Observation
Apr. 21st, 2008 06:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
patgundSomething I've seen a lot of from certain supporters of Sen. Clinton, is the idea that Sen. Clinton "deserves" or is "entitled" to the nomination and the presidency. That it is "her turn", or that it might be someone's "last chance to see a woman elected"
The problem is they have so much invested in this attitude that it creates blinders to negative behaviour that Sen. Clinton and her campaign is doing. And if one is honest with oneself, you'll see a frightfully negative campaign. So when the backlash happens due to this behaviour, the choices are either:
1) Excuse it due to some "ist", i.e. "You're just sexist", or "the Democratic Party is sexist and discriminating against her", or even "the voters are sexist and shouldn't be trusted". There's even some racist elements, with some people bringing up "angry black men" who feel emasculated and want to strike back at a white woman, (thereby bringing in racism and sexism)
2) Blame the backlash on some "flaw" they see in the people in question, i.e. "These kids are just following the Sen. Obama fad, they need to shut up / wait their turn / stand aside so the 'adult' super-delegates can select Sen. Clinton", or "these 'Obamabots' are a cult and are not 'real' Democrats!"
2a) A subset of this is the idea that Sen. Obama's supporters are "kids" that don't know any better. And if the supporter is an older adult, they're "immature", or want to "be like a kid". Some of the people promoting this idea have even said it's okay if the SD's go against electoral votes AND popular vote if it means an "adult" gets the nomination, (in this case 'adult' meaning 'Sen. Clinton')
3) Project the flaws from their choice to the opposition, i.e. "Obama is running an negative campaign", or "he's lying about so many things", (note, this choice works best if the person ignores any request to prove their claim and/or ignores any evidence to the contrary.)
4) Attack the process itself. The idea that Florida and Michigan count even though they broke the rules, (and the state Democratic party SUPPORTED breaking the rules). And even though those rules were put in place by a member of Sen. Clinton's campaign staff, and even though Sen. Clinton didn't feel either state counted at first, (back when she felt she would have the nomination by Super Tuesday). Examples of this are people suggesting that caucus states get their delegates removed (note, I live in a caucus state. I wasn't able to caucus due to work. I completely understand feeling like they don't count. But the time to fix it is AFTER the election, not during.) Or claiming that only a few certain states count, (states that, by some weird miracle, Sen. Clinton just happened to win).
And there you have it. Rationalization due to investing one's personal energies into a particular person. This is part of being human, but it's wise to realize one is doing it, rather than go off the deep end completely. There's some otherwise very-talented people who have done just that, are willing to spin any lie, strain at any gnat, or criticize any beam if it means promoting their choice for the nominee. (and to be fair, there are some Sen. Obama supporters that have also taken to similar behaviour as well. While it seems like a large amount of the negative attacking is in the Sen. Clinton camp, Sen. Obama's supporters are not completely blameless as well.)
As for the people on EITHER side who say they won't vote if their nominee doesn't get the nomination??
Personally I think it's foolish to act like a spoiled child saying "if I don't get what I want then I'll take my vote and go home and YOU'LL BE SORRY!!". Which is how I see ANYONE saying "If (name of person here) doesn't get the nomination, then I won't vote in November / will vote for (insert name here) / cut off my nose to spite my face"
The problem is they have so much invested in this attitude that it creates blinders to negative behaviour that Sen. Clinton and her campaign is doing. And if one is honest with oneself, you'll see a frightfully negative campaign. So when the backlash happens due to this behaviour, the choices are either:
1) Excuse it due to some "ist", i.e. "You're just sexist", or "the Democratic Party is sexist and discriminating against her", or even "the voters are sexist and shouldn't be trusted". There's even some racist elements, with some people bringing up "angry black men" who feel emasculated and want to strike back at a white woman, (thereby bringing in racism and sexism)
2) Blame the backlash on some "flaw" they see in the people in question, i.e. "These kids are just following the Sen. Obama fad, they need to shut up / wait their turn / stand aside so the 'adult' super-delegates can select Sen. Clinton", or "these 'Obamabots' are a cult and are not 'real' Democrats!"
2a) A subset of this is the idea that Sen. Obama's supporters are "kids" that don't know any better. And if the supporter is an older adult, they're "immature", or want to "be like a kid". Some of the people promoting this idea have even said it's okay if the SD's go against electoral votes AND popular vote if it means an "adult" gets the nomination, (in this case 'adult' meaning 'Sen. Clinton')
3) Project the flaws from their choice to the opposition, i.e. "Obama is running an negative campaign", or "he's lying about so many things", (note, this choice works best if the person ignores any request to prove their claim and/or ignores any evidence to the contrary.)
4) Attack the process itself. The idea that Florida and Michigan count even though they broke the rules, (and the state Democratic party SUPPORTED breaking the rules). And even though those rules were put in place by a member of Sen. Clinton's campaign staff, and even though Sen. Clinton didn't feel either state counted at first, (back when she felt she would have the nomination by Super Tuesday). Examples of this are people suggesting that caucus states get their delegates removed (note, I live in a caucus state. I wasn't able to caucus due to work. I completely understand feeling like they don't count. But the time to fix it is AFTER the election, not during.) Or claiming that only a few certain states count, (states that, by some weird miracle, Sen. Clinton just happened to win).
And there you have it. Rationalization due to investing one's personal energies into a particular person. This is part of being human, but it's wise to realize one is doing it, rather than go off the deep end completely. There's some otherwise very-talented people who have done just that, are willing to spin any lie, strain at any gnat, or criticize any beam if it means promoting their choice for the nominee. (and to be fair, there are some Sen. Obama supporters that have also taken to similar behaviour as well. While it seems like a large amount of the negative attacking is in the Sen. Clinton camp, Sen. Obama's supporters are not completely blameless as well.)
As for the people on EITHER side who say they won't vote if their nominee doesn't get the nomination??
Personally I think it's foolish to act like a spoiled child saying "if I don't get what I want then I'll take my vote and go home and YOU'LL BE SORRY!!". Which is how I see ANYONE saying "If (name of person here) doesn't get the nomination, then I won't vote in November / will vote for (insert name here) / cut off my nose to spite my face"
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 01:52 am (UTC)There's no-one and I mean no-one, that I want to vote FOR. There's not even anyone I think is SO much worse that I find it necessary to vote AGAINST.
They all just bad bad bad.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 02:35 am (UTC)Goodness knows the last few presidential elections have been "which cup of buzzard vomit do I want to drink?"
no subject
Date: 2008-04-22 03:00 am (UTC)where was THEIR "entitlement"?!
Date: 2008-04-22 12:55 pm (UTC)Geraldine Ferraro, Carol Moseley Braun
...
oops. i should have wiki'd first.
looks like 9 women have made it to the US Presidential Nominations in 1960-2008.
81 other women, as early as 1872, have at least made a shot for Pres or VP nomination.
voting _for_ HRC simply because of her XX chromosomes is as bad as being a misogynist voting against her. *sigh*
Voting on gender
Date: 2008-04-22 04:44 pm (UTC)I hate politics :-(.
Re: Voting on gender
Date: 2008-04-22 04:46 pm (UTC)