Reaching out to supporters of Hillary Clinton

[mhoran]

I do not understand how anyone can support Hillary Clinton given her behaviors over the past few months. I do not say that to be combative. I truly don't understand. If some part of this is a function my personal ignorance or obtuseness, please educate me.

I am so weary of the in-fighting here at DU. I can't shake the feeling that somehow we all are being played for fools. Somewhere along the line we have to find a way to unite again to position ourselves for the GE.

Every day I contemplate posting that I can no longer vote for Hillary if somehow she wins the nomination, but I can't quite do it. Day after day, though, I find myself repulsed and disgusted by her behaviors. I worry that one day some new incident will finally lead me to post that post.

If anyone can help me, and hopefully others, understand what it is that I cannot grasp - a reasonable rationale for defending Hillary's conduct - I honestly would appreciate it.

I truly don't want to post that post.

[Mezzo]

1. Did it bother you when Barack Obama sent out a right wing Memo from the 90's called Harry and Louise

:shrug:

[mhoran]

33. That's a diversion

Not helpful

[Ravy]

2. Can you be specific of the behavior?

I am neutral, but I just see campaigning on both sides. From a neutral position, I couldn't say one was worse than the other, and there has been nothing atypical about either campaign that I can see.

[mhoran]

35. I will try to be more specific

Give me a bit of time to put together a more detailed post.

[mhoran]

71. A couple of examples

Two examples which particularly bother me:

*Her statements which seemed to promote McCain as a better candidate than Obama (re: "experience")

*Her posturing on Michigan and Florida, which I find particularly disingenuous.

It's late and I'm tired. I'll try to think on any further examples for a later post.

[question everything]

87. It is the interpretation by the Obama supporters

McCain is the most qualified candidate to be a commander in chief. What is there to debate or to explain? He has years of military service behind him.

Clinton is more qualified than Obama in foreign relations and because of her tenure at the Senate Armed Services Committee. Please don't jump to the Bosnia gaffe. THIS would be a distraction. While a first lady she visited many countries and got to know the leaders, the regular folks and their customs and concerns.

Thus, if you look at experience alone, McCain and Clinton are superior to Obama.

Now you can say that this should not matter, or that other points are more important and this is what it comes down to the difference between them.

But to claim that Clinton says that McCain is better than Obama is a misinformation to manipulate and to flame the crowd.

To answer your original question: perhaps it is me. I prefer to deal with facts and with specifics and she is very good at this. She was not my original choice: I was vacillating between Edwards and Biden. But once I heard her in debates, I was impressed. Obama's fuzzy words of "hope" and "change" leave me cold. And his disdain to the 60s - the years of Civil Rights that made his candidacy a possibility; his dismissal of the Clinton years - the first Democrat to be re-elected since FDR - and the 90s where we have seen an economic expansion across all income level - angers me.

When Clinton first entered the Senate, she took her time, sat in the back seats to learn how things get done. I appreciate her plan to take one step at a time.

As soon as Obama won his Senate seat, he immediately sent people to Iowa to start working on his next step. As soon as he came to Washington he was bored, did not have patience to bid his time. He may consider himself special, his supporters may think that he walks on water. But what has been happening in the past few weeks show that he is, indeed, inexperience, not ready for a national campaign. He had it easy until now, with Oprah, and the MSNBC crowd eating from his hands; with any challenge being quickly labeled as "racist." Now we can see who is the real Obama, maybe. But it may be too late.

I think that he will win the nomination, perhaps even the race, but will end up a very weak president. He certainly will disappoint many, for the simple reason that no one can be all things to everyone, and millions of his supporters project their wishes on this blank slate.

[mhoran]

101. I'm not trying to inflame the conversation...

...although that doesn't take much these days.

With regard to the McCain "experience" business, I felt it was wrong of her to, IMO, compare him favorably to Obama. I would feel the same way had she made some similar statement about any fellow Democrat. Is there any doubt the Rethugs will attempt to use it against Obama over and over should he face McCain in the GE. That's the factor that makes it particularly troubling to me - that it potentially helps the Rethugs and damages us in the GE (again should Obama be the nominee) - that it was disloyal and potentially damaging to the party.

[question everything]

115. No. The question is whether this military experience should be the deciding factor

in electing our next president.

