Would someone please explain?
(updated as: Still Crazy After All These Weeks?)
In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s announcement she would suspend her campaign and support Barack Obama all the way, came a spate of bitter pronouncements by alleged Clinton supporters they would vote for John McCain and not Obama.
The voters who gave Clinton just short of half the delegates to the late-August Democratic Convention in Denver typically did not have a $2 million estate. They were not sexist, they did not benefit greatly from the Bush tax cut, they are beginning to suffer greatly from eight years of lax federal regulation, their health care in getting more expensive and harder to come by, it is getting harder to send their kids to college, their homes are not worth what they used to be, their sons and daughters are more likely to be serving, and dying, in vain in Iraq while neighbors in the ritzier suburb next door send their kids to binge-drink at a fraternity or sorority somewhere.
Every American’s future rides on decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the freedoms being taken away in the guise of fighting terrorism, a woman’s right to choose what happens inside her own body, the ability of the poor to get some help from the government when they need it, and the nation’s overwhelming problem of dealing with all of the ramifications of allowing widespread poverty to continue.
All of those examples happen to be major differences between the leadership provided by Democrats and Republicans. Voters need to understand that Republicans vote for members of their party primarily to protect their money.
In other words, any person who can identify with one of the above examples, and thus cast a vote for Clinton, would be voting against his or her own self-interest by voting for a Republican. Republicans have been doing this for four decades now, but why would a Democrat, much less a Clinton supporter?
Racists who cannot bring themselves to vote for Obama because of his race never belonged in the Democratic Party in the first place.
So what about the Clinton supporters who are not racist? What is their excuse?
(from www.straightrecord.com)
===============<>===============
Setting the Record Straight 
I would probably say because of Clinton’s message. She said that she was the better candidate over Obama, and often times used dirty politics to bring him down. After her exit speech on the 7th, I’m sure that supporters were hurt, mad, let down, etc. So they need time to register that Clinton lost and Obama won. And that overall, it is in the best interest of the Clinton “organization” and followers to follow their party. Clinton’s supporters are just blowing hot air. But, after a couple months of campaigning, they will see that it is better to back up Obama, even if for a while the party was split for the Democratic nomination.
Comment by fhmuraca — June 8, 2008 @ 11:53 am |
Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe they just don’t like Obama’s policies? The policies he has anounced, to date, would bankrupt this country. They would give the Government control over all aspects of our lives. The Government would start with health care, in order to make that health care affordable taxes would have to be raised. Health care would still have problems since the people would now have a right to tax payer funded healthcare, so the Government would have to step in and decide who could and could not get treatment, people who are outside the mainstream of political correctness would be left out. Smokers would be first, think I’m wrong, look at London now. He has said the Government would control “big oil”, they would bring about a windfall profit tax, essentially bringing the oil companies under Government control. After they get away with oil and health care, they will convince the American people that other necessities must be controled by Government. Your rights? Gone. The 2nd Amendment would be gone first. Free Speach rights are already in question, unless you say the proper thing. The Dems will push for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, which only applies to right wing speech. Let’s make college affordable, another one of his policies. This will require still more tax revenue, then when it still is too expensive, the Government can decide who will get to go to college just like Russia did during its communist past.Can’t keep our houses at 72 degrees? We will have a federal program through Obama that controls our thermostats for us, similar ro the California proposal a few months ago. I know you people on the left hate Bush, but do you really support “changing” this country to a communist regime? Because that is where Obama is going. Clinton was dangerous enough, but not as extreme as Obama. And her supporters can see Obama for what he really is, Fidel Castro from Chigaco
Comment by dcbarton — June 8, 2008 @ 12:46 pm |
barton: some of the attributions you give to obama are a bit weird and your understanding of how government works is a bit screwed up, but all in all, thanks for adding to reasons why clinton supporters should back obama. even mccain would be an improvement over the mess left after eight years of the trashing of america, but i’m afraid he wouldn’t take us far enough away from the current mess, a great portion of which can be laid on the doorstep of the gingrich congress. and for your own crebility, you might want to lose the “communist” assertion. i didn’t realize people still talked like that.
