This coming week will revolve, in part, around the idea that Senator Clinton's supporters are subtly demanding that she be offered the Vice-Presidential spot on the Democratic ticket, and that if she doesn't get the offer, they won't support Senator Obama in the upcoming election.
Dumb.
I was a vocal supporter of Hilary Clinton as President. But my loyalty is for the many, not the one. And, for me, the many are best helped by the Democratic Party.
So, two messages - One, to Democrats: Please let go of Senator Clinton. I'm sure she'd make a fine President, but this has proven to not be her time. It saddens me, as I'm sure it saddens some of you, but we need to face reality. And the reality is the Senator Barack Obama will be on the Democratic ticket. And winning the White House, completing the governmental trifecta, is far more important than anything else.
Two, for the folks who got this far, but are determined to vote for Senator McCain, I politely ask you to use the comments section to tell me why. I'd like the opportunity to exchange ideas.
The Gift
-
[Christmas, 1965 or thereabout]
The boy was very young; perhaps 7 or 8 years old. He loved everything about
Christmas - the lights, the music, Santa ...
10 months ago
11 Comments:
Well, Stu, you know that I'm not likely to vote for McCain, Obama, or Clinton, but rather whoever secures the Libertarian nomination. Having said that, I would vote for Obama IF the choice were between he and McCain. Of course, the choice will not be that, as there are always more than two choices :-)
Sully,
Is there even a slight chance that you would consider voting for a Democrat, even when the Libertarian Party decides on its candidate (either Smith or Philies or Barr or whomever)...?
First: I would like to start with a disclaimer:
I normally do not get involved with talking politics in public.
Second: I am a naturalized citizen of the USA and voting is very important to me.
Having said that here is my position.
It saddens me that the only chance a candidate has today in winning a major election is if s/he is a member of the two richest parties.
If you choose to vote for a "third party" you are making a statement without a voice. In the end the winner will be chosen and the "also ran" forgotten.
What we need to do is work to change the system and level the playing field.
Sadly I do not know how to do this. Perhaps if I was sixty years younger I would try to find a way.\
Having said that I will vote Democrat and leave the battle to the young.
one thing about hillary staying in the race til the end is that it is unique. it is the first chance each and every state will have had the chance to speak. and that is important. i agree with anon (although i wish you would identify yourself) and sudog about wishing the usa were truly democratic and that the best candidate could have a chance instead of s/he with the most money. onward and upward...
I also prefer not to talk about politics in a public forum, but I am a Clinton supporter. I admire her for making sure that every vote counts. As a democrat, I think that the last two elections left us feeling that the candidate left before the last vote was heard. Gore had a chance- he should have stayed, and Kerry... well, I think it would have been more honorable to do what Hilary Clinton is doing. If it were the other way around, and Obama (who has been highly favored to win the party's nomination before any primary even took place) was trailing Clinton by (not that many)electoral votes, I don't think people would be asking him to drop out "for the party's sake". I admire what Senator Clinton is doing... she is showing us that yes, every vote does matter... to her at least.
Cherylann,
First, as I'm sure you know, I'm a staunch feminist and a Clinton supporter.
Second, for me, party unity is paramount. While it would be nice to have a serious third choice, the reality is that this time around, there's only two. And I'm a Democrat and I see that Hilary isn't as desirable to the voters. For me she is, and I think she'd make a great President, but I see that more Democrats feel that Senator Obama is their choice. And while I'm fine with Senator Clinton keeping up the fight, I'm seeing her popularity dwindle. This latest oops from her about RFK was enough to seal the deal for me. Yes, I get it, what she meant to say was, "My husband was campaigning heavily in June, as was Senator Robert Kennedy, and they are both role models to me, so I too shall carry on the fight, until every vote has been cast." Problem is, that's not what she said, and I think that it's telling. What if she had said something similar while President? It's not enough to be smart, you have to be well-spoken, and unfortunately, she says things in a way that reasonable people can interpret as harsh or careless. And right now, I want to win. That's why I made a call for party unity.
what is wrong with what she said? she said that rfk was still campaigning in june as was her husband. os i echo - why not her as well? why not go to the end? and why not hillary?
Here's the quote: "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" Clinton told the newspaper. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Now, I repeat, I get what she was trying to say. But a lot of folks aren't familiar with that part of history, so all they remember is the assassination, and so they see the comment as harsh. She easily could have stated it more directly, by saying "We all remember Bobby Kennedy campaigning in June in California as well." If she would have phrased it that way, no one could have rightly called her on it. But she didn't, she led with the assassination. That was clearly a blunder, not because of what she stated, but because she misread her audience. She knew she was speaking to the public, and that the public would hear the word "assassination" as a reminder of the awful day Kennedy died, and under such terrible terms. So my point is to fault her for misreading her audience. If you are the President, that stuff counts. And again, I want to win, and I want to win strong. If she rarely made verbal blunders (and there are a few folks who really don't, including Senator Obama), I'd still be pulling for her. But she has had too many misteps and misstatements and questionable statements (the stuff about sniper fire when she arrived in Bosnia). I need for the Democrats to take the White House, I need to back a winner.
OK she misspoke. and because of such blunders i have long been prepared for obama as the dem candidate. however we are so close to the end and so let the reporters have their time in puerto rico - don't they deserve it after such a long run? basically hillary is strong and stubborn and standing strong for women - so i say go to the end!
I hear that, and I have respect for that - My hope is that when she reaches the end, she either pulls off a miracle, or, failing that, she does everything she can to convince her support base to vote for Senator Obama, who was very polite and respectful to Senator Clinton throughout the campaign. Heck, he was even respectful of the Republicans, even after they went on the attack against his wife. He really kept his cool, which is more than I would have done.
Stu:
Now that the Libs have chosen Bob Barr (!) I am more inclined to look elsewhere, yes.
Amazing. He said all the right things to the convention, but his track record, vis-a-vis liberty, is hideous. I'm very surprised the convention nominated him. It did take 6 ballots, but...
Post a Comment