Skip to main content

Update: All the posters seem to indicate that "no one" has called Hillary supporters racists.  I guess I miss read alot of the responses to my diaries. But let me site one instance within the last two days.  MSNBC, Dan Abrams show, young black woman Obama supporter pundit to Abrams in refering to Hillary being on Ticket..."I am not saying that all of Hillary supporters are bigots...".  Both Tucker Carlson and Abrams said "gee thanks" almost in unison.  She then realized what she said.  That is my point.

In an exit opinion poll discussed on Countdown:  62% of people will not vote for a woman while only 53% said they would not vote for African American in states where Obama won, no one said that Obama supporters were sexists.  Which they are not.  But it is to prove the difference between the labeling of the supporters that I speak of it.

A diarist asks what Hillary supporters want.  His or her request to hear from Hillary supporters seems to be sincere even if the responses so far to his or her question are coming from Obama supporters for the most part.  But I am willing to accept the request for information is sincere and here is my answer.  I speak only for myself.  This is my opinion.  I humbly and respectfully request not to be blasted by Obama supporters who want to argue with my views.  I am not posting this diary to change anyone's mind, I am not trying to put down Obama and I don't want McCain to win in November. I just want to attemt to answer the diarist question honestly and sincerely.  And my response was too long to be a response to the original diary so that is why I am doing one of my own.I will explain what I want and will list them numberically in no special order.

  1.  I would like to have the Obama supporters stop calling the Hillary supporters racists. I chose my candidate based on experience, knowledge and capabilities.  I felt then and I still feel that Obama, though an intellegent, educated, articulate and capable man is too young and inexperienced at this time in his life to be president of the United States.  I would say so if he were white, pink or blue or even female.  With a couple of turns in a state legislature and only 2 years as a senator I don't see the knowledge and experience I want for my president.  That doesn't mean he won't be a good one.  But I looked at both candidates and made my choice.  That does not make me a racist. And I resent being called that because I did what I was told to do by my liberal upbringing and my liberal conscience--chose on qualifications not race.
  1.  I would like the Obama supporters to make up their minds and decide if I, as a over 50 white woman, am relevant to this election or not and then stick to that decision.  I have had the most extraordinary posts to my diaries.  In one sentence the poster screams that I am irrelevant and should go back to the dark ages and yet in the very next sentence, when I say I will not vote in the general election, it will be my fault if Obama loses (God forbide!) and I am personally responsible for back alley abortions coming back.  Which is it?  I can't be irrelevant and should just sit down and shut up and then also be responsible if your candidate loses.  So just make up your mind, do you want me in or not and then act accordingly.  You can't have it both ways.
  1.  I would like for the Obama supporters to stop taking everything Hillary says as an attack on Obama and use it out of context.  For example, Hillary stated that Bobby Kennedy was still running for President when he was assassinated in June 1968. This was taken by the Obama supporters as involking a wish to have Obama assassinated or trying to link herself with Bobby.  It is far more simplistic.  Women of my age and older (Hillary falls in that category) use fixed points in history as references.  Bobby Kennedy is not a "historical figure" that we read about.  In fact, I was working for his campaign at the time I was in Junior High School and can still to this very moment remember watching the primary returns from my bedroom on a small black and white T.V. when the shooting occured.  So when someone asks me when the CA primary was held in the past I would have to say "Well Bobby was shot in the first week of June and it was the night of the Primary so the CA primary is the first week in June".   By the way I have a framed picture of Bobby on my office wall if that gives you any indication of my memories of the man.
  1. I would like to see a woman in the VP slot and here's why.  I am 55 years old when Obama takes office.  He will have 8 years and then his VP will run and have 8 years. (I am always the optimist!).  By the math I will be around 72 years old when a women, if not in the VP slot mentioned, will be able to run again for president.  I would like to be able to vote for a woman before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Pure and simple.  I would prefer it to be Hillary.  I think she has alot to bring to the ticket.  But I would like to see any other qualified woman in the slot.

And finally...

  1. I would like the Obama supporters, especially the pundits on MSNBC, to treat Hillary and her bid for the nomination like all others that have come before...no better and no worse... and stop expecting her to behave differently than other presidential hopefuls because she is Hillary and you don't like her.  To explain this point let me make cite two historical facts.

In 1980 Ted Kennedy ran an insurgent bid for the presidency against the incumbant candidate Jimmy Carter.  That is rare.  And although well behind in the delegate count even after winning the last primaries Kennedy refused to bow out of the race and took it to the convention floor.  Hillary isn't hundered and hundreds of delgates behind. Remember Obama got the to the magic number at approximately the same time as Hillary was winning her primary races. Yet she is expected to withdraw from the race on the same day, hour and minute she is winning the last primary.  Ted didn't drop out that quickly why does Hillary have to?  Bill Bradley dropped out of the presidential race in March of 2000.  Again running against a sitting VP?  Talk about party unity blower. And then Bradley didn't endorse Al Gore until four months later. But Hillary is expected to endorse Barak Obama on the same night she wins the last primary. And is villified for waiting one or two days from her last primary win.  Is this a different standard? I would say so. And it shouldn't be. Bradley and Kennedy are now elder statesmen within the party but Hillary is expected to slink away and never be heard from again for her unacceptable behavior.  Again, a double standard that is unacceptable.

You asked what I wanted and this is my answer.  Plain and honest as requested.

Originally posted to liberal vicki on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:12 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So basically, most of what you want has NOTHING (33+ / 0-)

    to do with Obama himself, but with his supporters? And other than that your only other "want" is that he put a woman on the ticket?

    And she was "villified" not for failing to concede, but for being so UNGRACIOUS while she proceeded to not-concede.

    Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

    by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM PDT

    •  Imposing expectations... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MAORCA

      on a small subset of supporters is a helluva way to pick a person for president, IMHO...but I guess we all have our criteria.

      In my mind, this is not about "teams."  This is not about who dissed who and for what reason.  This is about voting for a person's policies and character.  But what do I know?

      "We're all working for the Pharaoh" - Richard Thompson

      by mayan on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:32:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's my problem: (13+ / 0-)

      I would like to see a woman in the VP slot and here's why.

      Personally, I want to see the most capable person in the VP slot. I don't care if they are male, female, black, white, Jewish, Sunni, Martian, yellow, purple, or whatever. I  just want it to stop being about what's best for her supporters, and I want them to realize that she isn't some sort of panacea.

      "So your brother's bound and gagged, and they've chained him to a chair...Won't you please come to Chicago just to sing?" CSNY

      by Everest42 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:36:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Posts like yours are part of the problem not the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mayan

      solution.  You're still in battle mode and you haven't seen the reality.

      Obama won the nomination.  She conceded less than 48 hours afterwards.  By historical standards, her concession is speedy and gracious, and more impressive given how close this race was to the end.
      Yet, she got tarred and feathered again by the Media and other folks. That kind of crap pisses us off.

      What we want is for Obama to win and deliver on his promises.  We think that the best way to achieve that
      is to put Hillary on the ticket.  We don't have a lot of confidence in Obama's general election strategy, but with Hillary on the ticket, the map expands dramatically and we can have a huge mandate for change.

      This election is not about Barack Obama, it is about the American people and positioning the Democratic Party in the most effective way to bring the change that people have clamored for.  I'm not interested in a narrow loss, and I think a narrow victory might be a hollow one against a cantankerous and tenacious GOP.  We need a blowout win and it is obvious to me that Obama + Hillary = huge blowout win for the Dems in the fall with massive coattails.

      I think Hillary hate is getting in the way of what is best for the party.

      Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

      by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Battle mode" (5+ / 0-)

        She said be honest, if you can't handle be being honest, oh well. That's how I felt, that's how I feel. It's not about being in "battle."

        And I think Hillary would kill his ticket.

        Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

        by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're entitled to your opinion (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pumpkinlove, NuttyProf

          We're entitled to ours.  The task of unifying now falls to the winner.  He will have a willing partner in Clinton, though he might have to drag folks like you kicking and screaming along.

          Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

          by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:48:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why is it that he has to take her on? (6+ / 0-)

            Honestly, all "hillary hate" aside, she's the anti-thesis of his campaign. He's spent the last 5 months calling her the status quo to his change, it's just not logical to put her on the ticket because she will be the Bose headphones (as someone on CNN put it) to his message of change.

            It's not about hating hillary, although I'm admittedly not a huge fan of hers, I just don't think she fits the campaign after everything she's done and there are better options out there (including women).

            Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

            by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll answer your question (0+ / 0-)

              First, he doesn't have to take her on.  We believe it would be in his best interests and in the party's best interests to take her on.

              Second, she is not the antithesis of his campaign.  Her policies provide more profound change in many respects than his.  Health care, getting out of Iraq and the environment are 3 such examples.  Obama himself has recognized this.  

              Third, the first woman President would have been as stunningly symbolic of change as the first black President may be (and hopefully will be).  Calling her status quo and dismissing the historic nature of her candidacy really rubs Clinton voters the wrong way.  His story isn't any more compelling than hers.  

              What about the Clinton years was so bad after all that folks like you have to dismiss it as status quo?  This country got its finances in order, made the world more peaceful, grew its economy, raised real incomes for people up and down the socioeconomic ladder for the first time in a generation, and America was respected in the world.  What the hell was wrong with that?  It took a lot of change to deliver those results and she was at the center of it.

              Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

              by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:09:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Simpy changing "gender" and "race" does NOT (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard, cybrestrike

                mean you don't equate the politics of the past.

                Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

                by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Here are my problems with the Clintons (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard

                First of all, they represent the sort of "soft corruption" that was and is the curse of this country: i.e. sucking up to the rich & powerful on Wall Street, in corporate boardrooms, in Hollywood, etc. in the hopes of raking in campaign contributions. It wasn't just the Clintons, of course, it was everybody, but the Clintons were the masters at that game and played it with gusto. For example, Bill Clinton's administration gave away the store with his deregulatory policies. He signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which opened the door for media consolidation, a disaster for American democracy. If it weren't for teh interweb, there would be no more free speech on a national level in this country. Clinton pursued these policies partly to win big business over to the Democrats, but guess what? They still like the Republicans more because the GOP has turned this country into a corporate fantasyland.

                The second thing I don't like about the Clintons is their approach to politics. They represent a way of doing things that was ok for the '90s but not today: central control by a small, elite (yes, elite) group of insiders & consultants which milks big donors for the big bucks and then applies that money for carefully targeted media buys. For the Clintons, voters are consumers, not participants in the political process. During the Clinton years, Democratic organizations withered away at the local level, so that by the time Clinton left office the party was in terrible shape.

                Since 2001, the Democratic Party has been rebuilding itself. Obama is part of that process, and he will be the model for it. He has built an amazing organization from scratch, even in states that Democrats usually don't even go to. A revitalized grassroots organization will help Democrats at all levels and may help turn purple states blue. Furthermore, Obama widened the base of donors beyond the fatcats. He knows how important we little people have been, so he's less likely to sell us out. In contrast, Hillary Clinton created an organization in the classic Clinton model: top-down, dependent on large donors, & focused on the big states. I think she evolved as time went on but it was too late.

                The Clintons did an awful lot of good for this country too, and we are largely better off for Bill's eight years in office, especially given the malevolence of the right wing crazies banging on the gates. But their time has passed. Obama and his campaign understand the Internet and they are forging a new approach to politics, and they should be allowed to do that unfettered with baggage from the past.

                My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?

                by Shiborg on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:49:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not so Fast on the Clinton Years (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard

                We had a stunning rise in stock market wealth that through off huge amounts of tax revenue. In addition the new dot.coms created new business for all support companies from professional services to landscaping.

                The President's polices had little or nothing to do with the Netscape explosion in 1995 in the stock market. Up until then we were shaking off the first Bush recession. 1994 was still a tough year.

                When Netscape went public in 1995 and the stock tripled the first day , unthinkable until then, the race was on to take as many companies public as quickly as possible leading to Greenspan's famous "Exuberance" speech in 1996,  four years before the market blew up. The net effect of the next 5 years of trillions of dollars of paper wealth being created was an explosion in jobs. At the same time it covered up fundamental stresses and fractures in our infrastructure.

                Mutual funds invested in dot.coms and peoples 401Ks and IRAs ballooned out. There was a supply demand imbalance of technology workers. Young marketing and sales people were making 6 figures with options right out of college or soon there after.

                Even the grey haired executive force was in strong demand at that time so there woul dbe adults in the companies founded by people in their 20s as they asked the Public markets to invest billions on things pets.com

                The NASDAQ hit 5,000 in March of 2000 and dropped to a low of 1100 a year or so later wiping out trillions of paper wealth. I question whether we really had a surplus since the Govt was counting social security receipts into the general fund to reduce the published deficit. There's no doubt the trend was better for the national debt, but take away the wealth generated by the dot.com explosion and I don't think there would have been 22 Million jobs to brag about.  

                I have yet to see any specific action or policy that promulgated the wealth balloon. I do see them taking credit for it as The Govt benefited as receipts skyrocketed.

                There was a GOP congress that effectively controlled the purse strings. Giving the Clintons credit for all that is a long reach.  

                However, once the balloon popped it uncovered many of the deficiencies of that period like NAFTA. Once the GOP was in power the framework was already there to deregulate everything and turn the other head to M & A that created duopoly's that now effectively control price.