We tried it with Kerry four years ago and it did not work. I think that the Republicans have a lot more ammunition - against both of them and if they do use this comment, all Obama has to do is to repeat - more or less - Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan "it is the economy, stupid."

And, clearly, for most voters these days, the economy is more important than Iraq or any war on terrorism.

What Clinton offers - as was clear from her recent ad that inflamed many - is a well balanced candidate who can offer both understanding of foreign affairs and offers economic solutions.

Again, you may not agree with this strategy but for many of us it works, at least, better than Obama.

Even though most voters now are concerned about the economy, if something happens someplace in the world a few weeks before the elections, not a terror attack but instability in, say, Burma, or Venezuela, Pakistan or even Kosovo, and if Obama is our candidate and he will stammer, asking all sides to "use restraint," McCain will easily sail into office (which is why I supported Biden before he dropped from the race).

[Ravy]

89. I may have a different perspective on Florida, being a Florida resident.

Just because she has the same advantage (experience) over Obama as McCain, it would not be fair to say that she cannot try to use it because McCain can make the same argument. To me, she has more experience than McCain, because she has been closely involved in the executive branch as well as the legislative.

I think either have far more experience than Obama, because they have been involved with national affairs for much longer, met with more world leaders, etc. Obama does have a lot of experience crafting and deciding on legislation, but not in the same league.

As far as Florida and Michigan, I think she should fight to get them to count. It gripes me that Obama supporters want to completely disregard the fact that voters spoke, at least in Florida. I count the Florida votes in the popular vote total, but I don't count Michigan... and I find it disingenuous that Obama supporters say that Obama took his name off the ballot because the agreement said he had to. He took it off to pander to Iowa, did too, and admitted it.

Those who say that having your name on the ballot violated the agreement conveniently forget that Obama didn't take his name off of the Florida ballot. They will make some excuses, like, Obama signed the pledge not knowing if he could abide by it, and such... but they are just political posturing.

Obama lost points with me when he advertised in Florida right before the primary here. I certainly don't consider him any better than Clinton. They are both okay, neither outstanding. McCain can't hold a candle to either.

[mhoran]

103. I appreciate your thoughtful post

I can't pretend to know what it's like being a Florida resident under these circumstances.

My view is largely based on my perspective that Senator Clinton's has completely reversed her position on this issue, that her interest in counting the Florida vote is completely self-serving, and that her staking claim to the moral high ground about disenfranchising voters is blatantly hypocritical. If the situation was reversed, I have no doubt she would be fighting just as hard to not count these votes (Yes, you can make the same argument re: Senator Obama's position).

That said, this entire Florida-Michigan mess is shameful and tragic. I would be interested to know how you allocate the responsibility for every letting things come to this among the various involved parties.

[Ravy]

106. I have been thinking a lot about that.

I really, really do not understand why the DNC took the extra step in issuing the "death" penalty to both states. The rules called for a 50 percent reduction in the number of delegates, at a minimum. Why did they go for the maximum? Particularly with Florida, who did not jump in front of the "anointed four", and was merely a week early. So, I blame the DNC Rules committee more than anyone, but that doesn't mean that others are without blame entirely.

The republicans also sanctioned Florida, but they took half of the delegates and no one really complained about it at all. I don't understand why the rules committee decided to go full bore.

I agree with you about the candidates switching the roles in this issue if the shoe had been on the other foot.

I have been wanting to post a bit on this issue as an OP, but the sides are too polarized for a good rational discussion. Perhaps after the election we should discuss the fairness of our primary system, and this DNC Rules decision as well. There are a lot of problems with the way the primaries are turning out this year. Not just Florida and Michigan either. Hillary supporters count Texas and Nevada in Hillary's column, Obama supporters count them in his column.

And this talk about "overriding" the will of the voters is insane. Isn't that what John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Richardson are doing when their constituencies went for Hillary?

There are so many things that could justifiably be argued either way without much of a stretch.

[mhoran]

110. It certainly is difficult...

...to attempt a civil discussion on such an issue at the moment. Still, we should not forget the problems with the primary system, which this race has so clearly illustrated. Michigan and Florida voters have been treated shamefully.

Thanks for your thoughtful and articulate reply.

[KSinTX]

3. Reasons you could vote for HRC if the nominee

1. She is a Democrat
2. She is more likely than McCain to end this senseless war
3. She would likely appoint more liberal Supreme Court Justices
4. She would be a better advocate for Universal Health Care than McCain
5. She would veto fewer pieces of legislation of importance to the Democratic agenda than McCain.

