To run for president is to signal that one is a blazing egomaniac. Which is fine; the trick is in electing the _good_ blazing egomaniacs.

But I do prefer politicians who have the self-awareness to recognize this about themselves, and to see it as a fault to be overcome, or at any rate not mindlessly accentuated in public comments.

So, badly played, Obama. Badly played. It's fine to think the thought. But that's one of those thoughts you don't say out loud. Part of the reason you have people endorse you and speak on your behalf is so that _they_ can say that sort of thing. Which needs to be said: Obama will get every Hillary vote, give or take. But Hillary will not get every Obama vote, not nearly, and it won't just be people staying home. It wasn't Democrats staying home that elected Reagan, after all, and either McCain or Romney will be able to make a much more substantive claim for the interests of moderate voters than the charming but ideologically extreme Reagan ever did. Plus, in a nation suffering from intense fatigue with the status quo, Hillary will look more like the status quo than any Republican now running. That's an important tactical fact to consider when choosing a nominee, but it's the kind if think a candidate needs someone at arm's length to say. You know, like how Bill is to Hillary.

I know an Obama supporter who will stay home in November if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Me.

It never ceases to amaze me how little Hillary's supporters know how much she is hated, even among some Democratic constituencies.

Why won't all that many Obama supporters go to McCain in the event that McCain and Clinton are the major party nominees?  Both Obama and McCain are popular with self-described independent voters.  Obama will have been low-roaded by the Clintons just as McCain was once low-roaded by the Bushies.

Clinton won't get all of Obama votes, especially the independent votes and especially if McCain get the nod. The worst possible situation for the Democrats is a Clinton/McCain race. The electability argument against McCain is the Republican base might not come out for him. However, if Clinton is running their base will come out for any candidate just so Clinton doesn't win. And McCain will appeal to the independents that Clinton cannot.

So in that race, the Republican base is energized and the Republicans have a candidate that appeals to independents, while the Democrats have half their party demoralized from a the highly negative and untruthful campaign run by Clinton. The Republican candidate is also someone who many Democrats still admire, even if he has been saying the wrong things so he can get nominated.

I have always supported Obama during this race, but the last few days have lowered my opinion of Clinton dramatically because of her willingness to say things she must know are not true. The main culprit being her distortion of Obama's statement about Reagan, and then her idiotic follow up today about how she never said anything about Reagan. I will probably still vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination, but if Bloomberg runs, says the right thing, and looks like he has a good chance to win, I might vote for him instead. Before the last debate, I would never have thought about that.

My vote for Clinton will be a negative vote against the Republican. My vote for Obama will be a positive vote for him.

I'm a fairly liberal Obama supporter who would likely  vote for McCain or Bloomberg over Hillary.

What an egotistical thing for Obama to say!!! In thinking this, Obama is once again demonstrating just how self-centered and presumptuous he is. This election is not about him, and it is not about what people say about him.  He really doesn't seem to get that.

By the time we get to November, People will be thinking about health care, the economy, the housing crisis, Iraq, and what ever elso happens between now and then. People will be screaming to replace George Bush and to deliver real, substantial change. TThey will be focused on a future agenda. They won't be thinking about whther Obama got his feelings hurt. It is just astonishing that he would think that and even threaten the democratic party with his hurt feelings.

     "I don't think there are too many of them who would go to McCain,"

Please allow me to retort. I'm an Obama supporter, I'm technically still a democrat, but if you really think that I'd vote for Hillary Clinton you are actually out of your mind. I'll register as an Independent the next day and vote for Bloomberg if he runs  - and if not for John McCain --  assuming he gets the republican nomination.

Why? Because misguided and honorable has to be a safer bet than misguided, immoral and power hungry.  And considering that its pretty obvious that the Clinton's haven't even stopped to consider the party's well-being if she looses in the fall, I don't see how you or anyone else could make an argument for party loyalty with a straight face.

We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable. And moreover, they both consistently and vociferously affirm that the problem here is Republicans. I don’t have the transcripts, but they both must have said as much at least 4 times in last night’s debate alone. We should all grow up and resist the temptation to get caught up in the sporting event that the whole spectacle has taken on. We are in a process here – a very contentious process – to find the person who will best lead the party and the country. At the end of the process we must all get over our particular problems with the chosen candidate and do so with pride. Not voting or voting for McCain is a childish response that strikes me as something my four year old daughter would do when she loses at Candyland. Do people really want to turn the country over to the chief architect of the “Surge” and someone who counts Gerard Bradley and Sam Brownback as his Supreme Court Advisors? When the process is over, Clinton will support Obama, and Obama will support Clinton. While it is a nice campaign trick, for either to suggest otherwise is heretical and is nonsense.

The Obamaites here are amazing. This isn't a sporting event where you don't go to the game if your team isn't playing or has lost in the playoffs. This is actually about people's lives, both in the US and around the world. How many people who are alive tonight will die if McCain is elected? Get over yourselves. I certainly don't see what the excitement was about with Obama. He seems a bit vapid except when he gives a prepared speech to an audience of fans. But if he somehow got the nomination, no matter how "mean" he was to Hillary or how vapid I thought he was, I would certainly vote for him and donate to hm over any republican

Well said pcostello!

“But if he [Senator Obama] somehow got the nomination, no matter how "mean" he was to Hillary or how vapid I thought he was, I would certainly vote for him and donate to him over any republican.” - pccostello

Amen

I've already left a similar comment on Chait's "Jaws of Victory" post, but I am such an Obama supporter very attracted to his positions and his approach.

I voted for the Democratic nominee in every election for which I was eligible (since 1992, though I was a reluctant Clinton vote in '96). I don't know who I'll vote for if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, but it won't be her. (I have many reasons for this, but I won't list them here.) Just based on conversations with my friends and colleagues, I think there are a lot of us out there. My best friend from childhood, who worked on environmental policy stuff in the Clinton White House, is another strong Obama supporter who will not vote for Clinton in the general election. One friend, a Korean-American woman in her late 30s, did fundraising for the Clinton Senate race and absolutely refuses to vote for her in the general election if she's the nominee. (For the record, my friend's not crazy about Obama or Edwards either, but she's said that she'll vote for Obama if he gets the nomination.)

