Hillary Supporters are in denial and this is a problem for all of us

Many of us have become frustrated with the level of spin and unreality eminating from the Hillary camp and the MSM after the Pennysylvania primary.  The biggest issue they are touting is this fantasy of Hillary being the winner of the "popular vote."

Kos, Jon Stewart and others have taken on this red herring and shown it for what it is, but that does not mean we can just ignore it.  The fact is that Hillary is laying false claim to the throne because of faulty logic, and her supporters are eating it up.

It's very likely that once the superdelegates show their hand and it becomes clear that Obama is the nominee that they will feel cheated.  They truly believe that the Florida and Michigan elections should have counted AS IS for Hillary.  And they may or may not show up for Obama in November as a result.

I'm EXTREMELY angry at Hillary for spreading this lie.  But I'm also worried that it's far too late to start talking reason to these voters.  We need a neutral party such as Howard Dean to start explaining to the masses exactly WHY we cannot count those elections.  There needs to be a concerted effort to show them that it's not a decision in Obama's favor, it's a decision in the favor of the rules.

I'm sceptical that we will be able to reach them.  But if we're going to even try, we need to start doing it soon.  And it can't be someone with an agenda--not Obama, not his supporters, not talking heads on TV.  Hillary's attempts to kneecap Obama's chances just might work if half the party continues to buy her lies.

•  Thanks for reading.

  I'm starting to despair...though I think in the end Obama will pull it off in November.  It just pains me to see Hillary out there consciously spreading untruths.

  by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:35 AM PDT

  •  The media is letting this idea gain traction

    And the supers, as always, are sitting on their hands.

    Obama needs one big endorsement to come out and say "One of the reasons why I'm endorsing Senator Obama is because of Senator Clinton's irresponsible claims that she leads the popular vote, a clear abstraction of the will of actual voters.  It's time for the candidates to stop spinning and stop lying.  And it's time for Barack Obama to be our party's nominee."

    by billysumday on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:27:04 AM PDT

    •  Why do they not realize

      what a can of worms trying to calculate the popular vote is.  Just this morning I was hearing about places in Philadelphia where lots of black voters were turned away because there wasn't enough time to register their votes.  Do we count them?  And that's just the tip of the iceberg--there's caucuses, FL/MI, etc.

      by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:33:10 AM PDT

      •  they could have voted provisional

        but the obama campaign apparently left the precincts open and instead concentrated on door knocking(lots of confusion arose; there have been a few diaries since tuesday with the details from the ground)

        by pogoalwaysright18 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

    •  the media is GIVING this idea traction

      over and over and over again.

      Ask yourself why.

      by o the umanity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:01 AM PDT

  •  The Clinton campaign

    and supporters are living in the land of magical thinking.  It's like an abuse victim who stays with the abuser, because it can be turned around, "it will stop, if I just.. (fill in the blank with some mundane action)."  Of course, it won't be turned around, it won't stop, absent some massive intervention.  Hillary herself realizes this, is in fact counting on this.  She feeds her believers food for magical thought to garner donations and purchase time.  She expends the time toward pressuring superdels, because only they can provide her with the intervention she must have to take the nom.  

    by RoCali on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49:00 AM PDT

    •  Could you possibly be more insulting

      Or is this your best effort?  Good grief.  Hillary is feeding "her believers food for magical thought."  You may think you are taking a shot at Hillary here, but what the hell do you think you are saying to and about her supporters.  Way to go on that unity issue.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:17:50 AM PDT

•  This is about creating a self-fulfilling prophecy

  And an Obama loss which will mean that everyone other than Clinton or a white man can't run for President for the next 40 years. And it's all about Bill Clinton's ego. Let there be no doubt, Bill Clinton is an arrogant person with no core beliefs. And he's a racist to boot.

  by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM PDT

  •  Scary theory...wish I could dispute it!

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:31:48 AM PDT

  •  how dare you!

