<p>I believe in Hillary Clinton. And I believe her when she says:
And that makes me believe that she has to be absolutely mortified by the attitude expressed by people who claim to be her supporters who post immature “If you don’t let me win I’m going to take my ball and go home” posts like I’ve seen in this thread.</p>
<p>Quitting and spitting at everyone when you come in second isn’t how you achieve goals like those Hillary has espoused. Nothing I’ve seen about Hillary makes me think she’s a quitter - so why are her supporters such whiners? I’d vote for whichever Democratic candidate won the nomination - looks like that’s Obama. If you want what Hillary says she wants, you’ll support the Democratic candidate in November. And I believe that Hillary does want that, and will work just as hard for it for the next five months as she has up until now. So unless you want to betray your candidate, suck it up, folks. It’s not about gender, age, or race - it’s about the future of America. We’ve been driven into a deep hole of debt, saddled with a pointless and expensive war, made no progress towards a rational approach to health care, and dug our greenhouse gas hole deeper each year - all as a result of policies championed by the Republican party. You want to continue that march into debt, fear, and environmental degradation? Do you want to spit on everything Hillary wants and stands for? </p>
<p>Fine. Take your ball and go home. Prove that it’s really all about ego, not about the future of our nation and our children. Because that’s what I’m reading here.</p>
<p>Garland : I read the key qualifier as Clinton supporters, what do you plan to do with your vote ? I guess I am more interested in that part as there are many other threads discussing the strengths and weakness (if any for Obama, lol) of H & O already. </p>
<p>Not saying that anyone shouldn’t /can’t post to this thread about whatever they wish to.</p>
<p>Hanna : sorry, I am not ignoring your question, I thought I answered it ,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really see things black/white, yes/no. Chuck Hagel did not have 18 million (??) democrats voting for him, Hillary did. Some people may not see it as a close race, but Obama would have wrapped this up long time ago if he can. In the last few races Hillary won, I wonder why even people voted for her, since clearly the nomination belongs to Obama. I read that many Obama supporters think (blogs) these people are stupid, racist or whatever in supporting Hillary BUT stupid, racist or whatever, these people have a vote too and the leader (Obama) has to reach out to them somehow. </p>
<p>Since Obama’s mandate and selling point is hope and change and his models himself after Kennedy (?? ) - Kennedy offered the VP to his rival Johnson - from all accounts that fight was as intense as this one, I see it as an indication if Obama’s actions following his message. He does not have too much of a record for me to judge him on whether rhetoric and action are one. </p>
<p>Sorry for being long winded, it is difficult for me to articulate complex issues and being concise and succinct is not my strong suit.</p>
<p>I fully agree with post # 81. Earlier in the primary cycle, I was disgusted by Obama supporters who indicated that they would vote for McCain if Obama didn’t get the nod. I was disgusted by Michelle Obama’s remarks in the same vein. (Don’t like her “tone”? Just wait til you’ve spent a few years in the crosshairs of the GOP slime machine, honey! Wait until YOU have been flayed for having a mind and a voice and using them both! Be glad that SOMEONE ELSE was the first First Lady to have a substantial career while her husband was running for office or in office.)</p>
<p>Anyway, to suggest that you will vote for McCain is simply to reduce the whole thing to a cult of personality, like so many of the Obamites appear to do. Hillary and Barack are very close on most issues–with the unfortunate exception of health care–and McCain is nowhere near.</p>
<p>I have faith that the vast majority of Clinton supporters will work and vote for Obama, because they KNOW what is really important.</p>
<p>Hanna, During their confirmation hearings, if I remember correctly, they said that Roe v. Wade is a done deal, and they don’t anticipate overturning it.</p>
<p>I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if they can make some rulings to decrease the power of Roe v Wade without necessarily overturning it. I highly doubt that they will do anything of that nature.</p>
<p>During their confirmation hearings they hemmed and hawed, as virtually all nominees do. They left themselves tons of room to overturn Roe. If they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe, then the administration made a gigantic mistake appointing them (not that it’s out of character for this administration to screw up, but there’s no question that they were trying very hard to select anti-Roe nominees…they said so).</p>
<p>“I don’t know if they can make some rulings to decrease the power of Roe v Wade without necessarily overturning it. I highly doubt that they will do anything of that nature.”</p>
<p>Yes, they can. They already have. What’s the basis for your doubt?</p>
<p>I have not heard any outrage from the women groups other than the partial birth abortion ruling a couple of months ago. I think if there have been systematic rulings to limit the power of Roe v Wade, we would have heard a lot of it from women groups.</p>
<p>The biggest anti-Roe rulings occurred in 1989 (Webster) and 1992 (Casey). This was very heavily covered in the news at the time. These rulings allowed some states (Mississippi, South Dakota) to regulate legal abortion virtually out of existence.</p>
<p>If you care about the right to choose, as you apparently do, it’s important to think about what you can do to preserve Roe against future threats, rather than waiting to be alerted to the problem by the screams of women’s groups reacting to its demise. By then, it will be too late.</p>
<p>“Not saying that anyone shouldn’t /can’t post to this thread about whatever they wish to.”</p>
<p>Good, because this is not your private forum, nor that of the OP. But more importantly, the OP posted a contradictory assumption: that a “passionate supporter for a female President” must be rigidly & self-destructively loyal to this particular female presidential candidate (HRC), and that such a passionate supporter for females in general dare not vote for Obama. Authoritarianism looks just as ugly on a “feminist” as on anybody else.</p>
