Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Election 2008

A Husband-Wife Debate: Obama vs. Hillary

By Michael Laser, AlterNet. Posted January 29, 2008.


"My wife and I keep having the same argument. It's not exactly a sophisticated debate, but I have a feeling other people are covering similar ground."
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

My wife and I keep having the same argument. It's not exactly a sophisticated debate, but I have a feeling other people are covering similar ground.

Me: Maybe he can win after all. He's likable, and smart and good-looking. And he didn't blow his cool when she attacked him in South Carolina.

Her: You don't have any idea what people in the rest of the country are like. Nobody in this liberal suburb does. Americans won't elect a black man -- not yet -- no matter what they tell pollsters.

Me: I know there's a certain percentage of people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate if you tied them up and held boiling oil over their heads -- but I don't think the percentage is high enough to guarantee he'd lose.

Her: I think it is. I think the other side is praying he's the candidate. They may even be working behind the scenes to get him nominated, by attacking her and leaving him alone -- because they assume they could beat him with one hand tied behind their backs.

Me: What about all those college kids who are so excited, so optimistic? Maybe this time their audacious hopes will be rewarded.

Her: If he's the candidate, they're in for an eye-opening experience. (Unspoken: Just like we had in 1972, and 2000 and 2004. Not to mention 1980, and 1984 and 1988. Poor kids.)

Me: I don't buy your argument. Charisma wins votes -- and that could overcome the racism factor.

Her: So you're going to vote for him?

Me: I don't know. He's not really as progressive as I'd like. And I worry that he's too nice to survive the last-minute dirty tricks.

Her: What about her?

Me: Sure, I'd love to see a woman elected -- and she's so smart -- and she's learned so much about how to play the game. I think she could actually survive the dirty tricks.

Her: There's a "but" coming.

Me: But the percentage of people who hate her may be bigger than the percentage of people who wouldn't vote for a black person.

Her: I disagree.

Me: Well, we could go back and forth forever on that one.

Her: She could get a lot done. She knows how.

Me: I think so too. But she's really kind of conservative. And I worry about her outmachoing the hawks, in Iran and other unforeseen places.

Her: What about Edwards? Remember when we kept asking our friends who they were going to vote for, and they all said, "Well, I really like Edwards, but ..."

Me: I don't know why he's not doing better.

Her: Er ... money might have something to do with it.

Me: And he was talking kind of angry out there for a while. It didn't sound good.

Her: And he lost last time, sort of. There's a taint.

Me: Maybe his biggest problem is that Democrats won't allow themselves to make him their candidate, when a black man and a woman are running. It would seem racist and misogynistic. Or, at least, insufficiently progressive. It would look bad. Even though he wouldn't have any of the negatives -- no accusations of dynasty or inexperience. And he has a Southern accent. That alone could win the White House.

Her: So who are you going to vote for?

Me: I don't know. Who are you going to vote for?

Her: I don't know.

Me: I don't even know how to decide. Do you go for the one you agree with the most, or the one with the best chance to win in November?

Her: Are you kidding? The one who can win!

Me: And that would be ...

Her: I don't know.

Me: Me neither. But the truth is, at this point, any one of the three would be a dream come true -- like a cool bubbling spring after eight years in the desert.

Her: That's a mirage you're seeing. If one of them gets elected, you'll be annoyed at half the things he or she does.

Me: I would be so happy to be annoyed!

Her: Ah, well, maybe the decision will be clearer by the time our primary comes.

Me: We said that a month ago.

Her: True. Well, it's not as if our votes will decide what happens in the end.

