Passionate supporters for a female President - What do you plan to do next?

Parent Cafe
61

<p>

This, it should be said, is what happened with many of those that were seriously leaning towards Obama when the parade of malcontents and rapscallions began to be perped and frog marched across the screen wearing Obama sandwich boards.</p>

<p>As many here have pointed out, this dealt a sever blow to his candidacy. </p>

<p>Contrary to what I often read here and elsewhere, many moderates were intrigued by and enthused with the Obama candidacy. Particularly white-moderate-males, guys like me. That he was a black candidate actually made us turn about and take a second look. A white male would likely been brushed off as the same ole, same ole. Kerry et al. </p>

<p>The post-racial symbolism and soaring rhetoric was the cheese. There was no handshake, but most were curious and even leaning his way waiting to see which way this fresh path leads.</p>

<p>Then came the rogue’s gallery of characters from Obama’s brief if illustrious public past. </p>

<p>Some were legitimate influences on his life, others tangential and only taken seriously because of the other angry malcontents that were so obviously part of his life and narrative. Let’s call them “The Audacity Crowd.” </p>

<p>Like others here have suggested, all the guys I knew that were talking Obama (few were women, including my wife and daughter) are now singing a different tune…with some regret.</p>

<p>McCain it seems is a safe bet. </p>

<p>He’s not thrilling, but for many the vig on Obama is now just too high. Moderate Americans like safe bets and sure things. Obama, for many, has become too big a risk. You gotta be all in with him. He’s still a great and inspiring candidate and person –an inspiration; but too big a risk for many. Still, it’s nice to see someone like Obama run for the highest office and then be taken so seriously…even by those that would normally smack themselves in the head before voting for such a liberal candidate. </p>

<p>In the end, the unknowns are too complicated …too high.</p>

<p>Could change.
Could get worse.
That’s how the bet shapes up.</p>

62

<p>New to this thread, but I have to chime in. I just do not understand any democrat that would vote for McCain. For me, (55) it is the directon that a (any) Democrat will lead the country in that counts. The environment, healthcare, education, the economy, and the people that will be brought in with a Dem administration is what counts. PLease consider that, it is not just the person in the white house. I am not trying to convert any hardcore repubs out there. I don’t think McCain is a bad guy. I respected him more back in 2000, but in recent years, he has just fallen in line with many more issues than he has been a “maverick” on. The people he will surround himself with will be republicans with republican’s ideas. Long after the pain of Hilary’s loss has subsided, you will be left with all of that.</p>

63

<p>Interesteddad–It is not judging or interpreting your posts, and some others here, to comprehend that you are talking about personality (as you have yourself explicitly said), rather than issues, since on issues Obama and Clinton are very close, and both diametrically opposed to McCain.</p>

<p>I guess I genuinely would be interested in knowing what your thinking is about that–what do you think would be the outcome of voting for someone whose issue positions are not at all like your candidate’s–do you worry about that, are there Clinton positions that you didn’t like anyway, etc. It perplexes me–and I don’t mean that in a judmental way, but really in a “don’t get it, can you explain more?” way.</p>

<p>As for me (a passionate supporter for the idea of a female president, but in this election an Obama supporter), even though I became disillusioned by Clinton for personality/campaign style reasons, if she’d gotten the nomination, I’d vote for her in a heartbeat–because on issues, I’m so much closer to her than to McCain.</p>

64

<br>

<br>

<p>Epiphany: Can you provide a link? </p>

<p>If that is true, it would be a new low- to try and make sure that another woman does not get to be Vice President.</p>

65

<p>"Epiphany: Can you provide a link? </p>

<p>If that is true, it would be a new low- to try and make sure that another woman does not get to be Vice President."</p>

<p>I don’t have a link for that, but it is what Howard Fineman reported on MSNBC last night. There is no evidence (that I’m aware of) that Senator Clinton has said that, and other reporters on MSNBC completely disagreed with Fineman, so who knows?</p>

66

<p>“The last time I looked, the popular votes for Obama and HRC are very close, she has her supporters, how does Obama reach out to that significant constituency ?”</p>

<p>munchkin, is that a yes or a no?</p>

<p>Yes or no, do you believe that Obama choosing a maverick Republican as VP (let’s say Chuck Hagel) would prove that he is a “divider”?</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>This is why I have changed from being a Democrat to Independent. Baseless character assassination by Obama followers, and also, painting everyone as racist if they don’t follow their leader.</p>

68

<p>Rupert Murdoch and news cronies are just rubbing their hands with glee.</p>

69

<p>I have the feeling that HRC’s candidacy has actually made it hard for another woman to be selected as Veep. She is clearly the most qualified, has the best name recognition and has proved to be a tireless campaigner. It would be hard for another woman to beat that combination. There are some terrific female governors, but they do not have national name recognition and they do not have a long record in office either.
I hope Hillary is offered a cabinet position and she takes it.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>Mr. Murdoch has been very generous in his praise of Senator Obama.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>I disagree with the first part of that. I don’t think Senator Clinton is the most qualified at this time. I think there are several women with better credentials. But none with better name recognition or determination.</p>

72

<p>[How</a> Hillary Clinton is Playing the Veep Game | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/139908]How”>How Hillary Clinton Is Playing the Veep Game)</p>

<p>(for those who asked)</p>

<p>Despite my dislike of her personally, I don’t base my votes on such things. I do not see her as presidential material (never have). I do see her as excellent cabinet material, & in that respect I agree with marite.</p>

73

<p>Hillary is fully qualified to be President.</p>

<p>Hillary is not qualified to be Obama’s Vice President, because the first requirement is for her to be willing to say: </p>

<p>Obama is more qualified than me to be President.</p>

74

<p>I wonder how many Obama supporters are posting on this thread ? Just curious.</p>

75

<p>Munchkin–I think those that are have clearly identified themselves.</p>

<p>And, like Hanna said, I believe the thread title included me.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>I think she is qualified to be president, just not necessarily the most qualified woman to have run.</p>

77

<p>I will lose a lot of respect for her if she accepts the VP or any cabinet position (assuming they will be offered). I will strongly advice her not to be part of any deal offered by the party. </p>

<p>She can serve her supporters better by being in the Senate.</p>

78

<p>

I don’t think her presence on the partner will be a boon for Senator Obama, either. It will not make him look strong and decisive since she was the first to raise the possibility.</p>

79

<p>“If he [McCain] appoints Justices like Roberts and Alito we will all be fine.”</p>

<p>What do you mean by “we?”</p>

80

<p>We refers to all Hillary Supporters who are worried about Roe v. Wade.</p>

<p>Roe v. Wade is not going to be touched by anyone because there is a wide support for it.</p>