    Bill Clinton has an office in Harlem! That was a classic.

    by Shahryar on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:34:31 AM PDT

    •  LOL I forgot about that

      He's probably scouting out for new digs as we speak...

      by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:37:23 AM PDT

  •  he's not a racist BUT

    he does have a huge ego(so does his wife) and they think they can still WIN, if they are able to prolong this thing; that is why indiana needs to be won by obama; then we can move forward against mccain

    by pogoalwaysright18 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:55:01 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, I disagree, he is a racist

      The reality of being inclusive is that occasionally those with power are going to have to give up things they want for progress and a better society. Bill Clinton has shown himself incapable of doing that, and has resorted to racism to defend his privilege, which makes him a true racist in every sense of the word.  

      by The Bagof Health and Politics on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:23 AM PDT

      •  he is no racist

        we will just disagree on that one; but your other points are more important and more valid

        by pogoalwaysright18 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM PDT

•  Hillary knew and agreed to the rules

  and only seeks to muddy the waters because she is losing.
  Most people believe in being fair and what she suggests simply is not fair.
  I also wonder how anyone knows what the votes in Fla. and Mich. think about their delegates being seated or not at the convention. It seems to me to be something that most people really wouldn't give much thought to since its a DNC party rules and process thing and not something that effects anyone's life directly. Its wonkish stuff.

  Besides, wouldn't the Democratic  from Michigan or Florida have wanted fair contests in their states? Contests that would have allowed them to choose from among all the candidates? And shouldn't they be more bothered then the rest of us by Hillary's desperate use of their votes while at the same time she claims the voter's will not as important as the super delegates votes?

  by pd1969 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:29:24 AM PDT

  •  The problem is her supporters hear

    only what they want to hear, and that is that Hillary is being cheated out of her rightful nomination.

    It makes me seethe...but what to do about it??  How do we reach them?

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:31:15 AM PDT

    •  I've thought about this, too

      and I honestly think it is time for Howard Dean to get more involved in setting the record straight. This bullshit spin from the Clinton camp has gone on far too long. I so admire Dean but I have to confess that I am unimpressed with how he is handling this. Whether he likes it or not, he is the Chair and it's time to start acting like it.

      Let me be clear...I don't want him to endorse one of these candidates; I want him to very publicly correct the misrepresentations and lies that are being spewed as a last gasp from someone that can only win the nomination through the archaic super delegate process.

      by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:49:40 AM PDT

      •  The problem is that that

        will be seen as an endorsement.

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM PDT

        •  Well, tough shit. It's his job.

          And sometimes, we have to do our jobs, even when it is unpleasant.

          by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:56:53 AM PDT

          •  I understand its his job

            what I am saying is that, by going that route, I think its arguable he'd be doing more damage than good.  

            by FerrisValyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:58:43 AM PDT

            •  You may be right.

              Then again, at this point, I'm not sure it would hurt to try since this situation is just about as bad as it can get, at this point.

              by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:00:23 AM PDT

          •  You took the words right out of my mouth

            and it's not like he can't get the media to pay attention to what he has to say.

            Right?  ;)

            by o the umanity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:11 AM PDT

      •  the biggest mistake howard dean could make

        is exactly what you suggest; he MUST not come across as anything other than neutral; thus, when the time is right(when obama has actually achieved the majic delegate number) he can call for it to end and make the proper appeal for unity(to his credit, he has already called for the supers to decide and do so PUBLICLY)

        by pogoalwaysright18 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:06 AM PDT

      •  I totally agree

        It wasn't til today that I realized we may be past the point of no return for some Hillary supporters.  He should have been reaching out to them long ago to explain the MI/FL mess.

        by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM PDT

    •  she also "deserves" this...

      I've heard it before, as you all have A MILLION TIMES. I heard it on Tuesday here in Philly. Two ladies were talking about how they saw Hillary the night before. They talked about how good she looks, how she looks to have been given a new make up person, and how hard she is working. After a several seconds of silence one said to the other, "She deserves this so much!". These two ladies are her core supporters. Two 60 year oldish white women.

      Folks, Obama could have won EVERY state and EVERY delegate and her supporters would still be crying foul. They believe that this is something that she has earned and deserves. The fact that she has won delegates and states, etc just gives them added ammunition.

      by The Mort Man on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:51:45 AM PDT

      •  For a lot of those women

        and, frankly, some men as well, she does deserve it.  The tone of the first Clinton presidency was that it really was marriage of equals, much like had been talked about during the 60s - instead of the man ruling the house, this was to be a marriage of equals, which meant that she could play a role when he was president (something other than "Hi, welcome to the white house").

        The problem is she (and Bill, frankly) really got treated like crap by the right-wing media.  There were a lot of people who were (and still aren't) comfortable with the idea of a powerful woman.  And thus, she was told to sit down, and shut up (and, to a degree, she did - at least she became less visible).