Me: Right. Except -- it sort of is.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: election 2008, husband, wife

Michael Laser, a novelist, is the author of Dark & Light: A Love Story and the forthcoming young adult novel Cheater.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Of course
Posted by: g50 on Jan 29, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always have this debate with the boo. However, if a class act like Obama can't win, I guess, who cares? Ultimately the policies of the government will remain essentially the same. Moderate, diversity from conservatism to liberalism, market oriented, strong civil society, strong defense, businesses of all sizes, et cetera. Politics is almost completely about style, any real change begins with yourself and your immediate environment, the politicians in Washington are the background. And if someone like Obama, brilliant, creatively able to leverage understanding of the competing perspectives, ideas, and constituencies in a way that is affirming rather than abusive, can't win, I don't really care. I don't want to see Hillary fight it out. I just don't care about their personal Washington dramas, especially since Washington never really changes and change is up to us individually, locally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Of course/REAL Progressive Posted by: Andie927
Not quite ready to "settle" for the current arguments
Posted by: nova510 on Jan 29, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether between spouses or others or even internally, these certainly seem to be the going arguments, and they're certainly frustrating. Someone said the primaries are where you vote your conscience, not "settle" (was it Kucinich?).

I admit that I have not yet been bitten by the Obama bug--his record just doesn't hold up to the rhetoric, and if his basic conservatism--*especially* his admitted fiscal conservatism--lies beneath his supposed charismatic ability to bring people together, who the heck is going to be brought together to what end? The potential for disappointment/frustration could break the speed records of the Clinton I dynasty.

A Clinton II dynasty seems "so yesterday" that I can barely fathom the level of denial we're already engaging in at this stage of the game--NAFTA; deregulation; welfare "reform"; private, mandated, corporate healthcare. What are we thinking? Surely our utter disbelief at the outrages of the Bush administration can carry us past this rehashing of the 90s.

Edwards, by all accounts, is (a) the most progressive and (b) the strongest against all Repugs. And therein lies my increasingly strong leaning toward him for the Feb 5 primaries. What a deeply needed reality check for everyone involved.

Obviously, neither Obama nor Clinton "deserve" a win simply by virtue of skin color or gender 'whose time has come." Clarence Thomas is on the SCOTUS, and Margaret Thatcher was Ronald Reagan's best friend. The idea that to be progressive we must vote for race or gender is preposterous. The point is principle and winnability, and it ain't over yet.

At the moment, Edwards, for all his flaws, is the only one showing any "change" to any of the fundamental drivers that keep us on the same 'ol path. Have we LOOKED at the debt we're carrying and our astonishing reliance on foreign nations to keep our economy afloat? We've just seen what was required to keep the whole shebang from crashing down. How long do we think this will last and how much more will be required the next time?

Black white, female, or male, if you don't have fundamentally new ideas about any of this--John McCain even admitted this week that he really doesn't understand economics....o. mi. gawd--then what in the world are you offering?

I increasingly think an Edwards vote on the 5th at least gives us a fighting chance to further examine these critical matters and to understand the structural, rather than cosmetic, changes that are so desperately needed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of course white Americans can vote for a black or a woman
Posted by: Blink on Jan 29, 2008 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But it will be a conservative black, such as J.C. Watts, or a conservative woman, along the lines of Maggie Thatcher. In other words, a black or woman who thinks and acts like a conservative white male. White Americans will not elect an extreme Left-leaning black like Obama or woman like Hillary, because they are afraid, rightly or wrongly, that such an individual would be like a kid in a candy store.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What Americans want Posted by: carbon-based
Sex
Posted by: HeKnew on Jan 29, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McTalking Head #1 or McTalking Head #2...wow...the possibilities are ENDLESS.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a white woman would have a harder time
Posted by: soleta_nf on Jan 29, 2008 3:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huh. I'm quite convinced that a white woman would have a harder time winning the White House than a black man. Interesting to know that some people think the opposite.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Come on, wise up
Posted by: Moonray on Jan 29, 2008 4:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our obsession over electing the president is just one more way of distracting the public. Whether Hillary or Barack is elected doesn't really matter much. Neither could do much to bring about real change in our government because special interests control Congress.