For starters. (Edit: Oh, and if you're sincere, you'd kindly address these points. Thanks)

[Snarkoleptic]

13. On edit...

1. She's embraced Repuke politics
2. She's said she'd nuke Iran
3. She's to the right of Obama on this
4. Her health plan is much worse than Obama's and would result in wage garnishments of 'non-compliant' insurable parties.
5. Is that the best you can do is that she's to the left of McSame...REALLY FRIGGIN LAME!!!!
Final analysis...
Time for Hillary to step off.

[KSinTX]

20. Thank you. I am "REALLY FRIGGIN LAME"

and will withhold my assessment of you for the time being.

"She's embraced Repuke politics."
I've actually read that she has a very liberal voting record in the sentate: Americans for Democratic Action found her to be 95 percent liberal on its key votes in her first four years, and she achieved liberal nirvana (100 percent) in 2005.

Please explain how this is an embrace?

[Snarkoleptic]

38. She supported NAFTA...before she was against it.

She made a campaign ad for McSame by stating she she and McSame have sufficient experience whereas Obama doesn't.
She's employed Penn who was being paid by Columbia to run PR for their trade agreement while Clinton said she was against it.
(p.s. Penn continues to work in the shadows of her campaign even though they were called-out on this)
She's embraced Richard (friggin) Mellon Scaife and sought his endorsement.
(after Scaife pushed 'The Arkansas Project', funded Kenneth Starr, and pressed the meme that the Clinton's had Vince Foster killed.
She's appeared in photo's hugging McCain who said "The reason Chelsea is so ugly is that Janet Reno is her father.".

How could anyone other than a rotten-to-the-core repuke have such deep and cynical contradictions in her persona?
She's a rotten, ambitious, souless zombie who feeds on power the way standard zombies feed on brains.

[KSinTX]

45. Ah, now see, we now have a sense of agreement

I've never characterized those things as inherently Republican but have always seen them as uniquely Clintonian. Having lived through the golden Clinton years, I feel many of the same things you've expressed. I actually started my support of Obama through protest then he won me over. For many of the reasons you've listed, I am hard pressed to see myself supporting her candidacy but I don't want people to not vote for her in some gesture of "group think". If Obama doesn't win the nomination, there are very limited options left. I just want everyone to think it through carefully.

[Auntie Bush]

113. It's just impossible to discuss or reach anyone who thinks and reacts like you.

Sorry, I won't even bite.

[mhoran]

18. Thank you

I am sincere, and I don't pretend to be unbiased or objective.

#1 - Of course
#2 - Probably true, but her historical support of the war is still a concern to me.
#3 - Hopefully. Within the topic of the SC, her unwavering support of Roe v. Wade is a definite plus.
#4 - Absolutely. An important distinction.
#5 - Presumably.

I appreciate the civil tone of your post and your willingness to have a genuine dialogue. I wish others would follow your example.

[KSinTX]

32. You are most welcome

As someone who has donated to Obama's campaign multiple times, conducted phone banking here and in other states on his behalf, voted for him here in Texas and caucused for him well into that night, I felt obliged to respond in a civilized manner I suspected my fellow Obamakins might not. At the end of the day, those reasons might become mine should he not be ultimately our party's nominee.

[SwampG8r]

59. good job

every one of them is 99.9% true
kind of makes me wonder if you are a hillary supporter at all
there is a lot of clear thinking and logic here
she is in fact NOT Satan

that said good reply and good job making your point without stabbing someone wth it

i wish i could do that too sometimes

edited to add after reading above replies:

:rofl: i was RIGHT you arent a hillary supporter and it WAS the logic that unmasked you
GOBAMA and heres a beer for you
:toast:

[KSinTX]

64. Hey, I was sincerely trying!

Guess you could say I'm still on training wheels with that?

[papau]

4. two faced Obama fans/liars "reach out" - what crap from the Obama campaign of smears/lies

[mhoran]

22. I cleared out my ignore folder before posting...

...knowing I would be subjected to some of this nonsense. Why bother to post something like this?

[goldcanyonaz]

5. Umm, we hate Obama as much as you hate Hillary. SO THERE!

[KSinTX]

7. And that would be your objective reason for voting for HRC??

Interesting.