I live in New England now, but I'm originally from the deep red south. My (white) parents and parents-in-law have voted Republican their entire lives (with the exception of my mom's vote for Gore and Kerry in 2004). All four of them have said they're leaning towards voting for Obama in the general election if he's the nominee. None will consider voting for Clinton. This is all so anecdotal as to be worthless. I find it incredible though (but also unsurprising given the party's recent history) that so many Democrats who are driven mostly by their desire to win (as opposed to their preference for a particular candidate) are breaking more towards Clinton.

So much is made about the Clintons' tenacity and their preparedness to withstand the right wing attack machine and to give as good as they get. But throwing elbows is useless if the other team is spotted too many points for you to catch up. Usually, you hear this chestnut about the Clintons' toughness invoked to contrast it with Obama, whom the cv says is not as tenacious, not as prepared to withstand and to give as good as he gets. But you can't compare the two. In a general election with Obama as the nominee, he's going to have to fight like hell but it will be to win more votes. But in a general election with the Clintons as the nominee, they'll have to fight like hell not to lose votes. (And there's a strong argument to be made that there aren't enough there already.)

If you're an undecided Democrat who's only interested in voting for the candidate most likely to win in the general election, I just don't see how you justify a vote for Clinton.

"We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable. And moreover, they both consistently and vociferously affirm that the problem here is Republicans." Eweiss

Their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable, but the type of untruthful campaign Clinton has been running changes how I think about Clinton. A vote for president is more than just a vote for policy positions, and Clinton recent blatant untruthful statements makes me think twice about her character.

Also, if Clinton and anyone except McCain is nominated, Bloomberg jumps in. While you never know, who that helps I would put the chances at above 50/50 that it hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans.

pccostello, Bukharin, et al  Let me ask you a simple question.

If President Clinton fells that behavior he's evidenced over the last couple of weeks is appropriate for a former president, where was he before the war? I mean, there are only three possibilities ... a) he thought the war was a great idea. b) he's become the victim of a chemical imbalance no one has the heart to tell him about or c) personal aggrandizement is more important to him than the lives of roughly 4,000 American and English soldiers and 160,000 Iraqis.

That said, let me point out that the basic flaw in your reasoning is an assumption that simply isn't supported by available facts, that the bulk of Obama's supporters are dyed blue democrats who should just shut up and fall in line with whomever the party chooses. You need to get over that echo chamber spawned delusion.

This country is pretty much evenly divided between democrats republicans and actual independents. Where do you think all of that Ron Paul money is coming from?

I am a second year law student at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of law in Sacramento, California.  Five students and myself went to Reno last Thursday to help the Obama campaign.  What we witnessed at the Nevada caucuses was extremely uplifting – especially since Obama clearly won the precincts where we worked.  

It needs to be stressed over and over again the generational divide between the Clinton and Obama camps.  Obama’s supporters were youthful, energized, and genuinely proud to stand up and caucus for Obama.  There were plenty of Independents and Republicans who showed up because they believe in Obama’s message.  Also, I’d like to add that these precincts in Reno were in an overwhelmingly affluent and white neighborhood.  

On the other hand, Clinton’s supporters tended to be age sixty and over, quiet, and not too energized for Hillary.  Furthermore, all the supporters for Edwards, and the one supporter for Kucinich, joined Obama once their candidates did not meet viability.  Our biggest fear leaving Nevada was not that Obama lost the popular vote there, but that if Hillary wins the nomination, all this youthful excitement will shut down.  

None of us can imagine being excited for Hillary, and I doubt the Independents and Republicans would come out for her.  It will be truly heartbreaking to see everything we witnessed last weekend come to an end.  If we’re going to beat the Republicans in November, we need that excitement and energy.  Unfortunately, none of us feel too confident we would stand up and be fired up for Hillary.  In fact, John McCain would be given consideration in a McCain/Hillary match up.  And obviously, that would be devastating for Democrats who want to win in November.  

- Joshua Kob

I'll vote for Hillary if I have to, just like I voted for Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry in their losing races to Bush, Bush, and Bush.

As much as I hate to say it, and even though I've been a registered democrat almost since I could vote and voted Democratic in every Presidential election (except for my first - gime a break I was only 18), given substantially to Democratic causes, worked actively on campaigns such as Schumer's first Senate campaign, when I was a New Yorker voted for Clinton for the Senate, and been an ardent supporter of Obama, if this year, it comes down to Clinton vs. McCain, I'll likely go to McCain, and if it isn't McCain, I'll likely just not pull that Presidential lever at all.   I don't think I could vote for someone who I have seen become seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to get the nomination, even if that means methods that are completely dishonest and unethical, and who is so utterly divisive as a national candidate.   And sadly, I don't think I'm alone.  If Clinton wins the nomination, and if folks like me do represent a significant portion of the Democratic base, it could be a disaster for the Democratic party.

"We can all say ridiculous things like we will stay home or vote for McCain, but what a joke! I mean their policy positions are nearly indistinguishable."

Just for a moment, let's concede that notion: when it comes to policy Hillary and Obama are very similar.  If that's the case then you should recognize the genuine difference between Obama and Hillary is this: one can build a genuine progressive working majority and one will only lead to deeper partisan warfare.

The choice seems obvious to me.

The Democratic Party Ticket posters here have to remember that in addition to the independents and republicans who are crossing over to support Obama, a good number of Obama supporters are first-time voters--whether because they are young or because they have never felt inspired enough before to bother to support anyone.  There is no reason to think that these supporters will back Hillary Clinton--particularly given the blatantly dishonest campaign she has allowed herself and her people to run against Obama.  

It is amazing to me to see how many Clinton supporters are intent on making sure everyone knows that Obama "threw the first punch" in last night's debate.  YES HE DID, and a darn good thing too, given all the truly ugly tricks that they've been pulling ever since she got trounced in Iowa.  I mean, don't you cringe at all when you hear about her mass mailing on the eve of each primary calling into question Obama's support for abortion rights?  The Clinton campaign is counting on voter ignorance to scare women into voting for Hillary.  That is truly insulting to the concept of democracy that many young and idealistic Obama supporters believe in.  It's practically tragic.

