The "won a Grammy" link isn't working . . .

Thanks, violet. Fixed now.

My hope is that when all the primary stats are in, we'll have a clear winner on the Democratic side. I'm hoping for Obama, but it's not like I'm against Hillary or anything. I just don't think that the Democratic Lovefest will survive if the decision actually gets put in the hands of Super Delegates. I think people will be really disappointed and disillusioned, especially among the young voters that Obama in particular has attracted. Considering that they should remember the Supreme Court choosing the president in 2000, it's been really great to see first-time voters get excited and show up to the Primaries. Telling them that basically their vote doesn't actually count as much as some "super delegate" isn't going to help that. I don't think we'll have another 1968 on our hands because there aren't any major differences between the candidates (like one of them wanting to continue the war or something crazy), but it could be close.

Personally, I'm tired of the fact that Obama's supporters are so much less friendly than Clinton's. I've actually been asked if I "don't like the black man" and been yelled at on the street because I wear a Hillary button on my bag. They are really starting to remind me of Bush's supporters in '04. I have a friend that keeps sending me semi-rudely worded Facebook messages about all of the "terrible" things about Hillary. I've seen lots of people with Obama buttons, and none of them get harassed. I've also never seen anyone shove a Hillary sign in someone's face when they're trying to get on the subway. And I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd ask you if you hate women because you have an Obama button on. So lighten up, people. We're on the same side for Christ's sake! Every Clinton supporter I know says they will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. I can't imagine the Obama people would vote for a Republican if Hillary gets it, so let's stop the accusations and rudeness. Can't we leave the mudslinging and immaturity to the Republicans?

I'm sick of people saying they don't like her because she's too tough and political.

Actually, I'm also sick of an argument I just used. The one where I said I'd vote for Obama if he got the nomination. Why is that the only way to get these people to leave me alone? I never ask them what they'd do if it's reversed.

P.S. Is something wrong with the site? It looks funny...the font is different (looks like a default) and most of the graphics are gone. Is it just my computer?

I got to see Obama speak last night here in Norfolk/Va Beach! Dynamic speaker! And although I've already casted my absentee ballot in California a while ago for Edwards, I was quite inspired by him ...the crowd he turned out is amazing! Of course, what political rally is it without a few crazies - so the Ron Paul people were there, yelling about how Obama will kill babies and take away your guns ...and called us a bunch of post-slave marchers ...huh?

I can't help but think the longer this primary lasts, the more harm it'll do for the Democratic Party ...

I'm actually one of the few that thinks a long primary COULD be good for the Dems. Keeps the attention on our candidates, who are excellent and exciting. Also, this way all or most states will get to have a say, which is more democratic with a small "d." The person who gets the nomination will have really been vetted and proven to be a very strong, tough campaigner. I'm biased, though, because I'm an Obama supporter and he benefits the most from this long primary campaign - polls have shown that the more exposure people have to him, the more they support him.

Anyway, I'm in DC and there is a large, volunteer-driven campaign here for Obama. I was phonebanking on Friday night, and on my way home, there were people with Obama signs on every corner, getting the word out as people headed to the bars. I'm not sure who even organized this - the campaign seems to have taken on a life of its own.

"I can't imagine the Obama people would vote for a Republican if Hillary gets it"

Except that's what many of them are saying (threatening?) they'll do. Either that or they swear they'll sit out. I've really had it w/ them.

I know what you mean, SarahMC. How would that accomplish anything? If they do that, then we'll have, what, President McCain? Gag me. Are these people not fed up with the current state of the country? So, even if they don't adore Clinton, would she not be an improvement over someone like McCain, who is basically just Bush's little bitch-boy? Ugh. That kind of thing is sickening. Sitting out would be the same as voting for the opposition. How do they not realize that? I'm all for getting the word out about your candidate (hence the Clinton button I wear) but why so militant about it?

I'm thinking of '04 when I was in a red state and I got regularly yelled at for having a Kerry/Edwards button on all the time. I even had my car vandalized (someone ripped the K/E sticker off). Why, if you are after change, would you act like the people you are trying to change away from?

Honestly, some Obama supporters behave like they're brainwashed. This whole cult-of-personality, messianic thing w/ Obama scares me.

