Not PUMA, but undecided

He is a pleasant man, who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President.
-Walter Lippmann

The speech that Hillary gave was, in a word, perfect.

However, the question becomes... She couldn't do anything more, but did it work? How effective was this speech in convincing her hesitant supporters to join Obama and the Democratic Party in November?

The battle for hearts and minds takes place in two parts: bringing people back from anti-Obama to neutral and then bringing them from neutral to voting for Obama. Hillary, for her part, ended the discussion on pro-McCain or anti-Obama support.

I haven't spent the past 35 years in the trenches, advocating for children, campaigning for universal health care, helping parents balance work and family, and fighting for women's rights here at home and around the world to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise of a country that really fulfills the hopes of our people. And you haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months or endured the last eight years to suffer through more failed leadership.

No way, no how, no McCain.

I want you -- I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him?

Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids?

Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage?

Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

On that path to freedom, Harriet Tubman had one piece of advice: "If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If there's shouting after you, keep going. Don't ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going."

And even in the darkest moments, that is what Americans have done. We have found the faith to keep going.

Nothing less than the fate of our nation and the future of our children hangs in the balance.

I could keep quoting, the speech had so many essential lines (I didn't even get to the Twin Cities!) As Olbermann put it, it was a speech that, if given to a football team as a locker room pep talk, would cause them to charge out to the field without checking whether the door is open first. It was inspiring, moving and motivational. It eviscerated McCain's chances with those who support Hillary's policy positions.

However, as I watched on CNN, I saw a moment that I found interesting. I have said before: Not all undecided Hillary voters and delegates are PUMAs. PUMAs are those who have projected the slights they have felt during this campaign and during their entire life onto the DNC and the Democratic Party, choosing to try and poison the well rather than work for the betterment of everyone. On the other hand, there are those who are genuinely conflicted, genuinely undecided. Those are the people, the 15% of her supporters in the latest poll, who need to be convinced over the next two days.

This is the end of an interview with one Hillary delegate who apparently falls into the latter category:

Maybe I'm a sucker for a show of emotion, but she sincerely seemed conflicted. Unlike some PUMAs who have been featured on MSNBC and other stations, she stayed away from ad hominem attacks, lies and smears. She simply could not get over the experience topic.

The "Obama is inexperienced" message has been pounded into the ground through the primary season and will be through the general election debates. However, there are three important ways that this must be addressed, for both the undecided voters and independent voters.

First, Biden and speakers tomorrow must pound home the message: John McCain's experience is being wrong. For all of his experience, McCain has made the wrong decision continually. Continually wrong on Iraq. Continually wrong on the economy. Continually wrong on all of the issues that Americans care about. On the flip side, Obama, especially on concern issues like the "war on terror" (with tomorrow being national security night), has been continually correct. He said Iraq was a mistake and would distract us. He was right. He said that we needed more troops in Afghanistan and, hey, what do you know, the Pentagon says more troops are needed (but unlikely since they're in Iraq). He said that we need timetables on when our combat troops step aside for the Iraqis. Now even the Bush administration has started talking about that. John McCain is currently to the right of the Bush Administration on this issue and that cannot go un-noted. All the experience in the world is not helping McCain with fundamental judgment.

Second, while the Republicans and the media will talk, at great length, about Obama's inexperience, he's made some very wise decisions. He chose a running mate who serves as a liaison to the establishment but, through some miracle, did not become part of it. He'll have Hillary in the Senate fighting and leading from there. With a newly crowned champion in the Senate and a bulldog in the White House, Obama can lead from a position of knowledge and strength. There will never, ever, be an issue on which he will make a decision uninformed.

Finally, for all the narratives and all the ads, experience is an asset but not an absolute requirement. I started this diary with an undated quote. The quote is actually fairly old and one of the nicer ones made by the influential journalist Walter Lippmann. He was speaking in 1932 about the man who would eventually become President: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

While I make no claims that Obama could be the next FDR, it is important to note that questioning your opponent's qualifications and experience is a common tactic on both sides of the aisle (Quayle, for instance, raised it about Clinton and everybody raised it about WBush and Reagan). Obama is not the first person to rise quickly through the national political scene. He has done so both on his ability to inspire and on his ability to show sound judgment.

Sound judgment for our future is what this election must be about.

Tags: DNC, Election 08, Hillary, PUMA (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

Man...

Watching this convention is killing my sleep cycle. I even got to see Hillary's speech a second time. Still just as good.

by TCQuad 2008-08-27 12:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Man...

Second time?
I just finished watching it for a third. lol

I have begun to memorize both it AND the commentary that followed it.

Perhpas I should go to bed.

;)

by Kysen 2008-08-27 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Hillary is excellent.

I hope this speech shows some of Obama's supporters who are going through their first cycle that Hillary would have given that speech no matter what.

The Clintons live and breath democratic party its in their blood.

Part of the hostility to Obama was his insistance to talk as though the democratic party and the GOP were both flawed in nearly equal measure.  Its a kind of Naderesque I alone can solve this because there is no difference between Clinton and Bush.

If Bill gives even half of the speech that Hillary did Obama will have to pump the heck out of the Clinton years to avoid looking like a petty SOB.

And looking like a petty SOB with a thin resume and a big mouth is not the way to get elected.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 12:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

"Its a kind of Naderesque I alone can solve this because there is no difference between Clinton and Bush."

I agree. Had Obama ever said or implied such a thing I would have found it offensive.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-27 12:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Are you by any chance overseas and unable to follow the primary?

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 12:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Are you by chance internet-illiterate and unable to link to a quote?

by username 2008-08-27 01:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

"But I am running for President because I believe that to actually make change happen - to make this time different than all the rest - we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to get things done. That's how we'll win this election, and that's how we'll change this country when I am President of the United States."
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/09/re marks_of_senator_barack_obam_47.php

"Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinio n/25kristol.html?partner=rssnyt&emc= rss

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." [...]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc hives/14263.html

"You see, they don't believe we can actually change politics and bring an end to decades of division and deadlock. They don't believe we can limit the power of lobbyists who block our progress, or that we can trust the American people with the truth."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/24/ch ange_you_can_believe_in.php

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Sorry, but epic fail. There's nothing offensive or incendiary about someone wanting to govern in a different way.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 02:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

when that different way is similar to REAGAN????

How old are you?

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 02:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

How dumb are you? Reagan was a VERY effective at governing and getting what he wanted done. I think both the intent and end results were disastrous, but him managing to pull that off is still impressive.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 02:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

This is one of the great fallacies of the primary that somehow Obama was saying that Reagan was a better president or had better policies. He was merely saying for right or wrong that Reagan was more transformative than Clinton and you would be hard pressed to argue the point. Please stop with this line of argument.

by wasder 2008-08-27 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

McCain takes video of your candidate on the stump and simply adds the words "I'm John McCain and I approved this message." on to the end and badabing!  He's got a commericial!  But it was Obama who was over the line?!  You're an idiot.

by lockewasright 2008-08-27 10:22AM | 0 recs
Excellent Diary

In the beginning I thought I was going to have to point out all the things you laid out in the second half.

I do not believe the woman in the video is really reluctant due to the experience issue. Those were tears of emotion from a long and impassioned campaign, one in which she was obviously heavily involved. Someone who is so emotionally distraught over Clinton's loss would have a tough time voting for the person who beat her. And people don't literally cry over Obama's "lack of experience."

Honestly, I believe the real reason she has a hard to voting for him is because he's not Clinton.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-27 12:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent Diary

You do realize its not that he isn't Clinton.

Its that he isn't competent to the same degree as Clinton.  

Thats something that Team Obama seems to miss.

Many of us believe that Hillary is MASSIVELY and I mean MASSIVELY better equipped to be president than Obama.

If you are getting mugged and pee wee herman comes to your defense its not the same as if Mike Tyson comes to your defense.

Hillary is a Mike Tyson of politics

Obama just isn't.  He isn't even the fighter JFK was and JFK had RFK who was an even tougher fighter in his pocket.

Its not just that we don't like him.  Its not that he isn't Clinton.

Its that he isn't Tyson.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 12:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent Diary

That SOUNDS good, but the proof is in the pudding. Hillary has coasted through two relatively easy elections to her current Senate position.

When she was given every conceivable advantage at the start of this primary season - 100+ Superdelegates, money, name recognition, party machine heads like Rendell in her corner - she made blunder after blunder, and consequently, NEVER lead in pledged delegates, the only metric that counted.

