'The Gathering Storm': One Democrat's Analysis of Anti-Obama Feeling Among Democrats

Posted by Damozel | Anglachelg has written a brilliant piece on the 'gathering storm' of anti-Obama feeling among Hillary Clinton's supporters.  Though I'm on record as urging Dems to band together when the dust settles to prevent a McCain presidency (because anything would be better than a McCain presidency), this post perfectly articulates the anger and frustration of Hillary's Democratic supporters----and the seething indignation that both the media and the disingenuous tactics deployed by Barack Obama and his supporters has engendered.

Obama has rudely lost the good regard of Democrats like me. The hysteria and hate of the elite punditocracy who have declared me and my candidate to be illegitimate in an attempt to bully her supporters, while giving him a free ride, cannot be rewarded. The Democratic Party is choosing to declare Hillary voters to be expendable (can’t count your vote if it would change the outcome of the race) and of lesser worth than Obama supporters. And all of this is being viewed with increasing disgust by a growing number of Democratic voters.(Anglachelg).

First, there is the contempt with which the media and Obama supporters in the blogosphere, and subsequently the DNC and some of its prominent representatives, has dismissed her and her supporters as merely an unwarranted obstacle to the inevitable process of crowning Obama king of all the Democrats.

[T]he presumption of the punditocracy that we all know that a Hillary victory cannot be for real....has expanded to include the Democratic Party itself. This crisis brewed for some time, but took form when HRC was not permitted a level playing field in the campaign. The refusal to grant her equal footing may have begun with the MSM, which has always hated her, but they were soon joined by progressive blogs and the other campaigns, producing a phalanx of elite opinion trying to delegitimize her at every step...

To those several million people who support Hillary or who at least regarded her favorably, this pointed attack upon her as a person as well as a candidate, coupled with the relatively gentle treatment granted the other candidates, had the effect of solidifying a great deal of our support. To declare her unworthy of participating, a monster who would “do anything to win,” was seen for what it was, straightforward demonization of a perfectly acceptable candidate, one with a deep well of support and an enviable record of public service. We simply don’t accept the elite framing of our candidate. (Anglachelg)

This is precisely the process by which I evolved from someone with a slight leaning toward Hillary---it took me 20 minutes to choose between her and Obama (not that it matters, as I am a Floridian).  But to have my choice---and my candidate---written off with airy contempt or with a barrage of harsh and unwarranted slaps offended, and eventually, infuriated me.  Many of those will surely wonder in the future what got into them.. 

For one thing, it is their relentless efforts to delegitimize and demonize Hillary for the benefit of Obama that have been most damaging to Obama.

[A]mong HRC supporters, the effect of this particular campaign has been to erode the legitimacy not of our candidate but of Obama. As polling shows, his presumption that he automatically inherited her supporters has been proved untrue, in great part because he assumed that no one could really support that “monster”....(Anglachelg)

And it is precisely the contempt and disdain with which his campaign---and many of its supporters---have treated Hillary and her supporters that has created the current wave of revulsion against Obama among Democrats who favor Hillary.

[R]ank and file Democrats who vote for Hillary...are the bulk of the Democrats who voted (as opposed to all who participate), people for whom being a Democrat is a part of their personal as well as political identity..... There is some anger here over the treatment of Hillary, but even more it is rejection of Obama himself as a candidate due to his own actions and statements....

The more they hear, the less they are inclined to support....The sneer about Ohio voters who failed to vote for him as “Archie Bunkers” was a slur that every solid Democrat understands. He was calling those voters stupid racist bigots. Then we got the Wright controversy, which has simply added more fuel to the perception of Obama as an elitist liberal who does not honor his country or respect his countrymen. (Anglachelg)

If Obama gets the nomination---as I am repeatedly told he must---the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida and Michigan threatens his candidacy in the general election.

In these places, Hillary voters are being written off, dismissed as illegitimate voices in the process. The insistence on only one aspect of the rules, the penalty, while ignoring the full set of rules that could be used to manage the situation is eroding Obama’s claims to legitimacy because people don’t care about arcane party rules. They want their votes to count. The acts by Obama to prevent a revote have done nothing to increase his standing with ordinary voters, let alone strong Clinton partisans. This does not make him attractive to people who will have to switch their allegiance should Hillary not be the nominee. Conversely, her insistence on having votes counted will earn her greater legitimacy as well as benefit her with extra delegates.(Anglachelg)

Obama illustrates the hubris of a candidate swept along by his own hype to run before he'd paiu even a modicum of dues. 

