Am I a McCain Democrat?

[Need personal advice of a political nature? Or political advice of a personal nature? Send your question to Stumped. Questions may be edited.]

Dear Stumped,

For 30-odd years I have been a faithful Democrat. But this year, I feel like I am about to hit the wall.

I am not particularly conservative. I support single-payer health care, a high minimum wage, strong environmental protections, and full civil rights for gay and lesbian folk. But I have come to the point where I just cannot stand liberals in general and Barack Obama in particular. The smug sense of superiority, the air of condescension to working-class people, and the overwhelming sense of self-righteousness have me ready to grab the first tire iron I can find and swing it at the first person who utters the word "inspiration."

I fully understand the reservations that some people have about Hillary Clinton, and I admit I share a couple of them. But the Cult of Obama is one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. When I hear things like "We are the ones we have been waiting for" and "We are the change we seek," I want to scream. Is this kind of psychobabble all that is left of the intellectual tradition of Locke, Mill, and Niebuhr?

In contrast to this rhetorical insanity, John McCain seems centered in reality as I understand it. I do not share his enthusiasm for the war, but at least he understands we cannot leave Iraq in shambles.

Am I the only Democrat who feels this way? Or is there some new version of the ''Reagan Democrats'' of the 1980s, people who feel alienated by the arrogance of the party's liberal leadership and are ready to jump ship in November?

-- Not Sure I am Still a Democrat

Dear Not Sure,

Okay. Take a deep breath. Put down that tire iron. Easy does it.... Did someone, perhaps a "smug liberal," just break up with you or something? I know how these personal problems can color our political biases. I'd probably be in favor of single-payer health care if a certain brunette hadn't ... okay, I digress.

All I am asking is this: Where is your anger coming from? Because if there's to be a legion of "McCain Democrats" (I doubt it, though Michael Kinsley seems tempted), I'm guessing these would be pro-war, pro-business Democrats who resent heavy-handed attempts to arrive at universal health care coverage. The views you describe, in contrast, fit comfortably in the dominant liberal mainstream of the Democratic Party.

Your beef seems to be more cultural -- more a matter of tone than of policy. If all this isn't stemming from some shock in your personal life, I am going to assume you have been spending the bulk of your time in a liberal bastion such as D.C., the Upper West Side or Santa Monica. The way you recoil against what you consider liberals' smugness, perceived moral superiority, self-righteousness and arrogance tells me you are suffering a bad case of dogma reflux.

It happens. You are so smothered by a prevailing dogma, held without question and with such self-satisfied vehemence by those around you, that your body's organisms begin to reject it, and you begin to question long-held beliefs. Before you know it, you find yourself saying things at dinner parties like "Well, on the other hand, the president did increase AIDS funding for Africa" -- and everyone stops the conversation to look at you with concern.

You need a time-out, my friend. Clarity is a beautiful thing. So do yourself a favor: Take a few weeks off and travel to a red redoubt like Tulsa and ingratiate yourself to the natives, as I advised Remy recently. Make friends. Talk politics. See what happens. You'll either find yourself missing the smugness of right-minded people -- or you'll discover you really have been in the wrong tribe all along.

Dear Stumped,

Is there any organized opposition to allowing the superdelegates to vote? Everyone I know is outraged that they might decide the outcome of the Democratic nomination. Many people hadn't even heard of superdelegates until recently. It does appear that these power brokers (just the kind of "insiders" that many voters want to get rid of) can easily override the popular will.


Dear Bob,

I am sure some of the uncommitted superdelegates would love to take a pass rather than take sides. But I don't believe there is any organized effort to force them to stay on the sidelines.

I agree that these free agents who can trump the popular will are an unseemly throwback to the old smoke-filled back rooms, though I can understand the argument that their role is to break a (real or virtual) tie. Along with undemocratic caucuses in many states, the existence of these superdelegates is a reminder that our two parties' nominating battles are not elections subject to the full range of constitutional protection, but rather intramural and arbitrary affairs.

Still, I wouldn't be too alarmed about the role played by superdelegates. For one thing, it's not as if they are all breaking one way or the other; you can be sure that the hundreds who remain undecided are waiting to see which way the prevailing winds blow. The fix is not in. At the convention, if the nominee is still in question, these superdelegates will help get the candidate leading in the delegate count over the hump. These are people who know enough not to rebuke the will of the party majority -- especially in an election, like this one, where the two candidates are so alike that the direction of policy is not at issue.

Like it or not, the capricious role superdelegates will play has been known and accepted since this contest began. If you want to change the rules, fine -- but the time for doing that is after the game, not during it.

By Andres Martinez |  February 19, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Previous: A Stewart-Colbert Ticket? | Next: Conservatives Can Be Funny, Too -- Intentionally


Please email us to report offensive comments.

znxpa ilkwehs nhytzbq celexa oral solution

Posted by: celexa oral solution | August 21, 2008 5:32 AM

fizbpwo lfrvg fdphlvn ivoj effexor depression drug

Posted by: effexor depression drug | August 20, 2008 11:19 PM

Posted by: natural rogaine | August 18, 2008 9:25 AM

aqpknil fidp tbfhxmq lazcyjf buy paxil medication 35385 buy

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 6:45 AM

aqpknil fidp tbfhxmq lazcyjf buy paxil medication 35385 buy

Posted by: buy paxil medication 35385 buy | August 18, 2008 6:45 AM

agbmxip xsavlby cymbalta lawsuite

Posted by: cymbalta lawsuite | August 17, 2008 10:26 PM

xghdet ceynjz beta blocker and tremors and effexor

Posted by: beta blocker and tremors and effexor | August 17, 2008 9:19 PM

zsej cejuyn hoza hperlsd drug addiction treatment

Posted by: drug addiction treatment | August 17, 2008 7:33 PM

zsej cejuyn hoza hperlsd drug addiction treatment

Posted by: drug addiction treatment | August 17, 2008 7:33 PM

ajuqbro vmxthwe nmgexbz copper cause hair loss

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:29 PM

ajuqbro vmxthwe nmgexbz copper cause hair loss

Posted by: copper cause hair loss | August 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Posted by: lexapro and jaw tightening | August 16, 2008 12:47 AM

qsjd kycj dhfwlp njvrkha effexor rx change in effectiveness

Posted by: effexor rx change in effectiveness | August 16, 2008 12:37 AM

Posted by: negative side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 7:41 AM

