Clinton supporters wowed with warm reception at Obama rally
This story both illustrates how classy Barack and Michelle Obama are and how very well they understand the need to reach out and welcome their former adversaries into the campaign.
There's more
Some highlights of the story:
most noticeable was the arrival of such people as Buck Humphrey, who once had headed Hillary Rodham Clinton's Minnesota campaign. And Jackie Stevenson, a DFL activist, a feminist and a Clinton-supporting superdelegate, who at the last minute had changed her mind about attending the event. And St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, who was a Clinton supporter until sometime Monday. And Rick Stafford, another Clinton superdelegate.Former Secretary of State Joan Growe was there. And Minneapolis City Council President Barbara Johnson. And a couple of dozen other people who had invested so much energy into Clinton's campaign ...
Their presence at the event where Barack Obama declared victory shows that, at least in Minnesota, the political healing process already is beginning.
No one is making that healing easier than Obama. Last night, after he had finished the sort of speech that leaves his followers exhilarated and exhausted, Obama did not just leave the arena. Nor did he head to the nearest television camera or the nearest fat cat.
Instead, he went to a room where the Clinton supporters had been gathered and one by one, shook the hands of the 25 people, stopping to chat with each of them ...
Stevenson, a feminist and Clinton supporter, had to admit this: "He's very impressive.''
And it didn't end with that. Michelle Obama arrived in the room of Clinton supporters some time after her husband had entered.
There was a little husband-and-wife moment.
"Where have you been?" he asked her.
"In a different room,'' she said. "I didn't know where you were.''
Then, they both went about the business of chatting with the Clinton supporters.
"She didn't have much time there because they had to get them out of the building," said Stevenson. "I was standing by the door and as she was leaving, she put her hand out to mine and rubbed her cheek against mine. I've never met her.''
The whole evening had been filled with similar graciousness and kindness, Stevenson said.
She had arrived at the building with Humphrey, and as they were taken to their seats, people kept stopping to hug them and thank them for being there.
Laughing, she spoke of how she decided she needed to make a trip to the restroom before Obama's speech. Again, people kept stopping her to shake her hand.
"Finally, I just had to wave and leave or I would have missed the speech,'' she said.
All of the other Clinton supporters received similar treatment.
This is what I've been talking about ... the need to invite back the bruised, grieving Clinton supporters, many of whom saw their lifelong dream of a woman president go down the tubes, and join forces with them in common cause to elect a candidate who will work to reverse the years of neocon mismanagement and high-handedness. There's too much at stake here for Obama supporters to gloat or Clinton supporters to continue nursing their injured feelings. Obama supporters should take a page from their leader and reach out, as he has, and invite their Clinton supporting colleagues, family, and friends to set aside their hurt feelings and pour their impressive abilities and efforts into the campaign.
[UPDATE] After posting this I was pondering what it all means, and I recalled Dubya's attitude after the 2004 election, where he declared he had won solidly and said "I have political capital, and I'm going to spend it." He was emboldened by victory and became even more insufferable and resistant to compromise at terrible cost to the American people. Obama's reaction on the night of his big win tells us a lot about how he would react to winning the presidency. Ever gracious, with his equally gracious wife at his side, I expect that he would reach across the aisle and embrace his former adversaries and say to them "work with me to solve the problems facing our country."
It's a sad commentary, and a telling thing, that there are only a few comments on this diary, while over at Doug in Mt Vernon's slam-diary of Hillary, people are just piling on with their vitriol.
And that's why the party is going to loose out on millions of Hillary Democrats in November. The radical Obama supporters don't get it, and there are too few of you level-headed ones.
Both you and AIAW got it correct several posts back when she wrote of 'sore winners'. Both you and she totally get it.
What she said the other night was the usual litany of why she feels she's the better candidate. Unfortunately for her, voters disagreed. Time to concede, in fact, well past time.
However, I think I have every right to express my sincere disappointments with Hillary's actions.
I am healing here, too. And I do get it. We are all healing in some way, and we will all come together.
I have always intended to work hard to reach out to Hillary supporters and make there causes and issues and efforts mine, ours. I said that in my diary.
