Monday, June 09, 2008

Ludicrousness from the Media

After conceding the Democratic presidential primary race, Hillary had hardly taken a few breaths before Obamatrons and pundits started looking for someone to blame for a likely Obama loss in November.

Never mind that while Hillary was still in the race polls consistently showed Obama neck-to-neck with McCain in key swing states while Hillary was whipping McCain's butt.

The sting is set-up because if The Golden Child loses it couldn't possibly be his fault; it's gotta be Hillary's; or Bill Clinton's; or Chelsea; or Hillary's racist supporters.

Here's Politico quoting an Obama supporter:

"If the Democrats don’t win the White House back this fall there will be a hard core contingent of young Obama supporters who will be extremely disappointed,” said Alexandra Acker, executive director of the Young Democrats of America.

“They will be looking for someone to blame and some may look to the long primary.”

Yep, if Obama loses, it was all the bitch's fault; and the media will happily perpetuate this venal crap instead of looking squarely at themselves and Obama supporters who were in a total state of denial and refused to acknowledge the obvious: Hillary was the better candidate and would've won the presidency against McSame in a cake walk.

One article does not a theory more?
I think we all make a huge mistake when we, as supporters or one candidate, react to what the supporters of the other candidate do or don't do. I decided a long time ago that I wasn't going to get upset by what supporters of the other candidates said -- just by what the candidates themselves did or said.

If Obama loses, it will be because the supporters of the bitch and the empty suit couldn't get past the mutual name-calling.
My Unity Pony is full shit. It doesn't matter what the Obots blame the loss on-- it will still be a loss. I hope by then moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats will have gotten together and formed a third party that is free of the single issue focus that doomed previous third party attempts.
I thought I'd chime in with a different perspective. I'm a military mom; my only son is currently on his second tour in Iraq. His first tour was quite an eye opener. Some of the things he wrote about in his letters horrified me, and when he came back home I begged him to pursue a new avenue so he wouldn't get sent back.

But like many of the heroes serving there today, he told me his country needed him, and he would do all that is asked until they can ask no more. He will be voting this year through an absentee ballot, and he's voting Obama for one simple reason: through his firsthand experience in Iraq, he knows Americans can't afford another President who will wage unneeded wars. Many of his fellow soldiers feel the same. For them, their vote could be the difference between coming home to their families, or fighting for their lives in a country that does not want them nor need them.

I ask you to please reconsider. McCain has already aligned himself closely with the policies of the Bush administration, and he's made it clear that he wants a lengthy US military commitment to Iraq. As tensions in the region rise, I fear that a McCain presidency would not only mean my son will be sent on a third and fourth tour to Iraq, but that we'll also have a very real danger of falling into another unneeded conflict with Iran before his term is over.

God bless you. I'll pray for your son's safe return home.

Like you and your son, I feel that Iraq is the issue of greatest importance in this election just as it was in 2006. That is why I voted for Obama in the Virginia primary. Contrary to the rantings on this blog, there are obviously many reasons why people chose Obama over Clinton. For me Iraq was chief among them.

Tell your son to take heart. Obama is going to win this election. Let him know that there are lots of us working hard to see to that.

I have friends and relatives who strongly supported Clinton and, without exception, they are all on board for Obama in November. There will always be fringe characters who will stay home or vote for the other party out of real or imagined offense or whatever weird notions motivate them. This blog is not representative of the average Clinton supporter. Most all of them are quite rational and understand what's at stake.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yellow dog, how is this for a slew of Hillary supporters who have not moved on: Sugarnspice, The Confluence, No Quarter, Tennessee Guerilla Women, Savage Politics, Corrente, Pagan Power, I'm Uppity, Anglachel, Suburban Guerilla to name a few.

In other words, the blogosphere is a whole lot bigger than the national Boyz or the wanna-bes.

Insults like the ones addressed to me show just how little you value the army of Hillary supporters by trying to act as if we don't exist. And yes, Virginia, there is a whole army of Hillary supporters that is pissed at how the nomination was hijacked and the least qualified candidate was anointed by media and bloggers.

In case anyone is interested, we go by the name of PUMAS (Party Unity My Ass).

Oh and Colleen, you're only a spammer. I'm Uppity has the gory details.
Can you please explain how the nomination was hijacked other than foaming mouth accusations? Senator Clinton did everything in her power to change the rules of the nominating process after those rules had been firmly established. If anyone tried to "hijack" anything, it is her. I am so tired of the whining, arrogant Clinton brigade who think the media rejected her. THE VOTERS REJECTED HER. Everyone knew who she was for years, and she should have been able to wrap up the nomination easily but she didn't. The voters made a choice but you can't accept it because you don't like it. Well you know what...that's too bad. If you want to vote for McCain, go ahead, but for every voter like yourself there are 10 new voters who will support Senator Obama. Stating that Obama only attracts liberal voters is also wildly inaccurate. Why did unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly back Senator Obama over Senator Clinton? How is she more "moderate" when she wanted to implement a health care system that would have forced people to participate, ala a socialist regime? The facts have lost their prominence to such much misinformation this year.

Bloggers didn't make over 18 million voters choose Senator Obama in the primaries and caucuses. His supporters saw his confidence and grasp of the issues, and they can actually relate to him.

Hillary would not have won the election in a "walk". The polls were close for both candidates for months and Clinton did very poorly with Independent voters in most states (which made me wonder why some people would tell her to run as an Independent). Virginia wouldn't even have been in contention with Senator Clinton as the nominee, but Obama has consistently been the stronger candidate in other key states like North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Oregon, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, New Mexico, and even places like Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota. Obama also has been polling well in Pennsylvania and is up in Ohio. Ohio would have been hard fought for either candidate--and I'll say it again--predicting the outcome of an election in June makes little sense. Obama is strong in many states, but he may not win. The same thing goes for McCain, and it would have been the case with Hillary.

The Obama supporters stood by when Senator Clinton slandered Senator Obama and stated lie after lie.

"He's not a Muslim, AS FAR AS I KNOW."
"He's an elitist." (This coming from someone who in 1995 told her husband to screw Southern whites who were hostile to her husband, denegrated women who stayed at home, grew up in a pampered suburb and barely did media appearances until she started running for president.)
"I have a lifetime of experience..and Senator Obama has a speech from 2004."
"Anything can happen." (Alluding to an assassination..Who does that?)
"I've received the most votes of anyone running for president." (Wrong again--she gained a patten of picking and choosing which voters were more important.)

She has "demanded" respect, but she never gave it. She has no real experience of running anything, but acted like she had 40 years more experience than Obama. Most voters consistently said they couldn't trust her, and still you find that to be a trait of electability?
John, if you don't get it, you just don't get it.

Perhaps after the whipping that's about to come in November, the light will start to shine through.
HL--I presented solid arguments backing up my statements, but telling me that I haven't seen the light just doesn't cut it. If you can't do anything other than predict an Obama loss while still claiming to be a Democrat who cares about restoring principles to the country, then you don't get it. If any of the candidates ended up losing, America would still be fine without them. This election is not about Hillary Clinton, but this fringe talk from some of her supporters is just sad. She has insulted our system of democracy, insulting millions of voters, and this was supposed to be a potential leader of the free world? Or did she just want to represent "hardworking white Americans"...forget about anyone else.

Senator Obama is not perfect, but neither is Senator Clinton or Senator McCain. The Democratic primary/caucus voters spoke, but you remain stuck in the past. I guess if Obama is elected and serves two terms, you'll still be griping about Hillary Clinton--which I don't get, because the country really deserves much better than her brand of "leadership".
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?