The self-fulfilling prophecies of die-hard Obama opponents

[FarrenH]

As a South African I feel a little odd commenting on another nation's electoral process and do so rarely. However I've been following the Democratic primaries in the states quite closely because, despite its waning influence*, the USA economic empire is still the Roman Empire of the modern age. And having endured 8 years of watching Bush causing untold misery outside of the US, its become apparent to many non-Americans that we should take an interest in US leadership. And I want a progressive in the White House.

Also, as a middle-aged analyst/developer with a very theoretical approach to programming, I've spent a lifetime fascinated with patterns and logic. And one of my favourite pastimes is picking out patterns of thought in political reasoning and spotting the fallacies, which informs the post that follows. Fallacious reasoning in politics translates into bad policy. Always. Which is why I prefer political viewpoints that are progressive but not ideologically "pure". The latter kind of thinking ultimately leads people to torture logic in service of principal.

To the actual point of the post: I was idly browsing some websites run by the loony wing of the Clinton camp. The more levelheaded Clinton supporters like those at Talk Left seem to be accepting Clinton's defeat calmly and rationally, but HillaryIs44 and one or two others are still demanding that Obama concede. Are these people smoking crack or is it just dementia?

In any event, what struck me is that the demented wing of the Hillary camp (and I must reiterate that this is not a jibe at their candidate or other Hillary supporters) are unanimous in their trumpeting of two memes:

1. "I refuse to vote for Obama. McCain '08!"
2. "Polls consistently show that Obama does less well than Hillary in the GE against McCain"

This is a classic case of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Having stated (1) over and over again, (2) is a kind of "DUH!" natural consequence.

And it doesn't indicate what they think it indicates. The demented wing of the Hillary camp thinks it indicates that the less suitable candidate was chosen. But in fact it indicates that there are less ungracious, idiotic crazies at the fringes of Obama's support base.

The very people who are proclaiming that they will cut off their noses like spiteful children rather than see Obama elected are the reason (or at least a large component of it) that Obama does slightly less well in polling matchups against McCain. If more Obama supporters refused to entertain ever voting for Hillary, the polling predictions would look quite different.

In short, Obama's slightly less favourable polling numbers against McCain in a GE match-up basically show that the demented wing of the Hillary camp are engaging in exactly the same "We create reality" historically circular reasoning as the neoconservatives who brought you the last 8 years of shame.

Political arguments that rely on self-fulfilling prophecies are toxic to the health of a nation and, as such, should be recognized for what they are and immediately rejected. Consider for a moment an Afghan religious conservative making the argument that women are clearly less well informed and educated than men, then in the next breath demanding that the very patriarchal system and denial of education that might have made them so is the better option because they're less educated. Self-fulfilling prophecies are the crutches of reactionary arguments that have nothing else left to support them.

*"Waning influence" isn't simply a fuzzy impression. Factually, the US' share of world trade has diminished sharply since the 1950's and after the cold war the citizens of non-aligned countries find Europe's foreign policy far more palatable than America's. I hope for the US' sake the former fact has more to do with an increase in wealth elsewhere than a real decline in the USA and the latter balance of opinions tilts favourably to the US under an Obama presidency.

[DerekJ]

1. Good post. Would have been best left till the morning when you will actually going to get some

replies. But nevertheless thanks for sharing your thoughts.

ETA: If you read their posts careful enough, you will immediately notice quite a few republicans fanning the flames over there, especially the very aggressive ones.

[FarrenH]

6. Republicans...

ETA: If you read their posts careful enough, you will immediately notice quite a few republicans fanning the flames over there, especially the very aggressive ones.

I think a sizable proportion of the online "Dem" anti-Obama stuff is actually Republican trolling, which accounts for the apparent disconnect between Obama's GE polling and the supposedly vast (according to those that say they won't) numbers of Hillary supporters who will not be voting Obama. But there does appear to be a core of genuinely angry and delusional Clinton supporters that refuse to support Obama.

And I think the unusual situation where the chosen nominee of the (admittedly slender) majority of Dems for the GE does slightly less well in GE polling than Clinton reflects those supporters. Given Clinton's high disapproval ratings in polling and her demonization by the right-wing attack machine its unlikely they're swing voters or "Republicans For Clinton".