In Obama’s set piece speeches he excels at tapping into the leftwing version of the patriotic narrative, about equality, justice and opportunity. This was the power of his keynote speech in 2004. But the promise of that speech has not been present in the candidate. The spousal unit sums it up in a single sentence – he ran too soon. He did not give himself the time to distance himself from the Chicago mess (political, financial, religious) and put some substantive national level public service under his belt. In some ways, the Chicago power base has insulated Obama from the conundrums of running a Democratic campaign in a centrist nation.(Anglachelg)

RELATED POSTINGS

Big Dem Donors Stage Intervention: They Want Primaries to Continue

Attention, My Fellow Democrats: McCain is Bush v.2.0

Murtha Confident in Hillary's Problem-Solving Skills

McCain's Spiritual Adviser Advises:  "Destroy Islam"

Note to my Fellow Dems:  Lighten Up, or It will be Raining McCain (Illustrative Video Included)

Jon Stewart on Iraq War Anniversary 

Flag Officers Explain Why Hillary Would be a Better Commander-in-Chief 

Bush's Disturbing Rhetoric:  Iran a "Nuclear Threat" 

Irish Prime Minister Confirms Hillary's Significant Role in the Peace Process 

CNN Poll Shows that 71% of Americans Think Iraq War Spending Hurt Economy

Flag Rank Officers & "Out of Iraq" Caucus Endorse Hillary 

McCain Unfamiliar with Iraq's Warring Factions? 

Clinton Speaks On Her Plan to End the Iraq War Responsibly

Comments

[Concerned]

I agree with Anglachelg completely. I am very much disappointed by Obama's Carl-Rove-type-approachs, his very misleading statements about almost every issue. I feel that it is dangerous to send a person to the White House who accepted his Pastor's unpleasant statements before they have been publicly revealed. I find it almost impossible to support him consciously (if the situation warrents - which I pray does not happen). But when I think about McCain, I am really scared.

[Adam]

Obama is *not* trending down; in fact his numbers, vis-a-vis both Clinton and McCain, have gone up significantly since the 3/18 speech. See the lastest polls, for instance:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105724/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-48-Clinton-44.aspx

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=407

You've probably seen this, but here's a good summary of the obstacles Hillary faces. I think it's very even-handed. Facts are facts.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=955AD30028F41567F4DB300EE7E76A41?diaryId=4798

One of the more significant insights in that piece is the bit about Obama probably having control over the credentials committee. It's extremely likely that some form of delegation will be seated, just to avoid the political fallout of the disenfranchisement talk. But it's probably going to be a symbolic 50/50 delegation or something of that sort.

Damozel, I get your anger and frustration with what you see as a very negative Obama campaign. I would point out, however, that the anger and vitriol many Obama supporters (not me, but many of them) show towards Hillary is caused by their perceptions of the way Hillary is running her campaign.

To wit, here's a (typical?) littany of perceived slights and dirty tactics by Hillary. You can quibble about the importance or accuracy of this or that entry, but it's hard to escape the notion that Hillary has gone negative as well.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/26/104555/955/7/484087

Personally, I think Hillary has been very negative for about a month now. My objection to the Obama/McCain camparisons is noted. Other than that I don't care. But given the overwhelming odds she is facing, her choice to go negative is hurting the chances of beating McCain.

And for the record, I think that Obama should be spending even less time than he already is responding to Hillary's negativity. The "tu quoque" press release yesterday from the Obama camp was simply unnecessary. I get why Obama's staffers want to respond in kind when they are attacked, but it really accomplishes less than nothing. I appreciated that Obama's economy speech today attacked McCain's policies but didn't mention Hillary even once.