Obama also won in Nebraska this weekend. It was amazing to see how many Democrats came out to caucus in such a Red state!

Obama also won in Nebraska this weekend. It was amazing to see how many Democrats came out to caucus in such a Red state!

I, for one, am tired of people asking me (a black woman) why I'm not voting for a woman. And *sigh* I'm no fan of Oprah but I do like her quote, "don't play me small." I feel offended that I get accosted when I have my Obama stickers or banners and people ask me why I"m not voting for Hilary. They don't really want to know, they just want to be pushy, aggressive, and in my face.

I have had the same experience as SarahMC. None of my friends who support Obama can provide a sensible reason for doing so, and many of them don't even know his platform well enough to support him as vehemently as they do. People seem to forget that the job at stake is President of the United States, not Official White House Motivational Speaker. The Will.I.Am song does little to sway me, and I am totally disheartened by the fact that the current resurgence of youth interest in politics is the result of a cult-of-personality dynamic rather than anything substantive.

(That said, I have found many of the comments from Obama supporters on this site to be well-reasoned.)

I understand the frustration with rabid supporters. I have seen people being extremely intense, competitive, unreasonable, blind to facts from BOTH sides - seriously.

I think we need to put it in perspective. Americans are freaking out, look at our situation: global warming, horrible food problems, healthcare, overpopulation, resources are quickly being depleted, we are on the verge of an economic meltdown, our educational system is crazy bad......

The folks who get it (supporters of Clinton and Obama) see the writing on the wall.

The smaller picture is a bunch of people panicking and acting like jackasses, but the big picture is very scary and needs immediate fixes. I am confident either candidate can fix things, but the possibility of either of them not coming through is so scary that supporters become irrational or combative or accusatory.

I'm fine with well-reasoned arguments for supporting someone, it's street harassment and poorly-veiled attempts to accuse me of racism that don't go over too well.

I find it offensive when any part of this election is boiled down to race v. gender. That really belittles our abilities to choose a candidate based on something relevant, like experience and platform. If I challenge someone's opposition of Clinton, it has nothing to do with gender, unless their argument is obviously sexist or supported only by one of those double standards.

I've said for years that Clinton cannot win the general election. (My exact quote is "There are many people who would vote for Satan Incarnate rather than her, and many more who think she IS Satan Incarnate.")

Do I think Clinton would be a bad President? No, quite to the contrary. But I fear nominating her would be handing McCain the White House on a silver platter.

Well, count me as one Obama supporter who will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, because I think she is the second-best choice in the field, and I'm a loyal Democrat.

Most Obama supporters I know are the same, but not all. And this is because a lot of the Obama supporters I know do not consider themselves Democrats. Just because they support Obama, that doesn't mean that they should be *required* to then support Clinton if she is the nominee.

KittenFluff: what exactly is it about your friends' reasons do you find "not sensible?" Is it possible that you and your Obama-supporting friends simply have a different set of criteria for choosing a candidate?

I should have mentioned that I live in a rural, small town in one of the most conservative countys in American (hello Dr. Dobson) -

THESE are the crazy people! They are authoritarian evangelicals who live on fear ond intolerance.

We need to focus on taking back America and saving future generations from facism and ignorance. Lets not waste our anger on our side.

Know thy enemy, indeed.

No shit there I was story, since we're talking about race and gender: someone actually asked me if a black woman would likely vote for Obama or Clinton, in the following way,"Which is thicker, vagina or blood? One drop rule or vote for someone who shares the same part as you do ..."

Anyway, in terms of glass ceilings, I think we're better off voting for Clinton than Obama (if we haven't voted already). This election isn't just about politics, but about gender politics, and will affect our future generations, in the decades to come.

As a college student, I definitely see what a lot of you all are talking about - young people who support Obama pretty strongly, but are fuzzy on the details of his policy positions, and who respond mainly to his rhetoric. Of course, I wish that ALL of his supporters were well-versed in the details of his health care plan, etc, but realistically, not everybody is going to go to those lengths. I'm actually pretty happy that his campaign is attracting young people who don't usually participate in politics at all. And as pragmatic as I am, I really don't think it's such a bad thing that people are responding to Obama's message on an emotional level. It's not a bad message - pretty tame, actually, as far as demagogic speeches go. I don't see any problem with pointing out that Washington politics are seriously messed up and that WE should change them.

