McCain Ad: Former Clinton Delegate Turned McCain Supporter

This is one of McCain’s latest ads, Debra.  Watch the video, and I’ll post my thoughts below it:

It’s a good ad.  I would’ve liked it better if she’d have done that on her own, instead of going to the McCain campaign to do it, because it looks more forced that way, but it still shows the fact that a lot of Clinton supporters are 1) mad about Obama being the nominee and 2) willing to actually do something about it.

Also, Obama is more liberal than Clinton, and the fact that McCain is a moderate conservative means that Clinton supporters are  going to be more willing to cross the party line than they normally would be.

I say, good for Debra Bartoshevich (the woman in the ad), who was a former delegate from Wisconsin.  She was removed from the position of delegate when the Wisconsin Democratic Party found out that she violated (or intended to violate) a a pledge that she signed when she accepted the position (a pledge to uphold the local rules, which apparently wouldn’t allow her to vote for McCain at the convention as she intended), they voted not to seat her at the convention.

Hopefully she brings over some more former Clinton supporters!

And I’d better never hear Obama say that George Bush stole the election because he lost the popular vote, since Clinton beat Obama by 223,243 votes (including caucus goers).

Originally, I was saying they should’ve picked Edwards.  Obviously that would’ve gone badly, so now I think they’d  have been screwed no matter who they picked.

Clinton supporters are going to make this easy for McCain!

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! ::


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

11 Responses to “McCain Ad: Former Clinton Delegate Turned McCain Supporter”

  1. Rob Says:

    Ms. Bartoshevich and the few remaining dead enders who cannot accept the results of a fair primary are spoiled and don’t know when to step aside. If they have any hand in fostering 4 more years of Bush policies they will forever ruin Clinton’s chance at higher office.

  2. Giovanni Says:

    So in other words if Obama doesn’t win this election, you will never support Party Unity?

  3. inkslwc Says:

    Giovanni, were you talking to me or Rob?

  4. Jason Says:

    I feel sad for her, as she clearly didn’t understand either Hilary’s or McCains platforms. To feel that one is even close to the other is kind of stupid. I assume that’s what’s happening since obviously no one would sell thier own soul and beliefs and vote for someone who stood for things they swore they were absolutely against just because they were angry, right? I mean, I’ve heard of asinine behavior before, but that would be over-the-top.

  5. Giovanni Says:

    That was at Rob. You are obviously a Republican.

    Do you really have to go post the exact same comment on every blog that mentions Debra, she’s an admirable woman. A spammer that copy pastes comments between blogs is not. You should be happy that Akismat has not labeled you a spammer when you did this.

  6. inkslwc Says:

    OK, I’m sorry, I misunderstood your first comment. The way it sounded was that you were describing Rob as not wanting party unity and supporting Debra, which was opposite of what he said. My mistake, and thanks for clarifying.

  7. hillarysboy Says:

    Look, this woman is an idiot and there is nothing about her to admire. I was a Hillary supporter. I feel like she was robbed and I’m frustrated about that. But at the end of the day there is no way I want to see John McCain running this country. I’m voting for Obama. Instead of being petty and foolish, Debra could have worked toward revamping the party’s primary process so that this does not happen again. Guess it was easier to stab us in the back other than work to make a change.

  8. inkslwc Says:

    In the party’s defense, Superdelegates are a good way to keep people like Jimmy Carter from getting the nomination.

  9. James M. Friedlander Says:

    Miss Bartoshevich impresses me as being young, naive, inexperienced and possibly a tad venal in her somewhat rapid and opportunistic transfer of affections. As a many-time Party activist, I have frequently started out favoring one candidate enthusiastically only to see another win the nomination.

    As a loyal party supporter, I then found myself honor-bound to support its eventual candidate, unless that candidate were found to be too reprehensible to merit my continued offection. In such cse, I might sit on my hands in the General Election or to support all of the other fellow party-members on the slate and simply ignore the culprit. In the long run, it is the party and its programs that I support not the aspiring and possibly flawed candidate. Miss Bartoshevich apparently wanted Mrs. Clinton to engage in a fratracidal battle ending in a pyrrhic victory which would have amounted to the destruction of her party’s chances to win the General election.

    But when Senator Clinton announced HER backing of Candidate Obama, she also supported Mr. Obama’s platform, his character, his vision for the party, his chances for election and the Unity of the party. All in contrasr with Ms. Bartodlevich’s childish attempt at political self-destruction.

    Does Ms. Bartoslevich have some particular and unique information about Mr. Obama that we should all know? Or does she simply enjoy the limelight resulting from her betrayal of her party?

    When she first determined to be a delegare pledged to Senator Clinton, there were probably several would-be candidates in the race. Each one knew that there would be only one winner. Hovever, there is an implied loyalty to the party thay the supporters of the canidates who eventually fall from the race will support its winner. That’s why we have political parties. Otherwise we’d have chaos with each and every also-ran running off with separate party designations with a winner being chosen that has the largest plurality, some less than 15%-20% — chaos.

    Frankly, I think that Miss Bartoshevich has a problem with the system and, indeed, with loyalty to any one or any party. What if Senator Clinton had takkkken a position which disappoinyed Miss B. Would Ms. B have remained loyal to HER? It is obvious that she had planned her oh-so-quick transfer of affection for quite a while. Could she have been a Republican plant? Was money exchanged?

    While party members are free to transfer affiliations during a respectable period prior to any election in most States, Ms. Bartoshevich, who had made the decision to be a party delegate should be made to measure up to a higher standard of party loyalty than a mere voter or enrolled member. I suggest that such backsliders should be denied re-entry for at least five years. One suspects that someone so mercurial would fall out of love with her new political love in short order. And recognizing Ms. Bartoshevich’s disposition for political infidelity, one doubts that her new political bedmates will tolerate her presence long after having made good use of her.

    This writer recognizes that any member of any party should have the right to cange affiliation, even sitting elected officials. POh, how we revelled a few years ago when
    with parties narrowly diiivided, one Senator shifted his affiliation to Independent. And oh! how we moaned when one of OUR Senators, one who had even borne our standard for the vice-presidency had ben provoked by a later unfavorable primary vote in his state to begin a gradual slide out of the party and in a rightward direction. But in each such case as well as in other cases of the like, the changing affiliation was accompanied by a long considered explanations for the transfer of affection.
    Miss Bartoshevich’s sound bite doesn’t quite sound like a reasoned, well considered or serious explanation of her motives.

  10. Mike Says:

    I always thought the Democratic delegation consisted of only hard core party loyalists. Folks who are 100% behind the concept of Democratic principles and not just the fringe issues-du-jour.

    How did someone that lukewarm and volatile ever wind up in that position?

  11. inkslwc Says:

    If the Democratic party works the same way as the Republilcan party (which I believe that they do, just with more delegates), she would’ve been voted in by her district party.

    She may have been a party loyalist for years, but may be really angry about Clinton losing.

    I know in my district (and many others), the position of delegate is often awarded to someobdy who has given a lot to the party over many years, but I also know of one delegate from another part of Michigan who isn’t even 25.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: