Some Democrats say Clinton’s staying in the contest could lead to a “bloody” battle that could hurt party chances to unite against McCain.
“Sen. Clinton pushed back hard yesterday against calls for her to withdraw…with aides saying she remains more determined that ever to remain in the contest,” said Anne Kornblut and Perry Bacon, Jr. of the Washington Post.
Dropping out would have worked to unite partisans under different circumstances.If her supporters had perceived the contest to be a fair fight they could have been persuaded. The problem is it hasn’t been.The Clinton supporters see only unfairness, prejudice and unearned backstabbing.
Nothing can change what they’ve seen with their own eyes.And some are taking it personally.It is not too farfetched that many of them may choose to switch to McCain who, after all, was considered as a vice presidential running mate for Kerry in 2004.
All Clinton supporters have to do is to vote for McCain and at the same time vote for Democratic senators and representatives to achieve what they want.And that’s someone who talks straighter than Obama and a filibuster-proof, progressive Congress that will force moderate Supreme Court nominations.Moderates like Sandra Day O’Connor would suit the bill.
That might be accidentally the most workable solution since there is a suspicion amongst Clinton supporters that big, behind-the-scene handlers back Obama because they think they can control him but can’t control Clinton -- by a long shot.
It wouldn’t take all the Clinton supporters to swing enough winning votes to McCain; just a little over 8% of them could cinch it by a 1% to 3% margin.
That’s what might be the most workable solution – even the fairest -- because moderates are a desirable group to call on to lead the way to compromise and a government that could hum with purpose and success.Not just wishful talk about unity and togetherness, but the compromises and results that used to be the norm in this country’s business before the “me” generation and global ambitions began to call too many of the shots.
We don’t need more extreme liberals like Sen. Obama or extreme conservatives like Jim DeMint of S. Carolina.
We need more to join moderates like Justice O’Connor and others, such as Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine.
It’s the surprise outcome of the election that might become workable for the long-term good.
www.politicalposts.com
concerned citizen and editor of politicalposts.com
Even Hillary says that voting for McCain is a really bad idea. Those who see Hillary being treated unfairly are like right wingers who see the MSM as liberal media.
Even Bill Clinton has said, "it's politics" and people should expect tough competition. He said it to justify the dirty tactics the Clinton campaign has been using. There's a reason that Hillary's positives have dropped to record lows.
Support by angry Hillary supporters for McCain would be bizarrely stupid for women. McCain opposes choice and has right wing positions on so many issues. My mother used to say it's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I only know one person who was originally for Obama and he's a political machine type who saw the writing on the wall. The rest of the progressives I know wanted someone else, usually Kucinich, Edwards or Gravel. They didn't want Hillary because she's a pro-globalism (based on actions and history, not her latest talking points) right wing DLC democrat who refused to say she made a mistake on the war.
How bitter do you have to be to stab the nation and the world in the back with your presidential vote? Hillary is losing as much as Obama is winning. HER campaign is the dirty one. There's a reason Maureen Dowd calls her Voldemort
by
Rob Kall (728 articles, 3775 quicklinks, 311 diaries, 1520 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 5:29:40 AM
Believes Democrats are out of touch with American citizens
Washington, D.C. - Mike Gravel, a former Alaskan Senator and Democratic candidate for president, has joined the Libertarian Party.
"I'm joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America," says Gravel. "My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy."
(snip)
The question is, is Gravel a progressive or a libertarian?
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 76 quicklinks, 51 diaries, 408 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 8:01:14 AM
How bitter do you have to be to stab the nation and the world in the back with your presidential vote?
So, are you saying here that everyone who votes for John McCain has "stabbed our nation and the world in the back?"
Something close to half of the voters will vote for John McCain, and something close to half of the voters will vote for the Democratic nominee; we're really arguing about a few percent in the middle as to which candidate gets the plurality. Is it your contention that roughly half of the country will have somehow betrayed America because they didn't vote the way you believed that they should?
