The Anti-Hillary Candidate : Don't Split The Vote

Who sees fixing corruption and repairing our Constitution as the most important challenge we face, and who is likely to have the will to do it?

I'll give you a clue.  It's not the candidate who continues to vote for the war, who actively undermines FISA and constitutional protections.  It's not the candidate who doesn't stand up to big business.  It's not a Republican.  Sadly, it's not one of our own, Hillary Clinton.  Senator Clinton has had ample opportunity to demonstrate her conviction, she hasn't.  Hillary has sworn allegiance to the establishment -- the same establishment that is Hurting America.  We need serious change.  Hillary Clinton is not change.

What's important about the Iowa results is that Hillary is seriously outnumbered -- we cannot let a 3-way "tie" permit her to itch out a win.  Both Obama and Edwards need to back each other, as soon as possible, and publicly.  I'd like to see a pact now, should either drop out, they pledge their delegates to the other.  We need to ensure that our progressive voice is not split

So, when someone asks me who I'm voting for, it's more who I'm voting against.  Either Barack Obama or John Edwards are fine choices.  For me, what matters most is that Hillary is not our candidate.  A respected tech leader, Lawrence Lessig, has come out in full-force for Obama, but, he would also be happy to have Edwards.

a majority of the Democracts will be voting for a candidate that places fixing the corruption that is Washington at the very top of his agenda. Both Edwards and Obama have made this their core message (Populist hero Edwards more than new generation Obama), and if the majority of Democrats in Iowa ratifying that message gets understood, we may see this election go a long way towards fixing the problem that I think is the single most important problem facing government today.

So, how am I going to vote?  Personally, I'd like to pick Edwards.  However, unless Edwards pledges his delegates to Obama (should he be non-viable), then I will be forced to vote for the one who is the closest to beating Hillary.  (edit: and vice versa, I'm an equal-opportunity voter).

So, this is my plea, please don't let Hillary inch out a less than 50% victory by splitting the anti-Hillary vote.  We just cannot afford it.  My message to Obama and Edwards: pledge your delegates to each other, or drop out.  

•  CanDidate. (nt)

  by Yosef 52 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:34:41 PM PDT

•  I'd like to see Obama and Edwards pledge

  to each other, should one of them have to drop out.

  That said, I think it's too soon for anything like that to be necessary. Only 45 out of 5000 delegates (1%) have been determined so far.

  Let's wait to see what New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada have to say.

  The debate this Saturday should be huge.

  by danthrax on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:36:32 PM PDT

  •  If they did that...

    Senator Clinton would be gone.

    by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:59:30 PM PDT

  •  No offense to Edwards backers, but Obama is

    . . . not going to need it.  Unless Hillary wins NH, and Edwards wins SC.

    If Obama wins either, this race is over as Edwards supporters abandon him in favor of Obama.  Will probably happen no matter what. Edwards was balancing on the edge of a razor blade, ran a nice campaign, but needed to win Iowa and didn't.

    It just get's harder from here on out.

    by dbratl on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM PDT

    •  a lot of Edwards supporters are for Hillary too

      I don't think you can say that there's a clear 1st-2nd choice dynamic going on here. It's kind of all over the place.

      A pledge would be pretty valuable. For anybody.

      by danthrax on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM PDT

•  How about

  instead of trying to force either Edwards or Obama out we try to force Hillary out?  After all, she came in third, not Edwards.

  Would some tech savy young-un start on online petition asking Hillary to resign?

  by nisleib on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:37:21 PM PDT

  •  As if that would happen

    I'm with you, don't get me wrong... but honestly, the facts are not with us. National polls still show HRC leading by a comfortable margin and she is the best financed candidate. She will be there till the last moment and will be very competetive.

    by bmozaffari on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:59:10 PM PDT

•  Dude.

  It's been ONE STATE.

  Christ, this primary season is even more ridiculous than last time.  Who would ever have thought it possible??

  by Loquatrix on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

  •  There are only 4 states (and 2 non-states)

    He is right. If the ABC vote is divided between Edwards and Obama, chances are that HRC will win in NH. If she wins convincingly, she may win SC as well and NV is easily hers. After 3 wins, her nomination on Feb 5 will be firm and certain.

    by bmozaffari on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM PDT

  •  Agreed, Hillary is still strong enough to win ...

    ... it all. I hope it doesn't happen but we'd be fools to write her off after just one caucus. For starters, she has the campaign war chest to finance a run well into the spring, regardless of what happens in New Hampshire and South Carolina. That said, I wouldn't put too much stock in the national polls that continue to show Clinton ahead (nor would I if they put Obama or Edwards in the lead). This thing will be decided one state at a time.

    DKos spin aside, Iowa was not meaningless but it wasn't the be-all and end-all either.

    by philimus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:31:05 PM PDT

•  I fear that the split may happen.

  That is why Obama and Edwards have to continue to outdo her. Obama won Iowa and Edwards has not been polling well in NH, so currently it is Obama that we should back to knock out Hillary Clinton. And yes they should pledge their delegates to each other.

  by PROfess PROgress on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:40:44 PM PDT

•  Interesting

  that you demand Edwards pledge his delegates to Obama should he be non-viable, but don't demand the reverse.

  It might not be a popular view here, but I am not much into Hillary bashing.  John Edwards is my candidate, but Hillary is my second choice, not Obama.  In any case, the race is NOT between Hillary and the anti-Hillary, the race is to choose the best Democrat to be President of the United States.

  by deaniac83 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM PDT

  •  edwards > obama >> clinton

    I personally don't require the reverse pledge, since I'd like to vote for Edwards and will only not vote for him if the race is effectively between Hillary and Obama.  That said, someone with obama > edwards, may want a reverse pledge; it'd certainly be more equitable.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM PDT

•  OK

  How about we ask Hillary and Edwards not to split the anti-Obama vote?  I think you are making a huge assumption in that both Edwards and Obama supporters are anti-Clinton.  I saw some stats awhile back (don't have the link) on second choices, and the second choice for both Edwards and Obama supporters was Clinton.

  by Mia Dolan on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM PDT

  •  Every poll

    that asks for second choices has shown that to be true.

    There's never been any empirical evidence that Edwards and Obama are splitting some mythical "anti-Hillary" vote, outside of the blog bubble.  It's just as plausible that having two anti-Hillarys in the race helps each of them by increasing the odds that she'll have a dismal showing in a given primary (i.e., last night's 3rd place w/ under 30%).

    by cardinal on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      I am sticking with Edwards, mostly because I am pretty indifferent to the choice between Obama and Clinton.  

      by Mia Dolan on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM PDT

    •  I think having Edwards in there helps Obama

      and vice versa.

      They are better candidates than Mrs Clinton.

      They are both a clue as to what the party should be.

      by Salo on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

    •  This was my thesis

      They are symbiotic, but Obama is likely to take off now.  

      by Salo on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:23:31 PM PDT

•  Now "that's* voting your hopes, not your fears!

  Warms my cynic's heart to see an Obama supporter cut to the chase like that.  The most-progressive and least-progressive candidates should make a pact, because they're united by fear and loathing of the candidate in the middle.

  by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:47:30 PM PDT

  •  Uncle, you're generous to a fault.

    Obama would be proud of you!

    by Rich in PA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM PDT

•  But you are perpetuating the "meme"

  By simply calling others "Anti-Hillaries" you suggest a power she doesn't have. They aren't on a see-saw with Heavy Hill on one end and the rest on the other, even though Hillary would like you to think they are.

  I'm not a basher of Senator Clinton. Had she been the nominee, I'd walk the streets for her. But her general attitude (and mostly, the sorts of advisors she keeps) bother me.

  There were eight candidates. You can choose from them. None of them was ordained, or given extra influence a priori. We gave them money. Funny enough, we gave Obama the most...money, and right now, votes.

  by MrMichaelMT on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM PDT

•  Wait til after SC

  One of the two Anti-Hils will drop.

  by ParaHammer on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:05:15 PM PDT

•  HEY!

