Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
They deserve to be heard from.
No doubt they do, but the point most people seem to be missing, is that in aggregate, there are more delegates from this weekends elections and the rest of February, than Ohio and Texas combined. What does this mean? That means if Clinton keeps bleeding delegates the way she is this month, she would have to seriously wipe the floor with Obama to catch up in delegates. An "okay" performance in Ohio and Texas (ie: like New York or California, where he got 40 or 42%) is not going to cut it for her campaign.
Things could turn around. If she does well in Wisconsin, it would help. If she cuts him to a draw in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. But it seems, almost, that Clinton has conceded those states, and is merely content to let "Ohio and Texas" decide. It's like the Florida strategy writ large.
These caucuses have a tiny population participating in them, and you are not going to win a GE by alienating Clinton supporters.
...but up until yesterday, it was supposed to go for Hillary. We're white, rural, not always as well-educated (we're really the northern terminus of Appalachia when you get more than 30 miles inland), and have a lot of women who vote.
As Maine goes...
I think people should be happy that we are going this far into the primary for a change. However, Clinton supporters almost seem like they are frustrated that they have to put up with the rest of the primary and want Hillary crowned the nominee now. As if the rest of the states "don't matter" because they are "small" and anything Obama does until then doesn't matter.
I think some of those fervent supporters need to deal with the idea that their candidate might not win. It certainly is a possibility.
But I am getting more and more uncomfortable with the idea. He's not running a campaign, he's running a series of pep rallies, Republican style. He is running as a progressive, but his policies are designed to attract disaffected Republicans. I suspect that the idealistic young people who are attracted to his "Unity" campaign are going to be disappointed when they find that "unity" means including a lot of views they disagree with, and that Obama is not just talking about compromise in order to win right leaning votes, he really does want to compromise progressive principles.
I would say that Obama supporters are almost annoyed that they have to put up with the rest of the primary and want to see Obama crowned the nominee right now.
Signed,
Still An Edwards Guy Who Is Really Tired of Endless Drama from all Obama and Clinton Supporters
Could you please explain your reference. I haven't seen any Clinton supporters suggesting that the rest of the caucus should be ignored. I have yet to hear anybody imply that Clinton should be "crowned" right now. I think we'd all be happier if the primaries were over and our chosen candidate could start planning their Presidential campaign, but there is no sense of inevitability from the Clinton people and there never has been. Any inevitability came from the media who decided early in the game that the Democratic nomination was a contest between Clinton and Obama and the Republican contest was between Romney and Giuliani. Everybody also pretty much felt like Feb 5 would decide the election. It didn't, and the only winners I've seen so far are the Republicans, who have a candidate and an edge as Democrats divide into factions.
Maine gets to speak too. They chose Obama. You do your candidate a disservice by acting like such babies.
It just seems that way to me from any Clinton supporter I've seen on the net.
As far as Obama supporters tired of this whole ordeal and want him crowned the winner, that would make sense if he had a lead early on, the polls suggested he was the winner before Iowa nationally, and had a household name that every democrat in the country could recognize. She was essentially crowned by most people in the media and in the party early on.
I think anyone supporting Obama from the early races knew he'd have an uphill battle and they would suggest that they do not believe that it is anywhere close to being over.
On the other hand, Clinton did have a large lead in polls, money, name recognition, history, and support that has been slowly overcome by Obama. From my experience with her supporters on the net, they sound like they are almost annoyed that they have to put up with this sub par candidate Obama. Each discussion thread is replied to with excuses of why Clinton is not winning; it was a caucus, those people are all black, they are all yuppies, etc. Never any mention of how well each of these candidates match up together for the most part, just a bunch of whining about why their candidate is losing contests and not the nominee.
If you need proof, just watch this thread that will slowly spiral into a back and forth between both campaign supporters, of which one person has already put in the standard answer of "it's a caucus".
you are not going to win a GE by alienating Clinton supporters.
And the best way of alienating Clintonites is by beating their candidate, right? That's the frustration of it, from my perspective.
Even if no Obamaniacs said a word, and Obama wins the next ten contests, the Clintonites would still seethe with fury, call us idiots and cultists and lemmings and everything in between, as they've been doing for weeks, now. But one of the oft-derided qualities of Obama cited by his detractors -- his willingness to honestly talk to people, to reach out, to compromise and accommodate -- I think that would be an asset in that situation, a way to win the peace.
Would it be enough to win the alienated Clintonites, if Obama's able to secure the nomination? Only they know for sure. Some of them seem unremittingly hostile to Obama, including the bizarre threat to spite-vote for McCain if Obama won the nomination -- I understand why Obama Independents might make that threat, but Clinton Democrats?? I don't get it, unless you're Clintonite first, and Democrat second (the very definition of a cult of personality), or else some GOPeons earning their bones sowing anonymous discord among Democrats (not very hard to do, admittedly).
But "Let Hillary Win" just isn't an acceptable way to avoid alienating the Clintonites. Either your candidate is able to beat Obama to the nomination, or she's not able to.
With the handful of aces up her sleeve, I still think of her as having the edge over Obama, despite his successes. He's run a far better campaign than she has, but she's got plenty of insider clout left to leverage herself an election with. And, unfortunately, that's very likely to alienate Obamaniacs. So, simply beating Clinton would alienate the Clintonites, and winning ugly (e.g., superdelegates, or the MI and FL delegate issue) would alienate the Obamaniacs.
Seems like the only sporting thing would be for Clinton to win fair and square, out in the open, and not by gaming the system. If Obama goes down in an open electoral battle, so it goes. But if Obama goes down because of backroom dealing by superdelegates (I mean, Bill Clinton's one of them, right?), then that stinks, and the only ones who get hurt by that are the Democratic Party as a whole, and our chances in the general election.
We'll see how the campaigns handle the coming weeks, and by their words and actions, we'll know them.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
