Politics

[urbpan]

The news of the moment is that the Massachusetts delegates are afraid that their votes won't be counted on the roll call because there will be enough votes to nominate Obama before that happens.  The radio played one sound bite wherein a Clinton supporter implied that "they" changed the rules because Clinton is a woman. 

You know, I want to see a woman president as much as--probably more than--the next person, but these people need to face reality.  They win the sore loser of the century award.

Comments

[roaming.livejournal.com]

The whole "I'm a woman so I'll only vote for a woman" or "I'm Catholic ______ or white or black or Liberal so I'll only vote for SOMEONE LIKE ME" frosts my wheaties. (Oh, wait, wrong analogy: frosted wheaties are better than non frosted, right?)

I don't care! I don't want my president to be someone I'd want to have a beer with. I want him/her/it/alien whatever to be BETTER than me, SMARTER than me, STRONGER and BRAVER and whatever the heck is necessary to get the job done right.

The ones that won't vote for Obama because Hillary didn't beat him get the "Cut Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face" award.

[dosboof.livejournal.com]

That this is STILL an issue kind of troubles me. I mean, yeah, of course there'd be a minority Obama people who'd do the same thing were roles reversed but this is the time for staunch Hillary supporters to show that they can take the high road and do the thoughtful, mature thing instead of throw a hissy-fit because they lost. It's simply a fact of life that sometimes, no matter HOW MUCH you want someone to win, he or she loses. And sometimes it doesn't even seem fair based on your own judgment, either. Being able to accept that and move on to do what you believe to be best, given the circumstances, is part of what most people are supposed to have picked up sometime in between being a teenager and adulthood. That there are people twice my age not heeding that is troubling.

Not to mention, what? You hate this guy whose views were very similar to your candidates enough that you're going to support or support by proxy a misogynist who cheated on his first wife, divorced her and then married a trophy blonde? Because the first guy's election was "sexist?" Good luck with that.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

If things had gone the other way I swear that I would be supporting Clinton. I'd get the Clinton/Richardson sticker for my car and everything and I'd be so proud that we were getting a shot at having a woman president. I'd accept that my guy lost (like I did when Edwards dropped out) and move on to the next best thing; I wouldn't blame it on the fact that my guy was black and that the system is against him. It's a very different situation from Gore v Bush, where there was mischief, corruption, and treason.

[badnoodles.livejournal.com]

But functionally, it's a lot a lot of the same kind of whining we heard after the 2000 election. Whether you agreed with the mechanics of how Bush won or not, the de facto outcome was that Bush was the President, especially by the time it got around to his inaguration. And yet you had people frothing at the mouth that they'd never respect his authority or acknowledge him, threatening to leave the country (notice how many actually did), etc.

America: Country of the Manchild.

[brush-rat.livejournal.com]

Right. I was still going back and forth between the two up until a week before I voted. I would have been thrilled with a ticket including any of the three (before Edwards got caught with his pen in the company inkwell, which doesn't bother me so much, but makes him all but unelectable).