And to add to that other discussion.. yeah, I'll vote for Hillary if she's elected. But I have talked to some Obama people who are considering supporting McCain in the event of a Hillary candidacy.. scary stuff.

@SarahWonks: My boyfriend is supporting Obama because he likes him better than Clinton. That is the only reason he has given, and as far as I am concerned it is not really a reason at all. Likeability and rhetoric do not run a country. One of my close friends, who is usually well-informed about politics, didn't even know that Obama favors providing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, which she is against. I'm not saying that alone would have been enough to sway her primary vote in Clinton's direction, but it's symptomatic of the fact that even those I know who are generally informed about these things have jumped on the Obama bandwagon for dubious reasons. My boyfriend is a producer for a cable news network, and the best he can come up with, in spite of his being bombarded with election-related information 40+ hours a week, is that he likes Obama better?

I'm surprised (and disappointed!) to hear about the trouble that people are having with Obama supporters. But I'm usually very starry-eyed, and easily persuaded by good speeches. (I teared up during Obama's New Hampshire speech when he talked about "the women who reached for the ballot".) But I did back that up with information about his campaign before I started openly talking about supporting him. And I'm supporting him because I feel like there's more to his campaign than just him. The Nation has had a few articles that have talked about that. The first one I read said "More than 350,000 people have already created MyBO accounts, posting more than 10,000 grassroots events offline, including 1,000 gatherings where supporters simply wear Obama buttons and do community service in their neighborhoods." That really impressed me. It shows a real willingness to work to make small changes, beyond traveling to campaign events to see good speeches. (And small change in the community working upwards is a progressive ideal.) A few weeks ago I went to a debate watching party with my Mom. It was held at a bar called the Blarney Stone, and hosted by the governor and several City Counsel members. (I'm in Boston.) It was great. The people there (not counting the governor and city counselors) were mixed in age from my age to my Mom's, as well as race. It was technically an Obama event, but my Mom supports Hillary, and the people we talked to certainly weren't hostile about Hillary or anything. Someone here made the point about Obama supporters not necessarily considering themselves Dems, and I agree. From another Nation Article: "Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, "operatives") and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join." This could be a powerful thing.
This post may be rambling; my apologies. So I'll just say: For more articles from the Nation about Obama,
http://www.thenation.com/directory/barack_obama

I've said it elsewhere on this thread, but one thing that bothers me is how similar Obama's rhetoric is to the rhetoric George W used in his 2000 campaign (I am from outside Washington. Things are messed up, and I want to fundamentally change them. I am a uniter) (/Seriously/, George W said ALL that) Supposedly saying those things helped George W Bush to gain a lot in the later part of his campaign and to steal the presidency, to the surprise of many people. I'm sure a lot of young people do not remember the 2000 election well enough to make that connection.

Now, of course I think Obama is very smart, and hopefully would make a better President than Bush. But I must agree that the reasons many people support him scare me.

(oops. I mean I've said it elsewhere on this /site/...)

And the popularity of that music video I think sort of sums up everything that bothers me about the way in which some people support him. Hopefully he has the substance to back up the retro 'I have a dream' type speech. I just don't know for sure, b/c his record isn't that extensive.

Well, as an Obama voter, I think I have a perfectly sensible reason for voting for him: he is a)clearly more progressive overall, though not by a huge amount and is b) the more charismatic figure.

One problem with being the more charismatic figure with superior organizing skills is that you are going to attract...moderates and independents.

The fact that Obama is actually appealing new voters and swing voters to the process is an advantage in electoral politics, particularly when combined with a slightly more progressive domestic policy and a MUCH more progressive foreign policy.

Because Obama can attract those voters and Clinton can't, that means that some of these voters will vote for the other side.

But that's a good thing for Obama. Notice, it was--for the GOP--a very good thing that Reagan could attract "Reagan Democrats" despite being more conservative than Ford. Reagan was able to shift the whole center of political gravity rightward.

What we are seeing is the phenomenon of "Obama Republicans" and "Obama Moderates" that Obama might be able to shift to the Democratic column, moving the whole electoral center of gravity leftward.