To really bring meaningful change we have to amend our Constitution to better protect the working classes from the monied elites. Until we do that we are just blowing smoke -- and the Republicans are laughing their butts off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: or elect Edwards Posted by: Andie927
» RE: Come on, wise up Posted by: nochicagoboys
KAEL
Posted by: KAEL on Jan 29, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the notion that the majority of Americans are racist or sexist is not borne out in our local and state elections. Americans are nothing if not practical. They will vote for the most electable candidate that supports their issues. The problem is that it is very hard to say who is most electable and the winner takes all very early on. I believe that the candidate that promises the most sensible and humane approach to withdrawal from Iraq and universal health care, along with a tax plan to cover the costs of both, will own the day. If bias plays a role, it is likely to fall the way the enfranchising amendements fell into the constitution - any black man before any woman of any color.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Me and her
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Jan 29, 2008 4:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Me: I was watching the Obama speech before and--

Her: They're all crooks. Now go take out the trash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Totally missing from this article
Posted by: AndyF on Jan 29, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is the idea that elections are for voting for the person we believe will do the best job as opposed to reading opinion polls to ensure that our vote is given to the candidate the media has anointed as most likely to win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Southern Vote is The Key
Posted by: Woeful on Jan 29, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
History has shown us, repeatedly, that in order to win the presidency the candidate needs to take the South. Sadly, I don't believe that Hillary has any chance of doing that. They despise her.

If Obama can mobilize the gargantuan Southern black vote he's got a good chance. I think he has a better chance of doing that than Hillary does mobilizing the Southern Belles anyway...

Edwards is probably the most electable candidate. He's a white Southern guy. Sadly, he isn't winning any primaries.

When this political season began, I wanted Clinton, but I believed Edwards had the best chance of winning. Now, I like Obama. He's shown a lot of character, and vision, and I think he's our best bet for radical change.

Can he win? If he takes the Southern vote he can...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Ye of little faith... Posted by: Axiom69
» Lazy? Posted by: YogiBear
Deja Vu all over again
Posted by: halweiner on Jan 29, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a surprise! Someone taped my wife's conversations with
me and put YOUR name on them! Truly, the homogenization of
the Democratic Left is a thing of beauty.

Now that we got past that, here is why I am switching to Obama.
Not because another tiresome Kennedy wants me to do so. Please.... I am NOT part of the Kennedy mistique clique. The family is highly over-rated, especially John and Robert. ( the old man, Joseph P, was under-rated. Actually he was more dangerous than Hitler, who he backed as the potential winner of WW II to FDR.) I know it is bad form to remind you romantics that there was nothing romantic about the Bay of Pigs fiasco or the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the Soviets were as crazy as the Kennedys you would not be reading this. While Camelot may have been a good musical you really would not want to live there.

Obama won my heart when I read his speech/sermon/whatever at the Ebenezer Baptist Church which he delivered on Martin Luther King Jr. Sunday. When he called out African-Americans for their homophobia and in many cases incipient anti-semitism, he was definitely not preaching to the converted. He was risking alienating his most secure support base to tell the TRUTH. When is the last time you heard the truth? That is why it seems so strange and out of place. The only question remains; can we afford a President who doesn't lie to us? That would be so radical that perhaps we might rethink support for Obama. Lies are a great comfort factor. They give you the reason to ignore little details showing flaws in character and reasoning like Monica Wolinsky, the Gulf of Tonkin " incident " that never happened, and, of course, Chappaquiddick and Marilyn Monroe..... but I digress.

I am soooooooooo tired of politics as usual from the Demublicans and the Republicrats. ( there is no discernable difference between them; their primary goal is to get elected so they can go to Washington and quibble for their terms of office. ) Please do not give me the economic theory crap; all of them indulge in insider trading, slick dealings, and shady companionships. A Washington madam's private contact list would turn up everyone on both sides of the aisle, and if she were a dominatrix or gay, probably half their spouses as well.

I knew that I was suffering reality withdrawal symptoms when Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich started looking like viable candidates. Remember Ralph Nadir? ( not a typo). Remember Ross Perot? Remember the Maine!!!!

