I've been troubled all day

I've wanted to come up with an eloquent and diplomatic diary to Hillary supporters appealing for forgiveness if they have felt abused and asking for their support as Democrats in the general election if Obama wins the nomination, while at the same time appealing to them to understand why they may have been abused.  After all, there are oodles of Obama supporters who have been flamed as concern trolls for discussing various issues, the Wright story in particular, me included, so some of us feel your pain.

I have failed.  I simply can't put into words what I want to express.  It has something to do with digging that you support one candidate on issues or electability or ability to get things done.  What we can't dig is that these things are either not discussed, or use highly strained logic, spin, framing, exaggeration, etc. to make your point when they are discussed.

Instead, there's a steady diet of brushing off serious issues about Hillary's drawbacks, whining when fair attacks are made by anybody anywhere, embracing right wing talking points and the worst of campaign tactics, support for dragging this thing out until the convention, and hypocrisy on the issue of disenfranchisement.  (sorry for pimping an old diary of my own...but it's about to happen again).

I have failed because those types of words just aren't going to cut it in a diary that I hoped would be diplomatic, but obviously I lack the ability to express such thoughts in the right way.  But what I implore many of you to realize is that you are seemingly blind to some serious issues raised at this blog in in other forums in medialand regarding Hillary's record, credentials, electability, and effect on the Democratic party.  It is unfortunate that there are alot of posters who will flame instead of try to discuss these issues.  Some of us are sorry for that, all guilty probably should be apologetic as well.  But please understand that there is a highly logical foundation to the vast majority of our arguments.

But what has finally pushed me over the edge and given me this troubled feeling today are how many of you are now saying you would cross over and how a couple of you are concern trolling on an almost daily basis about '12+ million Hillary supporters not following' or 'you don't stand a chance in Florida or Ohio.'

Many may forget even though it was not long ago, but this place has not always been a fervent hotbed of Obamamania and this is not the first time we have seen an exodus of Hillary supporters leaving this site.  Not so long ago, this was a place that was by and large behind one John Edwards.  And not so long ago we saw a rash of GBCW diaries.  I remember it well, because it was the last time I had this same troubled feeling, and it inspired me to write my first diary hat DK.

I realize what I am about to say is a bit of a strawman argument, as was my first post, but I feel it is legitimate nonetheless and what we currently see is also something that gets my undies in a bundle about Hillary supporters.  Two months ago, there was a stark difference in the diaries of Clinton supporters.  We had the rash of GBCW diaries because alot of Kossacks said they would not vote for Hillary in the general election.  But now here we are only two months later, and the same camp is shouting they won't vote for the Democratic nominee if her name is not Hillary.  

And here is where my lack of diplomacy will again get the best of me.  Fuck you guy/lady that supported the GBCW'ers who now are thinking about voting for McCain, if you exist, which I'm sure you do, just as I said fuck you to the Edwards and Obama supporters who will vote for McCain (and now 'or Nader') two months ago.  

The only thing you have to support this bullshit is the myth that Obama's campaign has been anywhere near as nasty as Hillary (generally using posters on blogs and message boards as your surrogate for Obama), posturing about issues that shouldn't matter (you of all people should see through this Wright crap for the rightwing style hit job that it is), or some generalized flimsy arguments about 'experience'  (Dick fucking Cheney has a buttload of experience.  Would you support him too?).  Fucking turncoats.

And to the same people I spoke to two months ago who still feel the same way about Hillary, fuck you too.  I don't like Hillary's politics either.  I don't like her DLC policies, but to a large extent Obama shares them.  I don't like the paybacks she is going to have to make for the favors granted that would be necessary to her winning the nomination.  I don't like a ton of things about Hillary.  But I hate even the thought of George Bush III being elected in November.

•  I don't want YOU to do that.

  I want OBAMA to do that.

  Let the man himself step up to the plate.  He made a big ol' speech about race, he can make a big ol' speech about gender too.

  by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:25 AM PDT

  •  Because...?

    Keep trying, you'll get no traction here.

    by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:06:39 AM PDT

    •  We will overcoooooome

      We will overcome some daaaaaaay.

