Yes We Will Vote For Obama, Please

Polyrhythmic said: "I feel Clinton's negative campaigning is what makes her supporters feel alienated from Obama. She has created this situation through misinformation so that she can claim that she is the one supporting the 'average' citizen."

WRONG. FEEL AGAIN!

Boycotting Obama Will Lead to Famine, Armageddon, Government-Controlled Uteruses — and other Scare Tactics

We have seen a lot of desperate Democrats suddenly scrambling to “unify” with Clinton’s supporters, now that they realize that their snowjob of an election has caused turmoil and will lead to an Obama boycott in November. The classic response to our anger says that we need to relax, take a deep breath, not let emotions cloud judgment, and to think about Roe, your uterus, Third World uteruses, Iraq, thousands of dying soldiers, the economy, Bush III, and many other desperate pro-Obama talking points designed to crush the boycott and instill fear. Well, here’s my answer (disclaimer: I do not have a uterus).First of all, I do not need to clear my head and take a deep breath. I did not start voting yesterday, unlike many of Obama’s supporters. Instead, I am a lifetime Democrat, and I have been voting for Democrats locally, state-wide, and nationally since the mid-80s. I am very experienced having my candidate lose, but then moving on to support the party ticket. In past primaries, for example, I voted for Dean, Bradley, and Jesse Jackson (twice!). I get the idea of party unity, so stop treating me like a kid.

Second, my vote in November goes beyond the liberal “issues” you describe: it protests liberal hypocrisy. The party espouses an equality rhetoric but has been completely dishonest and contradictory during this election. The party has bashed poor white people and people whose last names are Clinton. The party has has ignored Latino voters because recognizing them challenges the “only racists vote for Clinton script.” The party has invented claims of racial injustice to demonize the Clintons. The party has ridiculed “uneducated” voters, even though Democrats supposedly represent disadvantaged people. Male party members and liberal media have constantly called for Clinton to drop out — starting after Iowa — in order to place an aura of doubt around her campaign. The party has ignored voters in Florida and Michigan in order to legitimize Howard Dean’s bad judgment. The party has completely ignored or even denied the sexist treatment of Clinton, while responding with absolute venom to any real or imagined “racism” directed towards Obama. The party has allowed Obama to wear multiple racial hats — the nonracial black man, the just black enough to be an historic black president, and the black racial victim –- to secure votes. If Clinton deviates even slightly from a prior script, she is portrayed as a horrible witch who would do “anything to get elected.” I refuse to join this madness.

In April, Obama pranced around and described Clinton as “Annie Oakley” gunning her way through Pennsylvania for votes. But when he came out looking like Steve Urkel bowling and drinking Yuengling for votes in the same state, the media and party ate it up — another “precious” Obama moment. Recently, CNN.COM posted footage of some mesmerized journalist covering Obama’s jeans. Why should I have to endorse this mayhem?

Third, I am unmoved by the progressive issues that the pro-Obama side uses to scare us into voting for him. But you got to love “the horror”: If you vote for McCain or don’t vote for Obama, the Supreme Court will overrule Roe, thousands of men and women will die in Iraq, poor people will remain poor, the environment will decline, we will not achieve peace on earth and domestic tranquility, and you will deprive “our children” from having a “great country.” I feel a tear coming!

These are just Karl Rovian “red alerts.” Obama is not entitled to our votes. He did not earn my loyalty. Whatever loyalty the party had from me prior to this election has been depleted. Earlier on when we wanted to discuss progressive issues, the Obama camp and the media silenced our efforts and instead focused on the big rock star pep rallies, Obamania, Camelot, weeping college students, and a host of other unimportant concerns. People could not tell us specifically why they supported him, but they knew that he was the best and that he would bring “change.” They told us that we and Clinton were cold and unhopeful and that emotions and inspiration were more important. Clinton was a mere “policy wonk,” while Obama made people “feel good again.” Well, enjoy your Hallmark moments and stop being two-faced. Suddenly, you want to talk about the issues because it benefits Obama. Earth to my fellow Democrats: Obama’s success does not dictate the way I vote.

