I know of a few (fewer than the media would have you believe, but a few) folks who were Hillary Clinton supporters in the primary and who are contemplating switching their allegiance to McCain. I certainly understand the frustration Hillary Clinton supporters must have felt, having come so close to the Presidency only to fall just short of the nomination. But can we clarify something? If you're a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary, supporting John McCain makes no sense, and, to use the phrase d'jour, it's a slap in the face to everything Senator Clinton ran for.
That was, more or less, what my dad said when I asked him his opinion on the subject. A middle-aged progressive Jewish (and very pro-Israel) attorney, he voted for Senator Clinton in the Maryland primary. But, given that there is not a single issue in which Senator McCain is closer to Senator Clinton's position than Senator Obama, what would be the point of switching to the Arizona Senator? "Experience"? What does John McCain have experience with besides being wrong? "Sending a message"? I'm sure that the 12th straight year of Republican rule will really send the message that the country is looking for a more progressive stance on women's rights, and equally sure that even in that improbable case, a Supreme Court stacked with conservative reactionaries wouldn't let it happen.
Independents who leaned towards Clinton may have solid reasons for voting McCain, I don't know. But for Democrats who are in the party mainstream, this "threat" is a strange way to express "support" for Senator Clinton. I just saw her at a rally for pay equity, and I'm pretty damn sure she'd consider it cruel parody for her "supporters" to launch into office someone who openly applauded the Ledbetter decision.
Fortunately, I'm not all that worried. There aren't as many people taking this position as the blogosphere would have you believe. But the die-hards need to know: they're alone. They don't have the support of the party, they don't have the support of the activists, and they certainly don't have the support of Senator Clinton. So don't bullshit me by pretending this is about her. This about you. And I don't have the time to deal with that egomania.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It makes perfect sense, David. They switch over to McCain, who appoints stealth FedSoc judges to the Court. Court overturns Roe (or more accurately, Casey). Pro-choice voters get a kick in the pants and turn out hugely for progressive candidates over the next decade, while the right-to-lifers fall victim to their own success.
Sure, it would suck to have an unwanted pregnancy in places like South Dakota, but abortion providers out there are pretty much non-existent anyway. In the meantime, maybe Planned Parenthood sets up an interstate bus route?
What could possibly go wrong with this plan? ;)
The blogosphere does indeed lead us to believe that this is a more prevalent and widespread problem than it actually is. In my view, disproportionate attention to the issue smacks of a recycled "hysterical hillary feminists" narrative in which women are incapable of making rational and fact-based decisions about their own political interests. It's nonsense. The vast majority of Hillary supporters will support Obama in November.
So don't bullshit me by pretending this is about her. This about you.
Pretty much encapsulates the issue.
I agree it's not about support for Hillary, but the type of egomania expressed here is a pretty common one, to wit: this isn't about issues, it's about personality. Folks who go from Clinton to McCain are voting based on their comfort level with a candidate. McCain is a known quantity and in many respects one of the least scary Republicans (Giuliani is quasi prochoice, but I'd be way more troubled by having him in office than McCain).
Now, some people will claim that if you are so uncomfortable with Obama that you will vote for McCain despite disagreeing with him on most issues, you must harbor some kind of racist/ xenophobic/ bigoted feelings toward Obama. I don't think that's necessarily true, though it probably is true of a few voters. (That's an inescapable conclusion, given how many folks get interviewed by the Washington Post saying, "Obama's a Muslim and I ain't voting for no raghead." And the number of e-mails my mom in East Texas -- herself a non-Christian immigrant of color -- has gotten with the usual grab bag of myths.)
Nonetheless, I do know people who identify as Democrats but are refusing to vote for Obama, and their refusal is essentially personality based. They are distrustful of the messiah-has-come attitude that some Obama supporters have. They find the HOPE and CHANGE stuff silly and meaningless. Also, in my experience these people aren't on the progressive wing; they're the conservative Dems, the (if I may use a banned term) Reagan Democrats.
I find the blogosphere's obsession with Hillary-to-McCain voters -- and the consequent insistence on posting over and over again the same argument about how Obama is more Clintonesque on the issues, as if hearing it for the 230th time will make a lightbulb go on in someone's head -- both fascinating and disheartening.
So I looked up PUMA on facebook. 400 members strong. Look out People Who Are Not Lucas Socol-Oxman (or however you spell it)!
Oh, yeah, and PUMA's idea of political humor is apparently to photoshop Obama's face onto Bambi's body, resulting in "Obambi," the foolish and inexperienced candidate who is no match for Clinton's face on a cartoon cat. How they reconcile this vision of Obama with "OMG, Obama the typical politician" who cynically positions himself on all they key issues and debates, is of course, simple; like all groups that coin their own newspeak, they're fucknuts, as I believe the clinical expression goes.
http://fromhillarytomccain.com
It is true...it can happen.
Post a Comment