About This Blog
Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in the Pennsylvania primary yesterday by 10%. Twice what I predicted. I must not have prayed fervently enough. Anyway, I was mistaken. I don't follow Bush, The Younger's template.....I admit error and move forward.
The primaries continue on to the remaining states with virtually no hope for Clinton to emerge as the nominee, barring the fracture of the Democratic Party, and really, what good would that accomplish?
However....and there's always a however,.....there has come to my recent attention a sort of bizarre line of "reasoning" coming from alleged Democratic voters.
Exit polling from last night's Pa. primary....
"In a startling finding, only 53% of Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama against McCain, while 69% of Obama backers would vote for her as the nominee." Link
From today's Akron Beacon Journal writer, Stephanie Warsmith.....
"Nicole Hinchcliffe...plans to vote for McCain if Clinton doesn't win the nomination. She'd prefer having McCain as president rather than Obama.... 'I would rather have eight more years of the same than eight years of what he would bring,' Hinchcliffe said."
This line of thinking, I would suggest, is not rational thinking at all. Whatever motivates an alleged Democratic voter to think like this cannot be anchored in objective reality or fact. Of course, every American has the right to not think objectively when picking a candidate.....but I find this very odd....bordering on the bizarre.
Knee Pad Media have excused their smear by association questionings and their overall majoring on trivial minors in their "reporting" on the Democratic primary by saying that the differences between Hillary and Obama's policies are miniscule.
Both candidates are pro-choice, pro-working families, pro-ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest, pro health care for all, pro-ending our occupation of Iraq, pro-nomination of progressive Supreme Justices. All basic Democratic Party bolierplate. Basing choices on policy positions alone would seemingly lead a Democratic voter to find satisfaction in either Democratic candidate.
John McCain is anti-choice, anti-working families, anti-eliminating those big tax cuts for the wealthy, pro-lobbyist, anti-health care for all while pro-health savings accounts tax schemes, pro-staying in Iraq, pro-Bush Doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive wars of choice, pro-nominating Roberts and Alito-like 19th century throwbacks to the Court. McCain would stay the course of the 69% disapproved of worst president in American history. The furthest distance from change one could imagine.
So...policy wise....a Democratic voter wold still have a clear, distinctive choice if Obama is the nominee. I don't think this is even arguable.
The exit polling numbers from Pennsylvania and comments like Nicole Hinchcliffe's suggest that if Hillary voters don't get their way, they would rather choose 8 more years of George Walker Bush. Is this simply sour grapes or is there more to it than that?
How, with the obvious distinctions between both Democrats on one side and McCain on the other, could a Democratic Hillary supporter say they wouldn't vote for Obama, but instead McCain....if Hillary isn't the nominee? It makes no sense....unless policy is not the basis on which these "Democratic" voters decide.
I fully support each voter's free choice to vote anyway they desire, I do. Given the clear and vital differences found in both Democratic candidates weighed against John McCain's positions....I'm tempted to suggest that there's a whiff of racial undertone in any suggestion that Hillary and McCain are acceptable, but Obama is not.
To those who would suggest I'm only being predictable.....I would ask....how can you explain this? What sense could it possibly make to vote for 4 or 8 more years of historic failure when both Democratic candidates basically agree on the new direction our country needs to follow?