[goldcanyonaz]

8. Objective? DO I seem objective? I am here after all.

[KSinTX]

11. Good to see you here. So why are you an HRC supporter?

nt

[rodeodance]

44. because I am not an O. supporter.

[mhoran]

23. Please tell me that's sarcasm

[goldcanyonaz]

28. Nope. We are one divided party.

[mhoran]

39. Do you believe...

...that divide is too wide to be bridged before the GE?

[goldcanyonaz]

41. Not if there is a shared ticket, which there will be. one can not win w/o the other.

[mhoran]

43. If Obama wins the nomination...

...would Hillary accept a VP offer? I have trouble believing that she would.

[goldcanyonaz]

46. Of course she would and so would Obama if it were reversed. They are not idiots like most of us.

[sushi]

50. The ticket should be

Clinton-Obama! Then it will be 16 years of Democrats in the WH. He is younger.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. Actually, the poster has a point

you request a rational explanation from HRC supporters that you haven't provided yourself.

Maybe we're all just voting against the one we hate?

[mhoran]

75. I'm tired of voting against the one I hate

Just this once, I'd like to vote FOR someone rather than against someone.

I don't understand your meaning. Can you clarify, please?

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. You said, in gross paraphrase:

I don't understand how anyone can support someone I hate so much. Why don't you support Obama? No one hates him!

[mhoran]

111. I don't hate Hillary

I just don't care for some of her tactics/behaviors.

My initial post was much more inflammatory and provocative than I intended it to be. In retrospect, I wish I had been less extreme in the language I used. Unfortunately, it just prompted more of the same hostility.

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. I don't care for some of her tactics either.

But I do appreciate most of her policy.

And I'm honestly not immune to hypocrisy, the tactics she uses in the primary are exactly the kind of tactics that I'll appreciate from our nominee in the general.

[Snarkoleptic]

6. She's established herself as an establishment repuke candidate.

"Ms. Clinton, what are your chances of a legitimate win in November?"
"Well Mr. Pitt, my chance of a legititimate win are slim to none...hence the Rovian tactics, you elitist dumbass."

[KSinTX]

9. And that would be your objective reason for voting for HRC??

Interesting rationale. Just so I know: what WOULDN'T you vote for?

[Snarkoleptic]

19. Suggest you read my post again while wearing your critical thinking cap.

[seriousstan]

24. I've found reading what you wrote is not a strong suit for the OP.

[KSinTX]

30. As much as I was loathe to re-read it, I have.

My critical thinking cap also caused me to re-read the OP which asked for "a reasonable rationale for defending Hillary's conduct." To which YOU replied: "She's established herself as an establishment repuke candidate."

Again I ask, that is your "reasonable rationale for defending Hillary's conduct?"

[seriousstan]

34. You don't even know who you are responding to. Loathe that.

[KSinTX]

36. I suppose a misplaced post was indeed worthy of your ire

Good for you. Guess you showed ME.

[seriousstan]

40. Then answer my question below. Do you disagree with anything I actually wrote?

On Edit...you are right, I apologize for getting a little abrasive there.

[KSinTX]

48. No problem - these are emotional times!

No, I don't disagree with anything you said below. I, too, wish to have this out in the open and done with. I particularly hope that by the GE the likes of Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh will have had their gut full of their race-baiting rants and their audiences saturated and nauseous of it.

On the flip side, I understand that many Obama supporters are going to have to work through this campaign strategically and cautiously should he for some reason not be the nominee. I think the OP is trying to get there with some solid reasoning. For some of us, it is more difficult than for others. I too wanted to see what Clinton supporters would bring to the table. It may come to that for me.

[seriousstan]

51. We are in agreement and...

This gin and tonic is for you.

:toast:

[KSinTX]

53. Muchas gracias, amigo!

:toast: back atcha!

[seriousstan]

55. Adios amigo.

[mhoran]

49. Civility Lives!

You may be promoting my continuing naivete. :P

[seriousstan]

54. I hope I am a carrier.

[mhoran]

57. It's nice to read some posts around here

that make me smile

[seriousstan]

60. Yep,depression is rampant. I doubt the gin and tonic has anything to do with it.

[mhoran]

I miss the days

when we could all gleefully go after W together. Ah, memories.

[SwampG8r]

63. loath

they look alike but arent
loathe is an intense dislike
while loath is a reluctance
not being a word nazi but for some reason this one bugs me
so does forte

[seriousstan]

65. I saw that and figured they meant an intense dislike.

to dislike greatly and often with disgust or intolerance : detest

[SwampG8r]

69. hmmmmm

ok buddy out in the alley
lets settle this like lexicologists
:toast:

[seriousstan]

72. lololol a war of words ensues.

[SwampG8r]

74. i can only thank god its not a war of wits

as im usually only half prepared for one of those

[seriousstan]

78. I assume that brings me to a quarter.

[KSinTX]

85. HEY! A fight I can believe in!

Hi folks! Had to drop into the lounge for a quickie (non-political fix, I mean).

seriousstan, as much as I hate to give the Floridian a favorable ruling, sadly he's right! SIGH

BUT I can only blame it on the gin/tonic you served me on top of my Jack Black & Coke. What were you thinking? Enjoy! KS

[SwampG8r]

90. damn right

ha!!!
in your face wordsmith
boo yah:bounce:

[seriousstan]

91. What was I thinkin? I must a been drinkin.

[SwampG8r]

92. dont make me do fractions

[seriousstan]

94. How many microns to an inch?

[SwampG8r]

107. is this how you want to win?

a battle of words turned into a battle of wits and now you want math too?

[question everything]

88. This is the problem with the Obama supporters

using vulgarity, not saying anything. And then you are surprised why many Clinton's supporters wills stay home if Obama is the nominee?

And do you really think that Obama can win without the votes of the loyal Democrats who have been voting for her in the primaries, as opposed to Independent and Republicans and first time voters who may, or may not, be for him in November?

[mhoran]

96. I've seen plenty of anger and vulgarity from both sides

It seems to me that your arguments cut both ways. Obama will need Clinton supporters just as Clinton will need Obama supporters.

All this in-fighting only benefits the Rethugs, who control the MSM, which continues to promote divisiveness among us.

Methinks we're being managed by the real enemy.

[seriousstan]

10. You do not understand the vetting process. If Obama cannot withstand what is commonly known,

how will he handle the down and dirty of the GE? Wright, inexperienced, black, muslim are all attacks that will be used in the GE. The up side is he has now vanquished some and blunted many. FWW I never saw elite coming. That is what primaries are for. If the issue is big enough, I would rather our candidate die in our arms than the GE.

[KSinTX]

This is the only reason you are supporting HRC?

nt

[seriousstan]

16. Where did I say that? Do you disagree with anything I actually wrote?

[mhoran]

26. I do understand the vetting process

And I know politics, especially at this level, is rough business. I had hoped, naively I suppose, that the Democratic primaries might elevate the process above the "Republican" style politics of the past few decades.

[seriousstan]

37. One participant of a boxing match cannot decide to forgo boxing for waxing eloquently.

[newmajority]

12. It appears nobody in Camp Hillary has a reason except for

"she's slightly more tolerable than McCain".

Sad, isn't it? :(

[KSinTX]

15. I'm curious, who said: "she's slightly more tolerable than McCain"?

nt

[patrice]

17. And, according to some AAR call ins, "She's not male." nt

[SoCalDem]

14. some of them are "unreachable" unless you

use one of these

[rodeodance]

21. Why do you bother reaching out when you smear Hillary in your OP??

[mhoran]

31. I posted my personal feelings and opinions

I don't claim to have an unbiased position. I'm also willing to acknowledge that that position may cause me to perceive events from a skewed perspective.

I did not "smear" Hillary. I stated my position. Not the same.

[rodeodance]

47. try a little honey with yor opine.

[mhoran]

56. Fair Enough

I do want to be able to actively support Hillary if she wins the nomination. Does that help at all?

[KSinTX]

58. Civility! Ain't it great!

These are the sorts of discussions that get us places. BTW, thanks for the OP. Some really good answers here, some, not so much!

[Tresalisa]

25. I would suggest that you ask that question

of people who support Hillary who are not members of DU posting in GD-P.

[DemGa]

27. Better to provide a rationale for the constant assaults on Hillary's character

from Team Obama - essentially an extension of the right-wing attacks. Repulsed and disgusted indeed.

[mhoran]

42. Another diversion...

Again, not helpful.