Unfortunately, that means that some Obama supporters are going to be, from my view, pretty unpalatable in terms of many of their positions (like Andrew Sullivan or Frank Rich). But that is the consequence of creating a broad, possibly realigning coalition. The hope, I think, is that we should be able to persuade a generation of these people to move in our direction, not drive them out of the party. Perhaps a naive swinging for the fences, but this is a once in a generation opportunity.

P.S.

I have heard Clinton supporter after Clinton supporter defend that campaign's race-baiting as "no big deal."

I have heard big time feminist leaders tell me I was betraying feminism for voting for Obama, or that Obama's support indicated that black people have it harder than women.

I have seen Oprah be accused of betraying women for supporting Obama.

I have seen Obama supporters accused of being fanatical, mindless Obamabots committed to a quasi-fascist cult of personality. (In the NY Times of all places!)

So, let's put to bed the claim that Obama supporters have the monopoly on pettiness and venom, shall we? It is a close, hard fought race. Mean things are said by both sides.

"particularly when combined with a slightly more progressive domestic policy and a MUCH more progressive foreign policy. "

I just don't agree with this statement. I mean, Clinton's health care policy is more progressive, and health care is a pretty big deal. Clinton is more progressive (or at least has more specific ideas) when it comes to reproductive rights. Clinton has spoke out more for gay rights.

I don't know /where/ people get the idea that Obama is more progressive on domestic policy. I've heard people talk about Clinton being supported more by private interests -but that can have a lot to do with the fact she is a New York senator and from a political family. And hey, Obama is no socialist -he worked for a business organization when he was first out of school and his wife is a corporate lawyer!

International policy -well, I think that's hard to compare. As of right now, their Iraq policies are extremely similar. And right now, Obama has like no international experience, where Clinton has at least been an international diplomat for awhile...

I've read both the candidates' websites through on all the issues, and I just honestly don't feel like I can say one is more progressive than the other...

And, of course, I can't imagine why female governors like Janet Napolitano, Christine Gregiore, and Kathleen Sibelius are voting for this obviously anti-woman empty-suit Republican lite. I'm not fooled by his 100% rating from NARAL or Planned Parenthood, either... those are just actual votes and not the strange, subjective feeling I get which is reinforced with a feedback loop of internet hearsay.

just like to add my experiences to the discussion...i caucused for obama in Maine yesterday, and our municipality was about 3/4 for obama. and yet almost every person who stood up to talk about why they support obama also said something about how exceptional clinton is as a candidate, and how they would back her candidacy if she wins the nominations with no qualms and no regrets. it was my first caucus, and really left me feeling like maybe we all could pull together, regardless of which candidate we prefer now.

norbizness,

No one is saying Obama is Republican lite. Rather, both he and Clinton are somewhat moderate progressives... They are, in short, very similar.

And are you denying that that video, which is quite popular, actually manages to say even less than most political ads...?

Nina: I think I can honestly say I've never seen the video, and would feel very badly if somebody's vote were actually influenced by it... or, for that matter, any campaign media or literature.

I'm just old enough to remember 1992, though, and find it somewhat ironic that any Clinton supporter would make an experience/rhetoric argument against Obama. I mean, how else do I know that Bill Clinton was from HOPE, Arkansas? That's the ONLY thing I remember about him!

I'm more of a Hillary Clinton supporter than I ever was a Bill Clinton supporter. I hate when people assume that they are one and the same, because I sincerely feel they are not...

Sure, inexperienced candidates can be good, and they can be bad -all I'm saying is it makes it harder to /know/ one way or the other what will happen...

To the commenters - the idea of Obama supporters voting for McCain rather than Hillary is completely absurd. I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for whomever the party nominates. The same goes for everyone else I know who is a democrat.

I guess what i'm most bothered by in this campaign is the weird gender-based rhetoric in use by just about everyone (MSM, candidates, supporters you name it). Whether it's MSNBCs amazingly over the top misogyny (which, incidentally, horrifies my British boyfriend who wants to know why Chelsea isn't suing) or the Clinton campaign's unresolved relationship with President Clinton (is he patron, elder statesman, attack dog, dutiful husband?) I think this campaign has brought a level of gender-based nastiness out of the closet that I had not imagined to exist.