                In short, putting a Clinton back in to continue the policies they signed off on in the 90s , in our current state of affairs, will never improve the job outlook. It's hard to see how any leader can do much except put us through a lot of pain in order to clean up the excesses of the Bush administration.

                Ten trillion in debt or close to it by 1/20/09 is not easily overcome. There's an additonal 2.58 Trillion in consumer debt. The mortage debt is higher than our GDP which when one tears into the GDP composition, there is little or no income generators that currently will allow us to grow our way out of this.
                The country is close to insolvent.

                Borrowing 100s of billions a year is not easily shut down. Balancing a budget that is literally Dependant on Social Security surpluses to keep us going is not going to happen. Not when Boomers will start hitting it next year and in force by 2011.

                That's when the pain will come. Even getting out of Iraq and saving 200 billion a year will simply be close to the amount the Govt takes from the trust fund. Once the trust fund surplus decreases , even if the war expense is not there we won't see any real benefits until such time as we see the pain we went through in the early 80s which most here don't recall if at all.

                When, not if, interest rates rise on the public portion of the debt, we may see interest payments outstrip any single expense category- even Defense.
                If the country is at war with each other while all this is going on, I don't see anything but misery coming.

                To me Obama represents Hope in that he , more than anyone, can pull Americans together to face this gathering storm. The old school politics of division and hatred will not serve us well when collectively we face a pretty bleak future.  

                In short, we need leadership that will speak to Americans as adults to make them understand what we are facing. I never saw the Clintons doing this. I saw them running on a dubious record from the 90s and speaking to the lowest common denominator as they did anything they could to win back the white house.

                I don't see how they would be helpful now. It's been a long time since they've have had to worry about money.

                It really is time for a clean sweep. I hope we can do it.

                Support Col Hackworth's watchdog group for the troops with money or a sign

                by Dburn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Says it all... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard, Alohilani

                Third, the first woman President would have been as stunningly symbolic of change as the first black President may be (and hopefully will be).

                I don't give a damn about symbols! I want someone with integrity who will represent its citizens and not the highest bidder.

                If you feel Obama,the Democratic party nominee, needs to BUY your support, I feel sorry for you, and the millions of Dems you will screw.

                "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."T.J.

                by smkngman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:13:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  explain (0+ / 0-)

                this.

                This calls Hillary a leader of the anti-progressive faction of the Democratic Party. The only difference between GOP neocon (Bomb, bomb Iran!) and Hillary/DLC neocon (OBLITERATE IRAN!!!) foreign policy is the rhetoric. Clinton/DLC neoliberal "trickle-down" is GOP "trickle-down", and you want us to think this means "rained on?"

                Hillary is proud to take lobbyist money.

                Just like Obama? He started with repudiating the DLC. He went on to prohibit lobbyist contributions.

                Sorry about the inconvenient truths, but that's the price you'll have to pay to rejoin the reality-based community.

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:00:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Unification = Hillary as VP? (5+ / 0-)

            I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, please understand.

            But you seem to be implying that the easy road to unification lies with pacification.  It's the same message projected by Hillary as she (to borrow from Rep. Rangel) "leans on" Obama to take her as the VP.

            Not to go on a tangent, but I would think even Hillary supporters would have misgivings about the Democratic nominee picking their VP based on pressure and bullying rather than their own independent judgment.  

            •  It is not pacification to put the most qualified (0+ / 0-)

              person for VP on the ticket.  It is not pacification to put the person who won 18 million votes on the ticket.  It's called intelligence.

              I'm not bullying Obama. I'm not conditioning my vote on his VP pick.  I'm a loyal Democrat and so are most Clinton supporters.  

              We just don't want Obama to fuck it up. Gore fucked it up when he put Lieberman on the ticket when he should have put Bob Graham.  Kerry fucked it up when he put Edwards on the ticket when he should've chosen General Clark. Clinton scored big when he put Gore on the ticket.  This stuff matters.

              The idea that he might ignore her completely and put someone who won't be as inspiring to the swing voter groups that she won handily scares the hell out of us because we don't want another narrow defeat. We don't want another fuck up.

              Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

              by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:14:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  most qualified? (0+ / 0-)

                You aren't hanging with the Kool-Aid drinkers anymore.

                Being a major Presidential candidate means in effect, being the CEO of a national organization with hundreds of megabucks in funding.

                She surrounded herself with political cronies who not only told her only what she wanted to hear, but let them isolate her in a bubble that kept reality away.

                She hired based on loyalty and ideology, not competence. Sound familiar? (hint: Bush! Bush! Bush!)

                Remember the story of the Hillary intervention? Like the GOP had to do with Nixon, a group of her Senate supporters had to go to Hillary to tell her to stand down because she can not win.

                If a CEO is the last to know that her company is going down the drain, that's a mark of incompetence.

                Her campaign generated plenty of news. . . of staff infighting, unpaid vendors, and of other things that indicate a badly run machine in which the wheels are coming off.

                Blame her consultants? You're blaming her, she picked 'em.

                She might be an OK Senator, but you should thank your favorite Deity we found this out during the campaign.

                The definitive book on her campaign is going to be a case study in business / political / marketing failure for generations of college students.

                She is NOT qualified to run any major organization. No shame to that, few people are. But a person who's utterly unqualified for this has no business running for President. Or to be "one heartbeat away".

                Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

                by alizard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:12:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Excuse me? (9+ / 0-)

            The task of unifying now falls to the winner.

            I beg your pardon, but the task of unifying the party falls on all of us. The Clinton supporters are going to have to meet Obama supporters half way and vice versa. The divisions were caused by both sides and have to be addressed by both sides. I find it troubling that so many Clinton supporters give off the impression that Obama or his supporters must now come "find" them or "convert" them or "sell" them on his candidacy. That's ridiculous. Candidates lose. In order to promote the ideas, ideals, and policies we want, we rally behind the nominee.

            We have no problem with Clinton being a "partner" in Obama's campaign for the presidency, and a majority agree she should be given a significant role. However, many of us, like a growing number of politicians and persons much more versed in politics than I, agree that she would be a bad choice for VP. Ackowledging that does not, however, mean that Obama

            might have to drag folks like you kicking and screaming along.

            You'll have to excuse some of us our cynicism to "I'll believe it when I see it" when it comes to her willingness to actively and thoroughly campaign on Obama's behalf, but for the most part we've been waiting for months to forgive and move on. Both camps are rapidly coalescing. I encourage you to do the same, instead of passively waiting for someone to "bring" you into active participation in the GE.

            remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

            by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How many Democratic nominees has Obama campaigned (0+ / 0-)

              hard for in his history? Maybe one? How about Hillary?  Everyone since 1972.  If you're cynical, it's because you refuse to be intellectually honest about Hillary Clinton.  As Bill Maher often says, Hillary hate is all about you, not her.

              Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

              by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:10:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  the sense of cyncism i'm using here (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alizard, smkngman

                is based on or reflecting a belief that human conduct is motivated primarily by self-interest. considering how clinton ran her campaign and how not only Obama supporters but the world in general perceived her motives, i don't think that's an unfounded sentiment.

                and do not accuse me of being intellectually dishonest when you took a very reasonable, calm post as some sort of "Hillary hate" while also completely glossing over any sense of responsibility for your own role in reconciliation. it's precisely this type of gross mischaracterization of any criticism or distrust of HRC as hatred that fuels the supposedly "combative" posts to which you take offense.

                remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

                by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My responsibility is to say that I'll vote (0+ / 0-)

                  for the nominee and support the party, which I have done (and so has Hillary by the way).  The winner's responsibility is to demonstrate that he has the leadership skills to unite the party and win the election.  

                  As for the way Hillary ran her campaign, it wasn't more negative than Obama's campaign.  We could go on all day about that stuff, but I'm not interested in that debate.  What I am interest in is making sure that Obama doesn't screw it up.

                  Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

                  by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i encourage you, in general, to step back (0+ / 0-)

                    and read posts without projecting what you assume Obama supporters are saying into them.

                    for instance, i'd like to point out, that your "making sure that Obama doesn't screw it up" is cynicism, too. that's fine. you're entitled. but i didn't imply you were motivated by "Obama hate" as you did me with "Hillary hate." as for the levels of negativity in the campaigns, i never actually said her's was more negative, you just assumed that.

                    remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

                    by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Clinton supporters haven't thrown as much (0+ / 0-)

                      nearly as much anti-Obama invective as has come from Obama supporters against Hillary. That's why Obama supporters get labeled as haters. We don't hate Obama.  We like him very much.  

                      We want him to win and are more nervous about it than you are. We don't think his general election strategy is that good, and we want to know how is he going to reach out to the swing voter groups that he lost during these primaries.  

                      Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

                      by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:56:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  I think that's being dishonest. (5+ / 0-)

            The task of unifying now falls to the winner.

            Of course, the diarist tries to tell us what she watnts to unify, and all she can do is complain about "Obama supporters", not Obama.

            So either it's not about what "the winner" does at all.  

            So I can see why you dump the task of unity on Obama...it's so you can absolve your own snippy insults from a position of "I'm only doing this because the winner failed to unite me".   It's quite dishonest...amoral, really, because it pretends as if you're not responsible for your own actions.

            This is the moment. This is the time.

            by Inland on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever dude. (0+ / 0-)

              We're trying to get Obama supporters to listen to the big picture of the challenge of winning a general election.  You all can't get over the fact that 18 million people voted for Hillary because they love her.  If you want to win, you have to win in the demos that voted for her.  So why not put her on the ticket to show that you mean it?  

              Hillary helped Obama at AIPAC yesterday.  She could help him with Latinos, the elderly, and truck drivers.  We're telling you not to look a gift horse in the mouth.  We're telling you not to fuck it up, because we know damn well that if Hillary had been the nominee, she would not fuck it up.

              Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

              by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:16:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  quit toting the "18 million" meme, as if all (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, alizard, smkngman, Alohilani

                those people are "core" democrats. or that they all "love" her. i'm not saying a lot of people don't love hillary they do. but to make such a gross generalization about millions of people's motives is disingenuous and (to use a phrase you used on me) a refusal to be intellectually honest about voters. the vast majority of her voters will rapidly swing to Obama. it's already happening.

                and just because you think her to be qualified for president does NOT mean she's the best qualified to be Obama's VP. sure, it may help pick up some of her voters, but it would drive away large segments of his own. there are other candidates who can help pick up her demographics who better fit with Obama's agenda.

                putting Clinton on the ticket (besides looking like a pander on Obama's part) would put him between a rock and a hard place. if you haven't noticed, McCain is already quoting verbatim the criticisms Hillary herself used against Obama. how can she run as his VP if the entire time the Republicans are using her own comment and talking points and pointing to his campaign and going "see, see! your own VP thinks you're unqualified!" and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

                and nor is putting her on the ticket the most efficient way to rally her supporters behind the nominee. i think if she throws her full support behind Obama they'll follow suit. maybe not quite all but a VAST majority. i think she's completely capable of it.

                but you can't dismiss the sense of doubt or distrust that she will, or tell Obama supporters not to feel that way, or that feeling that way is intellectually dishonest. you will not make anyone sympathetic to your points.

                remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

                by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  "She conceded less than 48 hours afterwards" (9+ / 0-)

        uh, no she didn't.

        Can you feel the McPAIN?

        by Green Bean on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:50:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, mint julep, cybrestrike, Alohilani

          She has yet to concede. Or suspend. Most signs point to her doing so this weekend. Yet even her newest letter to her supporters doesn't she doesn't indicate her intent to do either on Saturday, even though that's how the MSM is framing it.

          She says this:

          On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy.

          and this:

          I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

          but that's not the same thing.

          remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

          by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Your candidate has some shortcomings, and they (9+ / 0-)

        are glaring when you consider the strategy of the Obama campaign.  Mostly, it is hard to run with someone who has spent the last 6 months telling the world how unqualified you are.  Also, Hillary would have to disclose all the things (library, foundation, etc.) that she was not willing to do in the primary to be properly vetted.

        It's not that she isn't a strong candidate, she is, but it is the "only Hillary can win" meme which pisses us off and results in the type of tit for tat that the diarist is tired of.

        If Obama thinks Hillary can help, he will ask her.  If not, he won't, and the world will actually keep spinning even if Hillary isn't there to turn the crank.

      •  She conceded? (0+ / 0-)

        within 48hrs?

        I have YET to hear her do so.

        "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."T.J.

        by smkngman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We can't change the nomination (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shaviv

      and we can't change the nominee.

      All we CAN do is make a decision... do we vote for him, vote for McCain or find a less obvious choice.

      How did I live without him?

      by Pumpkinlove on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  She was not ungracious (0+ / 0-)

      She was not ungracious. She gave a speech for her supporters. Please wait until her speech on Saturday to start frothing at the mouth.

  •  Hello there (10+ / 0-)

    I am a strong Obama supporter,but I aggree that people need to STOP the anti-Hillary BULLSHIT. I can't claim to love Hillary, but she is not Satan either.

    I have heard that HRC wants either (1) to be the VP or (2) at least there not be another woman on the ticket other than HRC. Personally, I think this is .. well i want to say sexist but as a man I will just limit it to bizzare..

    Would you feel insulted if Barack Picked Sebelius for the ticket (I love the idea myself)?

  •  The difference is Carter and Gore... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eugene, askew, ganymeade, pat208, Alohilani

    ...were sitting national office holders: president and VP, respectively. Hillary had no "rank" on Obama.

