I'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton

A lot of people may not like the title of this diary, but this is where the Clinton campaign has driven me.  Why?  One word: The Dishonesty.

Listening to Clinton today on NPR cooly and calmly spout the absolute nonsense that the vote in Michigan was fair turned my stomach.  I expect Bush to tell me that up is down and black is white.  I expect the GOP to sow fear and division as an election strategy.  I expect my party to do better.  I know politics is a rough and tumble game and harbor no illusions of the brutality that is to come in the general, but we need to move beyond the lying and divisiveness, and Clinton, clearly, either cannot or will not do that.

I say this for what I believe to be the good of the party.  A divisive Clinton victory in the primaries (and do not kid yourself, she will not win the popular vote, not win the pledged delegate count, if she is the nominee it will be by overturning the will of the voters) runs the risk of driving away a generation of young, committed democratic voters.  A Clinton victory, even if she beats McCain, will consign the party to a 50%+1 strategy for the next 20 years.  I want more from my party, I expect more from my party.

Do we really want a nominee who has spent the last several months disparaging every state that she didn't win?  Do we want a nominee who is willing to praise the Republican candidate at the expense of her own party? If the Democrats nominate Clinton after the way her campaign has behaved (and I had the utmost respect for her before this campaign started) every cliché about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory will be true.

I believe we have an opportunity here to change the map, to truly move the country beyond the Bush/Rove divide-and-conquer mentality and to attract new voters to the party that can help advance the liberal agenda for a long time.  I might be wrong, but I would rather lose trying to make a real change than settle for more of the same.

I will close with a quote:

Now, since most Americans aren't that far to the right, our [Republican] friends have to portray us Democrats as simply unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.

But we don't.

--Former President Bill Clinton's remarks to the Democratic National
Convention at the FleetCenter in Boston, Mass. -JULY 26, 2004

Now who's doing the dividing?

UPDATE: To be clear I am NOT saying I won't vote for Clinton if she is the nominee (although I am not saying I will either).  What I am saying is that I would rather lose trying to achieve real and lasting change then win with more divid-and-conquer 50%+1 strategy which I think will be detrimental to the party in the long run.

•  That's what I think. . .

  . . about "electability."

  by Dperl99 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM PDT

  •  Presidency

    Unfortunately, whether a republican or a democrat is elected, I suspect the next 4 years are going to be a disaster and probably resulting in a one term president.

    The massive problems which have accumulated over the last 8 years are absolutely huge-way, way too big not to cause massive pain over the next 4 years. That pain very possibly will defeat the next president regardless of who is elected or what they do.

    If either Obama or Clinton are president and they fail, then the next president very well could be a republican.

    If a republican is president, the republicans are destroyed as a party for at least a generation.  Unfortunately, McCain would not only destroy the party but very possibly, the country as well.

    The current lesser evil is the democrat but we may end up losing the next presidential election.

    I can't imagine anyone wanting the presidency over the next 4 years.  I know I wouldn't want the job.

    by Jagger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM PDT

    •  You're right, the problems we face would be

      impossible for one person to solve. But, I believe, Obama will unite the country in pursuing those solutions, not try to impose them from above - as Hillary or McCain are likely to do.

      And, as FDR, JFK, and MLK demonstrated - Together we can do anything!

      by hideinplainsight on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

  •  Please do away with this kind of talk

    Please just think about what a McCain presidency would be like. The reason I support Democrats is because they can do better things for Americans than Republicans. With Iraq, huge budget and trade defecits, the subprime mortgage crisis, a looming recession, something of a healthcare crisis, and a social security problem, we cannot afford more Republicans in power. Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than John McCain, and that is why everyone here should vote for her should she become the nominee as opposed to not voting at all. Please just think about what the country would be like...

    by LennyLiberal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM PDT

  •  If, contrary to fact, I thought Obama would lose

    but Clinton could win, I would support Clinton in a heart beat. Whatever her defects, she would appoint well-qualified justices to the Supreme Court. She also would be preferable to McCain on a host of issues. If nothing else, it would be the difference between fighting for progress versus fighting against reaction.