        And for a lot of people, especially older woman, that attitude and that experience personifies a lot of what happened, and thus its very personal to them, and why they feel she's earned it

        by FerrisValyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM PDT

    •  Reach Obama Supporters...

      ...and learn to understand that real Democratic Party voters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.

      by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM PDT

      •  except

        although 54.6% of the people who voted voted for Clinton on Tuesday, 54% of them also think she won't win the nomination.

        The Exit poll turned out to be fairly accurate.

        by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM PDT

  •  She's delegitimizing the process

    and thereby assuring that someone is going to feel that they don't have to support the nominee.  It's incredibly destructive.  It's not just a manager talking about how his time has some bright spots.  It's a manager talking about how the game is being scored wrong.  

    by Inland on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:37:49 AM PDT

    •  The sports analogy works well

      her followers are irrational...they just want her to win at all costs...they don't care if the refs are bought, so long as they win.

      But it's not a game, it's the future of our country and the foundation of our democracy.

      by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:40:12 AM PDT

  •  voting uncommitted in Michigan

    I live in MI and received an email from the Obama campaign encouraging me to  vote "uncommitted. I believe "Candidate Uncommitted" received something like 44%. This looked, initially, like a good thing--given a choice, 44% voted uncommitted. But, on the other hand, it legitimates the sense that Michiganders voted and chose Clinton. In the end--tho who could have could have predicted the Clinton camp's shenanigans--I think they should have said: "Stay home! Don't vote!" giving her, perhaps, a bigger percentage, true, but the perception that she "won" MI in a landslide would have looked suspicious. Her reasonable looking win of around 51% falls into the trap of making the MI final tally look like an actual primary result. If the results had been, let's say, 80% Clinton, and some lowball percent uncommitted, then we could argue more effectively that her un-oppposed "victory" was meaningless.
    BTW, I did not vote, and I know many others who also didn't bother, but who would have if Obama had been on the ballot.

    Oh, well It doesn't matter, it just bugs me that she has room to make the argument based on such a bogus "win."

    by kfd313 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:09 AM PDT

    •  She would have spun it no matter what

      Look at FL...

      by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM PDT

•  Hillary is looking forward to 2012 when she can

  run against McCain.

  She maligns Obama so badly that he loses in the General Election to McCain thereby creating an opportunity for her to run for President in 2012.

  At least that seems to be her game plan to me.

  by Mr SeeMore on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:32:25 AM PDT

•  If we just give 100% of both MI and Florida

  to Hillary just for the hell of it, would that even be enough for her to win? If not, maybe we should do it just to shut down the persecution complex.

  by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:32:48 AM PDT

  •  We could give her the delegates

    but if that's not enough for her to win they'll just want to count the popular votes.

    It's SO infuriating...they insist on re-creating the math in order to ensure that Hillary ends up the winner.  They seem unable to grasp the basic flaw in this plan.

    I've tried to ask them if they could honestly imagine counting Fl/MI if the positions were switched and Obama were behind.  I never get an answer.

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:36:53 AM PDT

  •  No. Sorry, but no.

    I see your point...but no. Obama played by the fucking rules, as did Edwards, and took his name off of the ballot in Michigan. How in God's name would it be fair to give her 100% of the votes, when she gave her word that the results in Michigan wouldn't count and she was the only candidate on the ballot?  

    She gave her word because she thought she had this sucker in the bag and was the preordained one, the anointed one. This isn't an autocracy. It's a democracy. Sorry, Hillary.

    by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:54:09 AM PDT

    •  I was making a facetious comment.

      Of course it wouldn't be acceptable. Which, of course, in the backwards world of Clinton fanatics, means that it is the only fair choice.

      by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:56:29 AM PDT

      •  I'm sorry, cat.

        I've got the flu and am testy as hell today. I'm just so goddamned sick of the whole thing, it literally pisses me off just to read about it.

        Again, apologies.

        by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:59:10 AM PDT

        •  I know, it's driving me nuts, too. nt

          by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:09:58 AM PDT

          •  Sweet jeebus...

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM PDT

        •  WTF? Read:

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM PDT

          •  Oh Good Lord.

            I think that's about all I want to say about that line of reasoning. :)

            by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

            •  What the heck can you even say about that?

              We were just saying how insane that POV was, and poof! There it is. I'm totally speechless.

              by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM PDT

              •  Honestly, I'm with you. Speechless.