I was never on the fence about the candidates, but at the start of the process, I can tell you that I was truly excited to think that we had two really good candidates on the democratic side, either of whom I'd be willing to vote for in November.  I should also tell you that I'm 43 years old and have voted the democratic ticket in every election for the past 25 years.  If Hillary is our nominee, I am staying home.  And this is notwithstanding the fact that I know Supreme Court seats are at stake.  

When one candidate offers us a credible chance to resurrect the true meaning of democracy from the grave in which partisan politics has buried it, you can't expect those of us who really want democracy back to vote for someone who will ensure that the load of dirt covering the coffin gets piled on even thicker.

The Clintons have made me sick the past few weeks. I used to respect and admire them; not any more. Whether you are for Hillary or Obama, you have to realize Obama is an amazing talent. He should lead our national ticket, if not this year, then in the future. But the Clintons, desperate to get back to the White House, have decided getting Hillary the nomination is all that’s important. So they have sought to destroy Obama with no concern for our party's future.

And people claim it’s Obama who thinks only about himself.

If she’s the nominee, I'll vote for her. And then I’ll go home and cry.  

If Obama isn't the nominee, I won't vote for Clinton.  I won't vote for McCain, seeing as he's spent all of his "independent" credentials pandering to the Liberty University crowd, economic conservatives and of course that whole "Baghdad is safe" nonsense.

Actually, seeing as there is zero chance in hell Roscoe Bartlett will get voted out of here, and no senate seats are up, I might just stay at home and get drunk.  Or maybe I'll go crazy and vote Libertarian just to give those suckers false hope...

If Obama supporters are serious about a new type of politics, then they can't reward this 'anything goes' type of politics from the Clintons. I'm a very liberal Obama supporter and would support Bloomberg over Clinton in the general.

Hillary supporters need to understand that it's not just about policy. I fear that Hillary is so polarizing, and would be such a lightening rod for the GOP, that she'd actually HURT the popularity of the progressive cause with Americans. The last thing liberalism needs is another Carter.  

I've been a yellow dog democrat all my life, and I've had to hold my nose more than a few times because some of our yellow dogs stank to high heaven.  And I remember defending Bill Clinton (and Hillary) time and again through thick and thin and scandal after scandal and embarassing admission after embarassing admission back when we all helped them cling to power even as we lost the oppurtunity to enact the progressive agenda they promised us.  But they have finally lost any claim they may have had on my loyalty, let alone my affection.  Today Hillary accused Barack of using "rehearsed" lines in last nights debate because he referred to Reagan in his response to her citation of his remarks about Republican having ideas, and she didn't even SAY Ronald Reagan.  How deeply silly and juvenile an attack is this?  Somebody on Chris Mathews tonight said that the Clintons are using any brick they can find in the street to hit Obama with.  And that pretty much describes it.  Any fucking brick they can find.

I will happily vote for John McCain if he is the nominee of the Republican party and Hillary is the nominee of the Democrats.  I have policy disagreements with him, but I have no doubt that he is an honorable and decent man who would probably make a good president.  I cannot say the same for Hillary Clinton.  I see little honor or decency in her and I don't think she has the political skill to achieve a governing majority and lead this country in achieving the policy goals she espouses.   And if she can't get these policies passed, and she is unsuited by character, temperment and judgment to be President, and if she loses we can purge the party of this chidlish romance of a Clinton restoration and clear the way for a more experienced Obama with four years to build a bigger and more comprehensive coalition....why not vote for McCain?  I would do it in a heartbeat.

And there are plenty (as the comments above seem to indicate) who are prepared to do the same

So, Pccostello, you might be able to nominate her, but I don't thnk you can elect her.  Enjoy your phyrric victory, if you get it.

Until a couple weeks ago I would have voted for Hillary should she have won the nomination.  Now I will support McCain, as will many of my fellow first time voters.  The campaign she ran in Nevada was unbelievable.  The notion that a democratic candidate would try to inflame voters against Barack Obama by convincing them that he is a Muslim should automatically disqualify them from the presidency.  If you are willing to propagate sensationalist messages that degrade not a single person, but an entire faith for your own political gain, you are unfit to be president, particularly at a time when our enlightened politicians should be making the case to moderate Muslims everywhere that we support them.  For shame.

I can only hope that Obama will pull through.

I'd add that the grand irony here is that Hillary supporters accuse Obama supporters of naiveté in choosing style over substance, yet I can think of no greater denial of reality than to pretend that Hillary Clinton will be able to a) get elected in the first place, and b) have a working coalition behind her to get things accomplished. It's almost as if some are pushing Hillary out of spite for the GOP attacks of 90s. That, I'm afraid, is the real source of naiveté here.

“... the bulk of Obama's supporters are dyed blue democrats ...” - arsonplus

Yes, I believe they are.  I doubt the vast bulk are so fickle as to become weak at the knees simply because they have a crush on Obama whereas they would otherwise be nativist, flag groping, Republicans.

As for Mr. Clinton's purported behavior, how many wives of former Presidents have run for the Presidency?  None!

to all the sanctimonious Obama-ites that respond here, exactly what "blatantly dishonest" campaign has Hillary run? sniping aside, how has this candidate (if her name was not Hillary Clinton) behaved any differently than Obama the all mighty?  or Edwards of the people? Obama and Edwards have sniped at Clinton for months, distorting her record, trying to tag her with the Bush debacle. Is that fair? or is that politics? and then the alternate choice that so many of you espouse, McCain the maverick? if this were 2000 I might have agreed McCain=independent. but this is 8 years later and McCain has more than shown his willingness to grovel (I think he spoke at Bob Jones right?) and flip flop (I think he thought the Bush tax cuts were wrong? no?) and jump on a bandwagon (I think he thought the surge was ill-conceived and too small, right?) so precisely what are your grievances with Hillary? real ones, not all this wordy inconsequential meanness please.

bun

As for Mr. Clinton's purported behavior, how many wives of former Presidents have run for the Presidency?  None!

So that excuses it?

You know what, I forgot about the green party. Are they running a candidate, because I'd vote for them instead of Hillary or McCain.  I wonder if Hillary running would cause them to put a candidate forward.

