I've noticed, not so much on this site but on others like TPM, that there can be no frank and honest discussion of the Democratic Primary. Invariably, somebody posts a comment that leads to misogyny, perhaps requiring a corollary to Godwin's Law (maybe named Baker's Corollary!) that all discussions of the 2008 Democratic Primary on the internet eventually refer to misogyny, even if the statement is grounded in pure fact and not the poster's personal opinion.
The fact is, regardless of what is said or who said it, there are a number Clinton supporters who won't support Obama. I'm hoping that this community might help me understand why.
The fact is all of these people voted for a Democrat (for the sake of argument I'm ignoring the possibility that these could be trolls, which I believe is right in many cases). Based on this I can only assume that they believe in the 2004 Democratic platform. Social equality and justice for all, a strong middle class, energy independence, equal pay for equal work, end to racial profiling, immigration reform, strengthening the military, defeating terrorism, etc. I'm leaving a whole host of things out. The fact is that this is what the Democratic Party stands for, and if you didn't believe in that Platform you wouldn't vote for it.
The fact is that ALL Democratic Primary candidates supported this 2004 Platform, from Clinton to Kucinich. One could only assume, that no matter who the eventual nominee was, and after the first three primaries Clinton or Obama, they would support and reshape this Platform for 2008. No matter the color. No matter the gender. This has been the democratic platform for essentially 20+ years.
The fact is that the 2004 Republican Platform is a stark contrast to the one offered by the Democratic Platform. Trickle-down economics, tax-cuts funded by cutting social programs, Democracy abroad by force, defeating terrorism, the injection of religion into politics, etc. I'm leaving a whole host of things out. The fact is that, with the exception of defeating terrorism, these are two severely different viewpoints on how to move the USofA forward into the 21st century.
The fact is that after the conventions, the 2008 party Platforms for the Democrats and Republicans are very different documents. The Democrats specifically list gender equality in their TOC (Not so, in 2004), while the Republicans keep it buried in text (as did the Democrats in 2004). The fact is that one party advertises that they will seek Equal Pay for Equal Work, while the other buries it. The fact is that one party is for choice, the other is clearly not. The fact is that one party sees education integrated with innovation, the other sees them as separate issues.
But these are the party's platforms and not the candidate's direct viewpoint. How do the candidates differ?
The fact is that one candidate frames his campaign within the issues in which he wants to lead this country as defined by his parties platform, while the other frames (I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the full speech anywhere (I tried CSPAN too!) but this link will take you to part one of six(!) to see the full speech please do not see this as me trying to be biased, I leave that to the text not the facts) his campaign in vagaries and that he was a prisoner of war, which I couldn't find in the Republican platform anywhere.
The fact is that one candidate listened to his critics and chose a running-mate that would shore up said weaknesses, while the other chose his running-mate specifically to pander to women.
How can I state as a fact that McCain chose his running mate as specific pander to disaffected women voters? Her record is quite clear:
It is a fact that Palin tried to fire the town librarian of Wassila when she refused to ban books, the fact is that Palin fired the Police Chief of Wassila for not supporting her ideology. The fact is that Palin was responsible for allowing victims of rape to be charged for the rape kit that would help identify their attacker. The fact is that Palin supported the Bridge to Nowhere while she was campaigning for Govenor of Alaska. The fact is that Palin 'chooses' life for her son (a position, given the circumstances, is admirable), but rejects that choice for others. The fact is that Palin supports ridiculous earmarks, while her running-mate opposes these exact type of earmarks (and IMHO, McCain does this for good reason. These types of requests should go through the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health...etc, where they will be peer reviewed and determined by experts in that particular area of study as to whether or not they deserve funding. NOT an ad-hoc earmark which, obviously, can be redirected). The fact that Palin became mayor in a town of 7,000 people which had zero debt, and left the position with the town 22,000,000 in debt after taking in some 27,000,000 in earmarks for her city alone. There are many, many more out there.
There can be only two options left in McCain's selection of Palin. 1.) That she was not properly vetted and 2.) She was properly vetted. In either choice, given the facts, McCain has shown himself to be an unwise and hasty leader (sound familiar?).
The point, my few dedicated readers, is that these facts are directly antithetical to the Democratic Platform. If you consider yourself aligned with the platform, why then, would you vote against it? Please help me to understand.
From my viewpoint, there can be no 'sore losers' in politics. I've never voted for a winner in my life, but that never stopped me from voting for the candidate who most represented my viewpoint and the direction this country I'd like to see it take. Voting can be a complex process where people have to process so many important issues. What I try to do is envision it as a scale: when I weigh all the issues, who tips the scale in my way? I'll freely admit that by not voting for Gore in 2000, I am partially responsible for the current situation of country: that is bad, really bad. At the time I didn't like Lieberman and some of the decisions that Gore made running up to the election (i.e. opening the oil reserves, hypocritical).
At the time I thought: 'I would never vote for Bush, but he can't destroy the country, even in two terms.' I will be the first to admit that I was terribly, terribly wrong. But I've learned from my mistakes. I'm willing to admit that voters need to vote for themselves, and not on perception. I will also insist that voters must learn from their past mistakes, whether they admit them in public or not, they should let the mistakes of their past influence their pull on that lever.
Like all of you I have watched this great country decline to such a dismal state I never thought possible.
Now, I am more informed than ever thanks to the 'Internets'. Now that I know the facts, how could I vote against them? Please help me understand how you, or friends you know, could. We all know the facts by now.