Saturday, June 07, 2008

Bittersweet Acceptance

I've been reading a lot on the InterTubz about how us bitter Hillary supporters need to accept that we lost and get on the bus before it leaves the station, that we (and Hillary) need to accept that she is over, done, gone, yesterday's news, politically dead, stripped of all power, and not worth thinking twice about. The sweeties among us, those crazed female Hillary supporters, we in particular need to accept that it's not women who are the problem, just *this* woman, and that if she'll learn to obey we can all just get along and move on. If she surrenders and goes away, then we can be unified.

Actually, it is for the Obamacans to accept some political realities about the bitter, sweetie voters who stand behind Hillary, and the very real legitimacy problem your candidate has with us.

The fact that you continue to squall and fuss about Teh Rulz indicates that you know very well that the circumstances of his nomination are artificial. You need to accept that there is a big, fat asterisk next to Obama's name in the history books, and it will be to note the way in which the DNC manipulated delegate counts to prevent full votes by 50 states. Sorry, they did and yelling about rules will not erase that mark. Further, the rule manipulation will be used by the Republicans to make claims both about Obama and about the party. We bittersweet voters wanted a full count of all states, so don't blame us. You wanted to win the nomination in the worst possible way, and your wishes came true. Not our problem, though it is yours.

Which leads us to a very sticky point about how delegates were obtained. Your candidate's delegate total was racked up in unrepresentative caucuses, and that there are numerous reports of questionable behavior by participants on your side, such as threatening other caucus goers, packing caucuses with invalid attendees, trying to suppress votes with deliberate disninformation campaigns and outright falsification of caucus results. While this has engendered justifiable anger on the Hillary side about cheating, my concern is more practical: there's going to be another round of voting, the General, and lack of actual support in those caucus states may very well bite you in the ass. Manipulating a first round vote to favor the weaker candidate will not help in the second round. If the Democratic voters didn't actually like you the first time, a significant number of them won't like you the second time, either, especially when all of the factors below are taken into consideration.

Something else you will have to accept if you want your candidate to have a prayer of winning in the fall is that we Clinton Democrats are legitimate and loyal members of this party. You sneer at us and make insulting claims about our voting preferences, like we are racists, or are simply voting for another woman, or are just voting name recognition, or that we're "low information" (hey, drop the euphemisms and just call us dumb hicks, OK? We've heard it before...) with the condescending implication that, poor dears, we just don't know what we're doing. Actually, most of us are pretty well informed and at least formally we share the interests and claims of the Obamacan block - smarter foreign policy, more rigorous and sustainable economic/financial policies, green energy, humane immigration policies, shift the tax burden form the have nots to the have way more than they will every use. We read newspapers and magazines, we ask questions, we write letters, and so forth. We've even been known to read them blog thingies, at least the ones that don't cuss us out and call us names. Declaring that we are not worthy members of the Democratic coalition is going to hurt you very badly in November.

The biggest thing you have to accept, and I don't hold out much hope, is that Hillary Clinton is an irreplaceable asset to Left in this country, and is one of the reasons there even is a Democratic Party after the Gingrich revolution of the 90s. She is a brilliant, involved, hard-working, compassionate, scary smart, well informed, responsible, reliable, tough as nails politician who has done and will continue to do great things for the citizens of this country. She has earned the trust and loyalty of her supporters through legislative deeds and class-act behavior. She is not racist nor has she stooped to such tactics. She is not Republican-lite, having battled the Right to a standstill time and time again. Simply put, she is nothing like the caricature you invented out of whole cloth and attack with increasing levels of hysteria. As long as you behave like a rabid dog when her name is mentioned, you will not bring us to your side. Calling Hillary vile names is second only to calling us vile names and, for a few of us, it is worse.

These two points of fact - that Clinton Democrats are reasonable people who hold views comparable to your own and that our preferred candidate is one incredibly awesome person - go to the heart of the next thing need to accept, namely that Hillary has more dedicated supporters within the party than any other Democratic public figure. More Democrats voted for Hillary than any other candidate. Exit polls and polls conducted by major polling firms show that Hillary's support among Democrats grew over time, that her supporters became more loyal to her the more she was attacked, and that her voters are the least likely to transfer their loyalty to another candidate. Why? Perhaps because we looked at her with open minds, saw the person, not the media caricature, and have become protective of this person who we respect so much and who is being attacked so unfairly. Our dedication to our candidate is powerful and there are an awful lot of us. You need to accept that our criteria for judging your candidate will include what kind of respect is offered to our own. You may not think that is fair, that we must only judge Obama by his positions, but that's not how politics works.