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 8:04 PM

Posted by: cheap generic propecia | May 11, 2008 8:03 PM

Posted by: arthritis medication ultram | May 11, 2008 1:00 PM

Posted by: arthritis medication ultram | May 11, 2008 12:54 PM

Posted by: ultram ingredient | May 11, 2008 5:42 AM

lvio zmnye saphlb otqr symptom ultram withdrawal

Posted by: symptom ultram withdrawal | May 11, 2008 3:25 AM

bqgjulh fpycgwk dkchb online drug store ultram

Posted by: online drug store ultram | May 11, 2008 2:03 AM

jlia poswduhm rtsqg kpbjdfscq pklfmgas qnlz caey

Posted by: enpjkuhzy xvcpqksz | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM

ojil uypg hslu ukezlbwjp kbdhwusj iuzh chwkpu

Posted by: ygxakq jfzb | April 16, 2008 9:19 AM

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will not only vote for McCain, I will campaign for him. I think Barack and Michelle are too racist to be in the White House. The statement "takes one to know one" could be true.

Posted by: Roger W. | April 9, 2008 10:22 PM

Where is Bin Laden? Isn't that who Bush sent our troops to get initially?

Posted by: Just Wondering... | March 7, 2008 8:05 PM

I am a Democrat and have the same issue, I don't like Obama but can't stand his supporters. I haven't by any means given up on Clinton but if he gets the nod I am thinking, seriously, about voting for McCain, I may do a write-in but I do not foresee myself voting for Obama under any circumstances.

Posted by: Deana | March 7, 2008 3:50 PM

i agree totally with dem for mac.. if hrc isn't the dem nom i too will vote for mac..
i find bo to be annoying.. self rightgeous, and smug.
hrc is educated, human, and committed to changing our county for the betterment of the people.she has proven to the american people she is up for the fight.
as for er vote on the war... big deal. she voted on the info she had, and she was trying to protect the american people.
it seems to me that maybe bo had somes inside info of where the terrorists really were due to his contacts that support terrorism.
exactly, how did he know more than the rest of us???? think about it!!

Posted by: lisa in nc | March 2, 2008 4:39 PM

I thought about McCain for about two days, on the basis that the Democrat Party had told Michigan and Florida voters that they could blow it out their wazoo for daring to want a voice in the process. Then McCain started wooing the idiot right and trying to prove that he was just as mean spirited and small as they I don't know. I long for the days of smoke filled rooms and professional politicians deciding who would carry the party's banner. We used to get FDR's and Harry Trumans and Thomas Jeffersons and Eisenhowers and JBJs. Now we get two idiot Bushes and a miserable selection every time.

Posted by: Michael Ham | March 2, 2008 2:39 PM

I concur what much of what has been said about not voting for Obama. I cannot vote for someone with no experience to sit in the oval office. It is against my principles. The left wing of the Democratic Party hates the Clintons, they always have. The reason the left hates the Clintons is because the Clintons do not owe them anything. Bill Clinton won the White House without the left and they hated him for it. One needs to look at just WHO is backing Obama. His first millions came from Republican donors of George Bush. Rove organized a group called Republicans for Obama to cross vote in the Democratic primaries. What does that tell you? Obama has only two years in the Senate, the other years he was on the campaign trail. No way I can vote for him. As a life long Democrat, if Hillary does not get the nomination, it will be Nader or I will not vote for anyone. I think you have to be a good citizen at the very least and not vote for a cult figure in the White House. If Obama gets the nomination, the Left will be happy but the Republicans will be happier, because they will get the White House.

Posted by: polcomm | March 2, 2008 7:49 AM

"Obama comes off as a con man..."

Excuse me?

When you say "comes off," that translates to you having only made a fleeting glance at the candidate. Because of voters who do not do their homework and who rely on their perceptions, America has; Katrina-ed, Iraq-ed, Recession-ed, polarize-ed, forclose-ed, outsource-ed deevolve-ed, Halliburton-ed and NCLB-ed in its pants.

If you rely on CNN and other forms of dis-info-tainment, then I am sure that Obama could come off as a con man.

Pick up a bio or two on both McCain and Obama. Dig to find some substance about the two candidates. Evaluate their policies. Read who has the policy put forward to fix the problems our country now faces! And after you do ask yourself honestly, if think McCain will start off in some bold new direction to fix our problems. The domestic agenda has been neglected for too long and we need some one who will fix it.

Obama has character: you'll find out that Obama has worked hard all his life for a good education and a good life and didn't take any big and easy shortcuts.

One of the first things that brought me to Obama's camp was the fact that he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. The way that the Constitution has been mistreated over the last seven years is disconcerting and we need someone that will restore and respect the rule of law! Most likely, Obama knows Constitutional Law more than any other presidential candidate ever before, or rather Con. Law as students of political science call it. Obama in that way comes off to me as a man of the Constitution, or if you will, a Con. man.

Posted by: Matt | February 26, 2008 9:37 PM

I agree with the McCain Democrat. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, I'm crossing party lines for the first time since registering in the late 1970s. Obama makes me uncomfortable. He comes across as a con man and his speeches sound like he is selling used cars.