One aspect which worries me incredibly is the idea which is getting bandied about of 'voting with your vagina'. Older feminists worry that young women don't appreciate the historic nature of this election, younger feminists suggest (and i've found it a lot on feministing which makes me sad) that True Feminists can ONLY vote/caucus for Obama - that it's not fair to take gender into account (even though no one is accusing black americans of 'voting with their skin'). Women and in particular women voters are being portrayed by everyone (or so it seems from the other side of the Atlantic) as only transcending some sort of gender-imperative vagina vote if they blindly vote against a woman. COME ON, ladies.

I'm pretty far to the left of the American electorate and dislike the moderation of both leading candidates (though, full disclosure, i'm leaning HRC-wards - the hope/inspiration/change thing doesn't play well at a distance) but on my wish-list for this election is that both major candidates (and not just their subordinates) come out publicly against the misogyny that seems to be oozing across the states (and i don't mean in posts on websites, i mean on the record in front of news crews. I want sound bites god-damn-it!). I'll vote for either in the election, but I really want to vote for an out of the closet feminist and I don't think i've heard that from BHO.

While Kansas did vote Obama- it did so on superTuesday. The republican caucus was over the weekend- our repubs voted for DumbFuckabee.

And yes, I did just resort to name-calling.

"Clinton's health care policy is more progressive, and health care is a pretty big deal. Clinton is more progressive (or at least has more specific ideas) when it comes to reproductive rights. Clinton has spoke out more for gay rights."

THANK YOU!!!

I had someone ask me "how can you support Clinton since you're for gay rights?"

Apparently supporting same-sex unions with the same privileges as marriage, enacting stricter hate crime laws, and ending Don't Ask Don't Tell isn't enough. Her LBGT platform is a little hidden in her site, so I guess if you aren't really looking for it you might not think it's there. But it is.

A friend actually suggested that Clinton's promise to uphold Roe actually was a promise toward inaction rather than action. I don't think fighting to uphold something that so many people want to overturn is inaction. Inaction would be rolling over and letting anti-choicers have at it.

So I'm voting for the candidate I prefer. The vagina is a bonus.

Actually, the Kansas win was on Super Tuesday. As noted above by tc195, Nebraska, along with Washington, Louisiana, the Virgin Islands, and Maine were the contests this weekend for the Democrats. Kansas did have a Republican contest on Friday, however, while Nebraska didn't. Confused yet? :)

Nina,

I don't think it is really all that close in terms of progressive politics.

I will, for the sake of avoiding an argument about mandates, grant that Clinton is more progressive on healthcare.

But Obama is more progressive on immigration reform (Clinton wants to deport with legal process). He is more progressive on defendants rights and capital punishment (video-taping confessions, Gitmo, endorsement by the habeaus lawyers). He is more progressive on the first amendment (strongly pro separation of church and state, Clinton's flag-burning amendment).

And I don't see much actual daylight between them on gay rights and reproductive rights. Especially on gay rights, I think Obama wins out due to his support for national civil unions that are equal to marriage.

As for foreign policy, it seems to me that Obama is superior at every point of difference. His Cuba policy is better. He has a history of caring about non-proliferation while Clinton does not. He is better on Iran. He had better judgment on the most important foreign policy question of our day.

Not only that, but his rhetoric on foriegn policy shifts us away from American unipolarity and towards a liberal internationalism. Clinton has provided us no reason to think she is motivated by that worldview.

Obama's advisers on foreign policy are distinctly more progressive and internationalist than Clinton's.

Anyway, I think the claim that Obama is more progressive is justified, but I don't think there is a massive difference. I would be happy to vote for Clinton in the general.

But I see no reason to vote for the less liberal, less charismatic, less electability candidate.

AmethystCate,

Honestly, I think all sorts of accusations have happened on all sides, as is the usual for political elections, frankly. I do think it's a fair critique that more big figures in the media have made sexist remarks than racist remarks...

