The denouement of a lengthy and difficult process
For quite some time, as the number of remaining primaries dwindled to single digits, the Clinton campaign continued to look at the circle around May 31 on the calendar. It was the meeting of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee that offered at least some hope that the broader dynamic of the Democratic race could change — the RBC could, in theory, undo the punishment against Florida and Michigan for breaking party rules, and give the New York senator a boost.
Obviously, the RBC meeting has come and gone. Clinton netted 24 additional delegates, which narrows the gap against Barack Obama a little, but not nearly enough to alter the landscape in any meaningful way.
In an analysis piece, the NYT explains that the “big drama” in Democratic circles is “how, when and even whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton will depart the race.”
The contest is coming to a close as Puerto Rico votes on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday, finishing a process that began five months ago in Iowa. Even if those results do not put Senator Barack Obama over the top, aides to both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton said they expected enough superdelegates to rally behind Mr. Obama in the 48 hours after the final primaries to allow him to proclaim himself the nominee. […]
Mrs. Clinton has kept her counsel about what she might do to draw her campaign to a close. But when the rules committee of the Democratic Party divided up delegates from Michigan and Florida on Saturday night, Harold Ickes, a committee member and Clinton adviser, said she was reserving the right to contest the decision into the summer.
Still, despite the fireworks, Mrs. Clinton’s associates said she seemed to have come to terms over the last week with the near certainty that she would not win the nomination, even as she continued to assert, with what one associate described as subdued resignation, that the Democrats are making a mistake in sending Mr. Obama up against Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.
Her associates said the most likely outcome was that she would end her bid with a speech, probably back home in New York, in which she would endorse Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton herself suggested on Friday that the contest would end sometime next week.
There’s been quite a bit of talk since late yesterday about the Clinton campaign’s intentions, and just how much longer she is prepared to fight for a goal that appears out of reach. This certainly makes it sound as if the journey is nearly complete.
Assuming Mr. Obama reaches the number of delegates and superdelegates he needs to secure the nomination in the coming week, Mrs. Clinton will be faced with three options, associates said: to suspend her campaign and endorse Mr. Obama; to suspend her campaign without making an endorsement; or to press the fight through the convention. Several of Mrs. Clinton’s associates said it was unlikely she would fight through the convention, given the potential damage it would do to her standing in the party, which is increasingly eager to unify and turn to the battle against Mr. McCain.
Mrs. Clinton would almost surely face the defection of some of her highest-profile supporters, as well as some members of her staff. She would no doubt also face anger from Democratic leaders.
“In order for us to be successful in November, the runner-up is going to have to go all out in support of the nominee,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “The runner-up is going to have to be there from Day One. The support is going to have to be more than just lip service.”
That sounds right. It’s hardly a stretch to argue that the primary process has generated some ill will within the party. Feelings have been hurt, grudges have developed, reputations have faltered, relationships between like-minded Dems who agree on practically everything have been tarnished. I’ve heard more than a few people, in DC and out, wonder aloud about Clinton’s future stature in the party after the convention.
I’m actually optimistic. She’s vowed to work her heart out for the Democratic ticket, and I think she means it. Clinton has also said, repeatedly, that the nation simply can’t afford a McCain presidency. Whatever her personal feelings about Obama and/or her campaign coming up short, Clinton obviously cares deeply about the future of the country. To borrow Van Hollen’s phrase, I’m confident that Clinton will, in fact, go “all out” in support of an Obama-led ticket. And with that, as Dems see her fight for the party’s (and the nation’s) interests aggressively through the summer and fall, lingering animosity between the camps should dissipate. (That Clinton and Obama agree on the issues should make this even easier. It’s not like Kucinich beat out Lieberman for the party’s nomination.)
With that in mind, we’re apparently looking at the denouement of a lengthy and difficult process.
…Mrs. Clinton and her aides have all but stopped their attacks on Mr. Obama, and the once vigorous Clinton war room has gone into a slumber.
Indeed, the talk in Mrs. Clinton’s headquarters has turned from the primary to more mundane matters: the next job, whom Mr. Obama might hire from the Clinton campaign, and even where to go on vacation.
And what of the talk to push the fight to the convention? For one thing, if uncommitted superdelegates come off the fence to support Obama in sizable numbers after Tuesday’s contests, it’s a moot point. For another, there’s at least some evidence that there’s limited appetite for such a move at Clinton HQ.
One of Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategists, Howard Wolfson, hinted that she was not inclined to carry the battle to the convention.
“Our focus is on securing the nomination for ourselves in the near term,” he said. “I don’t think anybody is looking toward the convention to end this process.”
There’s a light at the end of the tunnel. It does not appear to be a train.
But you don’t know if it’s a train until it comes closer and you either hear the rumbling just before the train crushes you or you walk out into a bright, beautiful day. With bluebirds an flowers.
I, frankly, have no clue what the Clinton campaign will do. I’ve been expecting them to take the high ground, at least occasionally, for a long time. So far, they have disappointed me.
She’s vowed to work her heart out for the Democratic ticket, and I think she means it.
Would that be based on tarot cards?
I don’t understand how HRC could switch gears after painting Obama as a loser all these months and suddenly back him in any meaningful way. Then again, there’s been a lot that hasn’t made sense to me in this race.
Danp – thanks for the top-grade snark.
Over at Balloon Juice, John Cole says: “Anyone who thinks this is over has not seen the snarling and sneering Harold Ickes on Meet The Press. This ain’t over, and they are going to push and do everything they can to lose this election for Obama. Russert, to his credit, is laughing at Ickes.” One of the commenters (zoe from pittsburgh) noted: “Tim asked him TWICE if Obama hits the new magic number this week will Hillary say congratulations? Ickes said, twice, “We expect to get the nomination.” Then explained that he doesn’t accept the premise of the question. WHAAAA? He point blank said that he refuses to ACCEPT THE IDEA OF HILLARY LOSING.”
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=10503
Show me. (And I’m not even from Missouri.)
Obama has no lock on the presidential nomination. He can never get the requisite number of pledged delegates to clinch the nomination. He needs superdelegates to give him the nomination. There should be no superdelegates giving him the nomination if they have the wisdom, integrity and courage to be loyal to their true role.