But the very fact that they only shift the advantage in the GE by 1 or 2 percentage points means that they are really a very small minority and the self-fulfilling meme they're trying to push can and should be rejected out of hand.

[guruoo]

48. IMO, much of both the anti-Obama and anti-Hillary smearing has originated w/Repuglican trolls

[coyotespaw]

2. I can add nothing but the 5th rec...

and a kick.

Well stated sir or ma'am.

[ima_sinnic]

3. great analysis! k &r

I always like to get the perspective from outside our borders.

[Radio_Lady]

4. Thank you, FarrenH. We hope your poignant words will point us in the right direction.

What remains is that this could be the last chance to get people in government who have a better outlook and understanding of the challenges that face our nation.

We, the citizens of Amerca, can create a better future. We've done it before and we can do it again.

Cordially,

Radio Lady in Oregon, USA

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. Such opinions are incredibly valuable in adding an external perspective.

Thank you for taking the time to shed some more light on the travails of this campaign.

[sellitman]

7. The rabid sites you mention are have Republican sources.

That explains their reasoning and tactics. The Republicans are just more devious than we are. I don't consider posters at that site Democrats. We never had their vote to begin with so relax.

[genna]

8. Most people don't respond well to threats. The reasonable HRC supporters won't threaten

they'll put their agenda for women and white voters who make under $50K on the table and tell Obama what they'd like for him to do for them.

I've learned the difference between being in the house negotiating terms and being outside the house protesting the process. Both roles have a function. But when you refuse to sit at the table and negotiate AND THREATEN AND SHOUT, you really don't deserve any additional attention.


I am sure after a few conversations between HRC and BHO, they'll come to an agreement they both can live with. The party elders made Clinton see her first move was faulty and they would not support her making any additional moves like that. We'll see where it goes.

[rebel with a cause]

50. "white voters who make under $50K"

Surely you did not intend to word it like this. Should it not be "voters who make under $50K". Is my voting and working son and daughter not intitled to the same consideration as the white voter? Shouldn't African Americans voters and workers have the same consideration as white voters? Asians? American Indians? Arab Americans? etc. If you meant it in these terms then.................

[KaptBunnyPants]

9. An excellent point.

It hardly helps their case to say that Obama can't win because Hillary supporters won't vote for him. They lack a convincing pretext to justify throwing the election to McCain and just come off looking like sore losers. Besides, the number of Obama supporters who would vote for her would change a great deal under the scenario where Clinton is installed as president. A bitter summer long struggle for the nomination followed by a vicious convention battle where the popularly selected delegates are over-ruled by the super-delegates is not going to build party unity. It's hard to imagine any candidate winning in that situation, even a Clinton.

[Maribelle]

10. So, we call some Democrats 'demented' because they 'might' support McCain ...

yet openly court those Democrats that actually did vote Republican for Reagan.

Perhaps it's time to stop the childish name calling, and recognize that name calling (even name calling all neatly wrapped in pseudo holistic analysis) has as much intelligence as do school-yard bullies.

Debating political issues is the only thing that is truly healthy for our democracy and the Democratic party.

[FarrenH]

12. I call them demented when

they say they won't vote for Obama because the press and some of Obama's supporters have been mean to Clinton and some tortured mathematics that no-one and I mean NO ONE, anywhere in the world who isn't a Clinton supporter thinks is valid. That and ideas about democracy (that a campaign in which only one person is on the ballot actually tells you anything at all about the will of voters) that are bizarre to those of us living next door to countries (Zimbabwe) where similar ideas have currency.

Not policy, not the next four years of US foreign policy, which would only compound the anti-Americanism that has grown under Bush. Not woman's rights. Not health care. No, just the most juvenile of reasons: "We'll teach our fellow Democrats a lesson!".

I call them demented when they point to a Obama's slightly less favourable polling figures in the GE as proof of their candidate's superiority, without acknowledging that they are the cause of the phenomenon they're pointing to, for the most asinine of reasons.

