I have been ignoring this when the regular press has been covering this story, but Trippi is not quite that.
This is unfortunate, and it’s amazingly selfish. This is the biggest election for all Americans in our lifetime. Period. To risk losing the election and electing McCain would be a disaster for the nation, and it’s unfortunate that these people can’t see past their petty BS and get behind the candidate their party has chosen. Obama and Clinton agree on nearly every major policy goal, they just differed on details. McCain and Clinton agree on nearly 0 policy goals. It’s that simple.
Even more ridiculous is that these folks think voting for McCain will somehow make the feel better. If he wins, I guarantee that anyone who would support Clinton will be kicking themselves come 2010. Just remember all those smug “independents” and other folks who voted for Bush because Kerry was too elitist/rich/commended/unpatriotic/other-republican-made-up-smear when they finally came around in 2006 about GWB. It doesn’t sound like fun to be one of those people, especially when it requires setting up the country to go to more wars and drive even more money out of the hands of regular American families.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:32 PM
While I don’t want to get into it too much — reread the post you’re linking to. He said the people he was talking to were upset, or had “angst” about Obama. He didn’t say they were voting for McCain, he didn’t even say they weren’t planning on voting for Obama. So why, based on this short snippet, are they “selfish”? And why is it their fault, rather than the Obama camp’s fault for failing to reach out to smooth over any hurt feelings? And for another point of view, try reading this and this. Not to mention the fact that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Do you really think continuing to rant about their “selfishness” is the way to win over Hillary supporters? Really?
August 27th, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Neither of those posts address what I’m talking about.
I expect people to act like grown ups and take the outcome of the election seriously. I didn’t like Kerry in 2004, but i didn’t do anything less than I would’ve otherwise. I didn’t get my feelings hurt because my preferred candidate didn’t win, wasn’t asked to be VP, and otherwise didn’t get what I wanted.
I did this because I knew how important getting someone competent in office was.
Why is this any different? And why do Clinton supporters get to hold media sexism and sexism from some supporters against him while I can’t hold the racism shown by the media and some of her supporters against her? WTF is that all about?
Sujal
August 27th, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Again, what you’re complaining about *wasn’t even mentioned in the article*. And, frankly, the number of Hillary supporters that would actually vote for McCain is *miniscule* — there’s more hype there than “there” there. But it makes for a good story/Republican talking point.
And yes, the posts I linked to do address what you’re talking about. I live in DC. If I’m not won over by Obama by Election Day, IT WON’T MATTER. So why would that make me “selfish”? Same thing with the other post — there’s a difference between saying that we’re not yet won over (but can be), and “risk[ing] losing the election and electing McCain.”
And, again, why is having genuine concerns about a candidate selfish? There’s a difference between saying “I’m not sold on this guy” and “I’m actively going to help his opponent win.” I think far more of the former Hillary supporters are in the first camp than the latter, and THAT’S THEIR RIGHT. Or should we all just shut up and suck it up? At what point do we lose the right to express genuine concerns/reservations? (Not that you mean it this way, but it smacks a bit of we should just do what we’re told and not worry our pretty little heads about whether or not it’s the right thing.)
Finally, speaking personally — my concerns about Obama are based on statements HE made, not statements that the media or his supporters made (this is a point I’ve been trying to make to you all along). No one else made the “sweetie” comment. No one else implied that Clinton was “catty.” No one else said that Clinton’s charges were based on the fact that she was “feeling down.” (Really, would Obama ever have said that Edwards’ “claws” were coming out?)
So, to more clearly state my original post — 1) the article you link to said nothing about voting for McCain, supporting McCain, refusing to vote for Obama, or anything else, yet 2) you automatically launched into attack mode, accusing anyone not 100% supportive of Obama of being “selfish” and “risk[ing] losing the election and electing McCain,” 3) the more I hear about how my concerns are “selfish,” etc., the more likely I am to just tune the whole thing out (there’s a reason I was quiet around here until the end of the primary season), and 4) the LAST thing you want is to have more people to tune out — the idea should be to get Hillary supporters excited about Obama, not to bash them over the head because they have reservations. It’s simple human psychology — I’m more likely to do something if you tell my why doing it would be a good idea, rather than ridiculing me and calling me names if I don’t do it.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:38 PM
You’re missing my point, too.
I’m not talking about every Clinton supporter or most. I’m talking about the woman who showed up at the McCain press conference who said she was voting for him, about the PUMA people that keep showing up on my TV, and about the random interviews I keep seeing on my damn TV every night talking about their angst and their doubts.
