You are voting for Obama AND his party so, what is it about the Democratic party that you find so appealing? Do you believe in shared responsibility and shared risk? How about social justice? Are you a backer of keeping social security out of private hands? (If you want to see my definition, see my Credo in the tabs above.)
Just tell us what makes you a Democrat and what kind of Democrat Obama is. Parameters:
- You may not accuse the other candidate of NOT being a Democrat.
- You may not reference the other candidate’s positions.
- Rude or obnoxious comments will be deleted.
This is for Obama people only. Conflucians sit on your hands. There are always a few of you who start stonin’ before I give the whistle. Well, I’m not blowing any whistle. Just read and pay attention and don’t jump in. Go to the open thread.
Filed under: General |
The Confluence 
I guess Obama supporters don’t believe in VOTING!
I got very steamed at Bill Richardson last night on Larry King…but, the reality, is this guy has tried to disenfranchise voters before…He pulled a neat trick here in NM last year…
Let Me Tell You About Bill Richardson and “RICHARDSON’S RULES”…
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/
Haha. No Obamabot has responded. I guess this is an open thread?
NO!! It is not an open thread. Go to the thread below this one.
Hello I’m an Obama supporter who has enjoyed some of your analysis, but I want to say that entrenched Democrats should be going out of their way to support Obama not Clinton precisely because it’s in the party’s best interest to grow their roots. Obama had the potential (maybe still has but Clintons scorched earth campaign has hurt some but a generational battle with McCain could reenergize that problem) to create a significant number of Democrats from the current 18 to 35 yr old demographic. Instead at least on the message boards over at democrats.org and several pro-Hillary blogs I feel as though the message to Obama supporters is that you should wait your turn which I think is insane, that’s Republican policy not Democratic, we need the populist appeal of Obama or even Edwards as opposed to Hillary.
On the other hand it could work out that Hillary has used up all the significant attacks on Obama and anything the Republicans would use against him will be seen as rehash and be less effective. I understand Hillary’s appeal particularly to woman whom have been crying out for a strong female voice in politics for what seems like forever, but still Obama is the parties best choice to expand and grow. A Hillary win will depress young energetic voters who will feel as though the system is rigged against them and their voice. I know the argument is that if their willing to not support the candidate then they are not really Democrats and there is some validity to it, but they could become exactly the sort of foot solders the Democratic party needs to push the Neo-Con agenda aside and begin addressing the social and economic needs of the American people themselves.
But Hell that just my opinion and I could be wrong,
Great blog
Chris Johnson
http://www.chrisjohn06.wordpress.com
Chris: I fail to understand how it is that if Obama were not in this race, Clinton wouldn’t have been able to snag the 18-35 group all by herself. It’s the same argument that says that if Obama were not in the race, the African-American population wouldn’t vote for her. Do you see what I’m getting at?
David Axelrod is an ad man. He has created a myth that Obama supporters are all young and beautiful while Clinton supporters are old, uneducated, meopausal women. Who *wouldn’t* want to be associated with Obama? I took some Obama supporters by surprise when I was canvassing when I told them I was a scientist. I certainly don’t *look* old. You could have knocked them over with a feather. I just don’t fit their preconceptions.
What I’m trying to say is what Obama does best is project an image of what we all want to be: youthful, well-educated, sophisticated and diverse. But in his absence, Hillary would be just as likely to pick up those groups who are now falling for the Obama mystique because she has their best interests at heart.
I would go so far as to say that Hillary’s draw could be greater than Obama’s in the fall. The AA population is unlikely to convert to Republican, the DINKS are liberals (or so they say) and youth would like to get a break on graduating without so much debt. But Republican women, especially in the suburbs, have seen the writing on the wall with their party. It is the party that will very happily take away their rights and their daughter’s rights to live like equal partners. And they will do it cavalierly because their real goal is to undermine the social safety net which many women end up relying on in their old age. Plus, when the economy turns sour, it is women who feel it first. They’re the ones doing the shopping and ferrying the kids around town in the family SUV. Hillary owes her victory in PA in no small part to Republican women who registered as Democrats to vote for her. They don’t want McCain in the fall and they aren’t seeing Obama as a good option. And unlike their Republican male counterparts who reregistered as Democrats to vote for Obama, the women will actually vote for the Democrat in the fall if it is Hillary.
So, I don’t buy this argument that he adds so many new voters.
I read your credo and it seems we are in agreement about most things. I diverge somewhat on the issue of privacy. Technology is challenging the issue of privacy in ways that are yet to be seen. I define my position as being against government secrecy. It needs to be a two way street. I really have no clue if either candidate has significant differences here.
I went to Obama’s and Clinton’s website and compared their energy policy since it is my number one issue (with education and healthcare a close second/third). I saw little appreciable differences. I more or less like both of their positions.
I feel obligated to mention the whole experience vs. hope debate. Experience is a good thing. Clinton has more of it. I think I diverge from many Clinton supporters here; I think the ability to unite and inspire people is also a powerful ability. I think Obama has the edge in this department. I do not see Clinton as uninspiring or Obama as lacking experience. I think they have both. It always irks me when people who dislike Obama insist that it means almost nothing.
So what kind of democrat is Obama? I am not sure what the appropriate response is here, a good one? I like his positions and I like his message. They seem congruent with my beliefs; which sound much like yours. Ideas that define me are, the complexity of people, being able to think outside of paradigms, and consistent self directed scrutiny.
I registered as a Democrat when I turned 18 in 1974. No one in my family had ever been a Democrat. Why did I go against my family, and believe me, they were at the time pretty staunch Republicans?