The other point you have to accept about the bittersweet voters is that while not all who voted for Hillary are true-blue Hillary die-hards, there are more people in the party willing to vote for her than for Obama, and that this trend became more pronounced as the campaign went on. Late deciders consistently went with Hillary. Satisfaction levels among voters favored Hillary. Larger percentages of Obama supporters were happy to support Hillary than Hillary supporters were willing to support Obama. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what was claimed would happen last summer and fall, when the pundits and Blogger Boyz informed us in Very Serious Tones that Hillary simply could not attract voters. You need to accept that Hillary is a popular vote getter, especally in big state primaries.

This leads me to your ultimate acceptance - that your perception of and attitude towards Hillary Clinton is irrational, bordering on psychopathic. As long as you cling to it as a tenet of your faith, you will drive away people who might otherwise support your candidate. As long as so many of us think that Samantha Powers' "gaffe" about Hillary being a monster reflects the actual attitude towards her in the Obama campaign, your candidate will lose votes. As long as people think Obama has lied about Hillary, has shown her disrespect, has deliberately piggybacked on the CDS spewed by the MSM, you will lose votes.

In short, as long as you will not accept that you cannot have the full support of the Democratic Party voters because you violently reject and defame one of the most loved Democrats of the last twenty years and treat her supporters as worthless, powerless pawns in your march to glory, then you are heading for defeat in November. I repeat what I said a few days ago: "The deep problem of Obama's campaign is that he and his supporters do not want to face the political reality of their own conflicting desires. They both want to sweep to victory in November and they want to purge the party of anything connected to the Clintons, which includes all of the voting contituencies represented by that amazing and talented duo. The failure of the Unity Pony stems directly from that fantasy of majority status without majority support and the political work and compromises that go with cultivating that support. " This is the warning in Hillary's speech this morning - to dismiss her, Bill, their long history of service to the party and the millions of people who chose her, not Obama, to be their president is also to dismiss the coalition that can win in November.

Hillary supporters have accepted that Obama currently claims to have more delegates, and we accept that our candidate has suspended her campaign. We're now waiting for our counterparts to accept that, as the putative victors, it is your obligation to address the problems identified above. The burden for uniting the party rests with you, not us, because you are the source of division.

Accept it.



Cathy said...

The following stood out to me on a sleepless night :>

1. The failure to recognize that voters go with emotion not logic. It's saved W's (and before him, Reagan's) hide more times than I care to remember. I hang my head in shame thinking back how I railed against people who couldn't see the logic of electing a "better" candidate despite that candidate's inability to inspire or reassure.

2. I don't like raising that example because it might in some way cheapen the Clintons. Yes, they appeal to emotion but never without intellect.

3. Don't hold your breath waiting for his supporters to take responsibility. No one has ever forced them in the past to take that step (either due to youth or privilege).

4. Living in the Bay Area (East Bay) it's hard not to get annoyed. This is heart of his more obnoxious supporters. But when I step back and remember how they (what used to be we) always lose, I feel at least vindicated (not necessarily better).

5. Hillary is right when she tells us the Presidency is so important to a Party. In today's world, the executive branch rules through the administrative agencies. If it were anyone besides Obama - or if the election had been handled fairly - I might be more amenable to her pleas. But I can't give him the car keys.

However, what does it say about the DNC that it doesn't recognize this critical fact? Instead it would rather lose the executive branch in order to have a fundraising foil.

femB4dem said...

I think there is pretty much no chance Obama will find a way to reach out and unify the party, he just doesn't have it in him. He's not a fighter, and I think he's just arrogant enough to think he can win without us. Truth be told, that warms my heart. If he were to manage party unity and win, that would be the end of women over forty as a serious voice in the democratic party. The "new coalition" will have proven that no matter how bitter the wounds, we will stand back, smile and say: "do you take sugar or cream with your cofee, sweetie?"