I will happily go into the voting booth in NYC and pull down the Obama delegates' lever. ( we still use those nice mechanical ones ). To avoid the ire of my wife and mom in law who are ardent Hillary supporters ( I am a recovering Hillary supporter, thanks to Bill and her lack of curbing him..... if she cannot control him now, what could she do if they were in the oval office together? ) I will lie. Don't worry. It's as American as apple pie.

The kids are right. They have a clear vision of an America that might stand for something in the world besides self-preservation. I am not against that. I have no death wish. If I did, it would be easy to vote for any number of candidates who will ultimately grant it. Now they better get their butts into the voting booths and not just the phone banks and parties.

Ted Kennedy ( hey, even a stopped clock is right twice daily) said it. The time has come for change. REAL change. Maybe Obama can deliver it. I tell you one thing.... electing an African-American with Islamic roots will do more to wake up the nascent middle of the road we have been trying to reach in the Middle East than all the military surges in the history of America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Deja Vu all over again Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Deja Vu all over again Posted by: Thebigkate
IRV
Posted by: toddcory on Jan 29, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, IRV (instant runoff voting) would make this debate moot. It would allow us to vote our hearts as #1, and be pragmatic and vote our heads with #2, #3 etc. Why don't we push hard for this so we can end the foolish debates like the one parodied above?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SAY WHAT? Posted by: Axiom69
GENERATIONAL DIVIDE IS THE ISSUE
Posted by: drricklippin on Jan 29, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more I think about the Obama/Clinton dialogue the more I believe it is more about generational politics rather that gender or race? Maybe I am naive?

How old are the conversants in this common husband-wife debate portrayed in this interesting and creative post? :)

Dr.Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A VERY TYPICAL CONVERSATION
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 29, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now let's tune it to a typical Conservative Republican couple having the same discussion. My guess is, they don't. They set their sights on the person they want in office and go for it. No discussion, no popularity contest. Nothing else explains why Bush got any votes at all. If we're not careful it'll happen again. I'm all for public discussion but at some point people have to come together. Democrats haven't done that. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So what are you saying?... Posted by: kepstein7777
Boo AlterNet
Posted by: Flora Gael on Jan 29, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is possibly the stupidest piece of fluff I have ever seen on this site.

First off, you're stoking the race/gender issue - congratulations for being members of the facist PC left.

Secondly, there is no substance in the fictional discourse between husband and wife - but perhaps it's just mirroring reality, the reality where politicians can parrot insubstantive rhetoric and actually get away with it, thanks to a narcotized public. Perhaps there really is nothing to say, given that Obama Hillary essentially say nothing, just in different ways.

Thirdly, congratulations on dumbing down progressive discourse by refusing to take the leading Dems to task for their corporate agendas, and by refusing to honestly cover REAL progressives like Kucinich.

Alternative, my derrier.

I'm jumping ship, AlterNet. I've had enough.

Toodles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boo AlterNet Posted by: Clockwise Cat
» Yeah, right. Posted by: kepstein7777
» Right on kepstein! Posted by: Flora Gael
Electability is a Bad Reason to Vote for a Candidate
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jan 29, 2008 7:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Electability is a self-fulfilling prophecy:

a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation (Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, and McCain are electable, Dennis Kucinch, Mike Gravel, Ron Paul are unelectable) evoking a new behaviour (supporting only electable candidates which increases their polling numbers and decreases the unelectable candidates polling numbers) which makes the original false conception come 'true'. This specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuates a reign of error (some candidates are electable, others are not). For the prophet will cite the actual course of events as proof that he was right from the very beginning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Progressives are intelligent? Posted by: Flora Gael
A more typical conversation:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 29, 2008 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her: We were idiots for getting that adjustable rate mortgage on this place.

Him: Well, it was the only way we could get a house of our own - and we should have been able to refinance the loan.

Her: At least we were able to use the money to pay Mom's hospital bills. You know, we need to try and run the nursing home idea past her again.

Him: Good luck. What's up with the election? Think they're going to pull all the troops out?