    But as I believe Obama can win, I don't have to make that choice.

    by another American on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM PDT

•  Bravo...

  It's not just about the issues.  It's about the vision.  Besides...I am sure Obama would beat the snot outta McCain.

  by mayan on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:29:37 PM PDT

•  Obama supporters supporting Clinton

  If Clinton is the democratic nominee, it means that the superdelagates went against the will of the grass roots.  If any Obama supporter can then turn around and vote for Clinton, that supporter clearly does not support democracy.  Clinton is not a democrat, she is a Clinton.

  by ford prefect 2 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:31:47 PM PDT

  •  The will of the grassroots

    isn't necessarily the will of the nation or even the party.

    The superdelegates exist to overturn the will of the voters if they deem it necessary. I highly doubt it will be necessary, but it being March, it's too early to tell what can happen. If he loses Pennsylvania big and then goes on to lose most of everything thereafter, he will be ahead still, but the question of his (or either's) electability comes into question, the superdelegates may themselves be split and Hillary might be nominated on a tight ballot. Again, VERY unlikely, but possible.

    I don't like the superdelegate system, but then again I don't like that prostitution, marijuana and gay marriage are illegal, but as long as they are, you respect the law and work to change it.

    by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM PDT

    •  Yeh to hell with all those millions and millions

      of voters who faced the winter cold to let their voices be heard and their votes be counted.

      After all, the wise and noble superdegates know best. I'm absolutely thrilled that we have them to make sure our beloved leaders always do what is best for the party.

      by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM PDT

      •  Hey, I didn't say it was fair

        and millions and millions faced the winter cold to vote for Hillary Clinton, George McGovern and Jimmy Carter too, didn't make them good choices. I'm all for getting rid of the superdelegates, but maybe we should've done this last year...more the reason to pay attention to things.

        by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:04:05 PM PDT

        •  Excuse me, but I voted for and personally

          think of Jimmy Carter as one of our better presidents.  A hell of a lot better than Bill Clinton for starters. I also think much more highly of Mrs. Carter than Hillary. The first has class and the other ... well what can I say?

          by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 04:18:44 PM PDT

•  I cannot vote for another Clinton

  Four or God forbid, eight more years of a divided partisan government is too much for me.  

  by TravelerBill on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM PDT

•  For the good of my psyche

  I would rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton.

  But for the good of the planet, I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee.

  by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:33:37 PM PDT

  •  I have steadfastly said that

    up until the last week.  Now I'm starting to think that if she's the nominee, I will leave the Presidential portion of the ballot blank and just vote for the state and local candidates.

    I can't stomach her tactics.  I expected it of the Republicans, but not of her.

    by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM PDT

    •  I can't either.

      I will probably wretch on my way out of the polling place.  But I owe it to my children to do all I legally can to prevent another Republican Presidency.

      by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM PDT

      •  I know

        Sighhhh!!!

        by mkfarkus on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM PDT

  •  I won't.

    If you can vote for someone who betrays core Democratic Party values, insults Democrats in small or Red states, demeans caucus Democrats, and fails to repudiate people in her campaign who play divisive, racial politics, power to ya.

    by Norcal Lib on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

•  It's sad, isn't it?

  I have longed for a fact-based presidency for so long, and the amazing ability that Obama has had to run a fact-based campaign has inspired me.  I mean, if you go over to the Obama "results center", the numbers there are actually more accurate than many news sites (which eventually correct their numbers to what Obama's site already had).

  It would be sad to have yet another fact-challenged administration.

  by barath on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM PDT

•  Two possibilities

  Either Clinton or Obama will be our nominee.

  If it is Clinton then your refusal to vote for her will enable far worse policy outcomes and in no way reduce the lying and sleazy part of politics which Republicans have also practiced - a lot.

  If it is Obama, as I hope and think is likely, then all your diary does is encourage committed Hillary supporters to sit out the election by leigitimizing doing so.

  In either case, this diary is, at best, self-indulgent and harmful to the Democratic party.  

  by Justanothernyer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:35:53 PM PDT

  •  I never said

    I wouldn't vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, what I said was I would rather have Obama as the nominee even if it meant losing the election to McCain.