I am still focused on issues, but topics beyond your “red scare” alerts are important to me as well. My vote responds to a party of hypocrites who dismiss loyal Democrats, bash older folks and women, and manipulate race - while calling it “progressive.” My protest is about not wanting to be a part of a vote that legitimizes sexism. I do not wish to condone the younger Democrats’ misunderstanding of the Republican witch hunts that hurt all Democrats in the past — what they call “Clinton scandals,” when every honst person recalls them as Ken Starr scandals! Where was the “education” on this issue by party veterans? The DNC rushes to bash McCain for his 100 years comment, which reputable entities like Factcheck.org say was not even true, but Clinton is misportrayed abundantly and all we get is silence. Party leadership and the media sharply denounce anything that could negatively impact Obama. They describe legitimate and fair criticism of him as racist, mean-spirited, evil, or “Clinton politics.” Clearly the party leadership has determined that anytime he looks weak, the “boys” will endorse him or call for Clinton to leave because she is “hurting the party” and “kneecapping” the “first viable black presidential candidate” - as if Clinton alone should bear responsibility for remedying the country’s history of racism which has kept people of color out of high office. Well, party leadership and media, you made these rules; suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Obama, don’t tell me my disgust with your behavior doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me sexism doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me liberal hypocrisy doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me fake racial politics doesn’t matter. Don’t tell me I must vote for Obama in order to be a “real” Democrat. If being a real Democrat means bashing women, the poor, and the elderly, manipulating race, ignoring Latinos, and stifling dissent, then I respectfully resign my membership! Achieving justice requires sacrifice, brutal honesty, and passionate commitment. I will not “endorse anything to get a Democrat elected,” and neither should you.

– A Black Man Supporting Hillary Clinton and the Women Who Want

also, i should add i don't necessarily think obama isn't running to be president of the "whole" country. i just don't think, if that is his objective, that he's made enough of a case for that. he made a nice go of it in missouri last week when he spoke to a small town crowd there. he's going to have to do stuff like that nonstop to win those people over, should he get the nomination.

but i think, either way, i'm sure they'll both work their asses off for whichever of them winds up being the party's choice in the generals. which is another reason why i think it's silly for anyone to swear up and down right now that they will never vote for the other candidate. they'll have a pretty tight coalition once one of them is the nominee.

ozmafan- you're right. i think it's an interesting debate to have. but i think the more interesting part of the debate is in the "so what?"

coming from a small town, middle class, white, southern, christian background, i resent the notion that the folks back home who haven't grown up to be gay hippy organic produce-eating folksingers in big cities somehow need to get with the program, give up the ghost, and vote for someone they think is full of it.

because those are folks like my mom--a lifelong republican who voted for bill clinton twice because she's open to the right person at the right time; and my brother--a registered independent attending seminary outside of atlanta, ga.

i guess maybe that's another important discussion to have: so now that most of us live in or near cities, do we need to marginalize, ignore, or eschew the values and desires of the others of us who remain on farms, in small towns, in factory jobs? i personally believe the answer is no. and that's a big part of why i've been supporting hillary this whole time, because i think she's made a clear case that she's running to be president of the whole country, not just the progressive liberals who have led lives similar to hers.

Thanks for the post, Kim. I have appreciated your steadfast HRC support throughout this process. While I joined the Obama camp with his 2004 convention speech, I would have no problem voting for HRC if that was what was decided. I think she's whip smart, savvy (not something I would have said in 1992), mature, fully qualified to be our commander in chief. And, too, there is something incredibly powerful about seeing someone who "looks like me" front and center.

If we would just pick up our heads for a moment, we might notice that our nation has done something utterly remarkable by choosing these two candidates over the usual wash of middle aged white men. We have forever changed this country. And that is something to celebrate.

We city folk may make more money and produce more goods and all that jazz, but we are in a fierce minority.

this part of the original post and commenter Chnoubis' reply make for an interesting debate. did you see david horsey's column in the pi today? http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/davidhorsey/archives/139140.asp

especially this part...

I think it is because our politics and our perceptions of the country are mired in cliches and nostalgia. The fact is, most Americans don't live in small towns, most don't work on farms or in manufacturing plants and most do not live in the so-called heartland. Most Americans live in cities and suburbs close to one coast or the other. A big share of Americans have been to college, work in office buildings, drive foreign cars, drink wine once in awhile and haven't gone bowling since high school. They are a lot more average than elitist. In fact, if that working class white guy in Ohio is feeling a little uneasy, it's probably because he is no longer average. In the multi-racial, high tech reality of today's America, he's unusual.

i suppose it could come down to how one defines the word "minority." is it the percentage of less than half or so of americans who DON'T live in cities? is it those who don't have this greater psychic hold on these "cliches and nostalgia" of the heartland and blue collar americans?

there will always be an ideological and cultural divide between most city dwellers and those from small towns.

