The Renegade’s Reasons
Wisconsin Democrats held their state convention up here over the weekend. It didn’t have much star power—no Barack Obama, no other nationally prominent Democrat, not even Bill Richardson (who scored surprisingly well in a straw poll of VP preferences, coming second to Hillary)—but there was a little bit of drama nevertheless. Wisconsin’s two most high-profile Hillary Clinton supporters, state attorney general Barbara Lawton and Madison U.S. representative Tammy Baldwin, pledged enthusiastic support for Obama, but the state party chair moved that one pledged Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention be stripped of her delegate status, a process that will begin this week.
Debra Bartoshevich told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week, “I’m kind of disenfranchised. . . . I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain. I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters.” She believes the Wright flap and Obama’s ties to developer Tony Rezko reflect badly on Obama’s judgment, and also says, “No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her — that’s by Susan B. Anthony.”
Let’s leave aside the question of McCain’s “experience with foreign matters,” said experience being mostly the creation of McCain’s fans in the media, and McCain’s own “judgment,” and unpack the rest of the crap in Bartoshevich’s statement. What happened to Debra Bartoshevich and Hillary Clinton in this campaign was not disenfranchisement, it was arithmetic: Their side didn’t win enough delegates. I believe that the way we choose presidential candidates is badly flawed myself, but the way we play the game now is the way we play the game now, and the rules are the rules. Being ignored is also a consequence of losing. Those who come in second aren’t entitled to the same prerogatives that winners get. As for the idea that the Democrats are a party that ignores women, that’s an idea so stupid it should cause physical pain.
In the privacy of the voting booth, Bartoshevich is entitled to vote for McCain if she wants to. I don’t believe she should be permitted to represent Wisconsin at the Democratic Convention, however. And if she’s serious about voting for McCain, she’d better be ready to take the McCain Loyalty Oath for Women before she does. There’s a price to be paid by any Democrat who votes for McCain, but particularly for women. The likely destruction of Roe v. Wade is only the beginning. The question for Debra Bartoshevich and others like her is whether blind loyalty to a defeated candidate is really worth so much.
Posted: June 15th, 2008 under Aargh, Hillary, McCain, Obama.
Comments: 3
Comments
Comment from timr
Time: June 15, 2008, 10:46 am
To true. Some of these Clinton supporters invested way to much in their candidate, and even worse believed every word that she said, and believed that what terry said”welcome the next prez of the US” on the night that she lost, and her speech afterwords, where she pretty much said(whined) that she was the better candidate, she had more popular votes-untrue, and in any case not relevant, as the dem primary was for DELEGATES, which Obama won-or that she won Mi and FL-again untrue, as those elections were declared illegal by the rules that everyone knew about(a couple of Clintons people were on the committee that approved throwing out all the Mi & Fl delegates) Overall this woman(superdelegate) should be stripped of her position, she did that to herself by her sourgrapes statements. Yet she says she wants to remain a superdelegate, its strange just how many people have this same attitude, my candidate should have won, she is the better candidate(never mind her 50+ negative ratings over the whole country, that matters in the GE)never mind the rules, my candidate should be the winner. These people have way to much invested in their choice. They can not accept(unlike the 80+% of hrc’s so called 18 million voters who did go over to supporting Obama) that she lost fair and square, no matter how much she tried to move the goalposts. If this person wants to vote for st john, who believes in the exact opposite of what she says she believes in- by supporting hrc-then I say, she, and the others like her, have no idea what st john stands for and believes in. Maybe they think that st john is just hrc lite, rather than what he is, bush jr.
Comment from timr
Time: June 15, 2008, 1:47 pm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/12/EDOD118AKP.DTL
I just finished reading this column and all the comments. There seem to be some really out of control hrc supporters out there. Still going on about how hrc “won” the popular vote-which BTW, DID NOT COUNT, EVER. No matter what hrc said during the campaign, she, not Obama was the one who tried to change the rules in the middle of the campaign. And now sone of the clinton supporters have gone round the bend, still fighting over who won the nomination. GEEZ. Clinton and Obama agree over 98% of the time on programs and policies. So some hrc supporters want st john to be the prez, and with very cloudy thinking, imagine that the dems will win big in congress and therefore st john will not be able to do anything. These people sure don’t know any history do they? So, hrc got about 18 mill votes. So What. So did Obama. 36mill votes is still a minority in the GE, and if those rabid(sorry can’t think of another word) supporters think that hrc is well liked outside the dem primary circle, then think again. Her negatives are extremely high. If she were the candidate, the swift boaters would have already let loose their slime machine, and one hell of a lot would have stuck. Bill never got a majority of the voters, he was a minority prez. He did a lot of things that the repigs were just drooling over having the chance to bring back up. I believe that hrc would have lost in a massive landslide, no matter what her supporters think. The repig machine was reved up and ready, they had years of material that they could/can slime her with, face it, she lost, and she PROMISED to campaign hard for Obama. Funny, I haven’t heard a word out of her since her sat speech.
Comment from Leftcoast
Time: June 16, 2008, 8:51 am
If you believe the polls, Obama’s share of women voters has increased. Party loyalty seems to be trumping gender politics. That’s the good news. Again, it’s way early, but Obama’s 7-point lead has been shaved to two according to MSNBC from 48-41 to 44-42. Hard to imagine that this thing would even be close, given Uncle Fester and the Pug record. But it is and it’s going to be. A topic I’m sure that will be hashed and rehashed several times between now and Nov.
tmr. Keep your powder dry. Hillary is a mystery, to be sure, but it’s early, and she’s got to be spent after 16 months of fucking everything up. Let’s see what she does in crunch time, during and after the convention, when it really matters. More important, let’s see if it really helps. You might want her on the sidelines…
Write a comment