Just recently I wrote a criticism in this blog of those who would argue for Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee on the basis of his ability to garner the Clinton vote in November while maintaining that the reverse is not likely to occur. I criticized this way of thinking as petty and trivial. I judged it to be a blatant disregard for the (in my view) nobler concern of best candidate for President, rather than merely best candidate for the party’s nomination. But it appears that there are others who are preparing to elect the one they perceive as the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. This morning on a national network, there was a political statistic that made me realize how naïve I have been. It seems that in the most recent primaries there has been a “trend” among Republican voters that has not emerged until the Republican candidate had all but been signed, sealed and delivered. The trend consists of Republican voters eschewing their Republican primary booths and (in the states that allow it) voting in the Democratic ones. Republicans are deciding not to “waste” their vote in their own primaries. Why? Because they KNOW who their candidate will be in November. So instead, they are entering their polling booths and are casting their votes in their state’s Democratic primaries. And for whom are they voting? Barack Obama. But they are voting for him not because they have abandoned their Party. They are voting for him not because they want him to be President. They are voting for him because they believe him to be the Democratic candidate most “beatable” against John McCain.
I have to admit, this shook me up. I began to really analyze the implications of the “Obama cult.” Yes, cult. I have been a student of religion for too long not to recognize the characteristics of “religion” when I see it. You think I jest. I do not. The best scholars in the field have made analogy between religion and American sports; between religion and NASCAR. The seminal scholars in the field offer theories, which eerily reflect the Obama cult.
Sigmund Freud, in his psychological analysis of religion spoke about faith [in God] as “illusion.” And essential to Freud’s theory of religion is that its potency lies not in its quality of truth, but simply that one wishes it to be true. Applied to the Obama cult then, Obama’s popularity lies in the strength of the “fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind. The secret of their strength lies in the strength of those wishes. (The Future of an Illusion).” Obama is America’s redeemer because some wish him to be. After eight years of despair, war, threat of recession, frightening foreign policy and stupidity beyond belief, “we would rather face things as we did in the sunnier days of our childhood. Then there was always a father to reassure us against the dangers of the storm and the darkness of the night. Then there was always a voice of strength to say that all would be well in the end.” (Eight Theories of Religion, Daniels L. Pals, 2006, p. 70). I have been saying all along that the power of the Obama phenomenon lies in the fact that Obama supporters HOPE that he is who he says he is; WISH that he can deliver on the impossible promises he has vowed.
Emile Durkheim in his sociological analysis of religion focused on “’the totemic principle,’ which stands at the center of all of the clan’s beliefs and rituals. Behind the totem is an impersonal force that possesses enormous power, both physical and moral, over the life of the clan. People respect it; they feel a moral obligation to observe its ceremonies; and through it they feel tightly bound to each other in deep and abiding loyalty.” (Pals, p. 99). I have experienced this as well, as one “outside” the sacred realm of the Obama cult. As a Clinton supporter I have been judged as one who is the “pessimist,” the one who does not believe; the one who cannot see. I do not belong to the ranks of those who possess “the hope,” and as such I have been found wanting, defective, blind. “Durkheim vividly describes the sentiments that ‘bubble up’ in the excitement of [the] group’s ceremonies. They are ritual times filled with energy, enthusiasm, joy, selfless commitment, and complete security.” (Pals, p. 101) And “it is in the midst of these effervescent social environments and out of this effervescence itself that the religious idea seems to be born, (Durkheim, emphasis mine)”. Does the analogy escape you? Have you not witnessed the evangelical quality of Obama rallies, with their frenzied energetic adoration?