      Gotta keep on trying!

      by Fabian on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:09:27 AM PDT

•  The party needs unity

  the reality is though, IMHO, it has to start at the high levels, and work its way down, for us to win this election - ie Hillary and Obama need to work out some sort of deal.

  Whether it happens, or not, is a different story.

  by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:01:25 AM PDT

  •  No

    Hillary needs to work out a deal with her conscience, and soul, and perhaps mind. Obama has nothing to do with any of them. Her meltdown is not his fault.

    by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:08:06 AM PDT

    •  Yea, but if he doesn't get her supporters

      to vote for him in the general election (and there is real evidence that all assumptions are up for grabs in this election), then he'll lose the general.  

      And, for a lot of her supporters, at least my experince with them, its not about policy - its about the person

      by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:10:16 AM PDT

      •  Anyone--ANYONE-who votes for McCain

        or third party, or doesn't vote at all, because of this, is not, never was, and never will be a Democrat. They just thought that they were. Read my sig line. I mean it.

        Personally, I think that most will vote "D" whoever it is. There will be a cooling down and then healing period, and all will be fine with most Dems by November. We're going to rally around the winner, and take out the GOP. Trust me, it'll happen. People say things in the heat of battle (myself included) that they don't really mean. The stakes just aren't that high, compared to the stakes with the other side.

        by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:18:18 AM PDT

        •  Healing is not a one way street

          thats what you don't seem to get.  And, no, its not just about supporters, either.

          Let me ask you a question - honest answer - if you had to choose, between Obama winning the General, but with Hillary becoming Senate Majority Leader, or alternatively, Obama losing the general, but the Clintons permanently out of politics, which would you choose?

          by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:25:03 AM PDT

          •  Man that's easy

            The first option in a heartbeat. Of course, I'd rather he win and someone else become leader (Dodd would be my pick--he's earned it and would make a great leader). But if the condition for Obama becoming president is Hillary becoming leader, let's do it.

            Unlike what a lot of Clintonites are currently saying (but which I don't believe most of them mean), I'm not into "If I can't win, we all lose". Never have been, never will be. If by some chance she wins the nomination, she'll get my vote. Period. I won't be happy about it. But my feelings are totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.

            by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:28:51 AM PDT

            •  Then do me a favor

              and frankly, Obama as well - don't be so quick to say things like

              Hillary needs to work out a deal with her conscience, and soul, and perhaps mind. Obama has nothing to do with any of them. Her meltdown is not his fault.

              Its not about Hillary, or Obama - its about getting a Democratic President.  And part of that will require some healing within the party, and getting the supporters of the losing side to join those of the winning side.

              And the best way to do that is to bring the loser into the fold, in some fashion.  And Senate Majority Leader, is no small potato (or, if your a Quayle Republican, potatoe)

              by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:34:27 AM PDT

              •  There can be no healing

                so long as the Clintons continues their scortched earth campaign. I'm ok with her staying in the race, but without going negative. When she stops doing that, the healing can begin. But not before. It makes no sense for him to reach out his hand until they stop this. And yes, I fully well realize that this SEEMS to contradict his "unity" and "reach out to the other side" rhetoric, but what people failed to realized about that is that he meant reaching out to and possibly uniting with people on the other side who are READY to be reached out to and unite with us, and who are prepared to abandon Rovian-style politics. He never meant that he'd reach out to people who won't play fair. And until the Clintons do, he's not going to do any reaching out. It would be pointless, stupid, and a sign of weakness (which the Clintons would no doubt pounce upon--they are sharks and anyone who doesn't see this is naive).

                And in any case, it's not the campaign itself that needs to be reached out to, but her supporters. Some of them have acted awfully, but most are, I'm sure, simply loyal, and hurt. And sure he'll need to reach out to them--and will. And most will come around eventually, I believe. Of course, if she tells them to not make peace with Obama as some sort of ransom to extract conditions from him, then all bets are off. When you lose, you LOSE. I'm not saying that he shouldn't and won't cut some deals in the end to make everyone happy. But on his terms, not hers. Presumptive presidents make deals, they don't have them dictated to them. He'd just appear weak and hurt himself in the general otherwise. He can't be seen as a provisional nominee who needs her support to win. He needs to make it clear that he's the leader of the party, not the shared leader.

