Clinton supporter emails to former Clinton supporters...

Screw my previous quote about leaving the past in the past. I just saw your second post and I vomited all over my laptop. You owe me a new laptop. That was an unusually sucky post. In the future, please post "Vomit Worthy" spoilers before you post stupid stuff like that.

TIA.

 

Bull. You have never addressed my arguments. I presented MATH, Sishir, the same math used by every single media observer of the election, that showed that her chances by March were infintesimal. AND YET, she made the C-in-C slam against the almost-definite nominee of her own party. THAT WAS WHEN I STARTED THAT THREAD. AND YOU HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED THAT FACT, THE MATH OR THE FACT THAT HILLARY WHIPPED HER SUPPORTERS INTO A LATHER AGAINST OUR NOMINEE WHEN SHE HAD VIRTUALLY NO CHANCE OF BEATING HIM.

The fact that you have the nerve to blame people like me for your own delusions is about to make me vomit again. Gotta go. Be back when I'm done.

 

Obama allowed the roll call to submit Hillary's name as a favor and concession to her reporters in the first place. He did that to honor her, and the deal is that once started and she gets her due then they will ask for the unanimous acclamation thing, though I don't think the final details of how the roll call will work have been decided yet. Anyway the reason it is different than normal is as a concession to Hillary's supporters and Hillary. So it isn't Obama asking for anything special. Obama not giving in 100% to their demands isn't him asking for something special, it's Obama giving them something special but not everything they may want.

Obama has been magnanimous in allowing the roll call to have Hillary's name submitted the way it is going to be and that process to happen at all.


Yes the primary was historic, but it wasn't just historic because of Hillary. And in the end she lost. She didn't have much chance of winning after Feb. By pretending that she did have a decent chance of winning obviously did hurt party unity. That was evident. I think she's done a great deal to repair that damage.

Again my argument isn't with the majority of Hillary supporters, just the few who for some reason direct their anger at Obama.

I'm a huge supporter women's rights and feminism. These women are acting like disempowered people who need special favors because they came close to winning. That isn't a positive image of feminism, or empowered women looking out for the best interest of women in the nation. Just because the primary was historic(only in part because of Hillary) doesn't entitle them to special treatment. They might ask for it, and it might be fitting that they get a little extra special treatment. But to demand it and be angry that if they don't get it, or even get enough special favors that they will vote for someone opposed to Hillary's positions on the issues, or sit this one out.

Calling those few supporters who do that out for doing that isn't the fault of Obama supporters, it's the fault of the disempowered who are putting a black eye on their movement.

Again if people don't vote for Obama, and were super fans of Hillary, they don't have to. But to act like they are owed something is BS. I never said that Hillary should have dropped out of the race. I said that she should stay in. But the media and her campaign shouldn't have given false hope to folks, and been more honest the whole time. They also gave McCain ammunition with the way she campaigned and the things she said during the campaign. That is plainly evident given the ads we are saying. That is why it was upsetting at the time. She did all that when she had only a minuscule chance of winning.

But most of what happened in the campaign was the past, and she's doing everything she can to repair any damage she caused in the past, and that's a good thing.

 

Classy..


To get to a point though. My main point isn't necessarily start a debate as I fully acknowledge the primary is over but that I suspect that die hard Obama supporters like yourself would likely feel the same way if things had gone the over way. What I'm asking you is to consider the other side and to understand why unity isn't a given and why die-hard Clinton supporters have bruised feelings and are lookng or Obama and his supporters to woo them back.

 

I don't disagree with the analysis presented in the post but again as even you note in your original post the super-delegates can change their mind and with good reason teh Clinton campaign was considering the possibility of a scandal that would sway the supers. A possibility that you yourself recognize.

Given though that Clinton still won PA, Indiana and a few other states though after March 4th the impression that Clinton was defeated wasn't one that was held by many many voters.

 

I'm not an expert on conventions but my understanding the roll call, parade of states, is a normal part of conventions. To say that Obama is doing Clinton a favor by allowing a roll call seems to be an odd way of saying he is doing her a favor when a roll call is the norm.

 

a roll call is the norm. A roll call in which a second place finisher is also allowed to have their own speech nominating them, and allowing some of her delegates to go early on is indeed out of the ordinary and a concession that Obama is making in order to honor Hillary, her campaign, and its supporters.

 

Nobody was saying she wouldn't win any more states after March 4th.

I agree many voters didn't believe that she was defeated. She technically wasn't. But she had a minuscule chance of winning, and many voters and supporters were lead to believe that she had an almost even chance of winning and that she was ever so close to catching up and winning the nomination. She wasn't.

 

rocketsjudoka:

I explained to you in my first response to you in this thread that things could not have gone the other way. You ignored that point, and the supporting evidence, as you have done consistently throughout this months long conversation. In this way you are (thankfully) not representative of most Hillary supporters, but you do share some common cause with that handful of PUMA dorks.

But there was one thing I left out when I explained why situations couldn't have been reversed:

Barack Obama has never, never, never, never, never said that any Democrat (let alone a Democrat that was virtually guaranteed to be our nominee) was less qualified to be commander in chief than the Republican nominee. And he never would.

When I started that thread, the one you keep harping on, I started it because I was so incredibly appalled that she did that.

You didn't address it then, you haven't addressed it since, and yet you keep harping on my starting of that thread (started entirely for the reason you have consistently ignored since) and saying it's proof that if situations were reversed we'd feel the same way.

Let me disabuse you of that fallacy for once and for all:

If Obama had said that McCain was more qualified to be commander in chief than Hillary Clinton, I would have started a thread vowing never to vote for him.

He didn't though. She did. And it was unforgivable.

That was my core argument, judoka. That is basically the crux of my entire beef with her. You have never addressed it and I doubt you ever will. But unless you are willing to respond to the freaking point of my thread I'll thank you to stop using it to make your own points.

 

Perhaps not directly from Snobama, but he has no doubt instructed his surrogates to say just that, Batman. You ought to know how this game works by now. If not, shame on you. Here he directed his wife Michelle to do the dirty work.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN1qZMBE9Gc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sN1qZMBE9Gc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

of course that clip says nothing about a GOP nominee being more qualified, but it doesn't matter.

Take the bet.

 

I'd like to go back to the original premise of this thread.

I seriously want to know: what did Obama do?

What did he do, other than work hard and win, to so offend Clinton supporters that they would consider not voting for the Democratic party nominee?

I am asking because I honestly don't know.

You guys all know what Hillary did to bother me. I posted all about it, in exhaustive detail, and somehow never really got a response to the meat of any of it. Instead I only ever heard, 'Lay off Hillary.' Or 'Obama's exactly the same.'

But nobody would ever (EVER) say how.

If Democrats are having a hard time voting for Obama because they're so disappointed that Hillary didn't win, is it because they have a beef with Obama or is it just that they're disappointed that their candidate didn't win?

And again, if they actually have a problem with Obama, please tell me the nature of that problem.

It will be the first time I will have heard it.