Can disaffected Clinton voters like Bill Chirolas hold the key to party unity, victory in November, and an enduring democratic majority? Yes they can!
In 1952, he was one of only 3 in his high school class to vote for Adlai Stevenson. The rest voted for Ike. A retired health insurance actuary from Boston, he has been a Steamfitter and a Teamster. He's served, year-in and year-out, on his local committee, knocking doors for Democrats from the top to the bottom of the ballot, but this year Bill Chirolas is considering doing something inconceivable. He's considering voting Republican. In fact, he's planning on it.
An affable and admittedly overweight gent with a northern twang, keen intelligence, and self-effacing wit, Bill is a member of a small but vocal group infuriated by the events and outcome of this year's Democratic primary. PUMA is the acronym which has been euphemistically rebranded as "People United Mean Action", but originally stood for "Party Unity My Ass". The PUMAs are angry Hillary supporters who are crossing over to vote for McCain.
I think there are answers with Bill. He's just this cool old guy who's seen it all, but has never seen anything like this primary. He's determined and aggrieved, but not unreasonable. If you look at the world through Bill's eyes, it's not hard to understand why he bought a ticket to Denver as soon as he heard Obama had not picked Hillary as his VP.
--------------
"There won't me many of us at this convention, maybe 1000. Most of us will be not so much marching as riding scooter or walking and pausing and then marching. Only 5 from my group of about 450 will be there. There would have been a few more, but I got calls about it:
'Bill, I can't make it. I drove 400 miles, but I left my blood pressure medicine and I have to go home.' 'Bill, I tried to re-schedule with my oncologist, but he couldn't get me in again until next month and I'm scared.'
We can't recreate 68. In 68, I could run from the cops and really make a ruckus. This time around I'm just going to sit in the shade and wave my sign. Maybe yell some nasty stuff rom the "free speech zone".
I'm not interested in arguing points with Bill, who's a good guy and who I like a lot. He thinks that the Obama team used racism and played the victim. He thinks the DNC favored Obama every time. He thinks that Obama should pay Hillary's debt. He thinks that Obama should have picked Hillary as the VP. I'm interested in understanding what could possibly convince an old-hand party Dem to come and protest the Convention. I want to understand what's going on with him, because I want him back. I want his passion and his wisdom. I want him to share the faith and excitement at the Obama nomination that I have. I feel like he's really losing out, and I also don't like the demographics, and I think there's more to it than the points. I think there's more to it than being angry, and I want to know what it will take to win back these voters.
"18 Million Democrats voted for Hillary," he tells me. "If you look at the polling, 50% haven't bought into Obama. That's 9 Million votes lost. Even if two thirds come over by election day, we're still down 3 Million. We've lost elections by a lot less than that."
I don't like those odds, so I press him. "Obama played the victim time and time again. First is it was the Cuomo quote, then Clinton in South Caolina. He said he was rallying his base. He actually said that. He used race to win and that just unacceptable." We're sitting together on a late plane from Salt Lake City to Denver, and Bill is not at all the characture of the egotistical, self-destructive zelot I'd envisioned from reading and reading about the PUMAs online.
When I remind Bill that it was an issue that the media picked up and ran with, he is not assuaged. "Obama had to stand up and stop it. He should have immediate stood up and said 'Hillary is not a Racist, Bill is not a Racist'. He should have stopped it, but he kept playing the victim. Obama let it happen."
It goes on like this for a while. I hear his concerns, and while I think Hillary gave as good as she got, and this is all a bit thin skinned on his part, I know there's more. It can't be just this. Eventually, I get to the heart of it.
I ask him how he could possibly vote for McCain who will obviously overturn choice, and who will install a Supreme Court that will undo the last vestiges of what we both most prize about America. "We'll be strong enough in congress to stop him," he says. "What I've got is a guy who says all the right things, but I don't believe him, and another guy who says all the wrong things, but I think we can stop him."
I try not to chuckle at the thought that a few reinforcements in the Senate and House will do anything to build a congressional backbone so obviously lacking since we won our majorities in 2006. Still, there's something there. Down beneath the anger tinted perceptions and beneath the resentment, there's a mistrust. There's a fear that Obama won't do what he's promised. This is reinforced by the "tack to the center". Obama's changed positions on FISA and his failure to vote to curtail Oil speculators. Most of all, on the issue of Health Care, Obama must stand up. In the primary, Obama promised to deliver on Health Care in his first 100 days. Since then he's distanced himself. He's promised small changes, and his staff has sent signals that he will not take real action until his 2nd term.
If Obama wants to really bring the PUMAs into the fold and get the party together. He has to forget trying to seduce the cult of personality around the Clintons. He needs to understand that these are party activist and loyalists and that many put their loyalty in Hillary because she GAVE THEM CHANGE THEY COULD BELIEVE IN. Obama can win this unity if he can convince these loyalists that he, too can be trusted with the fate of the nation. Adding a 100 day Health Care promise to his a Convention Acceptance could be the last, best hope to truly attain party unity. Moreover it would send a message that he is a person in whom Americans of all stripes can put their faith. The importance of this cannot be overstated.
In order to fulfill his potential, Obama must build the perception the he is a promise keeper. That, yes he has a lot to say, but that he means it, and he will deliver. The ramifications and realities of this are far reaching. With the election of Ronald Reagan, American politics left the age of issue politics and entered the age of identity. Voters must personally identify with and trust politicians or else they will not vote for them, regardless of how much they agree on issues. This is the crux of American politics, the critical issue for party unity and the central directive of the Progressive movement. America agrees with us, but until progressivism is perceived as a vital force which can fulfill the real needs of American voters, we will continue to be perceived as a shallow alternative to the Cosnervatism, which although failed and discredited, continues to connect with voter on an emotional level.
The first real transition from Hope to Courage, to Action to Victory is the perception that Obama will deliver. The ramifications of this would far transcend the current, and admittedly marginal threat of the PUMAS. It would pave the way for Obama's personal relationship with American voters of all stripes, his own landslide victory, a successful 1st term record of governance, and serve as a model for progressives in government for generations to come.
If Obama wants to be the progressive Reagan, and truly bring transformational change, he must allow voters beneath the promise, and connect at the gut level. Guys like Bill Chirolas may not know this in their heads, but they feel it in the gut.
Josh Chernila reporting live from the Democratic National Convention in Denver
If it is true they were Democrats, then it is also obvious they have never been involved in politics before.
I'm sorry, they just do not get my sympathy nor my support.
I am trying my damnedest to hold charitable thoughts about why they are determined to be so petulant, but I confess it's difficult.
If John McCain is President, there will be no Employee Free Choice Act -- it won't approach the 2/3 necessary in each house to bypass another anti-union President.
If John McCain is President, Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts will eviscerate not only choice, but also workers' rights and due process rights for ordinary citizens. It will be government by and for the elites of this country.
If John McCain is President, there is no chance of re-tilting the playing field toward the middle and working classes.
And on and on and on. That a union member and Democrat could contemplate voting for McCain is truly insanity.
The memos make clear that once Hillary Clinton lost her standing as the inevitable nominee, her strategy was based in part on delegitimizing Obama's victories. Because the Clinton campaign failed to anticipate the importance of delegates elected through caucuses rather than primaries, her operatives regularly argued that Obama's caucus triumphs lacked the same weight as her primary victories.Because Obama overwhelmed Clinton in many staunchly Republican states, he was said not to be the choice of real Democrats and swing voters in states such as New York and California, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
I can sympathize with their feelings because my wife, while not a PUMA, shares them. She is a life-long Democrat from an Irish Catholic union family in New Jersey. And, if you dare to accuse her of not being a "real" Democrat, well, lets just say that she has three brothers who would quickly straighten you out. She honestly doesn't believe that there has ever been a Republican who drew a righteous breath of air and she has never voted for one in her life. And, she believes that HRC was cheated out of the nomination. But, she is going to vote for Obama because he is, after all, the Democrat.
Your dismissive comments about PUMAs indicate a certain lack of historical awareness on your part. Do you believe that the McGovernites of 1968 were not real Democrats who did not deserve a minute of attention? Well, they ruined the Chicago Convention and damned near destroyed the Democratic Party in 1972. And, BTW, try telling Harold Meyerson at the American Prospect that he is not a real Democrat. He has written about being a McGovern suppporter at Chicago 68.
Ignore the PUMAs at your own peril. I guarantee that Obama is not ignoring them and I would like to see more posts by Josh on how his campaign is working to bring them back into the family. For example, today the DNC restored full voting rights to the Florida and Michigan delegations.
Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters -- registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee -- are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.
Again, you can stick your head in the sand or you can deal with the reality. Obama's campaign has a major issue to deal with during the convention this week. It can be Kumbaya with the Clinton supporters or Chicago 68 all over again.
Josh, please keep us posted.
Then, why in the world are you even interested in politics? In your view of the world, it is all fixed and contrived. Why would you believe that you could have any influence or effect in such a corrupt system?
Sorry, pal, but you have to believe in the rules of the game or there is no reason to play at all.
BTW, my candidate was Richardson. I despise Clinton for what she put the Democratic Party through this year and, if you were a critical reader, you would have known that from my original comment. I'm just someone who wants to know if the Democrats can put her self-serving machinations to rest or if they are going to let this rivalry topple, once again, an inevitable Democratic win.
By reading the comments I see that most of them are made by people who merely want to discount the PUMA's as Republicans or politically naive...I suppose it comforts them somehow. Not only are we not Republicans, most of us have been actively involved Democrats, the kind of people who worked the polls, made the phone calls, donated money, etc. etc. And many of us were involved in politics before Obama's supporters were born.
This really is no longer about Hillary Clinton. The caucus fraud, sexism, DNC bias, race baiting by the Obama campaign, and many other issues are much more important than whether or not Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
I won't be voting for McCain but I also won't be voting for Obama. And there is nothing Obama can say that would change that because his words are meaningless. I've studied his background in Chicago, I've seen his deeds in this primary and it's painfully obvious that Obama will stoop to any level and say or do anything to win. Hillary was accused of that by Obama supporters repeatedly but they didn't bother to look at his over-riding ambition.
He's not a reformer, he's a Chicago machine politician. I noticed you said "In order to fulfill his potential, Obama must build the perception the he is a promise keeper"....and that's the problem. He's all about perception but perception is not deeds. His deeds or lack thereof stink. When he had the opportunity to support true reformers in Chicago he didn't...instead he threw his support to the likes of Todd Stroger and Mayor Daley.
We are not naive enough to believe anything Obama says so the Democratic Party is stuck with once again snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. I will not reward lies and manipulation with my vote.
As for Hillary giving us change we could believe in, she did that over a period of many years fighting for the rights of women and the well being of children. She delivered while Obama talks. Talk is cheap and I'm not buying it at any price. Obama said he wouldn't run for office in 2008 because he needed more experience and that's about the only truthful thing I've heard him say. I don't want to hear his promises I want him to prove who he is with deeds...voting PRESENT and chanting yes we can doesn't do it for me. This isn't my first rodeo and he doesn't convince me any more than Richard Nixon did. I know BS when I smell BS.
I'm no longer a Democrat, I'm an Independent and that means I will vote my conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
So, I hear what you are saying about voting your conscience. Go for it. What I don't understand is how, since you supported Hillary, your conscience can lead you to an action that will help John McCain get elected.
In 2000, Ralph Nader said there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore? Well, that wasn't the case.
I submit that corruption aside, the policies that John McCain will pursue, and more importantly his judicial appointments, will be much worse for the country than Obama.
So, here is the tradeoff: to assuage your conscience, millions of women may end up being denied the right to control their reproductive choices for a generation or more. Untold thousands of soldiers, and untold tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, may die, if McCain becomes president.
My problem is understanding how acting in a way that makes this outcome more likely is what your conscience demands, given the pragmatic choices in front of you right now.
Now then, I've answered the question you posed as a dodge to my question, and I'm asking respectfully about your position. How is acting in such a way as to make a McCain presidency more likely more consistent with your conscience and principles?
Noble sentiment - but I'm not buying it. It's all about HRC losing a very close, hard-fought primary battle that most HRC supporters were absolutely certain she would win. Obama wasn't my first choice either, but failing to support the party's nominee while claiming that it's not about HRC is not believable - especially when you go on to rehash the primary talking points.
You talk about all the things McCain will do but the problem is who knows what the heck Obama might do....I surely don't and neither do you. He's got very little record which leaves him with nothing but words. I don't believe his words.
I do believe there are a fair share of those voters out there. As a whole the Obama supporters have a stronger commitment than do the McCain supporters but this core of voters who likely were Hillary supporters remain on the fence. The WSJ poll indicated that as much as half of the undecided voters are folks like my friends. I don't think dismissing them out of hand is a winning strategy. I think Bill and Hillary Clinton's speeches this week are the most important to be delivered at the convention.
If you can convince yourself that a man that is squarely within the mainstream of Democratic thought and that has enunciated policies that agree with about 90-95% of what Hillary Clinton proposed during her candidacy is a Bush clone, and is no better than the man that has supported George W Bush on every major policy initiative of the past 8 years ... then you are living in a perverse delusion.
Don't worry, I caught the bizarre sojourn you made into Black Liberation Theology, loud and clear. No wink and a nod, or dog whistles, necessary.
This is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face (if indeed you are truly a Democrat or a liberal). Somehow all the rest of us Democrats that voted in the primary for Obama are supposed to walk on egg shells and make sure not to insult you, while you get to walk around and call the rest of us that voted for Obama stupid and/or corrupt (so sorry for voting for the candidate that was proven to be the most wise when it came to the issue of the largest foreign policy disaster in perhaps the modern history of the United States). Well, piss off. Go stomp your feet and hold your breath until you pass out. Keep reading Fox News articles and those lunatic fringe right wing chain emails to feed your spleen, but leave the rest of us alone.