Her: The neighbor's kid is in Iraq - or Afghanistan. How come they're not talking about that?

Him: Well, maybe the "surge" has improved things - but here it says five more U.S. soldiers were killed in Mosul, and they found 19 men with their heads chopped off somewhere - what a nightmare.

Her: What one earth are we doing in that country? Saddam is dead, there weren't any nukes or anthrax, and they don't seem to want us there.

Him: They're going to try and install another strongman type, I bet. It's all about the oil, I think. It looks like every single country in the region is building nuclear power plants - they'll all have weapons soon. Israel's already got hundreds that they won't talk about - nuts.

Her: How about a more cheerful topic? We're going to have to figure out whether we're going to move into a rental or try and keep this house, remember?

Him: Right. Say, who are you going to vote for?

Her: Anyone who will end the war and go after all the rotten health insurance and mortgage companies - that would be my choice.

Him: And who is that?

Her: Beats me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A more typical conversation: Posted by: nochicagoboys
my dreams won't fit in your ballot box
Posted by: rsinger09 on Jan 29, 2008 8:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right…Just vote for the most “electable “candidate. Who cares about past voting records, like Obama voting for the Patriot Act and Hillary voting for the Iraq war? Just keep on lying to yourself. As if America was a true democracy, as if there was a difference between Republican and Democratic candidates…Wake up people: it’s the same damn thing, and all this election bullshit does is distract us from the real issues at hand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you lose
Posted by: grkjr on Jan 29, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neither Clinton nor Obama will make an easy win. The possibiliy of loss is actually greater.. The black vote is too small to be the deciding factor in a national election and is insufficient to win the south alone. This is especially true when the progressive vote abandons the party. . Clinton is not progressive enough and for that matter neither is Obama. Edwards is the most progressive of the 3 and has the only chance of ensuring a win for the democrats as he can carry the south and get the support of the progressives.. seems simple..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: you lose Posted by: Axiom69
» RE: you lose Posted by: Dboy
» RE: you lose Posted by: grkjr
» RE: you lose Posted by: YogiBear
Franny in Carmel, CA
Posted by: Franny on Jan 29, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does no one remember the 2004 campaign? The Democrats nominated the "safest" candidate - and also the dullest candidate. And then they told fellow Democrats to just hold their noses and vote. No one was enthusiastic. Unfortunately, it turned out that the "safest" candidate was no ones real favorite. The result was 4 more years of Bush and 4 more years of war. When will the Democrats decide to go with a sure, charismatic winner? In Barack, they have a brilliant candidate who turned the tide in Iowa (an almost 100% white state) and got 25% of the white vote in South Carolina (South Carolina, for heavens sake, where they still fly the confederate flag and where the Civil War began!) and did well in NH(another almost all white state) and Nevada (got the most delegates in districts with few blacks). I'd say, if the Democrats want to win in November 2008, they should give up trying to find a sure-thing, and go with their gut. They should go with the rock star and forget the Warlike Hillary - sure a woman, but one who made it the traditional way by riding a man's coattails. Is that what feminism was all about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Franny in Carmel, CA Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Franny in Carmel, CA Posted by: abstractmachine
» RE: Franny in Carmel, CA Posted by: cmaciain
Taking Cover
Posted by: abstractmachine on Jan 29, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel like the people who say "I just don't think the people in ..." will vote for a "black man" are just taking cover for their own fears. Or at the very best are living down to the expectations of the people that they most want to distinguish themselves from.

If Hillary gets the nomination based on the banking on racist accounting it will be the biggest mistake the democratic party has made in a very very long time.

I really have hope that this isn't going to happen.

My dad, a conservative white guy, who is far to the right of all most of the REPUBLICAN nominees actually LIKES Obama. I think he'd even consider voting for him. He can't stand Hillary Clinton one bit.

In my household we are well to the left of the 3 frontrunners. We appreciate and respect Edwards and Clinton for various reasons but we absolutely LOVE Obama. Its the first time in my adult life that I have actually really wanted a Democrat to win as opposed to seeing the Republican lose.