    •  look at what Jesse Jackson did in 88 (0+ / 0-)

      he tried to veto Dukakis' VP pick

      •  But it didn't work, did it? n/t (0+ / 0-)

        You bet your ass I'm bitter. And, yes, middle-america 'values' voters, you *have* been duped. Obama's right. And I'm bitter as hell.

        by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  And, honestly (0+ / 0-)

        I don't mind at all HRC offering up an opinion, to Obama, about his VP pick. As long as the choice is ultimately Obama's, and it's not her.

        What pisses me off (*if* it is true, and I emphasize that, because we don't know) is the rumor that HRC is insisting that, if he doesn't pick her, not to pick another woman. That would be petty in the extreme--again, if it's true.

        You bet your ass I'm bitter. And, yes, middle-america 'values' voters, you *have* been duped. Obama's right. And I'm bitter as hell.

        by ChurchofBruce on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't think this is true (14+ / 0-)

    Hillary is expected to slink away and never be heard from again for her unacceptable behavior

    I can only speak for myself, though I don't think I'm alone out here, but I would like to see Hillary act as a leader in this party.

    There have been hurt feelings, and exaggerations, and willful misunderstandings on both side of this primary battle.

    I hope you'll join Clinton in supporting Obama's candidacy.  You do matter.  We ALL do.

    •  No one ever said they expect her to slink (5+ / 0-)

      away never to be heard from again. But at the same time, she took what was supposed to be OBAMA'S moment, and turned it into "hillary's moment"

      THAT'S what pissed me off. I'm all set to forgive (but not forget) on Saturday after she endorses Barack, but a little more grace from her end would have been more than welcome.

      Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

      by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:21:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  expecting her to be gracious (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, tbounnak, Vita Brevis

        is not the same as expecting her to "slink away" (I think we agree on that)

        I wasn't thrilled with her speech on Tuesday night, but I'm ready to accept her at her word that she will fully support Obama.  And that support means something.

      •  Well No Offense But That's Completley Untrue (6+ / 0-)

        I've been reading diaries and comments for months here saying it was time for her to "Crawl back into her hole" or get tossed into the "Dustbin of history."

        Literally THOUSANDS of people have said they want her to slink away and never be heard from again.

        But the difference is those people are not Barack Obama.  Barack Obama is our nominee and has said that he expects her to be a critical component in many of the ventures he undertakes as our nominee and--through hard work--our President.

        ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

        by TooFolkGR on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I'll qualify, (2+ / 0-)

          I never said that.

          Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

          by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:26:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am pretty sure I did (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            smkngman, barkworsethanbite, lolynda

            I started out pretty neutral since neither was my first choice. As the campaigns went on, the more the contrast became obvious.

            I am not going to trust her to put the interest of the republic or the Democratic party above her own ego and scary math skillz ever again.

            Hillary supporters over and over stress that they want respect that is unearned and would not be accorded to any other candidate that had done the same things.

            Make nice if you like but I have no use for those don't even recognize the race card when they are holding a handful.

            The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa

            by NCrefugee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:42:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  "literally thousands" out of millions. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TooFolkGR, Muzikal203

          and you're right, it wasn't Obama.

          •  What I Mean Is... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            twirling towards freedom

            ...people are constantly pretending someone is "wrong" to be upset with a candidate over the views or the actions of supporters and yet EVERYBODY does it.

            I remember after the RBC meeting there were dozens of diaries here about the atrocious behavior of a few "Hillary Supporters" outside, many of them along the lines of, "Well that's Hillary For You," or "They're just taking their cues from her," etc.

            "Association" (and sadly its ugly twin Guilt by Association) is human nature.  That's why Obama's campaign urged his supporters not to protest at that same event.  That's why no candidate (or at least no non-openly racist candidate) cashes checks from the Ku Klux Klan.  The diarist is going to be told that he or she is "wrong" to have feelings about Obama based on the actions of his supporters, but that's crap.  It's not "wrong," it's just human.  But because we understand it's part of being human, we have to be able to look past it.

            Not trying to be preachy at you either, just expounding on what I was saying.  :)

            ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

            by TooFolkGR on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:33:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  mutual admiration society ;) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TooFolkGR

              ...preaching to the choir, I guess.

              I don't think the diarist is wrong to be upset by the actions of "Obama supporters" who said terrible things about HRC or about her supporters.  I just get annoyed at generalizations, even when I'm guilty of using them myself, sometimes.

      •  excuse me (0+ / 0-)

        No one ever said they expect her to slink away never to be heard from again.

        but I have read countless versions of this demand here on DKos.  Every single day.  People want her to drop off the face of the earth, go to a remote South American country, vanish into Chappaqua, get primaried and leave the Senate, and just plain remove herself from public view.  While I may have some quarrels with this diarist, it galls me that kossacks never take responsibility for the nasty things they say, but always claim "no one" says that.  Ditto: no one says Hillary supporters are racist.  Yes, they do: it's been a constant, daily refrain here on DKos.

        •  answering polemical generalizations with more (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          twirling towards freedom

          generalizations will not help your point, nor do they convince anyone to move forward. and often the kossacks not taking responsibility are those of us who don't say those things. as humans, we should know by now that words said in anger and frustration and emotion are not true representations of what we actually think is true or will happen. see my post below (starts with 'i've been called a misogynist plenty of times)'

          remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

          by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:41:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  can't find the post you suggest I read, but (0+ / 0-)

            when you say

            as humans, we should know by now that words said in anger and frustration and emotion are not true representations of what we actually think is true or will happen.

            I agree with this point.  However, I find that negative comments that anti-Hillary posters say in anger and frustration and emotion are forgiven as such, while comments made by pro-Hillary posters say do not get the same treatment.  Human nature, I guess.  After I encounter this double standard too many times in a single session here I DKos, I tend to reply with some heat.

            As to generalizations, the problem is that I can't stand having to read the toxic stuff again to provide links.

            •  and i could say the reverse about the double (0+ / 0-)

              standard. just because it's your (or my) opinion does not make it fact or even reality. human nature also makes us take a few small incidences we observed and expand them into all encompassing generalizations or assertions in an attempt to find legitimacy in our arguments. what i've noticed is that the two camps are merging quickly and with very little animosity in the great scheme of things.

              and you can always find my post by clicking on my user name and then selecting my comments tab. it's probably far easier to find it there than scrolling through the thread.

              remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

              by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:04:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I tried this... (0+ / 0-)

                you can always find my post by clicking on my user name and then selecting my comments tab.

                but it didn't work.  As to this:

                a few small incidences

                I never write replies until the weight of those incidences move waaaay past the "few" mark.  And perhaps the reason it seems so unbalanced around here is because it is overwhelmingly a pro-Obama, anti-Hillary site.  Just check out brownsox's perfectly reasonable front page post, and read the bile that oozes from the comments.  Far from a "few."  But I rest my case; I know you must be right.  At least you are reasonable in your writing style.

      •  She took nothing from Obama's moment (0+ / 0-)

        What was she supposed to do? I don't understand this 'stole Obama's moment' meme. She gave a speech for her supporters. Why did Obama have to claim victory just then anyway?

    •  i don't trust Hillary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smkngman, lolynda

      I don't trust this woman candidate story. Give me a woman candidate who stands on her record, her integrity, charisma, honesty and intelligence, and does NOT need her husband's career as a prop, and I'll vote for her in a second. But this first Woman candidate story doesn't ring true. The candidate's gender as a symbolic victory is not more important than picking the best candidate. Do women feel that there is a qualitative difference between women leaders? or is one the same as the next?

      Can you feel the McPAIN?

      by Green Bean on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This isn't likely to get you where you want to be (5+ / 0-)

    That said, I have no interest in vilifying either you or your candidate of choice.  

    The anger on both sides will subside, and together we'll be able to defeat McCain in the fall.

  •  (sigh) (12+ / 0-)

    I keep reading, Obama supporters, pundits and what they have to do. How did you pick your candidate? By listening to Hillary supporters or reading things from Hillary supporters? NO! You listened to Hillary and you liked her policy positions. I will not say that all Hillary supporters aren't racist because obviously some are. Let's get real here. Focus on the candidate. Please, FOCUS ON THE CANDIDATE. Obama has been more than gracious.

    •  i've repeatedly been called (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pumpkinlove

      a racist on this blog whenever I've criticized Obama

      it was way out of control

      and Obama/Hagel?  yikes, I hope not

      •  I don't think you are a racist chick ghandil (0+ / 0-)

        And I have usually appreciated what you have written here. Can't say that for everyone

        (From one strong Obama supporter)

      •  i've been called a misogynist plenty of times (4+ / 0-)

        by Hillary supporters on her blogs, and though I do believe HRC herself fueled some of that because of how she ran her campaign, I separate the candidate from the supporters. And I can separate her mean and combative supporters from the vast majority of her supporters. And I'm not asking her supporters to do x, y, z before I graciously accept her in whatever position Obama gives her (and I do think he'll utilize her wisely and befitting of her strengths).

        I take deep offense at the tactics Hillary and her surrogates employed over this campaign, and like many, will forgive but not forget. But I do not take deep offense at the spoutings of her supporters, because I know this mostly emotionally charged polemics that is already rapidly dissipating. It would be nice if HRC supporters could let go and give Obama supporters the same benefit of the doubt that we're just human and at times went a little overboard.

        remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

        by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Mostly reasonable. (11+ / 0-)

    I'm not going to not call a Hillary supporter a racist just because he or she is a Hillary supporter. Likewise I'm not going to say they're not. Larry Johnson and his merry men are certainly Hillary supporters, and certainly racists. My opinion is that racism didn't help Hillary any more than misogyny helped Obama, and focusing on either doesn't help anything.

    I don't know who's saying 50-year-old white women aren't relevant. I certainly am not. They're part of the Democratic base. I'm just saying let's not pretend that they're the whole Democratic base.

    I would like people to start looking at context and trying to figure out what people are trying to say. I still don't know what Hillary was getting at with the RFK remark, but it sounded bad.

    I'd also like to see a woman in the VP slot. Kathleen Sebelius, specifically.

    And the main reason that the Hillary campaign rubbed us the wrong way is that the future of the Republic literally hangs in the balance in this election, and she went awfully negative when there was little chance of her winning. Anything that helps McCain is to be resisted.

  •  Would love Sebelius or McCaskill as VP. (6+ / 0-)

    My ideal VP pick would be Nancy Pelosi, but she would (and should) not leave the Speaker of the House to be Vice President.  But I'd love to see either Kathleen Sebelius or Claire McCaskill on the ticket.

    As to Hillary Clinton as VP, I don't think that would be a good match for Barack Obama.  First, it would seem to undermine the forward-looking themes of his campaign.  Second, it would be unfair to either Bill Clinton, who has legitimate post-political, private-citizen interests in his library and charitable foundation ... or to Barack Obama, for whom President Clinton's interests would surely be painted as "unsavory financial dealings."  They are not "unsavory" for a private citizen, but they would be for the husband of the Vice President.  He ought not to have to give them up, and Barack Obama ought not to be compromised by them, so better that Obama find another role for Senator Clinton.

    I'm impressed that you're willing to consider some other woman as VP.  Many Clinton supporters have said or implied that would be a slight to her, but I don't think it would be.  There are legitimate reasons for Obama and Clinton to agree that she ought not to be his running mate, and for him to choose some other woman.  I hope he will.

    Thanks for your diary.

    •  I LOVE Claire McCaskill! (6+ / 0-)

      She's probably, quite honestly, my favorite Obama surrogate. Everytime I saw her she was ON POINT.

      Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

      by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:23:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I phone-banked for her in 2006 (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, Muzikal203

        She's an exceptional woman, and I agree that she's been one of Obama's premier surrogates.  She speaks clearly, passionately, but with the kind of warmth that we'd love to see in Obama's running mate ... the warmth that says "We may disagree but we can talk and reason together and find a good solution."

        My two qualm with her as a running mate is that she's SO new to the national political stage, and that we'd lose a Democrat in the Senate.  But if Barack Obama chooses her, I'll set those aside and be elated, because she is one very special woman.

    •  Thumbs up for Sebelius. nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike

      "Conservative principles" are marketing props used by the Conservative Movement to achieve political power, not actual beliefs. -Glenn Greenwald

      by latts on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:49:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's like this (21+ / 0-)

    I hate Mac users with a passion. I find them elitist, spoiled, superficial, arrogant, and generally less savvy than me when it comes to computers. Still, the last time I was in the market for a laptop, I bought a Mac because it met all my requirements, and I love it, and I'm starting to become arrogant and elitist about it.

    Personally, I think Hillary has lost a screw, and there are a half dozen women I'd rather see become president than her. But what do I know?

    Fortunately, you're not voting for me or any of Obama's other supporters.

  •  Thanks For Posting (19+ / 0-)

    First let me say that I have always respected Hillary Clinton and continue to, though I have not been her "supporter" through this election.  I just want you to know this is coming from someone who isn't talking smack though.

    First of all, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 are not about our nominee--Barack Obama.  They are about his "supporters."  And not even ALL or MOST of his supporters.  Rather a very small (but very bellicose) subset of his supporters who dominate this and some other websites.

    Truthfully?  I want those people to stop doing the things you say too.  But acknowledge that neither Barack Obama (or even me) has the power to make them do that.  And acknowledge that the things they have said (and continue to say) are not what he's about, and not about what his campaign is about.

