Hillary’s Supporters Still Refuse to Sit Down, Shut Up, and Get With the Program

Hillary Clinton's supporters in the Democratic primary who still refuse to be coerced into voting for Barack Obama this November were insulted today, Oct. 18, by Derrick Z. Jackson in the Boston Globe and yesterday, Oct. 17, by Lanny Davis in the Wall Street Journal.

Jackson argues in the Globe that Obama’s poll numbers have risen in New Hampshire due to a change of heart by the Granite State’s Clinton supporters, and he provides several examples of anecdotal evidence to make his case. Judging from the 104 readers’ comments posted so far to Jackson’s op-ed, Clinton supporters, outraged by the assumption they've fallen in line with a corrupted Democratic party, far outnumber Jackson’s exaggerated claims.

(By the way, it was Jesse Jackson, Jr., the Obama campaign’s national co-chair, who went into a videotaped rage shortly after Sen. Clinton won in New Hampshire; This top aide to Obama revealed his Neanderthal sexism by accusing Clinton of faking tears to win the primary, and he went on to play the race card by making the horrendously false charge that she had not shown compassion for Katrina victims.)

To read Derrick Z. Jackson’s op-ed in its entirety, go here.

In the meantime, Heidi Li Feldman took issue with Lanny Davis for his suggestion in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that “Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate.”

Feldman points out:

“Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama's campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party's nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party's nominee.

“We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.”

Feldman, a law professor at Georgetown University, highlighted a particularly offensive passage from the Davis piece:

“There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.”

Feldman explains:

'"Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the 'certain working-class/rural voters' you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or 'simply grieving' about 'Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.' I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

“You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.”

To read Heidi Li Feldman’s post in its entirety, go here.