I was almost resigned to the "hillary aint so bad" point of view until I saw her hateful, vituperative self emerge in Myrtle Beach on Tuesday. I will never vote for her now. She will never be president. Her ceiling is 45% of the Democrats. If Edwards dropped out it would be over for her.

www.gp.org/.../presidential-debates.php

Looks like they are going to put someone on the ballot.  Good, now liberal Obama supporters have a place to go.

"You know what, I forgot about the green party. Are they running a candidate, because I'd vote for them instead of Hillary or McCain.  " oh right, ralph nader, he was ready to be president. such wise judgement. again what has Hillary done to rate such abuse from people who sort of sound like Democrats?

bun

bunhawkins--

You are right.  We sanctimonious obama-ites should not bother trying to express our views to you "true" democrats.  Who cares what we have to say anyway?  Good thinking.

So that excuses it? - adamvaught

All I have seen from Bill Clinton is his ever calculable, if not predictable, combativeness.

Green party?!

[kang]]Go ahead, throw your vote away![/kang]

actually I asked you sanctimonious obama-ites to pony up. tell me something. real. I'm asking you to tell me why you have such an unquestioning adoration of Obama and such a visceral hatred of Hillary. In real terms, factoids. all I ever hear is "blatant dishonesty" (when?) and other smears with no evidence.

bun

Jason,

In the heat of the battle it's hard to say how one feels if we honestly step back from the whole thing.  Once everyone starts hearing the Republican side of the story (more tax cuts for the rich, supply side economics works, privatize social security, picking conservative supreme court judges, in Iraq for another 20 years, your 401k will recover in 30 years don't worry be happy, the leadership of the Southern Baptist Church and the Pope will be appointed Lifetime Viceroy's of God in Office above the President ), voters may feel different.

Declaring a vote for a Bloomberg candidacy, or sitting home if Clinton wins are ways to get around some of that angst now, without having to claim to vote strongly against Hillary.

I think Obama left this statement far too broad. It's clear to me what he's referring to (independents and Republicans who have crossed over to support him), but the generic "supporters" gives the impression that he's talking about Democrats as well.  

As demonstrated in this thread, he's definitely going to have to clarify what he meant.

Green Party! Are you people serious? Maybe you are too young to remember Ralph Nader and how his principled candidacy delivered 8 years of George Bush. People said Gore was no different that Bush in 2000 and voted instead for Nader (out of principle). 7 years later, Al Gore is the darling of the left, Nader has vanished, and George Bush has nearly destroyed our country. Look, no one is saying you should give up on supporting Obama, and God knows he still might win. I have no interest in debating the merits or demerits of the candidates. The point of this blog post was what would the supporters of the specific candidates do in the November, not now. That’s it. Simple question: if Obama wins, do the Hillary supporters vote for Obama and if Hillary wins, do the Obama supporters vote for Hillary? I say the answer is yes both ways. People who say otherwise right now are caught up in the emotion of the campaign and will by November realize that campaigns are tough and sometimes dirty deals. It is a process that continues to devolve, but it is a process. And ultimately, the democrats will choose a great candidate, either way. And I know that true democrats and true progressives will overcome the very real doubts they may have about Obama’s experience or Hillary’s candor to make the right choice in November. No self-respecting progressive can possibly repeat the Nader crime again. Not with so much at stake. Remember, we will most likely have at least two court vacancies in the coming 4 years, and one of them will be Stevens. McCain has said he will pick judges in the model of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, and he is getting advice from Sam Brownback. If the rhetoric about advancing the progressive agenda is real and not just overwrought emotion about the possibility of your guy losing then you will NOT contribute to the establishment of a permanent reactionary bloc on the Supreme Court. We would certainly see Roe overturned. Civil liberties would be decimated, and on and on. I don’t believe people would vote for McCain, not vote (vote for McCain), or vote for the Green Candidate (vote for McCain) so soon after witnessing the Nader effect in 2000. I simply don’t believe it.

Please read back over your defenses of former President Clinton. (once finished return to this statement) That's why the independents  -- which is to say the majority -- of Senator Obama's supporters want none of either him nor his wife.

If they are ok with you, that's great, this is America. Vote your hearts out. I'd rather vote for someone I disagree with and respect than for someone I neither believe nor respect.  Have fun on election night.

I will still vote for Hillary come November. I will never vote for anyone from the GOP, no matter how reasonable they sound, as long as the party platform is based on homophobia, blastocysts, torture, creationism, patriot-baiting, and tax cuts for the rich,

But the Hillary-Cheney analogies keep hitting me over the head. Every day Hillary delivers a new canard, a new character assassination, and yet another bridge burned behind her.

And from the looks of things on this thread, Hillary is creating enemies faster than she will be able to handle them.

"actually I asked you sanctimonious obama-ites to pony up. tell me something. real. I'm asking you to tell me why you have such an unquestioning adoration of Obama and such a visceral hatred of Hillary. In real terms, factoids. all I ever hear is "blatant dishonesty" (when?) and other smears with no evidence."

Go to Borders pick up a copy of the U.S. army counter insurgency manual, turn it over, Google the name of the quoted individual. Remember that said manual has been needed since Bill Clinton's first term. That's why I'm an Obama supporter.

This is a very interesting thread and it's great to see the passion on all sides. But isn't the discussion wholly academic? I mean if Hillary is the candidate (as I hope she is), then won't Barack summon all his rhetorical genius to fire up his supporters, help them overcome their disappointment and rally to the overall cause  of winning the White House? And if Barack wins (as he well might), doesn't the legendary Clinton Machine execute its infamous skills of getting out the vote, etc.?

I mean, that's what happens, right? If the man tells you to join ranks, you proceed acccordingly, right Obama folks? Right??

And if either side answers the question "no", you have no right to call yourself a Democrat. Period. End of discussion. Yes, I'm a Clinton supporter And I'm also the proud uncle of a USAF F-16 pilot sitting in the cockpit of his fighter somewhere overseas right now. And to think that any of you---Obama, Clinton or Edwards supporter as the case may be---would leave the White House in the hands of the party in power to nurse the wounds to your tender egos make me sick.

Barack, Hillary or John, let the best and toughest one win---and then let's go win the whole thing. All of us.  