Edward Evans-Pritchard in his anthropological analysis observed that a religious view sometimes inhibits the broader understanding of the believer to such an extent that they are unable to entertain or perceive the world through any other perspective, “their blindness is not due to stupidity, for they display great ingenuity in explaining away the failures and inequalities of the poison oracle [read:Obama], and experimental keenness in testing it. It is due rather to the fact that their intellectual ingenuity and experimental keenness are conditioned by patterns of ritual behavior and mystical belief. Within the limits set by these patterns they show great intelligence, but it cannot operate beyond these limits. Or, to put it another way; they reason excellently in the idiom of their beliefs, but they cannot reason outside or against their beliefs because they have no other idiom in which to express their thoughts.” Have you ever tried to argue with an Obamanite? It is impossible, because their position is directed by the idiom of their belief in “the oracle.”
And so, I return to the realityof the Republicans and their conviction, backed by strategy, that they can beat Obama in November (and NOT Clinton). I fear Jon Stewart’s prophesy that the Democratic Party will once again manage to elude the arrow of victory, because while the Republican Party is craftily strategizing its effort to defeat the Democrats in November, Democrats are arguing over what constitutes a proud American. While Republicans are planning their assault against a candidate of THEIR choosing, Democrats are still arguing over “hope” and “inspiration.” I fear that while John McCain is enjoying inauguration ceremonies in January and taking the oath of Office of President of the United States, Democrats will be sitting around campfires singing, “Kumbaya, Obama,” wondering as they did in 2004, “HOW could this have happened AGAIN?”
27 comments:
Doire,
You are simply amazing and I find that the sarcastic humor in your blogs makes my life better! I read your recent blogs alound to my roommates tonight. Needless to say, it was loved!! Keep posting!!
-Lauren Kindley
This morning I was watching the news when they showed a clip from an Obama rally. What I found unusual was people in the audience holding up his book. And I immediately equated the importance of that book to the Bible (for Obamanites anyway). Obama is a rhetoric master, which I admit I found captivating. And I also admit having a prolonged bout of lazy hermeneutical eye.
The republicans did a similar thing the last election. They put all the emphasis on Kerry. Rove almost always only talked about Kerry in the media, which caused the media and people to believe that the GOP and Bush feared running against Kerry the most. Obviously, Rove's ploy worked in the end especially after Dean's scream fest.
I find that the Democrats keep talking of change and the Republicans talking of morals, and neither are beneficial to this country in the end. The mind and the eye of a U.S. citzen needs to extend beyond him/herself and personal idealogies in order to truly discover what will be of benefit to the future of this country.
Do you have any links or citations to support the conclusion that Republicans are voting for Obama because they think that he would be an easier candidate to beat in November than Clinton? I simply don’t believe it. Are you sure that the statistic ascribed a motive to these crossover voters? It seems far more likely to me that these Republicans are voting for Obama because they simply prefer him to their own candidates.
It is well known that Republicans were not excited about their choices this year, and many conservatives openly hate McCain. When talking about McCain’s win this week, Jon Stewart (I watch The Daily Show too) noted that it came over “a cartoonishly weak field of opponents.” Many Republicans are famously down on their choices this election cycle, and it strains credulity to think that they would be motivated to vote for a candidate of the other party simply because they think that it would give their party’s candidate, whom they don’t like, a better chance in November.
I also disagree that Clinton would be a stronger candidate than Obama against McCain in November. Clinton has positioned herself as the “experienced” candidate against Obama, but by using the same standard, McCain’s greater experience would trump. And also, with the “3 AM Phone Call” ad, Clinton has tried to position herself as the better commander in chief. Again, in the general election, I do not see how Clinton could win that comparison against McCain. I’m not saying that I think McCain would be a better president than Clinton or that he would win the election against her. But it does seem that the strategies Clinton is using to win the nomination will likely hurt her against McCain in November.
Not to mention the elephant in the room. Many conservatives and Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. It’s irrational and unfair, but it exists. It Clinton is the nominee, they will be
I won’t argue too much about the assessment of Obama’s followers as being cult-like, although I do think that cult is a little strong. Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, those were cults. And frankly, it smacks a little of sour grapes to describe Obama’s appeal and candidacy as being nothing more than a cult.