And I'd like to point out that it's NOT all vitriol in my diary...there were actually several constructive comments about how we can move on, and bring this party together.
Make no mistake, we have angry supporters too. While I am grateful that our candidate is far, far more gracious that many of us may be, myself included, that doesn't mean that we must not be able to process our outrage as well....
Thanks for your understanding, and mutual respect.
Part of why people blog is to form community and to help develop a common political dialogue. I am not blogging about my latest medical issue or my personal relationships--it's about OUR political party and its nomination process, complete with accusations, low-handed tactics, distractions, and some absolutely stellar moments.
So please, spare me this judgement. It's completely off the mark.
But since you raised the subject, check out this recent Newsweek article, which explains that "key predictions of political psychology have held up pretty well on the campaign trail" because "[v]oters are driven more by emotions than by a cold-eyed, logical analysis of a candidate's record and positions."
Study after study shows the same result, by the way -- people's "personal feelings" have a HUGE impact on how they vote about "political issues."
Considering my original response, I thought you were saying that working through your personal emotions about a candidate constitutes working through political issues.
Your accusation about my "personal feelings" is not as relevant as you think it is. I'm not talking about something "personal" in the colloquial sense as you imply.
However, it's clear that you're not willing to listen anyway.
It now seems as though all the elected and party officials remaining are joining the Obama wave - are you suggesting that they also are offending you? Come on, join the true uniter!
But let's play textual detective.
The phrase "faithful Democrat" implies at least several election cycles, thus middle-aged, yet a middle-aged Democratic woman who would employ "Bro" and "Ho" is a pretty darn rare item.
Which leads one to guess this poster might be a rightist troll, and a guy, pretending to be a Clintonista.
I watched Hillary's debate performances with admiration and found her to be a superior debater to the other candidates and even declared as much in this forum. I was struck by her strength and passion. However, I was also struck with dismay by her seeming inability to turn it down a notch. She proved one-dimensional in that she spoke so much of fighting and so little of conciliation. The image she projected was of someone who would decide to take a position and thereafter would tenaciously hold on to it no matter what the cost. That's great if you're fighting the Battle of the Bulge, but not so terrific if one's goal is the reduction of partisanship and the reintroduction of the spirit of cooperation in national politics. It's not sexist to say that you think one candidate's style is superior to another's when it comes to achieving a particular goal.
I am a fifty year old educated white female, clearly of the presumptive Hillary demographic, who decided to back Obama because I found his attitudes, his proposals, his platform, and his general demeanor to be more along the line of what I wanted in a President, notwithstanding that I have fairly serious differences of opinion with him on several issues. I share office space with two fervent Hillary supporters and there've been a few entertaining arguments between us; however, we've never vilified each other, nor have they accused me of being a sexist for wanting a candidate who happened to be a male any more than I have accused them of being racist for wanting the white female over the black male. For every instance of obnoxious Obama supporter behavior there was an equally obnoxious bit of Hillary supporter behavior. And frankly, to refer to the Democratic nominee as a "Bro" and his wife as his "Ho" strikes me as just a wee bit obnoxious, if not somewhat racist. I doubt very much that Hillary would find this form of "support" very beneficial to her or representative of her views.
You can't have it both ways. You can't declare that all the bad stuff was from Obama's side and go around making racist and demeaning statements about Obama's supporters and still claim the moral high ground which you appear to believe you occupy, nor can you continue to portray Hillary and her supporters as the victims if you wish to perpetrate such bile.
I too am a 50 year old female professional who did not, would not, support Hillary Clinton, for reasons that had little to do with her gender. I attended U.Va. not right after, but soon enough after, it went co-ed that the move was still controversial. Professors, the student newspaper, and male students still openly debated whether we "belonged" there. Many of these male students had lower grades and SAT scores than the female students (and names ending in III or IV), but felt that it was "their" school even though they had been there no longer than we had. When a series of rapes and beatings of female students occurred on the Grounds around the first year dorms, one response by those in charge was to observe that "we never had these problems before we let women in." One male student even wrote a letter to the Cavalier Daily, entitled "Into the Bushes," maintaining that, hey guys, this might be a good way to get rid of the "U-bags."
I work in a field that provides fairly frequent encounters with sexism and misogyny, directed mainly against single moms and older women. I don't see the organized "women's movement" doing a whole lot about the day-to-day troubles and tragedies I encounter among these ordinary people. Yet they continue to collect money and grievances in the name of "women's rights."
After all these years, it was news to me that I am a sexist and self-hating female because I think that Hillary Clinton is an unprincipled opportunist. I think some of these organized feminists need a short field trip to see what real misogyny looks like. Then maybe they can then direct their efforts toward something more constructive than "Bros and Hos" posts.
Best line: "In recent weeks, Clinton has fashioned herself as a standard-bearer for women's rights. Ultimately, her work on behalf of Obama will show whether she means it."
I have taken a lot of flack for being upfront about my sincere disappointments with Hillary Clinton, but not ONCE have I ever behaved in such a way toward her or her supporters.
I don't believe this particular poster is a Democrat at all, and is simply seeking to exploit the raw feelings that exist to further divide us.
Ain't gonna work...
I wish the message here stayed more positive about Obama, and less negative about McSame (oops I mean McCain.) Let the message and facts speak for themselves. Obama is supposed to be different. He's trying to bring the nation together. It doesn't help when the enthusiastic have no problem keeping their politics in the gutter.
If you do, you are sorely mistaken.
I have been accused privately of being sexist several times because of how I spoke out about Clinton and her actions. I find this insulting--very insulting. As a gay man, I am keenly aware of the strict enforcement of gender roles in our society and how harshly one tends to get judged, scorned, and ridiculed for daring not to fit the gender molds & roles.
I don't think it's vitriolic to explain why you have honest disappointments. I have always loved the Clintons, and I feel very upset about what's happened in this primary and the types of things that have been said and done, by them, and their surrogates. I made up my mind long ago about my preference for Obama and it had nothing to do with any of that--it all had to do with what I heard from Obama and absolutely loved.
To then be told that to make that conscious decision on my own was sexist, and to then suffer the parade of horrid statements and insinuations that I had to from OUR OWN FELLOW DEMOCRATS in the Clinton camp was quite bruising as well.
I'm tired of this anyway, and I'm definitely moving on. I think that we all recognize the hurt feelings are temprorary and that in fact, we're all on the same team, and that we have far more in common to work for than we have reason to foster more division.
So, let me publicly state that I love my fellow Clinton-supporting Democrats, and I express my appreciation for your dedication and advocacy of your candidate, and I ask that you consider similarly vigorous support for our nominee Barack Obama, because I think he deserves it. In fact, I am pretty sure you will mostly agree when you compare him with John McCain and what they will both mean for the issues we all care deeply about!
First, you probably haven't noticed - or cared - but I purposely haven't posted anything on RK since last September (except a recent comment to John Bruhns diary). I've read, but not posted. Along with other Hillary Democrats, we haven't been welcome here and we haven't been foolish enough to offer ourselves up for target practice to those who only know how to vent their emotions rather than talk about real solutions to real problems.
Second, depending on how much disrespect I get after I push the send button and see how many Hillary haters pile on me, I may never post here again (which probably won't bother anyone -- and it'll be kinda like telling me, 'don't let the door hit you on the way out'). I only hope for the sake of friendships that the disrespect that I'm anticipating doesn't come from the many people on this blogsite who are personal friends of mine, which include both you and Doug, as well as many more.
Having said that, let me say that it's up to the Obama supporters on whether or not the party heals - it's not up to the Hillary supporters. You hold the key. Obama needs Hillary's 18 million Democratic votes if he wants to win in November. If you, his supporters, want to get most of those votes for him, then it's up to you to do something about it. The ball's in your court. You need to do whatever it takes to heal the party - you have to reach out to one-half of this party if you want to win. So what are you going to do? What's your strategy?
If the more vehement of the Obama supporters are not willing to take that ball and run with it by reaching out - which means stop trashing Hillary and her supporters - and if they expect that it's the Hillary Democrats who have to come like whipped, defeated dogs over to their side while many Obama Democrats gloat and continue to pounce on their beloved Hillary long after Obama has won, then folks, you've got a losing strategy of reunification on your hands.
When AIAW so eloquently coined the term "sore winners" she couldn't have been more on target. Folks, you've won. So what's your point with continuing to bash Hillary and her supporters? What are you trying to accomplish with that? You certainly aren't winning the hearts and minds of one-half of the Democratic party. If all you're trying to do is make yourselves feel good by 'venting' about how much you hate her, then go ahead and feel good if it's worth it to you and if you're willing to pay the price -- and then try to figure out how you lost 18 million votes next November.
(As a point of clarification, my comments are not directed at any one person or any one diary)
It was a very heated primary campaign. For every example of a mean Obama supporter, you could also find the same on the other side.
I'll conclude with this: unity is a two-way street. I agree that Obama and his supporters need to reach out. I think they are doing so. At the same time, Hillary and her supporters need (and appear to be) doing the same. Obama and Hillary are so close on policy issues -- and so far from McCain -- that it's imperative that we all get passed the primary fights and unite for our country. Rather than be personally annoyed on either side, it's time to start looking for common ground and common purpose.
Thanks for your post -- I hope you start posting here more in the future.
You seem to be saying he and his supporters need to do more. What, exactly? The thing is, we're not talking about 18 million innocent victims here. We're talking about people who preferred one candidate over another of two candidates who are actually quite similar in many of their positions, and their candidate lost. Did some people connected with the campaigns and supportive of their candidates say and do some horrible things? Yes, but it was a current running both ways, and there is nothing to be gained from continuing to feel injured and demanding that Obama and company be responsible for all outreach and all efforts to unite until the efforts are deemed sufficient to bring the Clinton people back into the fold. It's also unreasonable to say that because some Obama supporters continue to be obnoxious that means no one in the Clinton camp should support him.
I listened to the Washington Journal today and heard several Clinton supporters continue their attacks on Obama. They said they were either going to vote for McCain or write in Hillary's name when they voted. These people have lost the point of this whole exercise. Securing the presidency is not about winning a popularity contest but about putting into that office the person most likely to promote the goals of the party and by extension the interests of the American people. We MUST move past hurt feelings and look at the bigger picture. Placing a requirement on Obama and his supporters to prove that he's worthy of having Clinton's supporters' support is unreasonable and in the end counter-productive.
Dear Lowell,There has never been a more important election in my lifetime -- with a war waging, gas prices at record highs, our health care in crisis, and our nation's standing around the world severely diminished. I spent the last year traveling across the country talking to great Americans in Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas, South Dakota, Indiana and many other places. They all agree on one thing: This country needs new leadership, and it's time for change.
Many of you in the Clark community answered the call. Some of you worked tirelessly for Senator Clinton while others poured hours into Senator Obama's campaign. You did this because you were willing to sacrifice your time and energy to bring the change we so desperately need. I can't thank you enough for all you have done.
Now I am asking you to come together and make sure Barack Obama is our next president. This is a critical mission.
Hillary Clinton ran an amazing race. She inspired millions. Our party is a better party because of her campaign, and our nation is a better nation because of her service. She is and will always be a friend whom I admire.
I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on securing the nomination. His historic campaign has touched lives and his message has moved people in every corner of America. I believe he is not only ready for the challenge but will be a great President.
It's time our party comes together to stand behind Senator Obama as we move forward in this election season. I look forward to doing everything I can to help Senator Obama's campaign. While I respect John McCain's service, I know exactly what he stands for -- Bush's third term. America is a great nation, and our people deserve more. We need Barack Obama to be our next president.
Sincerely,
Wes Clark
...if I were a Democrat, I wouldn't worry about it, frankly. I think the party will come together. I think they'll have a great convention.I think the Republicans fully expect -- and I know they fully expect Obama to really shoot upwards in the polls, which we're beginning to see, but shoot up to a significant lead, and then McCain try to close in the last three or four weeks.
But Obama is going to have a big lead within a couple of months because the Democrats will unify.