Democratic Unity

[cp]

There's been much written about Clinton and Obama tearing the Democratic electorate apart during this primary season. Part of this may be that no one expected Obama to do so well, especially after Clinton was so far ahead in the early game. Another factor might be that there's a lot of personal animosity involved: Clinton supporters don't like Obama stealing their thunder with his 'new kid on the block' routine, and Obama supporters don't like the Clinton's 'dirty tactics' and use of Pres. Clinton to Sen. Clinton's advantage.

Regardless of the reason, one of these people will be the nominee and I want to know: will the supporters of the loser fall in line?

Perhaps it's my bias, but I have trouble seeing the Obama supporters lining up behind Clinton if she ends up taking down their golden boy. Conversely, though I know many Clinton supporters will be roiling inside if they end up losing, I don't doubt they'd swallow their pride and tow the party line.

There are a lot of Obama supporters on here. What would you do personally? What do you imagine your fellow Obamaniacs would do?

[Lief 🗽]

I won't be voting for a racist, status quo, center-right, pro-war candidate.

[Winspur]

The only substantive difference I see between Hillary and any Republican nominee is on abortion rights--which is important, but not important enough for me to vote for a more appealing alternative.

[John Dibble]

If Clinton wins I think it would be more devastating to the unity of the Democratic Party than an Obama victory would be. I think most of the pro-Clinton supporters who dislike Obama do so mainly because he's a serious threat to her nomination, but I think more of the pro-Obama supporters who dislike Clinton dislike her on a deeper level.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The only substantive difference I see between Hillary and any Republican nominee is on abortion rights--which is important, but not important enough for me to vote for a more appealing alternative.

If that's true of Clinton, it's also true of Obama; there's hardly any real policy or ideological differences between any of the top two-and-a-half Democratic candidates. O/c there are certainly differences between the three, but not that sort.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

IIRC, Obama addressed this somewhat.

He feels he can be unifier better than Shrillary can.  Translation - Hillary voters will come my way far faster than my voters will come her way.

Unity?  Neh.

[Democratic Hawk]

My one great hope is that the Democratic Party can, and will, unite behind its eventual nominee going into November. And that is all I'm saying on the subject

Dave

[cp]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

[Verily]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

The political parties in the United States have no "values" the way you describe them. Precisely because control of the parties is so firmly in the hands of the people rather than the parties, ideologies within the parties are weak to nonexistent. The two parties are coalitions of ideologies so broad as to be meaningless, and positions may change radically decade to decade if not faster.

When you speak of "values" in American politics, you get responses like "ending poverty" and "strengthening the economy" that are absurdly platitudinal and devoid of true meaning.

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

The political parties in the United States have no "values" the way you describe them. Precisely because control of the parties is so firmly in the hands of the people rather than the parties, ideologies within the parties are weak to nonexistent. The two parties are coalitions of ideologies so broad as to be meaningless, and positions may change radically decade to decade if not faster.

When you speak of "values" in American politics, you get responses like "ending poverty" and "strengthening the economy" that are absurdly platitudinal and devoid of true meaning.

Yes. Most people think of "goals", when they say "values".

[Sam Spade]

Most of the Obama supporters here (most of the Democratic ones anyway) will line right back behind Clinton once she wins the nomination exactly like they did during his Presidency.  This will be especially true if she picks him as her Veep.

The only concern I can see goes to black voters, but I'm sure they have some plan to deal with that.

[Lief 🗽]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

That's going a little too far. We're just currently in a center-right political cycle, started by Reagan, after a nearly 50-year center-left cycle started by FDR. Eventually we'll swing left again, and the Democratic party (and a further left party at that) will regain dominance.

[Michael Z]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Before the primaries began, I would have agreed with you. However, since then the Clinton campaign has smeared and lied about Obama in ways that would Karl Rove blush, and there is no way on Earth I am going to root for such a candidate. But that's my prerogative.

Not that it matters from my side, seeing as can't vote, but I know plenty of US-based Obama supporters who share that view. A lot of them will be inclined to sit out the election if Hillary wins the nomination.

[Ben.]

The only concern I can see goes to black voters, but I'm sure they have some plan to deal with that.

I'm sure they do, weather it actually works is another matter altogether... as it is Clinton runs the risk of a low Black turnout, with AA voters neither inspired to vote "for" Clinton or "against" McCain (that's if McCain wins the GOP nomination of course).  

[Person Man]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

That's going a little too far. We're just currently in a center-right political cycle, started by Reagan, after a nearly 50-year center-left cycle started by FDR. Eventually we'll swing left again, and the Democratic party (and a further left party at that) will regain dominance.

Yeah. But we've been in this center-right cycle since Nixon, 40 years ago. When will the cycle go back and will it be soon enough? If we are destined to another 10 or more years of rightism in America, we would be best served by just sitting back and letting them fuc us up so we can say "I told you so". That's basically how the FDR thing started. If people don't listen, they should be punished by their own actions. It's actually a parenting method called "love and logic".

[Sam Spade]

The only concern I can see goes to black voters, but I'm sure they have some plan to deal with that.

I'm sure they do, weather it actually works is another matter altogether... as it is Clinton runs the risk of a low Black turnout, with AA voters neither inspired to vote "for" Clinton or "against" McCain (that's if McCain wins the GOP nomination of course).  

9 months is a lot of time and people have short memories.  Besides, the Clintons were always loved in the black community before this election, so it's a lot easier for them than it is for other people.  We'll see.