                I don't even know how to argue the point. I mean that is some desperate spin. I'm envisioning a guy with his fingers in his ears, singing "la, la, la, la," to try and drown out reason.

                by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM PDT

                •  I'm seriously shutting down Firefox right now.

                  Time to do something else.

                  by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:04:55 PM PDT

                  •  I took a three hour nap.

                    After two hours of sleeping, can I even call it a nap, I wonder? And honestly, I feel worse now than I did this morning. I can't wait for this day to end so I can go home and sleep. I feel awful. Reading stupid shit doesn't make me feel much better.

                    by Pager on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:10:30 PM PDT

                    •  Hi pager - can I ask for more cat advice?

                      Well... I'm a sucker. I'm up to 4 cats. I found another one (Molly) in Texas and I brought her home. In TX she was the sweetest thing on earth. Now, she's started biting me a bit and/or batting me with her paws like a boxer (she gets up on her hind legs). I'd wonder if she was playing but she never did it before! And Raiden likes to play bite and play kick and it seems different when she does it - it's obviously playing.

                      Any idea what's going on in Molly's head? Is she mad at me? She didn't start doing this until she met Ellie (cat #3) and had a bad first interaction with her. I was trying to let Molly out of the bathroom and put Ellie in the bathroom, but Molly didn't get out and Ellie jumped out of my arms in a very aggressive way. Then I grabbed Molly and put her on top of the fridge, which seems to be a preferred hiding spot for her, so I could get Ellie back into the bathroom. That's when the biting started, after that.

                      Also - Ellie's not chilling out and it's been 2 1/2 weeks. I kept her in the bathroom for a few days last week and she was very sweet to me then but since I've let her out she's back to being the aggressive little bitch she was acting like before. Howling, scratching, etc. Do I give her more time or give up?

                      by OrangeClouds115 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:49:04 PM PDT

                      •  Okay, a couple of things

                        going on here...you are introducing way too many changes way too quickly. You've gone from 2 to 4 cats in less than 3 weeks, when the 3rd cat isn't even comfortable in your home. Why bring in a 4th cat when the 3rd one is still settling in?

                        As for the bathroom, I think we talked about this before...you're looking at a minimum of 6 weeks with her in there. The lack of consistency for her is making things so much worse. 2 1/2 weeks may seem long to you but again, this isn't about you. It's about her and it can take up to six months for cats to learn to tolerate each other. She may never get along completely with your other cats but more than likely will learn to live with them in peace, if she is given enough time.

                        She may also be better off in a home with no other pets.

                        I honestly think at this point, you should look up a behaviorist in your area that can help guide you in how to handle your cats and perhaps assist you in deciding how many you should have right now.

                        Bottom line is this...until you get a professional on board, stop bringing more pets into your home, keep Ellie in the bathroom at all times, and google a licensed animal behaviorist in your area and get an appointment, pronto.

                        by Pager on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:27:19 AM PDT

                        •  thanks

                          Cat #4 came in bc she was starving... and yeah, it's not so easy on Ellie. She seemed happier in the bathroom in a way but she also did a lot of meowing in there because she was lonely and wanted attention.

                          by OrangeClouds115 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:05:26 PM PDT

      •  It Should be Acceptable

        You Obama supporters who call yourselves progressives and yell and scream about voting machines being hacked and the 2000 election being stolen, now want to steal an election by not counting votes that were legitimately cast by real voters.

        Shame on you.  You're as bad as the Jim Baker Bush v. Gore crowd of Republicans.

        by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM PDT

        •  Is this snark?

          Or are you saying that my comment about handing over 100% of MI and FL to Clinton should be acceptable?  If you are saying that, you are insane.

          by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:53:25 AM PDT

          •  Not So

            People in those states voted in good faith.  Nobody campaigned there so it's the same as everyone campaigning.  

            Votes that are cast should count.  End of story.

            by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:15 AM PDT

            •  well, they were both

              given the opportunity to recast votes and their states chose not to. they should have followed the rules, but the state parties chose not to do that as well.

              by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:16:01 AM PDT

        •  You're serious, aren't you?

          You think that the actions of the state parties in MI and FL, and the subsequent sanctions by the party leaders, were part of some master conspiracy conducted by individual voters for Obama?

