Nancy Kivlen of PUMA (”Party Unity My Ass”) explains why she plans to vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton doesn’t receive the Democratic nomination. This video is from Mike Smith, one of the contributors to Reuters Inside the Tent.
Reuters Inside the Tent has more than 40 delegates and other attendees in Denver and St. Paul, equipped with video cameras to capture the conventions from the ground up. Smith is not a Reuters employee and any opinions expressed are his own.
Click here for a full list of contributors at the Democratic National Convention. We’ll be moving to St. Paul for the Republican National Convention next week.
Trackback
48 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
Lets put an end to this Obama’s not qualified argument. Obama is qualified by virtue of having DONE the things that that these other politicians will ONLY legislate about from way up in their capital city.
Hillary big claim is experience passing legislation to help the working class. Obama experience is working for years directly with the poor and working class to ensure that they receive the help those laws promised. And by working directly with, I don’t mean focus groups and talking points, I mean he served them at the grass roots level.
I take nothing away from Hillary. Legislating was how she choose to help and someone had to do it. But its analogous to celebrities holding a big banquet fundraiser and then sending the proceeds to help those in need. Its nice … its for a good cause … but lets not pretend that you sacrificed anything of great value. You spent a night partying for a good cause and now you want a medal?
In the armed services you can’t become General without first having gone through boot camp. In other words, everyone starts at the bottom … basic training. The army is also unique in that you don’t get to be a good General without having been a good soldier, good officer, good next rank and so on.
Obama came from the working-class, fought for the working-class as boots-on-the-ground then worked his way up the ladder to US senator. Now he’s an elitist that couldn’t possibly be effective because he’s only got rhetoric and no voting record (BS too, go see his wiki). But he doesn’t have 20 years of voting because 1) he’s only 47 and 2) while they where busy voting HE WAS BUSY DOING THE REAL WORK!
So STFU about his experience and go vote for McCant so you can reap another 4 years of the same!
- Posted by JulianI think it is sad that you can go from Hillary to McCain.
- Posted by VirginiaShame on you for throwing away everything we have been fighting for just be cause Hillary cannot be president.
The Constituition, the War, EVERYTHING! Women like you make us all look bad! We are fighting sooo hard and you are willing to throw it all away!
Dear Michael Hindin:
- Posted by Anonymous UserThe truth stings, doesn’t it? And, by the way, have you ever heard that slapping denigrating labels on anything you don’t like is not exactly conductive for civilized discussion? Hope you’ll be able to answer these questions without resorting to more name calling and label slapping.
Regards,
Anonymous User
This woman’s bitterness is disgusting! I don’t know what rock she’s been under for the last 8 years, but she is not a patriotic American nor Democrat. As much flaws as America may have, this election marks a turning point in American history and putting another war-mongerer in the White House will not (and has not) helped America.
- Posted by DanielleNot one of these comments has mentioned the Supreme Court. With Justices Stevens and Ginsberg on the edge of retiring how can anyone think of putting a Republican in the White House. Even with a Democrat winning this next election and having the opportunity to perhaps appoint two Justices all we would do is keep the status quo. A McCain as he has promised would give us two more similiar or as he indicates even more conservative Justices than Alito and Roberts — appontments that will affect our country for years and years to come. I cringe at the thought.
- Posted by R W FriendlyPUMA is apparently another word for shooting yourself in the foot.
- Posted by daveHIf she had run a smart, well discplined campaign then she would be the one accepting the nomination.
She did not.
She and the people she hired ran a camapaing assuming they were the presumptive nominee even before Iowa based on name recognition alone. They blew off the caucuses because Hilliary is not comfortable in front of small audiences talking about personal issues (the Moncia issue for one), and her campaign leadership were confused at times about the rules of the Democratic Party.
Even now some her campaign staff can’t acknowledge they ran a very poor campaign despite the numerous articles using information from insiders.
And that is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. Her chances of overcoming the Rove tactics from the extreme right would have been limited. Too much baggage in the Clinton closet to overcome.
- Posted by WillNick,
First, Clinton did not support the FISA bill. Obama flipped flopped and disavowed his repeated opposition to the FISA bill and eventually supported it. As you already know, I think Obama betrayed the United States Constitution in supporting the FISA bill.
Second, Clinton’s proposed health care plan was fully funded. Obama’s health care plan is not fully funded and its adoption will only result in its eventual insolvency. So I would rather support the establishment of a solvent program now rather than have my representatives have to deal with fixing an insolvent one later.
Third, Clinton has a long record of having supported domestic initiatives protecting women and children.
Fourth, Clinton has been a Senator far longer than Obama with far more legislative experience. Obama has only been a Senator for one term and does not have a lot of legislation that he wrote. Sure, Obama co-sponsored some legislation. And if you go back to Obama’s tenure in Illinois, voting ‘present’ on tough issues is not a sign of someone who will make a good leader.
- Posted by Ron