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 8:10:05 PM
"How bitter do you have to be to stab the nation and the world in the back with your presidential vote? Hillary is losing as much as Obama is winning. HER campaign is the dirty one. There's a reason Maureen Dowd calls her Voldemort".
Yes, I suppose there is a reason. Maureen Dowd has called every democrat a variety of names. Sorry, Rob, I think you're wrong. I don't think Hillary's campaign is any more dirty than any of the others. Clearly, you have an agenda that is aimed at insisting that everyone view Hillary as negatively as you do. The reality is that there are many who disagree with you. I think you are wrong. I resent that you are unwilling to look at facts.
by
Crystal Purcell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM
Edith, you must live in a different world than I do. No one who has been paying any attention to the news could think that “The Clinton supporters see only unfairness, prejudice and unearned backstabbing.”
All of the political backstabbing has been done by Hillary Clinton and her minions. The constant harping on Reverend Wright, saying that Obama hasn't done anything except to give a speech in 2002?
Hillary Clinton can backstab her way to the presidency but it will just reinvigorate the Clinton hate machine and grind our government to a halt.
We progressives can only hope that Edith represents a small minority of misinformed people. If there's one thing this country doesn't need it’s “moderates” like John McCain. He's about as moderate and Grover Norquist.
by
John R Moffett (78 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 591 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 6:25:26 AM
Just as Rob, you are exactly right, John. Let's hope that Edith will somehow soon "see through the glass clearly". That's from the bible, right!!?? Had to memorize 1 Corinthians 13 ages ago when I was 13 and that phrase, "when I was a child I saw through the glass darkly" has come to mind quite often in the last several years when I hear and read things said/written by fellow countrymen. The child-darkly part that is. Thank goodness for people like John, Rob, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, etc., etc. - wonderful progressives all who "see" as adults. Let's hope that more and more will come to "see" clearly and thus somehow save our planet.
by
Karen Boyette (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 7:30:40 AM
For those of, like this author, who think the media pundits are "experts," take it from someone who has been in a campaign or two or fifty. Bill Clinton is absolutely right when he says it's politics. Both candidates have worked exceptionally hard and deserve better from their supporters than an attitude of if I don't win I'll walk off and go to the other party. What you are suggesting is 1968 all over again. How well did that turn out?
John McCain would continue many of the catastrophic policies of the Bushes and Reagan. A woman's, not to mention a family's, right to choose would be severely restricted. This bloody stupid war would continue without end while the people who attacked us run free. The economy, which McCain admits to knowing little about, will collapse. The dollar will become the currency equivalent of a junk bond. This is a good thing?
I agree that Clinton should not withdraw. Primaries and caucuses are the best method of selecting the nominee. The process should continue. Let's do our thing and let the pundits and the other "Beltway" idiots, who have never gauged the mood of the nation properly, exist in their own little world. On his worst day, Barack Obama is millions of miles better for the nation than John McCain on his best.
by
Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 75 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 7:07:21 AM
I am a Hillary supporter and proud of it! Yes, I feel she's been unfairly treated, yes I feel Rev. Wright's statements were vile and devisive, yes I think Obama exercised poor judgment in staying 20 years and subjecting his young daughters to that garbage, but in the end, I agree with his position on the issues far more than I agree with the Repugs. And if Hillary does not become the nominee (and I pray every day she will), you can bet I will support Barack Obama. I have been pretty angry with him and his supporters over the past few weeks to the point I said I would not put his sign in my yard or campaign for him, but your piece makes me realize that maybe I should bust my butt for him. Edith, your kind of thinking is not only dangerous, it's unpatriotic, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face! Hillary said it best-- that while there may be differences between her and Barack, they pale in comparison to those between them and the Repugs, namely John McBush. Don't let McBush fool you, he is no moderate, no maverick, he tows the party line in almost everything, and to top it off he's 180 degrees from our position when it comes to the things that are most important to the American people--the economy and the war. I'm still hoping for a dream ticket, but for the sake of our country, we as Democrats need to unite whoever winds up getting the nomination. And that goes for you Obamacites too--Go Hillary!!!!
by
Merylr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 7:43:25 AM
Obama has social engineering plans as ambitious, in their own way, as the Bush administration’s failed social engineering plans to change the psyche of America and the Middle East.