I think part of what's so hard about this (and all race and gender issues) is that we all really have our own experience to go on primarily, and have to go to effort to listen carefully to other people. I know in my life I've heard a lot more people who believed there were significant biological differences between men and women in terms of emotional and intellectual capacities, than people who believed in such racial differences. I've heard essentialist gender stereotypes bolstered by professers, family members, friends, etc. And the only people I've heard say essentialist racial stuff were like pretty uneducated, older people.

And I'm not saying that minority people aren't as groups screwed over in this country, economically, socially, etc. b/c I totally think they are, but I think perhaps essentialist ways of thinking about gender are far more common and acceptable in mainstream media and higher education these days, than essentialist theories of race.

So on the one hand, it would make sense to me that for two people who are non-representative of their racial and gender groups (in that they are both rich and highly-successful politicians) who present themselves in a more-or-less business-like "mainstream" way, the woman is going to be questioned more in the public spotlight, if that makes sense...

But whether I'm right or not, I understand that my life experiences will influence my view. I would love to hear more people go in detail into personal stories that influence their views (in my experience w/ friends, this is one of the best ways to learn stuff)

I like Obama because his policies are more in line with my own beliefs than those of Hillary Clinton.

The Slant, just because you won't vote for McCain or stay home doesn't mean a decent number of Obama supporters won't.
I don't know if the man is hypnotizing the people at his rallies or what. But I have heard plenty of Obama supporters threaten to take their balls & go home if Obama doesn't win the nom. Lots of spoiled brats in his camp (and I have been undecided for the majority of primary season).

I guess I see it as an asset, not a liability, to have supporters who are motivated by their gut, as well as those motivated by their head. I think it shows that people can sense Obama's core integrity, and know that he will do what's right for the country.

And I have to say, being involved in his campaign is the first time in my life I have felt proud of being an American. I'm actually sort of embarassed even typing those words, because it seems to corny and...Republican. But there you have it. Obama made this child of 60s-era lefties proud to be an American. And I've talked to many, many people who feel the same way. But not in an "America, Fuck Yeah" kinda way, but in a "we have so much in this country, we have an obligation to do great things" kind of way. And that just can't be a bad thing.

But even beyond that, Obama is *just as policy-saavy* as Clinton is. Ask anyone who's ever worked with him, and they'll tell you about his complex, probing mind. Unlike most politicians who just want a one-pager from their staff when they need to make a decision, Obama is infamous for delving down into the complexities of the issue. I mean, he was Editor of the Harvard Law Review and a constitutional law professor at Chicago - these are jobs that require a supple, complex brain.

Usually politicians like this are hopeless at gaining mass appeal because they are way too "wonkish" to inspire. Obama is extremely lucky to have both talents. (BTW, Matt Yglesias wrote an excellent blog post about this very topic today)

Also, FWIW, Obama does best among "high-information" voters, those who are paying the most attention. Moreover, opinion polls over time show that the more exposure voters have to Obama, the more likely they are to support him. So while some supporters may have a hard time expressing why they support him, on the whole, I think most of his supporters have made a thoughtful, responsible choice, as have most of Clinton's supporters.

I mean, how else do I know that Bill Clinton was from HOPE, Arkansas? That's the ONLY thing I remember about him!

I'm old enough to remember 1992 quite well, and there was a lot more to his campaign than that. Clinton rode to office on the issues of the bad economy and joblessness and the promise of national health care--championed in particular by HRC, which is why I do think she's committed to it. She was there fifteen years ago already. That promise was shot to shreds when he got into office, of course, which may well--probably will--happen again. I also remember his clear intelligence and ability to answer substantive questions with detailed, researched responses, which after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, made a major impression on me--it was the first time I'd ever seen it in a president or president-to-be.

I also remember all the bullshit--the saxophone-playing, the boxers vs. briefs, the Hope crap. But there was a lot more substance to his campaign than that.

"I mean, Clinton's health care policy is more progressive, and health care is a pretty big deal"

From what I see, it would seem the Obama's healthcare policy is more *fair*. Clinton's so-called universal healthcare is simply universal health *coverage*, which would require all Americans to *purchase* their healthcare so that then everyone is insured. This is a plan that is VERY appealing to the private insurance companies because it puts money directly into their pockets.

Obama wants a national affordable coverage that is optional. In other words, he would create a plan that is affordable and then if you can afford it, you can purchase it.

