I started this election (years ago) liking first General Wesley Clark, then Senator John Edwards once Clark endorsed Hillary Clinton. When John Edwards dropped out (just in time for my state's primary) I voted for Senator Barack Obama. I began contributing to his campaign after his truly inspirational response to the first time he was publicly connected to Reverend Wright. At that point, for me, this switched from being the best choice available to being about someone I really thought was presidential.
Over the months since then I have been appalled by a few things Hillary Clinton herself has said, and quite a few things that senior members of her campaign staff have said. I do not attribute things her volunteers and supporters who are not actually on her staff have said to her; though I've debated some of them as individuals. As an Obama supporter I have even over-reacted and said some unkind things about Hillary Clinton when angry, and I am sorry for doing so. I am not part of Obama's campaign though; and as an individual I feel free to speak my mind.
Something that profoundly disturbs me while watch the televised news (which may be a mistake, I admit), is the mainstream media's focus on the more entrenched supporters of Hillary. I am disturbed by two questions:
1) Why is the media focusing on the more outrageous supporters from both Clinton and Obama supporters? They ingore McCain's most outrageous supporters.... so it is clearly NOT as simple as the most prurient stories make better news.
2) Why do those most entrenched Hillary supporters accuse Obama or his campaign of denigrating or maligning Hillary personally? I have been unable to find a single instance where Obama or his Campaign attacked Hillary the person since Samantha Power was cut from his campaign. Yes, he has attacked specific statements Hillary has made, but he has also alway (to my knowledge) also expressed respect for her as a person. Amy I wrong? What am I missing?
Seriously, please help me find specific instances where Obama or his staff have been personal in their attacks on Clinton. I am trying to understand where this is coming from.
Am I looking through rose colored glasses? It is possible - I am very impressed with Obama's statesman like demeanor. If anything, his calm can inspire anger as it can appear to be smug; but I see it as a quiet confidence...
Most of all I am enraged about the Republican administration, and a congress (both houses) that is not standing up to the administration and protecting the voters, the people of the United States and the world. I am enraged that our constitutional protections are being eroded. I am enraged that people are dying to protect the wealth of a few very greedy individuals and corporations. I am enraged that our government has tried to rule us through fear and manipulation of the facts. I am hopeful, and thrilled that we may finally have politicians with integrity who might begin to change all that
Finally, after witnessing "Obamania" at this past February's JJ Dinner in Richmond, I became one of Obama's ardent supporters, voted for him in our primary, contributed to his campaign and intend to support him at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.
I am not interested in looking for "...specific instances where Obama or his staff have been personal in their attacks on Clinton." That's in the past.
I am interested only in moving forward and doing all that I can to make sure that Obama wins the presidency in November. That's the future.
Thanks again!
Steve
Look at the poll on RK, on of the choices is: "Over my dead body - no!" Is that necessary? Why not simply: "I do not recommend it" or "No"
You want to get beyond this. All that needs to change is truly be welcoming to Hillary supporters. And part of that is not trashing their choice every time you get a chance. I understand that people harbor personal enmity for Hillary because apparently she took a dump on their front lawn or stole their first born or committed some other deeply personal slight. But if you really want Hillary supporters back, you are going to have to keep that to yourself. Stew about it in private, but not in public.
All of the analyses of Hillary Clinton's personal attributes, motivations, statements, character, etc.., have already been made on RK over the course of the past year. We are at a point when you need to let that go. I reiterate my point from last night: build a bridge and get over it. Going back to revisit all of these grievances is not helpful either. Because in the end is everyone here willing to really recognize whatever those grievances are and make amends? If not, drudging them up is just going to make us all relive arguments that have already been made. And that moves away from unity.
Cycle12 makes the best point and everyone should take that to heart: "Move forward." In that spirit, let's refocus on the huge issues we face as a country and how we are going to solve them, together. Let's forget (if we cannot forgive) the low points of the last 6+ months. Let's not continue to dredge this up. It's over, let's move on.
The point of the poll was to capture what people might be thinking and have a bit of snarky blog fun. I think it's totally balanced: one really negative option, one neutral, one really positive option. People can choose whichever one they want.
I am not arguing what Clinton said. You asked to help you figure out ways to heal. And I was providing advice. You don't have to take any of this advice.
for the record, the woman I saw on ABC was not Clinton, just one unaffiliated supporter... a pundit I think.
Sen. Clinton saw a 30-year dream possibly finally close for her last night. Even though the writing was on the wall for a month, the reality of it still needs to be dealt with.
Not that anybody should care what I advise, but how about everybody just giving her and her family a little space and let her figure out her next steps? Unlike the view of Sen Clinton as a selfish shrew who cares only about herself, and as an evil force in the universe, the truth of the matter is that she is an ambitious, egotistical, resilient, tough, practical person -- in other words, a politician who will base her next steps on what is in her own self-interest, like virtually every politician does, but she is also a caring, feeling human being -- a mother, a wife and an individual who has worked a good portion of her adult lifetime on a dream that will likely not come to fruition.
Cut her a little slack, and everything will work out fine.
As for her supporters, sure, some will go away mad. but most Progressives will end up supporting Obama.
Among Democrats at large, sure, some groups that have traditionally been part of winning Democratic coalitions that supported Clinton may not support Obama for reasons of race or culture or whatever. But everyone knew that going in, and in any event, this drift will likely not be as great as many expect. But in any event, the calculation Democrats have made is that Obama will more than compensate for these losses by attracting more independents, new voters and crossover Republicans than Clinton would have.
As for some of the more extreme Clinton haters here at RK or on other blogs who insult those of us who have supported Clinton as being racially intolerant or back in 1963 or not real Democrats in need of being purged from the party, they really are not going to affect many votes. There is simply no circumstance under which I will not be enthusiastically voting for Obama. As the election moves on, if they continue to use this kind of extreme rhetoric, they will tend to marginalize themselves, IMHO.
Finally, as far as the VP slot goes, that is up to Obama at this point. But the fact is that Clinton owns 49% of the delegates at the convention, and so she wields a great deal of power. It is not up to Clinton to give up all of that power in exchange for nothing, but it is up to Obama to deal with it shrewdly and effectively. It is known as politics.
there are no friends and no enemies in politics, just opponents and allies.