|
||
Obama Risks Alienating Clinton Women and Blue-Collar Supporters
There's a reason why Hillary Clinton gets a surge in fundraising everytime some Democratic party leader or insider calls for her to drop out of the race: it pisses people off. In particular, it upsets the people most likely to support her -- working class Democrats and older white women who have been in the workplace. And these people are some of the most important core voters for the Democratic party.
While Senator Clinton may have been the party's frontrunner for many months, her position left many in the party unhappy with her as a possible nominee. There were grumblings from some in the party that she had moved too far toward the center, even toward the right in her efforts to position herself for her run during her time in the Senate. Some people disliked her style and disliked her personally. And, there was resentment at the sense of inevitability that seemed to shroud her presidential campaign.
Perhaps Senator Clinton's campaign did feel a sense of entitlement to the nomination, believing that the nomination would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. They were well-funded, they thought they had a good strategy, and they had a candidate with winning connections. They had the best fundraiser in party history on his wife's campaign and he was a huge favorite with the party faithful. He was a "rock star" in current parlance. People would flock to hear him extol his wife's virtues for president. They only had to worry that he didn't upstage her. Or so the thinking was in the beginning. They didn't foresee any serious competition early in the game. They surely underestimated the appeal of a one-term senator from Illinois.
So, yes, perhaps the Clinton campaign felt a sense of entitlement to the nomination. Those days are gone as Senator Clinton is fighting to stay in the race.
But, there is a danger now that the Obama campaign is making the same mistakes that the Clinton campaign made. With the upper hand in fundraising, ahead in pledged delegates, with party leaders seeming to lean on Senator Clinton to withdraw, there is the appearance of people ganging up on the underdog. And Democrats have always liked underdogs, whether they are immigrants, blue collar workers, minorities, people persecuted for religious or sexual reasons, or anyone who is disenfranchised.
Senator Obama runs the risk of alienating some of the core voters in the Democratic party with his own sense of entitlement to the nomination if his supporters continue to call for Senator Clinton to drop out of the race. Defeating someone fair and square is one thing. Giving the appearance of asking someone to rollover and drop out to make things easier for you is another. That doesn't go down very well with a lot of voters, especially with the working class and underpaid professional women who make up many of Senator Clinton's supporters -- women who may have been passed over for jobs in the past and who work for 80 cents on the dollar of what their male counterparts make, at best. They may be able to identify with a woman being asked to get out of the way for a man who wants the top job -- and they don't like it. Senator Obama may not be able to win these voters back if he becomes the nominee.
The Obama campaign may have caught on to the fact that urging Senator Clinton to leave the race is counterproductive. When Senator Leahy stated last week that Senator Clinton should withdraw, Senator Obama and his campaign moved away from the remarks. Senator Obama was quoted as saying that he did not think she should end her campaign. "My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants." Well, that's mighty nice of him.
The senator said elsewhere:
Obama, in an interview taped Monday and aired Tuesday on NBC's "Today Show," said the former first lady "has certainly earned the right to stay in this race as long as she wants ... I think she deserves to be able to run and make her case."
No matter what Senator Obama says, these comments sound condescending to Senator Clinton's supporters, as though it is his race and he can determine who stays in or not. That may not be fair, but that's how they sound to Clinton supporters. I should point out that some of the ways that Senator Clinton's words have been dissected by Obama's followers have not been exactly fair either.
Senator Obama's campaign may or may not feel a sense of entitlement to the nomination at this point, but many of his followers certainly do. You only have to read the message boards here at HuffPost to see the sense of outrage whenever anyone dares to offer any criticism of Senator Obama or even suggest that this race isn't over yet.
A sense of entitlement is not necessarily a good thing. Remember that even if Senator Obama does go on to win the Democratic party's nomination he will still face a general election against a Republican party that doesn't recognize as important what Democrats feel they're entitled to in this country. Campaigning with a sense of entitlement to be president is not going to play any better in the general election than it does in the primaries.
Meanwhile Senator Clinton is proving one thing above all else: she's not a quitter. You have to admit, there are worse qualities, and this particular quality is appealing to a large segment of the Democratic party, even if it doesn't appeal to Barack Obama supporters. People need to stop calling for her to drop out of the race. I don't think it's going to happen. She's made that very clear.
