Tales from the Trail

Are Clinton’s supporters up for grabs? McCain thinks so

June 5, 2008

mccain.jpgBATON ROUGE, La. – With disappointed women supporters dealing with Hillary Clinton’s imminent exit from the Democratic primary race, Republican John McCain is seeking their votes.

McCain, an Arizona senator, said on Wednesday Clinton’s backers would find a lot to like in his candidacy and signaled he would not cede their support to rival Barack Obama, who has won enough delegates to beat Clinton for their party’s White House nomination.

Some women who backed Clinton have said they will not fall behind Obama, an Illinois senator, though the former first lady has long emphasized her own differences with McCain.

Here are some of McCain’s comments about the subject:

“I would welcome any of Sen. Clinton’s supporters’ vote,” he said.

“I believe there are those who want genuine reform, not just talk about it.”

He continued:

“Sen. Obama has the most liberal voting record, most partisan voting record, of any senator in the United States Senate. He really is not, well, I’ll stand on my record of reform, which I am very proud of. I think that could attract some of Sen. Clinton’s voters.”

“I also think that there are many of Sen. Clinton’s supporters who believe that I am by far best qualified to secure this nation’s future,” McCain said.

Obama has said before Clinton would be on “anybody’s short list” for vice president, but there are certainly no guarantees. 

So, ladies for the former first lady, anyone convinced by McCain’s entreaties? 

Photo credit: Reuters/Lee Celano (John McCain greets supporters in Louisiana)  

Comments
23 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Dear John McCain,

I have watched and listened closely to each of the 3 major candidates for President. I believe Hillary would be an invaluable asset to any Presidential candidate, and suggest Obama will have a tough time winning without Hillary on the ticket. I agree that he is woefully inexperienced to handle critical issues and therefore vulnerable to decisions and actions that may not be well thought out.

 

The best DREAM TICKET would be McCain – and Hillary as VP. This would be great for America. What would others think? Come on let’s have a McCain – Hillary as VP!

Posted by Jim Mullins | Report as abusive
 

After the disappointing news that we have lost Clinton, I can imagine many of us are seriously looking at voting Republican. Speaking for myself, when considering Obama, it would be a cold day in……

Posted by KLT | Report as abusive
 

Wherever she goes I will support her.

However, if the Democratic Party disrespects her “anymore” … I’m going to work for John McCain every waking moment.

John McCain is NOT Bush-Cheney!

Obama YOU HAVE NO LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS!

Obama was in the US Senate a whole 2 years … and before that he hand spent less than 3 years to the Illinois Legislature. YEAH, THAT’S A WHOLE LOT OF EXPERIENCE!

What a “friggin” joke this is … Well, chalk this one up to Multi-Nationalist (Monied Interests as Usual) and the Kennedy’s.

I’m going to put in my “dead kennedys” CD…(that is a response to an Obama supporter that said, ” Thank God, the witch is dead.”

This election has turned into a “friggin circus”… pathetic.

Posted by Hillary | Report as abusive
 

Obama can not win with Hillary or with any of his shady friends,to many gun loving
folks now know his past .

Posted by caneman | Report as abusive
 

I am definitely voting Republican!!!!!!!!!!! Sad day for the Democratic Party when you have and idiot like Howard Dean making decisions for the American people on who they want for President!!! This is no different than when the Supreme Court elected George W Bush!
The delegates from Michigan and Florida were rigged!!!
I can not believe that the American people are being fed this Garbage of Technicalities of the Democratic party that are ulitimately deciding the nominee!
I am not sure who is really at fault These politicians or the American people for accepting these ridiculous excuses! Never thought that the American people would one day vote for a candidate that is Muslim! Especially after 9/11!!!!!!!!!! He can say he is not and try to distance himself from his Muslim roots, but he is still Muslim! If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks!!! “AMERICA ITS A DUCK”
African Americans should look past his skin Color and decide for a candidate based on experience and a track record! Am I the only intelligent American left in the Democratic Party????????????????
DEMOCRATS CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE JUST HANDED McCAIN THE VICTORY!!

Posted by Moises | Report as abusive
 

I don’t understand why Clinton’s hardcore supporters are threatening to vote for McCain in November. Do her supporters (many of them women), realize that by defecting to McCain, they will be voting for a Pro-life, pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy nominee? Please thing logically. Obama and Hillary’s positions on issues are not that different,in comparison to McCain’s. Don’t vote based on frustration and resentment. It just doesn’t make sense.

Posted by Dewy | Report as abusive
 

I decided on Tuesday night, after the last primary, that I am changing my party affiation from Democrat to either Independant or Republican. The Democrat party leadership has been a disgrace and disrepectful of half of its constituent and do not deserve my vote. McCain-Clinton, I would consider that much more seriously than Obama-Clinton.

Posted by JBN | Report as abusive
 

The election is not a game. Why would the people vote as a democrate and then change to republican. It is time for Hillary to stop playing mind games. We don’t need her for VCICE PRESIDENT or anything else. She needs to sit dowm and stop acting out. People that voted for her should have enough since to wake up. She is just a sore looser. We don’t need her or Mccain in the White House. We need to bring our people home out of that war.

This is a man size job and Obama is THE MAN.

Posted by Mary | Report as abusive
 

Obama, for the record, was voted into the Illinois Senate in 1997. Get your facts straight before you go bashing his “experience”. Why are people so against Obama, when he has more accomplishments in the Senate, despite being in the Senate for less time. Clinton and Obama had virtually the same policies, but you want to change your vote because he won the nomination? How childish does that sound? Is it because he didn’t fight hard enough for the delegates to get seated? It wasn’t his fault the lawmakers in Florida and Michigan decided to move their primaries up, knowing fully well what would happem. Clinton, at the time, agreed with the punishment.

Get over yourselves and your candidate. Don’t cut your nose to spite your face. Vote smart, not Republican.

Posted by JosephB | Report as abusive
 

I prefer facts.
There are two reasons to vote for Obama. The first is for “change and unity”.
McCain is the one who has shown a willingness for unity. McCain is the one that has worked with Democrats and proposed legislation that has mattered. What has Obama done? Vote liberal on EVERY issue. This is fact- not mud slinging. You can go to any site and look at his voting record. There is no sign ANYWHERE that he would work with Republicans.
The second reason is if you are anti-Iraq. We may not belong there. It may be that it was a HUGE mistake. But pulling out immediately without a plan will doom us.
McCain has a lot of issues- he is far from perfect. I cannot believe he is the best the Republicans could offer. But just as flawed is Obama. (And before you think I am a disgruntled Clinton supporter- I assure you that I am not sad to see her go.) I AM sad that these 3 are the best we could come up with out of 300 million people.

Posted by rodann73 | Report as abusive
 

Call me what you want: bitter, angry, childish, with a need to get over myself. But, the fact remains that the DNC, run by the dictatorial Howard Dean, decided before the primary even got underway, that their man would be Obama. It did not matter that we have one of the most professional and politically experienced woman running. No, unacceptable.

I learned in women’s history class at Columbia U. about the taunts, ridicule, aggression, alienation that women endured for me to have the right just to vote. I watched as Clinton endured taunts, derision, verbal abuse by members of the public and members of the media just for having the audacity as a woman to run for president. Unacceptable.

Clinton does not share much of Obama’s platform, Obama, the upstart, shares much of Clinton’s, the seasoned politician. Yet, the DNC/media threw their support behind Obama. Why?

Finally, Obama is a media created phenomena. And we know how much substance that has. He peaked in February and has been on the demise since then. Despite all the efforts to get him (technically) nominated and all the efforts to get her to quit…he LIMPED across the finish line.

There is absolutely nothing that the DNC can now do to make me support Obama. That will NEVER happen. And because I know of the struggle it took for me to have the right to vote, I will not sit home. Though my vote for McCain will be a protest vote, I do respect him and his professionalism, his experience.