It's fine to SAY she is massively experienced and a fighter and so on and so on...but when it came time to prove it, she let a Chicago rookie who ran good-but-not-flawless campaign beat her from the opening seconds to the last shot of the game.

That's Tyson alright....the CURRENT DAY Tyson.

You say he isn't as "competent" as Clinton, but where competence really counted, it was she - not Obama - who came up far short.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 01:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent Diary

Um.... try your little troll antics on someone weaker minded than you. If you can find one.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-27 01:22AM | 0 recs
I understand. You think Hillary is more

experienced.  And she lost because for most people, that isn't what they wanted the most.

I've talked to you before, and know that you think the decision to go to war with Iraq was a correct one.  (Correct me if I paraphrased incorrectly).  Those of us Democrats, though, that think this war was an enormous and costly blunder, see it differently.  We saw the decision by some Democrats, including Hillary but not just her, to go to war as a disqualification for higher office.

Let me put it this way:  The smartest, most experienced general in the world will do you no good if he insists on fighting the wrong enemy.

by Dumbo 2008-08-27 01:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

Your inability to see the political realities of 2002 and the inequity in positions of Hillary and Obama in 2002 enforces my view that Obama and a large section of his followers are politically inept.

The war has not turned out well.

But the same war run by nearly the same people in 1996 turned out just peachy.

Most of the same people opposed it.  Had it turned out poorly they would have claimed superior judgement too.

Obama risked nothing with his base to oppose it because he had no standing.

Hillary had way more at stake and couldn't gamble her stature as  frontrunner what amounts to a 50/50 proposition.  The first gulf war fought by Bush Cheney and Powell was a success the second less than a success hence 50/50.  

Don't get me wrong Obama's move was his best move but it was not Hillary's best move.

You will see what I am talking about either after he loses or after he wins and cannot hide it anymore.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 02:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

"Hillary had way more at stake and couldn't gamble her stature as  frontrunner....."

There ya go. That sums up her flaws pretty concisely.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

Here we go again.  Friggin PUMA's can't get OVER IT

by lemon716 2008-08-27 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

Ease back.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-27 06:08AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

dtailor - I read your other diary so I will try to answer without polemics.

Experience is an important criterion, but not the only one and not always the most important one. I do research for a living and as I look around me there is a clear difference between "experienced" researchers work and that of "us" the young ones.  The experienced researchers do solid work, which gets published, etc... The young ones are less even, BUT they are the ones who come out with the revolutionary ideas which change the field. Not sure why this is the case - but it is...

So yes, a person with no experience is more of a "risk" as we are not as good at prediciting their behaviour based on the past, but they also tend to have more promise.

And getting back to the elections - the worst pssible thing is wrong experience. See McCain with  all his "military solves everything", "I know nothing about economy" and "lobyists are my good friends"

by lolo08 2008-08-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I understand. You think Hillary is more

Einstein believed that younger people where more likely to bring about breakthroughs in physics than were their more senior contemporaries because they didn't have as many paradigms and assumptions ingrained in their minds yet.

by lockewasright 2008-08-27 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent Diary

I do realize that some Clinton supporters have issues. But if I may summarize by exaggeration a core part of what was said last night.

The Democratic presidential candidate could be a sweet potato, but you need to support him because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. It's time to stop quibbling about the smaller things on which primary candidates differ.

That's the issue.

And it takes out all the relative stuff about how much experience is not enough or not the right kind or whether that's a camoflage meme for something else less acceptable. It's no longer the time for any of that. In this particular election year, even a sweet potato is better than mcCain because so much is at stake, as long as it's a Democratic sweet potato.

The sweet potato will not be alone and it will take every Democrat to start swabbing out the stinking barn mess the republicans are leaving behind. (No I am not calling Obama a sweet potato.)

by Christy1947 2008-08-27 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided
Many of us believe that Hillary is MASSIVELY and I mean MASSIVELY better equipped to be president than Obama.

Many people believe that the earth is 6,000 years old.  So what?  That doesn't make it either true or relevant.  The "experience topic" is a dumb talking point ginned up by HRC in the primary and resuscitated by John McCain in the general, and hopefully you will eventually understand that.
Hillary is a Mike Tyson of politics.