[Secret_Society]

29. Originally I supported Edwards

After he dropped out (which I was not happy about because I foresaw this I knew he could pick enough delegates to be a kingmaker), I seriously examined the issues. I decided to support Hillary. The main issue was healthcare. In the debates, I saw that Edwards expressed that Hillary's plan was equivalent to his and Obama's wasn't. In addition, after Edwards dropped out HRC endorsed raising the minimum wage over 9 dollars and creating "green-collar" jobs. That's what pushed me over the edge. With regards to recent behavior, I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you could clarify I would be glad to give my response. I don't agree with every position she presents. I don't agree with the gas tax holiday. But I do believe in her. I see a lot of charges against her on DU and in the MSM that she is a "dirty" politician. But one must realize that politics is dirty. Idealism does not get legislation passed. I do not mean that as an insult, but no matter how much we deride Washington politics, it is here to stay. We need someone who the experience and the knowledge to work the system. I believe HRC has exceptional experience with regards to this, especially with health care. With regards to campaign style, this has been a relatively mild campaign. HRC never tried to make an issue out of Rev. Wright. She answered questions whne they were asked. She did not exploit it as many here claim. Rev. Wright, however, does raise questions for me. The original race speech impressed me, but I had many questions. Why did he stay in that church? The next day he called his white grandmother a racist. He said people cling to heartfelt beliefs like religion because of economics. I don't believe it was brave to not denounce Wright originally. It bothered me. I knew Obama din;t share his views. What bothered me was the comment "I can no more denounce him, than I can the black community." I am not black. But it bothered me that he equated Rev. Wright's views with all blacks. Finally, the Democratic party loves the high minded idealist, but we haven't learned that they don't win in the GE. We need a candidate that can attract some "Reagan Democrats." I support HRC.

[KSinTX]

62. Wonderfully thoughtful reply

I'm curious about one thing you wrote that stood out a bit: "the Democratic party loves the high minded idealist, but we haven't learned that they don't win in the GE."

You make me ask this question: Didn't you perceive Edwards as a bit of a high-minded idealist? If so, how would you have responded had he been in Obama's position right now almost the nominee but with possible doubts about electibility? Would you have stayed with him or switched to Clinton given her high electibility ratings? This is NOT a snark. Sincere question.

If you don't view him as an idealist, how do you define him?

[Secret_Society]

73. I do think Edard's was a high minded idealist, but

he was able to connect with people much better than Obama, in my opinion. But to answer your question, I would not have left Edwards, baring a serious meltdown. I do not hold people in contempt because they respect the high minded idealist. I don't think voters should be derided for not taking electability into account. Superdelegates should, however. They were created to pick the candidate that was best for the party and that includes being able to win in the GE. I don't take that into account, but they should. Hope that answers your question.

[KSinTX]

84. It does, thanks

Our home started as an Edwards-Obama, moved to Clinton-Obama, then to Obama-Obama. I'm not strident in my support of anyone (a little excited sometimes but I can get that way over a well made pizza :) and I really like both Edwardses. I am really curious why he went down so quickly. I never thought it would come down to this. Heck, I'm basically an Independent in the main but given my options there was NO WAY IN HECK I was going to stomach McCain. I sorta headed there at first because of his military background then I actually started reading what he was about - or not about??

Well, anyway, thanks for taking the time to answer that question for me. Enjoy your weekend! KS

[mhoran]

83. Thank you for your thoughtful post

I did go back and identify a couple of specifics for starters. I'd be interested in your perspective.

[Secret_Society]

93. With regard to Florida and Michigan...

I believe the Democratic party needs to be consistent. If you were to look at the DNC rules Iowa, NH, and South Carolina also broke the rules by moving their primaries. Also, the DNC official punishment for a state that moves its primary up beyond the stated rules is a 50% reduction in delegates. So either Florida and Michigan should be counted fully or Iowa, NH, SC, Florida, Michigan should be counted at 50%. With regards to promoting McCain as better than Obama, I would not support that. But I do not believe this is something she has harped on. The one instance I can think of is when bill said "we have to candidates that love America," implying Obama didn't. But that was an isolated incident if I remember correctly. And if that is an issue for you, I would call your attention to the comments Obama made with regards to Reagan and his disdain for the Clinton years. BTW, thanks for actually having a convo rather than spouting silly videos and comments that have nothing to do with the future of our country.