If we can overcome the cynicism of picking a candidate based on what we "think" others will vote for, and pick the person we actually LIKE, the leader that INSIPRES us we might actually get a candidate this time that people actually want to win. That people will go to the streets for. That people will get out of their sick bed to vote for.

Aside from a little election rigging to tilt the scales, the reason a minority of people could elect GW is that despite his inarticulateness, his inexperience, his failures, and his buffoonery, he is a charismatic dude, and LOTS of people on the right like him ALOT.

If Clinton or Edwards inspire you. If they give you hope. If listening to them talk get you excited. If that make you want to hit the street and corral other people into voting FOR them, then by all means give them you money. you support, your vote.

But please don't throw your vote away because of how you expect some redneck you don't even know is gonna vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Folks, neither Obama nor Hillary are any different from the GOP candidates.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 29, 2008 10:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who wins, whether its Obama, McCain or Hillary. The working class American is still going to see their jobs off-shored, in-sourced and our national infrastructure sold off at fire sale prices.

These people are not our representatives and never have been.

The Feds may as well pull a "Pakistan" and cancel voting given what both parties have given the people to vote for. And the parties themselves ought to be abolished for giving us the choice of a bullshitter, a witch and a war mongering asshat.

We need to start over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah....no.
Posted by: DaBear on Jan 29, 2008 10:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While that conversation sounds like no one I know, I very much enjoyed the commentors' scripts as they veered closer to our kitchen table experience... (thanks to subprime crash and foreclosure, our kitchen is now a table at a county campground--all writing is now done from the library).

Our conversations are much more oriented:

me: Wonder how long before our voter registration is purged for lack of an address?

her: We shoulda voted absentee...

me: we could sneak in... make them turn us away, make a scene...

her: what's the point? The Green ticket is pretty light...

me: Elaine Brown...

her: this election is bullshit. Just tell me where to throw the molotov cocktail.


That's where one lives when you're college-degreed and homeless. Rich assholes who made the problem... be afraid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah....no. Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Yeah....no. Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: Yeah....no. I hear you Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: Yeah....no. Posted by: Knot_Rich
Hillary=GOTV 4 GOP,Obama=GOTV 4 "Silent Bigots"
Posted by: JackieGiles on Jan 29, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate-owned Media has stopped reporting polls that show John Edwards BEATS EVERY GOP CANDIDATE.MSNBC tolerates Keith Olberman because they LOVE his ratings and the $ they bring in, but he's the exception, he treats Edwards with the respect he deserves.

Hillary Clinton is Karl Roves dream-come-true. Do you think he's really "spending more time with his family"? He's busy churning out strategy/tactics (dirty tricks) for the GOP.Why do you think the R candidates spent so much debate time on slamming her? Can anyone say,
"Reverse Psychology"?

Everyone admits racism is still alive in America. The bigots have learned that it's better not to be loud about it, so when pollsters ask if they'd vote for Obama, they say yes because it hides their bigotry,and the smarter ones in the GOP would love to see him run just so they can vote against him,exercising their racism without anyone knowing.Don't kid yourself that all bigots are "rednecks"in the rural South!

People like Laser, the writer, who say (unless he's being subtle) they believe Edwards can win the white House, but are timid to vote for him in their primary are letting the corporate-media limit their choices to Clinton and Obama, the 2 they can "work with" to get a better deal for themselves by whittling away at Clinton or Obama's anti-lobbyist,pro-health care plans and keeping down spending on things like restoring our rapidly-crumbling roads,bridges,flood-control levees, and on,and on.

John Edwards has spent his life fighting and beating corporate profit-motivated negligence to the benefit of his clients. he knows how to do it and he has proven his tenacity. Reuters News Service recently quoted a Corporate spokesperson who said that Corporate America prefers Clinton or Obama but definitely doesn't want Edwards.