Did you read my previous post about Clinton's pre-NH campaign flyers that implied that Obama was weak on abortion rights? It's a prime example of real dishonesties we're talking about.  EVEN IF Hillary really doesn't believe Obama's (or Illinois Planned Parenthood's explanation of the present votes), she knows full well that no woman's right to choose would be in jeapardy if Obama were president.  But she was counting on the fact that a lot of NH women might not know that and, one day before the vote, wouldn't likely have a chance to find out.  (Apparently, this same flyer was sent out on the eve of each primary/caucus so far.)

A link to an article describing this and some of theother strategies follows.  

www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/0/FRONTPAGE

Abortion is a hot-button issue--particularly for women.  I think many women, if they are led to believe that a candidate will not support their right to choose, will change their mind about voting for that candidate just on that one issue.

It's one thing to know what the record is and choose Hillary. It's quite another thing to choose Hillary after you've been lied to about what the other guy's record is (in ways intended to really SCARE you).

sorry.  my previous post was addressed to bunhawkins.

"It never ceases to amaze me how little Hillary's supporters know how much she is hated, even among some Democratic constituencies".

Here Here

If you're that worried about that potential, I guess you should support Obama so this will remain a what if scenario.

previous post addressed to eweiss my bad

This discussion is quite depressing. I treminds me of McCarthy supporters who wouldn't vote for Humphrey over Nixon, Anderson supporters who wouldn't vote for Carter over Reagan, and Nader supporters who wouldn't vote for Gore over Bush. In each case they told me it wouldn't make any difference which of the two major-party candidates won.

Eweiss: But again, you're assuming that all the Obamaites are true-blue progressives. Some of them are, some of them ain't; a lot of his support is coming from genuine independents, many of whom honestly don't believe the stakes are quite so apocalyptic as you make out. Speaking for myself (a conservative, mostly), I've been hoping Hillary wins because A: she's a much weaker nominee for you guys in the general, and B: she'd be a more moderate president. But I've been so disgusted by her campaign's tactics, especially over the past couple weeks (Bob Johnson's remarks, which she did not repudiate, the Muslim smears in Nevada, the constant readiness to proclaim herself some kind of victim, etc) that I'm starting to hope Obama wins anyway, even though it would mean we're screwed, just because it would be a more just outcome. I'm obviously not an Obamaite myself, but I can see where they're coming from, and I might vote for him in the general, if the Repub is Anyone-Not-McCain. All of which is to say: there's an awfully wide spectrum of people whom Obama could potentially attract, and there's no reason to assume that they'll automatically go to Hillary otherwise.

schrek2000

I think I've stipulated that I don't exactly consider myself a democrat, which was my point as to the eventual electoral disposition of many of Senator Obama's supporters.

More importantly, this is not a matter for argument. It's simply a fact that the majority of Obama's votes came form 3 groups. Independents, Republicans and 18 -29 year olds.

Now the fist two speak for themselves so I'll just point out what any pollster would tell you. It takes THREE election cycles for political identification to set (as if it were concrete) meaning that those 18 - 29 year olds aren't democrats yet.

Counting on them to turn out for Clinton is so foolish it's just plain silly.

Thank you Arsonplus

"Counting on them to turn out for Clinton is so foolish it's just plain silly".

The bottom line is this: if you think voting on pure principle over direct outcome is stupid, fine you're probably right.  But If you feel that way you have no business supporting Hillary because its abundantly clear that she is the weaker general election candidate. Just use your common sense!  All HRC supporters would vote for Obama, he can capture independents and get out the youth and African American vote.  The only argument for her I hear now besides her false allegations about Barack is that her healthcare plan has a mandate and his doesn't.  If you're going to vote for her because of that, ignoring the well being of the democratic party in the upcoming election, then you have no business saying that liberals shouldn't look at alternatives come November.

why? why do you think Obama is so much stronger?  why do you think Hillary is so much weaker?

bun

I am not assuming anything about moderates, Republicans or Independents. I happen to think Obama would draw more support from those groups than Clinton. That is clear. I also happen to think that she would be a better President and would be plenty electable, but that is not the issue here. All I have been saying is that the folks around here who claim to be true progressives who would vote for McCain (or stay home) rather than vote for Clinton are probably caught up in the emotion of a very heated campaign. I know. I was there two weeks ago when I absurdly said to a friend that I would vote for McCain rather than vote for Obama. I was wrong and was motivated by a stubborn allegiance to my candidate. The truth is I would vote for Obama in the general and am sure that most (not all) of his progressive supporters would vote for Hillary (when push comes to shove).  

maxblum:

The question is about whether or not to support the candidate that wins. I know I won't change your mind about voting for Clinton over Obama. I won't try. But if she wins, will you really vote for McCain?

truce eweiss, I recognize that i was doing the same thing.  I would most likely vote for Hillary.  I will say I don't think independents would.

Bun- this is why Hillary is a terrible GE candidate:  Her negative ratings are at 47% already.  Now Hillary supporters are going to claim that she has already been harassed by the GOP so much that her negatives have already plateaued.  I don't think this is the case, especially given how strongly people are reacting to her campaign's current theatrics against Obama.  If she follows through on her promise to carry this kind of campaign into the general, she is going to have absurdly high negatives.  even if she does win a close general, this affect will probably limit whatever gains democrats can make in congress during the election.  Obama meanwhile, has demonstrated that he is capable of fending off swiftboat style poltics (Just check out the email John Kerry just sent to Obama supporters)  

This has been hashed and rehashed, but Obama tends to garner the support of Independents, who value his fresh face, charisma and acceptance of those of different ideological persuasions for the purpose of passing legislation.  He has substantial support within the African American community, and he has the support of liberals like me, who love to see independents duped into voting for one of our guys.  There is no doubt whether Hillary supporters would support Obama. The inverse isn't so certain.  Oh yea, and young people might actually come out to vote for him.

On the issues the candidates differ on very little.  Hillary is stronger on health care with her mandate (although this could be a detriment come November, and its all irrelevant until a plan is submitted to congress, which will be full of concessions etc.).  I think Obama has been stronger on the Sudanese Genocide Issue, and in general most Darfur activists here at UCLA agree with me.

On the issue of experience, I think Hillary has somewhat of an advantage, although I think its overblown and I think a lot of voters realize that.  I mean who better to fix the constitutional mess Bush has left us than a constitutional law professor.    

