Of course everyone knows that the Clinton supporters will come to their senses and vote for Obama, right? McCain is pro-life and should be anathema to pro-choice voters. When they finally “get over it,” they’ll realize that Obama is closer to their views than McCain. But shouldn’t the Obama supporters be a little less combative? Is this the way to foster party unity? Shouldn’t they realize that the Clinton supporters need “catharsis” and give them a hug instead (or would a hug be considered sexist and condescending?). How can you expect unity when they are still ticked by the “sweetie” reference?
And should Pelosi be suggesting that they shouldn’t engage in “victim politics?” How dare she deny them their rights as Democrats? Victim politics is just about all that the left has in their arsenal. BTW, it’s a good thing I wasn’t drinking my morning tea when I read that headline on Drudge or I would have ruined my monitor.
Pelosi cautioned against victimizing Clinton, who fought a tough battle, indicating that the message women can glean from Clinton’s loss is the importance of moving forward, and refusing to wallow in defeat.
“I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim. This is about you go out there and you fight,” she said. “I think that what Hillary Clinton did was tremendous for the country. She has kicked open many doors, which now we have to bring many more women through, millions more women through. My being speaker of the House was breaking the marble ceiling in Congress, which is hard. Sen. Clinton [had] a bigger challenge to run for president of the United States. What we have to do now is say, we have to translate that not just for individuals, but for all women.”
Oh if only Pelosi would take her own advice, we wouldn’t have half the legislation that we have.
I may be having fun with this but I actually do feel bad for Clinton supporters. I know how vicious the left can be if you don’t spout the party line, so I have a great amount of empathy for them. They are in for some pretty rough verbal abuse. As some supporters have already found out.
posted August 26, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Oh, Michelle, if there’s anything you would know, it’s vicious.
posted August 26, 2008 at 1:24 pm
‘The left is abusive to those who don’t spout the party line. ‘
And after all the trouble the right has gone through setting a good example.
posted August 26, 2008 at 1:49 pm
aw, aren’t you sweet?
well democrats don’t need your sympathy. the right needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror and have eight years of introspection. if you’re looking for the party of rough verbal abuse, look to mccain who calls his wife a c___; to the republican vp dick cheney who says “f___ you” to senators on the senate floor; to those who accuse us who disagree with the president as being unpatriotic; to mccain who gets irate with the press who ask him hard questions; to bush who trashed mccain’s character in the primaries; the party that kicks out its senatorial members for supporting obama; to the party that trashes a respectable man because his name sounds odd; oreilly, limbaugh, coulter: say no more… don’t think that any on the left believe that while you mock them you all of a sudden feel empathy toward them. you have no idea how democrats think or feel, as you’ve shown time and time again. in fact, you can’t even admit that it’s liberal policies that have given women the right to vote, that have fought for fair wages for women and minorities, and for equal rights for women and people of color. it’s no coincidence that most minorities and women vote for democrats. it’s no coincidence that the first woman and the first black man to come this far toward becoming president are democrats.
and if you want victim politics, again you need look no further than mr. mccain. being a known quantity and having run in past presidential primaries, he still thinks that he is somehow the underdog, running against a woman or an african-american. uh-huh. every question put to him is answered with, “well, i was a p.o.w. for 5 years.” seriously! he used that as an answer last night when leno gave him another chance to tell us how many houses he has! cry me a river, pal, you weren’t the only p.o.w. and you were lucky enough to get out with your life.
you had to really scrounge around, and even rehash your own spin for a few examples to make it seem like this is a problem. when i was there, i saw about 15 people protesting, holding their hillary signs. one certainly can’t tell by looking, but who’s to say that they weren’t conservatives trying to add vinegar to the milk. republicans have done worse things to tip the scales to their favor. either way, be they republicans or legitimate hillary supporters, we respect their opinion, which they are free to put on a ballot. but at this point, the process is churning. it was an awesome primary with two excellent candidates. with that said, it’s very likely that obama will be the nominee based on the numbers.
i see that you’ve taken a new tact – one of hit and run. post your bile and run on to the next one. god forbid you should actually stand and make your case. and democrats are supposed to believe what you say? in fact you showed your cards, admitting that you don’t care about victims, that we shouldn’t have legislation that protects victims. pelosi’s words are encouraging to women, not the insult that you think it is. considering your gender, it’s sad that you don’t agree with pelosi and can’t see the strides that clinton made, nearly winning the democratic ticket against the odds (mcclatchydc.com/100/story/50619.html).
“But shouldn’t the Obama supporters be a little less combative?”
no. both groups are combative and there’s nothing wrong with that. it has been a hard-fought campaign by two formidable candidates and some people feel strongly about their woman/man. this is just like the religious conservative voters who refused to vote for mccain. brave democrats are taking on touchy issues of race and gender and doing the right thing. years of racism and sexism have put many on the defensive, and republicans are trying their best to exploit that, just as they did in the 60s.
there was a great interview on npr this morning. two clinton delegates were interviewed – one man, one woman. when asked if they would be casting their delegate votes for obama, they said “no” and that they were representing their constituents by voting for clinton.
good for them!
the interviewer then asked if that meant they would be voting for mccain. she could barely finish her sentence before both answered with a resounding “NO WAY.”
leave no doubt, sweetie. hillary democrats aren’t in your court over this.
posted August 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm
you see a few republicans, democrats, and independents that are vocally supporting mccain and you use that as your case that there’s not party unity?
i guess i can’t blame you, you’re not here to see otherwise. ignorance is bliss!
if anyone knows victim politics, it’s mccain, who answers every question with “well, i was a p.o.w. for 5 years.” wah. what does that have to do with the economy? what does that have to do with how he will handle iraq?
posted August 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm
anonymous incarnate, I enjoy your comments, but I have to disagree.
There is no better training for leadership than being put in a prison cell. That’s why I believe Charles Manson would be the perfect running mate for John McCain this fall. Also, since Manson is even older than McCain, he would help McCain look younger.
posted August 27, 2008 at 2:22 am