1. Because my divorced mother worked two jobs to raise us five kids alone and did not get one nickel in support. We lived on welfare for a short period of time. I know what it is like to be poor. I know what it is like to need a little help, and I know you cannot get that help from Republicans. Democrats offer a safety net for those in need.
2. Because my Mom was promoted to manager of the company she worked at and was paid about half what the man she replaced was. Democrats beelieve in equal pay for all.
3. Because I needed help to go to college, Democrats belive in providing educational opportunities for those who cannot afford it otherwise. I am trying right now to find a way for my daughter to attend college, because the republicans have destroyed the system that helped me go.
4. Because all three of my brothers are either vietnam or desert storm veterans. My oldest brother is on full disability for Gulf War Syndrome. Another brother is also disabled. They would be lost without veterans disability benefits. Democrats promise to help veterns and follow through. Republicans cannot be trusted to care for veterans.
5. My mother is on Social Security. Nuff said.
6. Democats believe in defending this nation, but they do not believe in tearing down the rest of the world to do it.
7. Though I am not gay, I believe that every citizen of this country is entitled to the same rights, priveliges and responsibilities.
8. Right to choose. When my 12 year old neice was raped by her stepfather, she should have had an abortion. If anything like that happened to my daughter, she is entitled to the same.
I could go on forever about why I became a Democrat. This has been a huge part of my identity for almost 35 years.
Unfortunately, I do not know if all that is enough for me to continue to be a part of my party because of the hatred put forth every day by Obama.I truly believe that Obama and the coalition of Democratic “leaders” have destroyed my party. He has signaled that he is willing to privatize Social Security. He has scorned Universal Health Care. He has looked down his nose at me.
I am a working class, single mother. I am not a fanactical church goer, but I pray. I am not a gun freak, but my family hunts. I live in in a rural area, but I am not racist, and I am not a gay hater. Obama has split this party in two and thrown away a lot of the best of it. I do not consider him a Democrat and I believe that the fact tha many of thos who are his most strident supporters are relatively new Democrats gives credence to the claim that he has taken my party away from me. I will neve voe for him. And I no longer consider my Democratic identity to be part of what defines me.
5.
Gloria:
Obama voters don’t believe in voting? Well, your candidate agreed to DISENFRANCHISE those poor folks in Michigan and Florida months ago. The argument by Clintonites that Obama wants to disenfranchise voters is completely illogical. Listen to how Clinton advisor Harold Ickes throws up all over himself as he flip-flops his gums:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/clinton_advisor_harold_ickes_flip_flops_on_michigan_florida_delegates/
Ickes says that when he was a member of the Democrat National Committee he felt he had an obligation to enforce the rules. But now that he’s back with the Clintons on the campaign trail again…
“There’s been no change,” Ickes said. “I was not acting as an agent of Mrs. Clinton. We had promulgated rules and those rules said the timing provision … provides for certain sanctions, automatic sanctions as a matter of fact, if a state such as Michigan or Florida violates those timing provisions.”
“With respect to the stripping, I voted as a member of the Democratic National Committee. Those were our rules and I felt I had an obligation to enforce them,” he said.
I don’t care if Hillary supporters continue to invoke the name of Wright, bring up Obama drug use, throw Rezko in our face — these are all legitimate, logical issues that Obama needs to address. But this Florida/Michigan argument is absurd and invalid. Is there not one Clinton voter out there that agrees?
For me, the two most pressing issues are civil liberties and war related issues. I care about a broad range of democratic issues, but those are the two where I think there are the biggest dangers (or potential improvements) in the near future. I’d also make the case that national security issues are the biggest divide between Clinton and Obama, but that’s secondary. There are other issues where I prefer his approach, but these are the ones that move me the most.
Anyway, Obama has a very good record on civil liberties. I get the impression that he has a personal investment in the issue. One of his early accomplishments was a bill that required all police interviews of suspects in Illinois be videotaped. There have been occasions where he and Hillary voted opposite ways on civil liberties issues in the Senate, and I count those in his favor (tightening standard on warrentless surveillance and retroactive sentence reductions for crack cocaine offenses are the two I know of offhand).
On the war issue, it’s not just that Obama was against the war from the beginning. It’s also that he (and his advisors) have spoken forcefully about the need to stop trying to play catchup to the republicans, to stop making considerations of looking tough drive foreign policy decisions. That kind of talk makes me trust him not just with the legacy of the Iraq war, but with future crises that will come up.
Justin-
I agree and I wrote an article about Obama foreign policy – I basically summarize a great article from American Prospect.
http://crosspolemics.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/obamas-brave-new-foreign-policy/
Ok lets address a couple of things. First off Hillary not Obama stated early in this race that Michigan and Florida wouldn’t be counted because of jumping the gun on primary dates you can look that up on goggle so her stance on that is a political ploy (which is fine this is politics after all just don’t take everything both candidates say as gospel truth understand their job is to play the American people)
Riverdaughter I completely agree that were Obama not in this race Clinton would have the younger demographic my point is that he has pulled in an amazingly large number of new young democrats and that the party would better be served by him winning the nomination.
I disagree about the fall Hillary is amazingly divisive, so I think there will be issues there. I really think that an Obama loss would be tracked back to only one thing, the fact that Hillary has attempted to scare older people of Obama unwittingly pushing baby boomers to McCain. Giving the fact that the war has started to go bad again so I don’t know if that will happen however. My concern is that the next 40 years is huge and there is a chance that Obama can help restock the party in a way I doubt Hillary could, not to mention I’m 31 and there has been a Clinton or a Bush in office since I was in 8th grade and I just feel strange about that, and I think that Obama should be using that as Hillaries Achilles heel.
Chris