So says Dowd in her article Rob linked too. It doesn't matter who gets elected from the Demopublican machine, they're all going to do basically the same things. Obama won't end the war any faster than Nixon ended the one in Vietnam. Anti war campaigns notwithstanding.
As Bill Clinton's mentor, Carroll Quigley wrote in his book "Tragedy & Hope":
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
"Liberals" & "conservatives" like to focus on the few issues they disagree on while ignoring everuthing they agree about. Boy do they quibble. The world will end if the other side gets elected. But when the other side gets elected the only thing that changes are the faces & the rhetoric, the basic policies stay the same & no reforms take place.
When will people stop being taken in by this con game?
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 76 quicklinks, 51 diaries, 408 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 7:55:16 AM
Oh, I see. Why quibble over miniscule distinctions like war mongering VS peace mongering, and tax structure intended to make the Ultra-rich richer VS policy which engenders a robust middle class? Hey, it's all the same, right?
Given the way Bill and now Hillary have turned out, I can see why the person quoted was their mentor.
by
Lover of Truth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 8:25:35 PM
Oh, I see. Why quibble over miniscule distinctions like war mongering VS peace mongering, and tax structure intended to make the Ultra-rich richer VS policy which engenders a robust middle class? Hey, it's all the same, right?
As I stated in my post, Obama isn't going to end any war anytime soon. It'll be like Nixon all over again. From His website:
"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
"And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs."
Strengthen NATO: Obama will rally NATO members to contribute troops to collective security operations, urging them to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization operations, streamlining the decision-making processes, and giving NATO commanders in the field more flexibility.
Seek New Partnerships in Asia: Obama will forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. He will maintain strong ties with allies like Japan, South Korea and Australia; work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity; and work to ensure that China plays by international rules.
Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama has consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. He defends and supports the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and has advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. He has called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
"He also worked with Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) to secure $20 million for the African Union peacekeeping mission. Obama believes the United States needs to lead the world in ending this genocide, including by imposing much tougher sanctions that target Sudan?s oil revenue, implementing and helping to enforce a no-fly zone, and engaging in more intense, effective diplomacy to develop a political roadmap to peace."
"Obama revamped U.S. policy in the Congo to include a commitment to help rebuild the country, develop lasting political structures, hold accountable destabilizing foreign governments, crack down on corrupt politicians, and professionalize the military. The bill also authorizes $52 million in U.S. assistance for the Congo."
He talks about reducing the strain on the active forces. What will they be doing under his watch that will strain them? Well, under Obama we'll not only have war in the middle east, but into Africa we go. A real peace monger this guy.
************************************************
Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief
Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay.
Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.
Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees.
End Tax Haven Abuse: Building on his bipartisan work in the Senate, Obama will give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Close Special Interest Corporate Loopholes: Obama will level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions, such as those for the oil and gas industry.
So Obama wants to tinker with the tax system to buy himself a few votes, big deal. How about doing something smart like ending the income tax & abolishing the IRS.
Then look at his tax "fairness" ideas. He's just another political shark hungry for more revenue. Same stuff, different face.
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 76 quicklinks, 51 diaries, 408 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 5:47:20 AM
Clinton's Delusional Sniper Dodging at Tuzla Reveals Much!
To Rob Kall's offer of Maureen Dowd's column I add an even more explanatory and precautionary editorial by Frank Rich in today's New York Times clearly showing why Mrs. Clinton is wrong for America. That Ms. Fletcher could seriously suggest any rational, thoughtful, intuitive, intelligent, member of the Democratic Party vote for John McCain is as delusional as her candidate is.
