- BIG NEWS:
- Barack Obama
- |
- Health Care
- |
- War Wire
- |
- Charlie Crist
- |
Philly: Ugly Clinton Victory Rally
Read More:
Clinton, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Nomination, Obama, Pennsylvania Primary, Philadelphia, Rally, Senator Obama, Victory,
Home News
PHILADELPHIA-- "This is a Hillary victory party, not an Obama loser party," shouted Mali Kigasari, a Clinton supporter from California. Hillary Clinton's victory rally at the Park Hyatt hotel in Philadelphia Tuesday night came after a long fought battle.
While she delivered an impassioned speech inside, hundreds of people gathered outside and filled the streets with chanting, and cheering.
Many were filled with emotion and some were angry. What will voters do in November if the candidate they support loses the nomination?
"I will not vote [for Obama] period," said Kigasari, who has voted Democrat for the last 25 years.
If Democrats are not united in the fall, Republicans will have another four years in the White House.
"I wouldn't vote at all," said Rasheed, a local reggae artist and Obama supporter.
"Either one would be a victory over Bush," said Eric Markel, a local musician who supports Obama but said he admired Clinton for her strength.
Polls cannot measure the emotion of voters in a historic election with the possibility of the first female president, and the first African American president.
"I will vote for McCain," said M.G. who came to Philadelphia from Georgia to volunteer for Clinton with her sister. Her sister agreed.
Outside the hotel Tuesday, people gathered together for their candidates, and chanted with vigor. As they stood opposite each on the street corner, they were a small visual representation of the possibility of divide within the Democratic Party.
Even though Clinton and Obama don't seem to like each other much, the longer this race continues, the harder it is to repair the damage.
"We're Democrats, we want the White House back," said Amen Brown, an Obama backer who said he would vote for Clinton if she won the primary.
A "dream ticket" may be the only solution?
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
Obviously a dream ticket is the answer. Obama as the nominee and anybody but Hillary on the ticket is not only a dream ticket but the winning ticket. Thanks for asking.
1) No, she will better help Obama win by giving her support and going away. If she's the VP, she will galvanize the right wing to support McCain, and they don't like him much.
2) We didn't ask.
Either you don't read well or you have comprehension problems. As best I can tell, you agree with me in your own convoluted way.
On the issue of Obama loss in PA, it is important that the huge support of white women, men, Catholics, etc. for Clinton can be explained simply as her institutional presence in politics or name recognition is lacking. Nor is Obama loss simply a matter of not connecting with the voters. The lack of support for Obama cannot be reduced to his gender, not knowing who Obama is or having issues with his policies which largely mirror those of Clinton, but rather it is an issue of race. Pundits keep stating that Obama has consistently failed to win white women and blue collar voters when in fact they know he will never be able to win their support because their support is not to be won. Such persons will never vote for a black/biracial candidate and that is a truth that the larger media fails to address & to deny the issues of race is simply ludicrous in the US as racism and bigotry is often too ingrained in the American DNA. Clinton, Rendell, Buchanan, McCain, etc & persons of their ilk understand the racial nuances of the segregated South, the "T" in Pennsylvania & even urban environments where racism and bigotry is sometimes more covert. They understand the language, cues, and nuances necessary to get their population salivating and proudly joining the chorus of those who wish to block Obama candidacy.
Agree wholeheartedly. Pennsylvania is a bigoted provinical area, decades behind the rest of the country in terms of tribal affinity. I live in PA and I know well that most of its residents are not just anti-black but anyone else "not from around here". It was a huge accomplishment for Obama to do as well as he did, im my opinion.
By the way, if it matters, my earlier high opinion of Ed Rendell has gone out the window and I intend to vote against him at the next given opportunity.
But Ed Rendell had a lot of nice things to say about Louis Farrakhan.
Rendell is a thug and Nutter is a nutjob.
Obama did extremely well in this ultra-bigoted and backwards place (where I'm from) and Bob Casey is a real gem. Let's not forget that Obama was about 24 pts behind HC way back when, and he closed that gap to 9.7 or so points.
That's right it was not technically a double-digit lead!!!
He can, I believe, continue to close that gap with white men and older voters (hey, my white, 80 year-old mom from Philly voted for OB).
Hillary, on the other hand "has a problem with black voters." now. She has so completely disgusted and alienated them, I'm really not sure that she would ever win them back. And their DEM vote is very important. No DEM candidate has won without their support.
The negative response of many women (i.e., white women) to Obama's candidacy is the premiere reason women of color have defected from the women's movement. Whenever the interests of people of color conflict with that of white women -- white women suddenly defect to other issues, candidates or other parties. Even though women of color have consistently supported women's issues and white candidates throughout history, the beneficiaries of legislation, issues etc has largely been white females. Yet, when people of color choose to support a candidate of color, they are immediately deemed uneducated, uninformed, etc.
I am an older white woman and I am a total Obama supporter. What in the heck are you talking about?
Me = 57 yrs old, Female, Obama girl... I don't know what the fool means either.
The Vagina Diatribes.
My husband and I, and our 6 children, are all Obama supporters. We are all planning to vote for McCain if Hillary wins the nomination, or if she is on the ticket with Obama.
We remember the 90's...
Interesting, what if Clinton was on Obama's ticket, would you still vote for McCain?
She won't be.
It's great that you remember the 90's, but you need to remember the last 8 years before voting McCain. There will be very little difference between McCain and Bush, but a VAST difference with either Hillary or Obama as president. We need to keep our eyes on the big picture, and that's an end to Bush's devastating policies and mindset.
Do you remember the 00's?
Yikes! You're saying you have such antipathy for Clinton that you would not vote for OBAMA (even though you currently support him) if Clinton were on the ticket as VP? I just don't know what to say to this. This astounds me. I can see not voting for Clinton (although I plan to if she is the nominee) because as a DLC democrat, she is actually a republican, as are all DLCers. But to vote for McCain even if she is in the VP slot? I can't even comprehend that.
The Clinton Campaign has been callous. In Hillary’s willingness to do anything to win the nomination, to destroy the nominee, she is also out to destroying the Democratic Party. She is angry with Howard Dean, over the Florida and Michigan Primaries, and the perceived disloyalty amongst party insiders. She never wanted Howard Dean to be the Chair of the DNC. She needs the Florida and Michigan primaries She despises having to pander to these super-delegates. She will destroy the party rather than let nomination go. She clearly understands that she is creating schism within the Party. She is building her base, not the Party’s base. She is building her Party, not a Democratic Party. She has brush the Democratic Party off. Don’t be surprise if she doesn’t make an independent run. — Hello President McCain.
Even though it will bring Obama down somewhat because of ties to lobbyist/PAC etc, Clinton should probably be on his ticket. The white core vote of the democratic party in the north east and south is still pretty racists, they won't vote for a black candidate. We may have to bring the party together to beat McCain and Bush.
On second thought, putting Clinton on Obama's ticket will galvanize the conservative base of the Repukelian party into voting for McCain/Bush. That sucks.
Obama will not put her on his ticket. He will be smart and put a white guy who has foreign policy/military experience yet who thinks outside the box, or is willing to step across the aisle and get things done. OB didn't go to Harvard Law to do stupid things like put HC on his ticket!
ONCE AGAIN....its "they must be racists" excuse.
Did ya ever think that he IS TOO INEXPERIENCED FOR SOME PEOPLE??????
No, because she is MORE inexperienced than he, and because inexperience never bothered these voters when they voted for the first President Clinton. So why start caring about experience now? BTW, being first lady (first of Arkansas and then of US) is NOT experience!!! Get your own fucking record, Hillary, and stop asking for credit for things you didn't do.
Not really -- especially because a lot of the people who previously supported John Edwards and now support Sen. Clinton cite "experience" as a reason. However, a fact that seems to fall through the MSM sifting: John Edwards was a one-term senator who didn't hold elected office until he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998 and served from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2005. That's it. No previous elected-official experience, no legislative work. He was a lawyer -- just like Sens. Obama and Clinton. So, perhaps some of you "Obama-haters" can understand why sometimes the only reason we can conclude from some of your posts is that race is a factor.
No, he has more years in elected office than Lincoln, and more, by the way, than H Clinton. Put that in your misinformed pipe and smoke it.
Unscum: This is an interesting dilema. Hillary's strategy has been clear: 1. Make Obama unelectable in Nov. by saying things about him that Repugs weren't able to say until they were first said by a Democrat, and thereby set herself up for 2012; or 2. Lather up your supporters into such irrational hatred of Obama, by constantly playing victim, that Obama will be required to offer her the VP slot, even though it is a huge risk to him. And if they lose, under plan #2, she still is set up for her 2012 run. Where I fall down on this is that I would rather go down fighting, and I want Obama to choose a real VP (such as Webb, Warner, Kaine, Sebelius, Napolitano, Gregoire, etc.) and if Hillary's shrill and immature voters won't come along, fuck them. They were never true democrats anyway so why should I care what they want or think? This party will grow and survive based upon recruitment of the Millenials, aka Generation Y, which is the sector in which Obama enjoys the most support. This party will not grow based upon the retention of angry white women and drunk racist Ohioans and Pennsylvanians.
Sebelius would be a GREAT pick!
I think he would be crazy to pick her and the Clinton baggage. In addition, she would seek to undermine him at every turn. At the same time, if he chooses someone like Sebelius the vast majority of women and many of the white men will be satisfied. May lose some of the most rabid Clinton supporters but the majority of women will be appeased.
Agreed -- this "vote for McCain" response is being provoked by the media, who apparently would like the Clinton-Obama battle to go on as long as possible.
It's hard not to believe that Clinton defectors are not drawn to McCain on the basis of major similarities between the Clinton and McCain campaigns. Both demonstrate "toughness". Both showcase a "fighting spirit", even if they recklessly throw out nuclear threats to Iran. Both make "guilt-by-associate" a central theme. Both pander shamelessly and incessantly about flag pins, gun-rights, and their tenuously observed religion. This is the problem with adopting GOP tactics: you blend in with the scenery in an election cycle that demands *change*.
Again, I don't believe these women, especially if they are feminists, would vote McCain which would overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't buy it.
Yep, they're lyin'.
They won't vote against the womb. And if they do, screw 'em.
Defeating the Bush/Clinton Oligarchy is more important in the long run anyway.
The country can survive four years of McCockroach if it frees us from this dynasty crap. So if they want to act like children about it, fine. They're not the direction the Democratic party is heading.
The vast majority of Democratic women, feminist or not, will do the right thing in November.
Another Clinton presidency will only lead to President Jeb later. We gotta stop it now. Whatever the cost.
Since 1973, the GOP has ridden on the "pro-Life" horse, resulting in the election of some of the most idiotic and/or corrupt politicians in history. That issue is responsible more than any other for the abominable policies that have brought our nation near collapse.
If putting a woman in the Oval Office is more important than preserving reproductive choice, then drop that plank from the party platform, introduce a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion in all cases, and deprive the Republicans their biggest selling point. And get some rational conservatives into Congress instead of the cretins who obstruct any positive legislation.
Listen, I would have a hard time voting for Hillary even if I had to hold my nose. God, what a dilemna, what's a sane white woman who hates Hillary to do?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