Reality check: if we truly mean what we say. If we intend to keep 2012 viable for Hillary and eventually to reclaim our democratic party, then we have to make the tough choice now to vote for McCain. Write-ins, staying home, won't do it in this otherwise dem year. We must defeat Obama, and to do so, we must hold our collective noses and vote for McCain. As I said in an earlier comment on Confluence:

"That’s where we are sisters, so you’d best come to terms with it. Try it on for size — it’s not so bad. Keep in mind, McCain has all but promised that he will be a one-termer. Think of him as a placeholder, a caretaker if you will, keeping the seat warm for Hillary. With a strong dem Congress, he won’t be able to do much harm, and frankly I don’t think he’ll want to. I’ve been reading his book since realizing I will have to hold my nose and vote for him. He’s all about family honor and legacy. He will be looking to put policies in place that history will praise — perhaps some kind of stripped down, but functional UHC authored by HRC? Who knows?

Split government has worked well in the past; it did for a certain William Jefferson Clinton. And some of the best Supreme Court justices have been appointed by moderate, even conservative, Republicans: (Warren, Brennan by Eisenhower; Stephens by Ford; O’Connor by Reagan; Souter by Bush I), One of the worst troglodytes ever on the court — Whizzer White. Anyone remember who appointed him? That would be JFK.

So, let’s cowgirl up and get real. We have to defeat Obama, pure and simple. With that in mind, can we vote for John McCain? Yes we can!"

gendergappers said...

Right on as usual, Anglachel. As I ventured in to msm land hoping for some modicum of praise for a great woman, I found the same 'ol same 'ol of snipes and snarks.

It was not enough that she made the speech and endorsed BO, they want the bended knee, the pull at the forelock and most of all the adoration for their precious.

But we have memories that will not fade because they are continually reinforced by a media that delights in having chosen the primary candidates.

We can expect much more of this shown on the video below.

Falstaff said...

Precisely. And "bittersweet" - nice. Makes you think somebody Up There is scripting this season.

Hillary has, once again, walked across the room and poured a cup of coffee for someone who wished her dead. She is tough, tough, tough. And the word "love" is not a whit too strong for how we feel.

Horselover Fat said...

There are a couple of lines in one of the Dixie Chicks songs that I find very apt:

"They say time heals everything -

but I'm still waiting."

Some of us can not "get over it" without an adequate apology. But - what would that entail? Sweet words, like really really sorry? Admission of error? Perhaps for some, but for me, not enough. I would need actual repentance, which is a logical contradiction, which can not and thus will not occur.

In order to really repent, their side would need to make amends. But, this won't happen, because the only way to really make amends for cheating is to give back what was wrongfully taken. But, they can not win by giving up their victory, so my vote is gone for good, and nothing Obama or his agents can do can get it back.

Anonymous said...

I don't believe Obama wants legitimacy; he wants power. Movement of his type get to power on the shoulders of a minority and stay in power by all means necessary. Saddam had his Sunnis, a minority, Assad had and has his Alowites, a small sect in Syria. The only difference I can see is the context. You cannot be an Assad in the US, therefore, Obama seeks to control the center of power he can get his hand on, the Democratic Party.

I don't believe that Hillary Democrats have much in common with the Creative Class (or the Whole Food nation). Obama supporters want to fully control the discourse, they want to guarantee their life style that is currently threatened by the decline of the US economy. The first thing to do is throw the blue collar workers overboard and enjoy extra resources. Reagan did the same more than 25 years ago.

Whether the Obama supporters will improve their relationship with Hillary and her supporters makes absolutely no difference. We know who the Obama people are and we don't want them. Furthermore, once in control they will resort to the old style in short oreder.

speck said...

I'm still trying to come to terms with my deep, deep resistance to voting for Obama in the fall. It's not just the offenses to my personal dignity committed by his campaign. It's that I perceive him as the candidate of the haters. That's the source of my creeping sense of evil.

I don't know if some of that perception is an exaggeration created by my addiction to blogs.

This seems to be the year when our political rhetoric is destined to turn on mass transit metaphors (we should get on the bus before it leaves the station, we got thrown under the bus, etc.) What I've been hearing from my neighbors makes me think that as the Obama bus goes off in one direction, there's a quiet but unstoppable flow of refugees in the other direction. I see us pushing handcarts and toting bundles on our backs. Most of us don't blog and don't spend much time thinking about politics. We squint at the candidates, decide whether we like what we see, and vote accordingly. We refer to Hillary as "our girl" and wonder who this Obama guy "really" is. What will we do in November?

While I was proofreading this (and answering the phone) all the preceding comments showed up. Cathy's point number one is huge for me. I have learned shame on this topic from reading what Anglachel writes. Our emotions can't be our only guides, but they shouldn't be ignored either. More importantly, when other people's emotions are strongly pushing them in some political direction, it's a good idea to find out why. We're examining the emotions pushing us and the Old Democrats here. What emotions are pushing the Obamaites? Some are obvious - justified pride in the nomination of a nonwhite person for one. Anglachel has written about the hatred in terms of the political honor killing of Hillary Clinton. Is there something else important I should be seeing?