Granted neither candidate wants a socialized health plan, but Clinton's plan is the furthest from that ideal.

vtcheme - agree 100%

i do not want president mccain. i think obama has a much better shot at beating him than hillary. i think hillary as the nominee takes the war effectively off the table, which is one of the dems' strongest issues in this race and also opens up the entire race to be overwhelmed by clinton closet skeletons.

In other words, he would create a plan that is affordable and then if you can afford it, you can purchase it.

And then poor people still end up without health insurance.

As a college student, I have seen so much rather creepy Obama adoration. I have no problem with you liking him, admring him, voting for him, working for him, etc... but when people can't say one position of his they like, just that he makes them feel "proud to be an American," that's when it gets a little weird. I think a lot of Obama's fans want care very little about him, as a politician, but more about how he makes them feel. They think "he makes me feel good about America, and myself as an American, so he must be good." I'm not saying that everyone or even most people who like Obama feel that way- after all, there are dozens of reasons to vote for him. But when it isn't about his policies, his performance, his experience, or anything like that, and it's just about how he talks and makes you feel, that's a big problem.

I just wanted to add that I don't agree with the premise that Clinton's health care plan is more progressive. Both plans are essentially the same: people can stick with their insurance if they like it; if not, they can buy into the plan that members of congress use on a sliding scale. I know in Obama's plan, people who truly cannot afford insurance at any cost would be covered for free and I'll assume Clinton's plan has the same provision. Both plans also have efficiency measures to make health care more affordable across the board.

The major difference that gets talked about is the mandate issue. To be honest, though, I think this is a pretty small difference. I think the more salient difference is that Obama's plan would cover abortions and Clinton's would not.

Ninapendamaishi, I agree with you on essentialist gender vs. essentialist race arguments. And I have a theory on it as well - I think that essentialist race arguments never hold up because science has proven beyond a shred of doubt that people of all races are the SAME - the pinnacle of that research being a study that showed you can't even genetically tell the difference between people of two different races.

The problem with gender is that science has also proven we're basically the same - there are definite biological differences between men and women, but we are FAR more similar than not - but the differences that have been discovered are over-emphasized, over-scrutinized, and overplayed by major media outlets. So you hear headlines saying that female human DNA is more similar to female chimps' DNA than it is to that of human males (not true), or that women are more emotional than men (we're on average more emotionally intelligent, but NOT more emotional), or that 50% of us occasionally get PMS symptoms that the media totally overplays, and suddenly even rational, forward-thinking people believe women are less capable of important tasks than men. (Well, not suddenly. It's been going on forever.)

It makes me sick, because science has proven the races are equal AND the genders are equal, but because of a few differences between men and women that are based on our gender-based reproductive strategies, we are constantly sent the message that women are not as capable as men by any means. And people wonder why I'm angry...

EG, you make a good point. I'm certainly not saying either plan is perfect. I would much prefer a singler payer plan. But since neither candidate is advocating for that, I just find it wrong that each person would be required to *purchase* healthcare. As someone who lived without healthcare for quite some time (and as someone who just missed the requirement in MA by moving out of state), I don't see the logic in forcing people to purchase healthcare. The reason that people are not insured is not because the government isn't forcing them to. It's because they can't afford it. Hopefully, those who are poor enough to qualify will receive free healthcare. But I have been a part of the working class for most of my adult life and made enough money where I wouldn't have qualified for free healthcare in MA, and also would not have been able to afford any kind of healthcare payment.

Sorry,

But these are good reasons NOT to vote for Sen. Clinton:

Her position on flag burning, her support of the Cuba Embargo, and her vote regarding the Iranian Republican guard, Her Wal-mart involvement and her anti-union stance, and her support of Three-strikes laws.

when people can't say one position of his they like, just that he makes them feel "proud to be an American,"

You know...that's exactly why people voted for Reagan.

Abby, I absolutely see your point.

One more thing, Obama took the time out to vote on stripping immunity from Telecoms in the FISA bill, but Clinton couldn't. This was an important vote, and very telling about the priorities of the candidates.