    There are people who will tell you you don't have any business being upset by things "Obama Supporters" do.  That's wrong.  You're allowed to be upset about whatever you want.  There are people who telling you you'd be foolish to take the actions of a few jerks out in the form of your vote.  Depending on what your priorities are, they may be right.  Ultimately though it's up to you to decide what criteria you use to base on.  

    If you're a passionate supporter of Hillary Clinton though (and it sounds like you are) then I have a pretty good idea of where you'll be in November, because I know where she'll be:  Working her butt off to get Democrats (including Obama) elected - because this is the party that cares about the things she cares about.

    As for the VP bit... this is my take on it.

    I would like to see a woman VP too... but that's not the same as me saying Obama "should" or "must" pick one.  Here's why:

    I believe that Barack Obama has good judgement, and I believe he will select the person he thinks "Best for the Job" in EVERY appointment.  Male, Female, Black, White, etc.  And because of this--because I KNOW he will not discriminate--I don't feel the need to encourage any "Affirmative Action" selections in any one position.

    And that's not me saying selecting a woman for VP would be an affirmative action hire, but it would be viewed that way if he were under enormous pressure and then did so.

    You're here, and you're talking.  While we're doing that, Unity is within our grasp.

    Thanks for sharing your feelings and I look forward to Senators Clinton and Obama coming together just as we will come together in the weeks and months ahead.

    ---- now they sit and rattle their bones and think of their bloodstone days...

    by TooFolkGR on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM PDT

  •  Please don't confuse Obama with his supporteres (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Altoid77, NuttyProf, NCrissieB

    and the media. On blogs, people will say things they would never say in person.  As an Obama supporter who has been called some unpleasant things by Hillary supporters, I understand how you feel about that.

    All I would ask you is that you look at Obama objectively now that the primaries are over. Look at what he stands for, what he wants to accomplish and I think you will find more that you like than don't. I am a 43 year old woman, and if I didn't think he would be good for the country, I wouldn't be able to support him. I can understand wanting to see a woman in office, and I think Hillary has opened that door even though she didn't win. She has made it possible for people  to believe it can happen.

    "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:58 AM PDT

  •  Here you go... (10+ / 0-)
    1.  I don't think you're a racist; and I dare say neither does Barack Obama, his campaign or his supporters.  I do, however, think that some Clinton supporters (as well as Obama supporters, and certainly McCain supporters) are racist, and I think we should be free to discuss the race card when it is played.
    1.  Of course you're relevant, and whomever told you otherwise is an idiot.  
    1.  OK, we'll stop taking everything Hillary said as an attack.  But do you honestly think that the GOP machine and corporate media will not?
    1.  Would you want to see a woman in the VP slot even if it means we lose the general election?  Because, in my opinion, with Hillary we would.  If there is a woman with defense and foreign policy experience that complements Barack against McCain's perceived strength in that area, then by all means, bring her on!
    1.  Maybe many of us hold Hillary to a higher standard because we once worshipped her as a hero.  Consider that.  Unfair?  Maybe.  But honest.  

    I hope that we can fight together on the same team again in the near future.

    Stop McCain and the GOP. Support Barack Obama and the DNC.

    by DaveV on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:23:04 AM PDT

  •  With due respect, and you are due it. (23+ / 0-)

    It was your candidate who dished the dirt and started the insults.

    Every time.

    "You never take responsibility for any of your votes."  In the S.Carolina debate, in his face, literraly.  

    "I have foreign policy experience, Senator McCain has foreign policy experience, and Mr. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

    Do I need to continue?

    Mr. Obama never said anything like that at any level about Ms. Clinton.  Never.

    Insults, attacks, "The Kitchen Sink" (her term not mine) at Obama and now she demands respect he has already been paying to her which she only now is beginning to reciprocate.

    How clueless is the Clinton campaign?  June 3  "This is her night."

    My problem is not with you or her supporters, it is with your candidate.  

    (And p.s. no one has ever defended what Kennedy did in 1980, certainly no one with the Obama campaign.  In fact that is precisely the example cited as to why she should not behave as she has.)

    As for abortion rights the US now has a binary choice.  Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama will make 2 to 4 appointments to a S.C. that has a one vote margin.  I can do that math, I assume HRC supporters can as well.

    It was people in her own campaign that criticized her speech in public and created the "intervention" for lack of a better term, yesterday to get her to do the right thing.

    Not Kossacks, not Obama, her own campaign staff.

    As for a woman in the VP spot that's Mr. Obama's call not yours or anyone else's.  If it's Rachel Maddow no one will be happier than I.  If it could be Barbara Jordan, it would be a dream ticket, but of course, that is not possible.

    Hillary could have run a very different campaign and the response to her would have been very different.

    She could have behaved very differently on Tuesday night and the response would have been very different.  

    It is Ms. Clinton who has permanently changed my opinion of her, and there are many like me.

    "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order."

    by 7November on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:25:35 AM PDT

  •  Fair enough. (19+ / 0-)

    Stop calling you racists? Seems fair. If those who are using that word do stop, will your side stop calling us misogynists? Dreamers? Kool-Aid drinkers?

    Decide if you're relevant? As a 45-year-old white woman, I've missed the thread of this argument. What I can say from the sidelines is, your relevance will be directly dependent upon your decision to vote or not. Vote? Your vote counts. Don't? You've made yourself irrelevant.

    Taking Hillary out of context? Here, I have to engage in solid push-back. You and your fellow HRC supporters and she and semantics professors can argue until you're blue in the face. Hillary's remarks were appalling, uncalled for and the vast majority of people who heard them agree. The context wasn't fuzzy. As it wasn't when she repeated her claims of sniper fire.

    Woman in the White House? I couldn't agree more. When this race started a rough millenium ago, I told my eight-year-old daughter that, while I supported Obama, I would weep like a baby were Hillary to be sworn in. My sentiments changed -- but not about a woman being sworn in. About HILLARY being sworn in. I want a woman elected, but I want to be able to respect my president, and Hillary has eroded both my respect and my trust in the months since Iowa.

    Hillary needs to be treated as any other candidate? I invite you to revisit coverage of Gore's candidacy. Kerry's candidacy. Review the coverage pattern, and tell me again with a straight face that she's really drawing a shorter straw than anybody else.

    Her credibility has been questioned when she's pushed the boundaries of credulity. Her motives have been questioned when she played the race card. Her finances have been questioned when her bills have gone unpaid. Her war stories have been questioned when she's been caught in bold-faced lies.

    You want to be treated with respect as a supporter of Hillary Clinton. Fair enough. Respect is earned. Honestly address the issues and pattern of behavior cited above and you'll earn my respect.

    "Oh, TV. Is there anything you can't do?" -- Homer Simpson

    by Melody Townsel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the honest (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, Altoid77, NCrissieB, lolynda

    and clear response.  I would agree that there have been over the top comments by some Obama supporters and would assume that you would also accept that some Clinton supporters have also gone over the top.  

    That having been said, we all want to end the GOP neo-con domination of foreign policy, the  religious right's influence over social policy and the absolute lack of any economic policy evidenced by the Bush McCain republicans.  We all need to relax, take a breath and look at the big picture.  

    We will need you and all of the other Clinton supporters to move this nation in the correct direction.  just as you say that it will take Hillary some time to let all that has happened sink in - I think that is true for her supporters and for Obama supporters.  

    As far your desire to see a woman on the ticket - I think it would be a great idea.  Also, please understand that while I do not think HRC should be that woman - my reasons do not arise from hate for her or her supporters.  Honestly if I thought she could help, I would be fine with her as VP.  My reasons not to select her arise from a fear that much of the baggage she does bring - will prove to be a distraction to the Fall campaign and would therefore be harmful to our efforts.  However, I and I hope that you as well, will leave that calculation to Obama himself.  I will support whoever he chooses.

    Non, je ne regrette rien

    by alexnovo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM PDT

  •  The vast (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TooFolkGR, NCrissieB, lolynda

    majority of Obama supporters did not call HRC supporters names...period. For those that did or continue to...stop it!!
    Now, exit polls indicate that in West Va. and Ky. a significant percentage of voters said race was a factor and they overwhelmingly went for Hillary. That is empiral evidence of racism but there was also sexism in some voting I am sure. But overall, I have no problem conceding that the vast majority of Hillary voters were voting for her,not against Obama.

    You have some legit gripes..no doubt. But it is time to bury the hatchet on both sides and I agree all name-calling should cease immediately.
    As for the VP pick...I trust Obama will do what is best for his ticket and if it is Hillary..no problem. If it is Sebelius, no problem. If not a woman..no problem.  Winning in November is the only thing at this point. Thanks for your thoughts.
    Keep an open mind on Obama. He is far classier than some of his supporters, just like HRC.

  •  I understand (7+ / 0-)

    As an African American male, over 60 years old, I accept your comments and feelings.  I don't agree with all of them, but I grant you the right to your opinion.  I don't believe that Hillary's supporters are all racists.  Some may be, but I believe the vast majority are not.  

    I would ask that you think about the impact on Roe vs Wade if McCain is elected and makes several appointments to the Supreme Court.

    I have no problem with a female VP.  However, Senators Obama and Clinton may not be compatible.  There are numerous other female VP candidates that Obama might select, but from what I've heard, Clinton supporters would take this as a slap in the face.  I hope that is not the case, because I think that McCain may select a woman as his VP in an effort to appeal to Clinton supporters.  

    Lastly, I would ask that you judge Senator Obama and Senator McCain based on their positions and decide which candidate has positions that are most in line with yours.

  •  I would like you (7+ / 0-)

    To support the Democratic candidate.

    This election isn't about you. It's not about me. It's not about Hillary. It's not about Obama.

    It's about taking back this country.

    If you cannot - will not - see that, if you prefer to throw away the presidency in a fit of pique, then that is your problem. You need to see beyond the candidate and the campaign. See the bigger picture. See that like it or not, Obama is the nominee and if you don't support him, you're supporting McCain.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
    Neither is California High Speed Rail

    by eugene on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM PDT

  •  Obama supporter here (4+ / 0-)

    Most of what you want here comes from Obama supporters and not the campaign itself, so I will respond to that.
    Note that similarly to you, I can only speak for myself here.

    1.  Done.  I have never called Clinton supporters racist.  I also made a candidate choice for reasons that had nothing to do with race or gender.  I've put effort into convincing other supporters to drop the racism charges against Clinton.
    1.  I agree that you are as relevant as any voter.
    1.  I doubt Democratic candidate supporters will have too much to disagree about in candidate statements from here on out, as we are now running a GE and not a primary.
    1.  I understand what you are asking for but I'm not sure that this is the best way to get a female pres.  Someone else may want to look this up but I'm not convinced that VPs are the strongest presidential candidate.  Many felt that Gore was handicapped by being a Clinton VP when he ran in 2000.  There's talk that Obama might choose a party elder rather than a successor as a VP, and I think that this would be a good strategic choice.  This opens the possibility of having a fresh and exciting candidate in 8 years.  There's lots of women in national politics who could fit the bill in 2016.
    1.  These examples refer to elections that we lost.  I really want to win in november!
  •  Hillary (0+ / 0-)

    I to am interested in that what you ask is of Obama supporters not the candidate himself.

    As to your point about RFK, I believe she misspoke. It was a mistake and having you try to justify it by using   "fixed points in history" is flipping to the other side of the coin. Both candidates have misspoke and I believe given the amount of speechmaking and talking they do it is amazing that more of this doesn't happen.

    As for the "woman" issue, as an American, I don't care that Hillary is a women any more than I care that Obama is black.  I do care about having a leader that can inspire people and cares about the policies I do. I fail to understand the gender issue.

    I say this as the father of two daughters, one of whom came home from college this summer with an excitement about our country that I have never witnessed before. She is supporting Obama.

  •  If you "chose on qualifications" for president... (5+ / 0-)

    ...why are you choosing on gender for veep?

    •  Yeah, cause the last time we chose a VP (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smkngman

      simply because she had a vagina, it worked out so great.

      Happy Barack Obama Day To You!!! WE DID IT!!!

      by Muzikal203 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I answered (0+ / 0-)

      than in my original posting.  It is personal based on age and the joy I would have in voting for a woman presidential candidate during a general election.  And I can only see that happening by a woman being on the ticket this time.  I did not say I wouldn't vote for Obama if he chooses a male VP but just what I want to see.

      Live Long and Liberal

      by liberal vicki on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well said (3+ / 0-)

    "But I would like to see any other qualified woman in the slot."

    This quote shows that you are far more open-minded than many of HRC's supporters and for that I thank you. The amount of supporters who refuse to vote for any ticket without HER specifically on it boggles my mind and pisses me off to the nth degree because it's ignorance, plain and simple. Your letter here suggests that you are sensible yet still attached to Hillary, which is understandable. Give us O supporters time to understand and work with you and we will give you the same respect and I truly believe we can accomplish greatness. Please help spread the word to other Hillary supporters. We are not eachothers enemy....until we start to act like it.

    President Barack Obama 08

    My tolerance level for bullshit has reached an all time LOW. So spare me.

    by RemarkablyChanel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Not sure... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NuttyProf

    Where the idea came from that every one wasn't welcome. But if you have felt you were not, that's all that matters.