I call them demented because anyone that calls on the presumptive Democratic nominee to "concede" even after his opponent has signaled her support for him looks like they're living in an alternate universe.

My understanding is that the party courted Reagan Democrats because they felt they could win them over on the issues. here we're talking about people who will only be won over by complete capitulation on the nominee. The comparison is silly.

I made it clear I wasn't talking about all Hillary supporters or sites like TheLeftCoaster and Talk Left, just the really unhinged Hillary brownshirts on sites like Hillaryis44. I was not commenting on the candidate or the majority of supporters.And yes, I have seen a few Obama brownshirts here and there, so I don't think its even unique to the Clinton camp. But the people I'm speaking about have been far more vocal and expended far more energy on websites et al screaming "Nobama! McCain '08!" than their Obama counterparts.

And they come across as unhinged. Demented. And they should not be courted. They should be ridiculed for the idiots that they are. Why, because by courting them you endorse memes that are poison to the political lifeblood of a healthy democracy, for the reasons I gave above. Sometimes, one has to swallow a little poison for a greater good. But given the small dent they're having in polling figures, in this case its better to shame the people spreading that poison so that it doesn't become acceptable discourse or acceptable behaviour in future campaigns.

[Maribelle]

18. '... so that it doesn't become acceptable discourse or acceptable behaviour...'

Perhaps your intolerance is what should not be acceptable???????

Truly - - calling people ugly childish names, using a plethora of areas where you disagree, merely feeds even more intolerance. It will do absolutely nothing to enhance the debate on issues where Democrats and Republicans disagree.

[FarrenH]

23. So you think

when I child throws a tantrum you should indulge them?

Because the people I am speaking about, for the reasons I am giving, are behaving irrationally and without regard for truth or consequences. And you have written nothing that contradicts that, instead broadly and fuzzily protesting about the tone of my statements.

One concession: I know that my tone and wording could be less inflammatory. And I agree that is always the better road to follow, so I'll concede that. I'm just not sure how to do that in a situation where someone is so clearly wrong and should be called on it.

If you're arguing for indulgence rather than simply a measured tone I flat out disagree. It would be better stated in more measured words, but they SHOULD be called out for their behaviour, shamed and expelled from the party. Their behaviour is disgraceful and irrational. The Democratic party gains nothing and loses something by indulging them and would be better off in the long term saying "good riddance". The cost of mollifying them is compromising the integrity of the party and that is not a price any party with principle should pay, because the wins are Phyrric.

[Maribelle]

26. Your analogy: ' if a child throws a tantrum' is poor

Parents need to deal with children that throw tantrums - - not YOU if you are NOT the parent. Get it yet?

You have ABSOLUTELY no authority to attempt to correct the behavior of children that do not belong to you. Get it now?

And where on earth do you get off thinking that if a child throws a tantrum, yelling nasty derogatory names at the child will ever do even one ounce of good? This tells me you might flunk a parenting class should you enroll.

If you're arguing for indulgence rather than simply a measured tone I flat out disagree. It would be better stated in more measured words, but they SHOULD be called out for their behavior and shamed.

Calling out anyone for the sole purpose of shaming them by using childish insults merely makes the one doing the calling appear as a school-yard bully.

[FarrenH]

32. I think you connected the wrong dots

All analogies have limits, connecting two scenarios on a limited number of similarities. And the worst rebuttals arise out of person A comparing one set of similarities then person B attacking a second set that were never intended to be compared.

In this case the "child" was a random choice of words, since "tantrum" is close to it in semantic networks. My analogy could equally be "if a friend throws a tantrum that threatens to ruin a friendly gathering, do you indulge them?" Personally, I've ejected a close friend with an explosive temper after he had too much to drink before.

And yes, I did tell him he was an asshole and should f*k off and calm down, and that we would not indulge him. A lot of people told him that, a lot of times. He had a lot of redeeming qualities when he wasn't being an asshole so he remained a friend. And after about 10 years of denial about his temper he was unable to deny the fact that he solicited that reaction frequently and examined himself and did a lot of hard adjusting and is now a model of calm (even though it means sometimes cutting off in the middle of a sentence, getting in his car and driving away rather than arguing when he feels a red rage coming on)

My point had nothing really to do with subservience and authority, children and parents, so forgive any confusion I may have caused. It had to do with the fact that, when the only way of mollifying someone who's being an angry fool is to compromise truth, integrity and many other people's welfare, the better course of action is to shame them. Indulging them does nothing worthy of the effort for you or them and shaming them sometimes bears fruit.