    For the reasons you cited, I would most likely (although I waffle on this) vote for her.  But I look at it this way.  If she wins then yes the next 4 years would be better than having McCain as president.  But if she destroys or heavliy damages the democratic party in the process, the next 20 years will suck and it is possible we will be worse off in the ling run.

    by Dperl99 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

    •  That is my concern

      That she will only benefit us in the short term and set up another long Republican presidential period.

      by virtualobserver on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

    •  I apologize

      I took your diary as going one step further than it actually did.

      I've found Senator Clinton's campaign incredibly off-putting myself; but I think that another Republican presidency would be an unmitigated disaster.  

      I am hopeful that this primary will be long behind us come November, but fearful that it could get bitter enough to do damage.

      by Justanothernyer on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:43:21 PM PDT

      •  If Hillary were to run the presidency like her

        campaign (and there's no indication it would be different), her presidency likewise

        "would be an unmitigated disaster"

        to use your terms.

        by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:05 PM PDT

  •  I don't see ...

    ... where the diarist is talking about not voting for the Dem nominee in November -- only the nomination itself.

    by JBL55 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM PDT

  •  No no no. Sorry, but it's the Clintons that are

    self-indulgent and harmful to the Democratic party.

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM PDT

•  I agree completely! n/t

  by Bo Jangles on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM PDT

•  this primary process has caused me to question

  why I support the democratic party. "Because it's better than the Republicans" rings hollow after the fear mongering and the race baiting. In fact, republicans are looking kind of superfluous to the apparent goal of going backwards in time. I'm not saying I won't support the democratic nominee whoever that is, but I'm very much in sympathy with your diary and understand why you wrote it.

  Let's just work real hard so we don't have to make choices between supporting our party and our ethics.

  by geejay on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM PDT

  •  I have long argued

    the vast majority of the country disagrees with us on nearly everything. I know that at least 90% of America would think I'm a radical leftist, so whoever the nominee is, is going to be to the right of me

    and it's politics, so it's nasty and you're going to hate people.

    by nrafter530 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:52:48 PM PDT

•  Well said ...

  I would rather lose trying to make a real change than settle for more of the same.

  Call me unpragmatic, but Clintonian pragmatism has more to do with what benefits Clinton than it does what benefits the party or the American people.  

  This has been made abundantly clear, particularly in the NPR interview this morning that had me shouting in my car the way I usually shout at the shrub or one of his handlers or enablers.

  To heck with Rovian strategies.  She may think it's the best way to win the Oval Office, but I agree with Dperl99: it will turn off young voters in droves at a critical time in history, damaging the party as surely as it will damage the nation.

  by JBL55 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM PDT

•  I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees,

  but with Obama, we won't have to do either.

  by Cardinal Tiger on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:38:45 PM PDT

•  Agreed

  by DarkOmnius on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:40:12 PM PDT

•  ummm, no

  The Democratic nominee MUST be elected, no matter who it turns out to be.  

  The Supreme Court, the entire federal bench, regulatory agencies, cabinet departments ... all of them are too important, and too dysfunctional under any Republican, to allow any possibility of a non-Democrat taking the oath of office on January 20.

  P.S.  The nominee will be Obama, so your diary is moot.

  by N in Seattle on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:40:34 PM PDT

  •  see my update n/t

    by Dperl99 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:43:30 PM PDT

•  The good news is

  you won't have to do either!

  by chicago minx on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM PDT

•  there is no win

  with Clinton.

  Pro war.  Health care by insurance companies.  "Owned" by corporations.  Owned, period.

  That's a win?  Not in my book.

  by Deward Hastings on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM PDT

•  I would rather win with both

  by dvogel001 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM PDT

  •  The 'dream ticket' is a myth...Hillary would

    never actually ask Obama to be her veep and Obama has no intention of asking Hillary (thankfully).

    by darthstar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM PDT

    •  That, and...

