Interesting piece from Huff Post about the Never-Say-Die Hillary supporters Jill Iscoll (mentioned in the original post) and her pal Lynn Forester who are threatening to vote McCain- it's long and will make you mad so if you just want the gist of it:
"Forester was recently on the radio here in L.A. The topic: Hillary loyalists, and how they will or will not be able to reconcile themselves to Barack Obama's victory and join in the effort to get him elected in November. It turns out that, alas, Lynn Forester may not. In fact, she may vote for, and possibly work on behalf of, John McCain.
"At the end of the day we are choosing the President of the United States, the most powerful job in the world for the greatest county that ever existed on the face of the planet. And we cannot say that our party, or our loyalty to our party, is our first obligation. We are obligated to choose who will lead this country best, who will work harder for all the people in this county. And so I don't feel guilty at all if I don't vote Democratic. And it was California's Ronald Reagan who said, he did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left him."
It's hard to know where to start to adequately describe the bad faith, uber-disingenuousness, and sheer baloney-rich nonsense of this statement. So let's not try yet. Instead, let's just review what "Dan from Brea" (a former Hillary supporter) said when he called in. Because he nailed it:
"I cannot believe anyone who seriously supports the fundamental principles that Hillary campaigned for could say with a straight face that they would consider voting for John McCain...I have a hard time taking your position seriously."
Tell me about it, Dan. Because here's what this woman, whose claim on our attention is predicated on her having worked passionately for Hillary Clinton, would have us believe:
1. That she is of the sincere opinion that John McCain, whose positions on major issues are almost identical to those of His Catastrophic Chimpitude, George W. Bush, will "lead this country" better and "work harder for all the people in this country," than Barack Obama, whose positions on almost every issue are almost identical to Hillary Clinton's.
2. That this attitude represents a selfless devotion to country, if need be at the expense of petty Party loyalty.
3. That Barack Obama has not given Forester "a reason to trust him," but John McCain has.
4. That this position is adequately explained and justified by something Ronald Reagan -- California's Ronald Reagan -- once said.
If you listen to the broadcast, you hear Patt's other guest, Jill Iscoll (fundraiser for HRC and chair of her Senate campaigns) take a somewhat less ridiculous stance.
What the two women have in common, however, is a shared sense of indignation at how Hillary was treated by the press during the primary. There was misogyny. There was sexism. "The press tried to marginalize her," Iscoll said. "She was not a marginal candidate."
"Marginalize"? After months of writing and broadcasting about Hillary's "inevitability"? Whatever. And yes, there were strains of misogyny and sexism in the coverage, just as there were strains of racism. But then Iscoll says, about her candidate, "She is the greatest figure of our age for millions and millions of people, not only in America but around the world."
What we have here, in other words, are two feminists still pissed that their gal lost. They're entitled. Lynn Forester is even entitled to vote for, work for, and give money to, John McCain.
But don't pretend to justify it on the basis of "leadership." Have the simple honesty to identify your position for what it is: sheer, unadulterated, 99 44/100ths percent pure spite -- one of the most blatant examples of spite on the face of the planet.
Huffington Post