[Divernan]

49. You gave it your best shot, but no one has rational discussions with Maribelle

She'll be gone in a couple of more days. She is one of those "angry fools" you discuss.
The most important lesson we teach our children is that there are consequences to our actions.
Specifically, the badder the action, the worse the consequence. People who never learned that lesson as children, may sometimes learn that lesson as adults. However, the sociopaths, narcissists and megalomaniacs are incapable of learning that lesson and deserve nothing but being banned from polite discourse, and certainly being banned from public office.

[davidpdx]

54. Agreed...people like her

have pretty much decided they would rather vote for McCain then support women's rights. Her and her friends day of reckoning is coming soon.

[FogerRox]

43. ................it is the most important election since 1932.

[Shakespeare]

20. Do you understand the difference between those two scenarios?

In one case, we're reacting to threatened behavior that will prove very destructive and that will reduce our numbers at the polls. In the other, we're trying to convert more people to our side, including those who were not with us in the past.

How on earth you can conflate those two is just beyond me.

Or are you just miffed that somebody would dare to criticize somebody who'd vote for McCain over Obama, say, for example, disgruntled Hillary supporters?

[Maribelle]

24. Democrats that voted for Reagan proved 'very destructive...'

I guess it might be YOU that doesn't understand the difference between those that have already done the destructive crap and those that are merely threatening.

[Shakespeare]

25. Yes, they did--but that's in the PAST.

No, I have no comprehension issues at all where this concerned. You're confusing an attempt at correcting past behavior with preventing potentially damaging behavior.

[Maribelle]

27. I'm not confusing anything.

Under most scenarios, we punish those that have done actual destruction more severely than those that merely threaten.

[Shakespeare]

29. When we can persuade them to come back, and when their votes are desperately needed...

...we do not "punish" them. Foolish spite, that is.

And those who are actively threatening to vote for the republican candidate deserve all the derision they get.

[ClassWarrior]

51. Compare someone who claims to be a Dem now and threatens to vote McBush...

...with someone who voted for Ray-Gun a quarter-century ago and regrets what destruction that has done, and tell me which one is "demented."

NGU.

[Window]

11. Excellent post. K/R.

:kick:

[wowimthere]

13. K&R spot on. n/t

[Catherina]

14. Excellent post and #12 also. Thanks for differentiating. n/t

[tbyg52]

15. K&R

Self-fulfilling prophecies and "one set of rules for you, another set of rules for us" is what got us in the pickle we're in.

[FarrenH]

19. Exactly

The culture of self-reference promoted by US corporate media creates a death-spiral in American politics. "He/she's not viable because we, the media will crucify him/her over the way they bowl/laugh/scream in jubilation" and "that won't play in middle America" has supplanted the idea that politicians should stand for what they truly believe in, try to convince the electorate that they're right even when the idea is unpopular and be willing to fail because they stood by those beliefs. As much as I like Obama, even he was clearly "triangulating" in these primaries (his grovelling before AIPAC was a clear example to me). People can say "when the stakes are so high, you have to make those sacrifices to ensure someone far worse doesn't get in", but politicians aren't simply responding to the feelings of voters, they're shaping them.

[leveymg]

16. KNR

Great country, SA -- Produced Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, two of my favorite people on this planet.

[FarrenH]

17. I love both of them, too

I'm an atheist and Tutu is one of the few clerics I admire immensely. Not simply for being a voice for peace, but because he has none of the petty bigotries that many other otherwise admirable clerics feel they are bound to by dogma.

His unconditional acceptance of homosexuals sealed it for me. I mean, how many clerics believe and are willing to state, without beating round the bush, that the truly loving God they believe in would not arbitrarily condemn someone to a live of forbidden temptation and not others - and consequently that God must have made people gay because he wanted them to have sex with each other (Tutu is also very sex-positive).

