This is probably not going to change anybody’s minds out there, but before Democrats put the tiara on Hillary Clinton and send her down the runway, they really ought to ask themselves: Would anybody besides us vote for her? I realize that a lot of her supporters are likely to be personally offended that someone other than true-blue partisans would get a say in this, but unfortunately, them’s the rules.
And time and time again, a key difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama emerges: She appeals to the party-warriors who want to refight the polarizing battles of recent years, and he appeals more to people who want consensus government.
It was summed up fairly well last night by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who had this to say upon endorsing Obama:
“A lot of the Democrats are feeling heady these days — we’re sensing victory. We feel like we can reach out and grab at the White House again …. But I’m asking you to beware my friends. Beware because this discontent with Republicans is not enough to ensure a Democratic victory, nor should it be. I believe the challenges before us transcend party partisan politics. We don’t just need a Democrat — we need a leader.”
But the fact remains that plenty of folks just want a Democrat, preferably one who yearns to stick it to the "vast right-wing conspiracy," which apparently refers to the 50 percent of the electorate that says it would never vote for Mrs. Clinton — while Mr. Obama’s negatives in the same poll were only at 37 percent.
As I said, this post probably won’t change any Democrats’ minds, as those who care about getting the votes of Republicans and independents probably already prefer Obama between the two, and the rest would stick with Sen. Clinton.
But I thought it was time to issue a warning to the Democrats similar to the one I raised to Republicans a few days ago: You really, really need to think about November, people.
And I would add, you really need to think about the next four years. There are a lot of us out here who just aren’t going to put up with any more of this incessant red state-vs.-blue state, tit-for-tat, so’s-yer-mother, trashing of our shared public life.
Related Posts
Thank you for stating so clearly what I and many others have been thinking about having Senator Clinton head the 2008 ticket, Is the Democratic Party setting itself up for another defeat? But more importantly, are we about to have an interminable “re-run” of the last 16 years?
You’re absolutely right.
If America was only made of democrats….hey no problem.
But with 50% negativity…Hillary is doomed to lose the election…hands down.
Beside is she worth the sacrifice? Is she really going to bring change this country really need?
I like Hillary, but I am voting for Obama.
Obama will unite this country again, bring the change we need so bad.
Obama, please stay cool and love your wife.
you have my vote!
EXCELLENT POST!
Actually I was leaning toward Hillary Clinton./
But after listening to Governor Patrick and Senator Obama yesterday, I just made up my mind to support Obama. I need to do the right thing and be able to sleep well at night with a clear conscience.
I am nearly 69 years old and I believe that it is crucial that we begin to unite our country. It is time for dialogue and problem solving. None of us want to continue to tear our country into another civil war albeit Democrats vs. Republicans. We have enough to worry about in the world that is terrifying. The time is way overdue to choose a candidate that can include everyone, dialogue, and problem solve. Recently, I viewed the Des Moines Register’s Video Insights that asks all of the candidates to respond to a series of questions. It is a very interesting process–take a look. However, what I was particularly interested in was who exhibited flexibility in their thinking and the capacity to problem solve. Of all of the candidates, Senator Obama was the only one who listened to each question and actually answered it with insight and flexibility of thinking. I have also watched his capacity to bridge gaps in Il. I don’t think we can afford as a country to miss this opportunity. Obama can be the President of ALL OF US.
FINALLY — a clear article about the main differentiation between Obama and Hillary.
This differentiation is HUGE, and should be the #1 question that voters ask themselves!
Brad … What about Nobel Al for November? (Hillary’s not hot here, either.)
from:
http://www.algore.org/
http://www.draftgore.com/
http://www.electgore2008.com/
Gore goes to #1 in latest DFA pulse poll
Posted October 19th, 2007
Despite not being included as a candidate in the latest DFA (Democracy for America) poll, Al Gore has taken first place over all the declared candidates. DFA provided a space for a write-in vote, allowing people to cast their vote for Al Gore.
Here are the current standings:
Candidate %
Al Gore 32.21%
John Edwards 22.09%
Dennis Kucinich 16.93%
Barack Obama 13.93%
Hillary Clinton 5.85%
You can vote in the poll and review the results here (one vote only per e-mail address): http://democracyforamerica.com/pulsepoll.
So half of the electorate is a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Best news I’ve heard in months. We just need one more vote for a majority.