One other thing has been made abundantly clear in the Democratic primaries: there are no pre-ordained winners. No sense of entitlement carries any weight with the voters. The only thing that counts is campaigning and connecting with the people who cast their votes. It looks like it will be that way through June and no candidate has a lock on the nomination, regardless of what the pundits and mathematicians like to say. This is the Democratic party and my vote is as good as yours, whether I'm an older white woman in Pennsylvania or a young Asian man in Oregon. We're the ones who are entitled to the best nominee possible and when the primaries are finally over I hope that's what we'll have.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Many times Clinton has enthused at the possibility that either a woman or an African American would probably become the next president of the USA. This invited women who feel a sense of resentment at perceived societal injustice to their sex to vote their gender. It also reminded everyone that Obama was an African American. This was no service to Obama who is trying to run as a man for all races.
Contributions to this blog show that Clinton has succeeded in appealing to a cadre of angry women who will support her at any cost, totally ignoring her obvious shortcomings. Many have adopted a technique she perfected. First play the race card. Then when your opponent protests, accuse him of playing that card. First throw a kitchen sink of false negatives at him. If he makes the mildest response, accuse him of negative campaigning.
Her surrogates have supassed the mistress herself. Since she has been upbraided for showing an obvious sense of entitlement, they make the same charge against the opponent on the flimsiest possible basis.
The closest he has come to entitlement is to say that if at the end of the primary season, he has won the majority of delegates and the majority of the popular vote, he would feel he had earned the nomination. I say so would millions of his supporters. Evidently some of the ladies writing here have a problem with that. So be it. One cannot argue with emotion and prejudice.
This post is sheer brilliance when it describes Hillary. I don't think Obama is trying to run as a man of all races, as he has mentioned his color before. That's my big issue with Democratic supporters this election. They care so much about something that isn't even related to running this country, and are obsessed with hyping and punishing for it.
It's really quite disgusting. I wouldn't, however, put Obama supporters above this.
This is why I love (and will vote for) McCain. In addition to my primary reasons (experience, a breakdown of his policies), I don't get this crap I get from the Clintonistas and Obamites.
Obama has already alienated me, forget about the 'risk' of it.
"Senator Obama's campaign may or may not feel a sense of entitlement to the nomination at this point, but many of his followers certainly do. You only have to read the message boards here at HuffPost to see the sense of outrage whenever anyone dares to offer any criticism of Senator Obama or even suggest that this race isn't over yet."
A big AMEN to that!
But Obama has already lost my vote not only for his treatment of the Clintons, calling 'Racism' when none was intended or made and his very racist Rev. Wright., not to mention his total inexperience (how far did he get into his first Senate term was it even 2 years and now he decides he should be president?).
Guess I'll be voting for McCain since the Democratic party hierachy is trying to force Clinton out of the race and that is unacceptable to me - if we are the Democratic party, lets be democratic. And we obviously aren't.
"You only have to read the message boards here at HuffPost to see the sense of outrage whenever anyone dares to offer any criticism of Senator Obama or even suggest that this race isn't over yet."
It's intellectually lazy to use blog commenters as examples. We're all a bunch of hyper-polarized nut cases. Don't make the same mistake Paul Krugman did in his column that the yahoos who waste time blogging and commenting on blogs have some correlation to the real electorate. If polls are to be believed (and they're not), the Clinton supporters are much more polarized at this point, showing a greater willingness to defect to McCain than Obama supporters.
Hillary has ever right to stay in the race; a 10% chance of her winning in April 2008 is just as legitimate as Obama's 10% chance of winning in April 2007. But it's also both campaigns' prerogative to try to win the staring contest, too. Isn't that what the Clinton campaign was doing with their equally condescending suggestion that Obama be VP?