Susan said...

I don't see the Obamabots trying to get my support. They won't let up on me at my page. Most comments I won't let through. Most mention the word vagina. I don't get that. One of the last ones say it will be all of MY fault when McCain wins and I will be responsible for all of the deaths in Iraq and from people without health care.

Unity? Never. It's all about attack, attack!

Anna Belle said...


Funny, I've been thinking a lot about that Dixie Chicks song too. I'm nowhere near ready to make nice, or to back down. I'm not sad or angry, I'm just convinced that the forces that have taken over this party in the last couple of years, culminating with a nominee whose experience and style looks more like Bush than the Republican candidate does, suggests that there is an authoritarian mindset on the left that is just as dangerous as it was on the right. We called them neocons on the right, mostly because they were former liberals who "became" conservative, and because their philosophy of governance did not match up at all with traditional conservative values.

The neoliberals are just the democratic mirror of this phenomenon. Who are the biggest voices for this mindset on the left outside the Party? Markos and Arianna, both former Republicans. And how do they and their minions accumulate power? Same way as the neocons--oscillating between pearl-clutching visions of doom and middle-schoolesque campaigns of verbal terror and defamation. In short, they lie and overreact.

I see it as part of my task to make sure these forces do not succeed and cement their power by capturing the presidency. There is nothing Hillary could say to change that. There is one thing she could do--if offered, of course--which is to accept the VP position. The only reason I would even entertain this notion is that we would at least have someone there to see and report, and to fight from the inside against this demonstrably undemocratic phenomenon. Even then I'm not convinced, but it is the only way Dems get my vote for any candidate at all this election season.

Another great post, as usual, anglachel. Thanks for all you do.

sjl said...

For me there is no threshhold an obama can reach to get my vote, the line was crossed long ago, when he directed his minions to behave the way they have.

When obama said "I could get her voters, but I doubt she could get mine" they were across the blogosphere chanting, "I will never vote for Hillary".

When obama's theme song in SC by JZ "I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain't one of them" his little minions were out in full force calling Hillary a bitch and every other word they could think of.

When obama was out last fall (after the PA debate and the media began their full frontal attack)calling her the most untrustworthy, will do and say anything, dishonest candidate; his minions were spewing the same rightwing garbage.

When the obama camp jumped on the RFK comment and claimed she was waiting for his assassination again there were the little evil minions suggesting she was calling for his assassination and demanding an apology.

I could go on, but never in my life have I seen this type of vile, divisive, and hateful behavior and I don't care what anyone said, NO ONE ever had to go through what Hillary had to fight against this primary, not even in those good ole brawls of the past.

No there is nothing obama can do or his snot nosed little punks to ever get me to support him.

But what I never thought is that I would no longer be part of a party I loved so much. The dem elites were just as culpable and what they did at the RBC drove the stake right through what they stood for and now I have to consider down ticket dems on whether or not I can vote for them, because voting for them is accepting the corruption they seem to believe is ok, in usurping the will of the voters for their own, this culture that began in 2000 and strengthened during the bush years (in his dictatorial aspirations)will bring down our country if it is allowed to continue.

To me my country comes first before any party. And people wonder why the Founding Fathers' didn't want Factions', they were wise and new history would repeat itself. We the People have to take our power back and set things right.

“No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her” -Susan B Anthony, 1872.

Horselover Fat said...

It is important that HRC not be blamed if (when) Obama loses. I am thinking that it is better HRC supporters not be blamed, either. Write-in votes for HRC or third party votes will look like HRC supporters being contumacious, I think it safer simply to vote McCain - who can object to a voter expressing a simple preference? Probably also not a good idea to get too carried away with this PUMA thingy.

Howard Dean talked about choosing a nominee early to allow time for unifying. Now George Will talks of "cooling off" time. I think the therapeutic value of time is being overrated, my view is that 2 months of not much happening between now and the convention will mostly provide time for attitudes to solidify and harden.

Katherine said...

Here is what, increasingly, is bothering me about a ride on the unity bus: the focus is still allowed to be on anti-Clinton psychopathy, albeit in a less direct way. Now, the dialogue ought to shift from the self-congratulatory campaign-about-the-campaign to the actual work ahead. But I don't see that in the cards at all.