What, a loudmouth who fights on past the end of her talent, and resorts to dirty tricks when she can't win fairly?  You don't want to go there.
by username 2008-08-27 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

LOL! at your last sentence. That was classic, but don't let the little troll bait you.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-08-27 01:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Let me be clear as you are missing the point again.

It has little to do with experience.

Ted Kennedy has boat loads of experience and is also not in Hillary's league.

You don't have to agree with me but when I am making it painfully clear what my position is you should be able to grasp it on the first or second time.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

What "league" is this?

by Reeves 2008-08-27 02:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Ted Kennedy is like Bill Gates

The Clintons are like Warren Buffett and Allen Greenspan

There is a reason the financial press interrupts their program to tell you what Buffet or Greenspan are thinking but not Gates unless its a tech issue and even then he is not the man.

If you don't see that reason when you see them talk I can't prove it to you.

Somethings in life are complicated and obvious.  Warren Buffet vs Bill Gates is either obvious or too complicated to explain.

Likewise Clintons vs Ted Kennedy.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 02:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

"The Clintons" is yet another big reason why this was an epic fail. Hillary was running FOR President and AWAY from the shadow of Bill, and she didn't achieve either goal.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

I think you may be overestimating Hillary Clinton's political strength here. If it isn't about experience, per se, then it should be about effectiveness, leadership, competence, commitment, etc. Undoubtedly she has shown commitment to her causes. But has she been effective? What did we learn about her leadership capabilities during this campaign? What does it say about her that she hired Mark Penn and kept him aboard for so long?

I think Hillary Clinton is a great Democrat and a great politician. But she isn't leagues above everyone else like you say she is.

by elrod 2008-08-27 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

What, the Allen Greenspan who drove our economy into the ditch while Gates was supporting a charitable foundation working to cure third-world diseases?  Is it that the Clintons are television celebrities?

Seriously, you'll have to do better than condescension, flat-out assertions, and weird analogies to explain how HRC is in some superior "league."

by username 2008-08-27 07:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Greenspan played a huge role in allowing the mortgage crisis to occur, so let's not pretend that he's some kind of financial svengali.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-27 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Oh, no, you didn't.

by Dreorg 2008-08-27 03:38AM | 0 recs
let us be fair


HRC is no Mike Tyson

Hillary Clinton never even contemplated biting Barack's ear off.

This whole discussion brings to mind the subjectivity of our political impressions.

When I see Obama, I see a brillant politician. A possibly transformative figure. I do not see incompetence

When I see HRC, I see a DLC centrist, a party insider, an overly cautious cant-wait-to-triangulate character.

Now my view of HRC is caricature. It's easy to see this in victory, but I hope I would have seen it even in defeat. I have always known I would vote and work for the Democratic candidate no matter what (unless it happens to be Lyndon LaRouche).

In the cool, calm, hours to come, I think even the stubbornest hillary supporters will come home.

by max stirner 2008-08-27 05:52AM | 0 recs
Experience is just an excuse.

Try to follow me on this.  

Sometimes people need an excuse to explain why they support or oppose something.  Why?  Because they can't or won't voice their real reasons, which may be too many or too diffuse for them to express or explain.

I saw the interview on CNN that you linked to, above, and I thought at the time that that is what is happening here.

What is her real beef with Obama?  I don't know.  Maybe she just doesn't like that her candidate lost.  Maybe she feels hurt about the campaign.  Whatever.  It makes no sense, though, that somebody as politically active and motivated as a convention delegate would not vote Democratic (essentially giving a half-vote to McCain, by default) just because of Obama's experience level.  In some way, she is offended by Obama.  Experience is just the excuse.

A lot of these one or two-word memes (like "flip-flopper" or "Hollywood values") work that way, as well, by giving some simple but irrelevant reason for people to not-vote for someone they already don't want to like for undefined reasons.  

by Dumbo 2008-08-27 01:26AM | 0 recs
The least experienced president was

Abraham Lincoln.

by chrisblask 2008-08-27 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Experience is just an excuse.

Maybe the explanation is entirely different. Black women have long had an ambivalent relationship to feminism for mmmmmfffffllll reasons.

Personally, I don't care whether she got the belief that she herself could aspire and hope legitimately from, MLK or HRC or M. Mouse, but it is clear that she got it in this campaign cycle and didn't have it before, and that's what counts for me, as a big plus, and what I take from the interview. As to her candidate reasoning, mmmmfffflll.

by Christy1947 2008-08-27 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

I appreciate the genuine emotion of Hillary's supporters.