Comment by straightrecord — June 8, 2008 @ 1:27 pm |
Obama has stated that he would do each thing I mentioned, maybe not in the same way as I said it, but essentially the same thing. Nothing weird about it, it is what he has said. Socialism is just another word for communism, try looking at some of the socialist websites and reading about their agenda, same thing, different name. My understanding of how Government works is on par with my understanding of how Government is supposed to work and how the ignorance of the modern American has led to the mess we are in. There was a time in the not-too distant past when people in this country would never accept anything they didn’t earn and pay for with their own labor. Now the younger generation thinks they have a “right” to have things just given to them. That has led to a welfare state that is driving this country into bankruptcy. Obama’s policies will break the bank even faster. There is a reason communism/socialism has never worked, it can’t pay for itself. The communist regime in Russia went broke, that is why Russia is now a democracy, even though the communists are still trying to regain power. And with Obama’s help, they will gain power here too.
Comment by dcbarton — June 8, 2008 @ 10:33 pm |
I doubt Clinton supporters will fail to show up on election day. They may have a higher likelihood of not sending BO a check but he’s got that under control anyway.
Wow if you have or ever do a post on that I’d love to see it.
Comment by Alfie — June 9, 2008 @ 6:17 am |
There is a good chance that Hillary supporters won’t show for Obama. But conservatives won’t show for McCain. This is starting to look like a very good year for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate.
Comment by dcbarton — June 10, 2008 @ 1:24 am |
I’m fairly sure that neither Obama, or the democratic party has any means of forming America into a communist party. What your talking about sounds like irrational conservative talk.
Comment by fhmuraca — June 10, 2008 @ 4:39 pm |
The Democratic party has done a good job of it so far by convincing people that the government is required to solve all of their problems, i.e., universal health care, high fuel prices, making college affordable, rebuilding new orleans, etc. They have done a great job, so far, of dumbing down society through the public school system, in California you can’t even home school your children unless you are a licensed( by the state) teacher. While the Democratic party can’t turn America into a communist regime by force, it can do it and have made alot of progress toward converting the US to socialism/communism by encouraging ignorance and dependence on the Government
Comment by dcbarton — June 11, 2008 @ 2:42 am |
dcbarton:
you espouse a libertarian point of view, yet you keep harping on the scourge of communism. if you do your homework (and really, you should have seen this as the backstory of the “cold war”), you’ll see the two ideologies are essentially related. communism has never actually existed and never will among humans because it says “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” fine idea, but it flies in the face of human nature and is the reason it has never actually existed. it has only been claimed by dictatorships. libertarians ideally would like no government, but you ask any two people espousing libertarianism and you will get different answers to any question of just what a government should be doing for its people. the idea of democrats vs. republicans really doesn’t fit, and thus the outcome of the fall election other than the candidacy of the sleazebag bob barr (ron paul quit), doesn’t fit in either discussion.
Comment by straightrecord — June 12, 2008 @ 9:09 pm |
alfie:
the idea of an expose’ on the meaning of the gingrich congress, aided by the dubbya presidency, has been on our minds and we do plan to lay it all out. needless to say, our conclusion from the front-row seat is that these were absolutely the meanest years of congress in the scan of our knowledge. thanks for the thought.
Comment by straightrecord — June 12, 2008 @ 9:12 pm |
straightrecord,
Actually I don’t really fit in with Liertarians exactly either, they have alot of ideas I like, but they also have alot of ideas that I believe would lead to the destruction of this country. I like to think I am more of a Conservative-Capitalist, and maybe a tad bit of an extremist at that. I believe that this country, as it was originally intended, affords the opportunity for everyone to excel and succeed, but it is up to them to do so. I think it is each person’s responsibilty to take care of and provide for themselves, welfare programs of any kind are detrimental to that end. I do believe there needs to be Government, but very limited. Governments primary job is to ensure the national defense, I am a die-hard strong national defense guy. Other than that, the Government should resign itself to encouraging trade in a way that is fair and beneficial to the US and to passing reasonable laws for the betterment of society, most of which I believe, have already been passed.
Comment by dcbarton — June 13, 2008 @ 1:47 am |
barton:
fair enough. we still disagree about the amount of government that is needed, but i accept your description of your views and am relieved you wouldn’t go so far as to vote for barr. libertarians really should get to know this guy. he’s got something up his sleeve, and it ain’t about less government.
Comment by straightrecord — June 13, 2008 @ 11:05 am |
straightrecord,
Right now I see the war and border control as the two primary issues facing the country. I think McCain is good on fighting the war, but weak on GITMO and interrogating detainees. He is also very weak on the border issue, which can be included in the war right now. Obama is weqak to non-existant on everything that is important to my thinking. Right now, I’m leaning toward writing in Fred Thompson, small Government, limited spending, strong on the war and border, And strong on the Costitution as it was written, not as the Left wants it interpretted
Comment by dcbarton — June 13, 2008 @ 11:39 am |
“The Government would start with health care, in order to make that health care affordable taxes would have to be raised.”
is that supposed to be a bad thing?!
Comment by zooeyibz — June 16, 2008 @ 11:35 am |
Yes, taxes are essentially government mandated theft of our earnings. our founding fathers fought a revolution over excessive taxation. Besides, if we reduce health care costs by making it a government program, we allow the government to decide who gets what medical care. We are already seeing smokers denied health care in England and Canadians have to wait 6 months or more for medical procedures we do daily under our current system. Is that supposed to be a good thing?
Comment by dcbarton — June 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm |
barton:
you may have decent health care, as have I, which I pay for, the bigger the city you live in, the better the care and the more accessible it is more quickly. go to any podunk in america and you’ll suffer many of the long waits you cite as occurring in canada. and that is a wait for care they will get because they have coverage. we have about 300 million people in the u.s., and nearly 50 million of them have no health coverage at all. you may be one of those mean, gingrich-type people who think all people should inherit money and the rest should just die, but many of the 50 million uninsured are people who have a well-paying full-time job, and perhaps two adults in the family have such jobs, but, increasingly, no health care because they cannot afford it after buying fuel, food and other necessities for the family. now add to that many, many other things your taxes provide–infrastructure, defense, social security, medicare, regulators and other government officials that keep you from being constantly scammed (at least most of the time because the scammers outnumber government protectors). and on and on and on. as an individual, you will pay no more than a third of your income in taxes. if you are rich, you’ll pay far less than that, yet all of you will demand far, far more than you are paying for. none of that means your taxes will be administered well, it doesn’t mean they’ll be spent on things you deem worthwhile. to ensure that, you need to send to washington representatives who will work to do so. have you, or have you sent us some libertarian dunderhead?
Comment by straightrecord — June 19, 2008 @ 9:57 pm |
straighrecord,
I live in a fairly small town, I find the wait for medical care substantially less in small towns, not as many people to wait behind. The care is just as good, and maybe a little better, because everyone knows everyone, the doctors and nurses aren’t taking care of strangers, they are caring for friends and family. Of the 50 million Americans without health care, the vast majority could afford health care if they would prioritize things correctly. The health care is more important than a “new” car, a good used car for half the price of new and some health insurance. Maybe they could try getting health insurance before they get a big screen tv. Or they could even go so far as to give up fast food and prepackaged meals in favor of cooking from scratch, like our parents did. Point is, there are things people could do to save money for health care. As fr as paying taxes, I pay considerably more than one third, if you figure in federal, state, sales tax, road taxes, fuel taxes and so on, probably over 65%. The rich, having a different job than I do, probably don’t have to worry about road-use and fuel taxes, but they do pay a higher percentage of income tax, as well as capital gains and dividend taxes. And they will have to pay “death” taxes when they are dead. I do think you have misinterpreted Gingrich, but I am one of those mean Gingrich-types who think each person should put the effort into earning what he or she gets and quit blaming other people for their own lack of success. As far as taxes not being well spent by government, I’ll agree with you on that. The question is who will properly spend the public dollar? Definately not the Democrats(they have proven that repeatedly) and in recent years, not the Republicans either(they now have a spending policy similar to the Democrats). As I said before, the Libertarians have a couple of good ideas(small government) but they also have some very frightening ideas when it comes to national defense.