[Julie]

Anglachelg's odyssey is pretty much the same as mine. I began this election cycle wanting either Russ Feingold or Wes Clark to run. When they did not I went with John Edwards.
I was not going to support Hillary. I like her very much, think she is brilliant and very capable, but I just thought she was too polarizing a figure and also that the cycle of Bush-Clinton-Bush followed by another Clinton was not the way to go.
However, when Edwards dropped out I had less than a week to decide who I would vote for in my state's primary. It did not take me 10 minutes to realize that up against McCain, IF WE DEMOCRATS WERE GOING TO WIN, and that is my ultimate goal, Hillary was the better candidate if only for her experience alone.
Early on in the debates I watched Obama closely. I wanted to know if I could support him. One of my dreams is to live long enough to see the USA elect a woman and non-Anglo to the Presidency.
But as I watched in the debates, and as I watched campaigning by Obama and Michelle, something was just lacking. Something was off.
So I started supporting Hillary and I am proud to say I voted for her in the CA primary.
I visit some blogs regularly and others sporadically. When I would comment about something or about my support of Hillary I was SHOCKED by the hate and vitriol. Maybe it is part a generational thing. But part of it is not. The hate and nastiness is vicious. I cannot describe.
Couple that with the negative campaign and the constant attacks on Hillary and the President (They are racist? You could say a lot of negatives about the Clintons. Racist is NOT one of them. McCarthy? For god's sake P-L-E-A-S-E!!!! Picking a fight for saying if you can't stand the heat of the kitchen... And they say women are too sensitive!!!!!!) and I am totally turned off.
And the sexist,misogynist behavior of the media and press corp, not to mention the all too obvious Obama support by MSNBC, (the leftie version of FOX.) Are they on the Obama payroll?
In the 60's I marched for civil rights and more, I was anti-war, I worked for women's rights, and I am a liberal Dem who has learned since McGovern that you need hard pragmatism to win, not hope. And no year is more important for Dems to win than this year after 8 years of Bush-Cheney-neo-cons and their assault on the Constitution.
Initially I would have supported any D against McCain. But after REPEATEDLY and over several MONTHS being called racist, dumb, stupid, bigoted, Archie Bunkerish, war mongering, a corporatists, hateful, insane, liar, demented, deceitful, myopic, old person, whitie, war mongerer, stooge, mindless, arrogant, mud-slinger, and treacherous to name just a few I have become angry at the Obama campaign and just plain fed up with their constant griping and complaining and blaming everything on Hillary. Attack her on issues not on personality and petty stuff like misspeaking on Bosnia. At least she has been there.
Over the course of this campaign as I get to know more about all the candidates the true leader is Clinton, evidenced by her repeatedly saying we will be unified for the November election and she will support whoever the nominee is. TRUE CLASS. I have yet to hear that from the Obama camp. That tells me pretty much all I need to know about the two candidates and who is Presidential material and who is not.
And after being beat up by Obama’s folk I really don’t fell like voting for him. I will take a page from Michelle Obama’s play-book on that one, “I will have to think about that.”

[Adam]

Julie, there's way too much to respond to there. So, just four quick comments:

- Click the dailykos link I posted above, and you will see evidence of all the things the Clinton camp has done that the Obama supporters are angry about. Is every one of the things they list there truly a major issue? No, not in my opinion. But just recognize that Obama supporters feel every bit as wronged and insulted as you do. It's hard to argue that the Clinton campaign hasn't gone negative in the last month.

- Obama's CAMPAIGN did not call you any of those things. I can't speak for all of his supporters, but neither can Obama. It's a bit unfair to get angry at Obama himself for a few crazy supporters.

- Obama has *repeatedly* and *consistently* stated that Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than John McCain. If you have "yet to hear that" from Obama, you must have not watched the last two debates, because he said exactly that. Hillary has been much more ambiguous on this front - while she has called for unity in November, she has compared McCain favorably to Obama many times.

- On a personal note, I followed something of a mirror image path to yours. I began with tentatively supporting Richardson, but when it became clear he was going to lose, I slowly gravitated toward Obama. My reason was basically the same as yours - I thought he had the best chance in November. I had two reasons. First, he doesn't inspire hatred from the Republican base and distaste from independents the way Hillary does. Second, I see Hillary as vulnerable to the same attacks Kerry faced on Iraq, while Obama can more easily turn the presidential election into a referendum on the war.