However, the 'she is so much better qualified' etc argument begs the question of why she did not defeat Obama in the primaries, which was by far the greatest leadership test either has faced.  

by Kensingtonbill 2008-08-27 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Elections are a valid way to elect leaders.

Bush defeated Gore in an election.

Surely you do not believe Bush is a better leader, or better president than Gore.

Obama is a pretty man.  That helps him get votes.  It will not help him decide on what belongs in a budget.

Hillary was never the same level of pretty as Obama or Michelle.  But Hillary knows what belongs in a budget.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Yeah...on the subject of finances....

Not really a string point for her, y'know? Just sayin'...

by Reeves 2008-08-27 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Okay, I understand you think she's better qualified.  But isn't that an irrelevant point at this time?  I supported Gary Hart at one point, but he dropped out so I had to support someone else.  I supported Jerry Brown another time, but he dropped out so I had to support someone else.  I supported John Edwards this time around, so when he dropped out I had to support someone else.

I didn't continue to make the case that they should be president after the parties had chosen their candidates.  I picked the next best person I could find.  If you think it's the lesser of two evils, so be it.

The thing I wonder is what if Obama and Clinton actually had serious policy differences?  Would those be the things the Clinton loyalists would be talking about?  You do realize that their views are only minutely different and that President Clinton had no foreign policy experience before becoming president, right?  Don't you?  Please say yes.

by Bob Fenster 2008-08-27 04:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

I believe Kos and the movement behind Obama will consistently support less qualified but liberal candidates over more qualified moderate candidates.  Since they have access to media who will do propaganda for them its a real threat.

They beat the Clinton team for pete's sake.

This is a civil war.  
I will vote for Obama but the war isn't over.

And I don't hate the other side any less.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

She couldnt even handle her own campaign budget despite the fact she had every advantage early in the campaign.

by Pravin 2008-08-27 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

You must be living far in the future if you think most white people in this country are ready to embrace African Americans as prettier than (or even as pretty as) whites.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-27 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

If I recall correctly, Hillary officially won more votes and would have won more delegates had a few rules-mongers not axed two of her largest states.  

Her speech was great and part of me wanted to listen to her direction and join Obama, but ultimately, it just showed how much class, compassion, and sense of priority she has (policies for Americans, regardless of the person who implements them).  She really cares about what she's been fighting for.  So it made me sad that she isn't the nominee and reminded me what a farce the whole primary was.  Only 30 or so votes counted and they were all cast on May 31st.  

So it's a tough call.  One one hand, we have the grandfatherly guy who seems pretty sincere and straightforward to me, even though I disagree with his policies.  On the other hand, there's the guy who has policies I prefer but has less executive experience than George Bush and was responsible for undermining my political hero, Hillary Clinton.  

I've been a lifelong Democrat but in 100% truth, I find that my spirits light up every time I see McCain gaining in the polls.  I know I'm a lot more open to considering Obama than many Hillary Democrats so if I can't be persuaded, I don't see how they can either.  

by BPK80 2008-08-27 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

You recall incorrectly. While there are several scenarios for the "popular vote" that give either Obama or Hillary more votes in the end, the metric is meaningless. Since the states held unequal contests (e.g. some primaries were closed, some primaries were open, some had primaries AND caucuses, etc.), the votes have unequal weight and cannot be tallied in a whole sum.

And she would not have won more delegates under any scenario. She NEVER LEAD in delegates. Ever.

The only person responsible for undermining "your political hero" was....your political hero. She began with every advantage possible, and she lost the entire way.

You're NO Democrat, lifelong or otherwise, if you're heartened every time their retaking of the White House is threatened. Your invocation of "Hillary Democrat" just proves it.

by Reeves 2008-08-27 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

If you can't handle a Democrat sharing their honest feelings about this election without resorting to petty insults, I don't know what to tell you.  There was a 30-person caucus on May 31st that decided the election in favor of Barack Obama.  Hillary won more primaries and won more votes, officially.  