The uncommitted superdelegates must select the best qualified and strongest candidate to win the general election using their independent judgement without regard to any “delegate math.”
The superdelegates are not locked in by the pledged delegates. If the superdelegates simply follow the “delegate math” in their decision, they are repudiating the reason the superdelegate system was created and making it completely meaningless.
Superdelegates are confronted with the challenge to be true to their function and responsibility. This calls for the superdelegates to show wisdom, integrity and courage in their independent judgment in selecting the best qualified and strongest presidential candidate and standing loyal to the best interests of the Democratic Party in winning the general election.
The superdelegates have only one choice for the Democratic presidential nominee that is fair and square: Sen. Clinton, on the unyielding principle of qualifications as the best qualified and the strongest candidate to defeat McCain and win the general election in a landslide victory hands down.
Sen. Clinton is the next president of the United States.
The only way i’ll believe her is if she makes a personal appeal to the Taylor marsh faction of her supporters telling them to put aside their hurt feelings and anger and support Obama, and she admits that Obama is not to blame for any of the sexism she and her followers claim to be the victim of, and that voting for McCain even in anger at the democratic party will be an insult to what she campaigned for.
Only when she puts all her weight behind defusing the anger of the primaries will I believe she is genuine in supporting Obama.
crat3, both obama and hillary win if the election were held today, check electoral-vote, mydd and fivethirtyeight, but Obama raises a lot more money doing it
“She’s vowed to work her heart out for the Democratic ticket, and I think she means it.”
I hope you are right – for her sake. I think she will realize that the Democratic Party and the nation can get along fine without her, so she can be a malcontent outsider surrounded by a clutch of rabid supporters, or a respected insider influencing policy.
HRC has proven time and again that she can’t be trusted, so I’m guessing that she’ll stay in the race until the convention, even if it means destroying the party. This is not about the most qualified or best candidate winning, because none of those labels can be applied to Sen. Clinton. This is pure childish egomania on display reflected in the actions of the Clintonatonic who refuse to accept the inevitable.
Hillary lost the race because she refused to address three serious negative perceptions held by many Democrats. Namely, (like her husband) she is perceived as being overly ambitious and putting her interests above those of the party, the country, and even the planet. She is also perceived as being overly beholden to lobbyists, and corporate interests generally. Finally, she is perceived as being a typical D.C. Democrat who won’t fight for the issues that grassroots Dems care about (e.g. Iraq, FISA, torture, corruption, etc.)
I believe that had she bothered to address these weaknesses before the campaign began — or at the very least before Iowa and New Hampshire, she would have won going away. Democrats have very low expectations for Dems in Congress. Had Hillary threatened to filibuster the FISA SIC bill it probably would have been enough to put her over the top.
The point is that Hillary’s post-loss image within the party is entirely up to her. If she chooses to use her position on the Senate Armed Services Committee to — finally — provide meaningful oversight over corruption in Iraq, if she fights for health care for veterans, if she leads the Senate in getting health care reform enacted under Obama, she will be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.
But if she goes to Denver and undermines the party, causes Obama to lose in November, or undermines his administration once elected in the hopes of running in 2012, she will be persona non gratas. The choice is hers.
HIllary has campaigned for 15 days in Puerto Rico! If she had figured that out and fought that hard in the 11 straight that Obama won, she would probably be our nominee. Thank you Obama for saving us from having her and the aptly named Ickes and their ilk running the country. They’ve shown their true colors during this campaign.
Besides Hillary will be getting so much love when she concedes. She’ll be queen for a day. How can she resist that?
crat3’s comment embodies the hypocritical “logic” that is central to Hillary’s continued candidacy: that democracy can only be preserved by having every state and protectorate vote — including giving full voting power to FL and MI…so that Hillary can get close enough for the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their votes for the pledged delegates.
crat3: You are living proof that Clinton’s supporters have taken leave of reality.
She’s vowed to work her heart out for the Democratic ticket, and I think she means it.
I wish I were as confident as you on this one, Steve, but I think once again you’re giving Hillary way too much credit. If she really did intend to whole-heartedly rally behind Obama then one thing she could do just for starters is tell her hacks to stop loudly moaning into every available microphone that the best candidate is losing.
I hope CB is right.
At the beginning of this process, I opposed Senator Clinton on the principle that this country ought not to be a two-family dynasty as well as my opinions about Sen. Clinton’s lack of political courage and personal integrity. But I never imagined she would go so far around the bend as she has–edging up to endorsing the Republican at times, playing the victim at every opportunity despite her prohibitive advantages when the race began, showing a truly breathtaking disregard for both honesty and good taste.
I don’t claim to be wholly rational about it anymore. But after so many months of this, my strong sense is that she and her even more narcissistic husband (whom I voted for twice, to my regret now) no longer perceive any possible difference between “the good of the Clintons” and the good of the country–and as such, she’s perfectly happy to commit the political equivalent of a murder-suicide. Here’s hoping she proves me wrong this week.
Could it be that she’s encouraging this *outrage* because those most pissed still continue to send funds?
I watched Howard Wolfson on Fox this morning (No…not my usual viewing choice), and I believe Clinton will take this to the convention, based on what he said. They are VERY unhappy that Obama was given a single delegate in Michigan, and intend to fight it. I saw this happening yesterday during the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee meeting, where they were laying the “footwork” for this particular strategy.
SB says: “Whatever her personal feelings about Obama and/or her campaign coming up short, Clinton obviously cares deeply about the future of the country.”
I disagree. She, quite clearly, obviously cares about herself above all else, and will quite willingly sink the ability of the Democrats to take the White House this November.
…Mrs. Clinton and her aides have all but stopped their attacks on Mr. Obama, and the once vigorous Clinton war room has gone into a slumber.
I think this has mostly been true the last few weeks. Unfortunately, right about the time they stopped attacking Obama directly, the Clinton campaign started attacking the Democratic party itself and the integrity of the process. I don’t see the improvement, she has stoked her most rabid supporters to the point where they are even more angry than they were before. I honestly don’t see how she brings them down from that intense hatred, her people have spent too much time and effort creating it.
space, there are a million ways that Hillary lost this race, but stacked end-to-end they still don’t add up to the biggest reason that she’s not going to be the nominee: Obama won it. He went out, ran a better campaign, and showed himself to be the better candidate (and the better person, for that matter). I really hope we’re not in for weeks of navel-gazing from team Clinton and the media about “how Hillary lost”. It’s like those situations where a team that deems itself clearly superior (the Patriots, say) loses to an upstart (the Giants) and rather than lauding the actual champion, sports journalists endlessly dissect how the favorite blew it. The truth, almost always, is that they didn’t “blow it”; they got beat by a superior opponent.
