The Key Difference Between Clinton and Obama supporters

http://nymag.com/news/features/43341/

“Most Americans need a president—not everybody, probably not the two of you,” she said with a smile, gesturing to me and her press secretary, Jay Carson. “So you are free to vote however you choose. You can vote on a feeling, you can vote on a speech, you can vote on a debate, you can vote any way you want. But if you’re on the brink of falling out of the middle class, if you’re worried about health care, home foreclosures, and all these other problems, you need a president that you really can believe in and count on to deliver.”

...

If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy, you likely believe that politics is politics, that partisanship isn’t transmutable, that Republicans are for the most part irredeemable. You suspect that talk of transcendence amounts to humming “Kumbaya” past the graveyard. You believe that progress comes only with a fight, and that Clinton is better equipped than Obama (or maybe anyone) to succeed in the poisonous, fractious environment that Washington is now and ever shall be. You ponder the image of Bill as First Laddie and find yourself smiling, not sighing or shrieking.

If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania, on the other hand, you regard this assessment as sad, defeatist, as a kind of capitulation. You’re perfectly aware that politics is often a dirty business. But you believe it could be a bit cleaner, a bit nobler, a bit more sustaining. You think that paradigm shifts can happen, that the system can be rebooted. Most of all, an attraction to Obama indicates you are, on some level, a romantic. You never had your JFK, your MLK, and you desperately crave one: What you want is to fall in love.

A vote for Clinton, in other words, is a wager rooted in hard-eyed realism. Her upside may be limited, but so is her downside, because although the ceiling on her putative presidency might be low, the floor beneath it is fairly high. A vote for Obama, as the Big Dog said, is indeed a role of the dice. The risks of his hypothetical presidency are higher, but the potential payoff is greater: He could be the next Jack Kennedy—or the next Jimmy Carter. The gamble here entails both the thrill and the terror of letting yourself dream again.

I'll admit, with Hillary, you know what you're getting. And for some people, that's a comforting and reassuring thing.

Obama's more of an unknown. But I think the fact that so many people are willing to take a risk on him proves just how f*ed up things have gotten and how desperate people are for real leadership.

The downscale dems CAN'T take the risk of a disastrous presidency. If you are making six figures and doing well, you don't care. You want to fall in love.

I don't want to go back to the past, I want to go to the future. Obama's message resonates with me. The Clintons had alot of achievments and I'll give them that, but I remember alot of divisiveness and fighting. I just want to move forward.

for someone on the brink, they don't care about that stuff. They are in survival mode. They want someone that will go to the mat for them and fight for their interests, not make lovey dovey with republicans.

would like to believe. I have family members who are Repubs. They aren't evil its just that some of the things the Repubs promise...they just like. But if the Dems would appeal to the Repub supporters without completely turning into a Republican than I think Dems can completely take over Washington and Politicians can get alot more things done in Washington.

And how many times have the Democrats been screwed over trying to implement it?

The Democrats in congress right now are getting their asses handed to them by a 23%er president in the name of, 'reaching across the aisle.'

The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over always expecting a different result.

Republicans don't do unity and they don't do Kumbaya.

Yes, if you talk to republicans individually, they seem all nicey nice and normal, but they suffer from group-think.

As a group, their whole goal is to undo whatever the Democrats accomplish, that is what they have been about for the last 75 years, hence the term, 'reactionary.'

work and vote for Edwards...

:shrug:

(i'm one of the people he talks about, poor, blue collar, no health care, in danger of losing my home, etc)

they're government obstructionists all the way. 4 yrs of obama will be 4 years of chaos.
I'm voting for Hillary.

I was a child during the Clinton years and I'm a black female. I don't want to fall in love with Obama. I want a president who isn't out of the same old cookie cutter mold of the past. The status quo is what has been disastrous about America. I saw growing up in the Clinton years my mom have to slave herself to support just 1 child. She never was on welfare, she never got child support. She bought a house and ended up losing it because of the high payments even when she had a stable job as a cop. She has done everything as an American and tried to protect other Americans when she was a cop. But the American gov. under the Clintons and Bushes screwed up over time and time again especially when it was time for me to go to college.