Having said that though, you are right that Obama’s appeal to many of his candidates is based on hope of what he might be, rather than any specific experience or accomplishment in his past. I was talking about it with a certain friend of mine, and we called it the “empty vessel” effect. People are projecting upon Obama their own hopes and aspirations for what they want in a president and for our country. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. It’s kind of exciting, isn’t it?
steve,
here you go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
Please scroll down to "Stop-Clinton movement takes root"
" People are projecting upon Obama their own hopes and aspirations for what they want in a president and for our country. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that."
I will tell you what's wrong with that:
A projection of hopes and aspirations is not by any means equal to ability to accomplish said hopes and aspirations. Obamanians are taking a huge gamble with this country's welfare and safety by voting for the untried horse. One must weigh the risks when one gambles and Obamanians are risking so much more than any of us can afford.
judilein03 -
Thanks for the link to the MSNBC article. For the record, I did not say that Republicans were not voting for Obama, and in fact I specifically observed that they were. My question was this: are Republicans really “voting for Obama because they think that he would be an easier candidate to beat in November than Clinton"? Where in the article does it say that Republicans see Obama as the easier opponent? Rather, the Republicans voting for Obama fall into two camps: those that genuinely like Obama, and the anti-Clinton crowd who will vote against her whenever they get a chance. This article proves my point, not the original argument.
Regarding your last comment about Obama and the hopes of his supporters: I readily concede that Clinton has more experience, although I think that experience is not the only qualification for president. I also think that people can advocate and vote for who they like. A lot of people are projecting their hopes and dreams on Clinton. How is that different from Obama and his supporters?
A vote for any politician brings a certain amount of risk, because we can never be sure that the person we vote for will be what we expected (well, except maybe in 2004). But why are you so sure that Obama will not live up to the expectations of his supporters?
judilein03, I see that you have responded to some of my other comments in other threads. I welcome a good discussion, and I will reply to all later.
Thanks,
Steve
From the MSNBC article:
"But a significant proportion say they are temporarily backing Obama for strategic reasons. They plan to vote Republican in November, but for now, their goal is to try to make sure Clinton cannot win."
These people clearly are NOT voting for Obama because they don't like the Republican choice. This is a well-known movement instigated by none other than Rush Limbaugh to get Republicans to vote for the weaker Democratic candidate now and then they will vote for the Republican of their choice when the primaries come along. This does INDEED support the original argument. Still pessimistic? Let me know, I have many other sources to support this claim.
Certainly hope is a commodity in a cynical world and certainly all candidates should cash in on the concept to inspire votes; however, the primary difference between Obama and Clinton is a record of experience and performance. If you were destitute and suddenly won $1 million in a lottery would you bet all your money on roulette or would you seek out a financial advisor with the knowledge and expertise to advise you how to most wisely invest your windfall?
Obama may surprise us all, but I don't buy lottery tickets and my feet don't tread the bright, gawdy carpets of casinos... except for cheap drinks and the opportunity to enjoy a flashy stage act.
Allow me to step in here. I have hesitated and in fact originally vowed not to respond to skepticalsteve. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, I have been enjoying the volley. It has been so interesting to me to read what wonderfully sincere debate my blog has engendered. And I so appreciate the honesty and civility. Secondly, I didn't think there was any common ground upon which I could stand with someone who actually thinks this is a "post-gender" age. I felt that this fundamental difference would not allow for even a point of departure for debate, let alone a debate which might lead to any change of heart. Thirdly, I have stated my view. My blog posts stand, and I see no reason (yet) to detract or to alter them.
