Following Obama’s announcement of Biden as his Vice-Presidential running mate, McCain and his friends and well-wishers wasted no time playing the role of concern trolls wondering why, oh why didn’t Obama pick Hillary Clinton. As if they truly care. They put an ad up and hit the Sunday talk shows trying to get Clinton supporters to act against their best interests by getting them mad so they vote for McCain or stay home.
Obviously, I’m making some assumptions when I figure Clinton supporters are acting against their best interests if they don’t vote for Obama. My principle assumption is that these folks supported Clinton based on her policies rather than for some other reason. Obama’s policies are far, far closer to Clinton’s than are McCain’s. If such a person acts to get McCain elected or, through inaction, aids in his election, then they have moved further away from their policy goals.
Rather than repeating an entire blog post verbatim, let me just link to it:
Perfectly Logical Calculations, and Why They’re Actually Not
The crux of the above linked post:
If ideological purity of one flavor or another is a voter’s driving force, by all means, vote for whichever candidate lets you get to sleep at night.
My approach to voting is to vote for the candidate you love during the primary season and vote for the candidate you don’t hate during the general election.
Democracy is slow, messy, and full of compromises, but the essential calculus isn’t really that hard here. At this point, the President in 2008 will be either John McCain or Barack Obama.
So, the question becomes whether a McCain presidency is better or worse than casting a vote for Obama even if Obama doesn’t embody certain principles that Clinton does/did. If a McCain presidency is more palatable than casting a vote for Obama, then by all means, one shouldn’t vote for Obama.
But, that’s easy for me. I’m a pragmatist.
Somehow I missed all the sexism of the Obama campaign.
I did catch the “I’m the candidate of the working white people of West Virginia and Kentucky” soft-core racism of the latter part of the Clinton campaign.
I guess maybe voting for Obama is, in and of itself, sexist, because there was another candidate in the race who has a vagina. Other than that, and the cries of sexism, I seem to have missed the actual sexism of the primaries.
At this point, Clinton dead-enders (those who either have pledged to stay home or vote McCain, or those who are still waiting for *something* out of Obama to tip the scales in his favor) have some choices. They can work their heads around who will better advance their agenda. That shouldn’t be hard to figure out, since the candidates are so different. So once that calculation’s been done, they can vote their self interests. Or, they can really make Susan B. Anthony proud and cast their vote for the enemy (McCain) of their enemy (Obama), policy stances be damned.
While they’re agonizing over the decision, I’ll just be sitting back waiting to cast my vote against four more years of Republican misrule. That vote would have been Hillary’s–her lack of a penis notwithstanding–had she won the nomination.
I wonder if the Obama Campaign will issue a TV spot chastising McCain for passing over Ron Paul for VP? After all, Ron Paul certainly deserves the position doesnt he (based on the number of GOP primary voters who supported him!)…
It does seem that the disgruntled supporters of H Clinton, who speak up, do seem to be middle-aged women. It’s maybe more old- fashioned feminism against Obama than sexism against Hillary. A woman was supposed to win before a Black was,after all a black man is still a man. Sexism , feminism and racism all can be very subtle,and easily explained away as being an out of porportion reaction,and the victim is labeled the perpetrator in an instant.
Fox news,conduit of the Republican Party,is right there to exploit all instantaneously.
I’ve had a lifelong good friend who was a strident 60s feminist,and if not for her,I’d probably be a Joe Scarborough clone today..But she has clued me in how this sort of characterization works.
Melissa’s entire post seems premised on rather thin evidence of Obama’s sexism. I don’t buy it. Look, I’m a Democrat and an Obama supporter despite his abortion position, not because of it. But for any voter who cares deeply about keeping abortion legal, a vote that makes a McCain presidency more likely is curious indeed. John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. In all likelihood, his replacement will be nominated by either Barack Obama or John McCain. Principles are important, but it’s nearly impossible to find a viable candidate who mirrors one’s principles. Barack Obama has a 100 percent rating from NARAL. Yet, because he hasn’t personally repudiated every possible example of sexism from all of his many surrogates or tens of millions of supporters, then he is not worthy of a feminist’s vote?
I don’t get it. All this angst over Hillary Clinton? How did HRC, a DLC-er who launched her political career by making the compromise of marrying Bill and moving to Arkansas, become this feminist icon?
Let’s see how Hillary C. handles what is essentiallly a Democratic Party unity problem,all personal feelings aside.At the end of the Convention we will have a sense of unity or not. The Obama campaign granted Bill C a night to speak and Hillary was given a night. So they surely are not shut out of the party process.
Let’s see the Clintons do their part to heal the party rift..perhaps the healing is beyond their control..
In the light of all this public contoversy being aired so emotionally,should Obama lose to McCain ,fair or not, his loss will be the Clintons’ final legacy,and they will both be done politically. Obama will also receive blame and he also will be finished politically.
Meanwhile, Hillary delegate Debra Bartoshevich stars in an ad for McCain. Calls herself a “Hillary Clinton Democrat”, which, after further talking, becomes clear that that means “Republican”. You see, big strong daddy McCain has experience, and is a maverick. She definitely has a firm enough grasp of the issues to warrant her own ad.
Is it just me, or are the most visibly aggieved Hillary supporters a combination of the worst qualities of the Baby Boomers AND the feminists? All this gnashing of teeth, slow-motion mourning of the death of their dream candidate, and attention-seeking behavior is really tiresome. They appear to be more angry about Obama beating Clinton than they were about Bush beating Gore.
More on the woman who deems herself worthy of telling others how to vote (for McCain). She is pro-choice, and thought McCain was, too, based on a 1999 McCain quote. She had no idea he has said multiple times this campaign cycle that he wants Roe overturned.
So we have a “Hillary Democrat” who did a very high-visibility switch to McCain, and yet has no idea about what McCain’s policy positions are. She thinks Obama isn’t ready to lead. In reality, she’s not ready to vote. Hasn’t done her homework. Isn’t qualified to advise others how to vote.
Yes, Romney was pro-choice too during his governorship.Many voters haven’t kept up with his changing views either.Dems are going to have a real fun time with Romney if he is McCains VP pick.
Melissa’s entire post seems premised on rather thin evidence of Obama’s sexism.
Except that the website contributors spend the last eight months documenting all the evidence of it. The blog post supposes regular readership there.
I guess I’d be more of a pragmatist if my issues actually ever got addressed by the Democratic party. But given that LGBT issues, womens health issues, etc. constantly get pushed aside for what’s best for the white straight guy, I’m a bit cynical about it.