I've said this to say that Obama supporters are made up entirely of different people from all walks of life. I was on line at his Jersey City rally in NJ a few weeks ago with a white Republican woman who now supports Obama, a white male HRC supporter who later became a Obama supporter, A latina 20 something student, Indian male etc. Most of these people didn't make 6 figures.

Obama seems to resonate with people who just want to go beyond the status quo and the same way we have done things (even pre-Dubya) in the past. They want something different.

to make a politician dirty. I need someone for every class of American citizens. I want someone who not only inspires me to become involved in politics but someone who is down to earth and gets ME as a person.

I haven't had that in any politician in the past. This is the first time I actually care about voting not just because I have to do it but because I WANT to do it.

Who are struggling with a tanking economy, student loans, and underemployment.

I agree about the Oprahs and Halle Berrys of the country, though. They can afford to take a risk. Folks like my grandmother who rely on social security income and the help of their grandkids have a tougher decision (she is a big Clinton supporter born in Arkansas). I'm in the middle. I make it, but a major crisis could sink me. Aspects of all three candidates are appealing.

It is SAD that people who have graduated or going to school face an enormous debt because of loans. Its wrong when a 20 something person has a college loan of over $100,000 to pay off. Thats not only crazy but it prevents that person from buying a home, car etc. Paying for school is a real struggle and people will soon see more and more young people living with their parents just to ease their financial problems.

It was a very tough decision to go back to school. The cost is astronomical and 8 years later, I still haven't paid off everything from undergrad. So let's see:

Mortgage crisis - check (thank God I refinanced for a lower interest rate)
Student loan debt - check
Rising energy costs ($300/mo gas & electic bill, $250/mo fuel for car) - check and check
Rising health insurance costs ($354/mo for me + kid) - check

I could go on and on, but I want a candidate who addresses all of these issues and luckily, there are three democratic candidates that do. The questions are, who has the best plan AND who can get a substantive plan passed by Congress? You can have the best plan in the world, but if you can't get Congress to vote for it, then it's really pointless.

none of the people I do canvassing with make six figures. I suppose we do well enough, but I think that's a gross generalization right there.

we know what's at stake.

And none of my friends that are supporting Obama make that much money either.

love your reasoned posts? Thank you for your thoughtfulness; you add a lot to every discussion I've read that you are in.

:pals:

Once the primaries are over, I look forward to working toward Democratic victories across the board and the return of responsible and responsive government.

What were they thinking? And no, I don't want what they're serving. I'd prefer the 'unknown' to that.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for dishonesty

"Her upside may be limited, but so is her downside, because although the ceiling on her putative presidency might be low, the floor beneath it is fairly high. A vote for Obama, as the Big Dog said, is indeed a role of the dice."

is still a HUGE change.

and justice and not voting to authorize a madman's war plans out of the "a hard-eyed realism" of political calculation

But, hey, that's just me.

Sure, perhaps facing the reality of how one generation dealt with modern politics. I suggest other people start facing the reality that modern Democracy in America is still very young and came to life during a very turbulent time in our nation's history. The sound bite has been replaced by policy bytes. It's a whole new ball game.

We can continue to fight the same way we have since television became a mainstay in Americans' lives are we can forge a new way of politics for the Internet age.

clean and noble in their support of their candidate?

"If you find yourself drawn to the Clinton candidacy"

"If you find yourself swept up in Obamamania"

:eyes:

That's another reason for voting for Hillary.

"Hillarycare" would be torn to shreds. That's not hard-eyed realism to me. Nor is it someone who feels they need to be militaristic to seem "tough" on the stage of political theater. Obama has tremendous policy initiatives for health care and clean energy, but his ability to frame the issues is an undeniable political asset in getting them actually enacted.

