vets with PTSD
http://tinyurl.com/yvzojq

September 2007 - More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered
http://tinyurl.com/2xlygm

In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent 'surge' is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.

Five million Iraqi Orphans Dec 15
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/article/25097

Baghdad, 15 December 2007 (Voices of Iraq)

Iraq's anti-corruption board revealed on Saturday that there were five million Iraqi orphans as reported by official government statistics, urging the government, parliament, and NGOs to be in constant contact with Iraq's parentless children.

AND, they all knew that there were no WMD before the war. Hence, the vote for the war in the
Senate was accompanied by and indicative of massive indifference to a) the truth and b) the death and
suffering that followed.

In a free market for information you would know this, all almost all, would know this..

You wouldn't think of writing this given the grotesque nature of Clinton's votes.

[Jakes Progress]

127. She should have voted against it.

And so should Barack. But he kept voting for keeping it going every chance he got. She did it for political reasons, I suspect. So did he. So I suppose you will refuse to vote for him because of his record of voting to continue and expand the war.

[autorank]

135. She did vote fore it ... massive death for "political reasons'

Which is simply atrocious. I do agree that voting continued funding is a grievous error and
needs to be explained, if it can be. I don't see how it can although they'll try...can't
abandon the troops, etc. is silly since bringing them home is abandoning them, it's repatriation.

[McCamy Taylor]

130. Didn't John Kerry vote for it? He was not reviled in 2004. It was not Kerry's war.

There is something illogical working under the surface here that causes people to come up with excuses for emotions that make them uncomfortable. I am starting another thread to try to discover what this is. Wish me luck. If I had lots of money, I could have a field day doing statistical research this election season.

[autorank]

136. He sure did. Check this out.

It's just a partial record but here's the deal...they ALL knew, every one of them. And just a few
stood up. Compare that to the vote before the first Gulf attack where the Senate, as I recall,
was nearly split.

But the dead and orphaned, while that generates emotion, are the ultimate meaningful statistic.
A million dead plus five million orphans. Where's the mention of this anywhere in the MSM or
on the campaign trail? But it won't remain secret for long because everybody else in the world
knows. Probably why they make it so hard to get a passport;)

THEY KNEW

[anamnua]

124. Brilliant post!!

If she were in Gore's place in Nov 2000 she would have fought like a tigress defending her young. She would have fought successfully and we would have been spared 8 years of Dubya. She is the *only one* who has what it takes to go toe-to-toe with the rethug machine.

[Jakes Progress]

128. This is why she should be the candidate.

I don't know what is wrong with us. Why do we keep putting up candidates who can't win?

[lumberjack_jeff]

129. Outstanding. Something that I have been saying for some time...

... is that it is impossible to bully someone into supporting your candidate. The more Hillary's supporters are ridiculed, the stronger their affinity for Hillary.

I am very confident that McCain won't make the same mistake. They have the maturity to know better.

Obama supporters; if your candidate is the nominee, I'll vote for him. If you stop the abuse, we might just keep enough Hillary supporters to win.

[egarcia76]

133. Thanks!

What a great, eloquent post. It really rang true to me!

Thanks again!

[kmsarvis]

138. DELETED

[ccharles000]

139. Great post.

[ccharles000]

140. Great post.

Sorry I pressed the post button two times.

[BigBearJohn]

141. McCamy Taylor: you are my hero. You have motivated me to become the best writer I could ever hope to

be.

Your thought process is nothing short of amazing.
So clear and all encompassing. You always look
beyond the pale.

You see things from so many different angles.

I particularly enjoyed your words about seeing
a movie you've loved for a second time, seeing
and searching for deeper meanings each time.
(I really do need to re-read your words a little
earlier in the evening, so I can soak up every
nuance.)

What a marvelous person you are. You honestly inspire me
on so many different levels.

I wish I had a few friends like you.

I can't wait to read your next post. It's one
of the few things I enjoy on this site anymore.

[kdpeters]

143. Are you supposed to be high when you read this?

The stuff that wasn't totally made up made absolutely no sense.

[Mme. Defarge]

146. As an Obama supporter I have to say

KUDO'S for this thoughtful and insightful explanation. While I have a different take on a number of points you've made, it was a good read and has helped me to understand a different point of view.

Very classy.

[AX10]

147. kick