Carlotta,
doesn't having a sense of entitlement make one look down upon anyone who doesn't fall in line? not only did clinton have a sense of entitlement, she actually made it feel like her win was inevitable even before the elections started.
in terms of your criticism of obama's words where he said that hillary should stay and run the race as long as she wants and certainly earned the right to do so. if you choose to take offense to something that is seen by many as a sound democratic statement, then thats your choice. however, try to put the comment in context. obama has been asked repeatedly what he thinks of people calling clinton to quit. to which he answered because senator clinton is a fierce and formidable opponent and she has passionate supporters who want to vote for her she should stay and run the race for as long as she wants. he was then asked if he is just trying to be gracious. he then answered, no he is trying to uphold our democracy and constitution and that senator clinton like anyone else have earned the right to run her race as long as she wants and no one should ask her to quit.
i dont have a problem with people disliking obama. however, i really dislike when people decontextualize soundbytes just to demonize a candidate. they have done this to both hillary and obama and I think it does injustice to any candidate.
Carlotta Cooper, I could kiss you for this outstandingly objective piece. I'm an independent who has voted for Hillary, and I'm black, too; but let me tell you, Obama could never get my vote. His obnoxious, condescending attitude has given me a headache from the beginning of his messianic movement until today. You're so right, he has already permanently lost a lot of Hillary votes, should he become the nominee.
I was just talking about his attitude this morning and how he sent his surrogates out to poison the atmosphere, implying (or saying it outrightly) that Hillary is being selfish and destructive for continuing the race that no one has won yet. Then he came out and disagreed as you've so eloquently pointed out, but not without the arrogance, patronization, and mixed message. Because while he claims that she should stay in the race for as long as she wants, he has also said that this race like a good movie that has gone on 1/2 hr too long. How dare he! But thanks for this piece, because I'm tired of reading all the tripe from the overzealous Obama backers.
"Outstandingly objective??"
The fact that the writer has said things that you agree with does not constitute objectivity. You have a strong bias, as does the writer. That's not right or wrong, it just doesn't equal "objective."
I am an Obama supporter, but I don't always look at pieces I agree with as being objective, I look at them as persuasive. Very different.
Disagree. Facts are facts, and that's what written in this piece. So the piece is as persuasive as objective.
If you like this piece and agree with it, fine. But you find it to be "objective"?
WOW.
Runs the risk of? Try already has. From the moment he looked down his nose at Senator Clinton in whatever of the hundreds of debates that was, he lost me. His supporters, especially the ones here at HuffPost, put the icing on the cake over the months that have followed. The old men of the party that have joined the chorus of "Quit!" put the nail in the coffin. I'm backing Hillary, all the way to Denver and right up to the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania. I'm doing it with money, I'm doing it with posts, I'm doing it with emails and I'm doing it with time, this weekend in Pennsylvania.
Like it or not, we "older women" really and truly don't like being considered easy to win back, and we really don't like being treated rudely, with disrespect or condescension. Obama supporters can and should shout whatever they view to be his attributes to the heavens, but they made a HUGE mistake by taking the low road...as I fully expect them to be doing in response to this post.
Have you and I been watching the same primary contest? Obama taking the low road? Unbelievable.
I'm an "older" woman who would dearly love to see a woman in the white house someday, just not Mrs. Clinton. Her campaign tactics and her lies have put the women's movement back at least 10 years, if not more. I have no desire to see the scandals and lies of the 90's repeat themselves for the next 4 - 8 years.
I did not say that Obama took the low road. I said his supporters have taken the low road when they have posted their incredibly nasty and vituperative attacks here at HuffPost.
I congratulate you on making it to "older woman". I would hope that you would join with me in calling for those who DO take the low road to keep their remarks contained to policy or issues--but not such winners as the size of Hillary's thighs, her "piano legs", or whatever else they chose to spit their venom at. As a woman, that must annoy you at some level...I would hope.
Watch out for the sniper fire.
Hillary was told to watch out for possible sniper fire and that if it could not be contained - they would need to run to the cars.
There are reports of this being the case. It happened that things were safe. I thank god for that.
NO, WATCH OUT FOR REV WRIGHT. YOU ARE A SILLY PERSON THAT IS MAKING ME A WHITE WOMEN ANGRY. IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO BLACK. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS, AND I BELIEVE WOMEN ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY BECAUSE OF HER EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE BLACKS ARE VOTING FOR OBAMA, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, IT CERTAINLY CAN'T BE BECAUSE OF EXPERIENCE AND THE THINGS HE DID FOR THIS COUNTRY, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, BRAGGED ABOUT SOMETHINGS THAT HE REALLY DIDN'T DO, BUT SAID HE DID.