    So on that note - welcome to the party. Welcome to a Democrat taking back the White House. Welcome to the people taking back their government.

    In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof.

    by jsfox on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:29:52 AM PDT

  •  I would like to remind you that... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alexnovo

    Both Carter and Gore lost!

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrefugee, Darmok

      You are absolutely correct.  Yes candidates (in both parties) continued a campaign beyond the point when it was clear they would not win the nomination.  Reagan in '76 and Kennedy in '80, come to mind.  Each time they did - they hurt the party and the nation.  I don't want to see again.  I was one of them before - in '80 I was just 18 and volunteered and worked hard for Kennedy against Carter.  I wanted him to take it to the convention which he did.  I rejoiced in his fight.  In november of that year, I refused to vote for Carter and voted for John Anderson.  After all of that I watched Reagan win - and had to live through 12 years of Reagan Bush.  I made a mistake-  I don't want to see another one.

      Non, je ne regrette rien

      by alexnovo on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't feel bad, I voted for Reagan! (n/t) (0+ / 0-)
      •  Exactly, v2.0 (0+ / 0-)

        I was on the other side of the primary in 1980 (pushing for Carter) and also participating in my first presidential election (I was 19).  I will always remember getting into an argument with a passionate Kennedy supporter in our dorm common room after the convention, and was so frustrated to hear that he was going to sit out rather than vote for Carter.  I would have gladly traded being right in that discussion if it would have avoided 12 long years of Reagan/Bush.  AIDS? Couldn't discuss it.  Ketchup? It's a vegetable!  Trees?  Cut em down because they pollute!  Liberals?  Evil people that want the commies raping your wives and daughters!

        So, bravo for making the point that we should learn from history and not repeat the same kind of short-sightedness this time around.

        The idea that "well, Kennedy was an ass so Hillary should be entitled to do the same" is one of the more ridiculous statements in a season of ridiculous statements from the Hillary camp.

  •  I am going to say this short and simple. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, sable, Muzikal203, Altoid77

    The VP call is Mr. Obama's.

    Attempts by Clinton, her campaign, or her supporters to dictate his choice is counter productive and will degrade the chance for the party to take back the White House.

    I want a VP who can be president if necessary, will contribute to the effort to take back the White House and I don't care if the VP is a yellow dog if it meets those criteria.

    "We will now proceed to construct the socialist order."

    by 7November on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:30:38 AM PDT

  •  It's a nice diary (6+ / 0-)

    I have never seen Hillary Supporters as a whole referred to as "racists."  It's not accurate.  There are definitely some, or some willing to play the race card, even within her inner circle.  And there are definitely pro-Hillary sites that attract such people - and are even run by them.  But that doesn't mean that all of them are, and I have never, ever seen anyone state that.

    If this is a request to not refer to racists who have or continue to support Hillary, well - it will probably happen as they start supporting their new candidate, whomever that may be...  but if it's to use the spin that because you aren't racist, no Hillary supporters are or were racist, sorry.

    I'm kind of laughing about point two, since the only decisions about relevance or irrelevance were pretty much made by one campaign...  

    Hillary made some stunning faux pas - whether intended as attacks or not - they were interpreted that way.  Not just by Obama Supporters - also by Traditional Media.  You will have as much luck changing opinions or demanding people stop expressing their honest opinions as you will in shutting down Traditional Media.  I suggest you reconsider point three.

    I'd like to see a woman in the VP slot too, but not Hillary.  That would bring everything Republicans love to fight into the Dem ticket.  But if it's not a woman, it will be the best choice available.

    I expected Hillary to 1) not lie and 2) be professional.  I expected no more, and no less.  I expect it of any presidential candidate.  She... did, and wasn't.  

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:30:38 AM PDT

  •  I'm talking bout the man in the mirror (5+ / 0-)

    My problem with our post is that you seem to be guilty of the same clouded vision of those you wish to confron. You want for Obama supporters to stop calling HRC supporters racist. You want recognition for a demographic.

    However, like the name calling Obama supporters you lump the groups together with a few passionate supporters who fail to wake up and smell the unity.

    There are always going to be assholes on here. I've been one of them on occasion. You can choose to be offended or you can take confort that majority of folks here are dedicated progressives who share your passion, ideals, and hope for a better world. I'm going to choose to be inspired and ignore the assholes.

  •  One by one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, sable, lolynda

    First, regarding the racism thing, the response of "racism" was in response to (1) clear race-baiting by Bill Clinton (recall, both he and Gore won SC, but he chose to mention Jesse Jackson) and Geraldine Ferraro, as well as a stupid "tit-for-tat" claim by HRC that Obama was being sexist. I cannot find one instance of Obama being sexist, though certainly there have been Obama supporters who have been (i.e., the "Bros before Hos" meme). Sexism and racism are touchy things and both sides have a valid point. On this one, we should just call it even....

    Second, regarding relevance, you cannot complain that you will take your ball and go home and then not recognize the role that would play in overturning Roe v. Wade, among other consequences. If you wanna play for progressive issues, don't throw a tantrum that goes against progressives. Act the way that you would want your grandchildren to act in public.

    Third, the Bobby Kennedy thing was just poor taste. EVERYONE in the MSM thought it was a bad move, not just Obama supporters. Think about it, to justify why she is staying in the race, she alluded that something horrific might happen to Obama. After all, that was one of the voiced justifications given to superdelegates (i.e., "this guy is not vetted. something else could pop up.")  To stay in the race simply because something bad might happen to the other party is just poor taste, don't you think?

    Finally, to the last point about a woman on the ticket, HRC has already complained that if she is not the VP nod, Obama had better not select another woman (such as Sebelius). Why would that be? Because (1) it would drive home the point that HRC was not appropriate for this election, and (2) it would lower her personal power. Once again, that is not for the party or her followers--it's for her.

    By staying in the race when it was mathematically improbable that she could win (unless something cataclysmic happened), she forced Obama to spend $70m against her and NOT McCain.

    I look forward to your replies.

  •  It's about ME ME ME with the supporters, as well (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, smkngman, nobody at all, Muzikal203

    as with the candidate, it appears... is there anything you could do for your country too?

  •  do NOT agree with #4 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, smkngman, sable, Altoid77

    and I AM a woman...if you say the color of skin does NOT matter, then why does gender?  You cannot have it both ways...

    What does it matter if the VP is a woman or man?

    Also, years in Washington does not equate with experience and judgement - so a President always has to be old to have experience...what the hell is experience anyways?

    How about experience to run a superb campaign and WIN

    You may not be a racist, but you are certainly tending towards gender bias here...

  •  You asked (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bablhous, mjd in florida, MA Voter

    and I will share my opinion.  I say this as a woman who is only a few years younger than you.  Yes, of course we need women of all ages to defeat McCain.  But at the same time we need to work past and push back against the peeling off of women or any other group into sub-groups.  That is what the Republicans do. Divide and conquer in order to win.  

    As for Hillary being treated differently, that is where I disagree. She chose to not lose graciously on Tuesday night.  Candidates are judged by how they win and how they lose.  That goes for whether you are female or male.  It showed very poor judgement on her part.  It was not the media, the DNC or anyone else that made that decision. She made that decision herself.

    "Patriotism is no more about signs or pins than religion is about reminding others how pious we think we are." -- Bob Schieffer

    by sable on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:35:32 AM PDT

  •  Relevant (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Voter

    You are relevant. And I believe that you are an informed, educated and a concerned citizen. I totally respect your support of Senator Clinton and look forward to your help in the fall in taking back this country from the criminals that are currently in charge.

  •  fair enough (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sable, NuttyProf, lolynda

    but...

    it is also important to understand how some of HRC's comments felt or were understood by those of us on the other side

    whether or not she meant it, the Bobby Kennedy analogy plays to our worst fear

    whatever she meant to accomplish, her Tuesday evening speech was combative and ungracious...it has been clear for some time that the math was against her, that only a transformation among the logic guiding superdelegates would allow HRC to win the nomination, and yet we are supposed to...accept...her behavior as shock and fatigue? whatever she meant to say, what we HEARD was a threat to delegitimize Obama's candidacy, to carry the fight to Denver, and to extort -- yes -- her way onto the ticket

    that's why we're pissed over here, some of us

    HRC needed to make a turn in that speech, to become a team player and not a candidate

    she really did, and the Ted Kennedy example is precisely why

    but she didn't, and it came across as one more declaration of war

    she, of all people, should understand the weight Obama carries, not simply as a candidate, but as a standardbearer for a minority population (and I know women are in the majority, but they're still in the minority as political leaders)

    Beware all ventures which require new clothes, and not a new wearer of clothes. -- Henry David Thoreau

    by Shocko from Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:36:57 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, this one really got me. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      smkngman, lolynda

      whether or not she meant it, the Bobby Kennedy analogy plays to our worst fear

      And it wasn't partisan, or strategic, or because I wanted to play "gotcha" with a quote from Hillary.

      It hit me in the gut, like a ton of bricks. It made me cry. And when she apologized to the Kennedy family, but not the Obama family, it made me angry.

      There are hurt feelings on both sides. I'm happy to acknowledge the pain that sexism caused in this campaign, if there is also an acknowledgement that racism is a great cause of pain also.

  •  RE: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Voter
    1. A very small percentage of Obama supporters do this.  The ones who do are asshats. I never thought all Clinton supporters were racist and still don't. Some are, just as some Obama supporters are sexist. But we're talking fringe groups of each candidate.
    1. See number one.  Of course you are welcome to get behind the nominee. You're a Democrat, right? Looking for his supporters to offer you reasons (especially, and I must stress this, online partisan supporters) to give you a reason to vote for him is simply misdirected.  Just as I would not expect Clinton's supporters to convince me of her worthiness, why on earth would you pay heed to a bunch of anonymous people to convince you?  That is a job for the candidate. Period.
    1. Sorry. But when pretty much everything that comes before is an attack, everything that comes after is perceived as one.  Clinton supporters did the same thing with Obama.  The sensitivity went both ways.

    Personally, I didn't think Clinton wanted harm to come to Obama, I took it as a cynical dog whistle to remind people what could happen to a charismatic young politician. I blame Mark Penn for it.

    1. Sorry. Not into identity politics so I can't relate. You do know Clinton's people have already warned him that he cannot chose another woman for VP, right? I think Governor Sibelius (sp?) would be an excellent choice for  VP. Hillary is out because Bill refuses to let anyone vet his financial ties.
    1. You mistake treating her differently with wanting to win.  Going to the convention has NEVER been a good option and the stakes for the country have NEVER been higher.  Bradley and Kennedy were not thought of highly for their actions.

    The main difference here is neither of the examples you cited ever said the opponent in the other party would be a better choice. Hillary has praised McCain.  The party needs time to walk that back.  As it is the RNC has already made an ad using her words.

    You can't use examples from history to compare to an election that has virtually nothing in common in the terms of tactics and the lines of party divisiveness.  It's the question of winning or losing and if Hillary followed the examples you cited we would be losing again. Learn from history. Don't repeat it.

    "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain

    by mentaldebris on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM PDT

  •  A great diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NuttyProf

    What we want more than anything is for Obama to win the general election.  

    We believe that putting Hillary on the ticket is the best way to achieve a huge victory, and a mandate for change.

    We don't have much confidence in Obama's general election strategy.  It is playing for a narrow victory which means either a narrow defeat, or a President without a mandate to deliver change.

    We don't need a narrow victory when with Hillary as VP we can have a massive one that shake the political system in a way that hasn't happened since 1964.  

    If Obama had won this race decisively, we wouldn't be talking about Hillary for VP.  He didn't win it until the last day.  In the last 3 months, she won more contests and earned more votes despite having less money, less support among the establishment, and crappy media coverage.  We think those strengths and Obama's weaknesses should not be ignored.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:26 AM PDT

    •  And? (0+ / 0-)

      If Obama does not pick - or offer - the VP to Hillary, then what?

      •  That's a good question. Because if the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Darmok

        assertion is that they want HRC on the ticket in order to make Obama win, then if he doesn't, the only alternative is to back him just as much if not more.

        But if the assertion about wanting Obama to win most of all is false, there's going to be some hemming or hawing, or as it has been in the past, a list of all the "problems" that the HRC fans see Obama having against McCain.

        This is the moment. This is the time.

        by Inland on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am not conditioning my vote on his VP pick (0+ / 0-)

        That wouldn't be fair to Obama.  I'm a loyal Democrat and have voted for every Democratic candidate on every ballot I've seen since I turned 18.

        Most Clinton supporters are party loyalists. Our view is that if he does not pick Hillary as VP  Obama will risk losing the election because he will not be as competitive in the key swing voter groups:  Latinos, working class whites and the elderly.  Swing voters have no loyalty to party.  They go with what they feel and whom they relate to.  

        These voters love Hillary and these groups are persuadables for McCain.  If she is on the ticket then McCain cannot reach his margins in these groups to have any hope of victory.  If Obama doesn't put her on the ticket, many of these swing voters will listen to Johnny Mac.  That could very well lead to a narrow result...a narrow victory or loss.  It's a risk that Obama doesn't have to take.  

        We're asking that Obama supporters to look at the numbers and the math to get to 270. We think that if you do that, you will realize that Hillary adds the most value to the team as VP nominee, and that will set the party up to dominate American politics for the next decade.

        I don't think a narrow victory will provide the change we require.  A massive victory will, and that requires putting the best team on the floor.  