                I suspect, though, that she'll try to cut some deal with him, and be foolish enough to be too adamant about. She's a smart policymaker, but a terrible politician, and tends to overplay her hand, and do so poorly. She's clumsy, inartful and tone deaf, and tends to overestimate her strengths (a sign of insecurity and political tone deafness, IMO). He can't let her succeed in this. Not out of vanity or foolish pride, but to lay down the law and let everyone know that he's the one and only nominee, and will not have terms dictated to him. Only then can any healing begin. He'd be a lot weaker against McCain if he caved to any such demands from Clinton and looked weak, than he would with some of her supporters refusing to support him if he stood his ground.

                I hate to say it, but Hillary's set herself up to be this year's Sister Souljah. And don't think for a second that he won't do to her what Bill did to the original back in '92. He will. He'll have to, if she forces him. Successful politics is about strength before it's about compassion. Always has been, always will be. But if we'll need healing, sure, fine. But only on his terms. That's the way it'll have to be.

                by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:52:28 AM PDT

                •  Carrot and Stick aproach

                  that has always been my personal thought.  What I'd like to see happen is that the party leaders put Obama and Clinton in a room, and work out some deal, whereby the person who has the most pledged delegates will be the nominee, the dirty tricks stop, and in exchange, the person who didn't get the nominee would be Senate Majority leader (or something on par with that), conditioned upon us getting a Democratic president.  

                  Alternatively, if the dirty campaigning doesn't stop, then the party leaders would throw their weight behind whoever is the likely nominee now, and would push for the political destruction of whoever is engaging in the dirty tricks.  

                  I agree the dirty campaigning needs to stop, and now.  But you can't work out the deal before or after it stops.  Negotiations happen during the event.

                  by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:06:25 AM PDT

                  •  I think tht already happened.

                    And the leaders got turned down.

                    Hence, the increasing number of public remarks to the effect of ending the cmpaigns before the Convention.

                    The Clintons aren't going to budge.

                    Bill: "We're not going anywhere."

                    We could read that two ways, but I'll guess he means they are in it to the bitter end.

                    by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:47:09 AM PDT

              •  McCain

                is a miserable choice because it looks like he'll just be an extension of what we have now.  However, not everyone is a Democrat, and the mud slinging between Clinton and Obama is making those voters uneasy.  They're both flawed and both damaged.  The trick is to get the rest of us to see that McCain is even worse.  It's too bad we have another election where non Democrats are faced with the lesser of two evils.  The most important thing  we need to remember is that any congressional or senate seats up for grabs MUST be won by ANYONE but a Republican.  We might survive a Republican Pres, but not a Republican House and Senate.

                by silverlioness on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:30:45 AM PDT

              •  Aren't you getting ahead of yourself?

                Has Clinton conceeded and I missed it?

                Should Obama go public with an offer to make her Majority Leader?

                BTW, do President elects have authority to choose Majority Leader?

                by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:42:44 AM PDT

          •  And Obama's side has nothing to apologize for

            towards this "healing". Sure, he and his supporters have said and done some things that they shouldn't have. But comparatively speaking, it's not even close to what her side has to apologize for. "You're likeable enough, Hillary" and "Monster" are in no way comparable to "Jesse Jackson won SC too" and "Cocaine/Muslim".

            by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:32:02 AM PDT

            •  Sometimes, it doesn't matter whether

              you did something or not, whether you were right or not - sometimes, you say "I am sorry" and move on.  This is (slightly modified) one of those times.  Its not so much an apology, but, well, for lack of a better phrase, consolation prize.  

              by FerrisValyn on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:36:16 AM PDT

              •  Bit early for that.

                As much as I'd like to see Obama extend an olive branch to the loosers, they're tuned into a different wavelength at this momemnt.

                by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:49:17 AM PDT

            •  When people on Obama's side say "Fuck You" then

              hell yes, they have things to apologize for.

              by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:07:14 AM PDT

              •  I said this? Obama? His people?

                Huh? I thought the Clinton side was supposed to be the tough one--especially at 3am.

                by kovie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM PDT

          •  Is Obma trying to alienate Clinton supporters?