"Like it or not, we "older women" really and truly don't like being considered easy to win back, and we really don't like being treated rudely, with disrespect or condescension."
And neither do we colored folks!
Obama does give me the impression of arrogance - of someone who can't get his hands dirty doing work. I suspect he is lazy and would be way over his head doing the job.
But he plays poker very well. Bluffing his way to the finish.
This nomination is not a game. Working people do not see it as a game, like Obama and his supporters seem to. For us - it is survival. It is getting help from the government for a safety net. It is getting health care we can afford. It is JOBS.
I think he would be good at being King of Kenya. His sense of entitlement could be played out that way. Not in America. He is so so different than us in ways he and his supporters don't imagine. They imagine skin color. Hardly. We understand instinctively that Obama feels entitled! ENTITLED!
This is almost dangerous how entitled Obama feels. And he tries to say he has earned the nomination?
Maybe working people are the only ones left in this country who do not have the privelege of imagining some kind of emotional resolution to our problems.
Find it strange that the Clinton MANIPULATION works time after time despite not being factual but spun elsewise and this latest milking off the perception being sold that Obama calls for Clinton to drop out is another one...There are those in the Clinton camp, ie=surrogates, who clamor for Obama to drop out per se by pronouncing him UNELECTABLE and etc so this present whine that Obama , if only by HIS surrogates are calling for Clinton to drop out is equally desengenuous and perhaps even more so for in the process, the Clinton folks think despite agreed upon RULES, those same rules should be ignorred or disregarded so that now when desparate to rack up some further numbers in the Clinton column they demand that Mi and FLa be seated and declare it is Obama who created the situation and desenfranchised "all those good voters" even thou Hillary HAD AGREED THOSE 2 STATES WERE TO FORFEIT DELEGATES AS THEY WERE NOT DONE IN ACCORD TO THE AGREED UPON RULES...(imagine what a set up for FUTURE CHAOS ALL can look forward to..that alone should give SOME pause, but the immediacy of the need of this moment makes that something preferred to be ignorred bigtime !!!)
I don't exactly think Hillary thought she was entitled, but I do think she had an expectation that she would win. But the expectation, in my opinion, was not without merits--all polls showed her up by double digits. At this point, she understands that there is strong competition, which, as a result, she'll have to fight for the nomination--and I'm using the word "fight" loosely. Obama, on the other hand, even facing this strong competition, has copped this attitude of entitlement calling for Hillary to drop out of a very close competition where neither of them can garner enough delegates to claim a win. That's the problem.
In addition, don't be fooled by Obama patronizing ways into believing that Obama is not fully supporting his endorsers who are calling for Clinton to quit. Because he is. And he is good at having his cake and eating it, too.
I'm not telling anybody not to vote for Obama, but based on the things I've read here from Obama's supporters--I'm just saying, you don't know who you're voting for.
As the article says, Clinton started right of the bat with a big sense of entitlement. I have seen many pro-Clinton posters suggest that Obama should drop out, so this is a 2-way street. It is absurd to criticize Obama for saying she has a right to stay in the race. What the hell else could he have said that the extreme pro-Clintonites would like? All this talk of cults is ridiculous, too. There are die-hards in both camps, as anyone can see.
I see a BIG difference between the two candidates regarding entitlement. Hillary felt entitled from the start because of who she was and the political gaming power she & Bill had, while Obama, IF he feels any entitlement at all, only got there after ACTUALLY WINNING THE MOST VOTES! This is not a subtle distinction. He is entitled to the nomination on that basis, so what is the gripe??
Ummm. King of Kenya? A sense of entitlement? I think you and Carlotta have both partaken of the Clinton campaign's purple kool-aid. Again and again Obama refuses to take aim at the dirty politics Hillary and Bill have been tag teaming him with. Again and again he takes the high road. The only people with a sense of entitlement here is Ms. Clinton who is throwing a temper tantrum because what Bill promised her for all her years of sticking by him despite his lies and philandering and her coverups -- The White House -- will not be be hers because a majority of Democrats see through the rose-colored glasses she's tried to glue on for us.
As a working-class person, this desire of both of you to "spin" my candidate's calm and even-handed approach to this election as a negative is beyond me.
Put down the kool-aid, take off the rose colored Clinton glasses and listen to him with an open mind and without the prejudgments.
Obama '08
The Candidate With Class and Calm
Well, I think your impression that "he would be good at being King of Kenya" rather than president of the US shows how naive and foolish you are. You imagine that Hillary is so similar to "average" democrats? Both Hillary and are both wealthy celebritiesin our culture. Hillary happens to accept large amounts of cash from corporate PACS and lobbyists, whereas Obama does not. Hillary's husband was the freaking president. The Clintons both make money hand over fist from their dynastic privilege and make Obama look middle class by comparison. However, Obama has enjoyed a huge advantage in fundraising. The majority of Obama's election cash is coming from regular people donating in small amounts (e.g., sub-$100). So you tell me, who better represents working people in this country?
The job of being President is not one for career advancement. I think only an affirmative action candidate like Obama would see it that way.
"King of Kenya"? "He is so different than us in ways he and his supporters don't imagine"? Are you for real?
Obama and his supporters - WE - are all Americans, too. Obama put himself through college, taking out student loans because his folks did not have money like Mrs. Clintons parents. He's worked hard as a community organizer helping people who lost their jobs when he could have had any law job in the country making a lot more than community organizers.
Me? I worked all of my life and recently lost my job at the age of 55. I am now in risk of loosing my home after owning it for 20 years. No need to talk about me like I do not know what it is to work hard.
You've apparently bought into the media spin that Obama's supporters are rich, latte drinking, Prius driving elites who've earned their money the easy way. The fact is that we come from all walks of life. We are low, middle and high income, all shades of skin, all religions, all political parties who want someone in the WhiteHouse that will tell the truth, work hard for the people and rebuild our reputation in the world. That's not a lot to ask for and I would think that is something most people in this country want. Yeah, you are right...this nomination is no game and the only one treating it that way is the person you support.
" who want someone in the WhiteHouse that will tell the truth, work hard for the people and rebuild our reputation in the world".
How could Obama possibly do these things for you?
Politicians do not do these things in the way you imagine.
what i want to know is how much did obama and his wife take out for student loans, and how long did it take them to pay it back. it looks like he lives in an over one million dollar home. he must have been very good to do all that. i don't believe their student loans were very much, please can someone find out.
IS CLINTON AS ELECTABLE AS SHE CLAIMS
Many women project a sense of entitlement that would be rediculous if it were not so destructive. It shows up so clearly in the lead article..
I see this same destructive mentality in Clinton and her insider supporters. She is not entitled to the nomination unless she can earn a majority of delegates. It is mean spirited and destructive to base her claim on bashing her opponent, claiming he is unelectable at the very time that polls reveal she has much higher negatives. Her supporters ignore the fact that more than 40% of the electorate say they would never vote for her under any circumstances. That number has remained constant over a number of years. Her campaign tactics have probably increased it. That means she needs to get 85% of those who do not actively hate her to win in a general election. How probable is that?!
Obama Risks Alienating Clinton Women and Blue Collar Voters?
Hillary Risks Alientating Democrats and Progressives!
Over on Talking Points Memo, there's an excellent reader's blog that responds to a Clinton supporters question: "Do her critics really claim she's a racist? That BILL is a racist?"
Wasn't Bill, after all, the "first black president"?
Is the occasional race-baiting comment re: Jesse Jackson, Muslim waffling, Jeremiah Wright, Affirmative Action, etc. really racist or simply impersonal political strategy? Is pushing the Jeremiah Wright story through Richard Mellon Scaife's media channel to white PA voters really racism?
It's racism folks; after all, racism has always been, first and foremost, a strategy to gain a superior position.
And since when has racism been okay in the Democratic party?
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/why-the-clintons-are-bigger-ra.php
I don't get it. Obama says, she "has certainly earned the right to stay in this race as long as she wants ... I think she deserves to be able to run and make her case." and from that we get "No matter what Senator Obama says, these comments sound condescending to Senator Clinton's supporters." What does that mean? To me it means "no matter what he says, his words must mean something else because I don't like him." What can he say then? If he says one thing and you hear something else, you are missing the trust that others are putting in Obama, There is nothing wrong with skepticism, but his words are unfailingly straightforward. My bullshit radar doesn't register with Obama like it does with other politicians. He seems sincere to me. I think he is right wrt HRC's candidacy. She is helping to prove the point that Obama is a better candidate and that he will eventually unify the democratic party. On trust, it is no contest for me, and I believe that trust is more important with more voters than any other issue. Especially after the last 8 years.