The man could be a secular saint with or without his Anglican faith. He is a truly compassionate, progressive human being.

[Mooney]

21. The self-fulfilling prophecy that I saw the most often

during this primary season was that it didn't matter if Obama won red states, because the Democratic party wasn't going to win them in the general election anyway. If that's not the textbook definition of a "self-fulfilling prophecy," then I don't know what is.

Yes, we are unlikely to win Mississippi. But you can't win if you don't play. And competing there is the only way to make inroads that could flip the state in future elections.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. FANTASTIC! K&R! I've talked a lot about the concept of cognitive dissonance...

and some of the more well-known illogical fallacies: the widespread use of straw men and red herrings. Since joining DU, I've been shocked at the amount of cognitive dissonance--or perhaps willful ignorance--that exists here: a total rejection of facts, even when those facts are presented and are irrefutable. A rejection of math and statistics. During the last 8 years, I have, as I'm sure many people have, felt like I'm living in a parallel universe. People create realities that they want to see come to fruition. I've had to convince myself that the reason why people reject irrefutable facts and succumb to talking points is because those facts don't line of up with the subjective reality that they've created for themselves.

Not all Hillary Clinton supporters, but a good number here and on those sites that you mentioned remind me so much of Bush supporters. John Dean talks about it in his brilliant book, "The Conscience of a Conservative." There's a small percentage of Americans who desire to be led. In fact, if you pay attention to the political punditry, Hillary Clinton is often described as a "general," who can convince her followers of most anything. If she tells them what to do, they'll do it, as Chris Matthews observed. That really scares me. And that's why it is up to Hillary Clinton to heal the divide that she has created during the primaries. She must address that divide head on. It is her responsibility because she created and perpetuated it.

To be fair, Obama did a disservice to himself with his "bitter" gaffe and the outrageous Rev. Wright fiasco. But the media dedicated 24/7 coverage of Rev. Wright, and there is a correlation between that coverage and Obama's declining favorability numbers.

[FarrenH]

33. I'm also fascinated with cognitive dissonance

especially since I've recognised it time and again in myself. I think we also suffer from it to some extent. It seems to be a necessary part of the normal functioning of consciousness.

That's important to recognise because, reading the opinions of many of Obama's supporters, one would think misogyny and sexism didn't play any role in this season, when they clearly did, just as racism clearly did. I would flat out disagree that Obama was actually a driver of the anti-women sentiments. But a lot of Obama supporters, even if only by consistent ommission, make it appear to be a non-issue. Some more enlightened Obama supporters have recognised it and expressed their distaste for it. But the resounding silence from many on the issue or constant deflection onto other issues ("But look over HERE...") has created the impression among many Clinton supporters that Obama supporters themselves at best tolerate and at worst approve of it.

Having said that I think there are certainly degrees of self-awareness and degrees of cognitive dissonance - and the particular faction of tantrum-throwing Clinton supporters this thread is about are about as steeped in cognitive dissonance and lack of self-awareness as one can be. The logical gymnastics around calling a one-candidate* election result valid when EVERY other such election anywhere else in the world is considered completely invalid without disagreement, points to a willingness to hold mutually contradictory views that must come out of mental momentum triumphing over reason.

*effectively, as I understand one or two other zero-name-recognition candidates were on the ballot

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Being a black women I think sometimes helps put things into perspective

as far as the race and gender issue goes. We see and experience both "isms" on a daily basis, and sadly, the black community has not addressed its virulent misogyny, which is a form of pathology to me; our community is quick to reject claims of sexism where race discrimination often trumps gender. Racism was also prevalent during the primaries, but for some reason, claims of racism were easily dismissed by mainstream society. It is much more acceptable to discuss Hillary losing due to sexism than it is Obama losing support amongst whites due to racism. Racism charges are immediately dismissed because no one wants to discuss race and its impact. However, I am shocked that so many people who love and revere Hillary embraced the argument that is was sexism that led to her loss rather than a badly-run campaign or anything Hillary herself had done.