I disagree wtih your analysis strongly. This nation cannot sustain more of the current political Roman circus/caged death match approach foisted onto us by the Atwater/Rove/Murdoch/insert any other participant you care here. We are in dire straits and have had many years in which citizens felt apathetic, disaffected citizens. * and his band of criminals have beaten the nation down and have terrorized it for almost a decade. The need for hope and a rallying cry for the nation is very real and essential to engage people again and the same-old George and Bill circus fails to deliver. Old scripts must be shredded and the lexicon purged of the labels, buzzwords, and the divisive sloganeering that has passed for conventional wisdom for the past 30 years. The worries about health care, home foreclosures, war, Social Security, etc. exist because of the destructive rhetoric and gamesmanship that has passed for political discourse and governance over the past 30 years.

I've seen my JFK, RFK, MLK, Gandhi, Sadat, Mandela, and other greats in my lifetime. Those people weren't romantics anymore than the rest of us are. They were very real people deconstructing harmful political systems so that new ways of dealing with society problems could take hold. Cling to your vision of Bill as the "First Laddie" all you want. Change will come, and it will not be the Clintons bringing it. The NATION is longing for unity because it take it no longer. The false hope is in a Clinton Restoration as a solution. You can never truly get back what has been lost. You cannot truly restore a time. You can only imitate it and not all imitation is flattery. The 21st century has its own unique set of issues and crises and need to be addressed in the here and now with the needs of a new generation in mind.


No, sir. I am a realist who believes that we need to get something done beyond poltical squabbling. I'm a realist who knows that the great agents of change in the world's history have called to their peoples in times of hardship and demanded that they do more than play games. They have called for people to engage.

middle class....

People are voting for Obama because he is a man of substance who can rally this country to address our problems. Gridlock Hillary will get nothing done.

Electing a liar to office - What a message to send to the world.

I agree the Clintons aren't rolling the dice:
They are polarizing and divisive. Nothing will get done for the American people.
They will sell out the middle class again (e.g., NAFTA)
They will govern by polls (e.g., instead of reading an intelligence report, Hillary reads the polls).
They will continue to lie to the American public (once a liar, always a liar).
The front page sex scandals will continue.

Clinton voted for the worst debacle in our generation. What judgment...

My grandparents had FDR. My parents had Kennedy. I want my Kennedy. My FDR.

in your post.

That they are both romantics and realists. They believe that it is possible to reboot the system for a brighter future. But the emphasis is on the necessity of a "boot" as in kickin.'

"drawn to the Clinton candidacy" vs. "swept up in Obamamania"

Tell me why anyone would consider taking you seriously, given your obvious bias.

I'll wait.

If you look at what Bill Clinton did, he grabbed Newt's manual, changed a couple words here and there and then signed Newt's wishes into legislation.

Bill first proved he could play Repug-Lite by signing NAFTA (good-bye good jobs). He got the yuck yucks from the GOP fellas. Then he let his wife run mandated healthcare insurance to the ground and thus got the Repugs to get the House and Senate in 1994.

From then on, he took their tip to "reform" welfare ( an high-five to Reagan's "Welfare Queen" lie) , sign in the Telecommunications Act (media consolidation begun by Reagan), the Defense of Marriage Act (clearly the best law homophobes could ever ask for), China free trade (more jobs/industry gone from US) and other legislation that was equally supplemented with Clinton's zipper problem dragging the country into an embarrassing soap opera that deceived not only his wife but those who still supported him. This is the "experience" that Hillary Clinton is so proud of, even though she didn't have access to Presidential daily briefings or any kind of security clearances to have access to the Oval Office hi jinx.

The Clinton legacy in 2000 was so radioactive for Democrats that Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman in order to patch up the popular notion that all Democrats were perverts. We're still dealing with that decision.

A vote for Clinton, in other words, is a vote in dim-eyed faux nostalgia. A vote for Obama is to turn the page and begin the 21st Century correctly after the kind of sell-out triangulated politics that Clinton passed on from Poppa Bush.

Let's see, caving in on NAFTA, deregulation of the media, the IWR, Kyl-Lieberman.

Shit, with "fighters" like that, who needs Lieberman?