I'm reading all sorts of childish admonishments, scolding Clinton supporters. This approach strikes me as more of the same. That Obama supporters are choosing to continue the mission of bludgeoning Clinton and her supporters -- bullying us into a religious conversion -- instead of pushing Mr. Obama to get to work on something other than his own campaigning ambitions, tells me that a great deal about how the Obama faction will do business.

I've come to wonder, will anyone ever hold Barack Obama accountable? Will anything make his followers hold his feet to the fire on universal health care, accountability for the Bush admin (if the Republicans are indeed evil then the drivers of the unity bus ought to be as concerned with justice for them as they are with bullying Hillary Clinton supporters), forward thinking energy policies, media ownership reform, etc?

I'm noticing the rhetoric deflate from messianism to the same old Lesser of Two Evils. They're even trotting out Roe v Wade more and more, which seems like clumsy satire at this point. Hm, yes, as if I believe that crowd cares deeply about women's rights. That Obama supporters can descend the magical staircase from "he's the second coming, the New Politics!!" to "well, it's better than John McCain, why do you hate a woman's right to choose?" so quickly and without question, tells me that expectations can go lower... and lower... and lower... without a peep from the base.

Yes, the burden of party unity rests with the Obama faction. Moreover, it's the burden of creating something more than (as gob said) the candidate of the hater. Obama supporters need to prove they can do more than get a free ride on Clinton hate. They wanted the party. Now, how about telling us what they plan to **do** with it? How are we supposed to get on the unity bus when we don't even know where it's headed?

Chinaberry Turtle said...

Here is what Obama would have to do to get my vote. He would have to review each of the following sexist comments he has made about Hillary:

1. likeable enough;
2. claws coming out;
3. tea parties;
4. periodically feeling down

and explain, in sincere terms, how these comments were sexist and relied on sexist stereotypes about women and how it was brutally unfair for him to make such comments.

Second, he will have to similary admit that his "sweetie" comment was revoltingly sexist and demeaned and belittled the female reporter to whom it was directed. His wimply little non-apology on this matter will not be acceptable.

Third, he must admit that his "bitter/clinging" comment was deeply disrespectful to working class people. He must make me believe that he actually understands that this was objectively wrong, not simply how he can see how others might "take it the wrong way."

Fourth, he must unequivocally declare that Hillary is not a racist, and that such accusations leveled against her during the campaign were unfair.

Fifth, and finally, he must acknowledge that Hillary has been the victim of a brutally sexist and misogynistic press corps and that his campaign, whether intended or not, benefited from this fact.

Here's my promise: if Obama does ALL of the five things above, fully and in good faith (i.e. no wimpy non-apology apologies), then I will vote for him in November.

Here's my counter-promise: if Obama fails to fully live up to each and every one of these five conditions, I will absolutely NOT vote for him in November.

The ball's in your court Obama. Come earn my vote.

Anonymous said...

Marianne Williamson said on Larry King she had no interest in shaming Hillary Clinton and tried to get the conversation to focus on her candidate, Senator Obama. That is when I realized this IS what it has been about. The public shaming of a woman. The public shaming of Hillary Clinton. Progressives who believe in fairness and equality are not the same as those who are only interested in changing the faces of those who subjugate and dominate others. Unfortunately that seems to be the anti-oppression arm of the party. So, as others have said, it seems the party is going to have to go through a cleansing process and decide where it stands and for what and for whom.

HenryFTP said...

I think Obama really means what he says about "unity" and getting beyond "partisan politics".

He's perfectly happy for Clinton supporters to come along, but he's really aiming at independents and "moderate Republicans", whoever and wherever they might be. And it's no accident that pitching his campaign in this way is very pleasing to the corporate media -- it's the K Street dream alternative now that the Cheney-DeLay crap game has been raided and they need to lie low for awhile.

The demonization and vilification of Hillary has the aim of severing her from her supporters as well as giving Obama credibility with the media, which has thirsted for revenge on the Clintons for ten years. It succeeded in severing African Americans from Hillary, and the Obama team reckons that enough of the rest of us will come around eventually.

Getting us on board will be someone else's task -- Obama will be far too busy trying to define McCain as out-of-touch and far right while he is transcending partisan politics.

I really don't see how this strategy will work in November, because it sure didn't work in any of the key electoral college states except, um, Illinois.