So, if my writing was too broad, sorry. I really didn’t mean all 18 million people that voted for her, and certainly not those that take offense at a woman being called sweetie. (the feeling down thing was a stretch, though, sorta like reading racism into Bill Clinton’s “even Jesse Jackson carried SC” thing).
So, let’s try this a different way.
What would he have to do to win you over?
Sujal
August 27th, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Let me spell out my concerns with Obama. What he needs to do to address them — I don’t know.
1) His vote for cloture on the telecom immunity bill, despite previously promising to fillibuster it.
2) His support for bans on late term abortion. The VAST majority of women that have this proceedure do so because something went horribly wrong with development of the fetus, which is often only caught by tests late in the game. Forcing a woman to carry and then deliver a baby she knows will die within hours of its birth is just cruel. And no, I don’t have confidence that the courts would consider this to fall within a health or life of the mother exeption.
3) He didn’t support either of the bills aimed at closing Guantanamo Bay.
4) I’m not crazy about the “sweetie” and “claws” comments.
5) I really didn’t like the use during the primary of ads reminiscent of the anti-”Hillarycare” ads run by the Republicans back in the day.
6) I’m not convinced that his health care proposal will actually cover everyone.
7) I’m not crazy about the message that refusing public funding of his campaign sends. (Yes, I know that it may be temporarily advantageous, but I think it undermines the idea. Frankly, voting for McCain would be better for me financially — I’m pretty sure I’d be on the wrong end of Obama’s taxation doughnut — but I can’t justify it in principle).
9) Not sure that declaring Jerusalem should remain the capital of Isreal was the best policy…
August 27th, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Israel. Sigh.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:36 PM
OK, and here’s my point:
I can make a list of roughly the same length criticizing Clinton for similar crap. She’s done her share of moving to the center, too. And yet, I’m almost 100% certain that had she won the nomination, I wouldn’t be asking for her to “win me over.”
My guy lost, we move on together, that’s what I would do.
One other thing: making a list like this is fine, and asking him to modify his stance on these things is also fine. Short of changing his mind on all the issues you mentioned (and I’ve criticized him for nearly all of the above items save #3,#4,and #5), what should he do?
You can’t pass on that question because it’s central. If I could summarize my issue with this “winning over” stuff, it’s that I don’t understand what else he has to do, and it seems like the standard he’s being held to is unreasonable, almost as unreasonable as the standard Hillary Clinton was being held to last night with her speech.
His broad vision of America is almost entirely the same as Clinton’s. She would nuke Iran if they attacked us, he would try to use private insurance in his health plan… but they both want America to be safe, don’t want war to be the first option, and want every American to have health care.
He may need to work on sexism he’s learned, but she also needs to work on the racism she’s learned. We all do on both counts. These issues are a wash because, deep down, you know and I know that she’s not a racist and he’s not a sexist.
So, again, what would he have to do to “win you over”?
Sujal
PS. I’m not trying to be a d*ck here, I promise.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:03 PM
First of all, I’m not making this a Hillary versus Barak thing, or comparing them in some way. I have a list of concerns about Hillary, too, that I would be listing if she were the nominee. While I voted for her in the primary, it was more of a symbolic vote, since a) DC was going to Barak anyway, and b) I was pissed with the media. She would have had to win me over, too, just like Kerry did in 2004 (not that he ever fully did, but it took me a minute or two to join the bandwagon). (Accordingly, I wouldn’t really count myself as a Hillary supporter that needs to be won over, or a PUMA, or whatever the current term is. I count myself as someone who hasn’t been crazy about any of the options this year.)
As for what he needs to do to win me, personally, over — I want to hear more substance. I felt like the primaries were too much about rhetoric, and not enough about actual policies. (And yes, I know he’s starting to do that. Which is why I’m currently reserving judgment.) Related to this — he needs to stop making promises that he won’t follow through on. He *chose* to state that he would fillibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity — it wasn’t forced on him. He also *chose* to state that he supported closing Guantanamo, before refusing to back either bill that would accomplish that. Better not to say anything, than to issue an unequivocal statement that he’s then going to back out on.
And I want to see that he can consistently make good decisions. (Picking Biden doesn’t help me on that count. Not sure what it is, but I just have a visceral dislike of the pick.)
And I want to see him seriously engaging in issues that are important to women. (At this point, he has to. Silence isn’t going to cut it, given the primary season. And no, not all of that is his fault, but it’s just the way it is.)
Basically, I want him to show me that there’s a “there” there.