It's simple
Here, in perhaps the clearest terms, are why I won't back Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Where Barack Obama's supporters embrace the campaign's slogan of 'Yes We Can,' Clinton's backers shout 'Yes She Can.'
There, in its most banal form, is everything wrong with her campaign and the political system today.
Where Barack Obama's supporters embrace the campaign's slogan of 'Yes We Can,' Clinton's backers shout 'Yes She Can.'
There, in its most banal form, is everything wrong with her campaign and the political system today.
posted by Jmac at 11:20 PM
10 Comments:
So you're saying now that if Hillary gets the nomination, you will NOT vote for her? You would stay home, or vote for McCain?
Btw, it's "yes she will"
JMac:
I don't follow your thought process - it is almost as if you are crying about the lack of wins by Obama last night. Having grown up in Ohio and still have family and friends in the Cleveland area, I can tell you that Clinton was on top of the message that those voters wanted to hear and address not Obama. Which really surprised me since Obama is from Chicago and I would have thought that he would be more keyed into the midwest. The NAFTA issue is very real to the rust belt and his deflection of the memo did not help him.
All is not lost on either side, however, voters want to hear more than eloquent speeches by the candidates. Quite frankly, that is all I really have seen from Obama in the past. "Just Words" is a great sermon, but does not necessarily equal action which most in Ohio is desperate for. Bush gave them words back in 2000 and 2004 and they took it hook line and sinker, they are not going to fall for that again.
You would stay home, or vote for McCain?
There's no logical way I could vote for McCain based on the vast disagreements I have with him, but, at this point, I can't fathom a scenario in which I can support Clinton either.
More than likely, I'd write in Obama.
... it is almost as if you are crying about the lack of wins by Obama last night.
Not at all. I've long said that I would be happy, if not content, with whoever the Democratic nominee is. However, I have been so disappointed by the Clinton campaign - one which only finds success by either spreading half-truths, pulling outrageous stunts or tearing down her opponent, whoever it may be.
Also, quite frankly, I feel as if a Clinton nomination will do more to harm the Democratic Party in the long haul than help it, and that wouldn't have been true with either an Obama nomination (or Edwards or Biden or Dodd or Richardson or etc.).
Also, quite frankly, I feel as if a Clinton nomination will do more to harm the Democratic Party in the long haul than help it, and that wouldn't have been true with either an Obama nomination (or Edwards or Biden or Dodd or Richardson or etc.).
I don't agree with this. I continue to be a Clinton supporter, but in my ideal scenario Clinton and Obama would combine. In any case, I'll vote for whoever wins, but I am really disappointed with both candidates for this entire process.
I don't believe Hillary Clinton will harm the democratic party. I think we as democrats need to unite behind our candidates, her included, and take the white house. And stop tearing down others within our own party.
And by the way, I've changed my mind on Richardson. He's no longer an acceptable veep option.
So, voters in Ohio voted for a candidate who is considerably more associated with NAFTA being passed in the first place in order to express their displeasure with NAFTA? Awesome.
Up here at my inlaws (southeastern Ohio), I've enjoyed the ads from both candidates for the last few weeks. The NAFTA issue was by far the most emphasized element of both campaign strategies. The most frequently-aired commercial was one by Obama in which a 20something guy (clearly younger than me) talks about how he used to have a great, high-paying job but then "NAFTA came through" and the plant closed and he lost his job. (They have images of him standing in a parking lot, presumably of the now closed plant, and peering wistfully at yesteryear.) Then he says "Hillary Clinton was for NAFTA, and Obama was against it."
Incredibly stupid commercial, but it appears the NAFTA angle was what the Ohio voters were lapping up like dogs, b/c Hillary played that angle just as hard and she won yesterday. Also, a LOT of Republicans switched over and voted Dem yesterday. My mother-in-law is one of them. She voted for Obama b/c of her strong dislike of Clinton; but I think a lot of GOPers did the opposite and voted for Hillary b/c they think McCain can beat Hillary. I'm sure this was all discussed by the analysts last night, but I don't have cable so I don't know.
Ahhh...Ohio...the state we can thank for failing miserably in athletic competitions against Southern schools and for giving us Bush in 2004 and now possibly Hillary to get slaughtered by McCain in 2008. Can we just give that state to Canada before the next election?
Can we just get rid of this damn ridiculous primary system that serves as a waste of money and time, while only providing limited entertainment in return?
I think Stanicek hit it right on the head - As long as it stays close between the dems and reps, than Ohio is going to be the swing state once again and will likely side with McCain. Proving once again how inept at the democrats are in closing the deal.
Post a Comment
<< Home