Theory and practice of voting for a Democrat

Thomas Lifson
All the conventional indicators predict a Democrat landslide election. If voters could choose a generic Democrat for president, that candidate would almost surely win. But when theory meets practice, and an actual individual human being must be supported, many, many people find the specific Democrats on offer unpalatable. And not just voters in the center.

Check out this left wing blogger "Matt" on a site called 1115.org:

Since John Edwards and Chris Dodd dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President, I've been a nominal supporter of Hillary Clinton, due to my extreme distaste for Barack Obama. This goes back a long way, as documented in post after unanswered post, and is the sole reason I checked the box for Clinton in the California primary just over a month ago. But since primary day, I've become increasingly disillusioned, with my support of Clinton currently testing the limits of the definition of ‘nominal.'

Why? Where Obama's surrogates like Megan Beyer, Kirk Watson, and Jesse Jackson Jr. are simply morons, (except Samantha Power who really crossed the line) Clinton's seem to be truly evil, working from the same racist playbook. First it was Billy Shaheen wondering aloud if Obama had ever sold drugs. Then it was Bill Clinton's turn in South Carolina, when he tried to minimize Obama's campaign by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's failed bids in 1984 and 1988.

Even people who believe the Democrats' philosophy are appalled by these two.

All the conventional indicators predict a Democrat landslide election. If voters could choose a generic Democrat for president, that candidate would almost surely win. But when theory meets practice, and an actual individual human being must be supported, many, many people find the specific Democrats on offer unpalatable. And not just voters in the center.

Check out this left wing blogger "Matt" on a site called 1115.org:

Since John Edwards and Chris Dodd dropped out of the race for the Democratic nomination for President, I've been a nominal supporter of Hillary Clinton, due to my extreme distaste for Barack Obama. This goes back a long way, as documented in post after unanswered post, and is the sole reason I checked the box for Clinton in the California primary just over a month ago. But since primary day, I've become increasingly disillusioned, with my support of Clinton currently testing the limits of the definition of ‘nominal.'

Why? Where Obama's surrogates like Megan Beyer, Kirk Watson, and Jesse Jackson Jr. are simply morons, (except Samantha Power who really crossed the line) Clinton's seem to be truly evil, working from the same racist playbook. First it was Billy Shaheen wondering aloud if Obama had ever sold drugs. Then it was Bill Clinton's turn in South Carolina, when he tried to minimize Obama's campaign by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's failed bids in 1984 and 1988.

Even people who believe the Democrats' philosophy are appalled by these two.