            Sorry, but I've got to ask it because I just don't see Obama pulling the kind of divisive crap the Clinton camp engages in.

            Is he playing a "gender card" against her" No.

            Is he toadying up to Republican oppoenents and making unfavorable comparrison to her in the process? No.

            Is he shouting "Same on you Clinton"? No.

            Please elaboate. Please make an objective comparrison between the content, style and methods of these two campagins and explain where Obama needs to make ammends, particularly at a time Clinton keeps digging the hole deeper.

            As for your question, my answer is I will vote for whomever takes the prmary despite the fact that Clinton's campaign has done just about everything imaginable to convince me otherwise.

            by koNko on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

  •  That's the way it has always worked

    People who are too young or have short memories do not remember that this campaign has actually been one of the less contentious ones!  They forget Bradley and Gore, or Kennedy and Carter, Ford and Reagan.

    1968.

    The fish stinks from the head.  Unity is achieved when the two parties work out a deal that will enable both the winner and the loser to consolidate their positions, support the platform, and go on to the general election.  The supporters can't do squat- they are honestly unable to deal with the problems, and frankly are too incendiary and juvenile to come to peace with the issues.

    by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:06:16 AM PDT

•  If Hillary tells her people

  to get on the Obama bandwagon once she's out of it, the vast majority will do so.

  I read that a bunch of the supers called Hill and told her that if she didn't quit the scorched earth campaign that they were coming out for Obama.  That was on Wednesday, and it seems to me that her campaign has cooled it down somewhat.  She seemed more focused on plugging her agenda then running his down.  

  I think Obama supporters would be wise to just stop getting off on feeling so vulnerable to Hill and Bill, and their campaign.  Let her stay.  Focus on advancing Barack.  Stay positive.  It's gotten us this far, why stop now?

  by Shelley99 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:05:23 AM PDT

•  Here ya go

  These tactics sound familiar

  "Our movement will be entirely destructive, and entirely constructive. We will not try to reform the existing institutions. We only intend to weaken them, and eventually destroy them.
  "We will use guerrilla tactics to undermine the legitimacy of the dominant regime.

  We will pick off the most intelligent and creative individuals in our society, the individuals who help give credibility to the current regime.

  We must learn to treat leftists as natural disasters or rabid dogs.

  One must give them dreams and ideals that have been put in terms they can understand, and that touch their hearts, as opposed to their rational minds. If we cannot capture the imaginations of our members, then we cannot expect our members to make great sacrifices for us.

  College students must be a key audience for our movement, since they are free of excessive time commitments and they find themselves in an environment that (theoretically) encourages activism and exposure to new ideas.

  We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil.

  Even if We Lose, We Still Win

  BTW, Fuck You even though I fit into none of those boxes you seemed to construct.

  by LaEscapee on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:28:01 AM PDT

•  Fuck you too? Nice way to get people on your

  side!

  You want unity, but you don't want to move an inch towards the people who disagree.

  That isn't unity, that is polarity.

  by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 07:02:08 AM PDT

  •  Your the second

    Hillary supporter to point that out to me, and the second Hillary supporter to fail to acknowledge that I said "fuck you" to Obama supporters at the end as well, and began my post with a more subtle way of saying "fuck you" to them at the beginning as well.

    And if anybody needs a "Fuck you" it's a Democrat who says they will vote for McCain.  But I don't think any of this really matters, because I think what is going on here is silly posturing at my language instead of addressing the what I said.  A sort of mini version of "God damn America" with complete and utter failure to include the context.

    And that subscribes to the general theme of Hillary supporters here, and lends credence to what I say above.  No taking what I have to say head on whatsoever.  

    Instead we get bullshit notions that Obama failed because he didn't give a gender speech when he hasn't gone there in this campaign.  

    We get bullshit notions that Obama has something to apologize for, yet none of you able to come up with exactly what it is that he has done wrong.  

    We get bullshit notions that the apologies have to come from the top, even though, from what I can tell, Hillary supporters have a bigger problem with Obama supporters than they do with Obama.

    We get chastising for being too young to remember some of the nastiness in past primaries, with a failure to note that every single nominee that came out of those scorched earth primaries LOST the general election.

