Steve Ralls on Huffington Post: Time for Clinton Supporters to End the Mourning

[BurtWorm]

Steve Ralls is director of communications for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and is a widely quoted source on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues. (The rest of his bio is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ralls/#blogger_bio">here):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-ralls/an-end-to-our-mourning_b_109443.html

...

A poll released this afternoon, examining the seemingly ever-shifting loyalties of Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential supporters (of which I have been an enthusiastic one), finds that, while 53% of Clinton's backers are now firmly on-board with Senator Barack Obama's White House bid, there are some who are simply incorrigible . . . and, increasingly, intolerable to the ears.

While it would be admirable for any voter to decide their campaign allegiance, and their vote, on honest ideological differences with a particular candidate, the resistance among some Clinton supporters to Obama's campaign is rooted, instead, in half-truths, no-truths and flat-out ignorance about who Senator Obama is and what his campaign stands for.

In a country where we have paid a too-heavy price for electing the ideal drinking buddy rather than real, competent leaders, we have now devolved to "name games" in our quest to fill the world's most important job.

Barack Obama "sounds to me like a Middle Eastern type of name and whether or not he's born here in the United States, he doesn't seem like, to me, somebody who is trustworthy," Kristie Hartle told the AP pollsters. "You can't trust anybody these days, so who's to say he's not a terrorist and we just don't realize it yet?"

Apparently, you can't trust somebody with a name like Kristie Hartle to make a rational, informed decision before she goes to the polls, either.

Has Ms. Hartle talked to the soldiers in Iraq? Would they rather continue the quagmire in the desert under a commander named John than come home under one named Barack?

...

[Forkboy]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[bluedeminredstate]

2. Another smear for Obama

Barack Obama "sounds to me like a Middle Eastern type of name and whether or not he's born here in the United States, he doesn't seem like, to me, somebody who is trustworthy," Kristie Hartle told the AP pollsters. "You can't trust anybody these days, so who's to say he's not a terrorist and we just don't realize it yet?"

My bitch is not about this piece which was in Huffpo but with the AP which provided that quote. I just can't believe how blatant this is!

If you read this piece it talks about a poll the AP did with people asking questions like "what are the first things you think of when you hear the name 'Obama'?".
That seems just outrageous to me since you get nimrods like this woman which the AP then quotes in its story. It seems like an excuse just to smear Obama. What is the value of a story such as this? To show that some people are so buttf*ck stupid that they would actually try to choose their candidate the way this woman does? I mean, why not poll people and ask them "What do you think of when you hear the words 'addict' and 'Cindy McCain'?" and find out what some ignorant people think about rich heiresses/political wives with access to pain pills and prescription pads. An article like that makes about as much sense as the one the AP did on Obama.

:nuke:

[Adelante]

3. That poll at 53% was taken two weeks ago

Just after Clinton conceded. I think the figure might be much higher now for Clinton voters supporting Obama in the GE. Obama's showing Democratic support of high 80s-low 90s in many state polls currently.