It doesn't get any stupider than this.
Nikki and I have decided that now is a good time to get this overwith. Barring a DREAM TICKET scenario or a scenario in which HILLARY WINS THE NOMINATION, which we see as unlikely at this time, we endorse John McCain for President.
This was a VERY tough decision, those of you that know me know I am extremely passionate about our party. I feel that it has moved away from me. We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.
It takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, grudge-holding, and, well, total stupidity for a hard core Hillary Clinton supporter to suddenly endorse John McCain for president.
Cody Eliff's reasoning, from what I can discern from this letter, evolved out of the tear-Obama-down "kitchen sink" strategy devised by Mark Penn and the Clinton campaign. I think most Clinton supporters are smarter than this, and will follow Hillary's classy lead in supporting Obama.
But let's have fun here, and smash apart the arguments put forth by this McCain-supporting Hillary fan. Maybe this will be instructive to others being tempted to the dark side.
1. Hillary and McCain have enough experience to be commander in chief, but Obama doesn't.
Altogether, John McCain has been in the military and Congress since 1954. That's right - his five-plus decades of "experience" started in Eisenhower's first term, when Hillary Clinton was 7 years old. Hillary's experience? She traveled to 80 countries while First Lady, and she has served on the Senate Armed Services committee during her seven years in the Senate. If years of experience is so important to you, why would you have supported Hillary in the first place? Clearly McCain should have been your guy from day one. And if you are a Democrat, maybe you should have supported Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or Bill Richardson, all of whom have much more experience than Hillary Clinton.
2. Hillary and McCain are foreign policy experts, Obama not so much.
If your idea of foreign policy expertise boils down to a vote in favor of the Iraq war, then I guess Hillary and McCain are interchangeable on this one. Of course, Clinton promised to pull all of our troops out of Iraq within two years, while McCain wants to keep them there for 100 years. Kind of a big difference.
This misguided fool Cody Eliff also hangs his hat on the false idea that Obama wants to attack Pakistan. What Obama actually said, of course, is that he would take action against Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the government there failed to act. Maybe if you support John McCain's policy that we ignore Al Qaeda, I guess this makes sense. But if you were supporting Hillary Clinton, who also promised to kill Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, then you are just an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
3. All of these negative, sexist attacks against Hillary are Obama's fault.
First, you must ignore the long record of Hillary attacks on Obama. You also ignore the media's months-long obsession with Obama's ex-church, bitter-gate, charges of elitism, etc. Next, you make your presidential decision based on what someone who claimed to be an Obama supporter once said to you in Iowa, or what a media pundit once said about Hillary. Fourth, you deny the fact that Obama was actually quite classy and restrained towards Hillary during the entire campaign, and avoided any sort of "kitchen sink" strategy against her. Fourth, you pretend that the Republican party is a classy organization that would never smear Hillary in any way.
And finally, you throw your support behind the guy who called Chelsea Clinton "ugly" and who laughed when a support called Hillary Clinton a "bitch", and who voted to impeach and convict Bill Clinton.
Very smart.
4. The elders of the DNC stole the nomination from Hillary.
First you claim that Michigan should have put Hillary Clinton over the top, even though she herself said that the Michigan vote wouldn't "count for anything". Next, you ignore that Hillary lost the popular vote when this Michigan election that doesn't "count for anything" does not count. Finally, you ignore that this was a delegate race, that the Clinton campaign always admitted it was a delegate race, and that Obama won the most delegates.
You also conveniently ignore the fact your candidate, Hillary Clinton, started off the primary with a 100 delegates more than Obama and a 20 percent lead in the national polls. The only reason she lost was through bad strategy, a mismanaged campaign, and poorly managed funds. (In other words, Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, and Patti Solis Doyle)
And let's be honest -- if you were an undecided superdelegate on June 3rd, would you really want to cast your lot with the person $20 million in debt?
5. Because Obama lost the primary election in a few swing states, he can't win those states in the fall.
Hillary won the primary campaign in Pennsylvania, California, Texas, Ohio, and Florida, so she would definitely win them in November. Except....McCain won the Republican primary in those same states, meaning that he will definitely win them in November.
Does not compute...repeat...does not compute.
This line of thinking is totally lacking in logic or common sense. And why would Obama's chances in November make you vote for McCain? "I think Obama will lose in November, therefore I won't support him." It sounds to me like this person is a fair-weather voter who only wants to go with the winner. But his track record is bad and about to get worse. According to current polls, Obama is doing better against McCain than John Kerry ever did against George W. Bush.
6. The media has been in the bag for Obama, so his election isn't valid.
Not so much:
You also must ignore studies showing that Clinton's press was just as positive as Obama's press, which is surprising considering that she was mathematically out of the race by early March.
7. Issues don't matter.
Apparently, you don't care about the issues, because John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the polar opposites on just about every issue facing the country in the next four years. How can you go from wanting a more progessive tax code one day, then throwing your weight behind McCain's regressive tax code the next day? How do you go from supporting a careful withdrawal of troops from Iraq within two years, then endorse the guy who wants to keep them there for 100 years?
On issue after issue, there is a major gap between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Anyone who switches their allegiance between the two, for such shoddy reasons as those provided above, must not care about what the President will actually do when elected. This person has fallen into the Ralph Nader mindset, the one that stated there was no real difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Anyone who still believes that in 2008 is beyond redemption.
[Crossposted at Old Man McCain]