But you're right. Obama supporters have a tendency to dismiss the sexism claim, not because there was NO sexism, but because that sexist claims were tied to something that Obama had personally done. However, Obama supporters should admit that Hillary was indeed the victim of horrible sexism during this campaign. Comments by Chris Matthews, Shuster et al. Horrible! The media was absolutely horrendous. We should be pointing the finger at the media which is responsible for peddling race and gender and helping to intensify the divide between blacks and whites, women and blacks, blacks and Hispanics, blacks and Jews, and so on. The media was despicable throughout the entire process.

[FarrenH]

38. I agree wholeheartedly

at least on the parts I know enough to speak about.

Having said all that, though, I'm thinking sexism really isn't as bad as racism in most non-religious-fundamentalist countries. Politically at least. There is rampant sexism and misogyny in South Africa, for instance. The reported number of yearly rapes is among the highest per capita in the world. Women recently staged a huge march after several incidents where miniskirted women were stripped naked in public and humiliated by groups of men who were offended by their clothing, while waiting for public transport. I could go on and on. It makes me want to hang my head in shame.

Yet SA beats the US and half of Europe hands down for the percentage of women in cabinet and parliamentary positions in government. In the same nation that is horribly sexist in lots of day-to-day transactions, no-one is discomforted by the idea of women running large swathes of government. And this is in a country where a disturbing number of citizens are barely functionally literate.

And US politics looks very similar in the respect of political significance. Clinton's campaign may have suffered a lot of tiny cuts from the casual sexism of idiots in media and so on, but I don't think there are is a large enough percentage of voters to even register on most polls that would say "I will not vote for a woman because she's a woman". Such a bloc, however, certainly exists for a black male. So for all the fact that both -isms are obviously undesirable, we may be falling into a trap when we place equal political significance on the effects of both.

ETA: A visiting American feminist giving a lecture tour several years back was asked why she thought feminism had arisen so late in South Africa compared to developed countries. Her answer was something like this "Well having been here several times before and spoken to a lot of activists I've gotten the following impression: The cheapening of black labour under Apartheid meant that a large proportion of white woman in traditionalist South Africa used to enjoy the benefits of being a housewife without many of the negatives, since every other white woman retained a black maid who did all the work. And black women experienced far more suffering due to being black than they did due to being a woman, so that was obviously their primary political concern"

I don't know how salient that is to the American situation but I can't help feeling there are some parallels, albeit in less extreme form

[me b zola]

28. K&R

[butterfly77]

30. Thanks

[ampad]

31. Excellent

K/R this should be on a blog.

[crickets]

35. K&R

[Flabbergasted]

36. Great Post....It reads like it was written by an American as though, perhaps, you were

educated here?

[FarrenH]

37. Sadly no

I was educated in Apartheid South Africa. Next week when I go to the UK will be the first time I've been to a developed foreign nation. Not a bad education, apart from the propaganda they called local history - I'm a white male and enjoyed the benefits of Apartheid - although enjoyed is possibly a bad choice of word since I hated it from when I was 13 and experienced the dawning of political consciousness.

But in the euphoric glow after the collapse of that iniquitous system we had a flood of curious foreigners coming to stay here for a while, especially to the bohemian, left wing suburb where I lived, which was populated by political dissidents, poets, writers, artists, drug addicts, madmen and a small, anomolous group of Hasidic Jews (think Haight-Ashbury in its hippy heyday). Americans, Europeans, Nigerians, Australians, Indians, peace corps volunteers, university students travelling on their European education alowances (which impressed me), latter-day hippies and so on.

And I met and grew to love quite a few extraordinary Americans. One sultry brunette with heavenly legs who claimed Lakota ancestory used to read sensual poems in a gravelly voice, wielding a cigar and perched side-on on a bar stool on stage in a top hat and a mini during jazz evenings down at the Rastafarian hangout. She was a drama queen but pure dynamite.