Anyone for starting Democrats for McCain if Obama gets the nomination?

Posted by: Jean | February 25, 2008 11:16 PM

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for..
Obama. We don't know exactly were we will be going,but there is a sense that this guy might actually change this country. So some see him as the long awaited messiah, others are scared witless.
The country is in big trouble folks,time to show some nerve

Posted by: Magcat | February 24, 2008 4:30 PM

Obama will free us of 200 years of White tyranny. He will sends the Whites to the slum and send us to the rich suburbs.

Posted by: Hope 4 Blacks | February 22, 2008 8:51 AM

Sadly, McCain has been a Bush rubberstamper and
brownnoser, who supports trickle-down tax cuts for
super-wealthy - that are now a total failure. 7 years
after Bush's rerun of Reagan's original scam from 1981,
working Americans are worse off than ever.

...what was that Gore phrase, uhm - Risky Tax Scheme?

McCain's solution, to coming deep recession?
Hey - make those Bush tax cuts permanent!

McCain stood in the way of universal health insurance
in the '90's, and has done zero about it since. 100
million of his fellow citizens, are now inadequately
insured and 1 illness away from financial ruin.

Covered himself by the government, he doesn't really
care that millions of Americans are denied care due
to financial inability. He feels the "market-based"
abject failure of the last several decades, is a
bright solution. He feels that the rest of the First
World that manages to get everyone covered, is
irrelevant - because we need an "American" solution
that protects "choice"...

Some rising tide he has presided over. When voters
are engaged, these are things that cost you an election.

Attn: NeoCon sheep of Limbaugh and FoxNews. See
some of that Dem primary turnout so far?


Posted by: RG | February 21, 2008 5:50 PM

That's all we need is a,senile,ill-tempered version of Bush in the White House.
What's wrong with these masochists?Are they that jealous that someone has the audacity to believe that a country united to solve their problems works better than one robbed, decieved and devided?

Posted by: brollens | February 21, 2008 12:34 AM

Has McCain an left eye defect or an infection
recently acquired. Does it indicate a more serious condition.

Check recent videos

Posted by: Richard | February 20, 2008 11:15 PM

Cass, did you vote for Bill Clinton? Bill Clinton had no experience as a president. Bush had no experience as a president. My question to you is besides the teacher voucher. Have you explored Obama track record in the state of Illinois. Have you explored McCain track record in his state? Look at all the issues. Obama has truly helped his state progress. If it took experience to become the president of the U.S. Bush would have never won twice. Voting for McCain is extending Bush's shelf life. If you want to discount Obama because of one issue, then try and make a more informed decision and vote for the less of two evil's in the republican party. Vote for Huckabee.

Posted by: KayR | February 20, 2008 1:43 PM

This comment is for all the people who fear Obama in the oval office. All politicians are vague when he or she is making their bid for office. Not one canidate is going to 100% on disclosing their true agenda. They will tell you everything positive to get you to vote them until they get in office and do exact opposite. I suggest that you do your research and look at the canidates achievements in their personal state's government and the laws they have passed in the white house. I gaurantee you their will be things you do not agree with on McCain, Hillary, or Obama. Don't caught up in the excitement for Obama or Hillary. People are excited about these canidates. Ask yourself if race and gender truly don't matter, could you vote just on just canidate. Democrats and Replubicans know they can not just exit Iraq. All things must come to an end. Look at the canidate that will get America out of that mess that Bush created instead of ruling out of fear. Look at which person would better represent your interest at a level head rather than fear tactics. There no one canidate has experience as president. I believe there a great deal of people that would not care about Obama's following or excitement if his name was Bill and he was white. A great deal of concerns of this canidate is because some people in the democratic party fear due to the lack knowledge and understanding. You will not get to the meat and potatoes of a person's agenda unless you spend some time getting to know their platform and their accomplishments. Unfortunatley, this country was built on the backs of those that look like Obama. For some reason, some people still fear a black man. McCain is not a good choice. If I were a replubican, I would vote for Huckabee and McCain. He is just not a good choice.

Posted by: KayR | February 20, 2008 1:33 PM

Go Johnny Go Go!

Last night's speech where McCain called out the Chairman Obama's cult and his Red Guard fanatics was priceless.

The day this demagogue is put in his place, will be one the greatest day in our history. And maybe Michelle Obama could be PROUD of that!


No Bama in 08' or EVER.

Posted by: McCain Democrat | February 20, 2008 11:21 AM

Less jobs. More taxes. More aid to foreign countries. More illegal immigrants.

Vote Obama (the messiah)

Posted by: PM | February 20, 2008 9:44 AM

Less jobs. More taxes. More foreign aid. More illegal immigrants.

Vote Obama (the messiah)

Posted by: PM | February 20, 2008 9:41 AM

I'm an African-American male and I will not vote for Barack Obama. Never thought I'd be a McCain Democrat but by choosing a neophyte to lead the party, the Democrats have left me with no choice other than voting for John McCain. And should America elect Barack Obama I will have no choice but to become a Republican because I will want no part of the mess he will create in the White House.

Posted by: Machiavelli | February 20, 2008 3:55 AM

A McCain Democrat?

Surely you jest.

Granted, Ms. Clinton is a DLC hawk and Obama is an unknown, but neither of them can sink to the patronizing, flip-flopping, morals-be-damned lows of a doddering McCain. He is not a maverick, nor a straight-talker; but a vacillating warmonger
--and that is the last thing the American People wish to put in the White House.

Hillary or Obama's worst day in office will be greatly better for the good of Americans than McCain's best, so good luck with your wishful thinking about "McCain Democrats".

You'll need it.

Posted by: CherchezlaFemme | February 20, 2008 2:20 AM

The dangerous demagogue, Barack Obama, will not get my vote. If Smug Mr. Ultra Leftist Liberal hijacks our party (like McGovern and Dukakis did in past cycles), I will have the biggest smile on my face as I punch the card for McCain, and I have a strong feeling there will be many like me. Bye Bye Obama. :-D.

Posted by: McCain Democrat | February 20, 2008 1:17 AM

I was a McCain Democrat for about 2 days after Hillary won the NH primary and I chilled at the thought of repeating the 1990s. Then I remebered the McCain speeches I watched early in the Iowa campaign, the poor jokes that reflected a strange and bitter way of seeing the world (i.e. Janet reno as Chelsea's father, 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran'..), the mental lapses indicative of advancing age in the last 4 years that really could be downright dangerous. With that mouth, temper and belief that the military can solve it all, how can we ever get back world confidence? So when my first pick Edwards dropped out I had to decide if I could support Obama, and was sure that I could. This nonsense about an Obama cult is just a media myth prompted by Clinton agents to try to find something that would discredit him. I knew Obama supporters here and attended his gatherings. There was enthusiasm and hope and belief, that was not weird or cultish, but just the kind of political belief and community that I had not experienced since the days of JFK, RFK, McCarthy, the kind of faith and excitement that those of us who had it destroyed in the 60s were afraid to ever show again. Enough time had gone by for a new generation to have grown up without the fear of disappointment that had dominated us and so they could believe and get emotional about a candidate. I quite liked the people I knew who supported Obama here and am glad to join them. Forget the Cultism as the cynical media nonsense it really is, an exagerated story for the sake of having a story.

Posted by: atp2007 | February 19, 2008 11:16 PM

Another lifelong Democrat disillusioned with my Party. Voted Democrat since I first could (1984 - missed eligibility for 1980 by two weeks).

Supported Clinton throughout his troubled presidency, angry that the supreme court robbed us of a President Gore, outraged at the Bush administration's political use of fear to launch a war they wanted to wage anyway, yada yada yada. Celebrated the Democrats retaking Congress in 2006.

But I can not support either of the two candidates we have given ourselves as choices given the real problems we face. Obama is vague (to mask his ultraliberalism - which is not what this country needs right now). Clinton is corrupt and willing to achieve victory at any price (sort of like Bush-Cheney and their pit bull Rove). We're going to have to make some tough decisions and the liberal agenda just isn't realistic at this point in our history. These aren't the 90s anymore.

Will probably stay at home on Election Day.

Posted by: CntrvilleCitoyen | February 19, 2008 10:04 PM

Just Ask Yourself This:

"How Many More Right Wing Supreme Court Justices Do I Want?"

Then decide how to vote.

Posted by: VeganMilitia | February 19, 2008 9:56 PM

Looking at McCain's speech today. Is his cancer back? Left side of his face looks far worse than even a week or two ago and his eye on that side looks dragged down almost shut. I fear this election is taking its toll on him.

Posted by: walker1 | February 19, 2008 9:47 PM

Count me in as another life-long Democrat who will NOT vote for Obama. Just can't put another light-weight in the Oval Office...I don't care what his skin color or exotic ethnicity may be. He's all talk, no action and I'd rather live with 4 years of McCain.

Maybe some day Americans will grow up and vote for the most capable candidate. Right now, it's American Idol-Politics.

Posted by: Patricia | February 19, 2008 6:40 PM

Unfortunately, they all seem more than capable of being horrible Presidents. Don't tie your hopes to a politician. You will be disappointed.

Posted by: Can we start over? | February 19, 2008 5:04 PM

The comment by sameoldsomeold is blatently antisemetic and should be stricken from this website. Shame on you for allowing it to stand even these few hours it's been up.

Posted by: whochecksthisstuff | February 19, 2008 4:04 PM

John McCain: Tested, Failed

Posted by: Sam | February 19, 2008 3:38 PM

If you are so disgusted with Senator Clinton (or Senator Obama) that you are prepared to put John McCain in the White House, this is what's in store:

(1) The continuation (and enlargement) of the Security State--more wiretaps, more warrantless searches, more detentions without trial, more torture, and, rest assured, one day you will be a target. In the Security State, nobody is innocent.

(2) Because of appointments to the Supreme Court, abortion will become a crime, which means your wife, or your girlfriend, or your sister, or your daughter will be charged with a felony--perhaps even murder--if she tries to get one. Also, homosexuality will again become a crime, and your son, or your brother, if he should happen to be gay, will be imprisoned.

(3) We will have troops in Iraq for 100 years; if Iran should continue with its nuclear programs, we will start a war there, and be in Iran for 100 more.

(4) Since McCain has promised to extend Bush's tax cuts, and war spending will go through the roof, you will see the end of Social Security, Medicare, the FAA and every other government program that isn't somehow linked to the Department of Defense.

(5) Since McCain, the hot-heated Maverick, has demonstrated over the years that he can't get along with anybody for more than 10 minutes, the Congress will defy him at every turn, and nothing he suggests will get done.

If this pleases you, vote for McCain. And whatever terrible happens to you, you deserve.

Posted by: Lupo | February 19, 2008 2:31 PM

I think that the answer to first question is an excellent one. I am a center-lefty who lives in Portland, Oregon. I am completely swamped in a miasma of people farther to the left than I am. It usually annoys me in one way or another every day.

But I step back from time to time and remember than I'm not a Republican. I like McCain sometimes too, but I think there's a real chance he will expand the war to Iran, and the Supreme Court will in severe danger for at least a generation if we get another GOP admin to nominate justices. With that at stake, I implore everyone to swallow your dislike and vote Dem.

Posted by: BBpd | February 19, 2008 1:53 PM

As an African-American female and life long Democrat, I will be voting for McCain in the fall if Obama is the democratic nominee.

Obama is severely lacking any relevant experience. He has spent most of his time in the Senate on the campaign trail. He has flip-flopped on his stance on school vouchers in the course of a year. Obama has no significant record so that voters can make a decision on actual issues. He does not having the experience of having to truly broker a Senate deal (with the exception of getting Kennedy to back him).

I agree that Hope and Change is more like rope-a-dope. I am disheartened as a Democrat to think that people so upset with the 2000 popularity contest are now the main supporters of the cute prom king.

Posted by: Cass | February 19, 2008 1:45 PM

"Paul S.": "He [McCain] has proven that he will do what is best for the country, not his party."

...Or the exact opposite.

Posted by: Mobedda | February 19, 2008 1:07 PM

Hey "Geoff G": I'm sorry, but WHO is self-righteous?

Posted by: Mobedda | February 19, 2008 1:03 PM

Where are these alleged "McCain Democrats coming from? The Republican Party?

My experience is different: As the most liberal member of my social circle, I don't feel the need to bring up politics any more. It's just too embarrassing for my "conservative" friends.

Instead, now I find them sidling up to me at parties, gatherings, on the street with confessions that for the first time in their lives they will vote for a Democrat: Obama.

Read the friendly foreign press, and you might find great longings for us to elect a person who represents a different America than the bully we've become, someone who shows that we aren't all abunch of poorly-educated goobers who elected a life-long wastrel, just because his Daddy was once president and head of the CIA.

McCain is Bush. It's time for a genuine change.

Posted by: GKAM | February 19, 2008 12:42 PM

Hillary will continue the tradition of moving our manufacturing jobs out of the country. When hubby Bill was president our software manufacturing went to India, and he helped set up NAFTA to fast track other jobs to Mexico. Now we will soon be faced with Mexican truckers driving substandard rigs all over our highways. Our insurance rates will go up to cover the damages caused by the Mexican truckers because they will not be held liable. Hillary voted to go into Iraq, and has voted to use force over diplomacy with Iran. She left town rather than vote against her buddies in the telecom industry last week. She's a neocon and democrat in name only.

Posted by: Msmart2 | February 19, 2008 12:39 PM

GKAM says, "Obama has a different background, one of successfully doing for others."

Please tell us in some detail the things he has been doing for "others".

I know he campaigned for Lieberman, saying that Lieberman was working in "our" behalf. So he did something semi-successfully for Lieberman.

But...what has he done for victims of Katrina, for instance?
I haven't seen him around lately.

He did offer this comforting bit of insight: Obama disagreed with claims that President Bush is racist or that the federal government responded poorly to Katrina because many of its victims were black. (Quoted on his website).

Tomorrow is ahead of us and yesterday is behind of us.
A watched pot never boils.
Hope springs eternal, and eternal springs hopefully.
It's time to change the oil.
Can you spare some change?

Posted by: PostalWagon | February 19, 2008 12:39 PM

There is no such thing as a 'McCain Democrat'. A vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same, and supporters of Obama or Clinton who say they'll vote McCain if their favorite doesn't win the nomination need their medication increased. Democrats don't let Democrats vote Republicant.

Posted by: irae | February 19, 2008 12:38 PM

Hillary supporters seem to speak of Obama's inexperience... I have a couple questions:

1. What's Hillary's experience beyond failing on health care, voting for the Iraq war based on faulty intelligence (while making two-faced comments designed to put her on either side of the issue should the war go well or go horribly), and having a famous last name (yes, I said it)?

2. How will Hillary's experience argument work against McCain? (I forgot who I first heard this argument from; my apologies for "plagiarizing" and not attributing.)

Posted by: pgb | February 19, 2008 12:32 PM

You're not alone, Stumped. I know many Hillary supporters, including myself, who will think long and hard about voting for Obama if he is the Democratic Nominee. Not because they don't like him, or what he has to say, and not necessarily because of his empty rhetoric and cultish following, but because he is inexperienced and from what we know of him, weak.

Putting Obama in the Oval Office frightens us. It's like putting a kid who only knows how to ride a bicycle behind the wheel of a semi that is heading downhill on a steep twisting multilane highway mountain pass - not a great time for on the job training. Hillary and McCain already know how to drive the semi, they've been involved in running it for a long time. Both of them can get the semi under control; we're not so confident Obama can. But what we don't know is whether McCain will turn the semi around and head it back up the mountain or continue the downward spiral.

But even if McCain makes a sharp right turn, some Democrats may support him anyway because we trust him to keep America safe. We are facing serious threats and we need a leader we can depend on; a leader who understands those threats and has the courage to stand up to them. Both Hillary and McCain have demonstrated that strength and courage; Obama has not. It's just not a good time in history to elect a president who needs on the job training.

Posted by: suskin | February 19, 2008 12:32 PM

You better believe... if the Democratic National Committee allows the Clintons to steal the nomination from Obama, I will not only cast my vote for Senator John McCain in the fall, but I will actively campaign for him on his behalf.

Posted by: daddigrace | February 19, 2008 12:31 PM

I'd rather ANY version of change, than another 100 years in a country we have no business being in in the first place.

Where is Osama bin Laden?

What happened to New Orleans?

What happened to Habeas Corpus?

What happened to the moral high-ground?

Just some thoughts from a 'smug elitest liberal'

Posted by: Fred Evil | February 19, 2008 12:27 PM

Please. The authors of this blog must have the worst BS detectors in history. These are Republican talking points and "Stumped" is obviously a Republican shill. This is the kind of small bore, below the radar dirty trick that the GOP specializes in. What better way to get the Republican talking point out there that to put it in the mouth of a "Democrat"?