  I just logged on so I could vote for "I hate Hillary" but you deleted it, so ha ha, I'm not voting!

  by jps on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:21:45 PM PDT

  •  OOPPSS!! very red face

    wrong diary, yes pledge is good!

    by jps on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

•  I actuallly prefer Hillary over Obama and

  Edwards.

  No place to vote that way, though.

  Is anyone noticing that 44% of Obama's voters were Republicans?

  Is anyone noticing that 32% of Edwards' voters were Republicans?

  I'm not very interested in the RoveRepublican wing of the Democratic party.

  Are you?

  by tryptich2 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:27:31 PM PDT

  •  Both Obama and Edwards are progressive

    I intend to support candidates that most closely line up with my views of how the country should be governed.  To me, if a candidate can also gain support from the other side, that is a plus if it can be done with inspiring rhetoric and by arguing the Democratic perspective more forcefully instead of by compromising on the issues.  I think this is the primary reason why both Edwards and Obama are able to win Republican votes.

    by hersco on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:41:13 PM PDT

•  So Obama and Edwards push lies

  about Hillary and think they will win converts?  If my recollection is correct, Obama has voted for every funding bill for the troops in Iraq...how is that different than Hillary?

  I can't stand liars.  And clearly you are one.  You misrepresent the truth on this one issue, you can't be trusted on any issue.  Liars on our side are as bad as liars on their side.

  by lily15 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:48:13 PM PDT

•  I'm a solid Edwards supporter and I

  believe he will win; but I'd rather see Hillary win than Obama anyways. She is slightly more progressive than Lieberma... I mean Obama is.

  by 123Mary123 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM PDT

  •  yeah, but who voted for kyl-obama?

    er, i mean kyl-lieberman.

    see, it doesn't really work does it?

    btw, congrats to edwards for winning big among self-described conservatives last night.

    by jethropalerobber on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM PDT

    •  what's the matter, was Obama upset he didn't

      get the support of conservatives even though he said he is with them on nuclear power(which by the way, won't go over well here in NH) and even though he is helping them set health care reform up to fail by leaving out mandates and even though he is helping them pass their unfair trade agreements and even though he helps them spread their rhetoric like "playing chicken with the troops"? Is he upset that he didn't get the conservative voters he's been "pandering"(a word Obama likes to use alot and one he actually does more than anyone else) to them?

      by 123Mary123 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:22:08 PM PDT

•  Standard election diary tags added

  2008 elections, president, primaries, Democrats

  Please save for reuse and help check the tags in other diaries for your candidate.

  ====================
  The Tagging guidelines ask that Kossacks reuse existing tags and to not create new or "cutsey tags".  Since tags are an indexing system, (and many people bookmark tags or add them to their blog rolls)  it makes sense to use the tags used by the majority of the community for the same subject.
  Review standard election related tags here.  
  Tips on Creating Good Diary Tags
  Get more readers by using tags from this list of the most used tags.
  Find other tags and their diaries by using this Tag Search Tool (the higher the number the better the tag since it means more people are using it.)

  by SarahLee on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:59:35 PM PDT

•  It's only Iowa, people!

  One point does not define a trend. Can we please, please stop, take a breath, and wait just a little while?  Hillary is still ahead, if you can call it that, in the delegate count with 169. It is still a long way to the 4000+ needed at the convention.

  Jeez, I saw a diary earlier today saying Obama should start his VP short list. It's only Iowa!

  by Jacques on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM PDT

•  Why do I feel like I'm watching "Survivor USA!"

  We're voting candidates off the island and now they're supposed to form a coalition so a third candidate goes next?
  People, people. Can't we just let nature take it's course? I frankly would love a long, protracted election season. Hell, I wouldn't even care if we go into the convention without a clear candidate. That would be exciting.
  I want to see the candidate really talk about the problems we face, in depth. I want to see if they falter on the trail. I want to see if they remain true to their words.
  Maybe it's because Obama's supporters are so young. They have short attention spans and want it all right now or they'll throw a tantrum.
  Elections can be fun, exhilarating, and insightful. It is very important that we have the right person for the job. This is serious. Which Dem it is is important as to whether we move slowly and appease the corporate interests or move to bring the power back to The People.

  by MA Liberal on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM PDT