          Get help.

          by iconoclastic cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM PDT

        •  No one voted in those states

          thinking that their votes would be counted.  THAT is the ONLY SALIENT POINT, because it affected how people voted.

          by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM PDT

•  Other, more damaging lies

  have been fed to and consumed by Clinton's supporters. Many otherwise normal, educated people are now thoroughly convinced that Barack Obama is a white hating Nation of Islam member. Yes, I have heard this from Democratic activists in the Hillary camp. And no, I will never forgive Hillary Clinton or her entourage for spewing this toxic, racist crap. She ought to be shunned like the plague for this crime.

  I don't know how her supporters can be brought back into the fold. They have been carefully trained to hate and fear Obama and his supporters; it is very hard to abandon such irrational beliefs.

  by beltane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:31 AM PDT

  •  I don't understand

    how they can possibly believe that he has been as bad to her as she has to him.  I always try to be fair & ask myself if I'm just being biased, but I just don't see any example of his spreading a lie about her the way she has.

    But it's the disrespect for the democratic process that really gets me.  I love Jon Stewart's piece on this.

    by oscarsmom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM PDT

    •  Blind devotion

      Hillary's followers are displaying the same unlimited devotion as Bush loyalists. I thought it was a quality unique to right-wing authoritarians; I was wrong.

      by beltane on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM PDT

      •  And Obama Supporters?

        They're just better informed more mature ...  Based on what this site has turned into I'd suggest you look point our the hypocrisy of "your side" before attacking HRC supporters

        by ggymrat32 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:40:52 AM PDT

        •  Better Informed?

          Talk about elitism.  You've got it all.  I submit that the best informed voters in America are the senior citizens, who come out and vote in huge numbers and have been voting for the past 30-50 years and know what voting means.

          They support Hillary overwhelmingly against BOTH Barack and McCain.  They are the best informed voters in this country.

          by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:08:19 AM PDT

          •  No, senior citizens are not "the best informed"

            http://gerontologist.gerontologyjour...

            <blockquoteThis happened again in 2004. The percentage of older persons voting for George Bush was slightly more than the national average, suggesting that old-age policy issues are not the predominant factors affecting older voters. </blockquote>

            Unless you mean to suggest that the better informed you are, the more likely you were to support Bush a second time around?

            by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM PDT

            •  I think your missing the point on one thing

              Senior consistly vote.  Younger voters (remember Kerry & Dean) while great in the primaries don't always show up when the vote really counts.  So the question really is who has the more reliable base.  We shall see but history may not bode well for Obama in the fall.  THAT IS WHY I KEEP trying to point out to Obamites they need to extend the hand of friendship to CLintonistas. Bashing her at this point only alienates her base . Maybe I don't state this well ( I have tried) but reality is reality and Obama probably will be the nominee but many of his supporters are being very short-sighted in their zeal to bash anything Clinton

              by ggymrat32 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:47:16 AM PDT

•  HRC, media setting up somebody to feel cheated

  by bringing in all these different metrics and then lying about them.  She's delegitimizing the entire process and making sure it's not accepted by all dems.

  by Inland on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:59 AM PDT

•  You have to treat them like Bush Dead Enders

  Same mindset.

  by The Dead Man on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

•  I don't think you'll find

  anybody thats considered impartial - thats part of the problem - its assumed that everyone has an agenda, and thereby, corrupt (or rather, can't be impartial).

  I'd argue that the real solution is to force Hillary and Obama into a room together, and get them to make some sort of deal - or get them and the top Dem Leaders to make a deal - doesn't matter what the deal is, a deal needs to be made.

  by FerrisValyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:51:22 AM PDT

•  Hillary's Supporters. Would it help to mock them?

  I'm really good with the mocking.  It's hilarious to me when people can't recognize things like the color of the sky, the roundness of the earth, the logic-defying lies they swallow and then spread, the ignorance of math, and the vapidness of their overall culture.  I saw some video of a Hillary Parade in PA and it nearly made me hurl.  Giant pictures of her being marched down the street, confetti everywhere, like some fucking coronation of a chinese dictator.  Is it these people's fault that they're so misinformed, so undereducated, and so gullible?  Does the lack of responsibility they take for the upkeep of their minds put them somehow beyond a mocking?  Is it like making fun of the mentally ill or the dim, or Republicans?  Or is it less fucked up than that?