[Lief 🗽]

Ugh. Sometimes I hate being so right.

Though I don't take this response as indicative of much else, I still can't help but ask: why?

Why would you refuse to support the winner of a primary that you, yourselves are competing to win? Surely there's more that's drawing you to the party besides Obama's magnetism? For instance: perhaps you share the same values that drew Obama himself to the party in the first place. Those values, incidently, are probably the same ones that drew Clinton to the party.

Also, what makes you think that a Clinton-lead Democratic Party would be so antithetical to your interests, values, and views than an Obama-lead one? Clinton and Obama have worked together on legislation and (despite the rhetoric) agree on most key issues, albeit differing on specifics. There's also more to the party than the position of the President. A Democrat in the White House means like-minded appointees to the Supreme Court, the rest of the justice system, hell, the entire bureaucracy! I admit that depending on the Republican candidate some right-leaning Dems might have a legitimate case for jumping ship, but Obama really isn't attracting those votes: he's a lefty. Presumably as supporters of a lefty, you don't want a party so captive to the right to retain power. I find it confusing, then, that you wouldn't go for Clinton considering your options.

Guess I just needed to vent.

Yes. I am hoping that we will go heavy (get behind our nominee) or go home (disband the Democratic Party machine and start from scratch by using leaders from outside of politics like Bloomberg, Gates, Damon, Wallis and other centrist to left-of-center captians of business, faith entertainment, technology and industry to re-start our party.)

That's going a little too far. We're just currently in a center-right political cycle, started by Reagan, after a nearly 50-year center-left cycle started by FDR. Eventually we'll swing left again, and the Democratic party (and a further left party at that) will regain dominance.

Yeah. But we've been in this center-right cycle since Nixon, 40 years ago. When will the cycle go back and will it be soon enough? If we are destined to another 10 or more years of rightism in America, we would be best served by just sitting back and letting them fuc us up so we can say "I told you so". That's basically how the FDR thing started. If people don't listen, they should be punished by their own actions. It's actually a parenting method called "love and logic".

Nixon wasn't really a rightist. He was essentially a follower of Keynesian economics, like Democrats before him. Anyway, the way things are currently going, we're bound to be hit by a catastrophe sometime soon that will shift the country back left.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nixon wasn't really a rightist.

Oh he was... it's just that he was clever enough not to let his actual views influence policy when votes were at stake.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nixon wasn't really a rightist.

Oh he was... it's just that he was clever enough not to let his actual views influence policy when votes were at stake.

That... and he was afraid of people going towards the Anti-war movement. That imo was what drove alot of his progressive legislation.

I don't think this feud will matter too much.. most of those who are died hard for Obama aren't really crucial swing voters anyway (and are much more likely not to vote than vote for a republican) - at least that is my perspective.

[MarkWarner08]

I'm not as much an Obama supporter as I am a Clinton hater. I despise the dynastic  element to a Hillary Presidency and I believe her vindicative politically-obsessed personality would make her temperamentally unfit to be President.  I basically oppose Clinton and Giuliani for the same reason:  trust.

[Democratic Hawk]

Before the primaries began, I would have agreed with you. However, since then the Clinton campaign has smeared and lied about Obama in ways that would Karl Rove blush, and there is no way on Earth I am going to root for such a candidate. But that's my prerogative.

Not that it matters from my side, seeing as can't vote, but I know plenty of US-based Obama supporters who share that view. A lot of them will be inclined to sit out the election if Hillary wins the nomination.

I might have withdrawn my personal endorsement of Hillary Clinton, partially, because I don't like how comments she made injected 'race' into the Democratic primaries but should she win the Democratic Party nomination then I'll support her from these shores

My approach would be to close ranks behind my party's presidential nominee; however, disdainful the road to the nomination may have been. [Well, more accurately, in my instance, the party with whom I identify most strongly]. Politics can be a rough, or dirty, game and if you can't stand the heat you get out of the kitchen

The bottom-line is that the next president will either be a Democrat or a Republican - and I know which camp I'm in . I'm not for having another 1972 moment any time soon

Dave

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

The Great Depression certainly did. When something bad happens, people blame the people (and to a certain degree, the ideology espoused by those people) in power, and vote for the guys on the other side of the aisle.

[J. J.]

The only concern I can see goes to black voters, but I'm sure they have some plan to deal with that.

I'm sure they do, weather it actually works is another matter altogether... as it is Clinton runs the risk of a low Black turnout, with AA voters neither inspired to vote "for" Clinton or "against" McCain (that's if McCain wins the GOP nomination of course).   

9 months is a lot of time and people have short memories.  Besides, the Clintons were always loved in the black community before this election, so it's a lot easier for them than it is for other people.  We'll see.

Now you all know how Monica feels; the Clinton's have left a bad taste in the mouths of the Democrats. 

Very seriously, a lot of Obama's supporters will not vote for Hillary Clinton, which probably means they will stay home.  A few will look at someone solid on the Republican side, and vote McCain, if he is the nominee; those will be people that her actions in the campaign have turned off.  The bulk of the Obama supporters are anti-war, which is why they are supporting him, will not support McCain or Romney, but they will stay home.  For them, Clinton's actions are anathema.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Catastrophes seldom shift countries to the left.

The Great Depression certainly did. When something bad happens, people blame the people (and to a certain degree, the ideology espoused by those people) in power, and vote for the guys on the other side of the aisle.

And arguably, the hyperinflation of the 1970's shifted the county to the right.