Pop the balloons and finish off the beer,
the party's over. This morning - as always with political campaigns - I received a post primary e-mail asking me for my donation and this morning for the first time since January I didn't send one.
Hillary Clinton will not be the 2008 Democratic Party's nomine for President of the United States, any hope of that died with her slim victory in Indiana and her double digit loss in North Carolina. The question for me is where do I go from here? My heart and my head are doing battle over voting for Senator Obama in the fall. I do not like him, I do not trust him and I have seen no evidence that he can accomplish any of the goals of which he speaks. His supposedly transformational compaign is peopled by some of the angriest, most divisive, most exclusionary troops I've run into in 36 years of voting as a Democrat.
While I do not think he can win without her, I am hoping Senator Clinton will not choose to end her political career as the lady-in-perpetual-waiting to the top of his ticket. She will be much more useful to the Democrats as a powerful voice in the Senate. John Edwards, by virture of his not having endorsed Senator Obama before the NC primary, is off any VP lists and most likely not in the running for a cabinet position. I actually admire him and his wife for not having taken ridden into the new Democratic Party on the backs of those who voted for them. To paraphrase Mrs. Edwards: Our supporters are capable of choosing the person for whom they wish to vote. Were it possible to field a third party ticket of Clinton/Edwards at this late date, I would be on the ground working for it the first minute it was announced.
While I'm not happy with some of Bill Clinton's remarks, I am far less happy with some long time members of the party who chose to jump on a band wagon rather than support a woman who has supported the Democratic Party for so long. Everyone is left a litle less golden at the end of this campaign and I see little way for a winning hand to be made out of the different suited cards the party holds. So for now I'm going to stick a tack in that last balloon, finish off the apple ale and consider the options which for now seem to be limited to looking to 2012.
"I am far less happy with some long time members of the party who chose to jump on a band wagon rather than support a woman who has supported the Democratic Party for so long."
I'm still shocked when I see democrats who actually believe people support Obama because of some mystical charisma or because it's percieved as the popular thing to do. I can see it now as sour grapes because Hillary is out, but it's still suprising.
I will admit that after 8 years of War Criminal, President Mumble Mouth, it will be nice to have a president who is not only brilliant, but can communicate at an adult level, but...
It doesn't seem to occur to her supporters that Hillary is an incredible devisive person. The GOP would've destroyed her in November. Whatever Obama's faults (and there are a few), Hillary's list of shady associates and questionable business deals can fill a library.
The fact is, Obama has showed wisdom, intelligence, and compassion in his campaign. While I won't argue that Hillary is an extremely intelligent person, wisdom and compassion are not words I'd use to describe her.
Arrogant and manipulative, yes.
Anyone willing to obliterate 20 million children in Iran has no place in the White House.
Anyway, no point in rehashing this argument. You're right, it's over.
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments.
As we agree it's over I won't rehash each statement just give a couple of points.
My dislike of Senator Obama isn't sour grapes, I didn't understand Obama-mania when Hil was the presumed winner.
Yes, should Senator Obama win it will be refreshing to have an intelligent, articulate President for a change; unfortunately, in one key way he reminds me a great deal of the shrub, he thinks he is destined for the position just as W thinks it was God's will for him to be in the WH.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Reply to this
Please consider this: not everybody in Obama camp is as bad, just as not everybody in Clinton camp either. And while both had strong supporters, in the end one of them has to win and the other has to lose. Tough, but this is what makes the party stronger.
Please consider this: it is time to unite the party behind the nominee. If Clinton was that nominee, you'd want the Obama supporters to close rank. It goes both ways...
Please consider this: the goal is a democratic president in the White House this Fall. Too much is at stake if Republicans get a third chance to wreak havoc with this country and the world. As such, your options are not limited to 2012, but still 2008: we have a race to win now!
Respectfully, your fellow democrat,
Adrian
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments, Adrian, when I come across Obama supporters like you it makes me work even harder to find a way to not just vote for the Senator but to actively support him as well.
Reply to this
"I do not like him, I do not trust him and I have seen no evidence that he can accomplish any of the goals of which he speaks."
Ok, I don't get it... what isn't to like?
Don't trust him? What did he ever do to you? Did he lie about Bosnia? Nope. Did he get up in front of the American people and tell them that Rev. Wright didn't matter and try to brush it off? NO! He stood in front of the American people and said "Nation, we have a problem". It's something that Americans have a hard time hearing and an even harder time understanding.
His judgement has been rock solid for years - voting against the Iraq war, which we all now know is a disaster of epic proportions (except to the pocket books of Bush and his cronies, for them, it has been an unmitigated success!). Voting against the USA "Patriot" act, which is nothing but a means of stripping OUR civil liberties! Telling it like it is on the "Gas Tax Holiday", which any person with half a brain knows is a gimme to the oil companies (the feds drop the gas price by 18 cents, the oil companies raise the gas price by 18 cents - it's a wash to Americans but a net gain to the oil companies!).
He called it, and that's all there is to it.
He has a solid record of good judgement, which I have not seen in government in 20 YEARS!
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments, you can read some of my other posts if you want to know more of my positions on Senator Obama but I will give a gloss on a couple of your points.
"Like" is purely subjective, I don't have to have reasons for not liking someone. I didn't much care for Senator Kerry but I ended up voting for him.
Hillary should have gone back and brushed up on her Bosnia landing before she spoke, since it is so easily checked I doubt that she said what she did as some overall plan to mislead the American people. I wish she hadn't done it but she did, it's not big enough to make me lose faith in her.
For me, as good as Senator Obama's speech on race was, it was a diversion from the question I wanted answered: How could a man who presents himself as a transformational leader sit silently in the pew for twenty years without discussing these issues with his minister? He still has not answered this question and it still causes a big problem for me.
