Hillary supporter turned McCain supporter????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's what I don't get: Four years ago, Kerry was forced into picking Edwards b/c of his popularity within the party and how well he did. Kerry could not turn Edwards down for VP. Now it appears Romney as the also-ran will be McCain's running mate for the very same reason. Yet Hillary would have gotten more votes had all the votes been fairly counted, but she's been pushed aside. Edwards earned his VP spot, but somehow HRC is cast aside. He can cast aside half of the democratic base?! We don't matter?? Explain that one somebody, please.

And if you think that's taking my football and going home, so be it. If I wanted steak and I got hamburger? I'm not going to eat it. Obama is a hamburger. And you can stick a fork in that hamburger come November.

I like a good steak, but I had a great hamburger for dinner tonight.

As the Dagger said, "You can't always get what you want. And if you try sometime, you find you get what you need."

[Anonymous]

Rich wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Hillary and Obama are essentially the same candidate ideologically speaking, but I'm a diehard HRC supporter and I'm still bitter, frankly. I don't get the Biden choice. Toward the end, I wasn't naive enough to believe Clinton would be the VP pick. But really --at least half the democratic electorate supported her. I think it's hugely arrogant and wrongheaded of the Obama camp NOT to choose HRC. If we'd had revotes in Mich. and Fla., she'd be our nominee. And I think people will have voter's remorse after they see the number the GOP plays on our democratic ticket.

The democratic party was held hostage by these young voters, ultra-liberals and the "change" mobs and they've given us a candidate who CAN'T WIN in November. The Bubbas, the factory workers and the truck stop waitresses aren't going to vote for Obama. The left seems to think that they can shame these people (you're racists!) into voting for him. You can't. I want a democratic candidate who can win. Trying to educate and enlighten some blue-collar joe six-pack in a swing state somewhere ain't gonna work.

The blatant sexism of it also sickens me. The "sweetie" remark to the female reporter; the "likeable enough" remark; and that stupid hip-hop brush-off thing Obama did. I'm disguested. Biden is a hotheaded windbag whose off-the-cuff remarks and lack of message discipline (and he's no Bill Clinton who can get away with that) will be the death of their candidacy.

I can't pull the lever for McCain so maybe I'll sit this one out.

I'm with you. There are quite a few of us who feel a bit disenfranchised and I really can't apologize for that. I have no intention of voting for McCain and no intention of voting for Obama. This is a no win for me.

Forgive me for saying it, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you two sound like the kid who says "If I can't be captain, I'm taking my ball and going home!"

I admit that it was a struggle for me not to swear that I would never vote for HRC after the stuff her campaign pulled against Obama. I did not even start out as a big supporter of his, but I leaned that way, and the campaign pushed me further. I think it's just human nature to exaggerate the sins of the opposition.

My theory is that tribalism is one of the most harmful of human instincts, whether it is literally between tribes, between families, between sects, between religions, or between countries. Tribalism between supporters of two candidates who stand for the same policies seems particularly weird.

Say what you will, if it mattered enough to me just to have a Dem elected president I would vote for Obama. Months ago, prior to the MD primary, an college aged Obama volunteer came to my door, gave me his spiel, and asked if I was "drinking the koolaid." Well, Jim JOnes I am not. Sat what you will about tribalism, I feel the same way about herd mentality.

[Anonymous]

I think for me what happened wasn't being a sore loser (taking my football home) but the surprise realization that partisanship means less to me than I thought, thanks to the sexism in this campaign. I was a lifelong diehard democrat. Now, my soul is just sapped of that partisan energy. Sure their policies overlap, but policy is actually only one part of what we are electing in a leader. That's what I learned this election- integrity, moral leadership, character, experience etc. all matter too. After all, that's what distinguished GWB from GHWB- and look at the difference in their tenures!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think for me what happened wasn't being a sore loser (taking my football home) but the surprise realization that partisanship means less to me than I thought, thanks to the sexism in this campaign. I was a lifelong diehard democrat. Now, my soul is just sapped of that partisan energy. Sure their policies overlap, but policy is actually only one part of what we are electing in a leader. That's what I learned this election- integrity, moral leadership, character, experience etc. all matter too. After all, that's what distinguished GWB from GHWB- and look at the difference in their tenures!

Yep. Me too. Perhaps this is something that men are unable to understand. (Sorry, Rich, but I think you truly don't. And again, labeling HRC's supporters as "sore losers" is genuinely not helpful in bringing those supporters back into the fold.)

I'm leaving for the convention today to serve as an HRC delegate. I raised a lot of money for Obama after Hillary conceded because she asked me to. I think those of us who support Hillary know, however, as a PP in this thread stated, that this situation is unprecedented in modern primary history. JFK edged LBJ for the nomination; he added LBJ to the ticket. Same with Reagan (GHWB) and Kerry (Edwards). This primary cycle was the most closely contested in history. Had Hillary won more delegates (and she did win more votes), she would have had no choice but to add Obama to the ticket. In this case, Obama said over and over again that Hillary "would be on anybody's short list." Only recently he told a major Clinton fundraiser, whom I know well, that he was truly considering Hillary for the VP slot but that Bill was the difficulty. Now it appears that he never considered her at all. That's just plain stupid. We all knew he didn't want her on the ticket because he can't stand the thought of being overshadowed, either by her or by Bill. Joe Biden is a nice guy, but he's not going to win a single vote for Obama. He was fifth in the Iowa caucuses; he's run for president twice and flamed out both times. He brings a lot of foreign policy expertise and the press likes him, but he also brings even more arrogance to the ticket and he certainly doesn't bring change. But the key criterion for Obama (who would say "criteria") is that Biden doesn't overshadow him. Hell, even the new logo shows how important that is to Obama. Have you ever seen a Democratic ticket logo that has the running mate's name in smaller text and a dimmer color? Now you have.

I'm off to the coronation.