SarahWonks, does it make you proud to know that Obama may ride a wave of misogyny all the way to the White House?
That he has turned into an ugly cult figure who attracts Hillary-hating bullies & sexists? That as a "leader" he uses their hate as a prop?

How much "hope" are you filled with when Obama's blind supporters crash gang up on Hillary supporters on "leftist" blogs, even going so far as to kick them off?

I used to be in on the Obamamania but today I voted for Hillary because I don't want to be a part of Obama's team. And Hillary would be a better administrator, IMO.

[Though at this point I almost hope Obama wins because I'd love to see his supporters' faces when the country turns against him after Bush's shit rolls downhill]

melliot, you're right -- those are perfectly legitimate reasons not to vote for Hillary.

The problem is that the reasons *most* people give have something to do with her "personality" or problems that are no different from every single other politician, which makes it pretty obvious that sexism is at work. They'll even occasionally tack on a legitimate excuse at the end to make it seem like they've thought about things, but the bottom line is they're voting because of sexism (I'm not saying they're doing it consciously, by the way).

I'm new to this site, so I'm a little confused about the back and forth between Clinton and Obama supporters. Both candidates are exciting. Both candidates bring hope. Both candidates bring with them a new face for the presidency. Both candidates even vote the same way. That said, I also don't understand a purported feminist website and its readers failing to overwhelmingly endorse the intelligent, experienced, and vibrant woman running for president.

Once an Obama supporter myself (even purchasing an Obama t-shirt for my own birthday), I switched loyalties a couple months ago when I read that Obama supported merit pay for teachers. A teacher myself, I recognize that there is no viable and fair way to accurately pay teachers based on merit even if the idea sounds good, and I was a little surprised by his lack of understanding of the issue. While I appreciate the respect Obama has for teachers, I still felt the need to investigate. I began reading Obama's plans and platform and not just listening to his words of hope, and his ideas indicate that he still has a lot to figure out.

Hillary Clinton is more prepared to be president. That became obvious to me as I read both candidates' platforms as well as a number of articles about Bush's legacy of economic, social, and global failings. It scared me that I was so willing to follow a man, even one, especially one, with such an easy smile and pretty words, and that I could so easily discard a strong woman, and it took a lot of soul-searching to reach a certain clarity on what it means to be a feminist. Maybe this race should be about more than race and gender, but I won’t deny that I am tired of seeing white guys running our country (so tired that even Edwards and Dennis didn’t stand a chance at my vote.) Maybe it’s wrong when I’ve been screaming for the last seven years that policy should matter more than person when it comes to the presidency that gender should matter, but this is a website for feminists, so I’m going risk it and say that feminists should care about gender as well as, and maybe even more than, platform. Maybe Hillary Clinton isn't perfect (though I suspect she’s far more left than she lets on) and I respect many organizations and people who have endorsed Obama, but if we're feminists and we're asking our feminine candidate to be perfect to earn our vote, then we are falling into the trap that is set for all of us women—the trap of perfection, and we aren't really feminists at all.

Preface: I like Clinton, really I do. I just like Obama's stance on certain issues better. I'll vote for Clinton if she's selected, but I'll be thinking that we had the second best candidate while I'm punching my ballot...

Now onto the response:

"Clinton is more progressive (or at least has more specific ideas) when it comes to reproductive rights."

Clinton may have more specific ideas when it comes to reproductive rights, but I don't think this necessarily makes her more progressive. And the fact that NOW (who staunchly supports Clinton) and Clinton campaign supporters recently tried to paint Obama as a non-supporter of reproductive rights based on his "present" votes (part of an approved Planned Parenthood strategy) left a very nasty taste in my mouth.

"but if we're feminists and we're asking our feminine candidate to be perfect to earn our vote, then we are falling into the trap that is set for all of us women—the trap of perfection, and we aren't really feminists at all."

And I'd say that if we're feminists, and we're asking our candidate to be feminine, then we aren't really feminists at all. We're further essentializing women. As a woman, I want to vote for the candidate who I think will make the most difference in women's lives, and who matches my views on other issues. Just because someone's a woman doesn't mean that they have women's interests at heart (Phyllis Schafely comes to mind....). EDITORIAL COMMENT: I am in NO way comparing Clinton to Phyllis Schafely - used for illustrative purposes only.