[jillan]

52. Fyi - there are many, many Hillary supporters that can't understand what people see in Obama.

Please don't "reach out" to us....it's a little too creepy.

[mhoran]

61. I had trouble with the subject line

It suppose it is a little creepy in a new age-y kind of way.

And I am aware that the head scratching goes both ways.

Still, we are going to need each other in the GE, however this all plays out. Agreed?

[seriousstan]

67. That is a subject seldom breached here. There are polls about who will/will not vote

for which candidate if they become the chosen one. It appears we are killing our own chances.
A significant number (>10%} of Obama supporters won't vote for Hillary and an equal amount of Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama. Both seem determined to undermine our chances in the GE.

[Hoof Hearted]

66. I do not understand how anyone can support Hillary Clinton given her behaviors over the past few mon

That's not exactly reaching out, Einstein. I didn't read beyond your backhanded first sentence so basically, screw you.

[mhoran]

77. Thanks for your thoughtful response

"Einstein" and "screw you." Nice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. I have to be honest. Some of Hillary's campaign troubles me.

But in fairness, some of Obama's campaign troubles me too.

It comes down to policy and the nature of my specific concern about the respective campaigns.

Obama's campaign is permeated with an attitude of smugness, from top to bottom (search this site for "low information voter" to see what I mean).
In contrast, Clinton's campaign gives off the vibe of mortal combat. While this is admittedly a problem during the primary, it is less of a problem during the general election than the alternative.

As far as policy goes, Clinton's healthcare plan is 100% better than Obama's. Every other policy in which the two differ are characterized by Hillary willing to give specificity on the policy in question.

Hillary has the better policy and the better temperament to beat McCain down in November.

Am I defending her conduct? Yes and no. It is not the way I'd run a campaign, but then again, I could never attain what she has. It is not all tactical, it is part of who she is, but I think it's an attitude which we need to face down the wrong wing.

[mhoran]

79. Thank you!

THAT I find helpful...and much more eloquent than any of my posts thus far.

I tend to agree with you that Clinton's healthcare plan, on balance, is preferable.

Where you perceive smugness, I perceive a genuine idealism.

I think either candidate beats McCain rather easily. Roll the footage of McCain and Bush, please.

The mortal combat vibe feels terribly mean-spirited and nasty from this side.

Again, thanks for elevating the discourse.

[BenDavid]

76. Maybe you should be thankful that HRC is still in this campaign.

Seeing that obama is now a major flawed candidate and from a snapshot in time with the polls McCain beats him.HRC beats McCain.

Maybe within the next 14 days the other show will drop on obama and he will be so flawed he could not be the nominee and at least we have HRC which will win this damn election as it was intended, until obama got in it to "unite us"..

[mhoran]

81. I have no problem with HRC staying in this campaign

But I disagree with you strongly about the GE. Until the identity of the Democratic candidate is settled, I don't think the vs. McCain polls are worth much. When we stop the in-fighting and coalesce around our candidate, I'm confident that either Clinton or Obama can trounce McCain.

[Two Americas]

80. that isn't reaching out

Clinton has flaws and has made mistakes, and so has Obama. There are more people here to echo and magnify Clinton's errors and flaws, so they seem worse and get worse and worse on each re-telling, as people reinforce each other and compete for who can be the most hostile and confrontational. That does not mean that Clinton's flaws and errors are worse, let alone so bad that no support of Clinton's candidacy can be seen as rational and legitimate or understandable.

This is what I see: saying "how can Clinton supporters continue to defend her?" really means "why hasn't the bullying completely run Clinton supporters off yet?"

We have an uphill climb ahead of us, together, and either candidate is going to be a challenge to represent to the voters and the opposition will fight fiercely and without scruples or hesitation.

Obama supporters - the Clinton supporters are your allies, your friends, they are not part of an evil conspiracy, they are not racists, they are not stupid, they are not "neocons" or "Rovian" operatives.

You are crippling us - all of us - in the important battle ahead with your behavior, and ironically it is the behavior by some of the Obama supporters that is making people hesitate to unite behind Obama.

[PoliticalAmazon]

82. Bet you a donut you draw back a bloody stump. n/t

[MADem]

86. Your candidate sucks. That's reaching out? Put your arm back in the car, you

might lose it at the next bridge abutment.

