I hate to admit this, but I must: I listen to liberal radio while I’m at work. I used to listen to audio books, but I ran out, and now I’m listening to left wing propaganda. At least I know it’s propaganda. That’s the first step to recovery, right?
But there’s something that’s been cropping up recently that gets me even more riled up than the typical anti-gun-government-should-be-trusted-with-your-life socialist stupidity that shows up there on occasion (not a lot on the specific programs I listen to, but it does happen occasionally). That something is, to put it bluntly, the irrational Hillary Clinton supporters who insist they are being treated badly.
1) Hillary acted badly on the day of the last primary, and it should have been obvious that people were going to call her on it.
2) Obama won the nomination fairly, no matter how you want to count Michigan.
3) The party needs to be unified if it’s going to win against McCain, and Hillary’s refusal to even acknowledge Obama’s win until days later is harming the party by continuing the division.
These are simple and unimpeachable facts, in my view. But, I hear Hillary supporters on these liberal talk shows call in and complain about how they are being attacked and disrespected. Disrespected? Obama wins the nomination, Hillary ignores it completely during her speech, and actually continues to push forward with her campaign, and the Hillary people are being disrespected? Forgive me if I missed a class in school about sportsmanship, but I was under the impression that after a game, you congratulate the victor, then either go party with him/her, or take your dignity, and go home. You don’t just ignore it, and just keep playing by yourself as if nothing happened. Not only is it disrespectful, it’s a demonstration of an inability to recognize reality. The idea that no one was going to call Hillary on that is frankly ludicrous.
But some of these Hillary supporters are even supporting her delusional speech that day. It just doesn’t make rational sense. Yes, the nomination isn’t officially over until the convention, but the DNC and the American people have had their say already. There are no more voters, caucus goers, or super delegates that can sway this anymore. The sufficient votes have been cast, and the game is effectively over.
Maybe I actually am being disrespectful to the avid Hillary supporters by pointing out that their candidate can’t win. Maybe it’s me, and not Hillary, who is being disrespectful by seeing them as individuals capable of making their own rational independent decisions (as opposed to Hillary, who tried to use them as a sheep-like block bargaining chip to force her way onto the ticket as VP). But, I don’t think it’s disrespectful to expect people to be rational.
If the Hillary supporters don’t want to vote for Obama because they aren’t sure of him for what ever reason, I understand and respect that. In fact, I avidly support the notion that a person should never vote for a candidate he or she isn’t confident supports issues important to that voter. Frankly, I’ve never voted in a presidential election for that very reason. I simply can’t support the “lesser of two evils”.
There’s the idea that women deserve presidential representation, and I agree. But the only way to get that is by winning it fairly. I don’t agree with the nothing that Hillary was the only chance women will have to get a member of their gender in the top office. If not Hillary, then who? Well, let’s start with Nancy Pelosi and Claire McCaskill for the name recognition, then move on from there. Hillary isn’t the only hope (“No, there is another…” …sorry, had to say it). Hillary wasn’t the best candidate from the start, in my opinion, and I think far too grand expectations were hanging on her run for office.
Hillary didn’t win, but as a result, we’re getting a better candidate now, and we’re even more likely to get better female candidate in the future. I’m very happy about that.