      She negates all of his positives and turned out the repubs.  

      by NeuBrew151 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:07:23 PM PDT

  •  Not me. At this point, I don't want to see

    either Hillary or Bill anywhere near the WH.  At least with her in the Senate, Bill has to stay away. He is then left alone to run around the world making shady deals with foreign leaders and securing kickbacks for his library.

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM PDT

    •  Whatever...

      by dvogel001 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:44:09 PM PDT

      •  Your "dream ticket" is a dead horse.

        Even Blitzer is starting to back away from it and he first pushed it when moderator of the CNN debate.

        by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM PDT

•  Everyone in this thread

  needs to start thinking about what else, or what more, you can do to assure that Sen. Obama wins.  Without an Obama win, the future is bleak either way.

  Let's be positive by getting active.  Check out this diary by Cat Servant.  Obama's campaign is asking us to call Independent voters in Pennsylvania tonight.  Let's do it!!!  Fired up.  Ready to Go!

  by nolalily on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM PDT

•  You'd rather have a 3rd Bush term

  than a Democrat (no matter how nebulous a Dem)?

  I have one question for you: How the FUCK are we supposed to survive THAT?

  This Bush has:

  1. Destroyed our economy - housing, unemployment, manufacturing, etc.

  2. Made us many enemies around the world

  3. Lost us respect around the world

  4. LIED us into a war that's still going on 6 years later

  5. Gotten thousands of our soldiers and tens (hundreds) or thousands of Iraqis killed

  6. Gotten tens of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wounded

  7. Presided over a DRASTIC increase in the economic rationing of health care

  8. Presided over what is very likely the single most dishonest administration in our history

  9. Illegal signing statements

  10. Massive financial government giveaways to his cronies in the oil business, Halliburton, etc. - to the detriment of all Americans

  11. Politicized SCIENTIFIC government groups such as NASA, NOAA, the CDC, and the NIH

  12. Turned the DOJ into a politicized department good for nothing but defending this corrupt administration

  13. Still not done one damn thing to protect our ports

  14. Sat in a classroom and stared at a fucking children's story while we were attacked after ignoring several warnings that something was in the works

  ... and that's just off the top of my head.

  And YOU are seriously willing to put McCain, A FUCKING BUSH CLONE, into the White House?

  That is sick.

  We. can't. afford. it. This whole damn country can't afford another four more years of this.

  by Lashe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM PDT

  •  A couple points:

    1. I think Obama will beat McCain.

    2. I hate Bush as much as the next Kossack but I am not sure what re-hashing his failings has to do with the argument at hand.

    3. As I said in a conmment above, I have no doubt a Clinton presidency would be preferable to a McCain presidency for the next 4 years, but if she does long-term lasting damage to the Democratic party and the liberal agenda, will it be worth the cost?

    by Dperl99 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:08 PM PDT

    •  she will set back the liberal agenda

      another generation

      by aaraujo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:01:27 PM PDT

      •  McCain would set back the country another gen.

        The "liberal agenda" (yikes, that sounds like a right-wing phrase!) will live on no matter what.

        I just don't know that we as a country could survive a McCain presidency.

        by Lashe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM PDT

        •  yes

          she will kill the resurgence of the liberal/progressive movemnet that has been building in the grass/netroots

          by aaraujo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:03:15 PM PDT

          •  If it's real grassroots, she can't kill it.

            Maybe slow it down, but not kill it.

            by Lashe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:27:34 PM PDT

  •  Just saw the update to the diary

    Posted the above before I saw it, so please don't take it as directed at you personally - well, unless you do start thinking that you won't vote for the Dem nominee unless it's Obama.

     
    Consider my comment geared to those who won't vote for the Democratic nominee if it's not THEIR favorite candidate. (And that goes for people on BOTH sides.)

    by Lashe on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM PDT

•  I am saying I won't vote for Clinton if she is

  the nominee. Nothing after all this will bring me back. Even having Barack as VP won't do it since this will only show me that he is just another politican like all the rest and that his words have really been - "just words".

  Bill in SC started it for me and Ferraro ended it.

  by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:57:19 PM PDT

•  I will not vote for Hillary Clinton

  it is a very liberating thing to say out loud.  I am a free man and I am not owned by a party.