You've been a Democrat all your life and now, suddenly, the candidate who expresses Democratic ideals more clearly than anyone since JFK -- _that's_ the Democratic candidate that turns you off? Right. Tell me another one.

Posted by: Kyron Huigens | February 19, 2008 12:11 PM


And calling Obama smug when Hillary Clinton is in the field is pretty funny.

Posted by: same old same old | February 19, 2008 12:07 PM

"I'm voting for Obama because I believe the future starts tomorrow and the past is behind us. We need change because it's time for a change. And Obama is the candidate who will give us hope that in the future we will get change. GO OBAMA!!!"

And there you have the cult-like nature in a nutshell. I'm surprised you didn't faint while writing that drivel.

We need change because it's time for a change? Really? What, exactly, does that mean praytell?

Posted by: ep | February 19, 2008 12:06 PM

No economic plan other than tax cuts, no security plan other than stay the course, no health care plan at all...Deficit spending as far as the eye can see.

Just say no to "4 more years"

Just say no to John McCain

Posted by: willandjansdad | February 19, 2008 12:04 PM

Hey, Lenny Wright,

"Is our children learning?"

Apparently, many of the adults are not.

Posted by: GKAM | February 19, 2008 12:03 PM

I shouldn't be surprised that emotionalism is working against the Dems again, like it did with "Morning in America" and Willie Horton.

Those who do not like Obama's stand on the war (he was against it), versus McCain's ("We might be there a hundred years") smacks of the same old Killing for Peace we've done for generations. Is that what you want?

Those opposing Obama are letting their hate be used as an excuse to keep digging us deeper into the hole of debt, death, and disgust based on emotion that got us into these messes to begin with.

If anyone wants to find some excuse to be used, I guess we can't do anything about it, except for education.

Posted by: GKAM | February 19, 2008 12:01 PM

Obama's phrases are some of the dumbest and emptiest I have ever heard on the campaign trail.
I have a few more to suggest to him:

"We are us".
"Tomorrow is only a day away".
"Look both ways before crossing the street".
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
"Let's hope for a better tomorrow, or at least a better day after tomorrow or maybe a better day before yesterday".

The "highly educated" love this hrsesht.

And so, if the media and the highly educated and feverish freaks like Dowd and Arianna H. succeed in shoving this guy down our throats, hello McCain.

Either way, we are in store for a storm of glop.

Posted by: Lenny Wright | February 19, 2008 11:57 AM

Dear Stumped,

I feel the same way you do. The cult like following and his irrational stand on the war drive me away from Obama. I'm not crazy about Billary but would probably vote for her over McCain (although it would be a tough choice, I think he's a good guy).
What inflames me even further is that Bob's answer is just as condescending and irrelevant as Obamas speeches, that's sad.

Posted by: Chaka | February 19, 2008 11:41 AM

McCain is last century. His response to everything is military - that's his world.

Well, I was part of the war world, too, and see in McCain what I see in Vet Center groups - PTSD poorly-dealt with. His quickness to anger, his inappropriate comments, his instinctive return to the Old Ways show me that he is unsuitable for making decisions in tense environments.

Mc Cain is attractive because of the hit jobs done on Clinton and Obama. John F Kennedy didn't have any experience other than the Senate, either.

The lack of experience was NOT what caused Bush to fail, it was the lack of education (he slept and drank his way through school), and his continued lifelong failures at everything he ever did.

Obama has a different background, one of successfully doing for others. This is chosen to be a negative by those who gave us nothing but negatives since 1980. Are you going to buy into it?

Posted by: GKAM | February 19, 2008 11:35 AM

I really can't fathom the perspective of Democratic voters who say they would vote for McCain over either Clinton or Obama in the general election. What are you thinking?!

McCain is a conservative Republican. Sure he breaks with his party in some high profile situations - campaign finance reform being the main one-- but really! He's against a women's right to choose. He says he'll appoint conservative jurists like Scalia to the courts. He wants to continue the war in Iraq, and has indicated he's open to opening a 'second front' with Iran. He has no plan to deal with an economic downturn other than cutting taxes.

I hope all you disaffected Democrats take a deep breath between the primaries and general elections, look hard at the candidates' platforms and how that translates the appointments they make and the policies they implement, and then hold your noses and pull the lever for the candidate you really agree with (more) but may not like so much. Do we really want a re-play of Nader/Gore 2000?

Get a grip.

Posted by: Mike | February 19, 2008 11:32 AM

I really can't fathom the perspective of Democratic voters who say they would vote for McCain over either Clinton or Obama in the general election. What are you thinking?!

McCain is a conservative Republican. Sure he breaks with his party in some high profile situations - campaign finance reform being the main one-- but really! He's against a women's right to choose. He says he'll appoint conservative jurists like Scalia to the courts. He wants to continue the war in Iraq, and has indicated he's open to opening a 'second front' with Iran. He has no plan to deal with an economic downturn other than cutting taxes.

I hope all you disaffected Democrats take a deep breath between the primaries and general elections, look hard at the candidates' platforms and how that translates the appointments they make and the policies they implement, and then hold your noses and pull the lever for the candidate you really agree with (more) but may not like so much. Do we really want a re-play of Nader/Gore 2000?

Get a grip.

Posted by: Mike | February 19, 2008 11:31 AM

I'll reinforce Stumped's advice for persons annoyed by smug liberals: Come on down to Texas! Learn what life is like with no liberals, smug or otherwise. One of the Republican county judge (head of the county government) candidates is promising to post armed guards at charity hospitals to keep illegal aliens out. He could probably recruit a sizeable group to stand outside and laugh while people die. Learn how Bush got his inspiration for Guantanamo. Competition among smug conservatives is focused on who has the greatest disdain for anything that seems like the milk of human sympathy. I assure all of you from the blue states that have never been ruled by Southern Republicans that smug liberal syndrome is not a reason to disdain Obama. Vote for McCain because you like the Iraq war, or you want to increase military spending, or you like judges who love corporations and hate people. Say what you like about the "cult-like" aspect of the Obama campaign, but he is drawing people away from their cult-like subservience to the modern Republican party and Cheney-style permanent McCarthyism. Hilary can be a good president, but will leave us locked into the current red-blue matrix. Obama really gives us a chance to "turn the page" especially in the red states.

Posted by: TK in Texas | February 19, 2008 11:30 AM

He can change a flat tire.
He can change a dollar.
He can change his habits.
But he is NOT going to change the world.

Vote anyone but Obama.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 11:29 AM

Exactly right. Too many zombies out there chanting "Change", blindly following the crowd. Its a craze just like Hannah Montana and the Pet Rock. The problem is that we need to put more thought into who we vote for, other than following the crowd. If Obama is the Democrat, then I am Republican. No question.

Posted by: hopendave_1999 | February 19, 2008 11:25 AM

"arrogant" is a term used by low-incomed whites to describe higher-incomed whites who they perceive as being condescending to them. it is also a term used by whites to describe an intelligent black who intimidates them and makes them feel as if they squandered their natural birthright to racial superiority.

"mccain democrat", you are a "dixiecrat" in donkey clothing. switch parties and end your political confusion.

Posted by: barb deblanski | February 19, 2008 11:17 AM

In no possible way have the Democrats of the past 100 years been a part of my intellectual tradition.

Posted by: John Locke | February 19, 2008 11:01 AM

McCain is simply the absolute worst presidential candidate Republicans have selected since, well, George Bush. He is a thug that can be seen coming 200 miles away, if Americans would only open their eyes half way this time. The last thing this nation can afford is another Bush in the Oval Office.

Posted by: nomas | February 19, 2008 10:54 AM

Here is another 30 year democrat who will not vote Obama.

a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

Hillary or McCain 08

Posted by: Bradley | February 19, 2008 10:35 AM

I was strongly thinking about voting for McCain, but now that he's turning into Mitt Romney, I'd rather not.

Clinton.... we've been through our Clinton phase. It was okay, but not something I really want to go through again.

Obama... what the heck. Untried and untested, but when my current employers hired me nine years ago you could have said the same thing about me, and I seem to have done okay.

So Obama it is, vs. McCain. Clinton vs. McCain? That's a toughie. Probably McCain. Barely.

Posted by: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller | February 19, 2008 10:26 AM

Is this the first campaign you have spent a lot of time on the internet or is this perceived arrogance coming from people you actually know? Because if its the internet, don't take it to personally. The language and the rhetoric of the internet is typically more strident, more polarized and less restrained than almost anything you'll find face to face, about all subjects including video games, fictional characters, sports teams and even real world politics. Part of this perception of a 'cult' could just be an adverse reaction to a generational technology gap. I don't know how many internet communities I could describe as 'cults' with a high degree of dedication to some of the stupidest things in the world.

Posted by: bluemeanies | February 19, 2008 10:25 AM

to Not Sure I am Still a Democrat:

You aren't the only one disturbed by the cult-like Obama mania. Unfortunatly, Stumped did not address this.

I too am really worried about Obama and his approach. At times, it seems Obama speaks to a group of followers as if he is god-like and they are his devout followers.

I think I too would be more comfortable with McCain. He has proven that he will do what is best for the country, not his party. And with Democrats almost certain to hold the majority in Congress, I think a moderate Republican in the White house woudl be a good thing.

Posted by: Paul S. | February 19, 2008 10:21 AM

This "McCain Dem" letter is clearly a phony.
Who in the United States even thinks that our nation's presidents -- and their rhetoric -- are part of the "the intellectual tradition of Locke, Mill, and Niebuhr."
"Nixon -- Now, More Than Ever," "I Like Ike," "The Man from Hope," and "Franklin Pierce is a twiddle-headed ninny" are certainly part of our presidential rhetoric but not in the tradition of any noted philosopher.
The letter was either written by our host, or by an over-educated European.

Posted by: Ego Nemo | February 19, 2008 10:10 AM

Not sure,

I tend to agree with Stumped as to the solution to your dilemma. Although I disagree with your analysis of the Obama campaign as a "cult," a perjorative I believe was crafted by the Clinton campaign and adopted by the media, I highly encourage you to find some McCain backers in the Republican party to talk with. If you really are a Democrat, you won't be left with a sense that McCain, his 100 years of Iraq, and his essentially promised military invasion of Iran, not to mention his lack of clarity or understanding of economics, is your guy. Along those lines, you might consider checking out the policies of the candidates, regardless of their personality. I suspect that you would agree more with Obama or Clinton than McCain. This tactic serves the double benefit of giving you a sense of teh candidates you don't get by only listening to their campaigns. You may not like his more ardent followers (and I must admit I find the truly passionate Obama supporters a bit worrisome, but only because I don't see them supporting a Democrat in the general that's not Obama), but that doesn't mean you don't like the candidate.

Good luck!

Posted by: Joe | February 19, 2008 10:09 AM

If Hillary Clinton wins he nomination I'm a staunch Democrat for Hillary. If Barack Obama is the nominee I'm a McCain

The Obama cult with its swooning, unquestioning acolytes angers me and frightens me. I have visions of the poor kids blindly following the Pied Piper, or whole towns of people refusing to acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes.

I'll vote for Hillary, but definitely not for Obama.

Posted by: Vivian H. | February 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Want real change?

Vote for a friend of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and Mammouth Ahmadinejad.

Vote Obama!