Nailed it.
It is impossible to fathom how Obama and his supporters can win with the core group of HRC's women supporters, who see the entire campaign in terms of gender, and view every complaint about Hillary as misogyny. How do you respond to that? How do you turn that around?
So, whether it happens sooner or later, HRC and this group is set up to feel victimized.
As for the blue collar voters, they would be fine if HRC weren't so busy scaring them with Jeremiah Wright. The fact that she and Bill are cozying up with their nemeses, Richard Mellon Scaife and Rush Limbaugh, in order to peddle this fear, is the height of cynicism and betrayal. I want all the time back I've spent refuting Scaife and Limbaugh inspired lies about the Clintons. They didn't and don't deserve my support, or that of any Democrat for that matter.
If women really vote Republican in the case of Obama winning the nomination, it would be out of spite not out of whats in their best interest. The Florida House of Rep passed a bill this week that would require all women seeking abortion to have a sonogram/ultrasound at their expense and sign off that they understand what they're doing, they estimate the cost of the test to be between $100 and $700--a vote for McCain is a vote for conservative supreme court judges that will wipe away most of the progress women have made over the last 30 years....hopefully women will vote for the candidate that they believe will values of progressive women....as to blue-collar workers, imo, not much he can do to get through to them but encourage their children not to let the divisiveness of race get in the way of common goals and common sense.
Yeah, I had the same reaction. I fail to see how that's condescending. It's all spin now.
Obama: "Senator Clinton is very intelligent and capable."
Clinton supporters: "What a condescending remark. How dare you!"
Obama: "Senator Clinton has a great deal of knowledge on a wide range of issues."
Clinton supporters: "Your sense of entitlement sickens me. Smug jerk!"
You have to be astute to be able to get it. It was condescending and patronizing, without a doubt.
Men are scum - Women have gotten short changed - And there is no question that a women presidency would be a great thing. Oh, and one more thing ... Hillary is a manipulating liar, who, along with her husband, PIMP out a daughter who repeats the same lies as her mother. Which brings me back to my original point - a female presidency would be a great thing. Unfortunately, there isn't a viable female candidate.
Very very good commentary. Keith Obamamann should read this here column again and again before each and every show for a reality check.
Look-I'm on here nailing Prince Obama's acolytes all the time-pretty much for the same reasons that Cooper has outlined here. The elitism. The 'inevitability factor', the smugness, the bullshit pushing from leahy etc for her to get out, etc.
Get a grip. It's Only April 3rd. You have 10 primaries left. You have two months for that. If I were to be betting on it, sure-Obama takes NC, Indy and maybe KY, Hillary PA, maybe She takes KY, who knows? Obama edges her out. That's how it works, not by having someone fold just because the braying classes decide that they're tired of this already and wanna get to the next phase.
It doesn't work that way.
Olberman, Mathews proves one more time , we have not accomplished anyting in this country, when it comes to gender discrimination. They live in glass houses, their power is the air time to spew venom...
Do they realize all these non issue hatered, have serious consequences...
Include Lehey and his audacity to call for Hillary to drop out, before the other 11 States speak..
Seems to me this is the same venom that they spew at Bush, so in that sense it proves that women have come along way. I understand you're angry because they are spewing it at Hillary but it seems to me that, unless you truly believe that they are doing it because they hate women or are threatened by women somehow (at best I believe it is a bias against the Clinton's of which Hillary is one), that her presence in this primary alone would be suggestive that we've come along way. I'm curious would you support a candidate like Secretary of State Rice for President or Catherine Harris for Senate. How did you feel about Harriet Myers on the Supreme Court. I can tell you that all three make me uncomfortable not because of their gender but because of the content of their character. That is the goal for any movement of equality.