CB’s post takes the opinion that Hillary is a savvy enough politician to know when the continued campaigning will cause serious damage to her political career. I hope so as well for a wide array of reasons.
But with folks like Ickes surrounding her, the parallels to Bush bubble come to mind. If her reality is what her aids are spewing back at her and not her political instincts wisened by years in the political sphere, then I think Hillary may go down a very wrong road. We will find out a lot about Hillary next week. Lets hope her broader public esteem rises as a result of her actions.
How does that old saying go? “Never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” This must be this cycle’s approach to that lofty goal.
I’ve heard so many times that people in the Clinton campaign are resigned to the fact that HRC won’t get the nomination, and the end is nigh, that I’m hard pressed to believe that she’s going to concede this week. I hope you’re right Steve, I’m just not holding my breath.
The whole thing that’s bothered me about the HRC campaign in recent months has been the utter cynicism, or malleable thought processes, that the campaign has exhibited. When Obama called for change, she pushed the idea of inevitability. When the party stripped Michigan and Florida of their delegates, she agreed because they wouldn’t matter anyways. When she was seen as a robot after Iowa, she suddenly felt the need to shed a tear before New Hampshire. When Obama rode an 11 state winning streak, it was all about the delegates. When he was winning caucus states, the only states that mattered were primary states. When Obama won smaller states, only the big ones counted. When he was killing her in the African-American vote, the only vote that mattered was the hard-working white American. When Obama closed in on the nomination, suddenly only the popular vote mattered, but only if you counted Michigan and Florida (see above) and gave none of the uncommitted vote to Obama and excluded the caucus states and multiplied her vote count by pi and only multiplied Obama’s by the cube root of pi. And now that Michigan and Florida have been settled in a way that was amenable to both state parties but essentially slammed the door on her candidacy, DNC/HRC hack Ickes threatens/reserves the right to take this to the credentialing committee.
So excuse my lack of sympathy for the Clinton campaign, who blew the campaign at every single turn, but keeps reminding us that there is one criteria above all others that should be used to determine who is most suitable to receive the Democratic nomination – they just reserve the right to change that criteria on a daily basis depending on which criteria helps them the most.
I don’t see the improvement, she has stoked her most rabid supporters to the point where they are even more angry than they were before. I honestly don’t see how she brings them down from that intense hatred, her people have spent too much time and effort creating it.
The Clintons themselves don’t believe their own b.s. Their attitude is that politics ain’t beanbag, yadda, yadda, yadda. Since they themselves don’t believe most of the crap that they spew, they will have little trouble reversing course and supporting Obama, if the time comes.
Sadly, many of Hillary’s supporters do believe the b.s. While completely irrational, many of them have worked themselves into such a frothing rage that they actually believe the Michigan and Florida situations resemble Florida in 2000, if not Zimbabwe.
I agree that it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to walk back that level of animosity, although I think that the number of die-hard Hillary supporters is overblown and most Democrats would still happily vote for either in November.
Insisting on due process and a fair outcome never hurts this country. It is what we stand for.
Every day there is some new call for Clinton to quit. Suggesting that she has now decided to do so, is just the latest version. We’ll know that Clinton has quit when she makes her speech. We’ll know she’s lost when the convention nominates Obama. In the meantime, this is still a horserace and Obama is neither the leader of the party, nor the nominee. He is the other guy in the race.
If you want to start the post mortems, I think an unexpected problem for Clinton was Obama’s portrayal of her as a racist and his ability to swing 90% of African American voters to his side. Clinton has worked hard for civil rights and to improve the welfare of African Americans, all her life, and I think she never expected such disloyalty or that there would be solid block voting like that (the OJ trial should have been a hint). I believe she fully expected to have the media against her, and to be attacked using all the old memes, but I do not believe she expected Obama to be given a pass by the media, never vetted. Obama’s engineering of a series of caucuses into a groundswell, with an ensuing bandwagon effect, has been hard to counter, but Obama’s chorus of “Clinton should quit now” every day from all of his loyalists, has been unprecedented. No one as strong as she is quits before the convention, and no one is asked to, until a woman runs for president. That’s just wrong.
Clinton knows enough not to give up. If she is going to lose, she will have to be beaten, fair and square. A rules and bylaws committee that breaks the Democratic Party’s charter in order to support Obama is not fair and square. It is a subversion of our process. Whether she is nominated or not, Clinton is right to challenge that.
This isn’t about the anger and hurt feelings of Clinton supporters. That portrays as a bunch of little girls — perhaps deliberately. We genuinely feel that Obama is the wrong man for the job, that the country cannot stand the years of McCain that an Obama candidacy would doom us to, and we believe Clinton would be the stronger, better choice for the Fall. That proposition never gets debated here. Some of us remember how well Bill Clinton did. Some of us go back further and remember the enthusiasm for Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern (our other anti-war candidate) and what happened to them during their races. Some of us notice the similarities in temperament and personality between Carter and Obama and recognize what that will mean for the presidency. There are good reasons why we continue to support Clinton and they have little to do with anger or hurt feelings.
What kind of candidate has to begin his Fall campaign by quitting his own church? Has anyone bothered to think about that?
Toast nails it. Obama WON this campaign against astonishing odds. Any other year, against any other candidate, with her talents and advantages going in, Hillary wins going away. And we never would have seen the unseemly, unprincipled side of her that so many of us have found increasingly objectionable. Bill’s legacy would not have been shredded. Her tendency to value loyalty over competence would likewise not have been on display – until she was in the White House.
Frankly, this is the first time I have found the act of campaigning to be a useful window into what kind of President a person would be. The view of Hillary became increasingly dark as the campaign wore on, while the view of Obama just improved over time.
I started out a Hillary supporter. Until I saw who she really is.
Mary,
You are delusional. Please get some help.
