Democratic Death Wish (Reply)

CDonian Writes... Also, this Dem season has had some peculiarities:
(1) Hillary/Obama’s platforms are 99.9% alike. -- so Hillary differentiated herself via her personal story and appeals to gender/class/identity subsets. (It’s weird seeing her blue-collar outreach, since, excepting her Iraq vote, she’s been ‘way out on the Left for four decades.)

Reply: You make salient points in some of your comments.

I think, in the end however, people vote more on character, knowledge (of the candidate) and identity issues than they do policy.

Or, sometimes they vote on other, more subtle, psychological condition.

One of the questions that has stunned and puzzled me throughout this campaign was why were so many "conservatives" and Republicans (former Bush backers) supporting Barack Obama (the most left of the top Democratic candidates)? This didn't make sense to me. Wasn't this going from one extreme to the other? Were they abandoning all their past beliefs and political stands?

Maybe it has something to do with ying/yang or certain laws in physics:

The once alcoholic has to swear off drink for life. The once prostitute or career criminal turns to religion and God. The once fanatical Bushie, "liberal hater" or even borderline, unadmitted racist now turns to the liberal " black candidate" perhaps as some form of redemption for past sins, mistakes or ancestors who may have owned slaves.

Guilt, I believe has something to do with a certain percentage of Barack Obama's support, particularly from white people at opposite ends of the political spectrum (ultra liberals and former Bush conservatives). ("Guilt" however, is rarely, if ever a sound reason for doing anything.)

Scott McClellen is probably a good example of that.

This once devoted loyalist to Bush now abandons the President in favor of seemingly lending his support to Barack Obama and the more liberal wings of the democratic party.

McClellen's stated long desire for "change" seems to swing from one (far) end of the political pendulum to the other.

But, speaking for myself who has long held centrist, slightly left political stands for years, I tend to be wary and skeptical of any extremes, whether they be to the radical right or the radical left.

I have been a "swing" voter for decades, always striving to get to and stay in the political middle.

On most social issues, I prefer the compromise, middle positions than those to outright "ban" or freely allow without restrictions a specific type of activity. This is true for abortion, Capital Punishment and the question of gay marriages. On the latter, I believe gay people are entitled to all the legal benefits and protections of marriage and I believe they have right to be joined in a church setting. Whether that should be called, "marriage" however, represents some question to me. If we, after all, change the traditional and cultural definition of marriage (between one man and one woman), should we not also consider changing it to include plural partners, such as in polygamy? Where do we draw the line on these issues and questions?

I am, as you know, a rather passionate supporter of Hillary Clinton.

You say hers and Barack Obama's stated positions on the issues are 99% the same. In the Senate, their voting records are largely similar -- although Obama has only been in the Senate less than one term so this is very hard to judge.

For example, how would Obama have voted on the Iraq Resolution had he been in the Senate in 2002? That is a huge question despite his lofty speech opposing the Iraq war in 2002. Obama didn't have to take actual political POSITION on the question.

My firm belief is that Obama would have voted the same as Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Shumer, Biden and all the otherwise "liberal" dems that voted for the resolution. (I believe this especially because of Obama's obvious political ambitions.) This is, moreover, why I've experienced Obama's continued attacks on Hillary for her Iraq vote to be patently unfair and quite frankly, phony. Based on his short Senate voting history, there seems little doubt that Obama's vote would have been exactly the same as Hillary's.

After all, even Hillary Clinton made a speech on the Senate floor in 2002 expressing strong reservations about a possible Iraqi invasion. Despite her vote, she claimed it was "not a vote for war."

Obama has benefited greatly from the fact he was NOT in the US Senate when the Iraqi vote came up. But, no one should take for granted that he would have voted the same way as his "anti war" speech at the time. The facts simply don't support that view.

You express in your comments that Hillary's appeal to gender/class/identity subsets is calculated and perhaps to you, puzzling considering her background and liberal record.

But, let's consider that neither the Clintons were born into great wealth or political families. True, Hillary didn't grow up as the "coal minor's daughter" and true, both Clintons are very wealthy now.

But, let's face it, they EARNED their wealth! Bill is the former President and makes huge sums of money from speaking engagements. Both Clintons have written books. Hillary has longed worked in the legal and political worlds and of course is a two term First Lady and two term Senator.

Would anyone expect the Clintons to be poor or working "blue collar" class at this point in time? They were, however, apparently not wealthy at all when moving into the White House in 1993.

The Obamas meanwhile made 4 million dollars last year.

They've achieved wealth far sooner than the Clintons.

You speak about Hillary's leftist leanings, but the fact is, her husband governed from a centrist (slightly left) position -- exactly where I am politically. This is why Bill Clinton is the ONLY democrat to be elected to two terms since Roosevelt!

Bill Clinton even won southern states like Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia. What Democrat has done that in decades?

Does anyone seriously believe that Barack Obama can win any Southern states or even "swing" states? Obama doesn't stand a chance in Ohio, probably the most "bell weather" state there is.

I am a Hillary supporter mainly because, quite frankly, I think she can WIN.

Sure, the Republicans have and would use all kinds of ammo against Hillary Clinton, but they will have even more against Obama, as you clearly must know.

There is Obama's lack of experience as number one.