Question:  I'm not a true progressive, I'm a liberal.  Being "progressive" is the most lily-livered bit of political posturing I've ever seen.  "Oh no!  Those mean Right Wingers took our name, the proud term of FDR, and made it bad!  Let's run back to the Wilson Administration and get a new one!"  

I'm a liberal and proud of it, and I wouldn't vote for Hillary, now or in the General.  If we want real liberal change in this country, universal health care, a humanitarian foreign policy, and a reasonable executive branch, you need a new type of politics.  Real change in Washington happens with realignments and big majorities, not combative 51% Presidents.  Reagan, FDR, and LBJ's Great Society Congress were able to enact meaningful change.  Presidents like Clinton or Eisenhower weren't able to have great accomplishments at all, they simply fought the tide swinging in the other way.  A Clinton nomination or Presidency would be bad for the party and the country.  Even with a Democratic Congress, we won't have 60 votes in the Senate.  Even with Clinton and 2 houses of Congress, we'll get nothing done, and have nothing to show for our seats, because no Republican will sign up with the "President Hillary Health Care Plan," the "President Hillary Education Bill," or the "President Hillary Energy Bill."  Nothing will get done in Washington for two more years, and then in 2010 we lose Congress, again, just like 1994.  Hillary as President faces a huge problem.  She's too politically radioactive to triangulate successfully, so she'll run to the "center" even more than Bill did.  These are the "progressive" results?  The Clintons have proven to be fighters for one thing: The Clintons.  When the chips are down, they head to the middle and attack those they fight against.  The one thing they don't do, is build a long term consensus for their plans, or a broader outline.  Listen to a Kennedy or FDR speech, and listen to one of Bill's "brilliant" State of the Unions from 1998 or 1999.  Theirs are coherent thoughts, and his are laundry lists.  I want a President with character and ideas, not political survivalists with small bore dreams.

To those worrying about a McCain Supreme Court, I'm not too worried,  McCain's biggest legislative baby is McCain-Feingold.  Given its precipitous status in the face of the Roberts Court, I doubt he'll stick another Right Wing Ideologue on the bench.  McCain, plus a Democratic Congress, might actually get something done, with each checking the others worst instincts.  Finally, this isn't "let's back the boring, uninspring Dem vs. the evil GOP man" like 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004.  Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, and Mondale were all decent men who had some sort of plan for America beyond measuring the drapes for the Oval.  Hillary's boring, but she's also disingenuous in a way the others are not, and not someone I would want in the Situation Room, in the Oval, or being welcomed in my living room for four years.

I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but after what I've seen coming from the Clinton campaign since Iowa, I've actually considered voting for McCain.  And I come from a lifelong family history of progressive Democrats. I've never even considered voting for Republican before, except McCain back in 2000, and that's only because I could see Al Gore was going to blow it, and I thought about switching over to the Republican Party to support McCain over Bush.

I'm angry now, angry at the out and out falsehoods spewing forth from Hillary Clinton's mouth, as we saw in the debate last night.  The ignorant masses and lower income less educated folks of this country who hardly take an interest in politics will see that kind of thing and believe it, and vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary based on her lies.  I find her politics unacceptable on a number of levels, I reject the politics of fear, division and deception.  

But I'm a realist, so I understand that when you have the three major networks and CNN almost openly backing the Clinton campaign, and they've been anointed by the Democratic establishment, as well as the Republican establishment, when creeps like Newt Gingrich and those within the Bush administration expressed their comfort with handing over the reins of this country to Hillary Clinton, then I must face the realization that the odds are heavily stacked against Obama.  South Carolina will be used as a wedge by the Clinton campaign to push white and Hispanic voters her way. I think the Clintons would start a race war if they thought it would ensure their return to power.  

Perhaps when the anger wears off, I'll find other reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, but at this point I can only think of one overriding motivation that will get me to push the button for her in November, and that is the face of the federal and SUPREME COURT.  Because I understand the consequences to this nation and the entire court system, if we get another Republican in the White House who starts pushing in these third and fourth-rate pseudo conservative hacks like Clarence Thomas and that worm masquerading as the Chief Justice John Roberts on to the Supreme Court, or lobbyists like William G. Myers III who was repeatedly nominated to the Ninth Circuit but didn't make it thankfully.

The last thing we want are more CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL OPERATIVES on the Supreme Court who will drag this country back to the 1950s with their JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.  They've already set about undermining Brown vs. Board of Education, the next thing they'll do is go after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.  Were talking about people who would tear down everything this country stands for and force us back to an almost post-Civil War interpretation of the Constitution.

So to prevent this DEGRADATION and REGRESSION I'll vote for Clinton, but I sure won't like it.  And I have little doubt that the Republicans and the conservative movement will find new life through their opposition to the Clintons.  The Democrats will begin losing seats in the House and Senate, perhaps losing the majority under a Clinton presidency, and after eight years we'll wind up with another Republican president, after Clinton fails to get anything done, makes the excuse that the Republicans are obstructing her, much the way they did her husband.  We'll be reliving the 90s all over again.

I remember a time when I had at least some semblance of respect for the Clintons, but after what I've seen coming from their supporters and themselves, I've begun to understand the Republican perception of them.  I've seen people that I once had respect for in the blogging world, people like Jeralyn Merritt and the HACK Armando Llorens destroy the credibility of the once great legal and political blog Talkleft ( http://www.talkleft.com/ ), which has been transformed into a two-bit Obama smear site for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  I can only speculate upon their motives for this, but as someone who's read the blog for years, I believe their motives are of the lowest most un-defendable sort, I see nothing honorable or redeeming in them whatsoever.  That's the opinion of one longtime reader.

Hillary could redeem herself if she chose Barack Obama as her running mate, but I don't even think she has the character to do that, because I believe that she ultimately does not respect the will of the people or democracy any longer, if she ever did.  I believe her ego will force her to choose someone who is much more subservient to her will, that's the same Clinton ego that helped undermined the Gore campaign and handed this country over to George W. Bush.