He's got a few weeks to try to understand why Clinton's candidacy remained so resilient in the face of Media and Party Establishment scorn and derision. But I see very little sign that he's learned much out on the campaign trail, unlike Hillary, who has just embodied grace under pressure.

Ann said...

Brilliant posts as usual, Anglachel.

Unfortunately, anyone who thinks that Barack Obama is capable of reaching out effectively to Hillary Clinton's supporters misses the most integral part of his pathology. This man is a narcissist. On the campaign trail, he repeatedly showed us his desire not only to beat Hillary, but to grind her nose in the dirt, disparaging her, misrepresenting her policies and denigrating her accomplishments, disparaging President Clinton, characterizing him as racist and minimizing the achievements of the Clinton Presidency.

Obama is quite intimidated by Hillary. Witness his behavior in West Virginis -- he will sink lots of dollars (at no personal or emotional cost to him) into advertising and campaign offices, but where he does not think he is adored, he will not reach out and put himself on the chopping block. His ego cannot handle the possibility of defeat, or anything less than full adulation.

After she shellacked him to the tune of 41 pts, he did even congratulate her, or acknowledge the voters of West Virginia, but instead allowed the cretinous Chris Matthews, among others, to call them illiterate and irrelevant.

In great contrast, Hillary daily walked into the lion's den to reach out to the voters, answered any and all questions, whether she expected a warm reception or not. She has shown class, intestinal fortitude and deep courage the likes of which I have rarely seen on the campaign trail.

How many politicians have you known who actually say "Hold me accountable".

He cannot reach out because he is, by the very nature of the arrogance that defines his personality, incapable of the humility required to acknowledge the 18 million voters who do not connect with him, but whose support he desperately needs.

Obama's disingenuous compliments to her and her husband in his acceptance speech brought tears of anger, not a smile, because I remember ever thing he did to show disrespect to her. Politics is one thing. Outright lying is another. His compliments are self serving and will not produce the desired result for him.

The mainstream media, the DNC and the cowardly Super Delegates who chose to force him upon us may ignore the reality of the situation, but voters will not. The bitter pills we ingested because of his divisive campaign tactics will remain.

I doubt he, nor many of his irrational supporters, possess the qualities required to do what is needed here.

Nina Miller said...

Anglachel, I agree with every word you wrote. I'm angry, and I'm going to stay angry until things change.

Chinaberry turtle, I think your list is awesome! That is a great place to start - specific and important. Sign me up!

Horselover, I think you bring up a really important point about HRC not being blamed for this. This is my opinion:

HRC will be blamed no matter what we do. When Obama loses a lot of people will be pointing fingers - campaign strategists, liberal bloggers, surrogates will all be looking for a scapegoat. Their careers will depend on proving that it wasn't *their* fault. So we might as well plan for the inevitable: what will we say when the time comes.

CognitiveDissonance said...

The hardest part of accepting this as a loss is an inability to believe that we really LOST - at least not in any objective, sane way a person would measure this contest. Yes, he certainly has more delegates than she has. But close examination of where those delegates came from and how they were obtained will certainly not satisfy Clinton supporters. There is nothing fair about someone winning on the basis of very undemocratic caucuses - particularly when there is so much documentation of the cheating and intimidation going on at the caucuses. Nor when you compare the caucus results with primaries run in the very same states.

Then there is the poaching of delegates going on even as we speak in state conventions. I'm already hearing more horror stories of the poaching going on in Texas. Obama may end up with a far larger number than Hillary, even though she won that state by 100,000 votes. And I won't even mention the fact that Hillary's base are the very ones most unlikely to be able to attend caucuses. Is there anyone who really believes this was a real win and not one based on numerous technicalities and irregularities and downright cheating?

Then there is the fact that the whole role of SD's, and why they were created in the first place, was to prevent the very scenario that has played out in this election - a weak nominee beating the one who has shown by every measure that she could win the general election. And I won't even bring up the fiasco with FL and MI. How by any measure can anyone believe that Obama won the nomination? He most assuredly did not. He was drug across the finish line beaten down and unnable to even compete at the end.

This is what is so hard about all this. Clinton didn't lose the nomination as much as it was taken from her by a much weaker competitor. How in anyone's world can this be considered a valid result?

selfhelpjunkie said...

Hillary's campaign was "I am OK, you're OK." and Obama's was "I am OK, you're not OK (unless you buy what I am selling)." I will never understand why his supporters buy into this and find it frightening that the party leadership did as well. I find it nearly impossible to fall in line.