HuffPost's Pick
As a woman, I feel that you have a very weak argument. My belief was that women wanted to be treated the same as men in these situations. Well, Hillary is being treated the same as other men that have been in these primaries by being asked to leave when there is not a viable chance to win. Why is there an uproar over this? People were leaning heavily on Huckabee to leave when it was obvious that he couldn't win and I didn't hear too many people crying over that. Romney, Richardson and Edwards left the race and people didn't start screaming and saying that it wasn't fair. This is not gender discrimination - this is politics.
So can we assume, since you are obviously very supportive of equality for women, that you were a big supporter of Elizabeth Dole's presidential run?
It's amazing how Clinton supporters keep trying accuse Obama of having a sense of entitlement, when the Clintons' sense of entitlement is the main reason she's behind in the nomination race. Now she's in a real race, and there's this, "He's smug, arrogant. How dare he challenge her, it's her turn." attitude from the Clintons and her supporters. She and her camp mounted a sloppy campaign early on because they thought that her winning the nomination was inevitable regardless. She (along with Obama) signed on to the unseating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, because she didn't think she needed their votes to win. She also alienated Mississippi voters while campaigning in Iowa, again, because she didn't think she needed their votes to win. Now, she claims FL and MI voters are disenfranchise, even thought she's campaigning to for the superdelegates to disregard the votes that have put Obama ahead be every objective measure. Their willing to cozy up to people who hate them; Bill Clinton on Rush Limbaugh, Ed Rendell praising Fox, Hillary Clinton kissing up to Richard Mellon Scaife. They know full well that these people will be looking to destroy Clinton in the general election. But, they don't care. They'll pretend that they believe Limbaugh, Fox, and Scaife actually want her to be President. They'll lie when they have to know the truth will come out; Bosnia, Ireland. Whatever it take to get what is "rightfully hers".
I don't have a problem with her staying in the race. I do have a problem with her gutter politics.
I hate this stuff, it has become an art form. We are entiltled to "the best possible candidate", is code for possibly the one that doesn't win the most elected delegates, the most states, or the popular vote. It is the only hope that campaign and its supporters clings to. The reason people ask her to get out is because it has become abundantly clear that one person will have earned the nomination and the other will be trying to use their significant weight within the party to snatch what has been earned. They will do this by any means necessary, also abundantly clear, and this is bad for the party. If Obama were furthering his political ambitions by holding the party hostage with his demographics we would rightfully be outraged. It is not like she is making a high minded argument for some issue that she feels is important to her or America. If she were bringing light to anything other than Obama's percieved flaws I could get behind this, but she isn't. It is further not obvious to me that she is proving herself not a quitter. Universal healthcare, NAFTA, her role in the Clinton Whitehouse, war with Iraq...what is clear is that she fights for her own political survival, but I am still wanting her to be America's Rocky or the Democrat's Rocky or New York's Rocky, I just don't think that is going to happen.
Does she know that Rocky lost in that first movie?
Let me get this straight, if he says she should drop out of the race (which he hasn't) he is a sexist pig and an arrogant newcomer who thinks, because he is a man, he deserves to be President.
If he states that she should stay in the race then he is condescending jerk who is so arrogant that he thinks his nomination is inevitable.
What, exactly, would be the acceptable response that would not be seen as sexist or condescending? He can't say she should stay in, he can't say that she should drop out, he can't stay silent because people will accuse him of not smacking down the nay sayers. What other options does he have?
No matter what Senator Obama says, it will not be good enough to people with the attitude of Ms. Cooper.
Let's just be honest here; this has nothing to do with arrogance and everything to do with the fact that Barack is beating Hillary. There's absolutely nothing he can do to endear himself to die-hard Clinton supporters... except lose.
In fact, if Obama (or any candidate) doesn't have the *confidence* that he can and will win, then he shouldn't be in the race. So, instead of being angry at Obama for doing what he *should* be doing, you should be FURIOUS with Clinton for all the damage that she has done to her own candidacy. Just so we're on the same page, I'll list just a few:
- she hired the wrong people to run her campaign
- she didn't keep in-the-loop on the state of her own campaign finances
- she could not create a consistent and clear message
- she made questionable statements about her foreign policy involvement
- she lied about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia
There's plenty more, but those are the key areas. Don't blame the opponent... blame the candidate, herself.
He's already garnered the popular vote. Hillary couldn't catch up if she won ALL the votes in the states other than PA, and 70% of PA!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