  Call me elite all you want.  I like having an education and knowing things about the world.  Not that everyone needs to be me, but when populations get so stupid as to ignore the fabric of reality itself for extended periods of time, totally fucked up shit happens, like the needless invasion and occupation of foriegn countries, NAFTA, the WTO, breathing room for Bush to nuke Iran, the theft of our treasury, the destruction of our military, and I could really go on and on forever about things I hold Hillary herself responsible for.  

  Every time she voted in favor of Bush/McCain/Lieberman policies, or advocated her husband's corporate trade deals, she helped to make the world into a shittier place.  She can never take that back.  She can never undo the loss of human life in Iraq which she enabled.  She can never regrow the limbs of our soldiers who lost them for a bullshit war which she advocated, enabled, and possibly could have stopped with the political capital she'd built up while running for the Senate in NY.  But she was busy being a lunatic Goldwater Republican while she was in the Senate and not a responsible adult.  Not that she'll tell you she did those things for anything other than her political career, in the end.

  But seriously.  I'm wrestling with my conscience here.  Should we mock those who cannot see the light of truth?  I'm humble enough in my elitism to know that I have been mocked in the past, and it has helped me to grow.

  by Ouroboros on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM PDT

  •  To borrow from Ben Franklen

    at least from the HBO series "Its perfectly acceptable to insult (mock) in private - they may even thank you for it - but when you mock in public, they tend to think you rather serious"

    by FerrisValyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

  •  NO, it would not be good to mock them

    It may be OK to trash Hillary, but let's be more gentle on her supporters. Given that when the primaries are over Hillary will have nearly half the votes, we will need nearly all of them to defeat McCain in November. Already Hillary's voters are not feeling the love from the rest of the Dems. There was a Penn exit poll that stated that 60% of Hillary voters would not vote for Obama in the GE. While I think that this is unlikely, we can't alienate these voters.

    by VClib on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM PDT

    •  I agree; some of those folks are my friends.

      We're not on the same side on this, but we're allies in a lot of other issues. I want them back, not driven into an even more bitter froth.

      by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM PDT

      •  I mock my friends when they ignore truth.

        And somehow, I still have friends.

        by Ouroboros on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM PDT

•  IMHO, the supers are trying to walk a fine line

  ... between letting the primary process play out until they swing their support to Obama, and not antagonizing Clinton's fans any more than necessary. As a result, they are showing a complete lack of leadership when the current situation is part of the reason why they exist in the first place.

  I don't know that anything, except maybe time, can ever really diminish the anger that Hillary supporters feel about their candidate being denied the nomination. For some reason, the sense of "entitlement" seems especially strong among them. That's all the more reason why we simply cannot allow this problem to fester past the last primary in Puerto Rico, and it would obviously be preferable to solve it before that.

  In the meantime, all of the exhortations for Clinton to drop the negative campaigning and play nice against a fellow Democrat will fall on deaf ears. She has seen that the "kitchen sink" strategy is the only thing that works for her, even if it ultimately also drives up her unfavorability ratings in the process.

  by philimus on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:59:59 AM PDT

•  November election is 6 months from now.

  Remember where McCain was in the polls 6 months ago? even 4 months ago?

  at 3 percent I believe it was, and getting roundly booed at conservative gatherings, too. and a rather large number showed up in PA to vote against their own already chosen nominee!

  Some of those conservatives will vote for McCain in the end; some won't. Some Clinton supporters may end up voting for McCain, but we can't predict what will happen at this point. (Dean's explanations won't carry water with them; Obama was an early "Dean Dozen" candidate, and Clintonistas were opposed to Dean as DNC chair and have tried to oust him).

  And you know, I went and looked it up, and there were about 80 million Americans who are eligible to vote who didn't vote in 2004, about 40%. About 122 million voted. (the popular vote margin between Bush and Kerry was about 3 million). So even if the conservatives who don't vote for McCain don't make up for any Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama, we've got a lot of potential voters out there to recruit if Obama is the nominee. Voters who've been left cold by the McCains and Clintons of politics, but who could well be energized by an Obama nomination.

  by jennifer poole on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:08:13 AM PDT

•  Only Clinton can reach them.

  She's wound them up this way, only she can unwind them. I've run into a number of these people and they are impossible to reason with. I've seen then rant that Fox News is the only network telling the truth and even when dozens of people were trying to explain her delegate problem they were being shouted down as woman-haters.

  They talk about what a sexist pig Obama is (with no evidence when pressed other than 'periodically') and say they'll vote for McCain (with no explanation when we point out that the guy calls his wife a cunt in public).