As the Obama camp and Hillary and McCain attack each others issues, we should demand that 80 percent of citizens and permanent residents, want no more amnesty, our borders sealed and illegal immigrant deported.

Today! NOW! The danger is SEVERE! Let me remind you of the stakes in this fight against illegal immigration.

If it passes, this bill will GIVE AN AMNESTY to about 3 MILLION (MORE) Illegal Aliens agricultural workers and their families for five years (at least!). You the taxpayer will be paying for their medical care, schooling and much more; compliments of parasite employers and farmers. We already have 12 to 30 million in America already, that our humble pockets are paying for? Already hundreds of thousands of people have faxed messages of anger and frustration.

TOGETHER Citizens and Permanent residence can defeat this repugnant bill. Call toll-free (202-224-3121) Most newspapers are saying nothing. Read and Fax for free NUMBERSUSA Jam politicians switch boards! Also demand reluctant Democrats sponsor the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088).

Paste and copy and distribute freely.

I feel Clinton's negative campaigning is what makes her supporters feel alienated from Obama. She has created this situation through misinformation so that she can claim that she is the one supporting the 'average' citizen.

Nothing could be further from the truth. As stated above, "Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama believe basically the same things." Beyond that, Obama has a history of community service and working with and for the people. Hillary's history of affluence -- including her long term as a corporate lawyer on the Wal-Mart board, NAFTA, lobbyist relationships, the list goes on -- has worked directly against the people she now claims to support.

And these are facts -- the campaign of half-truths the Clintons have run against Obama makes me sick. It's rare I hear someone picking Clinton over Obama based on actual policy and track record rather than just hearsay and feelings. What is honorable about (supporting) a candidate who continues to divide their party for personal and corporate gain? What is responsible about (supporting) a candidate who continues their campaign with a complete disregard for a budget?

We need to sit down with Clinton and have an intervention before she destroys herself and her party with her drug of choice -- power.

Chnoubis, I'm pretty sure that 70% figure would include suburbs and exurbs, who definitely vote differently than the urban archipelago.

We city folk may make more money and produce more goods and all that jazz, but we are in a fierce minority.

Actually, as I recall (ok, I just looked it up) about 70% of the country lives in urbanized areas.

Wouldn't that make a fierce majority of city folk? I was born on a farm in Indiana, so it may be that my counting skills are only good for cows....

I've been a Hillary Clinton supporter throughout the primary, always saying that I'll happily support Obama if (now when) he wins. But just to clarify, even if she does have the popular vote (which is dubious), that is not the very quantification required to win the general election. That one, as we all painfully were reminded in 2000, is decided on electoral votes.

Everyone keeps acting like it's a black or white choice, no pun intended. People are so goddamned infatuated with political duality that they can't possibly conceive of a third option.

If HRC becomes the Dem nominee on the November ballot (like, say counting votes from two states where no one campaigned and with one state where one candidate wasn't even on the ballot, after firmly and without reservation agreeing months ago not to count either of them), I don't intend to vote for her.

But I sure as fuck ain't going to vote for McBush, either.

There's a little known loophole in the voting law that says you DONT HAVE TO FUCKING PICK ANYONE AT ALL.

And yeah, you can still vote on everything else, and no, it doesn't invalidate your ballot.

So the West Virginian red neck white bread chicken shit DINOs, et al, can avoid voting for the black devil, and ALSO avoid voting for the econophobic warhawk.

It should be noted that there is only one way Hillary is up in the popular vote: if you count MI and FL (and count Obama as not receiving any votes in MI) and if you don't count the individual caucus votes in several states (i.e., the vote each person made when they went to the polling place, not the number of delegates that went to each candidate). And even in that new math circumstance, she would currently only be up by 26,967 votes (a mere 0.08%). See here and here.

Nice post. Good call to action against people who are far too entrenched. I would rather, I suppose, have people not vote than vote for McCain just because it's not the primary candidate of choice.

To me, that is just stubborn.