Another guy who I hero worshipped at the time was a black, taoist, kung-fu practising political scientist from Berkeley campus in California. He learned Afrikaans, the uniquely South African offspring of dutch spoken by half the white population, just so he could charm his way into the vaults of SA's largest banking conglomerate (he was writing a paper on the relationship between Afrikaans banking and the Apartheid government). He was a fountain of wisdom and said so many things that only registered years later. "Oh, that's what Mike meant". And recognising a fellow political junky he gave over hours and hours of his life taking me through the intricacies of American politics and opening my eyes to Reagan's support of Apartheid and so on.

At one point 70% of my friends were foreigners at a critical stage of my youth and its hard to keep a provincial perspective after that, even if you've never travelled. But Mike really had a profound effect on my thinking about America. Up to that point I really thought of America as Reagan's shining city on the hill (ironic, that) and in some ways the larger-than-life Americans I was privileged to call friends have sustained the sense that a part of America is that city. But he also showed me that many of the events of recent history that I'd simply assumed had noble motives were far more grubby affairs. Long before "confessions of an economic hitman" came out, he made me aware that many actions that looked like chivalrous intervention were little more than corporate invasion covered with the fig leaf of noble purpose.

And were it not for the understanding they gave me and admiration they inspired the last 8 years of US history would have made me hate America with a passion. But I understand that the USA is a diverse nation that has given us many of the best and worst people of the last century and so my anger is more towards specific groups, like movement conservatives, who drag your great nation through the gutter periodically.

ETA:
And sustaining online friendships of 7-8 years with Americans tends to make location irrelevant in terms of the noosphere you operate in, anyway. ;)

[Flabbergasted]

56. Thanks for the thoughtful response. Much appreciated. nt

[roseBudd]

39. I noticed the more rabid supporters on DU confused their opinions with facts, such as

the very popular

He will lose the GE

There is no one who can state that as a fact. Not even Kreskin.

[goletian]

40. exactly! great post.

[smiley_glad_hands]

41. K&R for a breath of fresh air.

I stated numerous times that the extremists or repug trolls in the Hill camp need to be marginalize and not empowered. They are a part of the problem and not the solution.

Let them vote mcsame already. They will be replaced with better human beings.

[99th_Monkey]

42. I've been point this out to Obama-haters for some time. Thanks for making the point so well..

It truly is a classic case of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" for them to say "Oh, he can't win"
like a broken record, and then behave in a way that tries to make that very thing become a
reality, even it it's not in their own personal self-interest to do so.

[mhoran]

44. Excellent post

Very thoughtful and articulate. Thank you.

[Vattel]

45. Michelle Obama is not an ungracious idiotic crazy!

(Michelle Obama wouldn't commit to supporting the democratic candidate if Hillary won the nomination)

Seriously, though, this is a pretty vapid piece. The only point here is that Clinton supporters shouldn't cut off their respective noses to spite their respective faces by voting for McCain. I agree.

[FarrenH]

53. Good Morning America:

ROBERTS: So what if Senator Clinton defeats her husband, becoming the first woman nominee. Could you see yourself working to support the first woman nomination?

(MICHELLE) OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.


Its unfortunate that shes implying here that she'll have to think about "working to support" the nomination, but that doesn't sound like "No Clinton! McCain '08" to me.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

47. those HRC are insulting their own candidate by saying Hillary = McCain = McSame

they don't even realize how poorly this reflects on Sen Clinton that they
find McCain a suitable substitute.

[FarrenH]

52. With the wisdom of hindsight

I realise today the repeatedly calling them "the demented wing of the Clinton" base, like a horde of mental patients, rather than just "some foolish Clinton diehards" or something more measured was probably itself foolish. I know when I read other people's stuff the kind of hyperbole used in the OP is offputting, because it casts doubt on the thoughtfulness of the argument. That came from my gut in the minutes snatched from what had been a very busy day, informed by anger at them jepardising the chances of a progressive president. I mean, I think the point is valid, but I regret the slightly hysterical tone. Maribelle had a point about how I decribed them.

[dbmk]

55. No need to feel odd. :)

As another foreigner, I think its more than natural that it has your interest. Its going to affect us all, what happens in November. All you can do is be honest about where you come from and why it matters to you, and I have experienced that one is very welcome here.

And it is posts of a quality like yours that have made my stay very enjoyable - to the point of addiction.