I was a strong Hillary supporter here at RK. We had an election. It was a fair election. Everyone got their say, and everyone played by the same rules. Obama won.
I'm with you. My guy Richardson had his chance and didn't win the votes. Whether or not he should have been the VP candidate is solely up to Sen. Obama to decide.
However, Ron1 crosses the line with his comment about "an intellectual temperament in this post that isn't even mature enough to be characterized as adolescent." That, along with his other condescending remarks, including,
Well, piss off. Go stomp your feet and hold your breath until you pass out. Keep reading Fox News articles and those lunatic fringe right wing chain emails to feed your spleen, but leave the rest of us alone.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been chastised here on RK for much less provacative and inflamatory language. I just think that we need to be fair in what we criticize.
Lowell?
Anyway, in the cold light of morning, it wasn't my place to put my two cents in here, so apologies.
*"Users who unnecessarily bash or attack, including ad hominem attacks, any users on the site are subject to immediate banning. Our actions will be dictated by the specific circumstances."
*"Users that post comments that do nothing but name-call, denigrate other users, or make inflammatory remarks will be warned first and banned if warnings are not heeded. Extreme violations will be banned outright."
*"Users who are excessively or pointlessly bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, are subject to banning. Again, our actions will be dictated by the specific circumstances."
Those who are disaffected want to be for whatever reasons they have and it is a waste of time to try to change their minds.
But I am so frustrated - I really don't understand how Hillary was cheated out of the nomination. She was not entitled to it - she ran and she lost.
Rules governing primaries and caucuses were approved by all presidentail campaigns way back in 2007 - so the Clinton campagin had the opportunity to reject caucuses but chose not too - and that is a fact.
The fact is, Clinton lost because of five big mistakes.
Mistake number one - the Clinton campaign made a huge error in deciding to contest the Iowa caucuses. Mike Henry has been proven right - they should have skipped it and concentrated on New Hampshire. Iowa was not a good fit for her campaign. Bill Clinton never really competed in Iowa so there was no residual base left from his campaign. And Clinton's vote for the war was her biggest problem in Iowa, the most dovish state in the country.
The second mistake the Clinton campaign made was dumping $25 million into Iowa in December, '07 - which really accelerated her cash flow problems in January.
The third mistake Clinton made was to ignore fundrasing on the internet. They spent a year having all of their big donors max out - but they simply ran out of big donors. They never supplemented their fundraising with small donors - and a lot of her supporters who could only afford small donations simply thought she didn't need it. Remember, it wasn't until March before it was reported she was broke.
The fourth mistake the Clinton campaign made was hiring Mark Penn. As the chief strategist, Penn thought all it would take to win the nomination was to win the "BIG" states and it would all be over my Super Tuesday. But Penn was a moron - two and a half weeks before Super Tuesday, Penn actually thought Clinton was going to take all 441 delegates in California -but there was no winner take all in California or any other state. On Super Tuesday, Obama won almost as many delegates in Georgia as Clinton won in California.
The fifth reason the Clinton campaign lost was there decision - and yes, this was a decision they made, not to participate in caucuses other than Iowa amd Nevada. And on Super Tuesday, she was slaughtered in Washington state, Kansas, Minnesota, and the following week in Maine, Nebraska, etc. In states like Kansas, Obama won more delegates there than Clinton won in New Jersey. And of course, when the dust settled, Obama was ahead of Clinton after Super Tuesday.
By the end of February, Obama had won big primaries in Virginia, Maryland, Wisconsin, etc., and he lead Clinton by about 140 delegate votes, which is about the margin now, without Super delegates factored in. Clinton was still having cash flow problems, but even with her impressive win in Ohio and primary win in Texas, the math just did not not give her a sliver of hope to win the nomination.
These are the reasons Clinton lost - and none of the whining about the causcuses being unfair, etc., started until it was mathematicaaly impossible for her to win.
So, all we can do is register additional voters and run the best GOTV operation we can to make up those Clinton supporters that we lose on their end - that is why I have been making such a big deal out of voter registration numbers. The way to win is to expand the electorate - plain and simple.
Take a look at this from Chuck Todd:
Indeed, today's New York Times/CBS poll of Dem convention delegates probably has it right: 60% of Hillary's delegates enthusiastically support Obama, 31% support him with reservations or because he's the nominee, and 5% don't support him at all. But the Clinton folks will have an impact on the media narrative this week.
So, if it's in the interest of the Clintons to create this narrative, the myth of the PUMA will continue until it's no longer useful. When will that be? It's clearly time for this narrative to die, there are much bigger things for us to be concerned with.