  The Clintons have crossed a point where I cannot follow them any longer.

  I do not consider her to be the best example of a Democrat and if she is elected, she would be the example of a Democrat.

  If she represents what it is to be a Democrat, logically following, I cannot be a Democrat any longer.

  by aaraujo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59:13 PM PDT

  •  Perhaps a Democrat in name only. Certainly not

    a Democrat in principle. What a profound disappointment the Clintons have become.

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM PDT

•  does she realize how many votes she is losing...

  ..day by day?

  by johnviking on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 12:59:17 PM PDT

  •  She has lost the AA vote, forever

    by aaraujo on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:00:15 PM PDT

  •  Even more - Does she care?

    Perhaps she knows she can't win and wants to prevent Barack from winning so she can try again in four years.  Personally, I wouldn't put anything past the Clintons at this point.

    Why otherwise would she say that a Repug is better qualified to be CIC than a fellow Democrat? The woman is evil, or just "bad news" to be avoided at best.

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM PDT

•  Call her out on her lies.

  Digg this story. It's also on reddit.

  by skjold on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:01:33 PM PDT

•  Should Hillary actually steal the nomination, it

  will forever release me from belonging to the then improperly called "Democratic" Party. The reason being that they would have proved to no longer be the party I thought I have been supporting for more than forty years.

  We had our election stolen, and to also have our nomination stolen will be too much to bear.  My position will become one of "to hell with the lot of them".

  by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:06:11 PM PDT

•  I'd rather win.

  Period.

  by Finck II on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:09:17 PM PDT

  •  At any cost? Careful your sounding like Rove. n/t

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM PDT

    •  And you sound like a Nader, Rove's BFF,

      by Finck II on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:04:27 PM PDT

•  for those wanting to vote for McBush

  Read this Bloomberg piece out today, posted at Juan Cole's site:

  http://www.bloomberg.com/...

  by akr nyc on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:11:20 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for the reality check.

    This site has become so infested with purity trolls I'm about to lose my mind.

    by beagledad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:40:53 PM PDT

•  That's pretty stupid.

  I thought the purpose of this site was to help elect Democratic Party candidates.  Frankly, y'all just sound like the Nader idiots did in 2000.

  by beagledad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM PDT

•  Principle over party...

  is what was supposed to set us apart from the Republicans. If we lose that, then what do we have left?

  by BlueStateWatchdog on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:29:17 PM PDT

  •  You get President John McCain

    if your self-indulgent ideological purity keeps you from voting for the Democratic Party candidate.

    by beagledad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM PDT

    •  No. Those that support and vote for Clinton

      would be the ones that give us John McCain.  We are supporting Barack Obama to hopefully prevent that from happening.

      by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:36:22 PM PDT

      •  And if Clinton wins the nomination anyway,

        will you vote for her as the Democratic candidate, or will you retreat into a den of irrelevant self-righteous ideological purity?

        For the record, I voted Obama at my caucus, and I sent him money.  It's just that I can't stand the complete Naderist horseshittery of claiming that Clinton is no better than McCain.

        by beagledad on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:44:32 PM PDT

        •  After all she has done, I honestly doubt it.

          The way she has conducted the campaign, I could never be sure if it was legitimate even if she were to have a majority of pledged delegates at the end of the primaries.

          Her and Bill's conduct is so foreign to my personal values, I would have a most difficult time even considering voting for Hillary.  To do so would be a complete betrayal of my principles of honestly and integrity.

          by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:55:49 PM PDT

•  I agree, winning w/ clinton is end of Dem Party

  by Zacapoet on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:36:14 PM PDT

  •  The Democratic Party "as we know it" or at least

    thought it to be.

    We have won precious few elections in the last twenty years and if Hillary and Bill steal the election, the Party will be so fractured that it will be as good as dead.

    When our congressional leaders take outlandish positions such as "impeachment is off the table" in direct contradiction of their constitutional duties and responsibities we are almost dead anyway. The Clintons will merely be the final blow from which there will be no recovery.

    by Templar on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM PDT