Don't let the media owned by GE, Disney,and Rupert Murdoch (gave $600K+ to Hillary)tell you who you can choose between as YOUR DEM CANDIDATE.

Before you call me anti-woman or anti-African-American,or anti/Hope you should know I have worked or volunteered for progressive Democrats in every election since my first, JFK in 1960. I had bricks thrown at me during civil rights marches in the 60s,Ended a 23 yr marriage largely because of his anti-woman attitudes,went to work and was a union activist for 18 yrs,and worked in 2004 Iowa for Dean because of his courageous anti-war,pro-healthcare,pro-union,and civil unions advocacy in VT. I can't deny being "old if you define it only by longevity, but I do deny that my politics are "old".

I plan to run for delegate to the DNC Convention and I will be an Edwards delegate until he wins the nomination or releases his delegates. I'm counting on the former.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» God Bless you Posted by: herbal
It is not about sex or race..its about war.
Posted by: herbal on Jan 29, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton represents a travesty of an added 4 to 8 years of the same world hegemony as Bush Jr. Let us not forget her perfect Bush agenda voting record up until the day her campaign began! There should be no options left on the table to defeat Hillary Clinton in the Primaries. We certainly must remember the Republican media campaign to declare all candidates as "unelectable" with the exception of Kerry (Yale, Skull and Bones, Wall St.) in 2004. Hillary's playing of the race card is such a ploy. What do Carl Rove, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton have in common? Invasion of Iran fixation.

See Hillary Clinton speak for herself here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvuzMWcz0kU

Then see the company she keeps with Rev, Hagee of Christian Zionist cult here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdsB5D1r7Y

She advocates nuclear war against Iran and has never repudiated war in any form.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama vs Hillary? I couldn't care less...
Posted by: logansafi on Jan 29, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It pains me to see everyday, ordinary liberals acting like they are junior high students electing cheerleaders. In this case, the possible head cheerleaders-to-be for our corporatized America are all ugly, the contest is ugly, and the pretense that we have a democracy and fair elections in this country is ugly. This national dialog is about as ugly as the conservative thing about 'character' and Monica was. We don't have a country, but a frigging lunatic asylum. We should be ashamed to be living in this place like pigs in shit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

choices
Posted by: phindrup on Jan 29, 2008 4:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a non American, and so my views don't count, my preferences would have been, Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards, Obama.
Hillary is/would be more of the same.
Richardson came across as capable, competent and pragmatic while having a decidely 'not Washington' aura about him.
Here in Australia we got rid of Howard,and although I live in a 'Liberal' electorate, the day after his defeat everybody was smiling and saying 'hello' as they walked the streets. It was as if a plague had lifted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blah blah blah
Posted by: chlamor on Jan 29, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Me: Hey honey let's talk about American Idol political Candidates!

Her: Perfect idea dear and let's be sure to avoid all substance and issues!

Me: That's easy honey, I don't really know anything about the candidates anyway.

Her: Oh darling, that's why I love you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why not edwards?
Posted by: JVG on Jan 29, 2008 5:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because the press has shut him out--because he's the one who could really go all the way. For instance yesterday there was (an albeit inane) survey of the candidates' personal habits--Edwards was totally ignored, and he also has been dropped from several public opinion polls. One might think that that was because he has too low of a ranking, but Guliani was on both.

He has consistently polled highest against any Republican. He scares the pants off of them...he is the only one who is not "fatally flawed." Personally, I think the Clinton's have had their time in the white house, and Obama, as inspiring as he is, worries me because of his difficult history of abandonment by his father...these difficult family dynamics tend to play themselves out on a grand scale (as we know--(as in GHWB-GWB). Edwards is a good man, solid, smart, and experienced. He could win if people woke up and stopped looking at the election like it was some goofy reality television show or something.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep it up and you'll make it happen
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 29, 2008 8:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Americans won't elect a black man