[Adam]

Julie, there's way too much to respond to there. So, just four quick comments:

- Click the dailykos link I posted above, and you will see evidence of all the things the Clinton camp has done that the Obama supporters are angry about. Is every one of the things they list there truly a major issue? No, not in my opinion. But just recognize that Obama supporters feel every bit as wronged and insulted as you do. It's hard to argue that the Clinton campaign hasn't gone negative in the last month.

- Obama's CAMPAIGN did not call you any of those things. I can't speak for all of his supporters, but neither can Obama. It's a bit unfair to get angry at Obama himself for a few crazy supporters.

- Obama has *repeatedly* and *consistently* stated that Hillary Clinton would be a much better president than John McCain. If you have "yet to hear that" from Obama, you must have not watched the last two debates, because he said exactly that. Hillary has been much more ambiguous on this front - while she has called for unity in November, she has compared McCain favorably to Obama many times.

- On a personal note, I followed something of a mirror image path to yours. I began with tentatively supporting Richardson, but when it became clear he was going to lose, I slowly gravitated toward Obama. My reason was basically the same as yours - I thought he had the best chance in November. I had two reasons. First, he doesn't inspire hatred from the Republican base and distaste from independents the way Hillary does. Second, I see Hillary as vulnerable to the same attacks Kerry faced on Iraq, while Obama can more easily turn the presidential election into a referendum on the war.

[PaseoDelMar]

If the Obamabots are the ones who are supposedly going to help "move this country forward" with their cheers of "yes we can" then I fear for our country. The "youth vote" are all Milenials, the most coddled and spoiled generation in history. They also obviously are lacking in an basic understanding of civics and civility. Anyone who thinks they will rise up and suddenly be responsible citizens, contributing their time to their community is truly dreaming. These are kids still being supported or subsidized by their parents!
They are also the bulk of the uninsured. They refuse to look at Obama's associations or his lies or his racist belief system! They are the AM=merican Idol generation, if they could text in their vote, they would. Hillary reminds them of their Mother, the one trying to get them to be responsible in their own lives. I am saddened by their hate and vitriol. That coupled with the constant negative Clinton coverage vs the over the top fawning over Obama on all the TV channels, they are being duped and they don't care, they just wanna WIN. They all sound like little republicans

[john]

I am an independent.I voted for Biil Clinton his first run for president. To many independant voters, the Clintons and the Bushes represent different sides othe same coin. Thier corruption and incompetence are destroying this country.I found myself hoping the Democratic party would put forward a truely independant candidate. Has everyone forgotten the corruption and how nasty and vindictive the Clintons were? When political discussions come up, we are all amazed ----- where does this idea that Hillary is entitled to the presidency come from? As outsiders, we are amazed at the negative and self-righteous attitude of her supporters.
We are grey headed --- Hillary Clinton is a light weight in my mothers prescence.
Many of us have learned our lesson and will never again vote for a Clinton or Bush.

[D. Cupples]

John,

You state some opinions as though they're fact. It's you're right to do so, but specifics would be more persuasive.

I think the Clintons are a mixed bag (positives and negatives).

Barack Obama is a similarly mixed bag. He just did a good job of persuading people that he comes to politics with clean hands and would clean up the Washington game.

Unfortunately, as we've gotten to know him better, we've seen that some of his fundamental campaign claims don't gel with reality or history.

For example, he said that he won't take oil-company-connected money. He has. (I covered it last week, with links, here: http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/04/obama-took-oil.html.)

Right after he declared his candidacy, he said that he wouldn't take lobbyist money. That was right after he'd collected more than $1 million in lobbyist donations. I covered that in the same post linked above.

Also covered in that post is that at least one of his fund raisers told a lobbyist that Obama wouldn't take the lobbyist's money but WOULD take the lobbyist's spouse's money.

Sen. Obama has repeatedly claimed credit for legislation (in U.S. Senate and Illinois legislature) that he had very little to do with. I covered that here (with links): http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/while-a-trip-to.html

If you want to see more examples (with links), see right sidebar Election 2008: primaries. I've been covering disconnects between what Obama says and does since late January or early February.

It's your right to place your faith in any candidate you choose. I hope that you won't end up disappointed.