There may be hope for this country yet. 🙂
Brad, just stop with all this partisan nah, nah, nah crap. Coming from a man who endorsed George W. Bush in the last election I find this post highly offensive. Hillary is only perceived as a divisive partisan because the press continues to make her out that way. She’s certainly not over-the-top liberal like Dennis Kucinich. She’s been investigated more thouroughly than any person who has ever lived and NOTHING has ever been proven about her ethically. Unlike most of the Republicans, including John McCain, she’s only been married once. There’s no evidence she’s ever had an affair. Nor was she ever convicted of drunk driving like our current president. She hasn’t tap danced in a bathroom or seduced under-age pages. Nor has she lied us into a war or outed a CIA agent.
What we do know about Hillary is that she is very experienced and served alongside one of the truly great American presidents to ever live. She’ll find a way to provide health care to all Americans and she’ll bring an end to the quagmire in Iraq. So get over it. Hillary will prevail and the country will be better off for it.
I guess this is the kind of inclusive, non-partisan candidate you’re looking for?
” CONCORD, N.H. – Republican John McCain contrasts images of Woodstock and his years as a Vietnam prisoner of war in a new television ad that pokes fun at Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.
ADVERTISEMENT
The commercial, set to air on New Hampshire television Thursday, decries a proposal, since scrapped, to spend $1 million for a museum in Bethel, N.Y., site of the August 1969 rock festival. Clinton and her fellow New York senator, Chuck Schumer, had backed the plan.
The ad highlights McCain’s criticism of excessive Washington spending, reminds voters of the Arizona senator’s decorated war record and shows off his humor.
“A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum,” McCain says in the ad, drawn from Sunday’s debate on Fox News.
“Now my friends, I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event,” he says as images of the crowd and dancing concertgoers are shown. Republican presidential rival Rudy Giuliani, his head thrown back, is shown laughing at the joke during the debate.”
I guess when you’re campaign is in the toilet, you have to abandon all appearances of being Presidential and start clutching at straws.
John McCain – vote for me, I was a POW. Don’t forget that.
Barack Obama is the only president who can be president “of all of us” — not just Democrats, but Republicans and independents. The meek and the mighty. The young and old. We’re ready to change the world!
Since Brad seems to be hell bent on slandering any candidate he randomly chooses not to like it is imperative to point out the flaws in his own heros. It’s time for the gloves to come off. Here’s McCain’s distasteful joke about Chelsea Clinton:
Chelsea Clinton joke
In 1998, McCain was chastised for reportedly making an off-color joke at a Republican fundraiser about President Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea, saying “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”[66] McCain later apologized to President Clinton and Clinton accepted his apology.[66]
Tell you what, Bud. I’d like some documentation McCain actually told that Chelsea Clinton joke. It doesn’t sound like him, and it isn’t funny.
weldon you just stumbled onto the big picture. Of course it doesn’t sound like something McCain would say because the press has treated him with kid gloves. This came from a 1998 AP story that was only printed in a handful of papers. There’s little doubt about the authenticity of the joke. The democrats, especially John Edwards and Hillary are not given the same leeway and respect. Even Brad’s pitiful attempt to paint Edwards as a phony raced through the national media like a California wildfire. Yet McCain, because of his hero status, is given a near total pass.
My point is not to smear McCain. I’ve acknowledged he’s a fine man. Yet he’s not a perfect man. He slips up just like we all do. But he’s treated very differently by the press. If all the known facts were laid out about all the candidates Hillary Clinton would come out head and shoulders above anyone else in the ethics department. Yet this myth persists that she’s somehow not to be trusted. And we have the press to thank for that.
Weldon,
Hopefully, this will provide enough to confirm that McCain did do all that Bud said – made the joke and made the apology.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html
Bi-partianship is a myth..and only seems relevant in the off chance that a policy is a win-win proposition (since the federal government is in the business of class-management in either its fiscal or monetary policy-making, this is a very rare possibility indeed). Funny, didn’t George Bush disingenuously run on his bi-partisan record in Texas as a campaign strategy and then unfurl the neo-con way on us all after he robbed the election.
Anyway, bi-partisanship is the rallying cry for losers who fear their political captors will be unkind to them once they hold all the cards. So, your question about leading for all of us is either hilarious or naive. There is no “all of us”. This was a myth propagated during the WW2 and the cold war. There never has been an all of us: even after 9-11, there were those who were not part of the gang (just ask Prof. Ward Churchill) All there is the majority of electoral college voters and how to get them. If Bush did nothing else for the non-us I talk about (and he did very little for the non-us) he showed us what politics really is.
What we do know about Hillary is that she is very experienced and served alongside one of the truly great American presidents to ever live.
I didn’t know hillary served with Ronald Reagan!!!!!!!!!!!!!