He has NO military or executive experience and has served less than one term in the US Senate.

Name the last President to be elected with this thin a resume? Some (Obama lover) pundits like to compare Obama to JFK, but John Kennedy had been in the Congress before being elected to the Senate and he was also a navy WAR HERO. (Remember PT109?) Comparisons of Barack Obama to JFK are downright ridiculous and patently false.

But, far more troubling than Obama's lack of resume and seeming naiveté on many issues (paticularly foreign policy), are his past (and present) associations with unsavory characters and radical left wing extremists.

This alone is enough to doom Obama's candidacy in the general election even were he to have past Govenorship, military or long senatorial experience.

When you've got the Chicago left wing political machine in your background -- people like Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, Reverend Farrenkan and (the latest), Father Pfleger then you are pretty much doomed as serious Presidential material.

If we needed any "proof" of this it is easily seen in all the recent and substantial primary victories of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky. Let's not forget Hillary also won all the big and major states such as New York, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Michigan and New Jersey. (The only exception to this was Illinois, which is, of course Obama's home state.)

In fact, were the Democratic party to have the same delegate assigning system for nominating a Presidential candidate as the Republican party (i.e. "winner take all" in the states) Hillary Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee a long time ago.

Democrats "assume" Barack Obama will easily win the big states of New York and California in the general election. I wouldn't bet the family farm on that one.

California has a very popular Republican Governor, Swartzenenegger (sic?) who is a big McCain supporter. They also have a large Latino population, which, to this point, has not been supportive of Obama at all.

New York, meanwhile, has a conservative upper state rural vote (which has, incidentally supported Hillary Clinton in her two Senate victories). McCain is somewhat popular in the more conservative areas of the state and even to some degree, in the city. Obama needs one more radical left wing "skeleton" to come out of the closet (and no doubt there are more) and he can forgetabout winning New York. (I am a New Yorker not voting for Obama under ANY circumstances and I am from the City. Moreover, I know many more like me, particularly women and older, over 40 voters here.)

Right now, national polls are close between Obama and McCain, with McCain generally a few points ahead. (Hillary does better against McCain in national polls, beating him handily in most.)

John Kerry was something like 17 points ahead of George W. Bush in the summer polls of 2004.

We all know what happened in the November, 2004 election.

I believe it is the same thing now if Barack Obama becomes the democratic nominee -- Only I believe Obama's defeat will be even worse and more embarrassing than that of Kerry to Bush.

Today, democratic leaders are meeting to decide what to do about the Michigan and Florida (disbarred) primary votes.

Unless they find a way to totally seat and count the Florida and Michigan delegates according to how they voted in the primaries, they can count both of these states out as possible wins in the general election, particularly if Obama is the nominee. (Some argue that Obama wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, but that was a choice HE made for political reasons. He should get a percentage of those who voted "uncommitted" in Michigan).

Florida of course was pivotal in the 2000 election. Had Gore won Florida, he would have been President.

We are now at the point where the Democratic party (in a seeming panic to get this nominating process over with) seems poised to push and anoint Barack Obama to the nomination (even though the supposed role of "Superdelgates" is to prevent disasters like the McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis embarrassments of past decades). One seriously has to wonder if the Democratic party has some kind of "death wish" when it comes to Presidential elections?

The DNC says Michigan and Florida need to be "punished" for pushing the primaries ahead and "breaking the rules." Well, haven't the politicians responsible for this blunder (or rule breaking) been punished enough for the debacle that has now become Florida and Michigan? Does anyone seriously think any other state would DARE to move primaries ahead in the future considering the present mess?

But, what about the VOTERS who didn't "break rules" and got their butts to the polls in these states in order to express their political choices?

Its absolutely outrageous that the voters (particularly in Florida) should once again be disenfranchised for the partisan blunders and calculations of politicians! Moreover, its unbelievable that this could happen in 21st century America! -- The country that is supposedly the "beacon of democracy" to the rest of the world!

Were I living in Florida or Michigan I would be one very pissed off American. As it is, I'm pissed off anyway and quite disgusted with the Democratic party.

But, mostly I am disgusted with the Democratic party for being just plain stupid, having a seeming death wish in Presidential elections and seemingly taking for granted most of its voting BASE.

In the stated wish "not to alienate the youth vote" (or far out liberals, activists and radicals) that has supported Barack Obama, Democratic leaders and many (Obama) "superdelegates" have instead alienated middle of the road voters, blue collar voters, older voters, many Latinos, AND (millions of) women! -- The very people the Democratic party NEEDS to win in the general election!

Those who claim all Hillary Clinton voters will "unite" and come out for Obama in the fall truly are drinking the Democratic Kool-Aid that has cost the party Presidential wins from 1968 to today (with the lone exceptions of Carter's one term and Clinton's two term wins).

The Democratic party would do better to think of all those millions of swing (middle of the road) voters and Independents (like me) who don't vote party labels, but candidate qualifications, experience, policies, credentials and Character.

If not, then it will be just one more repeat of what we have seen in most of the Presidential elections since Roosevelt.

Democratic Death Wish, indeed! --- PCA

*****

Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry

This entry has 0 comments: (Add your own)

Tales & Tails of New York Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

Tales & Tails of New York

Democratic Death Wish (Reply)