But I am compelled to respond to the question which asked what difference there is between Clinton supporters who place their "hope" in her and Obama supporters who place their hope in him. For me, there is a vast difference (which the Letter to Timothy already made clear, or so I thought). We KNOW who Hillary Clinton is. She has been showing us who she is for over thirty years of public service. I do NOT know who Barack Obama is. There has not been enough time for us to know him. And call ME a skeptic, but I am too old to simply trust someone on the basis of their WORDS, no matter how gifted the delivery. My hermeneutic of suspicion has served me well so far. He has not worked long nor hard enough to earn my trust. As chair of the Senate committee on Afghanistan, when asked WHY he has NOT YET called a meeting, Senator Obama responded that he hasn't been able to, because he is running a campaign. Isn't Afghanistan an area of the world that should take precedent over his campaign? In the time Hillary has been running a campaign, she sponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage. What else has she done?
No, nothing you have said has changed my mind because ultimately it will never be words and promises (impossible to deliver) that will change my mind, but proven commitment and public service.
mdiv94 –
In response to your question about my use of the phrase “post-gender world”:
For the record, I do not believe that we are in a post-gender world, and my use of that phrase was rhetorical. Here’s the quote: “In a post-gender world, can’t people choose to vote for or against a woman for the same inane reasons that they choose to vote for or against a man?” I thought the implied future tense was obvious, but maybe not.
But I stand by my original point. Despite the sexism on the network news and in our country, I do believe that Senator Clinton is being seriously considered as a presidential candidate, which has never happened before. Now, I do acknowledge the history of sexism in our culture, and I agree that Senator Clinton has more obstacles to overcome than comparable male candidates. (I also believe that Senator Obama has similar obstacles to overcome. This may open a firestorm with the current audience, but it is still true.) But I truly believe that we have crossed an important threshold. I do believe that most Americans are seriously considering Senator Clinton as a presidential candidate, and they are not automatically excluding her just because she is a woman.
I also believe that, for those Americans who would never vote for her, the primary reason is that they are right-wing conservatives who would never vote for a Clinton ever since Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh told them to hate the Clintons in the 1990s, and that it has nothing to do with Senator Clinton’s gender.
True gender equality would mean that people may decide to vote for or against Clinton for various reasons that have nothing do with gender. And if she is not ultimately elected president of the US, it does not automatically mean that the US is misogynist.
judilein03
I read the same line from the MSNBC article that you quoted, but I interpreted it a different way.
The "strategic" part refers to whether those Republicans think that they should vote against Senator Clinton now or in November.
It doesn't mean that they think Obama will be a weaker opponent against McCain in November. Rather, it means that they think that Obama has a greater chance of beating Clinton than McCain does.
I repeat:
""But a significant proportion say they are temporarily backing Obama for strategic reasons. They plan to vote Republican in November, but for now, their goal is to try to make sure Clinton cannot win."
What part of that are you not understanding? "...they are TEMPORARILY backing Obama for STRATEGIC reasons. THEY PLAN TO VOTE REPUBLICAN IN NOVEMBER."
'Nuff said.
judilein03 –
You do not need to repeat it, and you do not need to shout. I understood the quote the first time I read it, and the second.
The specific quote that you keep repeating refers to those Republicans who are so motivated to see Clinton defeated that they are willing to vote against her in the Democratic primary as well as in the general election next fall. Yes, they will vote against her twice if they can.
I don’t question that Rush Limbaugh is organizing an attempt to defeat Clinton by encouraging Republicans to vote against her in the Democratic primaries. However, this does not represent all Republicans, as some clearly are voting for Obama because they find him appealing (discussed elsewhere in the article).
My original point of contention was Doire’s assertion (repeated by you) that the fact that some Republicans are voting for Obama proves that he is the weaker Democratic candidate. I thought I had made this quite clear, yet you continue to either ignore it or misunderstand it. (And you mocked my education?)
Since you are either ignoring this point or do not understand it, I am going to repeat it: Where in that specific quote or in the entire article does it say that Republicans think that Obama is the weaker candidate?
My second point was that I think the evidence actually suggests that Clinton is the weaker candidate, because of the large number of Clinton haters who would never miss a chance to vote against her, even twice if they can. Again, the quote that you keep repeating supports my point. The reason that these Republicans will vote for a Republican in the fall is that the general election will be between a Republican and a Democrat. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, then they can vote against her again by actually voting for a Republican.
OK... I posted this in the comment section of another post but since this discussion seems to be taking place HERE, I'll copy it below:
Two things: 1. Comments in the original blog post were generated by a video clip, which was aired by CBS News the morning of the original blog post date. In the clip I SAW Obama SAY in a speech that he would carry Clinton supporters in November but that the reverse seemed unlikely. I don't record everything I watch on television and so cannot provide my blog with the uploaded video to "prove" my source. Not every source of information appears in print. 2. As for the Republican "turn" to the Democratic primaries to benefit the Republican candidate in November, this too was an analysis presented by a political analyst on television and was supported by interviews in exit polls and by the fact that the phenomenon of Republicans voting in Democratic primaries did not emerge until after John McCain was assured of the Republican nomination. Republicans were NOT voting for Obama (or against Clinton) prior to this.
NOW... IF Republicans have been voting for Obama in the primaries because they LIKE him over and above their Republican nominee(s), or if they have been voting for Obama because they hate Clinton, we would have seen this all through the campaign. It would not have emerged as a trend only after McCain was a shoe-in for the Rep. nomination. Since this is a recent trend and has not been a typical aspect of the campaigns throughout the only other alternative is that Reps who would have voted for Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney are so repelled by John McCain that they have switched over to Barack Obama. That would be a kind of conversion not seen since Saul of Tarsus rode his horse on the road to Damascus in search of Christians to persecute only to become one of them.
Now, if these trendy Republicans aren't voting for Obama because they like him, are not voting for him merely because they hate Clinton (even I wouldn't characterize Republicans as so childish), are not voting for him because they love Mitt and Mike but hate McCain...they are surely not voting for him because they want a tougher fight in November.
Okay, Steve, I don't mean to mock your education, but I am beginning to doubt how well you absorbed it.
What part of Republicans tactically voting for Obama now and then admitting that they have every intention of voting Republican in the fall tells you that they are voting for Obama now and will vote for Obama in the fall? Am I missing something? Is Obama going to turn Republican in the next few months?
Doire –
You said that Republicans voting for Obama is a “recent trend” and that it had “emerged as a trend only after McCain was a shoe-in for the Rep. nomination.”
The facts don’t agree, and I offer these links and articles in support:
Times Online, May 6, 2007
Republicans defect to the Obama camp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece
Sample quote: “DISILLUSIONED supporters of President George W Bush are defecting to Barack Obama, the Democratic senator for Illinois, as the White House candidate with the best chance of uniting a divided nation.”
Time Magazine, November 13, 2007
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1680192,00.html
Obama's Red State Appeal
Sample quote: “Political organizing for Democrats in red states like Nebraska can often feel a bit like leading AA meetings. But that hasn't deterred more than 300 Nebraskans from forming a dozen groups for Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign, and they aren't the only ones.”
To the specific claim that Republicans voting for Obama has only occurred since McCain was the shoe-in, I offer this article from NPR about the Super Tuesday elections, when Romney was still in the race:
Watching Washington, February 7, 2008 (two days after Super Tuesday)
By Ron Elving
Romney's Departure May Speed Process in Both Parties
http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2008/02/romneys_departure_may_speed_pr.html
Sample quote: “In the states that have voted so far, independents and Republicans who take a Democratic ballot usually vote for Obama.”
[to be continued]
[continued #1]
MSNBC.Com, February 28, 2008
Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama
True support combines with stop-Clinton sentiment in next week’s primary
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
This is the article about the Texas primary that judilein03 provided (and re-provided ad nauseum) as support of your theory that Republicans are voting for Obama in the primary because they think he would be easier for the Republicans to beat in November.
Article headline: “Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama. True support combines with stop-Clinton sentiment in next week’s primary.”
Sample quotes: “As many as a tenth of the Texans voting in the Democratic contests could be Republicans, and overwhelmingly they favor Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, the polls show.”
“I ran for Republican precinct chair. I went to the Republican state convention,” said one of them, Donald Rau of Austin, who has already voted in early balloting. “In this election, I voted for Barack Obama.”
“I’m a Republican. I’ve been a Republican since I can remember,” said Trey Caliva of Lubbock. But “whenever I vote for an executive office, I have to vote for the best person that does the job. And for me that’s Hillary Clinton.” [I included this here, even though it is irrelevant to either argument, so you won’t accuse me of ignoring it.]
“Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, ‘she’s done!’ Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!” says a posting on the organization’s Web site, offered as a suggested e-mail to send to Texas Republicans. “I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama.”
[to be continued]
[continued #2]
Regarding the MSNBC article in the last post (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/):
No. Where. In. This. Article. Does. It. Say. That. Any. Republicans. Are. Voting. For. Obama. In. The. Primary. Because. They. Think. That. He. Would. Be. The. Easier. Opponent. In. November. As. Part. Of. Some. Overall. Strategy. To. Elect. A. Republican.
I’ve offered two reasons for why Republicans may be supporting Obama – they like him and intend to support him in November, or they want to vote against Clinton. This article quotes Republicans actually stating both of these positions. Nowhere in this article does it say, nor are any Republicans quoted, that they are supporting Obama because they think that he is the “weaker” candidate or that he would be easier for the Republicans to beat in November.
Judielien03 criticized me earlier for my rhetorical skills. Obviously, I have a lot to learn from the rhetorical masters here, as it takes a lot of skill to deny that this article says the things that it says, and to argue that it says what it does not.
[to be continued]
[continued #3]
I’ll concede a mistake.
On March 9, 2008, judilein03 said this: “This is a well-known movement instigated by none other than Rush Limbaugh to get Republicans to vote for the weaker Democratic candidate now and then they will vote for the Republican of their choice when the primaries come along.”
judielein03’s quote was in response to my question asking for any support to prove the claims on this blog that Republicans are voting for Obama in Democratic primaries because they see him as the weaker candidate, thus making it easier for a Republican to win in November. Throughout this blog, Obama has been referred to as the “weaker” Democratic candidate.
My mistake was trusting what judilein03 wrote about Rush Limbaugh without verifying it. On March 10, 2008, I wrote this: “I don’t question that Rush Limbaugh is organizing an attempt to defeat Clinton by encouraging Republicans to vote against her in the Democratic primaries.”
Obviously, I should have checked the facts first.
[to be continued]
[continued #4]
The Wall Street Journal, Washington Wire
March 6, 2008
The Limbaugh Effect on Clinton’s Texas Win
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/06/the-limbaugh-effect-on-clintons-texas-win/?mod=googlenews_wsj
Sample quote: “Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state’s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election.”
From the mouth of Rush Limbaugh himself:
Rush Limbaugh.com
February 26, 2008
Pimp Yourself: Vote for Hillary!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022608/content/01125110.guest.html
Sample quote: “RUSH: I talked earlier about what's happening in Texas in terms of Republicans voting Obama. It's a Houston Chronicle story: ‘In Democrat Primary, Expect a GOP Turnout; Perhaps Fueled by Clinton Dislike, Many Republicans to Vote for Obama.’ I understand I've got a big challenge here to try to get Republicans to change their minds on this and vote for Hillary to keep her in the race, to keep that party at war with itself.”
Previously, my arguments and evidence in support of my position have been met by distortion and derision. I can’t wait to see what you have to say now.
Steve
Wow. As a professor I have to give you an "A" for your research. I guess my sources spoke to different people from your sources. But your sources are p-r-e-t-t-y impressive. You proved your point. Bravo.
Doire –
First of all, thanks for allowing me to add my voice to this forum.
I also searched the internet to look for support for your position. I didn’t find any sources from standard news outlets, but I did find some that were comments on blogs.
http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/03/paint-mississip.html
(first comment)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080305013106AAZszRY
(look for the answer by suanniiq, the 3rd other answer down)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/superdelegate-schmoozed-by-chelsea-backs-obama/
(look for the comment by Veronica on February 21st, 2008 11:30 am ET)
The next two links specifically examine your theory and conclude that it is not supported by the evidence:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=180x49410
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NmIyMjQzOGVhYTA2ZWIwZDdkZjM0MDJhNTczYTU3NTY=
I included these last two not to reinforce my point but to show that other people have heard it and also questioned it.
Your theory is very plausible, if you assume that Republicans would always vote for a Republican in the general election. But that’s a huge assumption to make, especially considering the evidence this year that: 1) The current Republican president has historically low approval ratings, 2) Republicans were generally not excited by their field of candidates, 3) many conservatives do not like McCain, the presumptive nominee, and 4) some people would just want to vote against Clinton.
I’m sure that it has happened in the past, on both sides of the aisle. Imagine if this year’s Democratic nomination contest was occurring in 2004, when nearly all Republicans were united for Bush. I could then imagine that any Republican interest in a Democratic candidate in the primary would be part of a general election strategy.
For the record, I don’t think that Republican support for Obama now by itself means that he would be a stronger candidate in November. And none of this has any bearing on who would be the better president.
In another post you addressed the issue of whether electability in the general election was the best criteria with which to select a nominee. I agree that they are not the same thing and often lead to failure in the general election (i.e., 2004). That would be a worthy topic for discussion.
Voters are fickle. Who knows, maybe some are flirting with Obama and will change their minds in the voting booth. Maybe the Republican support would erode after six months of Republican Party attacks on Obama. Also, within the Democratic party, maybe his young supporters won’t turn out in the election, as has happened before. All of these possibilities are fair to discuss.
I’m not rehashing this to beat a dead horse, but I do have a couple of other points to make.
First, I don’t doubt that you heard this on TV. I just think that what you heard was speculation or spin from a Clinton supporter.
You seem to be suggesting that we are simply reporting conflicting information from different sources heard on TV or in the news. Your source says this, my source says that, who knows which is true? But just because someone says something on TV doesn’t mean that it is true.
In my opinion, that’s the problem with TV: the news shows are run by bottom-line first entertainment divisions, and there is little journalism anymore. As judilein03 said, it should be fixed. But until it is (and even if it is), we should always be skeptical of what we are told. And we shouldn’t get all of our information from one source, especially TV.
My second point:
I heard an interview with Senator Clinton yesterday morning on NPR. She argued that she should be the nominee because she has won important Democratic states like New York, New Jersey, California, and Michigan (a whole ‘nother subject in its own right). She said that these states would be critical for a Democratic win in November, so the fact that she carried them means that she would be the stronger candidate in November. But, wouldn’t these reliably blue states also vote for Obama if he were the candidate? Was Clinton suggesting or even encouraging her supporters to not vote for Obama if he were the candidate? Was she being divisive?
You have claimed in this post and an earlier one that you think Obama was being divisive and was encouraging his supporters to not vote for Clinton should she be the nominee in the general election. I don’t doubt that you heard Obama say something on this subject. But isn’t it possible that he was talking about his support from independents or Republicans, and not Democrats? Isn’t it possible that you misunderstood him?
My ultimate goal for the election this year is that a Democrat be elected president. If the race becomes too divisive, it may hurt the Democrats' chances. There is already enough divisiveness in the race without manufacturing more.
I guess we will finally have a democratic nominee come June 3. I'm so sick of this battle between Obama and Clinton. Aren't they just illustrating that the Democratic Party is divisive and amorphous, comprised of disparate elements that cannot unify to provide effective leadership for the country?
Post a Comment