Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to NewsvineEvidently, they're still not too pleased with Obama. Give them time, maybe they'll get over it.
According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain's camp is down from one month ago, but -- in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party -- the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.I'll trust the results of this poll more when it's taken again in October.
I think Clinton supporters should reconsider staying home. They should send a message to the party that they are unhappy by writing in Clinton's name. That will let the Democrats know that they can't take their support for granted and they will not just rubber stamp an inexperienced, flip-flopping politician just because he's a Democrat.
Subscribe
Comments
"And none of us are repenting of not supporting Huckabee, he was a horrible choice and I'm glad he went down in flames."
Amen to that, bro! As bad as McCain is, Huckabee would have been worse.
Posted by: Michele McGinty | July 6, 2008 11:47 PM
barack = inspirational, offering hope, taking the country in a better direction.
fred = zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. and how fast he gave up! obviously not leader material.
now all the fredheads are stuck being mcnuggets. that's some sort of improvement but not much better. i really feel for you, because your choices really sucked. as an independent, i'm always checking both fields just in case republicans can come up with someone that's not a total flake. as soon as mccain ran to the right to try on bush's size 7 i knew i was done with the republican party for a very long time to come.
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 7, 2008 1:38 AM
I won't stay home, but I will write in "Hillary Clinton" if I can't bring myself to vote for Obama or McCain. My excitement about this election was gone from very high to almost zero since Hillary got out of the race. I might vote for Obama, but I don't have to like voting for him.
Posted by: Alicia | July 7, 2008 11:20 AM
Writing in Hillary Clinton would send a message not to take feminists for granted? Who would this message be sent to? The people that voted for Obama? Because ... er ... that is how Obama became the nominee ... BY WINNING. Obama won more contests, more delegates, and more votes. And Hillary Clinton LOST by managing to spend a quarter of a billion dollars in campaign funds without organizing a single caucus state past Iowa and Nevada.
Hillary Clinton' supporters aren't being taken for granted. They just backed a candidate who didn't win. She had every chance to win mind you. Two weeks before Iowa, Clinton's lead in the polls was so big that she even led Obama 2 the 1 AMONG BLACK VOTERS. Even as late as Super Tuesday, she led Obama 50% to 33% in the polls. She had the support of the Democratic Party establishment (speaking of flip flops, it was her supporters at the DNC who unanimously voted to exclude Florida and Michigan, and her supporters made up 13 of the 30 votes, with the other 17 votes either split between everyone else or unaffiliated; even after the primaries Obama only had 8 confirmed supporters at the DNC), and oh yeah did I mention the $250 billion in campaign funds? (Let me tell you ... if Mike Huckabee had 1/5 of the money that Hillary Clinton mismanaged, let alone the huge name recognition and the backing of the party establishment, he's the GOP nominee right now.)
It happens in every single election, and why everyone insists on giving Hillary Clinton and her supporters better treatment than every other candidate else that has ever lost a primary is mystifying, especially since Hillary Clinton did not only fail, but she failed spectacularly.
This is not to say that Clinton supporters - or anyone else - cannot decide not to support Obama based on the issues, and there are PLENTY of issues for which to base that on. But no honest person can claim that Clinton and her supporters were taken for granted. Quite the contrary, as the Washington Post Eugene Robinson pointed out BACK IN MARCH, had it been anyone else but Clinton (and had her opponent been anyone else but Obama) she would have been out of sight and out of mind long before.
Posted by: Gerald Ball | July 8, 2008 11:35 AM
alicia - been there, done that.
but i guess the difference in this election is that i saw a lot of great qualities in each of the democratic candidates. all smart. all well versed. all about taking america off of bush's path of destruction. all talking about how they would fix some of our biggest problems that we're facing today. each had weak spots, but each had their strengths too.
even if i believed that obama was an unknown, i would still rather take that chance than go with what i know we would get with mccain. luckily, i don't think that of obama. i've followed his career for several years now and i mostly like what i see, especially with respect to his energy policy (i liked clinton's health care plan better, but obama's is the next best thing, and maybe he will reconsider it). the reason that i think the energy issue is critical is four-fold: 1) it affects the price of everything in this country, so getting out from under the thumb of opec is so important! 2) i trust the majority of scientists (those who aren't employed by exxon et al) when they say that oil is past peak production and that we need to work on alternate sources. 3) how obama is addressing the issue will create a lot of jobs that by their nature are domestic jobs. and 4) it's a matter of national security.
Posted by: anonymous reincarnate | July 8, 2008 3:53 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?