<p>Kluge - I agree completely with you - as I seem to most of the time. I like Hillary - I like Obama - I am a Democrat for policy reasons - not gender or race reasons. I think, or I hope, that Hillary would want to just b- - ch slap women who claim to support her but would vote for McCain out of spite. If women do that in large numbers, then maybe we aren’t as ready for a woman president as I had hoped. Let’s just play right into the stereotypical emotional, irrational, controlling, my way or the highway attitude that many expect and are waiting to see. There is no reason that makes a whit of sense for someone to switch from a Hillary supporter to a McCain supporter. Those who think Roe v. Wade is safe are living in a fantasy land. Do you have any idea the harm that can be done by a Court that believes there is no right to privacy in the Constitution? This does not just impact abortion - it impacts all kinds of personal, intimate choices that people make. If the Supreme Court takes a completely hands off approach to the states in the privacy arena, there are some scary things - to me - that will follow. The only time we know the majority of this particular court will beat up on a state is when a Republican presidential candidate needs a hand.</p>
<p>What if someone views experience on national stage as a prerequisite for the Presidency that transcends campaign soundbyte positions?</p>
<p>What if some views crossing the commander-in-chief threshold as a prerequisite for the Presidency that transcends campaign soundbyte positions?</p>
<p>What if someone views a state legislative position as inadequate preparation the the White House?</p>
<p>What if someone refuses to vote for a candidate with serious ethics violations with a political fixer regarding the purchase of a house?</p>
<p>What if someone refuses to vote for candidate with a decades long association with a racist church who has accused anyone voting against him of being a racist?</p>
<p>What if someone made the determination years ago to register as an independent and reward whichever party comes the closest to nominating a centrist candidate?</p>
<p>What if some refuses to vote for a Party that disenfranchises two entire states in the nominating process?</p>
<p>These are all perfectly valid reasons for casting a vote.</p>
<p>Well, not really, since several of them are bogus, and others don’t reasonably lead to a preference for McCain. I will give you the one about preferring a centrist, though, although I don’t think Hillary ran as one. If you believe that she would have governed as one, and think that McCain will govern as one, maybe that makes sense.</p>
<p>I don’t have any personal stake in Roe v. Wade. If abortion laws are decided on a state-by-state basis again, I seriously doubt that my state will be one that restricts abortion. Such a change would primarily impact southern states and then primarily African American women who get abortions at three times the rate of other women. I am not in any of those categories. </p>
<p>African American voters in the south made death threats against people I admire such as John Lewis to force him into racial bloc voting. They can fight their own political battles. I’m going to exert my political leverage by punishing all elected officials in my state who went against the strong sentiments of Democratic voters here.</p>
<p>wow. all I have to say is that I’m interesteddad needs to be a lot less selective and biased in choosing his reasons for supporting candidates. what he seems to be doing is to like a candidate first before finding reasons to support him and not the other guy, instead of the other way round. The questions he has raised about Obama pale starkly in comparison with Hillary’s glittering track record of questionable ethics and integrity. If not for her baggage and hypocrisy, I would very well be a Hillary supporter. But she wouldn’t be Hillary anymore then would she? I think she’ll find her home in the Senate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither is being First Lady any sort of preparation at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A huge exaggeration, and a non-issue compared to Whitewater.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if I refuse to be drawn into the guilt-by-association game originally created by the Republicans?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but from all your posts, I can’t see you not voting for Hillary if she had won the nomination without Florida and Michigan’s votes.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with it. It’s a choice between John McCain and a candidate who has never even been to Europe and is a total national security neophyte.</p>
<p>intereddad we meet again. Obviously, as a man you have no stake in Roe v. Wade. That’s the advantage you have of being a man. I would suggest to you to women this is not a fringe issue. I think there is no way that a person can be a feminist (not simply female) and switch from HIllary to McCain. They are light years apart in ideology. In fact, there has been very little difference in HIllary’s and Obama’s platforms. So, the reality despite all of these so called outraged comments by people, it really boils down to race. As this woman on youtube was ranting after the DNC the other day about Obama being a “black man”, this is the real reason. McCain is anti-Roe, anit-gay, anti-Civil Rights (until he realized that he needs to clean up this mistake of not voting for the King Holiday and other in your face affronts to Blacks). IT’s all about RACE</p>
<p>Well, we were talking about people who would have voted for Hillary, but will now vote for McCain. If you’re one of those people, presumably those reasons you posted would also indicate what you think about her. Do you, in fact, think she’s a centrist.</p>
<p>I can understand why somebody might think McCain is more qualified to handle national security than Obama, based on his longer term in the Senate. Personally, I don’t think his recent choices have been very good, but you’re free to disagree. I guess he and Hillary were closer together on those.</p>
<p>And this:“What if someone refuses to vote for candidate with a decades long association with a racist church who has accused anyone voting against him of being a racist?”</p>
<p>I’m confused by this statement. Who does “who” refer to? If it refers to the church, it’s an overstatement, and if it’s Obama, it’s simply untrue.</p>
:O</p>