I suppose that this country needs to do some more suffering, watch people go without health care, and the continued collapse of our broader economic interests, as well as continued ongoing war around the world that sinks us trillions more in debt.  That's America for you, always the hard way.  We eventually come around, but it always seems to take an enormous amount of blood and suffering to get their.  

I'll tell y'all one thing, Bill and Hillary better play their dirty politics with the Republicans, stuff the ballot boxes and fix the voting machines if necessary, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, to get themselves in the White House, because if they give this country over to the totally compromised and corrupted Republican Party yet again, God help them, because no one else will.

So just as the establishment had planned, this election will come down to a choice between BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Republicans, and BOUGHT AND PAID FOR Democrats.  I suppose the Democrats are the lesser of two evils, but why is this nation always reduced to living out the establishments wet dream time and again.  It's because the game is fixed, and the American populace can be manipulated and deceived into falling for the same con over and over again until one day we will look around and the Republic will have ceased to exist altogether, and hardly anyone will even notice.

I'm a fairly liberal Obama supporter who voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000 because I thought he would bring decency to a party that sorely lacked it.

This time I'm watching Hillary Clinton and her husband besmirch the decency of the Democratic Party, and I'm disgusted by the spectacle.

I imagine I would end up holding my nose and voting for Hillary. But I would be tempted by a Bloomberg candidacy - a prospect I would in other circumstances find ridiculous. And I would give McCain some serious thought, though I doubt in the end I could get past his overzealous militarism and apparent ignorance of all things economic.

I imagine there are a lot of other moderately liberal people who feel similarly but who won't, in the end, let policy preferences determine their votes and will instead simply vote for the more decent candidate - and in a McCain v. Hillary match up, that would be McCain.

I am with many other people. Before this campaign started, I would have been happy with whoever the dem nominee was, except obvious also-rans like Kucinich or Gravel. But after seeing Clinton and her operatives in action, I have to say, I understand why the CLintons are so disliked. I'll never vote for a Republican. But I do have scruples. And eventually, people do things that will prevent me, morally, from voting for them. What Clinton is doing comes very close to that.

of course, as a practical matter, if Clinton gets the nomination, my vote wouldn't matter anyway, because she'll lose, and lose badly.

what dechanta said - I'm not sure Democrats are even capable of grasping that the vast majority of people vote for who they like more, period.  

If we're stupid enough to nominate someone who half the country hates, especially when there are very attractive (not perfect, but who is) alternatives, we deserve to lose.  

Thanks to the younger posters for continuing to try and bang through our idiot generation's head that they are sick and tired of us.  Keep it up.

I think the Obama supporters here have largely shown their true colors.  All that stuff about Bush the last 7 years?  They didn't really mean it.  Because if the Dems nominate a candidate who hold most of the same basic policy positions as Obama it won't matter -- they'll either vote for a solid (if honorable) conservative (Supreme Court cemented to the right for a generation) or, if the nominee is Romney or Huckabee, go the Ralph Nader, er, Bloomberg 3rd party route.

Supreme Court, universal health care, progressive tax policy, the environment -- to heck with it.  Just no Hillary.  And you wonder why some of us, even who aren't thrilled with Hillary, viscerally can't stand the Obama crowd. This is why.  

Shame on Obama and shame on his supporters who would not vote for the democratic nominee. The self-preoccupation is incredible. You remind me of the Naderites, who gave us Bush instead of Gore for the past 7 years. How many hundreds of thousands of people would now be alive and whole if Nader had withdrawn from the race and Gore had won?

But this whole argument is an emblem of a dying Obama campaign. No one talks like this when they are winning. More than Hillary's wins in New Hampshire and Nevada, and more than the current state and national polls, this whole discussion convinces me that Obama is done. But shame on him.

Lymon1,

Well said.

It's been said before, but I gotta repeat it. It's not about "liberal / progressive" voters. Most of us will probably hold our noses and vote for Hillary regardless of our level of disgust. (although I gotta say, my level of disgust is higher now than its ever been for a Democratic candidate in my adult life, and I'm close to 50). But there are millions of moderates out there who are horribly distraught at the direction the Bush administration has taken us but who would NEVER vote for Hillary. I know quite a few myself, who I was SHOCKED to find out actually like Obama. And say they would vote for him. These are some of the most knee jerk Clinton hating people I know. Couldn't stop talking trash about Bill when he was president and can't stop talking trash about Hillary now. Would NEVER vote for a Clinton. Not to mention the young people just getting pulled into politics.

This is about more than getting elected. Hillary might be able to pull out another 51-49 win and for some of you "progressives", that would be fine. Kick a little ass. Take names. Feel good about winning. But she wouldn't be able to assemble a coalition to actually GOVERN with those numbers. And as long as republican members of congress see a political benefit to taking her on, they'd never work with her. Obama could win by enough to actually put together a working coalition. He would get input from moderate republicans, probably incorporate SOME of their ideas (and, no, self-righteous ones, this would NOT be a terrible sell out and horrible thing), and actually get some things done. That matters. We're facing an environmental catastrophe that we can't even frickin' imagine the scope of yet and a related energy crisis that is likely to have an impact on all areas of our lives. A tight partisan victory is gonna be hollow indeed, in these times. We actually need someone to govern. Obama might have a shot at this. Hillary won't.

It's increasingly obvious to a lot of us that McCain would be the toughest Republican general election candidate and we rightly worry about him getting the nomination. He's a good man with some baaaad ideas. Kind of like Reagan. But Republicans can't seem to quite figure it out yet - that he's their best shot. Similarly, it is PLAINLY OBVIOUS to every republican I've talked to that Obama would be the best deomodrat in a general election, BY FAR. We decline to figure that one out at our own peril.

-Ray

"I think the Obama supporters here have largely shown their true colors.  All that stuff about Bush the last 7 years?  They didn't really mean it.  Because if the Dems nominate a candidate who hold most of the same basic policy positions as Obama it won't matter ..."

But it's not about policy positions. If it were, nobody would support Hillary in the first place. Kucinich and Edwards have stronger liberal policy positions on most of the important issues, as did Dodd. Hillary was for the war from the start, and now lies about it. She has lately promised both to end the war in a year and to "end the war the right way" by staying in Iraq indefinitely. She's been the most belligerent Democrat in Congress on Iran. She supports President Bush's basic attitude toward diplomacy with unfriendly nations. Unlike most Democratic candidates, she has an actual record on the health care issue, and that record is one of disastrous failure. On policy alone, no anti-war, pro-international-engagement, pro-health-care liberal can possibly support Hillary. Period.

