I don't get it ???????????????????

[Anonymous]

It is amazing how many HRC supporters do not believe in Obama's candidacy and have vowed not support the party. HRC and Obama have many similiarites; so why would you not vote for a candidate with ideals and values similiar to your original candidate. Would someone please explain this rationale. Especially the part about sitting out and not voting. This is all very unclear to me.

[Anonymous]

Same reason many Obama supporters swore they wouldn't support HRC. The party is divided between blogosphere liberals and working pragmatists who can't afford to take risks on hopey change.

[Anonymous]

The party is divided between blogosphere liberals and working pragmatists who can't afford to take risks on hopey change.

Come on...does the risk of "hopey change" really outweigh the risk of another term with a republican president (which presumably HRC supporters are sick of)?

[jsteele]

My feeling is that if the Clinton dead-enders want more Supreme Court justices such as Roberts and Alito, more foreign wars, more tax cuts for the rich, expanded off-shore drilling, a complete disregard for Clinton's health care ideas, anti-gay rights legislation, anti-abortion regulations, etc., etc, then they really should vote for McCain. They aren't Democrats anyway.

If they don't support such things, but prefer to cast a "protest vote", then they are putting their own emotions and hurt feelings above the interests of the nation.

In 2000, Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida and Gore lost the state by 537 votes. At least the Naderites had the excuse that they saw little difference between Gore and Bush (as crazy as that idea seems in hindsight). The Clintonians can't be so foolish as to not understand the stark differences between the candidates this go around.

[Anonymous]

Without the "Clinton Dead Enders" in the party the Democrats would never have a majority. Be careful what you wish for!

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Without the "Clinton Dead Enders" in the party the Democrats would never have a majority. Be careful what you wish for!

Exactly what am I wishing for? If someone supports Republican positions, they should vote Republican. I'd never want anyone to vote against their own beliefs. If they support Obama's positions, but won't vote for him because of hurt feelings, the only thing for which I am wishing is that they grow up.

[Anonymous]

But Jeff, party positions evolve with party leadership. Otherwise, the Dems would still be segregationists and the Republicans would be the party of civil rights. There is no fixed meaning to Republican and Democratic. Moreover, most people do not believe along straight party platform lines. For example, Obama supports elements of Bush's faith based initiative, and Biden is not fully pro-choice. Whereas McCain supports stem cell research. Many voters are socially liberal and economically conservative. Or vice versa. Most voters fall somewhere in the middle. And they are the ones who decide elections. In this election many folks who supported Clinton because of her experience and ability question whether to vote for McCain, Obama, or stay home.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote: If they support Obama's positions, but won't vote for him because of hurt feelings, the only thing for which I am wishing is that they grow up.

You are not doing Obama or the Democratic Party any favors continuing to disseminate this disrespectful, diminishing and patronizing attitude.

The prospect of a possible woman president was a life-changing experience for many woman - and the grief some of us have experienced about the loss of that possibility (and the likelihood that we will not have another opportunity to witness another one within our lifetimes) is valid and profound. Just as, if the situation were reversed, the grief of people of color would have been if Obama lost the primary and also were not selected - or even seriously considered - for the VP position.

The Obama campaign needs to do some basic things that they have continually failed to do to reach out to many Hillary supporters. Examples include getting at least one woman spokesperson instead of the endless number of cocky young Turks that keep appearing on CNN and other media outlets and integrating women's issues at highly visible forums like, say, the first appearance of Obama and Biden together (where there was NO mention of women's issues specifically in either candidates' speech).

There is a distinct feeling that Hillary supporters are being taken for granted precisely because of the vital issues such as the Supreme Court. But the Obama campaign should recognize that this primary election season was NOT a plain old winner take all contest. Intense longings and emotions were unleashed and need to be actively addressed by the campaign strategists.

Dismissive and hostile comments like yours, Jeff, do not help the situation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The prospect of a possible woman president was a life-changing experience for many woman - and the grief some of us have experienced about the loss of that possibility (and the likelihood that we will not have another opportunity to witness another one within our lifetimes) is valid and profound. Just as, if the situation were reversed, the grief of people of color would have been if Obama lost the primary and also were not selected - or even seriously considered - for the VP position.

Why is the phrase "hurt feelings" considered "dismissive and hostile" while "grief about loss" is apparently appropriate?

If Obama had lost the primary, I'm sure African Americans would have felt profound "grief about loss", but voting for McCain or sitting out the election wouldn't help improve their situations.

How many of you remember Bill Clinton's first campaign? Leading up to the New Hampshire primary, Clinton was in a desperate situation, tarnished by Gennifer Flowers, and having been clobbered in Iowa. In the middle of the New Hampshire campaign, Clinton returned to Arkansas to approved the execution of a functionally retarded black man (Ricky Ray Rector). Clinton used the situation to demonstrate that he was a "new Democrat" and not like that wimp Dukakis who wouldn't even execute his wife's rapist. Months later, Clinton attended a Rainbow Coalition event and dissed Sister Souljah to such an extent that "Sister Souljah Moment" has entered the political lexicon. Both of these events were far more serious than an off-hand remark about being "likable enough". However, African-Americans did not sit out the election or choose to vote for a Republican. They rallied to Clinton in such numbers that Clinton was actually called the "first black president" at one point. Does anyone think that African Americans made the wrong choice? I'm sure there might have been a brief moment of good feelings in sticking it to Clinton on behalf of Rector and Souljah, but that would have been followed by four to eight years of Republican policies which would have made them regret it.

Clinton supporters don't seem to understand what African Americans understood. There is no doubt that Obama is committed to women's issues -- just look at his wife and daughters. There is no doubt that he will be better for women than McCain. No amount of debating the difference between "hurt feelings" and "grief about loss" will change that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Same reason many Obama supporters swore they wouldn't support HRC. The party is divided between blogosphere liberals and working pragmatists who can't afford to take risks on hopey change.

Hey, step outside and say that!

[Anonymous]

Bill Clinton offered African Americans "a cabinet that looks like America", and he delivered. He involved blacks in his campaign and administration in an unprecedented way. Where's the similar promise from Obama? He has done nada to reach out to disappointed Hillary women. Where's his promise to appoint a woman to the SC? Where's his female VP? I cannot simply assume he supports women because he married one and sired two daughters. It doesn't work that way.

And I will add that disappointed African Americans in Prince George's county DID sit out the election and even endorse Republican candidate Steele after Mfume lost the Senate primary to Cardin. As a result, the Md Dem party took major notice, and immediately increased the number of AA legislators in leadership positions. They stood up for themselves and it worked!

[Anonymous]

PP here- in the case of the Maryland Democratic party, those changes were DEMANDED by Howard Dean.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And I will add that disappointed African Americans in Prince George's county DID sit out the election and even endorse Republican candidate Steele after Mfume lost the Senate primary to Cardin. As a result, the Md Dem party took major notice, and immediately increased the number of AA legislators in leadership positions. They stood up for themselves and it worked!

No, you are wrong about this. African Americans in PG county showed a sophistication that is almost unheard of in American politics. Michael Steele put out brochures suggesting that he was a Democrat and falsely implying that he had been endorsed by several national black leaders. He bussed in homeless people from Philadelphia to campaign for him. In the end, PG county voted 154,798 to 49,484 in favor of Cardin, one of the largest percentages of victory for Cardin in the state.

Yes, a handful of Mfume dead enders had hurt feelings and endorsed Steele. A lot of good it did them because they were ignored by African American voters who were not foolish enough to believe Republicans (of any color) would be their best bet. (BTW, guess who owns MichaelSteele.com?)

To your other points, either McCain or Obama would appoint women to the cabinet. The question is what kind of women. Also, women were mentioned as possible Obama VP candidates but Clinton supporters suggested that any woman but Clinton would be unacceptable. So, blame those women for that particular glass ceiling.

[Anonymous]

I am not wrong. I hardly call more than half the PG County Council and a former County exec a "handful of dead enders'. Their protest worked.

Maryland Gazette of Politics 1/17/2007:
"A group of prominent Prince George’s Democrats endorsed Republican candidate Michael S. Steele for U.S. Senate, citing concerns that Prince Georgians, and particularly black candidates, were not being included in the Democratic Party’s upper echelons.
Baker said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. and House Speaker Michael E. Busch got the message and have given several Prince George’s senators and delegates meaningful committee assignments."

[Anonymous]

Sorry, if Clinton had won the presidential nomination, I would have been just as opposed to her selecting Obama for v.p. as I am opposed to Obama selecting any woman -- Kathleen Sebelius or Hillary Clinton, it doesn't matter -- as a v.p. candidate.

The country is not ready for both a white woman and a black man on the same ticket. I understand the hurt feelings but at this juncture in our history, I'm going with pragmatic politics.