My guess is that Clinton won’t concede the race easily. WaPo is reporting that she hopes to win Puerto Rico in order to reanimate her
corpse ofher campaign, which has been “overshadowed by the efforts of party officials to bring the nominating process to an orderly close.” Yes, those evil party officials who “overshadowed” Clinton’s campaign. And Puerto Rico is going to help her win the nomination?!Toast:
I don’t disagree that Obama ran a far smarter campaign. My comment wasn’t intended to disparage him or suggest that he didn’t “win”.
But the reality is that even the smartest and most capable of candidates still needs to have an opportunity. I believe that Obama would not have had the opportunity if Hillary had presented herself (or, more accurately, been) a candidate without the flaws that I listed. I’d also add tht had she voted against the Iraq War, Obama would have had a major advantage taken away.
For instance, had Gore run, I believe that Obama wouldn’t have won because I do not believe that his message of change would have resonated to the same extent. Not because Obama and Axelrod aren’t talented, hard-working, and savvy, but because the party would have rallied around Gore as being BOTH experienced and and outsider capable of challenging the D.C. status quo.
We’ll know that Clinton has quit when she makes her speech.
And I’ve had a bottle of champagne in the fridge for several weeks awaiting that occasion.
crat3 (#6): nice to see your extra effort in proving that Mencken was right when he said “nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of Clintonistas.”
You’re as pathetic a fool as that crew with the tinfoil hats out demonstrating in D.C. yesterday.
Back to mommy’s basement, boddy, there’s always Free Republic and Little Green Footballs for a mouthbreather like you.
Sorry, close but no “Grampy Points” for you.
Shalimar (19): Unfortunately, right about the time they stopped attacking Obama directly, the Clinton campaign started attacking the Democratic party itself and the integrity of the process.
You hit the nail on the head, Shalimar. Part of her problem is that the Republican media wasn’t going to give her any airtime unless she attacked Obama. So she found the next best thing. She’s a tool of the right at this point, and the most shameful thing is that she’s
allowing it to happenMy last sentence (32) should have ended “been an active participant.”
Deasr Mary: Drop. Dead. Please.
Mary@25
Obama’s chorus of “Clinton should quit now” every day-I haven’t heard him say that,
A rules and bylaws committee that breaks the Democratic Party’s charter-What about a candidate who agrees not to count FL and MI, until she realizes she needs them just to get close to the other nominee? How is that “fair and square”?
If this is an example of her graciousness, then it’s obvious she is not the “better choice for the Fall”.
I hope CB is right. There is so much room and need for strong leaders in the party like Senator Clinton. I still have hope that she is better than her campaign.
That being said, I don’t believe Obama should give any quarter to the Clinton campaign until the nomination is secured.
Everyone here claiming that Hillary will take this all the way and destroy the party and yadda yadda yadda…
Please chill out. Predictions made during the primary have had a very bad track record. We really don’t know what Clinton is going to do when Obama clinches it. She’s flip-flopped on her election strategy so many times, who’s to say she won’t flip-flop again by getting behind Obama? And all the arguments to the contrary you folks have made have been based on what her self-styled mouth pieces are saying, not what Clinton herself is saying. Considering how political campaigns work, that’s really worth less than nothing. Just look at how the Edwards campaign acted during those final two days. “We’re going all the way to the convention! Ooops, no we aren’t!”
And I find arguments about how her supporters are behaving to be very weak, for two reasons. First of all, Clinton’s campaign hasn’t been encouraging their childish martyr complex as much as many of you seem to think. For the most part, they’ve fallen into it all by themselves. Similar to a few vocal Obama supporters who act more like trolls than like real Obama supporters.
And second, the republicans had this exact same situation when McBush clinched their nomination. Many republican gasbags declared with conviction that they would never support him, that they would campaign against him even if it meant the democratic candidate winning. The vast majority of them dropped the hyperbole without so much as a whimper and fell right in behind him. I strongly suspect the same will happen with the dems who are hyperventilating about Obama.
The bottom line is that, regardless of whether you believe that Clinton is the better candidate for the fall, that she’s the only one who can win, that superdelegates going for Obama is Dem suicide, etc… it doesn’t matter, because Obama won. Using the process that the Democratic Party uses to determine who wins, he did.
Look, it’s just like in 2004, when Bush won — in the sense that I’m sure everyone here hated it, but he DID win. It DID show that most people in America wanted him to win, and his election was the will of the people. Yeah, the people were making a terrible decision, just as Mary and crat3 think we’re doing now, but that is how the process works. There is literally no purpose to trying to create reasons why it shouldn’t be that way. IT IS THAT WAY.
Also, I find it absolutely insane that there are actually people out there who think that they know better than everyone — better than senior senators, better than people who have worked in various aspects of politics for decades — who endorsed Obama. ALL those people are wrong, they say, but I am right.
Does any one of you seriously think that, if superdels stepped in and voted against the popular vote (caucus states DO count) and against the obvious frontrunner who just so happens to be the first viable African American candidate ever, Dems would still win the GE?? You don’t see all the outrage that would cause? We wouldn’t win an election for decades.
“If you want to start the post mortems, I think an unexpected problem for Clinton was Obama’s portrayal of her as a racist…”
Mary, we all know that Obama never said anything of the kind about Senator Clinton (he has in fact repeatedly praised her achievements), so don’t even bother trying to get that one past CB readers.
“Clinton has worked hard for civil rights and to improve the welfare of African Americans, all her life, and I think she never expected such disloyalty…”
Disloyalty? Black people owed Clinton their loyalty?
Any politician or campaign which imagines that they are owed anything by the public they are meant to serve, deserves to be rejected them, and should be.
I am so glad Clinton has lost this.
Clinton’s opinion of whether she wants to continue is losing relevance by the hour. After the last contests are run this week, the supers will ratify the Democratic electorate’s choice, and it won’t be her. Her campaign staff know what’s happening even if Ickes doesn’t, and they won’t continue on a hopeless and self-defeating quest; they want a future in the Democratic Party, and they won’t get it by participating in a fight all the way to the convention.
Hillary will get her victory lap in Puerto Rico, and Obama will get the nomination.
My question for Clinton supporters is, if Hillary is such a formidable opponent for McCain, why couldn’t she beat Obama? She started the primary with huge advantages over Obama (large numbers of superdelegates lined up, massive name recognition, the good will generated by her husband’s presidency) that she wouldn’t have in a general election matchup against McCain. This, more than anything, undermines any “electability” argument.
Personally I’m savoring the Mary posts. I suspect in a few days Clinton will be officially out and we won’t be hearing any more of the risible “logic” of the diehard Clinton supporters. Mary was never quite as much fun as the Ron Paulites, but she was good. You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.
37. Shade Tail said: First of all, Clinton’s campaign hasn’t been encouraging their childish martyr complex as much as many of you seem to think. For the most part, they’ve fallen into it all by themselves.
They haven’t? Have you watched Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, Davis and McAuliffe on TV the last few months? Not only have they constantly encouraged the childish martyr complex in her most rabid supporters, Clinton’s main spokesmen all seem to share it.
I think an unexpected problem for Clinton was Obama’s portrayal of her as a racist
Any evidence to back that up? Voices in your head don’t count.
CB wrote, “Mrs. Clinton and her aides have all but stopped their attacks on Mr. Obama,..”
I’m afraid I can’t agree with this assessment. Each time Hillary Clinton, a Clinton surrogate or a commercial runs repeating the false/irrelevant claim that Clinton won the popular vote, she’s attacking the legitimacy of Obama’s nomination and continuing to undermine him (i.e. the country) for the general election.
This thing is over and done with. Obama will appear with his wife at a rally in St. Paul on Tuesday at the Xcel Energy Center.
That would be the “same” Xcel Energy Center where the GOP will annoint their last-gasp antique—three months to the day after Obama’s rally signals the end of the primary, both declaring and commencing unrestricted warfare on the One True Enemy of us all.
That is the elemental focus for unity—turning the divisiveness, the bitterness, every last drop of anguish, resentment, hatred, and vitriol into a single, razor-edged blade of pure, unadulterated fanaticism—with every breath taken, every word spoken or written, and every drop of sweat expended all focusing into a singular line of sight.
Attack the McCain.
Demolish the McCain.
Destroy the McCain, incinerate the McCain, and scatter the ashes of the McCain to the four corners of every landfill, sewage treatment plant, and toxic waste dump on the continent.
And so it begins….
Mary #25 writes: A rules and bylaws committee that breaks the Democratic Party’s charter in order to support Obama is not fair and square. It is a subversion of our process. Whether she is nominated or not, Clinton is right to challenge that.
The Florida and Michigan state legislatures proposed the plan to seat their delegations with half votes. The DNC’s Rules and By-Laws Committee and Obama’s campaign agreed to their proposal. Please cite the rules that were broken? Please state what subversion of the process took place? And on what basis could Clinton challenge this settlement? If, as she claims, Clinton’s still fighting for the people of Florida and Michigan, when their legislatures proposed this settlement and are satisfied with it.
Mary writes: If you want to start the post mortems, I think an unexpected problem for Clinton was Obama’s portrayal of her as a racist and his ability to swing 90% of African American voters to his side.
Obama has never portrayed Clinton as a racist. Please provide the citations? In fact, it was Bill and Hillary’s own comments that caused her to lose a significant portion of African-American voters, who’d been supporting her.
Mary writes: This isn’t about the anger and hurt feelings of Clinton supporters. That portrays as a bunch of little girls — perhaps deliberately. We genuinely feel that Obama is the wrong man for the job, that the country cannot stand the years of McCain that an Obama candidacy would doom us to, and we believe Clinton would be the stronger, better choice for the Fall. That proposition never gets debated here.
The reason why Clinton’s candidacy is no longer being debated is because she lost. By every measure, Clinton has lost the nomination. And she lost it over two months ago. Obama won a majority of the popular vote, a majority of states, a majority of pledged delegates, and a majority of the super delegates. There are only three races left, and their outcomes won’t change this simple fact.
If you fail to get behind the likely Democratic nominee now, then you will be helping McCain win. Is that really what you want? You’ve said yourself you dread the idea of four more years, 8 years, of Bush. So it’s time to support the Democratic nominee.
I’m not sure which boob is more idiotic – crat3 with that “if my candidate & I don’t win, if people don’t agree with us, why, it can’t be as simple as disagreeing political philosophies, the election WILL BE STOLEN” horsecrap. OR good ol’ black-hole Mary, claiming that Obama slandered Hillary by labeling her as racist when he’s been incredibly gracious (more gracious than they derserve), not to mention that black voters “owe” Hillary (or anyone) their loyalty. What d’ya want Mary? All them black folk to curtsy at Miz Hillary’s feet and say “thank you, massa for all’n them swell oppintuneties done gar-own-teed us in duh Constimuhtooshun?” That how you see black people, you contemptible closeted racist? OWING fealty to one politician, but not to another, even though both have devoted their lives to equal rights to all.
I’d almost be wiling to lay even money that either of these dolts (especially black hole Mary, so dense that no light from knowledge could escape the center of her infinitely empty brain & survive) will be starting posts in the next week or two basically saying “you know, I’ve spent some time going over McCain’s actual agenda (something I bet most of you never did & never will) and I’m starting to think he’s the real deal, more than that election thief Barac HUSSEIN Obama, anyways. I’m leaning towards McCain and implore you to read up on him some more before wasting your vote on HUSSEIN Obama.”
Hope I didn’t spoil any “surprise” for ya, Mary, you trickster you.
Hillary’s support, more than just lip service, must be that she brings around her supporters who are threatening to vote for McCain if she isn’t given the nomination, to apply her considerable skills to convincing white racist America who voted for her that voting for Obama now is in their self-interests, while voting for McCain is continuing down GW Bush’s path. It would be a rough row to hoe since she’s drawn such a stark distinction between her and Obama and what they stand for, but that’s the task before her now. I hope she will tackle it.
We genuinely feel that Obama is the wrong man for the job, that the country cannot stand the years of McCain that an Obama candidacy would doom us to, and we believe Clinton would be the stronger, better choice for the Fall. That proposition never gets debated here.
I genuinely feel that John Edwards is the best choice for the fall. How come no one spends any time debating that proposition?
Yeah, Aristedes, I hope so too.
“They haven’t? Have you watched Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, Davis and McAuliffe on TV the last few months?”
Yes, I have. And you’re blowing it out of proportion by saying they were actively encouraging it. At most, you could say they were being passive-aggressive by setting an example, but I would dismiss even that as an exaggeration. Setting the tone and message of a political campaign is not the same as actively giving instructions to the supporters.
For the record, I am a registered Independent who has written myself in the past two elections. This one will likely make it three in a row, however…
What I find most interesting is the dichotomy between what loyal Clinton supporters see, and what ‘the rest of the populace’ sees. The loyalists see a brave, dignified, principled, strong woman fighting the good fight against sexism, racism, and the good ole’ boy network. What they don’t see at all is the constant changing of the goalposts, whining, playing victim, etc. As has been repeated ad nauseum, Hillary has switched her position so many times it is mind numbing, and she does so without even a hint of embarrassment.
It is my opinion that the worst trait of the current administration is its willingness to bend and twist the facts, and I daresay the law, to justify its actions. For a President to attack another country on false premises, to condone the use of torture, to try to withhold due process from ‘enemy combatants’, to encourage the surreptitious monitoring of US citizens, to invoke nationalism as a way to demean and even crush opponents – and then accuse someone else of acting like a Nazi – would have been almost unimaginable when I was first able to vote over 30 years ago. Yet a portion of the Republican party not only accepts, but condones this type of behavior.
And yet, here I see a faction of the Democratic party actually canonizing a candidate who is bending and twisting the facts, and I daresay the rules, for her own advantage. It is almost frightening.
If a self-serving Republican administration is repugnant, then why wouldn’t a self-serving Democratic administration be so? Just curious.
Note: I am not in any way endorsing Obama or McCain, simply addressing the current issue du jour.
Oh – I forgot to mention the issue of the half-votes for MI and FL. I’ve seen numerous statements that some Democrats will vote for McCain because they’ve been ‘disenfranchised’ by the DNC. I wonder if these people are aware that the RNC also punished FL and MI by halving their delegate count. So, while those delegates still get a ‘full vote’, the net effect is the same. So what is so much better about the Republican process? The only difference is that the Republicans had only one viable candidate, while the Dems had two. So because the Dems had a stronger field this year, you want to run to the weaker party (I only say that because I percieve McCain as a relatively weak candidate – he doesn’t have full support of the neo-cons, and has to fight for the moderates with Clinton or Obama).
If you look at the facts – no matter what the DNC did, voters would be disenfranchised, particularly from the MI primary. Write-ins for Obama or Edwards were recorded as ‘uncommitted’, so giving no delegates for those two would disenfranchise some. If, as Clinton has repeatedly said, the point is to ‘count every vote’, and to be fair to voters who ‘did not create the problem’, clearly not giving any delegates to Obama/Edwards would not achieve that end. If one wants to be ‘fair’ to all voters equally, then you give no delegates at all, or you have a re-vote.
Just thought I would point out another disconnect with the current brouhaha…
You really need to wake up.
She wants to destroy Obama so she can run against McCain in 2012.
Take off you beer goggles.
She is going to be a pain in the ass. She is going to lie every day of this campaign.
The media should ignore her, but they won’t. They want McCain as well.
“…I disagree. She, quite clearly, obviously cares about herself above all else, and will quite willingly sink the ability of the Democrats to take the White House this November…”
***impeachcheneythenbush*** If she firmly believes that Obama can’t beat McCain then that makes your assessment bullshit as she would be (in her opinion) doing what was best for the democratic party. So many here assume motivations behind her behavior that are based on their opinion and many here also act like she’s the divisive one when it could just as easily be seen that Obama is depending on who it is that you support.
Millions of people support each candidate but some here act like it is just the candidate acting alone forgetting that Clinton is being encouraged and supported by millions. Slamming the other candidate as the means to support yours is what divides the party. Acting like you must be an idiot if you don’t support my candidate makes talking about the differences in policy an impossibility.
Can you tell yourself why you support your candidate? Calling Clinton evil or shillary is well on the way to a campaign of niggers vs bitches. It’s offensive and divisive. The point can be made without being insulting yet it is a common place occurence in this comments section. It is what republicans would hope to accomplish. It’s what democrats say they are sick and tired of. I have great faith that the anger and resentments will subside within our party and that we will become unified in trying to heal our nation and protect it from another four years of republican destruction. Good on Clinton…Good on Obama for wanting to represent us in the healing of our nation. I have made my choice as to which I think can be most effective in accomplishing this and soon we will have the nominee that our process picks to do this and I will be content to vote for that person.
Dean, Obama took his own name off the MI ballot. Why does he deserve any votes after doing that? No one asked him to. Four other candidates did not. How do you tell what proportion of the “uncommitted” votes were meant for Obama when 8 candidates were in the race on Jan 15 and four of them took their names off the ballot in order to campaign together as “uncommitted”. The ballots should reasonably be apportioned to the other candidates too, just as none of the delegates earned by other candidates have been given to Clinton or Obama even though those candidates are no longer in the race. There is no basis whatsoever for taking 4 delegates away from Clinton and giving them to Obama. That is just an ugly act of appeasement (or even worse, an attempt to steer the nomination to Obama via committee instead of via voter’s choice). This whole matter stinks.
I repeat, people, Mary is a spoof. She just tied Obama’s success to the OJ trial.
I don’t understand the sneering hate for Hillary Clinton. It’s a strange thing. When I ask people why they have such a strong dislike for her. They can’t give me an answer that is reflective of their amount of human stain bitterness. To be a fair vot the superdelegate should vote with the popular vote of the people. We should have done away with the Electoral College a century ago; it is not a fair representation of the peoples’ votes. What the DNC did yesterday broke all the rules of the Democratic Party Charter. If more people would watch CSPAN instead of sound bytes, maybe they could speak with facts instead of knowing every flavor of their shoes.
TomC: Your comment @34 went WAAAY over the line. (If I were Steve, I’d give you a 2 day ‘time out’ for it.)
I personally find Mary useful. She expresses a position that a lot of Clintonistas hold, makes ‘points’ that, as wrong as they are, need answering. Is she wrong? Absolutely. Is she incredibly fact-averse? Yes. We keep pointing out the same mistakes over and over again, and she keeps repeating them.
But she is respectful and non-personal in making them. She’s never lashed out at her critics, even ‘Insane Fake Professor.’ She’s tiresome, but nothing like some of the more obnoxious recent additions like ‘Megalomania.’ And she’s never acted like Cubbie, by attacking anyone who questions her.
Please, Tom, you ARE a good writer, but your temper sometimes blocks your talent.
Now, Mary, you of everyone here needs to read my comments about Hillary and Doug Coe — in the ‘Obama quits his church’ thread. I know they are — even for me — long, but I would really appreciate your plowing through them, actually thinking about them, and maybe questioning if HRC is who you think she is. I’d like to see, of everyone here, your response to them.
For the record, I am a registered Independent who has written myself in the past two elections. This one will likely make it three in a row — Dean, @52
Not directly on topic vis the subject on hand, but two practical thoughts on that course of action:
1) writing in may not be all that easy and in some cases impossible, because of the touch screens. Yes, all the touch screen machines do have the alphabet option where you can tap in the name of your candidate. But, depending on how the machine is set for that particular day, you may have no way of reaching that screen, if “other” or “write in” is not listed along with the names legitimately on the ballot.
2) In some places, a write-in nullifies the entire ballot, even the paper one; it will not be counted at all. That means that you’ve wasted your time and effort on showing up, waiting in line (this year is going to be *big* and busy, you can bet), going through the rigmarole of ID verification — and all for nothing. If there are other names on that ballot (for Congress, for Senate, for local positions), or some propositions which are pertinent to your state only, *those* will get tossed out also, even if you’d voted for those in good faith, not to vent your frustrations.
So, before you decide to write-in “Mickey Mouse for president”, check the voting regulations in your state. If the state does not count write-in ballots, you should re-think your strategy. If there’s nobody else on the ballot that you care about electing — stay home and spare yourself the effort. But, if there are some names you care about and your only objection is to the presidential candidates, then it’s better, by far, to simply omit that rubric. That will get the rest of your vote counted, producing an undervote in the presidential line. Enough undervotes sends a message too, without you self-disenfranchising everywhere else.
knowing every flavor of their shoes
My favorite is Sour Cherry by Candie’s. Second is Papagallo’s Mango Margarita.
Today Hillary Clinton promised Puerto Ricans that if elected, she would make sure they became a state and could vote in the next election.
How’s she going to accomplish that by the “next election”? Will that fall by the wayside like her $.38 a day summer gas tax relief?
#62 Aristedes says: aristedes said:
Today Hillary Clinton promised Puerto Ricans that if elected, she would make sure they became a state and could vote in the next election.
How’s she going to accomplish that by the “next election”?
See Aristedes, she’s counting on Obama being eaten by giant pill bugs!
• On the way to the convention Barack Obama is confronted by gangs of outraged delegates from Florida and Michigan, who feed him to their giant pill bugs.
• Hillary Clinton wins Puerto Rico, just as expected. In a surprise twist however Puerto Rico turns out to be ten thousand times the size of Puerto Rico.
Rest at Fafblog.
Leslie
LOL! Somebody’s havin’ fun at that site!
Regarding those who have called Steve out on this:
“…Clinton obviously cares deeply about the future of the country.”
I agree with the above rebuttals and misgivings. But I would need convincing that Steve Benen actually believes this at core. Rather I suspect he realizes he is a top tier Democratic blogger who gets read by both campaigns. And that neither camp can question his Democratic party bona fides. Ergo, I suspect he is engaging here in wishful expectations. This is the behavior he expects to see from adults on the Hillary side of the party. This is the behavior he expects lies at the base of Hillary’s political brain stem.
It really is a dare. He is saying here: Time for the adults to stand up and show their better sides…
what people do not seem to realize by declaring mich and fla. invalid so early in the primary process many clinton voters gave up and felt that there was no justice for them that the deck was stacked against them from the beginning….
the committee could have adressed this whole delegae thing much earlier in the cammpaign and permitted a revote in both fla and mich..especially michigan…where obama removed his name from the pimary ballot….(i thibnk that obama removed his name knowing that he would lose in the mich primaries and woould at a later date have reason to contest the vote was a calcalated move to call foul later down the line….as is the case…
as for obama and hi choice of religious mentors…he had to know what was gooing on in that church..and did not leave at that time becasue most of those who were in attendance agreed with their minister….with his atitude towards whites..and then when a second minister sphewes his hate from that very same pulpit he finally realises that he has been caught and that he better jump ship before the people find out that he has sat through many of those wermons without ever leaving…..finally when his back was a gainst the wall he left his church and mentors in the dust….
it is my opinion when the whatever hits the fan obama will duck out…..and lthat time is sure to come his inexpirence will shine through and be used against him….never obama….hillary yes
Dear sS @ 66,
Your comment that “the committee could have addressed the whole thing much earlier and permitted a revote” was an option the Party offered the two states in question. Both states refused to contemplate doing a revote until after their own state elction laws made the point moot. Where have you been for the past four months?
Besides, the math being used to promote Clinton as “winning the popular vote” has been debunked:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/1/16747/37393/979/526838
She’s promoting her “victory” number by excluding the 14 caucuses. They’re meaningless. We won’t have caucuses in November. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. Borg Queen Uber Alles. But—by turning the tables back so as to include caucus goers who CAN AND WILL vote in November, while excluding primary votes by those who CANNOT vote in November, Obama actually leads the popular vote by about 200,000.
Regarding Aristedes comment regarding White America voting for Hillary and coming around to vote for Obama:
I am so sick and tired of hearing “WHITE RACIST AMERICA”. The whites and those of different color born in America don’t stand a chance with anything. Whites and blacks are now the minority in America and have been for some time. We don’t get anything for free. We have to pay through the nose for everything. The majority of whites and those of other color born in the USA don’t get any assistance for anything. Not from the government for housing, welfare, tax breaks for businesses, health care, nothing. All they do is tax the American people to death so all foreigners/races from other countries can be set up with businesses or housing or free health care etc…All tax free or nearly tax free,. Americans born in the USA should be getting all the assistance, tax breaks etc…and shouldn’t have to pay taxes. Let people that come into the country have to pay taxes and through the nose for everything. It’s all backwards. I don’t care what color you are. If you are born in the USA, you should be treated like gold and things should be easier for you. If you want to live in the USA learn how to speak and understand the English language. If you don’t want to learn go back to where you came from.