  At this point they are so determined to believe that Obama can't win, that they are actively trying to undermine him and vote for McCain simply to prove their point. All the issues that they say they care about, they don't. They only care that they are right and they'll do what they need to support their opinion.

  Go troll hillaryis44 to see it in full force. They call Obama a sexist pig but refer to Michelle as 'blow job queen' and call Donna Brazile 'brillohead'. Not exactly a bastion of rationality.

  by johnsonwax on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:23:44 AM PDT

•  Hillary supporters were bashing John Edwards

  every chance they got...calling him all kinds of names...saying he was a loser and he should "get out" along with some of the other very viable candidates, pure unadulterated hatred, a kind of craziness..I can only come to the conclusion that Clinton supporters are slightly unhinged and not thinking straight...kind of like the 28% of mad hatters who still think Bush is doing a great job...there will always be a certain percent of people who will view the world this way..my way or no way at all

  by chabuka on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM PDT

  •  I know this is tactless but the truth is

    I keep wondering if anyone is selling "Racist for Hillary" t-shirts.  I'm absolutely blown away by the exit polling showing a percentage of voters who state that "race" played a role in determining who they voted for and that those people are often voting for Hillary.

    I'm not suggesting that all or even most of Hillary's supporters take that view.  It just bothers me to no end when I hear it discussed on CNN, etc.

    by blueocean on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:09 AM PDT

•  They wouldn't see Dean as a 'neutral party'

  Remember, plenty of Clinton supporters already think that Dean is against them, because of his stance on Florida and Michigan. The problem is that I'm not sure there IS a single source they would consider neutral enough to 'start explaining to the masses exactly why we cannot count those elections'.

  I imagine this is how they'll interpret all the likely sources of elder statesmanship...

  Dean? Secret Obama Supporter.
  Gore? Everyone knows he hates Hillary, right?
  Carter? The media has been saying for ages that he's just waiting to support Obama.
  Edwards? Remember that debate when he ganged up with Obama against Hillary?

  Even if Bill Clinton admitted they shouldn't count, I don't think it would have any impact. The only strategy I see working is to embrace the line that all votes should be counted, which included all of the for-Obama votes (in primaries and in Michigan) which Hillary's math tries to exclude.

  by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:42:21 AM PDT

  •  No one can stop it

    prikaza is right, there is no one in the Democratic party that has the stature to stop the Clintons. All of the candidates, Gore, Carter, Pelosi, Reid, and Edwards are not considered neutral.

    by VClib on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:52:13 AM PDT

    •  There is hope, though.

      No single member or group within the Democratic Party can really put this problem away...

      But once the race is over, Hillary's campaign will dissolve. Her supporters, no longer held together with that glue, will go back to associating first with whatever they were a part of before that... trade union, faith group, circle of friends, online activism group, blog site, whatever.

      They'll no longer be a part of a structure which exists first and only to support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton, which means that they'll be able to 'come home' to the Democratic fold.

      Maybe.

      by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:59:10 AM PDT

•  It's Obama Supporters In Denial

  The title of this thread is totally wrong.  It's the full coterie of Obama supporters who are in denial.  Hillary crushed him in PA as she did everywhere in the big industrial states that had full primaries.

  He finally acknowledged the senior citizen vote as his gigantic Achilles heel.  Older Americans ove the Clintons and will vote overhwelmingly for Hillary in the general election as they have in the primaries.

  And they are the largest single voting bloc -- and unlike the youth -- they vote in huge numbers.  Usually turning out in the 70-80% range.

  Obama supporters here on dKos never, ever talk about the senior citizen vote -- because you are all in total denial about that constituency, which is the single largest swing vote in any election.

  They love Hillary's health care program and despise the "half a loaf" program of Barack.  It's the single most important issue to them for all the obvious reasons.  

  Anyone here who doesn't recognize that Barack can't win the senior citizen vote in margins like Hillary has is in total and complete denial.

  That vote will swing the superdelegates, who understand the general election math.  

  by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM PDT

  •  Hilarious!

    Will you be here later? I want to bring some friends back for your second act!

    by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:49:01 AM PDT

    •  Denial, Denial, Denial

      Even Barack now admits he can't win over the senior citizen vote, which is devoted to Hillary and will crush McCain in the general.

      Just saying "Hilarious!" to a major gap in Barack's support doesn't cut it.  You are in total and complete denial about that monstrous voting segment.

      by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:54:34 AM PDT

      •  Troll someone else, would you?