    We get the aforementioned posturing even though Hillary's supporters are prepared to seize on every talking point and say the nastiest things, and her campaign is willing to do the same, while it's really only the blogosphere where anyone associated with Obama gets nasty.  Seriously, does Obama have to apologize because I said "Fuck you" on DK?  I don't think so.

    You people insist Hillary will make the best candidate because she is so tough, yet what we see over and over again in this thread and elsewhere is suggestions that her supporters and her campaign and Hillary herself need to be sufficiently coddled in order to be loyal Democrats and do what is best for the party and the country.

    Again, I don't have capacity for diplomacy and I apologize for that, but you people are being obtuse. Get over your hurt and come back to reality.  Healing comes primarily from within, especially when you are the one who abandoned your principles and all logic in this matter.

    We as Democrats tend to see through the framing, spin, exaggeration, shifting of goal posts, phony incredulity.  We tend to think logically with a set of principles guiding right and wrong, as opposed to taking morality by edict and based upon who did what.  I implore you Hillary supporters to get back to thinking that way.

    by whereisboblafollette on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:55:34 AM PDT

    •  Not a Hillary supporter

      Started with Edwards, now I'm pretty much a toss-up.  I think Obama is slightly better, but I worry about electability in some areas where he's done poorly.

      I'm also worried that the younger voters who have come out in such great numbers will abandon the party or simply return to historical ambivalent trends.

      In most elections the under-30 crowd is about 10% of the electorate.  If they come out in numbers, and stay committed to the process we could see the essential long-term end of the Republican party.  I'm just hoping that if they don't get their way, they won't simply take their ball and go home.

      by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM PDT

      •  Sorry for that

        but I hope you appreciate my point about false incredulity.  

        As for electability, I kind of see some of the framing one set of facts and ignoring another set, as I discussed in the diary, in this reply.  Magically plucking one apple from the 'unelectable' tree and holding it up as the golden fruit.

        I think the concern about the younger voters is an empty concern.  If nothing else, we have a whole new set of voters who will turn 18 between now and November who will overwhelming go with Obama.  The Obama organization is rife with youngsters ready to energize other youngsters.  At the same time, we see an energized AA population that will not go away, and makes taking a southern state or two a real possibility.

        Further, the foremost concern that all Democrats should have is the effect of an energized conservative base.  That is what won the past two elections and that is the only thing, aside from the media forcing McCain down Americas throat and more Florida/Ohio, that will capture this next election.  Their candidate is McCain, and they are not fired up about him.  Indeed, it appears the only thing that will fire them up is Hillary.  Obama even appears to have weathered the Wright controversy extraordinarily well.  What could go further in energizing the right against Obama, I have no idea.

        Instead, Hillary supporters, NYWriter in particularly, plucks one article from one Congressman, and declares the electability issue settled in favor of Hillary.  It's completely disingenuous, and completely false.  To me, actions speak louder than words, and the right wing talkies call to vote for Hillary is all the evidence I need as to who is more electable.

        by whereisboblafollette on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM PDT

        •  Please appreciate this

          In most elections, the <60 crowd is more than double the>30 crowd.  That age cohort has historically been the least reliable.

          BUT the 18-34 crowd now self-identifies as roughly 2:1 Democratic.  For the most part, people rarely change their affiliation, or do so only in times of extreme party turmoil.

          So if this current cohort is to stay energized, break historical trends, and continue to grow, it would really harm the future of the Republican party.

          It would actually permit the Democrats to push forward a more progressive agenda, as their right wing loses power.  And once again using history as a guide, we will possibly see defections from the more liberal Republicans.

          But only if that age bracket decides to throw away a century's worth of history.

          And just for the record, the number of people that are currently too young to vote but will reach voting age by Nov. is less than 1% of the electorate.  If they follow normal trends, less than 15% of them will register and vote.  That will only amount to perhaps 180,000 voters, and only about 50-60,000 Democratic plurality.

          But given an additional 50-60,000 votes properly proportioned, Humphrey beats Nixon, Gore beats Bush, and Nixon beats Kennedy (so that one goes against us...)

          by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:31:11 PM PDT

          •  Screwed up the greater than and lesser than signs

            And I program professionally!  But this is my day off.

            by Dcoronata on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM PDT