So please, enough with this "they're all the same on policy" garbage.

I gritted my teeth and got behind Kerry last time, even though I didn't think he was capable of winning the election, and even though I was sure (and still am) that he would be a poor president if elected. I'm just not willing to do that again, not this time. Unlike any other candidate from either party, Hillary has already had a chance to perform in the White House, and she was an unmitigated disaster. When she had a substantive role in the Clinton administration in 1993 and '94, her procedural approach was worse than Cheney and her competence in achieving results was in line with Bush on a bad day. So we have a pretty good idea that, as a president, she has a very low floor and a very low ceiling.

Read her memoir, "Living History." She shows no sign of being aware of the degree to which her poor performance nearly scuttled her husband's presidency. She blames others; she was the victim of unfair attacks and blah blah blah. And she was the subject of unfair attacks -- just like every other public figure in American history has been -- but it wasn't unfair attacks that caused her mismanagement of major transitions staffing issues. It wasn't unfair attacks that caused her to lie to investigators after her mismanagement turned those staffing issues into scandals. It wasn't unfair attacks that led her to push her husband to squander his early political capital on gay integration in the military, and then to lose the fight. It wasn't unfair attacks that led her to run White House health care policy in Cheneyesque secrecy, and it wasn't unfair attacks that prevented Democratic majorities in Congress from passing a health care bill. In every case, it was Hillary's own incompetence and duplicitousness that caused the failure. But in her book, she stands by that record of failure and all but promises to give us more of the same if we make her president.

Simply put, I am not willing to vote twice in a row for a candidate I believe would be a bad president. No matter how much she pretends to agree with the rest of her party on policy details.

This sounds like the worst of the 1950's junior high school -- "who do you like the best."

Presidential candidates say strong and even misleading things during campaigns.  That's national politics.  The issue is not what do they say during a primary but what will they do after being elected.  Do you want -- another Scalia on the Supreme Court, permanent Bush tax cuts, more years in Iraq, war with Iran, weak support for health and education, 140 million uninsured, vetoes of any and all "progressive" legislation, etc.?  If so, vote for McCain.

Yes, I think that Obama would probably be a stronger candidate than Clinton, and probably a better president (but that is only a hope).  But anyone who thinks that McCain or Romney would be a better president than Clinton is deluded.

By the way, how bad were the Bill Clinton years:  we had steady economic growth, expansion of the middle class, and no major wars.  Compare that with the Bush years (both).

Remember, McCain is a Bush supporter.  That should be argument enough to not vote for him.

Luckily, most of the country is more reasonable than the far too sensitive souls who post here.

I hate to say it, but I might consider Bloomberg or Santa Clause if Hillary wins the nomination. And if I'm considering a not supporting the Democrat, then you know something is deeply flawed with the nominee; afterall, I voted for John Kerry. The fact is, Clinton voted to give Bush an authorization to invade Iraq because she thought it was the right decision for her political career, not the country. What could be worse than that?

I've absolutely hated every moment of the Bush Presidency and don't think I could bear a Republican victory in November. But I think I'd bite the bullet and write in Obama, hoping the Republican wins, if Clinton gets the nomination. This is a deeply urgent moment, and liberalism needs to assert itself to meet the challenges of global warming, globalization and a possible economic collapse, and health care reform. We can't afford for the less benighted of the two parties to remain in the hands of the smearing, compromising, disgusting Clintons. I write this as someone who actually idolized Bill Clinton the last four years.

I live in Virginia.

Hillary has no chance in hell in this state. She is LOATHED downstate.

I might vote for McCain just out of spite. But I generally favor Hillary's policies...

As someone in one of the blogs I read recently said, Hillary Clinton sold her marriage out for power. I lost all respect for her when she did the "stand by your man" thing. Here is one Democrat who is not "infatuated" with Barack Obama who will NEVER cast a vote for HRC in a primary or general election. And my position has much less to do with anything specific she's said or done during her run for the nomination (except inasmuch as her words/actions illustrate her moral bankruptcy) than with the sum total of her words/actions over the past decade and a half of her public life. You HRC supporters really don't get how deep the animosity toward her goes, even among Dems. I will vote for McCain/Bloomberg or not vote - as a principled stand against HRC.

I could live off spite and water for like 20 days!

To Rhubarbs -- try reading Bob Woodward's "The Agenda" and after you do come back dismissing Hillary Clinton's role in the White House.  Yes, she deserves a lot of blame on health care, but to put it all on her lap is ridiculous. I agree there are some policy differences (health care is one of them), but mostly they are similar.  Even you don't challenge the fact that the GOP, even McCain, would cement a reactionary Supreme Court for a generation.  

But again, the truth is coming out here.  I haven't heard any Clinton supporters say they won't hold their nose and vote Obama (and no, that's not because they like him).  I'm sure there are some, but they sure don't wear it as a badge of honor.  It's 2000 all over again: a bunch of rich white whiney so-called liberals happy to put a right wing conservative in office on the principle "I won't vote the lesser of two evils" or some such garbage.  

I think I need to take a break from TNR for a while.

I am not the hugest Hillary supporter.  I think that Obama is more electable, even if I think her grasp of policy is better.  And yes, I have found her recent attacks on Obama unseemly.

But for people who support Obama to say that, if she gets the nomination, they are voting for McCain...do you people realize the vast, vast difference between Obama's positions on essentially every matter of policy and John McCain's?  You would allow John McCain to appoint Supreme Court justices before you would vote for Hillary?  (And a vote for Bloomberg, should his ego get him into the race, is a vote for McCain.)  You seriously think that makes sense?

I find that flabbergasting in the extreme.  You may hate her with a seething (and unsettling) hatred, but look at her policy ideas, look at Obama's and look at McCain's.  Which of these things is not like the other?

drdannyu:

99% of these folks will calm down by november and do the right thing. The ones who won't probably aren't liberal democrats anyway.

I live overseas and vote absentee in Texas.  That just about makes my vote in a presidential election