        I'm not in the mood for smarm.

        by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM PDT

      •  that's nice

        by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM PDT

  •  9.2 points is a crushing? hmmm

    by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

    •  It Sure Was Crushing

      After outspending Hillary by 3-1 on TV ads and enlisting the entire national GOTV volunteers, Barack managed to carry only Philadelphia (African-American vote) and State College (kids) in the state of Pennsylvania.  He even lost Pittsburgh and was massacred in the rest of the state with margins in many counties of 3-1 for Hillary.

      That's a crushing loss by any standards.  If you carry Philly by 20 points as Barack did, you should win PA handily.  Ask Gov. Rendell and Mayor Nutter and any pundit.  He did that and lost the state by 10 points (or to be technical your denial count of 9.2!!!!!) anyway.

      Obama got crushed.

      by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:58:54 AM PDT

      •  that's nice.

        actually he lost Allegheny County. Pittsburgh's population is not even a third of that county. He won Pittsburgh city.

        you forgot to add that he also outraised money then she did too.

        anyway it seems that black people really don't care for Clinton anymore (all based on South Carolina's Clinton noise and tantrums, and not because Obama is also black), and if she wins the nomination we expect her on her knees begging to get our vote back. If we don't come out and volunteer and donate money, she does not become president.

        by terrypinder on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:17 AM PDT

•  They are following the Bush2000 playbook

  They think they can claim a victory based on popular vote and somehow this will come to pass. It worked for Bush, why not for them. Maybe if they are really persistent, the Supreme Court will back them up and - voila - Hillary is our nominee.

  That the press is playing into this shows we learned nothing from the 2000 fiasco. I can't turn on the TV anymore. All I can watch are Countdown and the Daily Show/Colbert.

  by Getreal1246 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM PDT

  •  Excuse Me?

    Bush lost the popular vote and didn't dispute that.  He won by having 5 Supreme Court justices overthrow the voters.

    In this case Hillary will be supporting the will of the voters.

    by tailor324 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00:31 AM PDT

    •  Excuse Me

      If Hillary was winning the popular vote you might have a point. But, she isn't. She's not going to be able to count Michigan or Florida, because she can't change the rules half-way through the game. She has virtually no chance - short of getting the DNC to throw in those two states - to come close to Obama's popular vote totals.

      Saying she has the popular vote total doesn't make it so. Just like saying he won Florida didn't make it so for Bush.  But by saying it and acting like the presumptive winner, Bush was able to bully his way into office.

      by Getreal1246 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:55:23 AM PDT

      •  The question is electibility

        Superdelegates have only one consideration to weigh - electibility. You're right, of course, that the FL and MI votes do not count toward electing delegates to the convention. But it's a different matter to say that superdelegates should totally ignore these results in evaluating the electibility of the candidates. Electibility, unlike delegate counting, is a subjective matter.

        by YoGo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM PDT

•  You want Dean to explain to "the masses"?

  Just who are these "masses" about which you complain?  The ones you doubt can be reached?  Do you really think that your status as an Obama supporter has elevated you to a higher level?  Please reread your words and take a moment to understand that what you have stated here exactly defines the term "elitism."

  It will take much more than a word from Dean to cure your particular brand of cluelessness.  We, in the masses, can probably figure these things out for ourselves.  Especially those of us who also received a a juris doctorate degree from Harvard Law School.  And guess what, some of us who make up the dreaded masses to which you refer, including the "older white women," did just that. We are not engaging in magical thinking and we do not need to be told what to do or how to act or who to believe.  

  by vigilant meerkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:14:38 AM PDT

  •  A point...

    You're not "the masses" if you're reading and commenting on a political blog. You have far more of an interest in these subjects than average.

    And nobody with "a juris doctorate degree from Harvard Law School" is the masses.

    by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM PDT

  •  I apologize for sounding mean.

    I didn't mean to.

    by prikaza on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:26:59 AM PDT

    •  My comment was directed to the diarist

      But thank you for the replies.  Your first reply highlights the point I was trying to make:  we don't know exactly who it is that comprises "the masses," and we should be more careful about stereotyping this group.  Many who do not support Obama are rational, intelligent, educated, and thinking beings.  They are not engaging in magical thinking; in fact, they may even be rejecting it.

      by vigilant meerkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM PDT