The nomination

[ericcoleman]

The pundits are out in full force this weekend, all with theories as to why Obama slid past Clinton.

There was a time where I could have seen supporting either. But it boils down to 5 words for me that show how Clinton ran her campaign.

"as far as we know"

That's Faux Noise level there, and where she lost me. If she had won the nomination, yeah I would have voted for her, for the same reason I voted for Kerry ... there was no other choice.

Obama was my last choice at the Iowa Caucus. He has shown that he has what it takes. So, my lovely little bribe economic stimulus check ... it's going to a good cause. I can't think of a better use for it. Here ya go Senator!

Comments

[freeimprov.livejournal.com]

On Super Tuesday, I would gladly have supported her if she'd won. And this time a year ago, I thought it was "cute" that Obama was running, and hoped he'd learn something useful for his 2016 bid.

By the PA primary, I was at the point where I'd have to physically hold my nose in the voting booth, and wouldn't give her a dime or an hour if she was the nominee. The scorched-earth thing really turned me off, and the hypocrisy and lying and belittling the votes and efforts of anyone who didn't work in Hillary's favor.

As for why Obama won and she lost, though... my own take is two key things. First, her vote for the Iraq war back in 2002 and her persistently hawkish stance since then. A majority of grassroots Democrats have been Right All Along, and were justly tired of excuses from her and other elected Democrats who not only allowed the war, but supported it. If she'd vocally opposed the war from the start, she'd have won the nomination this time around.

The other key is Obama's brilliant use of the 50 state strategy. Building up huge margins in "irrelevant" states like Idaho (and Minnesota!) gave him both a working delegate lead and a strong argument that he was leading in other metrics too, and offset her power in the big states she focused on. Simply by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama shifted her campaign from offensive to defensive ground, and she never recovered.

[jeffinputnam1.livejournal.com]

"... there was no other choice."

There were plenty of other choices, choices that came closer to my point of view. In my case I voted for the Green candidate hoping against hope that John "I'm not Bush Lite" Kerry would have uttered even one progressive thought. The same held true in 2000 with Al Gore. Had he mentioned a single progressive issue he would have received my vote, but he did not. It's not going to be any different this time around for Senator Obama...

J

[ericcoleman]

In my case I voted for the Green candidate

No, you voted for Bush ... thanks ...

[jeffinputnam1.livejournal.com]

"No, you voted for Bush ... thanks ..."

No, I voted for David Cobb in 2004 and for Ralph Nader in 2000, both candidates who more closely supported my views thus were candidates I would support and vote for.

To be fair, I did give the Democrats an opportunity to address my positions but they opted instead to ignore progressive issues and thus progressive voters voted for others, as we will again this year.

The DLC believes that Americans are not interested in such things as health care and ending the war (yesterday) and issues like that and so I won't be voting for them. However, I will work for candidates who do care about those things. I would expect no less from anyone else.

[ericcoleman]

You can justify it however you want, it does not change the fact.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. The fact is that he voted for David Cobb. Voting is a conscious act - you do not vote by default. It is not the case that all people who fail to vote for one party's candidate therefore voted for the other main candidate.

He did what people are ideally supposed to do in voting - support someone whose ideals they agree with (or agree most with.) Now, pragmatically, what he essentially did was abstain from the race. (Note: his vote is an *abstention*. He did not vote for the opposition. He just didn't vote for who you wanted him to.) Third party candidates rarely get anywhere, it's true. And there are pragmatic reasons for supporting candidates you don't really like, I will grant you.

However, I believe that people should vote as their conscience dictates. If they cannot in good conscience support either major candidate, I do not believe that people have any place telling them that have to. Because, you know, I think I respect someone who is willing to stick by his own ideals more than someone who tries to bludgeon people into supporting their candidate through emotional blackmail.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I agree with this comment.

While it may be true (and in 2000 is certainly true) that the Green Party candidate drew votes away from the Democrat to the extent that they were "responsible" for the loss of the election, that isn't an indictment on their supporters, who voted for the candidate they most believed in. In 2004, I fully admit that I was a person who supported Kerry not because I liked him but because I thought it was too important NOT to give Bush a second term to vote for anyone else, but again, that was my considered opinion. Others felt differently, and that's their right in a democracy.

(I'm reminded, bemusedly, of how gung-ho we were about democratic elections in Palestine....right up until they elected Hamas, and suddenly we didn't feel so good about democracy there.)

[fredhuggins.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the progressive voters just shit gold and vomit emerald-covered diamonds, don't they? And if a progressive voter smacks you on the forehead, you'll gain the knowledge of a million universes and also the power to fly.

Vote for whomever you want. Write in Spider-Man on a bill with Snoopy if you want to. Throw your vote away in the name of arrogance. "Daddy, I want a progressive president!" "We'll get you one, Veruca..."

[r-and-s-jeff.livejournal.com]

Excellent.

[showmewrtr.livejournal.com]

That's totally cool. :)