No speak ESPANOL. I don’t care if you’re the king of Saudi Arabia, a foreign businessman, a foreign doctor, … whatever! If you can’t speak and understand decent English, you should not be allowed to work, visit, vote, do business or anything in the USA! I am one of many sick and tired Americans! We want are country back!!!
steven STEVENS said:
what people do not seem to realize by declaring mich and fla. invalid so early in the primary process many clinton voters gave up and felt that there was no justice for them that the deck was stacked against them from the beginning….
the committee could have adressed this whole delegae thing much earlier in the cammpaign and permitted a revote in both fla and mich…”
Excuse me, but Clinton voters weren’t the only ones who felt disenfranchised in Michigan and Florida. Many Obama voters did likewise. As for a revote, the DNC tried to work with Florida and Michigan to stage a revote as quickly as possible. But both states decided against it because they didn’t have the money to do it, and they ran against the clock. In Florida, for example, I believe it would’ve cost about $20 million to hold a revote. That’s money Florida would have to obtain from its taxpayers. Florida’s Democratic leaders decided against it, because it was the state Republican leadership that had created the primary situation in the first place, which resulted in Florida losing its Democratic delegation. As a result, Florida’s Democratic leadership didn’t want to charge taxpayers twice for essentially the same primary.
It was also Michigan and Florida that presented the proposals to seat their delegates with 1/2 votes. It may not be the best settlement to an unfair situation, but under the circumstances, both Florida and Michigan are happy with it. The Clinton campaign agreed to Florida’s proposal. Their main contention now is with the apportionment of Michigan’s delegates, 69 to 59 in Clinton’s favor. Are you going to tell me that four Michigan delegates are worth fighting for all the way to the convention? If the Clinton campaign really wants to represent Michigan’s and Florida’s voters, then shouldn’t Clinton accept the proposals put forward by those states? Unless of course, your anger isn’t about the voters at all, but about Clinton not getting her way with the DNC?
As for Obama’s church, he had nothing to do with Reverend Wright’s statements or Rev. Michael Pfleger’s either. Obama has repeatedly denounced their inflammatory language.
Regarding your remark: “…with their minister….with his atitude towards whites..”
You are aware that Obama’s mother and grandparents were white? If so, are you suggesting that Obama hates himself?
Obama slandered Clinton as a racist through surrogates and supporters who twisted innocuous remarks out-of-context that no one in their right mind would have considered racist, then the chorus of Obama supporters echoed the outrage to the point that no rational examination of those remarks could be made. Repeatedly, the supposed racism of Clinton didn’t stand up to scrutiny (pundits acknowledged that — this isn’t just my opinion), but the accusations whittled away at the % of African American supporters on Clinton’s side until it went from about 60% for Obama to 90% for Obama. Concurrently, African American Obama supporters applied major pressure to friends and relatives supporting Clinton to switch to Obama. Given the history of race-solidarity demanded within the African American community, that tactic was highly effective. We saw this same dynamic when African Americans closed ranks around OJ and Clarence Thomas (against Anita Hill). Maybe you weren’t around then. This was attested to by several of those superdelegates who switched, explaining that their constituents demanded it of them, their family was all for Obama, etc.
You can call this kind of campaigning smart. I call it race-based and dishonest. I believe in a society where all people are valued and have opportunity, not one in which members of one race gang up against another to exert power to obtain privilege for themselves and people of the same skin color. It is wrong when white people do that and it is equally wrong when Obama and his supporters do it.
Those who have known the Clintons for decades realize that they are not racist in any sense of the word. What Obama’s campaign did to them was purely wrong. It is as cheap and wrong as red-baiting was in Nixon’s campaign. If he wins, Obama should not be proud of this victory. But I wouldn’t expect a man capable of running this kind of campaign to show any remorse about it afterward. Only slightly less sickening were his sexist remarks about Clinton, referring to her time of the month (she is 60 yo) and his snotty debate remark about her appealingness, as if she were a teenager worried about her appearance to boys.
That is Obama’s pattern, encourage the anti-Hillary garbage covertly but then issue statements condemning it later, to show that his hands are clean. Pflager just let us see what the Obama campaign is really like behind the scenes. Pflager wasn’t just some visiting preacher — he was a close friend and a person Obama had helped several times while a State Legislator. He said what he did because that is how Obama’s friends talk about Clinton when they think they are among friends.
Here is Pflager’s apology. He said “I apologize for those who were offended…” He did not apologize to them, but FOR them. That is a non-apology apology. If you saw the video of it, as I did, you would have noted the disrespectful tone in which he made the apology — this was no slip of the tongue but an evasion. He is utterly unrepentent about what he said. Sort of like the speech where Obama flipped off Hillary and just as childish.
But hey, he’s your guy and no one ever deserved each other more than Obama and you people.
‘She’s vowed to work her heart out for the Democratic ticket, and I think she means it. Clinton has also said, repeatedly, that the nation simply can’t afford a McCain presidency.’
She also said this repeatedly:
“I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”
Mary: we can tell that for you Clinton can do no wrong. For me it is her behavior that has been utterly, completely, and totally despicable. You’ll have to go back a long ways – to a pretty ugly period – to find Democrats talking about the importance of voting for them because they can win the white vote. That is, until Clinton resurrected it. Clinton took offhand comments by Obama and turned them into weeks of TV ads. Obama, by contrast, has been personally gracious in dealing with her numerous “misstatements.” Clinton supporters – like you – hyperventilate when his campaign so much as emails reporters a criticism of something that she has done. Your candidate, simply put, has alternated behaving like a bully and whining about being a victim. Many of her supporters are so invested in electing a female president that they simply can’t see that.
And the thing I detest the most about the Clinton campaign is summarized in things like the treatment of Father Pflager. This guy happens to be a longtime worker for social justice in Chicago and a pillar of the progressive community. And he said something critical of Hillary Clinton, which permits people like you to unleash a five minute hate on the guy and use him as a club to beat Obama with. This disgusting technique has been a hallmark of the Clinton campaign. Do you want to talk about character? She has displayed a lack of it in everything that she has done. And she has reaped the deserved whirlwind for it.