        So far, we have been asked to essentially choose between Shaq in his prime and Kobe in his prime.  Well when the Lakers had both in their prime on the floor at the same time, they won 3 straight championships.  I want a period of dominance for our party.  I want both (and they both get along a lot better than Shaq/Kobe did).

        Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

        by khyber900 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:03:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This makes sense (0+ / 0-)

    and you should know that no one agrees with you on most of these points more than Barack Obama himself.  While bloggers are not always classy, and while bloggers often express themselves through hyperbole and attention-grabbing imagery, these bloggers are not the candidate.  He has been very respectful to Clinton and to her voters, even when she has been dismissive of him.

    I guess all we're really asking for is the same from her: a recognition that he won the contest, and that he won it fair and square.

    About a woman VP: that would be GREAT, but the selection process needs to play out in a way that considers multiple factors.

  •  ok here goes from 25ish black male obama supporte (0+ / 0-)
    1. I would like to have the Obama supporters stop calling the Hillary supporters racists. I chose my candidate based on experience, knowledge and capabilities.  I felt then and I still feel that Obama, though an intellegent, educated, articulate and capable man is too young and inexperienced at this time in his life to be president of the United States.  I would say so if he were white, pink or blue or even female.  With a couple of turns in a state legislature and only 2 years as a senator I don't see the knowledge and experience I want for my president.  That doesn't mean he won't be a good one.  But I looked at both candidates and made my choice.  That does not make me a racist. And I resent being called that because I did what I was told to do by my liberal upbringing and my liberal conscience--chose on qualifications not race.

    -i'm sure you don't display racial attitudes, nor do a majority of clinton supporters ... however you can't deny the effect that geraldine ferraro et al have on how a majority of yall are perceived ... as a black male one who has excelled in life being penned as an affirmative action hire or anything of that sort is HIGHLY offensive ... aside from the videos of people who say that race plays a factor ... and while this is a huge topic ... i'll be as concise as possible ... those that say 90% of black people are racist is very very offensive ... because it ignores the support clinton received before south carolina and the comments that came afterwards ... 1 last thing ... those that just simply calls us blacks as ... as blacks will support obama ... that's excluding the fact that we're black PEOPLE

    1.  I would like the Obama supporters to make up their minds and decide if I, as a over 50 white woman, am relevant to this election or not and then stick to that decision.  I have had the most extraordinary posts to my diaries.  In one sentence the poster screams that I am irrelevant and should go back to the dark ages and yet in the very next sentence, when I say I will not vote in the general election, it will be my fault if Obama loses (God forbide!) and I am personally responsible for back alley abortions coming back.  Which is it?  I can't be irrelevant and should just sit down and shut up and then also be responsible if your candidate loses.  So just make up your mind, do you want me in or not and then act accordingly.  You can't have it both ways.
    - it's on thing to be needed ... and it's another to be needed ... let me explain ... as a voter you are valuable ... we all are ... therefore you're needed as a voter ... you shouldn't go back to the dark ages ... what you chose to do with your life is your own choice and i wish you well ... however to be seen as a NEED is a different story ... it's the qb that holds the team hostage ... a good team is only as strong as the team ... not an individual player ... so while a team would like to have you ... a team doesn't NEED you ... superstars and lesser people have been benched and/or dismissed for the good of the team

    1.  I would like for the Obama supporters to stop taking everything Hillary says as an attack on Obama and use it out of context.  For example, Hillary stated that Bobby Kennedy was still running for President when he was assassinated in June 1968. This was taken by the Obama supporters as involking a wish to have Obama assassinated or trying to link herself with Bobby.  It is far more simplistic.  Women of my age and older (Hillary falls in that category) use fixed points in history as references.  Bobby Kennedy is not a "historical figure" that we read about.  In fact, I was working for his campaign at the time I was in Junior High School and can still to this very moment remember watching the primary returns from my bedroom on a small black and white T.V. when the shooting occured.  So when someone asks me when the CA primary was held in the past I would have to say "Well Bobby was shot in the first week of June and it was the night of the Primary so the CA primary is the first week in June".   By the way I have a framed picture of Bobby on my office wall if that gives you any indication of my memories of the man.

    -the assassination mention can not be the best example you have ... it's been said ad nauseam that she should not have mentioned assassination ... it was not the first time she said it ...  her intent vs. her words ... plain and simple she was wrong for that ... and it helps to just say that was a mistake and should move on ... rather than try to justify something that was wrong ... "well all know bobby kennedy was assassinated in june" ... there's no justification for that ... especially as a reason to stay around

    1. I would like to see a woman in the VP slot and here's why.  I am 55 years old when Obama takes office.  He will have 8 years and then his VP will run and have 8 years. (I am always the optimist!).  By the math I will be around 72 years old when a women, if not in the VP slot mentioned, will be able to run again for president.  I would like to be able to vote for a woman before I shuffle off this mortal coil. Pure and simple.  I would prefer it to be Hillary.  I think she has alot to bring to the ticket.  But I would like to see any other qualified woman in the slot.

    And finally...

    - i can respect this as a want ... but this is not about women ... i'm not gonna bash hillary ... i don't support her nor do i think highly of her ... the vp should be the best person to compliment obama and as a team they should be the best for the country ... end

    1. I would like the Obama supporters, especially the pundits on MSNBC, to treat Hillary and her bid for the nomination like all others that have come before...no better and no worse... and stop expecting her to behave differently than other presidential hopefuls because she is Hillary and you don't like her.  To explain this point let me make cite two historical facts.
    - she is behaving differently ... and should be treated as such ... people drop out when it's mathematically impossible to win ... when they're going flat broke and then some ... when they put their party in jeopardy ... she's being treated differently for not behaving with dignity as she should ... if the statements they make are unjustified due to her behavior sure ... but they're not ... it's like she should be able to act ANY way and nothing be said ... do we suddenly forget the dean scream?

    good luck to you as you search for political peace ... and also may your wants come true ... no sarcasm ... while i may not agree ... i can not dismiss your wants

  •  Take a deeeeeep breath.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alexnovo, NuttyProf, MA Voter

    and releeeease....  Come on folks.  All we are around here is sore toes.  This reminds me of my second grade students who are always saying, "He touched me!"  "She touched me first!"

    Waaaaaahhh!  

    I'm not saying sit down and shut up.  I'm saying, let's take a deep breath and try to acknowledge that we've hurt each other - HRC and Barack supporters alike.  Let's listen to each other's complaints.  It doesn't do any good to downgrade someone's feelings.  Feelings are not rational responses.  They are emotional responses.  We cannot change the way a person feels by trying to bash them over the head with a logic they do not accept.

    liberal vicki (and all you HRC supporters) - I hope that you will accept an apology and come work for this campaign against the real threat - McSame.

  •  I'ld like you to be a Democrat (0+ / 0-)

    and support the presumptive nominee of our party, without demands, and without preconditions.  He never did anything to injure you.  Your complaints are about his supporters and the media.

  •  I'll promise to be nice, (0+ / 0-)

    but remember that to become president a candidate needs to win over 50% of the votes in this country. With such a huge number of people, there's going to be a fair amount of people trolling the internet and making offensive comments on behalf of a candidate. I hope you'll judge Obama by himself and not by what random people on the internet say.

  •  If you remember 1968 so well (0+ / 0-)

    If you remember the 1968 campaign of Kennedy, then you know he was really a long-shot to beat Humphrey. Even after the results from CA were in (hell, HHH wasn't even on the freakin' ballot) it was clear to everyone it was a "hollow victory". Of course, you remember all this since you had your TV on and were watching. So it made no sense what Hillary was saying. Also, since you worked on the campaign you know the race started in, what, March sometime. Not Jan 3. You can't compare the two. It was clear Hillary was saying, "well, you never know. Obama might die". Sick. Sick. Sick.

    Oh yeah, if you wanted experience, (it was #1 on your list) why not Biden, Richardson, or Dodd? Each has way more experience than Hillary does.

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't think Biden had any chance to win but I was hoping for a Hillary/Biden ticket but would prefer to see him as Secretary of State, I didn't like Dodd's platform as well as Hillary's, Richardson looked good but again I didn't think he could win in November.

      Live Long and Liberal

      by liberal vicki on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:16:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Some Hillary Supporters ARE Racist (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nonie3234, NuttyProf

    Not all.  Not you.

    But "Hillary Is 44" and "No Quarter" have been host to thousands of racist comments and no small number of death threats against Obama.

    When did Hillary ever denounce this?  Hillary's campaign acknowledged being aware of "Hillary is 44" and one of her campaign finance chairs posted there.

    Maybe it would be easier for people to distinguish between the racist supporters and the reasonable supporters when the reasonable supporters stopped trying to pretend that none of Hillary's supporters were racist or that Hillary's campaign or "base" did anything at all to suppress this faction.

  •  Why do you care what Obama supporters do? (0+ / 0-)

    Surely your best bet at getting good government in 2009 is to get behind Obama and not worry about what his supporters say about anything.
    It's not an in-group and out-group thing. It's a personal decision.
    What people say here and on other blogs is just a bunch of personal opinions. We've all got them.
    Hillary's run is over. She lost.
    Now your choices are Obama or McCain.

  •  Thank you, Hillary supporter. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NuttyProf

    You were very upfront about what you want.  I understand and appreciate your requests.

    Hillary, who has a masterful understanding of history (I think!), should have understood the importance of the event that had taken place.  SHE DID NOT WIN!  She DID NOT have enough SDs to win.   She still doesn't.  But, be that as it may, Hillary was most ungracious in not conceding, but I only found out that she really didn't have to concede.  The numbers speak for themselves.  So that point is moot.  Although had she been gracious enough to at least express her congratulations to Senator Obama, and appreciation for the process, it would have proven that she wants to bring the party together, IMHO.

    I am a firm Obama supporter who is VERY happy that he won this race.  Hillary, once again IMHO, ignored Senator Obama's achievement and did not mention it until yesterday at the AIPAC luncheon, and then only as an aside.  She still, to my knowledge, has not congratulated him, which I think is atrocious.  But once again, this is my opinion.

    As far as the comment about Bobby Kennedy, it was out of place and seemed to be thrown out by her without an understanding of the damage it could cause.  Now, that is my opinion and I could be wrong.  Hillary is an accomplished politician who never says anything that has not been practiced time and time again.  So for her to say, for the 4th time I might add, that RFK was assassinated in June seemed to have been said, not as an accident, but on purpose, not as a point of conversation, but without considering that the words would be hurtful or taken in a way she possibly did not mean.  Now, once again, I could be wrong since I don't have a clue about what was going on in her head.  But I think she really should have thought about NOT saying it, as opposed to using it as part of a discussion.

    But, anyhoo, welcome on board to you and any and all Hillary supporters.  Let's put aside our differences and prepare for battle against McSame. Let's get this election won and put a Deomcrat in the White House!  I'm game if you are!  

    Love long....laugh hard....dance often!

    by RO45 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:44:39 AM PDT

  •  As for VP ... (0+ / 0-)

    I have no objection to her being there if Obama feels that is where she would do his presidency (as opposed to his candidacy) the most good; but I believe she would be less effective there than in any of a lot of other places, including the Senate as an every-vote member and, now even more so than before, leader.

    Cabinet? Maybe, but he's already implied that he wants her in the thick of the fight for health care, and HEW HHS (God, am I old or what?) just doesn't strike me as a Hillary kind of place. So Cabinet--maybe even VP--in the second term, after health care is a done deal? Yeah, maybe so. Just don't squander her.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.--Thomas Jefferson

    by jazzyndn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:08 AM PDT

  •  Here's an example of a Democrat (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    who doesn't require anything more than a Democratic nominee to get behind:

    Link

    It really isn't about you.

    "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain

    by mentaldebris on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:40 AM PDT

  •  I think everything you asked for is more than (0+ / 0-)

    reasonable.  I also have some demands.

    1.  In the same vein, we Obama supporters would like to stop being called sexist or misogynist b/c we voted for the male candidate.  I would also throw elitists and cultists in there for good measure.
    1.  You, as a over 50 year old white woman are relevant (just like my mom), but we also agree so are caucus states and young voters, which have been dismissed by the Clinton campaign and her supporters.
    1.  Sounds good, but we would also like the same considering the "bitter" comments, which were no different than the sentiments of Bill and author Frank Thomas on why some Americans vote against their own interest.
    1.  Agreed, I would love to see a woman in the VP slot.
    1.  Agreed.

    I think we have a lot of common ground and can make this work.  Thanks.

  •  My retort. (0+ / 0-)

    On point #1: I call bullshit. This same canard has been thrown in both directions, covered in bullshit and served steaming hot. If you notice, the chefs serving this sandwich aren't Dems.

    On point #2: Perhaps you should make up your own mind on whether or not you want to be included. Don't project your own insecurities on his campaign just because your favored candidate lost.

    On point #3: When mathematically eliminated from the nomination and falling farther behind with each passing day, her justifications to continue a failed campaign ranged from assassinations to racism/sexism to a vast "not the middle" conspiracy. If it wasn't an attack on Obama, then it was an attack on the primary voters who didn't choose her and an attack on the superdelegates who didn't endorse her. None of this is good for her, for the party, or for us li'l people.