Crap. I actually think the left's continued vocal suspicion that a black man can't win due to suspected racist societal underpinnings is actually planting doubt amongst people who might vote for him; making folks who wouldn't have thought about it otherwise question his chances.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An answer to the quandry
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 29, 2008 8:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Vote for your favorite candidate in the primary and for f--'s sake vote any Democrat in the general election. We need a Dem president allied with a Dem congress for a few years just to undo a quarter of the damage Bush has done to this country. If we get one for eight years, we might undo 2/3rds of it. Wouldn't that be nice!?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm a conservative
Posted by: kamera on Jan 29, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Hillary has the muscle and will get the nom, but can not win. Too many people despise her out there in "the rest of the country" (most of it). This country is too great to be destroyed by socialism...it's never worked anywhere. Every major government program is a dismal failure: K-12 education, while our universities are the envy of the world, the post office when Fed Ex and UPS are the best in the business, our roads and infrastructure which we pay (in Ca) .87/gallon for is flailing and looks to go the way of privatization. What makes you guys so excited by the prospect of more of that dismal failure? Go live in Canada (you'll be back when you need health care but at least you'll have some where to go :))

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ...and you think and speak like one. Posted by: nochicagoboys
i won't vote for either...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 29, 2008 10:57 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in fact all three dems left are corporatists...i won't vote for any of them. race, gender, class, all equally bad reasons to vote "for" or "not for" a candidate. we need to vote for who is actually going to do the most good for the needs of most americans...that candidate was dennis kucinich. i just can't, with good conscious, "hold my nose" to vote for the lesser of 3 evils...count me out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get real!
Posted by: gwbushleague on Jan 31, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what a faux relationship. sounds like a sever case of codependency. can you imagine this couple trying to make a decision about which brand of toilet paper to buy at walmart?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Electing a Black President
Posted by: MargoM on Jan 31, 2008 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This discussion reminds me of a situation when I was a student in Chicago renting a room from an Orthodox Jewish woman (of course not all Orthodox Jewish women would have the same response, so don't generalize about that).

The mayoral race in Chicago that year, 1983, was a hot one. There was a white male Republican and a black male Democrat running against each other. My landlady was originally -- decades ago -- from Ukraine, and was up there in years, perhaps in her 80s. She said she'd never missed an election since becoming a U.S. citizen, and that she'd always voted Democrat, but didn't know what to do this time, because she "couldn't" vote Republican and also "couldn't" vote for a black man.

I was on my way out the door for class, so didn't have time for much response, and don't remember what I said. But I thought that sentiment was very interesting.

In the end Harold Washington, the black candidate, became Chicago's first black mayor.

Actually, I'm sort of shocked that in the presidential race a woman has gotten this far. I don't think she would have if it were not for her husband having been who he was and thus bringing her into the limelight in the first place.

I don't think, for example, that someone like Nancy Pelosi or Condi Rice, who made it as far as they have on their own merit (not that Hillary Clinton hasn't done a lot since being first lady on her own too though) would have made it as far as Hillary as a presidential candidate.

To break the glass ceiling of becoming a serious presidential contender, required a white male husband to go before her.

Maybe if Bill and Hillary got divorced after Hillary is elected (assuming she gets elected), and Hillary subsequently married a black male, she could help her new husband follow her in the white house.

Don't get me wrong though; I'm not saying I like this at all, but that in fact this is how it is in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We argue also
Posted by: aileenterra on Feb 3, 2008 7:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband, an off-the-charts genius, and I debate this like crazy.

I wanted a candidate who was not given enough of a voice by the media and who dropped out. He wants none of the above.

We both think Obama is much less than Hillary. I do not like his inexperience and his positions and his spin. The fact that oprah (doperah) and the dumbest of Kennedys support him also contributes to my feeling. The only Kennedy that I completely respect is a Hillary fan: Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Obama has a white atheist mother. So how black is that? I would respect him more if he acknowledged his mother. As it is, he is a wanna-be in my book. I am part Indigenous ("Native American") and as a proud American atheist, I am deeply offended.

So I am voting for her and my husband is no longer voting at all.

Great job, talking heads.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement