Clinton supporter emails to former Clinton supporters...

From what I've read, most of the die hard Clinton dead-enders are a bunch of old cat ladies that had all of their hopes and dreams tied up in Hillary's failed campaign. While they are an extremely vocal group, there are not that many of them. If you have ever been to hillaryis44.org, you know how petty and childish these women are.

 

Women....pffft...can't live with em, can't shoot em.

DD

 

Hillary this morning --

Clinton Dismisses McCain Ads


In what could be a preview of her Tuesday night address, Hillary Clinton defiantly dismissed John McCain's new television commercials that encourage her former supporters to support his campaign.

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I do not approve this message," Clinton said of the ads to loud cheers at the New York Democratic Party's delegation breakfast this morning at the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Denver.

"Let there be no mistake about it. We are united. We are united for change. We are, after all Democrats, so it may take awhile. We're not the fall in line party. We're diverse. Many voices. But make no mistake, we are united.

"I ask each and every one of you to work as hard for Barack and Joe Biden as you worked for me," she said to her fellow delegates, some of whom waved "Hillary Made History" placards.

In a media availability with reporters following the breakfast, Clinton reiterated her opposition to McCain's ads.

"I don't appreciate having my name or my words or for that matter Sen. Biden's words used. There's nothing I can do about it, except speak out against it, and hope people won't give it any credence."

"If you voted for me, you have much more in common with Senator Obama on every issue I campaigned on, on every cause that I have stood for, than you do with Senator McCain," she said when asked what she thought of her former supporters considering a McCain vote.

Regarding news reports of fresh tension between the Clinton and Obama camps, Clinton insisted: "We have worked closely together. I have done more in the last two months than people in my position historically have done, and I'm going to keep doing it. And we are committed to winning the White House. I can only tell you what we're doing and how we're experiencing it."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/08/25/clinton_dismisses_mccain_ads.html

These women need to get over it...

 

Considering that there was this thread:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=144224&highlight=vote+hillary

If the positions had been reversed with Clinton narrowly winning the primaries I'm guessing there would be a lot of Obama supporters who would feel the same way.

 

I was thinking the same thing. She really should do an ad and get it out quick!

 

I'm not too surprised. Not everyone votes on policy.

I was an Obama guy who would not have voted for Clinton had she won the primary. There's actually a good number of things I disagree with Obama about. But, I'm impressed with his intelligence and I think he has the wisdom to make good decisions even if they were not what I would have decided. I do not have that confidence in Clinton; and I specifically do not have confidence in her ethics. So, on a competence/wisdom/ethics spectrum, my choice was Obama, McCain, Clinton. So, I would have ended up voting against Clinton, not out of spitefulness, but from preference. I'm sure there are Clinton folks with a similar thought process.

Of course, I wouldn't have started a movement for it either.

 

Nonsense. Because it was literally impossible for the positions to be reversed.

I started that thread on March 4. That tells you two things:

1. Obama already had the nomination basically sewn up. He could only lose at that point if an entirely unrealistic perfect storm took place. It would have taken FL and MI being fully reinstated, requiring a change in party rules. It would have required HRC winning by more than 20 points in all remaining states. And it would have required super delegates to overturn the will of the voters when she hadn't won more supers than Obama in one single week since Iowa. On the other side, for Obama to win all he had to do was not lose every remaining state by 20 points. You are not comparing apples to apples.

2. And this was the reason I started that thread. After being virtually eliminated from contention barring Obama dying or being dragged off in handcuffs, Hillary said that McCain was more qualified to be commander in chief than the likely nominee of her own party. That was why I started that thread.

I have asked you ever since March 4 to provide an example of anything Obama did that was similarly crappy and you have come up empty every time.

You are not comparing apples to apples. Your comparison sucks. And you need to get over it.

The convention starts today.

 

There would be a huge difference. Batman pointed out the timing of the thread, but as someone who wouldn't have voted Democrat had she one it still would have been different.

Obama supporters wouldn't be going around claiming they are owed something for running a close second. The wouldn't be all kinds of demands based on coming in second.

 

First off after March 4 the nomination wasn't sewn up yet as neither candidate had numerically reached the number to achieve victory nor had the super delegates declared who was going to win.

As far as getting over it considering that most of the Obama supporters here are the ones griping about the Clintons and their supporters it sounds like y'all need to get over it also.

 

See my response above.

Are you sure about that? Consider that thread essentially acknowledged the possibility that Clinton could win the nomination, otherwise why start a thread regarding what you would do if Clinton were the nominee, Batman, yourself and others essentially were tipping your hand that if the situation were reversed you would harbor a case of sour grapes.

Anyway to bring this to a point that Deckard has often made is that those of you who are die hard Obama supporters do often seem to express an attitude of superiority and look at the die hard Clinton supporters as being crazy. I fully agree they need to consider the issues and IMO that means supporting Obama but at the same time I think y'all might want to consider that others feel as strongly as Clinton as you do about Obama.

If you want unity in the party demonizing Clinton supporters isn't the way to go about it.

 

A lot of them might have just supported her because they thought there was a real chance of getting a female President (which I don't think is the worst reason in the world). Just like there might have been a few (but probably less) Republicans who supported Obama because of lingering hatred for Hillary (or even possibly McCain; but that's probably a stretch).

 

1. Not voting for Obama is one thing. What bothers me are the supporters acting like they are owed something special because Hillary came in a close second, or whatever reasoning they are offering. They are the opposite of empowered and are acting like spoiled disempowered folks that is the opposite of what one would expect and hope to see from people interested in lifting up and empowering women.

I mentioned some Hillary supporters, and agreed with the poster who said he thought they were a definite minority. I'm not demonizing Hillary supporters.

2. But more importantly than that I have a problem with the statement. It isn't the fault of Obama supporters that some Hillary Clinton supporters are misplacing their anger and the injustices and prejudice of the primary season. It isn't the fault of any Obama supporter that they are making ridiculous demands of the party's nominee with no rationale to support those demands.

You are blaming the wrong people, and it isn't right.

 

I haven't read all of the memos but from my understanding the Clinton camp understood that the deck was stacked against them but didn't consider victory impossible. Their view was that huge victories in PA and some of the other big states would end up swaying enough super delegates to their side. IN regard to the scandal situation given that Obama's career on the national stage has been relatively brief and to a certain extent still is being vetted I don't see why the Clinton advisors wouldn't consider the possibility of a scandal. In fact Rev. Wright very nearly could've been the scandal that derailed Obama.

Also your own post contradicts yourself as you note that "anyone who knows how super delegates work" understand that the super delegates aren't fixed and on March 4th there hadn't been enough declared super delegates for Obama to obtain victory. To argue that the super delegates had shut the door in March wasn't the case at all.

 

I've been finding out some more about how conventions has worked and my understanding is that what the Obama camp is asking for is somewhat unusual, asking for the roll call vote to be suspended for unanimous acclimation. IN this case it seems taht the Obama camp may be asking for something special.

In regard though to whether Clinton and her supporters deserve special treatment it seems to me that you are the one ignoring the historical nature of this primary. You say you aren't demonizing but you are quick to dismiss die-Clinton supporters as spoiled ignoring the fact that nothing like this primary has ever happened in history. While you might not be aware of it I can see how a die-hard Clinton supporter would find that insulting just as a die hard Obama supporter woudl if the positions were reversed.

Is it right though to call Clinton supporters spoiled? Is it right though to say that given the historic nature of the primary that Clinton and her supporters don't get a chance to at the convention to acknowledge that? Is it right to demand that Clinton supporters simply step in line? As I said before I agree that its a mistake for Clinton supporters to not vote for Obama because of the issues and I think Clinton made that point perfectly in her speech but this seems to be a case of Obama and supporters like you pretty much trying to railroad the idea of unity without considering how close this primary was. Obama is the winner but given how close and long the primary was loyalties don't just evaporate overnight.

Frankly the attitude expressed by yourself, Major, Batman and many other Obama supporters since Super Tuesday has been to blame Clinton and now her supporters for not uniting the party and not just simply rolling over and jumping on the Obama bandwagon. I think what you fail to see is that there are many deep and valid reasons why so many people supported Clinton over Obama and are even fanatical about her. For example while I've stated I support Obama now there was a reason why I didn't support him from the beginning. In fact I didn't support Clinton from the beginning either as I was a Richardson supporter and still think he would've been the best nominee. That said I can understand why there are some Clinton supporters feeling bitter and as Obama is the winner some magnaminity from him and his supporters would go a long way towards unifying the party than just demanding people fall in lock step.

 

^Well, again Sishir, you're wrong. I said why in March, I said why in April, May, June and I said why in my previous post. Each time, you ignored entirely the core arguments in my posts and just sort of said you disagreed. In a debate it is not enough to disagree; you're meant to say why. Addressing the arguments is pretty much a requirement there. For myself, I am a sucker for this stuff so -- though you have never done me the same favor during this months long conversation -- I will address your argument, as I have done every time you've posted on this topic.

You are correct that Hillary wasn't mathematically eliminated until June. I don't really now why you keep bringing it up since we all know that already. And she had a chance to win, yes. Until you lose, you have a chance to win. In fact, until I die I will have a chance at being immortal.

To be generous, she had about a 5% chance of winning by March. And that chance relied entirely on events outside of her control, like some scandal. And yet, she decided not only to deliver that truly unforgivable C-in-C quote (the one that birthed my thread) but, even more damaging, she chose to mislead her supporters into believing her chances were nearly 50/50. That was BS and we are paying for it still today. And she is. Which is why she had to give the speech of a lifetime tonight.

She did. She killed.

As such, I'm loathe to continue this conversation (just as I was after her belated concession speech), unless events conspire to bring it up again (as they did since the concession).

Go Obama, go Biden, go Hillary, go Democrats, go America.

And let's try to let the past be the past now. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

 

Nobody is saying it was impossible. It was highly improbable though, which isn't what many of her supporters were told, and isn't what the media was saying much of the time.

After Feb. it wasn't a toss up where they were running neck and neck. Though the headlines played it that way. Her campaign acted that way. But that was not accurate. It was a near impossible task, which may have been technically possible. I think Chuck Todd said it was basically a 1 in 10 chance that she would win, while people kept acting the like the race was neck in neck.

 

With all due respect I've addressed your core arguments. The primary wasn't over in march. That's a fact.

Anyway why did you start a thread titled "I will never vote for Hillary" when you believed the primary was all but over? Were you planning on moving to NY or were you looking towards 2012 or 2016?

I agree the stakes are high which is why I think mocking die-hard Clinton supporters is a mistake when their loyalty still isn't a given.