Comment by dcbarton — June 20, 2008 @ 7:54 am |
sorry barton, but i don’t think you’re ever going to get it until you get out of podunk and get into the real world. you destroy your whole argument against universal health care, welfare and everything else the government does or should provide when you posit that poverty is a choice. find a local minister, preferably one with ties to another in a nearby big city, and have him take you on a tour of areas with poverty-stricken people and let you count the flat-screen tvs, extra cars and everything else you and the mean, selfish right-wing nuts claim. sure, there are some malingerers, but you don’t paint an entire class of people with the same brush. you, my friend, are seriously ill-informed.
Comment by straightrecord — June 20, 2008 @ 10:04 am |
Actually straightrecord, you won’t understand what I mean until you get out to “podunk” and meet the people that believe in doing for themselves, people that are responsible for themselves, for their situation in life. Try getting out to “podunk” and meet people that won’t accept a handout, that would rather earn their own way, that don’t want to give their freedoms up to some politician for a free ride. I live in your “podunk”, but I do go to the “big city” too. I have seen the people that sit on their lazy butts all day rather than get a job. The same people that say “there aren’t any jobs”. When I can’t get a job where I am, I have no qualms about packing my bags and going to where the jobs are. Am I uninformed? No. Am I painting an entire class with one brush? Maybe. Am I wrong? Not at all. Those who don’t or won’t take care of themselves have no right to expect me to do it for them. Does that make me a mean, selfish right-wing nut? If it does, good. I’m still right, people need to have the responsibilty for their own lives, that means they have to get up and take care of themselves, if they fail to do so, they get the blame for their lot in life. I might also caution you, before you complain about “podunk”, it is the people in “podunk” that provide the basic necessities that we all need. It is podunk that provides all of our food, podunk provides the cotton that makes our clothes, and podunk that provides everything we need to run industries of all kinds in this country. If you can’t grow it, you have to mine it. “Podunk” does all of the growing and mining in this country.
Comment by dcbarton — June 20, 2008 @ 1:15 pm |
dang if you don’t continue to prove my point, barton. i’ll out-podunk you. i was born in a podunk mining town, i was raised in podunk smack dab in the middle of farm country smack dab in the middle of the u.s., and published a very conservative weekly in a pondunkier town in the middle of the u.s. my family became poor through no fault of our own and i had to go to work in the 8th grade and have been working ever since. i’ve been all over the world, dined at the white house, scrabbled for food and done and seen just about everything. until the challenger disaster, i might even have had a chance to go into outer space. i’ve lived in big cities and small. i am far more informed about the realities of the world, particularly the u.s. and the people in it, than you can ever hope to be. how? by keeping my eyes and my mind open and making an effort to comprehend what i see and hear. not everybody can do that, but they can try.
Comment by straightrecord — June 20, 2008 @ 2:11 pm |
We can do the tit-for-tat all day, I’ve done all of the same except dining at the white house, rather I was a presidential guard at camp david during the end of the Carter administration, and the possibility of going to space, I was never interested in that any way. I was born and raised in a military family, learned to make no excuses for failure, and to never admit failure, just keep trying until you succeed. I’ve been to countries that you could only dream of going to, seen revolutions that never should have happened and have been nothing but trouble for the US ever since. I doubt you are very conservative when you keep espousing that the government has an obligation to provide universal health care, welfare or any other government program that serves only to keep people reliable on government rather than on themselves. The point I keep making is that people have an obligation to provide for themselves. It is not the governments job to provide for people who won’t do for themselves, it is also not my job to pay for their failure to make proper choices.
Comment by dcbarton — June 20, 2008 @ 5:02 pm |
Why is it that no one ever asks what Obama and the DNC have done to alienate Clinton voters? That’s the question.
Comment by echinopsia — August 30, 2008 @ 5:54 pm |
sorry, but anyone who would go into a voting booth and pull the lever against his or her own best interests simply because his or her first choice didn’t win is not intellectually mature enough to be voting. just look at what hillary stands for and what mccain/palin stand for, then make your selection.
Comment by straightrecord — August 30, 2008 @ 6:38 pm |