    On point #4: I would like to vote for a Polish candidate, a Buddhist candidate, and a true Anarchist candidate. But I don't think I'd be so "bold" as to encourage the failed campaign of someone simply because they fit the demo I'd like to see elected.

    On point #5: Hillary has shown the same bubble world mentality that Bush has shown in failing to recognize her doomed candidacy weeks - actually, months - ago. Why should she be afforded respect that previous candidates were when she herself cannot afford that same respect to the party, the voters, and the other candidates? Just like you said, no double standards!

    Neither Bradley nor Kennedy tried to change the rules, change the votes or change their history so that it better fits their ambition.

    I do applaud you for voicing your opinion, and will be leaving a tip once I find your tip jar.

    "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

    by zeitshabba on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM PDT

  •  Losing doesn't = victimization or marginalization (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland, nobody at all
  •  As for the "dropping out" and "slinking away". (0+ / 0-)

    In this particular case, I think the "same standard" should be applied to the effect, not the act itself, of conceding or endorsing sooner or later.

    Did it really make any difference whether Bradley or Kennedy endorsed later rather than instantly. I'm no expert in the matter, but I would guess that basically nobody gave a rat's ass about it.

    Would it make any difference if Hillary Clinton dragged this out to the Convention? Probably, right?

    So I think that - in this particular case - it is not helpful to apply the "same standard" to when the candidates did what. The "same standard"-rule should apply to the necessary outcome - i.e. that Hillary Clinton's actions should result in the same minimal disruptions of the process, that were the result of Kennedy's or Bradley's.

    Which means - given all the publicity - this needs to be put to rest soon. Even if that means that Hillary Clinton needs to act differently than her predecessors.

    This is actually no "double standard". Rather it is applying the "same standard" to the necessary result.

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -- Philip K. Dick

    by RandomGuyFromGermany on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM PDT

  •  Hillary supporter, let's be honest... (0+ / 0-)

    while no one is saying you or most Hillary supporters are racist, her strongest band of support over Obama was in the wilds of appalachia. racism was very much a factor, we all saw the video out of W. Va. it's simply a fact.

    ultimately, those folks were going to go McCain anyway.

    But really, let me tell you what I want out of Hillary: a little graciousness and concern for the party come November. she missed a huge opportunity this week.

    On your Gore and Carter comparisons, remember this. Both of them lost. Saddling us with GW Bush and Reagan and years of Republican rule.

    and their opponents became 'elder statesmen,' which really means guys we give seats to in the back of the convention hall. they'll never be presidents.

    Frankly, she needs to step up if only to preserve her viability. the whole rap about "I'm not making any decision" was silly; she doesn't get to decide. Voters do.

    TheRamFiles: We're radical moderates, we're made as heck and we're not going to take it all that much longer.

    by ron ray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM PDT

  •  rec'ced for courage and good conversation diary (0+ / 0-)

    Hope you don't get flamed.

    Here's mine:

    I would like to have the Obama supporters stop calling the Hillary supporters racists.

    I think everyone should stop and think twice before before they make ever this claim. It obscures how vicious and insidious a disease racism really is.

  •  I'll give you what you ask for if... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    griz4u

    ... I get the following

    1. Stop calling ME sexist or misogynistic because I didn't support HRC. I hate to break it to you, but part of having true equality (be it racial or gender) is that you have to be able to lose. Otherwise, if we are beholden to vote for a woman just because she's a woman (or a black person because they're black) then we've simply swapped one discrimination for another. HRC proved that a woman has a real shot at becoming POTUS, but we proved that it's still a democracy because we (as democrats) picked someone else to be our candidate. Don't sully what either of them have done by making it about race or gender. Sure there are racist and sexist morons out there, but if we make the race about them then we do a disservice to ourselves and our principles.
    1. You're just as relevant as anyone else in the party. If this election taught us anything, it's that (assuming your state's leaders don't do something really stupid) every vote counts. In a country of millions, the difference between winner and loser in many places was a matter of thousands and hundreds. How can you not count? We all do, but we also have to respect that in a democracy we don't always get what we want. I don't agree with BO on every single thing, but I think he'll do a much better job than McCain at actually listening to people (myself included) regardless of how much money they gave him.
    1. No problem, I won't assume that everything she says is an attack if she promises to STOP ATTACKING. Right now, today, there is zero reason for HRC to make any more attacks towards BO. If she's sincere that she wants a Democrat in the WH, then she has to stop with all the attacks. This includes the whole "he's good, but I won the popular vote" BS, as a nation, the democratic party doesn't have a popular vote in the primaries therefore you can't win it, any claim to win it is making assumptions and playing fast and loose with the numbers (a la, "I've won more contests.... since a random arbitrary date").
    1. I would to. I would prefer it wasn't HRC though. Ultimately though I just hope Kennedy and the rest can come up with a great choice, male of female, black or white. I just want someone that help blow McCain out of the water in November.
    1. I'm not sure what they can do about that when she keeps acting differently than most other candidates. I will point out that in your examples from 1980 and 2000... WE LOST! If there's a better reason why she should really stop and think about what she's doing that's it. If she wants a democrat in the WH, then what's she doing acting like Ted Kennedy in 1980? Did his shenanigans help?
  •  The problem with this diary (0+ / 0-)

    And similar ones like this that I have read recently is the underlying assumption that it must be Obama's supporters who must understand what HRC supporters want, rather than HRC supporters asking/addressing the question - Why is HRC unpopular on Kos and many other liberal/left-leaning blogs.

    Why the onus on Obama supporters to extend the olive branch?  

    I have supported Obama since the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  That said, I was fairly neutral between HRC and Obama till the following occurred:

    1. Shaheen, Johnson and Kerrey and then Penn messing with the "drug" use and "cocaine" comments.
    1. Bill Clinton invoking the racial angle in SC.
    1. Bill Clinton congratulating Obama for his SC win before HRC.
    1. Numerous occasions when the Clinton campaign maligned or misrepresented their understanding of Obama-related issues like "Is Obama a Muslim?"; and finally, what broke my back was the
    1. The "I'm ready for Commander-in-Chief, as is my friend McCain" comment.

    Overall, the predictable nature of HRC's campaign going negative was a major turn-off to me.

    That said.... Do I hate HRC or her supporters?   No absolutely not.  

    But would I ever support Hillary or Bill in any future race for public office?  Maybe.  If they fulfill the following conditions:

    1. Complete transparency in their financial transactions post the year 2000.
    1. They sincerely and unconditionally support Obama and the DNC during this election-cycle.
    1. Apologize for her Iraq war vote and her subsequent Iran voter.

    "To bear defeat with dignity, to accept criticism with poise, to receive honors with humility -- these are marks of maturity and graciousness."

    by griz4u on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM PDT

  •  these are your demands? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nobody at all

    after losing the contest you demand some stuff huh?

    I tell you, the quickest way to get what you want is to stop lumping Obama supporters together. So you've read some posts by people who aren't respectful. They represent themselves, not Obama, or his supporters as a whole. Think of them as individuals who are in control of themselves, not members of a group that are unified against you or your candidate, and I believe that will knock out most of your demands ecept for #4.

    #4: Why are you demanding that? Does gender trump all other consideration for you? What about letting the winner decide who will be the best person to fill the #2 spot in his administration. In #5 you ask that Hillary be treated respectfully in a historical context. Shouldn't Obama, the winner of this contest be treated that way too?

    Can you feel the McPAIN?

    by Green Bean on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM PDT

  •  Fair and honest (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seonachan, MA Voter

    And I will try to be so in response:

    I would like to have the Obama supporters stop calling the Hillary supporters racists.

    I don't view every Clinton supporter as racist. I know a majority are not. But there have been explicit and implicit racially charged statements and dog whistle comments made and I won't apologize for being critical of them.

    I would like the Obama supporters to make up their minds and decide if I, as a over 50 white woman, am relevant to this election or not and then stick to that decision.

     

    I have never said to any Clinton supporter in this demographic that she is irrelevant. I am a female but not a white one, and some day I will be over 50 and have no plans to not be relevant so why would I think those already there are not relevant? I am appreciative of what women who went before me did so I can be where I am and expect that women who follow me will go further than I. I would ask those women over 50 who threaten to vote for McCain why they would flush everything they fought for down the toilet.

    I would like for the Obama supporters to stop taking everything Hillary says as an attack on Obama and use it out of context.

    There are some things that were absolutely attacks and I was and remain critical of them. Things such as praising McCain's qualifications over his for example. Not cool. I didn't need the media to tell me how I immediately felt when I heard the RFK comment and while I do believe she misspoke, sometimes a misspeak, however innocent is the most damning thing you can say. Perhaps had it not been for other statements that had been made to that point it would not have resonated as it did with some and because it was not the first reference to it, it carried more weight.

    I would like to see a woman in the VP slot and here's why.

     

    This is the nominee's decision to make and he needs to make a decision based on the best qualified candidate. This is not a runner up is the automatic candidate situation and never has been. I hope in my lifetime to see a woman as VP, better yet President, and I dare hope to live long enough to see a woman of color in those positions, but they have to be the right candidate and I do not see that as being HRC. It is not owed her. It is not a consolation prize.

    I would like the Obama supporters, especially the pundits on MSNBC, to treat Hillary and her bid for the nomination like all others that have come before...no better and no worse...

    And I would have liked her campaign, supporters, etc. to have advised her not to act like she was any different than anyone else who according to the rules set forth by the party and known by the candidates up front, was where she was because of said rules. The fuzzy math, dismissiveness of the caucus states, constant goal post moving etc. Those had nothing to do with gender and those were the things that I was most critical of.

    I have to admit that I am having a hard time with feeling like I must prostrate myself before Clinton supporters. Primaries are about who reaches the finish line first and only one candidate is going to do that. I admit to not understanding the expectation to apologize for achieving the goal.

  •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

    For your insight and I'd like to address some specific points (and no, I'm not trying to change your mind about supporting Senator Clinton).

    First off let me offer you (as I've done others) congratulations as a supporter of Senator Clinton. She truly has been a formidable candidate.

    On your points:

    I felt then and I still feel that Obama, though an intellegent, educated, articulate and capable man is too young and inexperienced at this time in his life to be president of the United States.

    (a) too young - Senator Obama is 47 at the the age of 43, Kennedy was the youngest man elected President and the first Catholic.

    (b) inexperienced
    - Senator Obama:

    Sen. Obama's areas of special legislative interest have been in support for working families, ethical reforms for government, public education, health care, economic growth/jobs, and ending the Iraq War. As an Illinois state senator, he worked passionately for ethics reforms and criminal justice reform.

    In 2002, Obama publicly opposed the Bush Administration's push for the Iraq War, but supported war in Afghanistan.
    Senate Committees in the 110th Congress:

       * Committee on Foreign Relations
       * Subcommittee on African Affairs
       * Subcommittee on International Economic Policy
       * Subcommittee on Asians and Pacific Affairs
       * Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       * Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
       * Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs

    Practical, Progressive Thinking on the Issues:
    In 2002, Barack Obama publicly opposed the Iraq War, and continues to call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. He urges universal health care, and if elected president, promises implementation by the end of his first term.

    Barack Obama's voting record and stances as US Senator and Illinois State Senator reflect a "practical, common sense progressive" thinker who emphasizes increased support for teachers, college affordability, and restoration of meaningful federal support of veterans. Obama opposes privatization of Social Security.

    Senator Kennedy admittedly had far more experience (mostly due to family connections)

    I would like the Obama supporters to make up their minds and decide if I, as a over 50 white woman, am relevant to this election or not and then stick to that decision.

    I am an over 50 white woman and I feel relevant

    Women of my age and older (Hillary falls in that category) use fixed points in history as references.  Bobby Kennedy is not a "historical figure" that we read about.

    I have a diary called Realization of Dreams that holds up this notion and I do not believe this was actually meant the way it sounded to so many

    I would like to see a woman in the VP slot and here's why.  I am 55 years old when Obama takes office.

    I want the most qualified person possible to be VP whether that is Senator Clinton or  someone else.  Blue, green, purple, Catholic, Protestant....etc. you get my drift.

    Bradley and Kennedy are now elder statesmen within the party but Hillary is expected to slink away and never be heard from again for her unacceptable behavior.

    If you believe (or anyone whether they supported Senator Clinton or Senator Obama think that Senator Clinton is going (or is wanted to) slink away then shame on all of us.  

    Reformed Independent Voter

    by MA Voter on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM PDT

  •  the problem is ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Altoid77

    .... that I stopped reading when I saw you call him 'your candidate.'

    He's actually our candidate - and I would have called Hillary "our candidate" had she won instead of him.

    The stakes in this election are just too high for this stuff. I'm sorry - but as a mature, smart woman, you should be able to ignore stupidity and ignorance in blog comments. Welcome to the world! People get hateful on blogs about freaking American Idol contestants!! They're stupid. Get over it.

    You know why you supported Hillary, so what does it matter what some ignoramus thinks of your reasons?

    As for your vote - only you can decide if the words of ignorant people will make it worthwhile sabotaging your party and all the consequences that would come from that.

    Personally, I'm done trying to persuade adults to start acting like adults.

    •  agreed. (0+ / 0-)

      and i would add to

      You know why you supported Hillary, so what does it matter what some ignoramus thinks of your reasons?

      by including: Or what some smart, articulate person caught up in the moment and is acting like an ignoramus thinks of your reasons?

      remember to use positive affirmations. "i am not a dork" is not one of them

      by Altoid77 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  By the By, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman

    As far as Hillary being on the ticket for VP, my response to that would be "NO!"  Senator Obama needs someone he can trust, someone in whom he can believe, someone who has HIS best interests at heart, someone who won't make threats, someone who is honest and above board, someone who can be gracious about losing (uh-oh Hillary!), someone who has the respect of many, someone who knows when it's appropriate to be tough, and finally, someone who is not watching the clock for 2012.

    Doesn't sound much like Hillary, huh?

    Love long....laugh hard....dance often!

    by RO45 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM PDT

  •  Hillary's racist supporters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smkngman, Altoid77

    Update: All the posters seem to indicate that "no one" has called Hillary supporters racists.  I guess I miss read alot of the responses to my diaries. But let me site one instance within the last two days.  MSNBC, Dan Abrams show, young black woman Obama supporter pundit to Abrams in refering to Hillary being on Ticket..."I am not saying that all of Hillary supporters are bigots...".  Both Tucker Carlson and Abrams said "gee thanks" almost in unison.  She then realized what she said.  That is my point.

    Tell that to Rep. Clyburn's staff who've been on the receiving end of scurrilous calls.

    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. - Orwell

    by MAORCA on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM PDT

  •  Your diary highlights, to me, the real problem. (0+ / 0-)

    When I listen to the candidates talk, I assume they are talking to everyone, not just the people already "in their camp". Most of the examples of offense -- from both sides -- are because the candidate (or surrogate or pundit) was tone deaf to some supporters of the other candidate.

    We need to stop perpetuating the narratives that divide us. You feel that you have been "more wronged" by the Obama campaign and some Obama supporters feel they have been "more wronged" by the Clinton campaign. It's over. It's time to move on.

    Well, you know what I always say: if you plan ahead, then when things happen, you're prepared. -Hank Hill

    by sanglug on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM PDT

  •  sorry for you (0+ / 0-)

    I totally understand your feelings. I can't read here much any  more, (except some eco diaries) but if, for your mental health, vickie, you need a place where you won't get attacked like here, consider talkleft, the confluence, anglachel's journal and correntewire...just for your sanity.

    Peace.

  •  I noticed something in the reporting today (4+ / 0-)

    And that's the fact that prior to Obama, there have been four failed presidential campaigns by African Americans. Isn't Hillary the first woman to attempt a presidential campaign? That may not seem relevant to the conversation, but, I think it does say something about the process. Hillary did a great deal to pave the way for women to move into position. I believe we will see a woman president before the end of my life (I'm 58). It may not be Hillary. Hillary made mistakes. I believe her biggest mistake was that she ran negative at a time when a lot of Democrats found it appalling. She used Karl Rove tactics right up to the end, which included creating a kind of alternative "truth," like "I got more popular votes than any candidate in history." To me, that's an offensive "truth" because it requires tampering with reality, twisting things... count Michigan, don't count Washington kind of things. It's not clean truth. You gave an example, yourself of the problem I have when you stated:

    Obama got the to the magic number at approximately the same time as Hillary was winning her primary races. Yet she is expected to withdraw from the race on the same day, hour and minute she is winning the last primary.

    Here's the problem:

    1. Hillary wasn't winning her primary races, she was winning one primary, losing the other.
    1. To be absolutely correct, Montana, the primary Obama won, was "last" because the polls closed later there and the results came in later, it was farther west.

    Both of these are examples of tweaking the facts and the language to make it appear something slightly different than it is, something that advantages your candidate. For me, that was the way Hillary ran her campaign, with that kind of talk and that kind of abuse of the truth. For me, honesty, complete honesty about what happened Tuesday night would have demanded that you say it it more like this:

    Obama got the to the magic number at approximately the same time as Hillary was winning the South Dakota primary. Yet she is expected to withdraw from the race on the same day, hour and minute she is winning one of the two last primary races.

    I'm not even demanding that you add, "losing the other," but the fact is, she was losing the other and her win in South Dakota wasn't big enough to keep Obama from being able to claim the nomination from  South Dakota. It may be painful that he pulled that off, but, the fact is, he was a clever enough and powerful enough politician to set up the win.

    So, I'm willing to acknowledge an honor all of your requests, my request in response is that you use words honestly to portray what happened and is happening and that you don't pretend it's just an innocent mistake when you don't. That is doubly true for Hillary who is a professional politician and knows exactly what she's doing when she parses and twists and tweaks the language to make it fit her needs and desires.

    In a time of universal deceit, the simple act of telling the truth is revolutionary--George Orwell

    by Circle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:29:20 AM PDT

  •  While I don't fully agree with him, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldoregonlib

    the previous commenter has one valid point--it isn't fair to blame Obama for his more rabid supporters' behavior.

    And...who is to say that the sexist din is COMING from Obama supporters.

    Tuesday night, in line for the Excel Center, we passed picketers carrying signs reading "Muslims for Obama".

    My first reaction was "Well, they'd be stupid to be for McCain!"  Then I realized that the picketers--all white males and looking smug--were almost certainly not Muslims.

    My second reaction was "Republicans!" ...and I rolled my eyes at their stupidity and walked on.

    But...but!!  I MIGHT have imagined them to be Hillary supporters.  And I COULD have gotten very angry.

    Feeding your hurt pride and fanning it to anger is a very attractive option to Republican trolls.  It's the best shot they have--perhaps the ONLY shot they have--at winning in November.

    Many, many years ago, I learned how to fight fair inside the family.  The rules are pretty simple:

    1. never say "always";
    1. keep the focus on the current issue and not on what may have happened in the past;
    1. talk about what I want for an outcome;
    1. give the other person choices
    1. and above all, NEVER stomp on the other person's broken toe. If you're going to call the other person names--be sure that the names don't hurt.

    In my own life, that meant NEVER calling my husband "stupid"--because he grew up an untreated dyslexic and always had doubts about himself. Similarly, I should never call someone whose parents hadn't married each other "bastard".

    If you look carefully, you'll notice that most of the sexism in this campaign (and there has been a LOT of it) has come from outside the Obama campaign. Chris Matthews has been dreadful! And he's got lots of company.

    Obama supporters have had complaints about Hillary--but generally those complaints have always followed the fair-fighting rules above.

    Hillary has made some huge tactical blunders in this campaign. You've probably heard them before, but let me list them briefly:

    1. She ignored the grass-roots and the netroots in favor of established party donors. (Ed Schultz was once a fervent Hillary supporter, for example.  But she never had the time to come on his show. Believe me, his radio audience noticed this.)
    1. She publically stated that McCain would be better than Obama at 3AM.
    1. When her surrogates made the first racist remarks, she failed to muzzle them.

    Republicans, however, don't want you to notice the legitimate complaints--and they've been quick to conflate them with their own pile of sexist tripe.

    They want you to feel so overwhelmed and battered that you don't know who to blame. And it doesn't help, either, that some of the younger Obama boys haven't been smart enough to tell the difference, either. (One hopes they'll have more sense in 20 years--but Norm Coleman used to pretend to be a Democrat; even rats like sturdy ships.)

    I'm 59, white, female, married, and a regular churchgoer.  I should be Hillary's demographic. But while I still wish Obama would tap a woman for VP, I no longer want that woman to be Hillary.

    Not because I hate her, but because I now have doubts about her ability to resist pressure. Hillary has been battered for so long by the "right wing conspiracy" that I fear her judgement has become occasionally clouded. It's much like my worries about the ill-effects of McCain's stay in the Hanoi Hilton on his judgement.

    Both McCain and Hillary have shown vulnerability to bullies--and America cannot afford a president who might lapse into Stockholm Syndrome, just when they need to show backbone and self-restraint.

    Anyway, I'm not asking you to agree with me at this particular moment. I am asking you to please take the time to check carefully for trolls when you find yourself reacting in anger towards a fellow Democrat. Are you hearing the trigger language directly, and in context? Or is someone trolling for John McCain?

  •  Deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland

    I promise I will make everyone here at Dailykos and all of the nation's media stop calling Hillary supporters bigots, if you will promise that no one will again call me, a 60-year-old long time feminist, a misogynist.

  •  in response (0+ / 0-)

    I respect your views and would like to respond toward each of your concerns/points.

    1. I respect that you chose to support Hillary Clinton based upon her policies, experience etc. I chose to support Barack for the same reasons. I read both of his books, lived in Chicago while he was in the State Senate, and followed his career in the US Senate. I disagree that he is too young ( He is no younger then Bill Clinton was) or that he is not experienced enough (He has more experience than Lincoln!). He has shown him self to be disciplined, visionary, graceful and calm under pressure. All qualities that are essential for good leadership. He has shown himself to be a great CEO by running a truly organized and fiscally responsible campaign. I believe that if you took the time to really listen to him, read his books, and watch some of his more detailed policy interviews, rather than judge him through the eyes of the pundits, or via frustration at the loss of HCR, you will understand that he is ready to lead this country.
    1. You are absolutely relevant!! Every single voter is relevant. Every person, every voice. It is the essential idea of democracy and equality. I am sorry if you have ever been told otherwise.
    1. It is true that we Obama supporters have had a hard time not hearing much of what Hillary said as attacks on our candidate. It is the nature of choosing a team. That said, I can also see how we take something out of context and overreact. But as it concerns the statement about Bobby Kennedy - I understand marking history via events, but you must also understand that we all fear for Baracks safety. He has received a huge amount of threats against him. Has to take much greater precautions then any other candidate and Hillary's comments in regards to Kennedy's assassination, even if they were not meant to threaten BO,  were not sensitive to our valid concerns for his well being.
    1. I think we need someone as VP who will help the ticket, be in line with Barack's style and vision, and policies, and who gets along well with him. JFK and Johnson were not a good ticket.  That said I too would like to see a woman be president in my lifetime. I am female - though younger than you by a generation. I believe I will see this, and I would like for you to see this too. But most important, beyond any identity politics is that this country change its tragectory. This is so much more important than race or gender.

    Which brings me to point 5. Yes in past primaries candidates have brought their case to convention and what has happened? The democrat has lost!! Therefore we hold HRC not to a different standard but to a standard based in learning from past mistakes. We must win this election. And we can not afford the drama of not having BO supported fully. We will lose the White House if that happens. I know that may seem unfair, but we simply must move past personal ambition to the greater good of this country. As for her being treated differently in general. Its true that their have been sexist media comments, and other wingnut attacks of HCR during this primary. But I would say that Al Gore and John Kerry were also attacked just as intensely and perhaps even more relentlessly. Gore was judged on absolutely every little move. Called stiff and wimpy. Kerry too. Barack has had to deal with being called too black, not black enough, and every other thing as well as the crazy zenophobic rumor mill.

    I do not think Hillary Clinton should slink away. She has earned her right to be a strong political voice, and to ask that her goals and platform be considered in the convention, but not her self as candidate. She needs to concede gracefully, throw her full support behind Obama and help to win the white house back to sanity.

  •  You forget something... (0+ / 0-)

    I felt then and I still feel that Obama, though an intellegent, educated, articulate and capable man is too young and inexperienced at this time in his life to be president of the United States.  I would say so if he were white, pink or blue or even female.

    You're probably too young, but that very same argument was made about JFK - too young, too inexperienced. Speaks well, but...
    Besides, what "experience" does Hillary have? A couple more years in the Senate? sop what? Her judgment was pretty bad when it came to the Iraq war vote (and no parsing please about how she was "misled").
    Obama engenders the kind of hope and optimism we had back when JFK was president. I haven't seen anything like it since the 60's.
    And as far as experience goes, Bush set the bar pretty low on that scale, and even lower on the intelligence scale.
    Hillary's parsing, bobbing, weaving, etc. is too much of what we've had for far too long.
    What we need in a president is someone who will stand up for us, not the corporations, stand up to the right wing smears, and have the eloquence and savvy to restore our good name. So far he's done a damn fine job.
    Hillary is a good person, but, IMO, not quite presidential.

    "In a time of universal deceit -- telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

    by MA Liberal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM PDT

  •  Thank you so much (0+ / 0-)

    I am a young black woman and I am ashamed of how that lady acted on MSNBC.  I agree with every single one of your points. I would like respect for my choice, just like the Obama supporters want respect for their choice.

  •  the choice for you as a Hillary supporter (0+ / 0-)

    is stark and clear. You can vote for Obama, or you can vote for "Insane" McCain and the return if self-induced illegal abortions via wire clotheshanger.

    If you're willing to vote against the interests of American women in favor of McCain over your petty spite about a candidate whose primary donor base is the corporate interests who built and maintain the glass ceiling, you can go McCain, or to the devil, I don't care which.

    The sane Hillary supporters are already coalescing around the Obama nominee.

    Further, we are not going to stop being a reality-based community in order to pander to the delusions you appear to still cherish.

    Starting with the delusion that the losers get to dictate terms to the winners.

    Or the delusion that you from Hillaryis44 and NoQuarter speak for a substantial number of the people who voted for Hillary.

    The bulk of Hillary's voters were Dixiecrats, Operation Chaos Republicans, and the low-information voters up for grabs for whoever conducts the most effective campaign.

    Obama can't get Dixiecrats and Limbots, and in the general election, if Hillary had been nominated, she wouldn't have gotten them either.

    Obama needs to get a big chunk of the low-information voter population to win. I'm not convinced we need you.

    Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

    by alizard on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:54:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site