:wtf:

If you think that's helpful, it isn't. And if you don't want to vote for Clinton if she makes it to the general, you cast your vote for Bozo the Clown, Any Generic Third Party Shithead Loser, or John McCain if it makes you happy. There's nothing WRONG with Clinton's conduct. Try looking at it from a neutral standpoint, instead of through the "I hate that BITCH" lens that way too many Obama supporters hold up. Never mind, that's too much to expect. You've been brainwashed to believe that she's a racist rightwinger, even though her record proves that to be a total lie.

I don't understand how you can support Obama, actually. He's weak on everything, from domestic policy to foreign policy to getting specific on anything. You can't eat HOPE CHANGE BELIEVE and YES WE CAN won't pay the frigging mortgage or fill the gas tank.

I find his supporters repulsive and disgusting, rude, childish, incredibly sexist--and gleefully so, too, especially here, and by their supporters we shall know them.

So I guess we're at an impasse. You don't like my candidate, I don't like yours.

The difference--I'm a grownup. I realize that a One Term, Carter-like Obama is preferable to a third Term Bush-McCain.

But hey, you go on and do whatever you want. No one's going to beg you for your vote. It's pointless, anyway. If you really are "concerned," take a break from the discussion forums and do a little reading and research on your own. Absent the echo chamber, you might be surprised. Or maybe not.

[mhoran]

99. Seems to me...

...that you read my post through your own Obama hating lens.

"There's nothing WRONG with Clinton's conduct." There's been plenty wrong with Clinton's conduct. Your complete denial and your belief that she can do "nothing WRONG" demonstrates your own inability to look at things from a neutral standpoint.

[MADem]

108. No. You are wrong. See, I don't HATE Obama.

I just find some of his "your candidate sucks" supporters pretty fucking tiresome.

[True_Blue]

95. I admire Hillary

She's a fighter. I wish more Dems were like her. Do you think she would let the GOP steal the election from her?

[TheDudeAbides]

97. Your perspective goes both ways...

you don't realize that Obama's relationships, business partners, mentors, philosophical mindset regarding race, etc....are all things we the voters want to know about and understand. Until you recognize that all of that information is fair game and of interest, you are destined to fail....and so is the party.

You attack anyone who asks questions instead of providing useful explanations. You boo your opponent instead of showing respect. You create faked videos and pass them off as real.

Your candidate could win, but you are preventing this from happening.

[Lyric]

98. I don't want to post that I'll never vote for Obama either.

In the midst of a heated real-life argument with an Obama-supporting friend, I did indeed say those words in anger, but I didn't mean them. I'm not quite that angry yet. But it's inching closer every day, even though I know it's stupid. Another argument with a gloating NeoCon in my Poli-Sci class made me reconsider--he was bragging that McCain was all but a certainty because we Democrats are too damned stupid to realize that we're wearing Americans out with this outrageous fighting and mud-slinging.

Keep this in mind--what you consider to be atrocious, unforgivable behavior by Clinton, other people see as either lies, exaggerations, malicious spin, or overly-inflated non-issues. What you consider to be lies, exaggerations, malicious spin, or overly-inflated non-issues about Obama, many of US consider to be atrocious, unforgivable behavior.

It's all about perspective and pre-conceived notions. If you have already decided in your heart that Clinton is the Enemy and Obama is the Hero, then everything you read is being put through that filter, and WILL end up supporting your own pre-conceived notions. And vice-versa, of course.

[mhoran]

104. Well said

Excellent post

[Catchawave]

100. Reaching Out ? Riiiiiiight.

Why not call her supporters stupidheads.

Her conduct is just fine, she's a politician and a gifted one at that.

Unfortunately, Rev. Wright was right, Obama will do and say anything to get elected.

I don't oppose politicians, I oppose dumb politicians.

So there.

[mhoran]

105. I just reread my original post...

...and I can see in retrospect how inflammatory some of my words and tone might have been. I apologize for that.

It seems I may have already gotten a bit of an education through this discourse.

I can't agree with you that Clinton's conduct has been "just fine," though.

[Orsino]

102. I don't think that vague criticism of their candidate is a way to reach out.

It's only going to perpetuate the motes 'n' beams that are GDP.

[Beacool]

114. And I can't understand how anyone can support Obama

given his minuscule experience. I will never vote for a man who I do not think is prepared nor deserving of the presidency.