He wasn't in the Senate when the major vote on Iraq was taken. He may well have voted against it had he been there, we will never know.
Good for him in voting against the Patriot Act.
As I wrote in a previous post, I totally disagree with Senator Clinton's "gas tax holiday" but I do believe that Senator Obama while in the Illinois Senate voted for a similar moratorium.
Again, thanks for your comments.
Reply to this
Yes--
Senator Obama did vote for a similar moratorium in Illinois, and he has since said that based on that experience he now believes he was wrong. It seems to me that this is demonstration of his refreshing ability to admit that he is fallible. I also believe that he has shown evidence of an ability to analyze a set of facts, and adjust his stance accordingly--in itself a refreshing change from politics as usual.
Reply to this
Peter, thanks for remaining engaged in the conversation although obviously taking a mild swipe at Senator while doing do. I'm not one that expects an apology for a vote if it was sincerely rendered on the best possible evidence available at the time.
Congratulations to you and your candidate.
Reply to this
I reluctantly decided to support Obama when Richardson ended his campaign. The first day at an Obama training I was transfixed by the diverse group of people in the room. It was a true rainbow coalition (blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Latinos, old, young, middle aged). The Obama campaign is the first campaign I've worked on where I received a half hour training on being respectful.
Obama has demonstrated throughout his campaign a respect for the political process and for his fellow democrats. I respect the fact that you don't understand his relationship with his minister. I don't understand why I've stayed at a church that hates gay people. That is the wonderful thing about people, we are complex.
I hope you decide to support Obama and his movement to bring diverse people together to change this country.
D.
Reply to this
Thank you for your comments, Denise, it is certainly apparent that you took the training program to heart and are practicing what you learned.
I grew up in a church that was pretty much anti-everything so I can understand how certain relationships keep one in a church where there are ideas that may not agree with one's own. In fact, I was never one who thought that Senator Obama should denouce Reverend Dr. Wright (until he decided that it was time for him to do so) or leave his church, I just wish he would have said something, opened the dialogue within his church that he wants us to open amongst ourselves. Perhaps now that he is virtually the presumptive nominee, he will address the subject in more depth. Please know that I realize JW's views are not those of Senator Obama and I do not believe Senator Obama should be held accountable for remarks made by his minister.
Reply to this
You don't have to answer this question on your blog. Why do you support Clinton? I'm trying to be open minded and I really want to understand why people support her candidacy. I plan to vote for the democratic nominee. However, if HRC happens to become the nominee through super delegates or plain cheating, I will vote for her and then change my party affiliation the next day.
Denise
Reply to this
Denise, I don't mind at all answering via my blog why I support Senator Clinton but it makes for a kind of long comment so spurred by your question I am going to write a post on it for the weekend, which will also serve as sort of a farewell to her campaign; thanks for getting my train of thought going in that direction.
I will say, however, that I think there is practically zero chance that she could "steal" the nomination at this point and if she were nominated by fiat of the super delegates or via the Michigan/Florida votes I would be very uncomfortable voting for her and probably would not do so. I have long advocated that the SDs keep their hands off the nomination and that there be another vote in Michigan and Florida no matter who benefitted. As of this moment barring some horrific gaffe by Senator Obama - which I do not expect - the nomination is his.
Reply to this
And, btw, congratulations to you and your candidate.
Reply to this
Denise, I promised you a post this weekend in response to your question; however, I've been a little scattered this weekend and got pulled into something else. You have been both civil and patient so I don't want you to think saying I would write a post was a way of dismissing your question. Please bear with me as I work toward having the answer posted by Tuesday.
Reply to this
"I just wish he would have said something, opened the dialogue within his church that he wants us to open amongst ourselves"
Just to clarify your position - as a leader you would expect Senator Obama to open a dialogue about race and other sensitive issues with his pastor and within his church, even though most of us never do that ourselves? So because he's running for president, the standard is different for him, especially since he puts himself out there as someone who can bring people together. Correct? However, is he talking about bringing people together in life or just politically?
Do you expect this from the other candidates as well? Should we start exploring the types of churches all candidates attend, and if we do - wouldn't that eliminate a whole lot of people?
Just trying to clarify what the parameters are.
I've been to Rev. Wright's church. Regardless of Rev. Wright's views, it's a wonderful church; they do a lot for the community. I respect the members' commitment to the community and would attend again.
What's bothered me most about the Rev. Wright episode - before his National Press Club appearance - was that I saw this black pastor being demonized in ways I have never seen white pastors demonized for making similar comments. The whole episode reeked of "we're gonna put him in his place." I actually found it quite frightening.
And it's really OK for you not to like Senator Obama. That's just the way you feel, and I respect that.
Peace.
Reply to this
Thank you for your engaging comments, Michele.
Yes, I did expect Senator Obama to open up a dialogue within his church when confronted with these comments over a long period of time. If I knew that Senator Clinton had sat in a church where like comments were made I would have expected her to open a dialogue and would have been disappointed with her and voiced that disappointment had she not, as I have voiced my disappointment with her on other issues and as I plan to voice my disappointment with her on some current issues.
Also, I don't see how you can be a transformational candidate in politics if you are not also a transformational person in everyday life. If you position yourself as a different kind of politician, as the change for which we have been waiting then I think yo have to hold yourself to that higher standard in all areas; admittedly, no one can live up to that standard at all times but, in my opinion, as someone seeking leadership he should have shown leadership in this situation. I reiterate, I was not asking him to disown Reverend Dr. Wright nor was I asking him to leave his church, I was asking him to start a dialogue. I have known many lay people within the churches I have attended who asked questions of their ministers in a respectful manner in order to clarify the minister's view or to express dissident opinion.
Reply to this