Mrs. Clinton's repeated misstatement, er, misspeaking, er, misremembering, that is her lying about being under sniper fire while visiting a secured non-war zone in a country whose war had ended before she exposed her only daughter to the fictitious snipers that they didn't dodge on the tarmac at Tuzla speaks volumes as to her ability to believe her own myth and hyperbole.
Mrs. Clinton's harmless belief in the family myth that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, famous for being the first to climb Mt. Everest, despite Baby Hillary not being born until five years after 'Sir Hillary' was first made famous by his historic climb, Mrs. Clinton shows her ability to disconnect with reality for political expedience (see vote to Support the Iraq War and Joe Liberman's bill to inflame tensions with Iran). This is a very dangerous attribute that must not be brushed off and demands further scrutiny. I would demand this of any candidate, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, equally. However, in Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain, the evidence of their mendacity's are much, much more clear.
I have family legends that I believed, and, in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, despite their being a stretch, do still believe in because they are "colorful". But once a family myth was exposed I stopped embellishing my history with it. And I'm not even running for dog catcher much less the Senate or President of the United States! I just want to be honest with others and myself.
"When the myth becomes fact, print the legend!" says Robert Whul in his excellent HBO Specials ASSUME THE POSITION (repeated periodically on HBO) that examines American history with an insight that is comedic, truth-filled, and revealing. Mrs. Clinton's ability to accept myth as fact is what concerns me about heroft repeated lie about the landing at Tuzla. She is not being honest with herself. She is not being honest with her daughter and forcing Chelsea to lie by omission as she tacitly supports her mother's cover-up. If anything Chelsea and Mrs. Clinton should have learned from experience, from Nixon's Watergate to President Clinton's impeachment, is that supporting something that has become intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer risks extreme dangers and repercussions.
If Mrs. Clinton manages to game the primary system and 'steal' the nomination from Mr. Obama . . . I'll vote for her. I'll put a battery cable clamp on my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate for President because the alternative is far, far to horrible to contemplate. A third Bush term, 100 years occupation of Iraq, more valiant deaths and dismemberments of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, tax cuts for the wealthy, a know-nothing/do-nothing approach to a ruined economy, and not even a whiff towards universal health care!
Mrs Clinton is a liar! We must all be cognizant of that fact and, if she is the nominee and becomes President, we must hold her feet to the fire and question her authority every single day she is in office. That burden of being under the public microscope every day of a Clinton presidency will add extra burden to an effective administration. Mr. Obama will have no such burden . . . unless he shows otherwise.
by
Mike Shelby (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 8:40:46 AM
I can't wait for the publicity attendant on coordinating such a plan to cause the American electorate to see that Hillary belongs in the Republican party. It is her "natural manure" so to speak. That will spare the Dems from another such display of raw self serving ambition as she has shown this election season.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 897 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 8:55:57 AM
McCain talks a strange mix of moderate to radically different from the Republican majority, but slippery is as slippery does. McCain hasn't been challenged much of late, and you have to admit he is doing his best to try and get the vast and largely conservative Repubs, under his wing. Generally that means he is promising not to "go there" on many of the proposals that attracted him as a potential running mate with Kerry. It only takes some historical look backs to see these odd marriages have tended to back fire reguardless of what is percieved to be the end result. Roosevelt screwed the populist movement right into the ground with a vote marriage to stop the democrats. Even suggesting crossing the divide to vote for McCain will make those who do lepers from that point on; they won't be trusted by either party. Leveraging McCain into the drivers seat of an already heavy handed presidency could force the Constitutional safe guards further into the closet and heaven forbid if it resulted in martial law. Having someone who has military experience may not be the same benign sort associated with the Eisenhower administration. It certainly gives pause, and suggests even the possibility would keep those so disposed to stop before they crossed that line.
by
Steve Hanken (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 9:06:16 AM
The fallacy of the false dilemma – Door number three please
I don’t like Obama. I don’t like McCain. If I must chose though between them I will hold my nose and vote for the most moderate – what I consider to be the lesser of two evils. That is not Obama.