Posted by roberta | Report as abusive
 

Roberta, Suffragettes and feminists fought for women to have the vote on the premise that women were capable of making as informed and logical a vote as men. You’ve just stated in your post that you will vote because you can (“I know of the sturggle it took for me to have the right to vote [so] I will not sit home”) but you will not vote for your party’s candidate because of your anger at the superdelegate’s choice. You state that if the party leadership hadn’t gone for Obama, Hillary would have won. It’s accepted that even if all the MIchigan and FLorida delegates were seated (with uncommitted going to Obama) she still wouldn’t have caught up. The popular vote argument is less clear cut but the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates. So what you’re really saying is even though she was behind on delegates you’re angry at the party for not falling behind her on the superdelegate count. You’re angry at them for supporting Obama, not your candidate. This is how you decide your vote? Your experience argument may hold more water but you seem to suggest that as an afterthought. As a woman, I’m ashamed of the way you frame your justification of your use of your vote that many other women (and men) fought to gain for you.

Posted by khanse | Report as abusive
 

Another thought, is no-one wondering how Nader will benefit from this and whether this will end up being a replay of the Bush Gore Nader triangulation effect.

Posted by khanse | Report as abusive
 

Please note, that Obama did indeed co-sponsor a bill written by Mr. John McCain.

Posted by JosephB | Report as abusive
 

If Obama is elected president, THIS horrific primary with the race-baiting, the lying, the hero worship by the media, the stealing of votes – the SD’s and big ‘bosses’ of the DNC will from now on PICK AND CHOOSE OUR FUTURE CANDIDATES! It will no longer be “WE THE PEOPLE” who choose our candidate – and if it’s another woman, watch out! THIS HAS GOT TO STOP – VOTE FOR MCCAIN to send a message to the DNC that the BEST democrat LOST and we will not tolerate their shennanigans in the future!

Posted by Brendy | Report as abusive
 

I am unfortunate in being English and having to live in Australia where there is not only a corporate-like and male-dominated “two-party system” of government as in the United States, but also compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting … nothing short of a dictatorship. I haven’t been exposed to the US election campaign as U.S. people have, but, as other contributors to this discussion have said before, of Barack Obama being a moslem from way back, “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks!!! “AMERICA ITS A DUCK”; and of the only alternative, the likeable but policystancewise unfemalefriendly John McCain, that he is a “Pro-life, pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy nominee”. This setup suggests a cattle-run for female voters … and in Austalia, and in future-time maybe in your country as well … the cattle-run would have demonic administative men with cattle-prods forcing women to comply.

I have two questions: The first is “Who are women supposed to vote for?!” (That question is rhetorical: Women and matriarchal men are being subjected to an Orwellian world-record no-choice conspiracy.)

The second question is, if no other candidate has ever acquired 17-18 million votes before, and if Hillary Clinton has to rely on democrat delegates, then what percentage of the delegates upon whom she must rely on for support are women and what percentage are men?

And to Hillary Clinton I would like to say: “How can you appeal to all women and still be who you truly are in reality when we are all innately individual and different and when your words are subject to patriarchal scrutiny and censure? To find your own voice would surely mean to go out on a limb and to never return to mainstream politics! For the awful truth of patriarchal domination of society is a cup of poison to the politician. How could you win?!”

 

ATTENTION MODERATOR: Would you be able to replace my comment please – this is my corrected comment which has my web site spelled correctly, thank you.—–>

I am unfortunate in being English and having to live in Australia where there is not only a corporate-like and male-dominated “two-party system” of government as in the United States, but also compulsory voter registration and compulsory voting … nothing short of a dictatorship. I haven’t been exposed to the US election campaign as U.S. people have, but, as other contributors to this discussion have said before, of Barack Obama being a moslem from way back, “If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks!!! “AMERICA ITS A DUCK”; and of the only alternative, the likeable but policystancewise unfemalefriendly John McCain, that he is a “Pro-life, pro-war, pro-tax cuts for the wealthy nominee”. This setup suggests a cattle-run for female voters … and in Australia, and in future-time maybe in your country as well … the cattle-run would have demonic administrative men with cattle-prods forcing women to comply.

I have two questions: The first is “Who are women supposed to vote for?!” (That question is rhetorical: Women and matriarchal men are being subjected to an Orwellian world-record no-choice conspiracy.)

The second question is, if no other candidate has ever acquired 17-18 million votes before, and if Hillary Clinton has to rely on democrat delegates, then what percentage of the delegates upon whom she must rely on for support are women and what percentage are men?

And to Hillary Clinton I would like to say: “How can you appeal to all women and still be who you truly are in reality when we are all innately individual and different and when your words are subject to patriarchal scrutiny and censure? To find your own voice would surely mean to go out on a limb and to never return to mainstream politics! For the awful truth of patriarchal domination of society is a cup of poison to the politician. How could you win?!”

 

Who is it these Clinton supporters, who say they will now vote for McCain, are trying to punnish? Obama for winning? The DNC for coming up with a compromise? Obama supporters for not choosing their canadate?

Who will actually be punnished if this tactic is successful? More soldiers will be killed. More young Arabs will turn to extremism and terrorist organizations, more people around the world will change their formerly good opinions about Americans, and much more damage will be done to our constitution and our ideals as 2 or 3 hard-right justices are appointed to the US Supreme court.

Will it all be worth it as long as you can show how disappointed you are?

Posted by Tom | Report as abusive
 

Throughout most of the history of this country, the parties chose their candidates internally. It was not contemplated in our constitution that a party’s candidtes would be chosen via popular vote. Many states still don’t even have a vote for candidates, they have caucuses instead. The RNC and the DNC are free to choose their candidates any way they wish. The decision the DNC made about any state which tried to circumvent the primaries calendar might have been imperfect but it was perfectly proper for them to make such a rule and related consequences if the rule was broken.The fact that all the delegates were seated wit h1/2 vote each and that the delegates were apportioned as fairly as possible is indeed a pretty fair compromise. Those who say the DNC ‘cheated’ anyone out of their vote doesn’t understand our system and doesn’t understand the role of political parties.

Posted by Tom | Report as abusive
 

If you truly don’t wish to vote for Obama, don’t vote for him. But if you have any decency, check your facts before you attempt to ‘inform’ others. Obama spent nearly 8 years in the Illinois Legislature and has been a US Senator for 3 years. Hillary Clinton, as much as I respect her experience, has only been an elected official for 7 years. This would suggest she has less experience than Obama. Of course Clinton witnessed her husband’s work as governor and president, that’s worth something and so is Obama’s experience as a community organizer and as a constitutional professor.
As far as I can tell, the experience factor is about even.
As for the post claiming that they know Obama is a Muslim, please share with us your special gift that allows you to discern a person’s religion by merely observing how he looks or walks! The republicans would love nothing more than to point this out but even they are satisfied that a person who attends a Christian church for 20 years is probably (guess what?) a Christian. The fact that there is no evidence that he has ever participated with any Muslim organization or attended any mosque would also be useful evidence for those of us without your divine gift to see beyond the facts.

Posted by Tom | Report as abusive
 

Mark these words:

The “Obama is sexist, so I’m voting for McCain” campaign has Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over it.

Posted by Laura | Report as abusive
 

You can call us names. You can try to demean us. You can say whatever you like…. WE ARE NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA…period. I like my sisters who support Hillary will be voting for McCain. We don’t trust Obama, we never elected Obama, and we will never support Obama. We think McCain is closer to Hillary’s ideology than Obama ever will be. Obama is a radical liberal, nothing new, old Chicago style of politician. He is sleazy and so are his “friends”…. I want nothing to do with this man and neither does any other “true” American. Take your liberalism and shove it!

Posted by mdr22102 | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/