Clinton Redux

Is anyone else annoyed by the ongoing media silliness about Clinton’s voters? Either they’re on board, or they’re not. Clinton has said her piece about as articulately as anyone could, & it’s very apparent that if they don’t back Obama, they’re going against her wishes, which is one hell of a way to “support” a candidate.

Still, even for those who won’t vote for him, I do hope they vote. Ah, the stupidity of a woman not voting in a year where we had our first female candidate for president… don’t get me started. & All those other Dems running for the other umpteen offices will need supporting as well.

10 Replies to “Clinton Redux”

  1. I didn’t think Clinton’s speech was as supportive of Obama as all the pundits think. She spent much of her time on the platform talking about her own campaign…& even put her healthcare plan in Obama’s mouth for him. The Clintons think the sun rises & sets out of their asses…that’s always been the case & it still is.

  2. The dead-ender PUMAs are nothing but selfish, entitled, self-indulgent, self-centered, narcissistic, whiny, poor sports who don’t understand what is at stake here. Our country is at a crossroads: can we really survive four more years of Republican (mis)rule? I highly doubt it. The Republic will suffer if McSame gets into the White House. He’ll ruin this country.

    It doesn’t matter to the PUMAs: waah, their feelings are hurt, they want “catharsis,’ and they want to pout and scream because their candidate wasn’t crowned the nominee. PUMAs: get over it! I’m really sick of hearing from these people!

    Get over it! Obama was not my favorite nominee, either (I was a Richardson grrl.), but you know something? He’s not in it, either.

    Hillary was not entitled to the nomination. It’s bad enough she carpetbagged that Senate seat, and also tried to shove that travesty of a health-care plan down our collective throats. She just needs to go away as soon as possible. Buddha pretty much summed it up, as well. Thank you, buddha.

    With that being said, I did not hear the speech (listening to Hillary really grates on my nerves), but the reports have been positive. That is a good thing. Now, if the PUMAs will listen to her, that would be a nice thing.

  3. Maureen Dowd’s op-ed piece in today’s NYT was virtually the only piece to hit the nail on the head. Even the Huffington Post & went effusive on her. Did we listen to the same speech?

  4. Maybe it’s a sampling error, but it seems to me that a rather large proportion of the PUMAs are gay men. They seem to have invested so much of their own identity in Hillary. It’s as if they feel that having a woman president is as close to having a gay man elected as they’ll ever get.

  5. Helen, thanks for the link. I was not watching the convention last night.

    Sen. Clinton endorsed Sen. Obama for president a number of times. I think that was clear, and it seemed sincere to me. She wants the Obamas in the White House. She did not go into why Obama personally should be president. Other people have done and will do that. This was more about the fact that Obama is a Democrat.

    That seemed a bit odd at times, but I don’t think anyone expected anything different from Clinton. And I thought her presentation of a very Democratic platform — whether it was Obama’s platform or not — was timely and well spoken. She had to emphasize certain issues, such as women’s issues, and then indicate that Obama would back them, in order to convince her supporters that they really must support Obama.

    I was a Clinton supporter. I am unequivocally an Obama supporter. The United States does not need and cannot afford Sen. McCain in the White House.

  6. I think the media is jumping on it becaue it’s jumpable. The McCain camp is feeding it because, like it or not, they are tied to Brand X; they need “disgruntled Hilary voters” to win because they’re deeply worried that the Bush loyalist/fundies might stay home or vote for an Independent. McCain has the unenviable task of appearing to agree with Bush on core issues while also promising action on the war, the economy and America’s place in the world. That’s the other reason they keep banging home “not ready to lead”, which complements the Dems”He’s just like Bush”

    Always Reasonable…

  7. The media are, almost by intellectual DNA, political junkies. They also have to fill 24 hours of news because that is where we are in our culture. I think that is good. The more talking heads the better. With the Internet, has this culture ever been more open to so many voices?

    Perhaps the reason why the mainstream media pol junkies are focussed on Hillary voters pertains to that fact that they probably are a significant component of the undecided, independent – Reagan Democrat swing voters that will determine the election. Figure them out and we will know who is
    going to win this election.

    They are overwhelmingly high school educated, blue collar, Catholic and traditional value voters. They also are the deciding demographic group in the critical States like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and even Illinois and Wisconsin. Win them, win the election.

    Like it or not, Sen Obama has multiple problems with them. Bob Beckel, a great Dem strategist was just interviewed. He comments that Sen Obama is really having a hard time connecting with this core Dem constituent. They went heavily for Hillary. But they don’t like Obama. The women in that demographic had a strong reason to vote Obama if he had chosen a female VP. But he didn’t. Hence, the issue, “how much influence was Hillary’s speech on them?” becomes very critical. I personally don’t think it will sway too many.

    They are the reason why some polls show Barack “behind” McCain. (Zogby: McCain 47% Barack 43%)

    It is a critical constituent. If Barack can not connect with them, he loses. So, perhaps the media junkies are harping on the right issue.

  8. You know, I get why some people might be less than enthusiastic about Barack, or even why they don’t really want to vote for him. That said, “We don’t really know him” is a cop-out. But if those who might otherwise vote for a Democratic candidate think that their vote would be better placed with McCain, they are flat out nutz. Sorry for the run-on. 🙂

  9. The Reagan Democrats have been up for grabs since 1980, perhaps even earlier than that. They started to flee the Democratic Party when McGovern ran in 1972. It is just a political fact. They really don’t have a strong party affiliation anymore. Perhaps this is due to a hypothesis based on some fairly strong polling data that suggests they perceive themselves abandoned by both parties, but particularly by the Democratic Party. (Yet, they hate the country club wing of the Republican Party.) There is a strong indication in that polling data that Barack represents “everything” these voters consider the reasons for their alienation and its not race. It is culture. Hence, the sense of abandonment.

    Bob Beckel really speaks well on this issue. He says (his words not mine), “Look we (the Democratic Party) do have (and I quote verbatim) plenty of extreme Left wing, looney Lithuanian Lesbians. But they are not the base of the Party. If we don’t attract that traditional base, we are dead meat.”

    (His comments, not mine. Please don’t be outraged at me for quoting Beckel. His comments though really highlight that the culture war has massively damaged the Democratic Party and the rift is still huge.

    This is going to be a very tight election. Barack is no where near assured victory.

Comments are closed.