I'd have no problem voting for Obama if he had won legitimately.  If he even seemed somewhat sincere in an attempt to make me feel that I mattered, it might help too.  That isn't happening though.  I dislike the Democratic Party Leadership just as much as I disliked George Bush from day one.  

by BPK80 2008-08-30 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Lifelong democrat, eh? You are entitled to think Hillary is the best. I dont. But the fact that you are willing to let McCain and his disastrous expensive foreign policy (expensive in lives and money with no payoff) shows that you do not give a shit about the country. McCain doesnt have the courage to go against the right wingers. He lost his balls sometime in 2001. And his own personal neocon ideology(he was backed by the idiotic Bill Kristol in 2000) smacks of total senility.

by Pravin 2008-08-27 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

"One one hand, we have the grandfatherly guy who seems pretty sincere and straightforward to me, even though I disagree with his policies.  On the other hand, there's the guy who has policies I prefer but has less executive experience than George Bush and was responsible for undermining my political hero, Hillary Clinton."

I think that sums it up pretty well.  But think to yourself, would you rather have someone try for policies you want, and potentially fail, or someone try for policies you don't want, and potentially succeed?  

I, for one, think a failed Obama presidency is FAR preferable to a successful McCain one.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-08-27 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Would you rather have someone try for policies you want, and potentially fail, or someone try for policies you don't want, and potentially succeed?

Perfect framing of this election.

by TCQuad 2008-08-27 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

This is the only effective and worthwhile response I've received.  Thank you.

by BPK80 2008-08-30 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

What was sad about this woman was at the end, as she broke down, all she could do was repeat the anti-Obama talking point, muttering "thin resume" or something to that effect.

She was ill-served by the negative propaganda foisted on her by those both within and mostly outside the Hillary camp.

After the appeals to identity and emotion, and the attacks made for months on Obama's qualifications, she finds herself in a difficult place: between being told by the candidate she admires to do the right thing while still under the influence of the anti-Obama memes she was told to believe.

On a certain level, I can't blame her. This was a psychologically and emotionally brutal primary which, on some levels, treated supporters irresponsibly.

by BobzCat 2008-08-27 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Sorry, but the woman in the clip is a dumbass as I noted in my recent diary.

I am still looking for the document I signed where I thought we were supposed to commit to the democratic candidate in the general election. It is possible I may not have read the rules clearly and there is possibly no obligation.

Still, the way she kept saying Obama had no experience reinforcing right wing talking points pissed me off. Besides, her CEO analogy was stupid. I would hire a bright guy with good judgement as CEO over a dumbass old guy any day of the year. Theo Epstein is 100 times the GM for the Red Sox that David Littlefied is for the Pirates. Yet David had a good resume when he was hired by the Pirates and he ended up being the worst GM in their history.

by Pravin 2008-08-27 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

Must have made you mad at all the Obama supporters using right wing talking points against Hillary and Bill Clinton that started this mess.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

You had me at Theo.

Red Sox 7, Yankees 3. I was so glad that game ended before Hillary's speech so I got to watch it live.

I'd be interested to know if the delegate pledge does include a "vote for the candidate" clause in it.

by TCQuad 2008-08-27 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

I don't understand why people think that Hilary has so much more experience than Obama.  It's an annoyingly persistent and factually inaccurate meme.  Say it with me folks: "She was not the v.p. while Bill was president.  Al Gore was."  Meanwhile Barack was working as an elected official on a state level.  He got the position after building a resume based on experience as a community organizer.  (He used skills that he learned as a city organizer to out organize the rest of the candidates in the primaries as a matter of fact, that should count for something).

I am not trying to say that Hilary's experience doesn't count, but why do so many "democrats" who supported Hilary want to pretend that Barack's experience at several levels of government doesn't count?  It's silly and it's not accurate.

by lockewasright 2008-08-27 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

I agree you don't understand.

Hillary is head and shoulders better at politics than Obama.

Her 30 years in active politics 16 of it as top of the GOP most hated list is not experience?

You think the GOP just randomly picks people to be afraid of?

Again.

I agree you don't understand.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Not PUMA, but undecided

That's how come you and those other 59 puma schmucks have such a majority.  Cuz you see it so clearly and it's the rest of us who are bat shit crazy.

Clearly she's head and shoulders above him.  That's how come it was over before february was.  Sore loser.  Get over yourself and vote for the platform that your brilliant candidate has endorsed for her entire 30 years in office (sort of).

get help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophren ia

by lockewasright 2008-08-27 11:01AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads