Something is missing in the discussion/debate about the so-called divide in the Democratic Party between supporters of the winning candidate, Barack Obama, and losing candidate, Hillary Clinton. What's missing is some actual research into who are these disaffected Hillary Clinton "supporters" who claim to be Democrats, yet threaten to support John McCain unless their "voices are heard." I have been suspicious of these folks ever since I saw that crazy old woman freak out at the DNC meeting in late May that determined what to do with the delegates from Michigan and Florida.
First off, your "voice" was heard when you voted in the primary. Your candidate did not win, but that does not mean your voice was not heard. It's called democracy. It ain't pretty, and sometimes you lose. I think that most people who voted for Sen. Clinton understand and accept this. But what about the hold-outs who, without the consent or encouragement of Clinton, are continuing to question the legitimacy of Obama's nomination, and continue to demand more and more concessions from Obama before they give their support?
I think they are called Republicans. I don't buy it for a second. How can anyone who supported Hillary Clinton actually consider voting for McCain? He is Bush. He's pro-life, anti-women's equality, anti-civil rights, pro-Iraq War, anti-fiscal responsibility, pro tax cuts for the wealthy, anti tax cuts for the middle class, anti-regulation of both the oil and banking businesses. He's an anathema to everything a Democrat would support and stand for. And honestly, how can you say you "don't know" Obama or his positions? Have you not seen him on television in the debates, town halls, interviews, and commercials? Do you not have a computer? Are you unable to read his policy positions on his website? The man is an open book and the only people who claim otherwise are...Republicans.
This video is from yesterday's Hardball. David Shuster was guest hosting, and he had two "prominent" pro-Hillary, anti-Obama people on. They are the most transparent liars I have ever seen. Shuster presses them on being "closet" Republicans, and they deny it, but they clearly are. Shuster also got one of them to admit that they had raised little more than $50,000 for their "cause," not the millions they claimed on other networks. This "cause" is a GOP front, and I think this clip proves it to my satisfaction. The woman, Darragh Murphy from an orginaztion called PUMA, actually cited Obama's Hawaii vacation as a reason NOT to vote for him. WTF? Who does she think she is, Cokie Roberts? She reluctantly admitted that she had in fact donated money to John McCain in 2000.
The man, Will Bower, actually said that the DNC rigged the primary process to make Obama the winner. He ignores the ojective fact that prior to the first caucus in Iowa on 1/3/08, Hillary Clinton was far and away the DNC/establishment candidate. She was considered inevitable. These two are blatant phonies, who want to cause trouble for Democrats, and are attempting to undermine DNC chair Howard Dean. They want to damage him because he is succeeding in his 50 state strategy. This is a Rovian game, and I am calling a spade a spade. Murphy and Bower are Republican operatives and their "movement" is a sham.
The Dems are united, despite what the media and the RNC say about it.
2 comments:
What a couple of nitwits. Or even worse, Republicans.
I have to agree with you on this for several reasons.
1. I am a former republican, and still philosphical conservative, and I am supporting Obama. Were Hillary to have gotten the nomination, I would not be voting for her. It is reasonable to believe that Hillary attracted a decent number of similar voters to her candidacy. Since they lost, I can see how they would genuinely not want to support Barack. I would not support Hillary if Obama had lost.
2. Not everybody judges the candidates solely on their particular stances on each major issue. Temperament counts. And Barack and Hillary couldn't have been more different. There were always going to be some people - myself included - who viewed the differences between both Democratic contenders as temperamentally more different than any difference with John McCain.
3. Bill Kristol wrote an article in the Weekly Standard on August 22 that is transparently aimed at advancing the grievances of Hillary dead-enders. Republicans are absolutely doing what they can to stir that pot. If Kristol can publish such an obviously self-serving article in a major conservative magazine, it's no stretch at all to imagine that there are Republican-led efforts to formally exacerbate the rift.
Post a Comment