Given I do not think Obama can/will win the general election, the question becomes how do you keep conservative Republicans from continuing to dictate the national agenda? Something that I very much do not want to happen. Answer by cutting off McCain coattails. Winning a super majority in Congress becomes SUPER IMPORTANT.
You obviously don’t like my answer. The question I pose to you though is do you think I’m the only moderate/independent that thinks this way? By continuing to support Obama your are betting that I am alone in my thinking.
Maybe I am. Maybe Obama will win and the Democrats will get a super majority in Congress.
On the other hand if I’m right and moderates and Independents vote for McCain, will you have put all your eggs in one basket?
My preferrence is Hillary Clinton. But if my worse case scenario happens and Obama wins the nomination then this is my idea of how to make lemonade.
by
edith fletcher (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 9:34:27 AM
Goodness Edith, what color is the sky in your world? It's not that we don't like your "answer" it's just that it is nonsensicle, counter intuitive, dangerous, and just plain D-U-M-B-E dumb! I'll say this for you, you do epitomize an old saying, "If you can't be right, be consistent." If I didn't know better (and I don't) I'd say you are really a man and a member of the right-wing, McBush campaign disinformation brigade.
by
Mike Shelby (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 10:04:43 AM
You know, when our esteemed host published this article . .
. . . he knew that Mrs Fletcher would be getting a lot of flack. She was brave enough to post an idea on a site in which she knew there would be a lot of dissent. And dissent is fine, but bovine feces like "what color is the sky in your world" isn't debate.
I don't think much of Mrs Fletcher's position ether, though from the opposite side; I want Senator McCain to win, and to see the GOP reclaim control of the Congress. But I honor Mrs Fletcher for stepping into the lion's den.
by
Dana Pico (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 135 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 7:56:28 PM
Is my impression that you dislike Hillary less than the others correct? It never ceases to amaze me that peole will actually accept having to vote for the least of evils. Nothing but evil will come of it. You only help keep the War Party in power (you know the Rs & Ds).
It doesn't matter if 3rd party candidates don't stand a chance yet, vote for them. Vote for what you see as good. Vote on principle.
by
Darren Wolfe (2 articles, 76 quicklinks, 51 diaries, 408 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM
Being an Iranian citizen, with a not very charming president, It's beyond me how any sane person can support Hillary Clinton. She's obiviously a power-hungry "monster" who praises her opponent to the heavens one night and two days later berates him shamelessly just as a political tactic. I have more respect for "bomb,bomb, bomb Iran" boy than HRC. I almost never vote in my own country, but if i were a US citizen, I'd definitely go for Obama.
by
baaraan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 9:37:41 AM
I'm a British citizen and US permanent resident and as I see it there's very little difference between Clinton or McCain in general, there are certain issues of a minor nature which seperate them but on issues of foreign policy and war mongering they stand side by side. So it's not surprising that Edith and voters like her would vote for a republican should the republican dressed as a democrat not win the nomination. Look how long Leiberman bluffed the electorate into believing he was a Democrat, look at the so-called Democrats in Congress who are still supporting the war crimes of this administration. Kucinich would have been the best of the Democrats to run for President but the US electorate have been conditioned to vote a certain way, all the commie bashing over the years has ensured a right wing bias, now it's constant Muslim bashing to ensure a Christian bias.
It takes a foreigner to notice how the American public have come to believe through constant propaganda from the MSM that only the USA have the solutions when in fact the USA is anything but a model of a society, far from it, the huge number of prisons and homeless are all too prevalent for that, not forgetting a health care system that stinks to high heaven.
But of course Edith in her brainwashed state can't see that, can she.
by
douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM
