Can’t think of a more appropriate day for Obamacans to consider at what peril they put the Democratic Party when they choose to pile on Clinton.
Realclearpolitics.com posted an article that puts it in sharp and accurate perspective.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Must reading for Obama supporters and committee flag wavers including Sen. Kennedy.
Please share widely!
<
p>I think some Obama fans here would be wise to heed the warnings in this article. I’m probably going to end up an Edwards to Hillary to Obama voter, but I worry about the points made in this article.
<
p>This isn’t about tearing down Obama so Clinton can stage a huge comeback. I really want a Democrat to win, no matter who it is.
<
p>No matter how much Obama supporters think Clinton has run a smear campaign, I think the overall campaign hasn’t been too harsh and I don’t think Obama has been that much purer than Clinton.
<
p>The difference seems to be that while Obama’s supporters might’ve ended up staying home if Clinton won the nomination, Clinton supporters might go for McCain. Obama and his supporters need to be more careful, I think, about doing or saying things that alienate voters.
Clinton cannot win the general without the support of Obama’s supporters, but that sure hasn’t stop overzealous Clinton supporters from piling on.
<
p>This is why I am looking forward to when there is only one nominee and we can focus on unification.
I think that argument has been made and repeated often enough. And I agree with it.
<
p>I think it would be foolish for Obama and his supporters not to recognize how they are violating their own lectures to Clinton supporters.
as long as Clinton stays in the race and continues to attack Obama publicly, you are basically asking all Obama supporters to just keep turning the other cheek until Clinton throws in the towel. Being human, I doubt that all of them will be able to live up to that standard.
<
p>
If Obama takes the nomination, he needs to get support from Hillary voters, not vice versa.
<
p>So yes, his campaign and his supporters need to be nicer to her and her supporters than Hillary’s side needs to be to his.
<
p>Sure they’re human, but if they can’t run a “different kind of campaign” now, how will they “change the tone of Washington.”*
<
p>*–W, who didn’t do it, either.
But if she keeps running beyond the convention, we have a problem. đŸ˜‰
In the last coupla days, she’s sent thank you emails to supporters, urged her superdelegates to stand by her, visited the home of the person who invented Mother’s Day, made campaign speeches going after Republicans…which one of those attacks Obama?
<
p>She’s toned it down considerably since IN/NC.
Which is good, but she has not entirely reined in Bill yet, and she is still pushing the argument that Obama might not be able to win in November, which is really not helping the party.
<
p>In any case, I do expect things to calm down after WV and KY are out of the way….
Don’t you mean just his supporters?
That would be more accurate, as Obama himself has not participated in this “piling on” you speak of.
Sure, there are Obama supporters here on this glorified on-line chat room (and others i.e. Kos) who participate in this piling on, but there are just as many Clinton supporters insinuating things along similar lines.
The “celebrations” would be just as loud(ly typed) if the score was reversed.
The premise that these sentiments represent the national outlook is debatable. Dems are going to vote Democratic and the indies poll better with Obama. I ain’t skerred.
<
p>But here’s to civility and coming together. Here Here.
We’ll all be united come Nov, but only if posting editorial as fact starts to fade away and we actually do move on.
how my ramblings have been “assigned” to the official campaign.
<
p>”glorified on-line chat room.” Ouchy-wa-wa!
How come when Obama misspeaks and says Americans are frustrated and bitter that makes him an “elitist” (HRC’s word) yet when Hillary misspeaks and says “Hard working White Americans”, she just misspoke becase she was tired? I don’t care what some Hillary supporter writes on RCP, their has been enough frustrated comments from both sides and it needs to end now so we can ensure that GWB remains the worst President in history and we don’t give McCain the opportunity to top him.
John Kerry, Al Gore and Mike Dukakis weren’t “skered” either and they HAD the women solidly with them…
Sorry, It’s been a while since I lived in MIA.
<
p>You really think that the women of this nation will “take their marbles and go home” just because Hillary didn’t earn the nod? Or is it that they would honestly prefer ammendments to the Constitution that would take away their right to choose and promote descrimination?
Because that’s what could happen if their gender grudge goes that far. Because this race is bigger than gender or race. That is why we need unity and to stop with the empty threats of staying home or voting Republican.
I thought that was what the whole point of this diary. To come together. Instead the same tired ‘be nice on the bloggosphere or we’re gonna take our votes away’ arguement has surfaced.
Thanks.
that all women who vote are pro-choice liberals?
In case you’re just joining us, the topic is being able to unite the Democratic party behind our nominee.
Perhaps for those less attentive, we should type Democratic in front of all of our demographic descriptions.
“The women of this nation” are all Democrats, and not only that, they’re all liberal pro-choice Democrats. Good to know.
<
p>I was operating under the apparent misimpression that the discussion was how to woo Clinton voters, rather than just the liberal pro-choice ones.
<
p>No that you have pointed it out, it is obvious that Obama’s problem will be losing liberal, pro-choice voters, either to McCain or apathy. Moderates, independents, and conservatives who are angry with the Republicans can be counted on to show up and be in the Obama camp come Election Day.
Or should have.
I’d rather argue substance than semantics, but you go right ahead.
and is competing to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, why is it a problem that Obama supporters are not spending their free time composing epic poems about her?
<
p>You write as if it’s already a done deal that Obama is the nominee (and it is, of course). But your candidate is still in the race, her surrogates continue to attack Obama and her campaign is still chirping about electability and skeletons in Obama’s closet.
<
p>She’s still mounting a campaign, a campaign against Barack Obama. If you’re so desperate for Clinton and her backers to play a role in getting Obama elected, it would probably help if she or her supporters weren’t actively working to make sure he’s not the nominee.
Senator Clinton.
<
p>My candidate is still in the race, and I think we owe it to her to let her finish it – at least until Mr. Obama hits the magic number of delegates.
<
p>If you really care about this party, you will support having the process play itself out, instead of trying to short circuit it to make it easier for Senator Obama. Most of us think he’s already had it a little easier than Senator Clinton, which is not an “attack” but an opinion that is supported in a number of publications.
<
p>Vanity Fair:
<
p>http://www.vanityfair.com/poli…
<
p>New York Post: Hounding Hill
<
p>http://www.nypost.com/seven/01…
<
p>Media Matters
<
p>http://mediamatters.org/items/…
<
p>Jessica Wakeman, Obama Support on The Huffington Post
<
p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
<
p>Cutting Women Out: Media Bias Against Female Candidates
<
p>http://www.alternet.org/reprod…
<
p>Your support for Senator Clinton’s final laps would be greatly appreciated.
“Your support for Senator Clinton’s final laps would be greatly appreciated.”
<
p>Since when did Hillary Clinton become the Rudy of presidential politics? It’s like I have to start a good ol’ tear-jerking slow clap whenever Obama picks up another superdelegate.
<
p>And every time you write something like “instead of trying to short circuit it to make it easier for Senator Obama,” your implication is that Obama hasn’t won this thing fairly (as does your litany of media bias links). You’re insulting the campaign Obama waged and the people who supported him and then turning around and demanding that we shed a tear as Hillary plays out the string.
Repent in Leisure. November, 2008.
I agree with the general premise that Obama (and supporters) would be wise to allow Clinton to gradually exit gracefully at this point. Indeed, certainly with more grace than displayed by some conversations on other blogs (not this one, where the discussion has generally stayed above the fray).
<
p>That said, did anyone actually read that RealClearPolitics article? It was pretty weak, just put it that way. The author’s evidence for Obama’s supporters “piling it on” Clinton are anecdotal stories of a few college students somewhere getting rowdy and words spoken by Sen. Kennedy, which she takes completely out of context. I might grant her some random screeds on some blogs, but few read or care about those people in the real world.
<
p>So while setting the floor for party reconcilation is necessary at this point, I’m not seeing this big “pile on” fest that she’s talking about.
Even on BMG, it’s the same 3-4 posters who are “piling on.” I think the vast majority of the Obama supporters here have been respectful, but with the knuckleheads on both sides taking up all the oxygen, the perception is that there is some irreparable split.
Being one of those 3-4, that is exactly what is going on.
<
p>Please note that the blogscape is not the universe, though it feeds off the MSM giving it a sense of relevance beyond its true value.
<
p>The punditry side of “activists forums” is merely a time drain, like playing a video game. We would be better suited organizing voter registrations and events supporting our causes.
<
p>Unfortunately, instead, I find myself buffering the partisan hype with my own partisan hype. I know I am guilty. Do they?
The evidence that western Pennsylvannia was full of racist hillbillies in another diary on this site was a couple of comments cited by Obama phonebankers.
Even though I am happy to welcome any Obamacan to the family of supporters.
<
p>And I really don’t think we have been piling on too badly. Its funny, every time Obama supporters have bitched about attacks on him we’ve been told “if you can’t take the heat…”. Hillary certainly likes the heat.
<
p>And I would also say that Obama supporter’s views on Hillary are in no way a statement about her supporters. I got nothing but respect for the people here and elsewhere who support her. I may disagree stridently with them, but it is no way personal.
<
p>I recall also, Obama supporters being called latte drinkers and prius drivers and naive and young and deluded and sexist, etc…all sorts of things. Every time some old male pol says that he thinks Hillary should get out of the race, he’s basically accused of betraying long-standing female supporters – even though gender has nothing to do with it.
<
p>Besides the dumb “bitter” remark (which was not about Clinton supporters anyway), I don’t remember Obama or his folks saying anything like that about anyone.
<
p>Look, we are all hypocrits in the heat of the campaign, especially one as heated as this, with two strong candidates appealing to passionate bases of support. And I am sure that all us of prefer the other candidate to the Republican. We will come together when its all done.
(emphasis mine)