Posted by: miamivice | February 19, 2008 9:54 AM

mobedda, I guess then I'm a phony as well. I understand the guy's sentiments very well. I'm a lukewarm Hillary supporter who is really, really turned off by the Obama movement. Of course many Americans want big changes after the way things have been going under the GOP and Bush. But does that justify following some well-spoken, largely untested candidate who comes along saying "I can give you change"? It's as if Bush's comical mangling of the language made the electorate swoon when the first person with great diction came on the scene. I feel that many (not all) Obama supporters are basically saying, "I like Obama because he's so likeable". Cringe.

I like McCain, less these days than I did before, when he used sharper elbows with die-hard Republicans. But I don't want the GOP in the Executive. So I may sit it out.

Posted by: John | February 19, 2008 9:51 AM

The McCain Dem is onto something. If a candidate attracts too many smug or self-righteous supporters, then he/she should definitely be rejected. Guilt by association is by far the best way to determine guilt or innocence. (Sorry, Kant, but I think Karl Rove knows a little bit more about moral philosophy than you!)

But, to be fair, we have to have more analysis. For example, let's say that 2/10ths of Obama's supporters are self-righteous, moral exhibitionists (20% of the votes racked up by Obama is a lot of people!), but 8/10ths like him because of his background, his stand on the issues and his unifying message. Ideally, we'd be able to cast an 8/10ths vote, but in the current electoral system, that's impossible. So the question becomes, how many smug exhibitionists are too many? If we assume for the sake of argument that the number is low, like 20 or 30%, we need more analysis to determine the precise numbers of people with unsatisfactory motives, and also the extent to which these motives predominate in their thinking - i.e., to distinguish between the really smug, arrogant jerks we wouldn't associate with if the world depended on it, and people who are a little smug, but also decent people, capable of making reasonable decisions based on facts instead of prejudice. We spend a lot of money on polling, so why not also make all voters complete a Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory so we can determine more accurately how pure their motives are?

Since this may not be possible this election cycle, I'm going to use a very old-fashioned, non-scientific method to decide who gets my vote: I'll assume that the deluded, irrational, hateful or smug people backing each candidate more or less cancel each other out, and try my best to make a decision that focuses on the candidates and their policies.

Posted by: Geoff G | February 19, 2008 9:43 AM

When it comes to McCain, while you may like him personally, you should take the time to read the articles coming out now (admittedly speculation) about who may end up in his cabinet. If the thought of Sec of State Lieberman scares you as much as it does me that should stop you from voting for McCain right there. Also, look out for who he picks as his running mate. McCain is old and has health problems. We've all seen how the Presidency ages people, look at pictures of Clinton when he entered and left and the same with Bush. McCain's VP pick would seem to have a better chance than most to end up serving as president.

Posted by: Glenn | February 19, 2008 9:30 AM

"I support single-payer health care, a high minimum wage, strong environmental protections, and full civil rights for gay and lesbian folk"..........these are your own words. If these things truly matter to you then why would you vote for the candidate that won't do any of these things? And does the Dem plan for Iraq propose leaving it in shambles, no? I advise voting with your head.

Posted by: NYC D | February 19, 2008 9:30 AM

I'm an independent with Democratic leanings, but was disheartened that the candidate I thought best qualified -- Bill Richardson of NM -- didn't seem to go anywhere. Obama is just too young without the international experience we desperately need as a country. Hillary would be okay on her own, but she comes with Bill and I don't believe he'll keep his fingers out of policy making. That leaves me looking seriously at McCain. I understand where Stumped is coming from.

Posted by: ckf | February 19, 2008 8:15 AM

Dear Stumped,

I think you have to look at the damage done by this current administration to our great nation. If you think we are better off after eight years of Bush and his reckless foreign policy and economics that have hurt the middle class vote for McCain. If you think this administration has been the disaster then you should not vote for McCain. McCain is a good man but his is wrong on policy. A vote for McCain is vote for failed policy.

Posted by: bradcpa | February 19, 2008 8:08 AM

Thank God for McCain. The other two candidates are untested.

Posted by: drawlings | February 19, 2008 8:00 AM

Vote for Obama because we are the change that we need and if we don't change then the future will become the past and tomorrow will become the day we wished for and.... wow man, don't worry, I'm ok, I'm coming down, the Obama speech is wearing off. OK, next I'll try the Moonies...

Posted by: Let's Drink Kool Aid! | February 19, 2008 7:42 AM

I'm voting for Obama because I believe the future starts tomorrow and the past is behind us. We need change because it's time for a change. And Obama is the candidate who will give us hope that in the future we will get change. GO OBAMA!!!

Posted by: Arlington | February 19, 2008 7:36 AM

Okay, I'm biased, but I think that first "McCain Democrat" letter is completely phony. This year? After this presidency? Nah. The timing is simply too precious.

Posted by: mobedda | February 19, 2008 7:18 AM

Not crushing too hard on McCain, but the Obama cult campaign turns me off. I have no intention of voting for a walking bumper sticker like Obama. I've been waiting for Obama to convince me he has the goods, and every time he opens his mouth all I hear is platitudes. He reminds me of everything I hated about Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | February 19, 2008 7:16 AM

I do not think you have to worry about too many Dems crossing lines over to McCain if Obama gets the nomination, as this report highlights:

Obama vs. McCain- The Internet Indicators:

Posted by: David | February 19, 2008 7:14 AM

Care more about the planet and save yourself and others.

Vote Obama.

Posted by: Sara B. | February 19, 2008 7:05 AM

Less jobs, More war

Vote Hillary (the old politics)

Posted by: julieds | February 19, 2008 1:11 AM

Less jobs, More war

Vote McCain (the really old guy)

Posted by: Sam | February 19, 2008 12:47 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company