Publius muses on why Hillary’s genuinely inevitable campaign machine seemed to keep losing its traction, and comes up with a word that rhymes with frak.
Publius’s analysis exactly agrees how I felt back when I was still on the fence. In the beginning I expected Clinton to make some public statement about how her Iraq vote was a stupid move and how at some level she regretted making it. I have no doubt that a good fraction of the Democratic party’s liberal base was waiting for the same thing.
For me anyway it wasn’t about exacting a pound of flesh or anything like that. What’s the point? If I was out for revenge I would have to write off most of the party. For me it was a of a judgment test. Congress got railroaded by jingoism, panicked political fear and better salesmanship into something that most independent observers now recognize as a bad idea. John Edwards genuinely seems to regret the box of chaos that he helped open.
Recognizing a mistake isn’t just a petty bit of retribution, It’s a first step towards naming the weakness and watching out for it it in the future. More than anything else I needed confidence that she wouldn’t do it again. I don’t want to sit around wondering when will be the next time that our President, terrified of being outmessaged and politically outmaneuvered, tacks to cover her ass and leaves good policy bleeding by the side of the road.
And you know what, I didn’t have to wait for Hillary to become the President. What did the Clintonites do after PA failed to deliver the big comeback margin that Hillary needed? She cynically aped the bullshit Republican gas tax plan, whereas Obama stood by good policy even when it could cost him votes. The whole fake populism gig, calling Obama supporters ‘elitists,’ dismissing African-American voters as irrelevant, reeked of panic and flopsweat. In other words both campaigns did exactly what I expected them to do.
Anyhow it’s almost over and the right guy’s going to win. Go team.
***Update***
Conason’s surprised. Honestly, I’m not. I read Bush right by guessing that the child is father to the man. Hillary’s refusal to revisit Iraq tells me that she either cares about policy until it’s politically useful to defenstrate it (my working model), or her judgment is far worse than I could have guessed. It’s like an Athenian Senator saying you should support him even though he still thinks that Syracuse was a great idea. Even Michael f*cking Ledeen has enough shame to lie about it.
NR
Given her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, I think it’s fair to say that not only has Hillary not apologized for her Iraq war vote, she hasn’t learned anything from it, either.
Soylent Green
Hillary has never fully persuaded me that she isn’t for the war and not against it.
Notorious P.A.T.
Well said, Tim.
What’s done is done. But Hillary has given me zero reason to think that, in the future, she wouldn’t rush off into some other absurd war for preposterous reasons.
Cap and Gown
Kevin Drum posted a similar analysis on this (perhaps from publius as well?) I didn’t comment on it there, but I will here.
Hillary vote for the Iraq war was preordained because she wanted to be president. Going into the race she knew she would face a huge obstacle to winning because of her gender. The race in fact showed that this was true. The sexism this primary season was appaling. Thus, her Iraq war vote, and Kyl/Lieberman as well, were meant to signal her hawkishness. She needed to position herself as a hawk if she wanted to win the general. One of the biggest hurdles she would have faced would have been doubts about whether she had the cojones to actually use the military. (A problem that Democrats in general have faced for decades, but which a female Democrat would find especially difficult to overcome.)
The problem, however, was that she first needed to get through the primary season. But where her hawkishness might have served her in the general (then again, trying to win over independents, considering her high negatives, would have still been difficult) it was a liability in the primary. She probably bought into the inevitabilty idea and was running as if she was in the general, but that just hurt her when trying to appeal to just the Democratic base.
misc
“I don’t want to sit around wondering when will be the next time that our President, terrified of being outmessaged and politically outmaneuvered, tacks to cover her ass and leaves good policy bleeding by the side of the road.”
Exactly.
This is the Clinton legacy. Bill pissed me off time after time during the 90’s precisely for this reason.
John Cole
Shouldn’t there be a political penalty for someone whose political calculus led to 4000 american deaths and trillions out of the budget? Isn’t that why the Republicans are, in large part, going to get routed? Why shouldn’t she pay for her mistake, especially if you think it was cynical triangulation? I was wrong, and will never run for President. Additionally, I didn’t have access to an NIE I didn’t read.
It kills me that she and her supporters dismiss her error on this issue, but wants to make judgement an issue in regards to Obama’s fucking crazy pastor.
Daniel Munz
Cap and Gown, that’s just bullshit. You know a woman who opposing the war has worked out pretty well for? NANCY PELOSI.
And if Hillary Clinton really believes that as a woman, she has no choice but to support ill-conceived foreign policy clusterfucks because it’s the only way to maintain her image of toughness, she’s manifestly unqualified to be president. She didn’t like the war, but had to vote for it; she may or may not think the gas tax holiday is a good idea, but went for it because it was sound politics; she’s not a racist but is happy to say Obama isn’t a crazy Muslim “that I know of.” It’s starting to look like a pattern for her. At what point does she feel politically safe enough to start saying the things she actually believes? When we hand her the nomination?
This has nothing to do with sexism. There’s literally not a Democratic woman in the Senate that I wouldn’t vote for over John McCain — and that includes Hillary. But if she actually thinks her gender/reputation/whatever entitles her to choose politics over sound policy without consequence forever, what is it, exactly, that entitles her to lead?
Rick Taylor
I originally thought I’d vote for Obama over Clinton based on her support for the AUMF. I felt a huge sense of betrayal when so many Democrats supported it, and I never thought I could support any that had after that. Early on in the primaries, I was impressed with her and upset with Obama over a few matters; I ended up voting for her. Big mistake, I should have trusted my original reasoning. Listening to her talk about Iran in an interview recently, I was struck how she really is operating in an old framework, repeating things that just aren’t true. We need an administration that got Iraq right in the first place; more importantly, that isn’t making the fundamental assumptions about the world and our place in us that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Just Some Fuckhead Hard-Working White Clinton Supporter
I’m not sure what I like least, Salon’s predictable support for the establishment candidate or that goddamned site pass. I quit reading Salon in 2004 when they did a hit piece on every Democratic candidate except Kerry.
And look what happened.
tom.a
Hillary’s inability to recognize and admit her Iraq vote was a huge mistake that reminded me of Bush’s problem with admittance of error. Her devotion to loyalty over competence (Mark Penn) was another reminder of Bush. I doubt she’d govern like Bush but she wasn’t exactly helping me make the separation.
Warren Terra
Munz pretty much nails it. Clinton may have felt that she had to vote for the war if she wanted to look tough, and doubly so as a woman; but so far as I know no Democrat paid a price for voting against the war or other Bush administration abuses after 2002, and I’m not sure any Northern Democrat paid a price even in 2002. Certainly no-one seems to doubt the mettle of Nancy Pelosi, even though Pelosi never tried to prove she’s Macho by backing a dumb war.
The fact that Clinton never owned up to her mistake, and the pattern we see there, is particularly telling.
Rick Taylor
Conason doesn’t capture what was offensive to me in Clinton’s remarks (and those of some of her surrogates as well. It wasn’t the “hard working” slip, though that was certainly as bad as Obama’s bitter comment, at least. For me what was disturbing was she was making those remarks in answer to the question, “How does Hillary Clinton win the nomination?” Now she’s making an argument for the superdelegates; why should they choose her over Obama when he’s one the pledged delegates? And the answer is that working class white peoples’ votes are essential in the General, so the super-delegates ought to over-ride the pledged delegate count because she’s doing better with the white vote.
I guess it shouldn’t have been surprising; it was the logical culmination of the path she’d been following. The votes of people in small caucus states should be worth less, because those states wouldn’t support the Democratic nominee in November. She had to argue that any group that didn’t support her was less important for the general and should be over-ruled by the super-delegates; and she finally took that to it’s logical conclusion, and argued the super delegates should support her, because hard working white American votes should over-ride African Americans’. Part of the split between Hillary and Obama supporters now, is the Hillary supporters see how angry we’ve been, and don’t understand why. The conclude it must be irrational CDS; they don’t see were reacting to things she’s done. I had not history of Hillary dislike before this primary, except for her vote for the AUMF, and I even ended up voting for her; it’s what she’s done since then that’s turned me around.
Brachiator
The current issue of Vanity Fair has a wonderful piece on Bobby Kennedy, and how in deciding to oppose LBJ and run for president, Kennedy had to confront his beloved brother’s Vietnam legacy, and his own role in shaping that conflict (The Last Good Campaign).
Very soon after he decided to run for president, Kennedy gave an electrifying speech in front of Kansas college students, which are sadly applicable today, and which underscores the degree to which Hillary Clinton is the antithesis of the best that the Democratic Party has offered:
Senator Clinton not only refuses to attempt to repair the evil, she tries to make her supporters complicit in her own political cowardice by making the acceptance of her lies and distortions into some kind of perverse test of loyalty. Iraq, the Tigress of Tuzla lie, the stubborn pushing of a pointless gas tax holiday, her $109 million makeover into a Blue Collar Momma.
Despite the patent dishonesty of these performances, she always asks that we buy into it also, and so vindicate her inability to make wise decisions.
**By the way, the Vanity Fair article is accompanied by a great photo of Bobby and his crew rolling down the street in a red Chrysler with the top down, the magnificent and tragic MUP of 1968.
The Commander Guy
Ya this Pisses me off too. Hillary will never admit a mistake. Irak is the crown jewel. It is always everybody’s else’s problem.
Hillary screwed up on her Irak War Vote and the reason was either:
a)She Agreed with Bush all along; or
b)She was outsmarted or duped by Bush; or
c)She made an honest mistake and now regrets it; or
d)She was just plain wrong but learned from her mistake; or
e)None of the above
Hilliarians Always pick answer (e).
This is why we need to give them only the credit and attention that they deserve.
Daniel Koffler
The discussion about this a few months ago came down to a question of whether she voted for the AUMF because she was buckling to political pressure, or because she fundamentally believed in it. Certainly the Kyl-Lieberman vote suggests the latter, and further, that she really hasn’t learned anything since 2002. (Or perhaps 1993; she also can’t acknowledge that there was anything problematic or counterproductive about her health care task force, like, e.g., stonewalling Daniel Patrick Moynihan.)
But really, these aren’t mutually exclusive explanations. She felt it was both smart politics and fundamentally believed in the war; and she can’t bring herself to admit error either, so having voted for it, regardless of what happens since, she’ll employ whatever double-think she needs to in order to justify the vote to herself. (Remember the Texas debate where she was finally called out, and all she could do was keep digging the hole deeper?)
Incidentally — try to act shocked about this —
Jim JonesArmando, speaking for himself only, is leading THE REAL BASE OF THE REAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!111!! in amutual masturbation sessionabout how the war didn’t hurt Hillary’s candidacy.Speaking for me only, I’m pretty sure the idea is that if he acknowledges the reality that without the war vote, Clinton wins, he won’t be able to keep up the wall of bullshit about how everything comes down to race and Obama is doomed! because he couldn’t win over the pantsuit army.
Rick Taylor
That’s not the position she takes. The position she takes is that her vote wasn’t a vote for war, it was a vote to allow Bush to apply pressure to Saddam via the inspectors. Of course that’s a bald faced lie (thank you John); as it happens I was alive then and not living in a cave, and everyone knew that once the AUMF passed, war was inevitable. You’d get an occasional odd ball contrarian who said no, Bush wasn’t going to war, but just about everyone, on the left or on the right, knew. And you can even see Hillary at a meeting with code pink two weeks before the war, explaining why sometimes the U.S. had to go it alone as it did in Kosovo. Actually the fact that she didn’t apologize for her vote doesn’t bother me; what bothers me is she’s still lying, still claiming she didn’t know her vote was a vote for war (and thanks again John, that does feel good).
JR
I think that about six months ago Armando got into a paint-drinking contest and won.
I have a personal rule that I will never support the primary candidacy of any Democrat who voted in 2002 to authorize the war. Ever. No matter the office. Last cycle, that mean voting for Rod Smith over Jim Davis for the Florida gubernatorial primary – I’d met them both and liked them alright, but only one of them could claim to have played a part in facilitating the biggest fuck-up of the last forty years. So Hillary, Biden, Dodd, and Edwards were no-go for me from the start. And when it was winnowed down to Hillary v. Barack, I was still on the fence between voting Obama and writing in Al Gore (I was pissed about Donnie McClurkin still), but went with Obama in the end: Hillary was never an option.
It was the most important vote of her career, and she fucked it up but good. If I’m picking an all-time fantasy baseball team, I’m not putting Bill Buckner on the lineup.
The Commander Guy
This seriously pisses me off that a botched war is A-OK with Hillz.
There is a hundred ways you can spin this. But hillary (f) upped big time and is unconcerned about her failure. She’ll only blame everybody else
Breschau
One year ago, my personal opinion was: “America will never vote in a black man or a white woman to the office of the Presidency in my lifetime.” (And I’m only 38.)
The past 12 months have convinced me that isn’t true. Hey, live and learn – I grew up near Philadelphia, and the overt and covert bigotry in this area is pretty breathtaking. But then, my own father voted for Obama in the PA primary – which still shocks me to this day.
My first choice was Dodd, though I knew it was improbable. Then, I went to Edwards – but he just couldn’t get it going. Then, I watched Obama’s “Yes we can” speech, and started reading up on him – and I was hooked.
But, I had no problem if Hillary got the nomination – I would have gladly voted for her. Hell, I loved the 90’s – I was there in the middle of the dot-com boom, and I had a great time.
But yet she managed, over the next 6 months, to ruin my opinion of her, and Bill, and anything to do with the Clinton name. I know find myself realizing that I react to the word “Clinton” like Mr. Cole must have back in 1999.
And her refusal to back off the Iraq vote was definitely the first chink in the armor. But to me – it was just a sign of what was to come: a refusal to admit mistakes, a willingness to promote false or misleading media points, and a truly nasty streak when talking about anyone that could be considered an enemy, even if they were in the same party.
Sad, really.
Rick Taylor
That’s a good rule. I should have stuck to it.
John Cole
I am still not sure she is done with in this election for good. There is no way she can win it, but I am not sure she is not hatching some way to steal it.
That is what I think of her. And then, of course, I will be blackmailed into voting for her.
I am just glad I live in WV, which will go Republican anyway in the fall.
Just Some Fuckhead Hard-Working White Clinton Supporter
I thought the turning point in her campaign was the spitzer-driving-licenses-for-illegals thing. She was like a bug under a magnifying glass trying to figure out which constituency was least likely to screw her over a bad answer.
Then they go to Obama with the same question and he answers it straightforward, pointing out that illegal immigrants aren’t coming here to drive around. He just answered it like we’re all adults without all the political trigonometry.
I was all about voting for a candidate that didn’t vote for the AUMF and war but honestly, we failed in 2004 to hold us acountable and we were statistically just as likely to fail this time around.
rob!
i used to think the same thing (i’m 37).
but Obama does something to people–my mother is an italian senior, born to dirt poor first generation americans in upper darby, pa. my grandmother used to use the N word without a moment’s hesitation.
my mother certainly didn’t talk like that, but she definitely used other, only slightly more genteel words like that, although she knew she shouldn’t. i always chided her when she did.
but now…SHE LOVES BARACK OBAMA. she bought an Obama sign and put it in her front yard, and tied a red, white, and blue ribbon on it when he clinched it on tuesday night. she calls me everyday with some new thing where she’s impressed with what he said, or the class he shows on the campaign trail.
the fact that Obama appeals to me is no big surprise, but that he can transform my mother that way says a lot about him.
Breschau
She’s not done. Honestly, when I got online late-night after the Tuesday results came in, and I saw the entire blogosphere run with the “Well, thank goodness *that’s* over” meme, I found myself wondering:
“Uhhhh… haven’t you folks been paying attention for the last 3 months?
Hillary is in this until the convention. There is *ZERO* percent chance she’s going away quietly. She’s going to force the Democratic party to ouright tell her: “No.”
And then, she’s going to throw a hissy-fit of Malkinesque proportions.
Breschau
rob! wrote:
Holy cow – my father grew up in Prospect Park, and my mother in Ridley. Both dirt-poor – my grandfather came over to Ellis Island when he was 3 years old. Father’s family was Scottish, mother’s was Irish.
And yes – my paternal grandfather always used the term “spooks” when talking about black folk, *AND* always referred to a woman as a “broad”. When I was 6 or 7 years old, whatever. But when I was 20, and coming back from college? Oy.
So, my father grew up in that setting – but he was also labor union his entire life. He was a business agent for a union in the Philly area for about 20 years – so I knew he was going to lean Democratic in any election (I remember seeing a “Mondale 84” button somewhere in my youth).
But to find out that he was able to vote for Obama – honestly, that more than anything else in my life experiences tells me that yes, maybe Barrack really can heal the divides that have developed in our country.
Believe me, you don’t get more white and blue-collar than my father – and he voted for Obama. There is indeed hope for us all.
Halle-fucking-lujah.
eglenn
NIghtmare on Elm Street scenario:
Would she go third party?
*Brrrrr…*
Rick Taylor
I don’t think she’s calculating enough to steal it. She’s not like Nixon, who knew enough to hide what he was up to. If she was really out to steal the election, I don’t think she’d advertise her plans the way she does. I think she really is deluded. I referenced this from Vichy Democrats before, but I think she really did believe she could get the delegates from Michigan with none for Obama, and she really did believe the super delegates would have a road-to-Damascus moment and would coronate her, realizing Obama could never win (as myiq has argued). I’m concerned with the damage she’ll do on her way out, but she’d not going to be the nominee.
Rick Taylor
I forgot to put in the link to Vichy Democrats (which I’ve already linked to before).
Jess
This reminds me–are any of you having the same frightening thought that I have when I wake up in the wee hours, that someone is inevitably going to try to take out the MUP in the same way? Something about greatness, or the aura of it, brings out the urge to destroy in certain sick minds. I’m worrying a bit…
Ninerdave
You know for me it was that…however it was the air of inevitability that ultimately turned me off. For all her bluster about wanting the “people’s voice to be heard” the beginning of her campaign was mostly “I’m your next president, deal with it”. I guess my teenage anti-authoritarian streak spoke up and rightly said who the fuck are you?
merrinc
I heard that word far too much growing up and while my mother no longer uses it, parts of her worldview still makes me cringe.
Earlier this evening, she told me that she voted for Obama.
Rick Taylor
Joe Conason wrote:
I guess I missed it when Obama argued the super-delegates ought to support him over the pledged delegate leader because of his success in attracting hard working middle class black people, a demographic everyone knows the Democratic nominee will need in November.
empty
Cap and Gown: That’s pretty decent analysis. And John, nowhere did C&G say she should not pay a political price. She manifestly has.
Ninerdave
Another point regarding “Hillary-Hell-Or-High-Water” supporters now. Altemeyer correctly describes them as authoritarians. While it’s most common on the right, it’s not exclusively a rightwing phenomenon.
KRK
Bill Clinton revealed their plan today:
(1) build up massive popular vote margins in WV, KY, and PR offset by only marginal popular vote losses in OR, MT, and SD
(2) get the DNC to seat MI and FL delegations based on the January primaries with Obama getting 0 popular votes for Michigan
(3) convince superdelegates that giving the nomination to the leader in pledged delegates rather than the leader in the popular votes (using their calculations) would be a repeat of the 2000 Bush-Gore from which the Democratic Party would never recover.
That’s their plan. They’ve got their netroots minions talking it up.
Save us, West Virginia, you’re our only hope. (Not looking for an Obama win here, mind you. Just keep the vote spread out of the stratosphere.)
Rick Taylor
Marvelous. If they manage it, African Americans feel they’re second class citizens in the Democratic party, sit out the election in large numbers, and we loose both the Presidency and plenty of local races. If they fail, they spread the narrative among their supporters that Obama’s nomination is illegitimate, that they’re being disenfranchised, and they sit out the election. Way to go about tearing apart the party you helped build, guys.
Splitting Image
Let’s just be glad it’s over.
With a Democratic candidate who opposed the war facing John “100 Years” McCain, who will chase bin Laden to the gates of Hell as long as they aren’t in Pakistan, I’m setting the over/under for McCain at 10 states.
Less if they decide to throw him to the wolves, which may well happen if their fundraising doesn’t improve.
John Cole
He will lose by 30-35%. Easy.
Their plan won’t work. Popular vote is meaningless, and the DNC, unless they want the party destroyed, will not allow Michigan and FL to determine the election. Not only will it rip the party apart for this election, but they will never have any control over the nomination process ever again. States will just do whatever they want.
And at this point, really, if Hillary works out some scenario to steal the election (as she will never get the most pledged delegates in any of these scenarios), the AA vote is gone for a generation. The poor working class folks like Talk Left;s twin dipshits may get their nominee, but they will stay poor and working class under Pres. McCain.
Personally, I am too old for the war, will never have an abortion, and live in a state that is going for McCain regardless. It will suck, but it won’t be my fault.
Jeffrey
Elitist.
KRK
This is my primary beef with the superdelegates not speaking to Clinton about cleaning up her message. It’s not the race-baiting and pandering and other garbage I worry about, because however disgusting it may be, I think in the end it is backfiring on her.
But a core part of Clinton’s stump speech is that she is actually ahead, and it’s only the big bad DNC and all-powerful Obama who are refusing to recognize the voters who have chosen her. She’s outright lying about process, and her supporters believe her. Why wouldn’t they? Even if she concedes and campaigns for Obama, there are going to be a core who think that she really won. I’m actually not too concerned about the numbers of such folks. But there shouldn’t be any. Yet no one makes any real effort to push back.
The bluewv blog had a post earlier this week about one of the blogger’s visit to a Clinton appearance. Apparently Clinton supporters were passing out fliers trying to convince Obama supporters not to riot in Denver if Clinton gets the nomination. The mind boggles.
Rick Taylor
I agree, their plan won’t work. They’re deluded. One of the aspects of being deluded, as we’ve seen on some pro-Hillary echo chambers, is that you think that everyone else shares your delusion. That just because it makes sense to you that Obama should get no delegates from Michigan since he chose to not be on the ballot, it will make sense to everyone else, or at least enough people that you’ll get your way. So no way it’s going to work. The question is how far do they take it, and how much damage do they end up doing to their party? How many of their supporters sit out the elections, convinced Hillary Clinton got a raw deal?
Ted
What do they care? Eight years in the White House wasn’t enough for them, and they’re entitled to more. And they won’t let anyone get in their way.
Rick Taylor
There’s another aspect to this I hadn’t figured out before. The reason her campaign is baldly appealing to hard working white middle class voters now, the reason she’s saying their important, is she’s trying to pump up her popular vote wins in West Virginia and Kentucky. I suppose that was obvious, but I’m slow; I was still thinking it was all about superdelegates, not the “popular vote.”
I agree entirely. The DNC ought to have taken a strong stand a long while ago. They made the decision to penalize Michigan and Florida. Obama cooperated with them, they should stand up when Hillary tries to use it as a weapon against him. Otherwise, if they ever need to ask the candidates not to campaign in some primary for whatever reason, they should just tell them go jump in the lake.
Brachiator
Then the party leaders need to call her into the office and tell her “No.”
The sad thing is that it is the party, more than Senator Clinton, that is allowing this thing to be dragged out to a possible convention fight. What is worrisome is that the Democratic Party has become so used to capitulating to Dubya that they are afraid of their own shadow. And so they have allowed Clinton to act as though she can blithely ignore her own agreement not to participate in the FL and MI primaries, and they allow her to float increasingly ridiculous alternative scenarios in which she “wins” the nomination, scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with official rules (e.g., she won North Carolina if you count only white men named Jasper who live on the left hand side of dirt roads near where the old red schoolhouse used to be).
Hillary Clinton, and Bill, have managed to cross the “doing more harm than good” threshold. Clinton has lost a lot of his charisma, and soon he will become more “dirty old man” than “charming rogue.” And there are a new generation of women Democratic Party leaders who will quietly assume Hillary’s position of feminist icon. The Clintons’ effectiveness to be reliable fundraisers for the party has been severely compromised by the more questionable decisions of Team Clinton to alienate segments of the party base, and by the boorishness of some of their well-heeled supporters, who have attempted to blackmail the party into letting Hillary stay in a pointless contest.
The Clintons believe that they are inevitable and indispensable. This kind of hubris needs to be capped, or it will fester and cause more and more harm to the party.
Not a chance in Hell of this happening. Hillary Clinton’s support is much thinner than she thinks. A third party of at most two (Bill and Hillary) would not attract any followers, and wouldn’t even appeal much to … well, to anybody.
And who in their right mind would continue to pay Bill or Hillary ridiculous amounts to give a speech if it will not get them even a hint of access to Democratic members of Congress.
Also, I don’t think that the Clintons are either arrogant enough or stupid enough to threaten a third party defection. After all, this would resolve in Obama’s favor every possible issue related to the nomination. The party could announce the Clinton betrayal of the party, expel them, and then move on with supporting Obama without having to deal with the Clintons at the convention.
El Doh
This Clinton plan troubles me.
Not because I think it has any legs, but because there’s enough deluded supporters out there that I can see this being trouble.
Go read an Alegre diary on MyDD[1] and you’ll see what I mean. They’ll kick, scream, throw toys from the pram, etc. and – the part that bothers me – possibly persuade Clinton supporters not to vote Democratic in November.
They have a heavy sense of victimization as it is, not to mention they’ve bought heavily into the “Hillary is the underdog” mindset despite Clinton having every advantage at the start of this race and squandering it utterly.
They can’t even see the hypocrisy of “everyone must be allowed to vote” from the candidate who said it would all be over on Super Tuesday.
Gah. After a day when I was feeling pretty upbeat, this has brought me right back down again.
Y’know, I used to like the Clintons, but in this race it’s like they’re doing everything they possibly can to make me utterly loathe them.
[1] any one, she’s almost always got a couple on the recommended list thanks to the Hillarybloggers mailing list, as soon as it hits MyDD she posts to the list and they all hit MyDD to recommend then talk at length about “Obamabots”. Oh, the ironing.
Enlightened Layperson
Give some thought to Hillary’s background. She and Bill were DLC Democrats; they triangulated; they moved center; they won the Whitehouse. Their reward: Eight years of unrelieved venom from the Limbaugh-ites, denunciation as wild-eyed left wing radicals, endless investigations, an impeachment, and even the “Clinton Body Count.” And that was how the Right reacted to the moderate wing of the Democratic Party! Now she sees a representative of the liberal wing poised to win the nomination.
If I wanted to be charitable to her, I would say that her fears about “electability” are genuine, that she sees the Democratic Party about to drive off a left-wing cliff and is desparately trying to save them from themselves.
A somewhat less charitable but thoroughtly human interpretation is that after spending a career trying to make the Democratic Party more acceptable by moving center and triangulating, the prospect of Obama winning by taking the opposite approach seems like an attack on everything she has worked for and achieved.
KRK
I do wonder if media wankers like Limbaugh wouldn’t rather see McCain lose. A Democratic administration is money in the bank for them.
Yeah, I worry sometimes too. But none of us is as conscious of the risks as the Obamas are, and I guess I believe that every precaution is taken. They’ve been getting death threats since they started campaigning, which triggered (I believe) earlier Secret Service protection than candidates ususally get. I believe Obamas also pay for extra security in addition to the Secret Service. In at least one speech in Iowa, Michelle Obama raised the risk as something they considered when deciding whether to jump in. They’re better people than I am.
Frank Jacobs
A good point.
Hillary’s campaign can downplay the importance of minority voters all they want, but it is arrogant folly. No Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson has won a majority of the white vote. When black America stays home, we lose.
Warren Terra
More than that – the actual debate being waged at that time was not whether Dubya would use a “Yes” on the AUMF to wage war; that actual debate was whether he might actually invade Iraq even without getting the AUMF. It’s all there in the news pages, op-ed pages, and blogs of mid-late 2002 if someone doesn’t remember. Not giving Dubya the AUMF was seen as only a start towards preventing him from invading.
The Clinton camp’s telling people that the vote to authorize force was not a vote to invade was just one of their many transparently dishonest tactics, signaling their contemptuous approach and their belief that the primary voters who paid attention and who cared didn’t count.
The upthread reminder of the ID-for-illegals incident, which I’d forgotten, was another excellent example of this phenomenon: repeatedly (AUMF, IDs, gas tax, etcetera) Obama tended to treat the voters like adults while Clinton went for the prospect of short-term gain, at long-term cost to her stature.
myiq2xu
Black Americans are 12% of the US population. Yes they are a core Democratic constituency, and the Clintons know that better then most.
Until Obama falsely accused them of racism, the Clintons got more AA votes than anyone. And they earned those votes, because both Bill and Hillary have been dedicated to civil rights their whole lives.
But those blue-collar white voters are swing voters. If they vote Democratic, we win. If they vote Republican, we lose.
Obama is telling them to fuck off.
Warren Terra
MyIq!=u, I’m fascinated by your claim that Obama is telling [blue-collar white voters] to fuck off.
I mean, I know you’d never make this up, right? That’d be stupid and dishonest, not to mention deliberately incendiary.
So could you please, throught the use of hyperlinks (such nifty things they are!) and whatever brief explanation you think might further suffice, substantiate this rather amazing claim?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. If you can’t substantiate – and no points for guessing what I think is the case – could you please either go calm down and refrain from commenting until you’ve got something interesting to say, or else just go play in traffic? Thanks again.
Soylent Green
If Hillary’s most ardent followers are Authoritarians, that would explain their eagerness to glorify their candidate as an iconic figure who can do no wrong and must be fought for like she’s Joan of Arc.
I don’t believe the Clintons are crazy. They are going for the brass ring and appear to possess a moral compass that gives anomalous readings. But they are savvy enough not to wipe out their future in politics.
When Hillary inevitably signs the armistice papers and does her part for the party, shouldn’t authority-seeking followers do as she asks? If she follows the script, she should instruct them to believe that We Are All Dems and McBush Is Wrong and Hooray for Barack. That would really help ensure the turnout we need to win the general. Some of them will vote for McCain but I think their percentage of the whole to be small, though highly vocal.
I could be wrong. Maybe the Clintons really have become myiq’s zombie terminators. But that seems out of character for them. Haven’t they been calculating since they met?
Rick Taylor
Frank Jacobs:
You were talking about the troubling division between Hillary and Obama supporters in a previous thread, something that troubles me as well. The thing is, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pushing this division for her own purposes. People naturally look to their leaders for direction. When she says any solution of Michigan that doesn’t involve her getting her delegates and Obama getting none is unfair, that becomes the talking point at Talk Left at other blogs. When she says the elections will be viewed as illegitimate if Michigan and Florida aren’t seated the way she wants them, that the popular vote as defined by her is the true measure of who should win, those become the talking points of her supporters. Of course she’d not responsible for all of it, but if she’d played the game by the rules, never suggested that she was entitled to delegates in unsanctioned primaries everyone agreed not to campaign in, and respected the process even as she fought as hard as she could within that process to win, you wouldn’t be seeing the degree of acrimony and division within the party you are now. I do think Obama supporters could be more diplomatic at times, but that isn’t what’s driving the division.
I don’t know what the solution is, except that either she needs to wake up and decide her party is more important than her own ambition, or her supporters wake up to what she’s actually doing. But until one of those two things happen, Obama supporter can be as polite as they like, but the impact will be minimal.
TenguPhule
Corrected for accuracy.
myiq2xu
Reporter: “Senator Clinton! Barack Obama said you are a mean bitch. Any comment?”
Hillary: “That little pussy can’t take a punch”
Goodnight trolls!
Warren Terra
Am I deeply confused about the meaning of “trolls”? I thought a troll was someone who went to a blog comments section in order to make a few incendiary (and, often, vulgar) comments, and refusing to seriously debate the merits of their alleged arguments.
I mean, points for style for trolling and then calling everyone else trolls, but, seriously, WTF?
Rick Taylor
Well he shouldn’t be doing that, though I’m not sure what you’re referring too. Certainly the “bitter” comments were a gaffe; I think he’s learned from that, and he’s adjusting his rhetoric accordingly (see his speech after North Carolina) Seeing as both Hillary and McCain are waiting in the wings to pounce on any statement that can be construed as anti-white-blue-collar, so he has to be extra careful.
But what do you think he should be doing to appeal to the working-white-class vote? I feel that seeing as he’s going to be the nominee, Hillary Clinton ought to be helping here instead of using his weakness to further her ambition, but it looks like that’s unlikely for now. So what should he do, beyond what he’s doing? The question is not meant to be rhetorical; we’re on the same side, so I think it makes sense to open these topics up. I’m sure these questions are on his mind as he goes into the upcoming primaries.
Killjoy
That part of his speech on race was overlooked by most. Here’s the relevant part of the transcript:
cbear
Well there goes the cat vote. If she keeps going at this rate, pretty soon she’s gonna be down to the one-toothed white goobers with ferrets vote.
cbear
“Free ammo, and a squirrel in every pot.”
Chuck Butcher
As a lifelong Democrat I got a good look at Hillary in the 90s. I couldn’t take the (R) hate machine seriously and needed information to back up my assertion they were BSing. I wasn’t too pleased after the Primaries but that was too much. Well, they were BSing, but, Whitewater smelled and the Travel Office was plain mismanagement and her attitude of FY over the deal pissed me off. I watched her closely and discovered that she didn’t wear well with anyone paying close attention to her.
Her NY Sen activities sealed the deal, same stuff, short cuts, inaccuracies, political expediencies, pointless triangulations. AUMF didn’t surprise me a bit and nothing since has. When she announced I made it clear that I didn’t see her as inevitable or even good, I also made it clear that I believed OR would count at its late May 20 date. At one point that argument had some point, our legislature was considering moving the Primary up to Feb 5 which with our mail in vote DNC considered at violation, ie ballots go out 2 weeks early. The leg backed off, primarily I believe due to DPO pressure, I don’t know that my argument carried any weight, but it was right.
The DNC is no longer composed of Terry McAuliff clones, it is now the Dean DNC and that model and McAuliff’s are completely opposed. The DNC will not willingly turn back. The DNC has rules and has to abide by them and the May 31 meeting of the Rules Committee has to be held. You cannot insist the rules be abided by and then short circuit the process, this is the Democratic Party and the rules are not suspended for the sake of the Clintons or Obama. The RNC is in that game, not the DNC.
John Cole is a newcomer to Democratic politics and he comes from a background that disrespected the Party and disparaged it with lies and half-truths. If he sticks around he will find that the DNC is something other than what he’s been led to believe.
BTW, Bill Clinton is coming to our little rural town (get a map) Sunday and I will be in the VIP box. I will be there as a representative of Baker County Democratic Party, DPO, Vice-Chair and SCC Delegate, a neutral organization. Regardless of my personal political leanings I will attend and be seen to attend. I would be present for any Democratic candidate for any office, that is my Party job and I’m proud of it. I made the announcement on my Blog which is not Clinton friendly country, and personal.
Whatever else BCD, DPO, DNC may have for candidates we are not the RNC and its ilk, our poor candidates almost always trump what they can put up and our good ones are exceptional. That is why I do what I do for the DNC and why I push to see that the Party improves.
Mike
Hillary’s on crack?
Rick Taylor
Chuck Butcher:
I just visited your blog; it’s fascinating reading. I’m just beginning to figure out how this is all working. It’s been a stomach churning revelation, seeing with gradually increasing clarity what Clinton’s campaign is up to, and the damage it may do.
Assuming that she doesn’t decide that the Democratic party is more important than her personal ambition, what should we be doing? I’ve tried talking on Hillary-supportive blog like Talk Left, and the positions are set in stone. It’s just a given there that apportioning the delegates in any way other than the way the Clinton campaign has said they ought to be apportioning them is vote stealing and disenfranchisement. It doesn’t matter how many times you point out that it doesn’t make sense to award the delegates to Clinton from an unsanctioned primary in which Obama wasn’t on the ballot; they use her talking points, he didn’t have to withdraw his name, etc. I’m at a loss as to what to do, beyond hoping Clinton decides the party is more important than her own ambition, or that the number of supporters who buy her arguments and stay home in the general election turns out to be small.
It is gut wrenching what she’s up to. In an election that should be a once in a life-time opportunity for the Democratic party, in which Democrats are energized and turn out as never before, to do her best to divide the party, to pursue her own ambitions, even when it’s apparent she cannot succeed.
Johnny Pez
Killjoy, I was wondering where the phrase “eat a bag of dicks” originated. Thanks for clearing that up.
Say what you will about Obama, the man has a gift for striking imagery.
Rick Taylor
So after May 31, will that resolve how the delegates in Michigan and Florida are seated? And assuming once that’s done, Obama surpasses whatever the threshold of delegates he needs, will that effectively be the end of the nomination?
To everyone else, I highly recommend Chuck Butcher’s blog; it’s enlightening reading, and disillusioning if you’re thinking this fight is anywhere near over.
wobbly
You really need to reread this stuff AND actually remember what went on the 1990’s.
I actually don’t think the absolute rule of the CLINTON dynasty was our biggest problem then.
Nor our biggest problem now.
Chuck Butcher
Rick Taylor
Thanks for the kind words, first of all.
There are a whole range of Hillary supporters, from policy wonks to messianic thinkers, there are those with whom you can reason and those it is a waste of effort. Some feelings will cool once Hillary isn’t out there stirring them up, some are just done, and some are just (as ThymeZone reminds us)personas. Sometimes it’s a little difficult to recognize personas, but some of that Taylor Marsh crowd is just that, posturing for attention. I’m no good at it and you, evidently, aren’t either. Wading into a cult of personality blog isn’t much use, a reasonable person or political junkie would read a few of those comments and flee, not their scene.
I started watching John Cole as he started making the conversion from a Bushnik, there was reason in operation and a certain painful honesty. I hang here mostly for Cole’s stuff, but also to a large extent for the “Comments” section. Whether it’s snark or serious there’s some pretty heavy caliber stuff here. Most of the Marsh kind of things are a joke on the readers, whether they’re smart enough to get it or not. C’mon, look who Taylor Marsh is and the quality of her reasoning and writing, she’s podcasting to try to get a radio gig – do what?? They play on each other and pump each other up and finally froth at the mouth, it’s a joke, there isn’t a serious political thought to rub up against. They won’t get you, they can’t get you, it would spoil the whole deal. It’s a club, a clique and you have to be in on it to play and you’re not. In their space you’re a troll. Let ’em be.
There are sites out there where you can play advocate, the comments will tell you pretty quick where you’re at, if the post itself didn’t.
Every once in awhile I’ll toss something in here about the 2nd Amendment or illegal hiring which are about as popular as syphilis with some, but mostly I’ll get regard because most of these are reasoning people – whether they agree or not. That also requires making some kind of sense, vs the trolls around here. I don’t get much comment activity, but it is usually pretty damn sensible. I’m not sure if I miss having it or not, when I was campaiging it got pretty crazy and a real handful to have an unmoderated campaign blog.
Re: MI/FL, the Rules Committee isn’t the absolute final word, it can be over-ruled from the floor of the Convention, but that is a tough deal. The Convention proper will operate under Robert’s Rules of Order and depending on how an Appeal is brought just how difficult it would be. Hillary can play a lot of games with the voters, trying stupid games on the floor of DNC would be political suicide, I don’t think Terry McAuliff is that deluded. I know the kind of work it takes to bring controversial things to the floor of DPO (DNC) and the outside ground work of persuasion required, it’s too much for too unpopular a move.
Chuck Butcher
BTW, Athens is a real pretty place, or was last time I was there 30 yrs ago. I lived in Springfield, Columbus, and Marion – a long time ago.
Chuck Butcher
Oooops, never been to Wildomar, lived in Napa & San Rafael, also a long time ago.
Mwangangi
I stand by my post towards the end of the last thread. This is the type of assertion by myiq to which I was referring. Just completely off the wall.
bernarda
Your man Obama is really up on his basic knowledge.
“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”
You can find it on youtube.
Notorious P.A.T.
And yet he defeated an opponent with overwhelming advantages. Go figure.
Wilfred
Wank, wank and more wank. Yeah, it’s all true – she’s a cynical, self-serving liar who also voted to give Bush the authority needed to start another war because she believed the road to the White House was paved with the burnt corpses of dead brown-skinned people. Just remember all that when she wants to be a majority leader or a Supreme.
Hers is the kind of politics that Obama has run against from the beginning.
Chuck Butcher
Something I’d like to be real clear on, a political friend of mine is a big dog for Hillary and is a US Senator’s chief of staff. I have publicly defended him in this Primary even while stating that I think he’s backing the wrong horse. It is very possible to have differing ideas about candidates and disagree and remain collegial. He has not engaged in false and misrepresenting statements, his stance has been honorable, how does this difference in candidates lower my opinion of a man who has shown himself to be a standup guy and straight player in other dealings? Yes, he certainly did play up his candidate and minimize any perceived shortcomings, of course he did, that is what you do. That is an entirely different thing from lying and spinning – hell, he’s much better material than his candidate.
He will be an effective and enthusiastic voice for Obama, and that job will be even easier to enjoy when he hasn’t been cut up by Obama supporters. There are ways to do this that work and there are ways that flatly don’t. Never make enemies where you don’t already have them. That is what Nixon, GWB, Gingrich, DeLay and Rove never understood and look where they are. Terry McAuliff never got it either, he looked at their short term successes and saw method.
I’m a left wing gun totin’ Democrat and I don’t expect to get what I want, but I do keep pushing to tilt the table enough that we can all see across it and have something off it. Politics is generally about the art of compromise, getting an edge and moving on to another get an edge all the while keeping an eye on the people’s good – it ain’t six guns at high noon. There are openly declared enemies, you better be willing to take care of them without blinking, but they’re fewer if you don’t go about making them.
Notorious P.A.T.
Here’s a little insight into why Hillary backers feel so bitter about Obama:
Why I Won’t Vote For Obama
Apparently the people who have been yelling “iron my shirts” at Hillary are Democrats who support Obama, and thus voting for him would reward their misogyny. Ditto the TV pundits.
Also Barack is a bad guy because his “race speech”–which was inspired by angry race-based comments from his former pastor–made no explicit mention of women’s struggles. And Obama supporters are lying about Clinton’s record (maybe she didn’t vote to let Bush invade Iraq).
Oh, and Obama hasn’t denounced, renounced, pronounced, etc. every single man who has said mean things about Clinton.
QED, Obama supporters are exactly the same as Republicans, so Hillary’s people might as well vote for Republicans, because giving him the nomination will destroy women’s rights because then there will be no place in either party for women. And Barack Obama can’t wait to dismantle Social Security.
Food for thought.
Jake
I’m a little late to this party, but agree with the basic sentiment of the post. Not explaining her AUMF vote was the beginning of the end for Hillary.
Along these same lines I thought it was critical how Obama said he wanted to “end the mindset that got us into the Iraq war.” That was quite different from what everyone else was saying, and demonstrated a solid understanding of what had happened and what needed to change.
slightly_peeved
The image I get here is a boxer in the ring, throwing jabs at his opponent, laughing at how the other guy isn’t punching back.
Oh, and how silly are those white robe and black belt the other guy are wearing. And how stupid a martial art “Judo” must be, if the other guy isn’t punching back…
Jake
This is brutal, but it made me laugh.
Dennis - SGMM
Clinton’s AUMF vote and her failure to recant it, along with her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, led me to suspect that President Hillary Clinton would “pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall” just to get re-elected. Her threat to obliterate Iran confirmed my suspicion.
Belligerent Academic
I don’t want to sit around wondering when will be the next time that our President, terrified of being outmessaged and politically outmaneuvered, tacks to cover her ass and leaves good policy bleeding by the side of the road.
Quoted for truth. Hillary, for all her other virtues, has always been a political windsock; in the end, she’ll vote whichever way she thinks the wind is blowing. I’d still vote for her if it came down to a vote between her and McCain, but I’d never quite be able to trust her.
MJ
The real berg was the arrogance of thinking that she would have the nomination wrapped up after Super Tuesday and not having much in place in the states that followed. I have not read any polls that shows it was her vote on Iraq.
Fulcanelli
Some wise words and much needed procedural information from Chuck Butcher. Kudos!
For me Hillary’s Commander-In-Chief litmus test was always the Iraq war vote. Eight years of an narcissistic, authoritarian asshole who can’t or won’t admit as grave a mistake as that decision was is enough to last me for my next six lifetimes. And she follows in his footsteps at a time when the Republicans essentially are packing sunglasses and SPF200 sun block for their fourty years of exile in the political desert. Look at how many are retiring! Crikey, even Newt freakin’ Gingrich is warning his side they’re doomed in November.
This should be a watershed opportunity moment for the Dems, and what do spend our time doing? Hoping one of our own doesn’t destroy us. WTF?
Hillary Clinton essentially is threatening to suicide bomb the Convention and the Democratic Party and we don’t negotiate with terrorists.
The DNC needs to take her the fuck out, pronto. Dean, Pelosi, Reid and the Rules Committee need to take her and Bill to a remote, undisclosed location and make it known in NO uncertain terms: You are still a sitting Senator in this Party and are an embarrassment to it. If you fuck this election up you WILL NOT sit on ONE single committee, you WILL NOT pass ONE single piece of Legislation that you authored, you WILL NOT be Senate Majority Leader, you WILL NOT ever be confirmed by the Senate for any Judgeship. And NO you aren’t going to be elected President.
You WILL BE a Pariah. Radioactive. Toast. Political Toxic Waste if you buck us. You WILL support the nominee and you WILL do every thing humanly possible to persuade your supporters to do the same. Or we will use whatever above ground and backchannel methods neccessary to undermine your unlikely re-election.
You want to lie your fucking face off, campaign and act tough like a Republican? Then fall in line and walk your damn talk. Stay on message and support the Party nominee. Strongly and vocally. Like a Republican. How long do you think Frist, DeLay, Hastert and the rest of the GOP Mafia would have put up with this shit? About a nanosecond.
Karma’s a motherfucker. This meeting never happened.
Hillary, your idol and mentor Barry Goldwater would’ve hung your sorry, lying ass out to dry.
4tehlulz
They’re just twisted versions of purity trolls, but instead of claiming that the party candidate isn’t really progressive and say, voting for Nader, they’re saying that the party isn’t Clinton enough and willing to destroy the country (nevermind the party) by voting for McBush.
His Grace
Clinton’s
planwishful thinking for the past 3 months or so has been the following:To spread spread enough doubt that Obama had won so that it could be argued to the DNC and the media it was a tie. At that point, since she was the more
experiencedelectablewhatever the current rationaleestablishment candidate, she would get the nod. That’s why Michigan and Florida have helped her so much. She could insist that the results be counted as is and avoid any compromise on the matter, since if she actually settled the dispute, there would be one less argument she could make about the uncertainty of the result.She was very successful in getting her narrative out, no matter how bizarre. (e.g. only my states/voters count). Unfortunately for her, the Obama campaign did what it needed to do: Keep the pledged delegate lead wide enough so that as the primary campaign wore on it became inevitable that the math would catch up to her.
Apsaras
Hey, remember when Michelle Obama said she’d have to “Think about supporting” Clinton if she was the nominee. Wonder what the folks down TalkLeft’s way had to say about that?
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/4/124123/6787
Et cetera. Et cetera. I defended Michelle Obama then saying that it’s a bit much to expect someone who’s invested so much personal energy into a candidate to suddenly switch gears and start working for their opponent after a loss. So for the next few weeks, I’ll personally excuse most of the pouting and stamping coming from these people.
But come August? This shit’s gonna be real old by then. If Clinton supporters expect the rest of us to kiss their collective asses just so they’ll vote for a Democrat with marginally different policy positions than their first choice of a politician, then they can really go fuck themselves.
Dennis - SGMM
One sad side effect of Clinton’s bad behavior is that she may poison the well for any female candidate for years to come – just as her catastrophic lunge at health care in the 90’s poisoned the well for universal health care. Opposition to a woman president is, to my mind, just as irrational as opposition to UHC but Clinton has given the opponents of both a hook on which to hang their irrationality.
Ted
Buchanan’s on MSNBC right now thinking Hillary could win WV based on some matchup poll with McCain. I guess he can dream.
PeterJ
Regarding myiq0.8xu saying that Obama told them to fuck off, he’s just going for the republican shit, repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.
dslak
It should be obvious that challenging Hillary Clinton for the nomination of the Democratic Party is just another way of saying “fuck white people.” Is there any other way to interpret it?
cleek
don’t bother.
he’s a troll. is trolling.
Ted
Not to mention, Myiq has said that if Obama doesn’t support overhauling the primary process along with a few other election-related reforms, Myiq won’t vote for him.
Yep, that’s one of his make-or-break issues this election.
Napoleon
I don’t think that is the case at all. Al Gore made a huge mistake by thinking something similar in that he distanced himself from Bill C. from fear that people would hold the whole Monica thing against him, when it was a failure of the sort that was clearly personal in nature. I have a hard time believing that Hillary’s failure will be nothing more then the failure of her disfunctional family.
Notorious P.A.T.
And women, too. By running against a woman, Obama has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that he is one of the leading misogynists of his time.
Notorious P.A.T.
By the way, props for the title of this thread. I think Stephen Colbert would be proud.
Brachiator
This is exactly the problem. It’s not about what is good for Hillary, or what will vindicate her life and career. It’s about what is good for the party and the country.
Again, here is a Bobby Kennedy quote from the Vanity Fair article in which he responds to those who were bashing him big time for challenging a sitting president:
Senator Clinton’s antics are a cynical repudiation of the best traditions of her own party. And she is more a Nixon Woman than a Goldwater Girl. What is the practical difference between Clinton’s recent comments about her strengths among working class whites and Kevin Phillip’s explanation of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy?”
Ironically, even Bill Clinton couldn’t overcome the lingering effects of this deliberate attempt to separate voters along ethnic lines: “Although another Southern Democrat Bill Clinton was twice elected President, winning a handful of Southern states in 1992 and 1996, he won more votes outside the South and could have won without carrying any Southern state.”
But it took Senator Clinton to deliberately expand this pernicious strategy into Pennsylvania and other states by in effect declaring that like the Republicans, she will be happy to get only 10% of the black vote as long as she can appeal to the worst fears of a segment of the white vote.
Never gonna happen. Although people like to coo over how smart Senator Clinton is, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that she is strong on the Constitution or federal legal issues. Her inability to retreat from idiotic positions would make her a disaster on the court. And although she doesn’t realize it yet, she has damaged her future career in the Senate by demonstrating that she lacks even an iota of her husband’s political savvy. Her polarizing recent comments will make her toxic for some time.
This is nonsense, but I understand where some of these people are coming from. A frequent poster here (Soujourner) continually tries to steer discussions into some bizarre litmus test on misogyny.
But Freudians would no doubt say that this kind of stuff is a bunch of people who are uncomfortable with a black man, or some black people in general, refusing to acknowledge their own lack of progressive thinking, and instead reversing it into a phony belief that somehow Obama is against them, using the supposed bad behavior of his supporters as a proxy.
Notice how Michelle Obama is not warmly embraced by mainstream feminist or women’s groups, even though she is clearly an example of a strong, powerful woman.
I don’t think this is a problem at all, particularly if Obama chooses someone like Kathleen Sebelius as his VP pick. Voters would know that a successful Obama administration might effortlessly lead to the election of a woman president.
And Hillary’s problems have everything to do with her character and nothing to do with her gender.
John S.
Don’t fall for that nonsense.
His primary motivation is to create a process that would have theoretically allowed Hillary to win this primary, which will do her absolutely no good after Obama takes the nomination (despite Hillary & Co. penchant for changing the rules mid-game). It will not help Hillary in the future because her chances of running for president ever again are over.
Hillary says, “If only our primaries were like the Republicans I would have won!” and myiq says “Arf!”
Anyway, he’ll vote for Obama in November, so all his bloviating and trolling is pointless.
Ted
I doubt it. It’s not about policy for that swingnut. It’s just about Hillary.
Andrew
Those folks are going to love the repeal of Roe v Wade and war with Iran.
His Grace
One of the many hilarious aspects of this (besides the implied “Obama should build us a time-machine so we can refight our losing battle”) is that Hillary supporters are assuming that given a change in rules, Obama would fight the same campaign. One of the reasons I’ve been impressed by Obama is that he has had a clear plan for victory since before Iowa. Not only that, but Obama saw the weaknesses in Hillary’s plans and reacted accordingly.
For all her vaunted arguments in terms of electability, judging by the primary Clinton would start the GE with a massive lead, squander it before the summer was out, and then spend the rest of the fall arguing that Guam and Puerto Rico should count.
Ted
I’m practically begging them to not vote for Obama in the GE. I WANT them to demonstrate, once and for all, how it’s not AT ALL really about policy for them. It’s just about Hillary. I’d get a perverse joy out of them turning themselves into the Nader Voters of ’08. Go ahead, inflict McCain on the country. The rest of us will know precisely who to blame, and we’ll know these people don’t really care about liberal policy at all. Just a particular person. Then maybe we can go about forging an actual liberal/progressive coalition among people who actually care about those policies and ideas.
And we can get past these people who insanely see the race as between Clinton and Obama, or McCain and Obama.
Dennis - SGMM
Saw a Clinton speech this week in which she stated that if we ran Republican-style primaries she’d already be the nominee. If we were just more like Republicans in every way she’d also already be the nominee.
PK
And a few hundred thousand Iraqis too. Does that merit a mention? I guess I should not be surprised, but yet still am as to how the lives of thousands of Iraqis somehow are less than the lives of the soldiers of an an attacking army.
Dennis - SGMM
Another insight into Hillary supporters. Ellen R. Malcolm in today’s WaPo:
Ted
The unspoken attitude in this country that non-Americans are only worth 3/5 of an American is disgusting. And expressing your disgust with it will likely get you branded “Anti-American”.
Davis X. Machina
Over at Ezra Klein’s we were informed in comments that;
Wow. Just wow.
Just Some Fuckhead
A stony end for HRC
cleek
the Dem Party really shot itself in the foot with this whole “superdelegate” thing. how could they not have foreseen this scenario ? two popular candidates get to the end of the race but the only way either can get over the magic number is with the help of the unaccountable supers, and neither side will accept that that outcome is fair. it might not be the most likely situation, but it’s a completely predictable situation.
b. hussein canuckistani
The President is only responsible for American deaths. If those Iraqis hadn’t wanted to die, they shouldn’t have voted for Saddam, or should I say, The Other Hussein.
Notorious P.A.T.
I’m sure the “Hillary or no one” people would hate the repeal of Roe V Wade, but to be honest, the Iraq war doesn’t seem to bother them, so why would a war with Iran?
Assuming this election is a “women’s election”: how many women serve in the armed forces? How many more men than women would die occupying Iran for 100 years?
Todd
I never really got the impression from HRC that she thought Iraq was a fundamentally bad idea. Mostly she just seemed mad that it was bungled and that she was lied to by the Administration. The subtext always seemed to be that she would have done Iraq better, not that she wouldn’t have done it all. That might have been a good course to take for the GOP nomination, but not for the Democratic Party nomination.
Her patrons, the DLC, exist on the premise that Democrats must virtually become Republicans if we are to “win”. The fatal flaw in that hopeless and cynical premise was proven in the 2006 elections, but she continued to run well to the right of her own Party.
As an aside, since HRC has claimed that only big battleground states “matter”, if she wins WV and KY how will that “matter”?
MNPundit
In all fairness at times Syracuse was pretty fucking useful.
Personally I wish Carthage had won the Wars, they might have traded with America.
Oh well.
Delia
Yeah, like that’s going to do any good with the Hillary fanatics. Sebelius (or anybody else) would be just another gender traitor in the great war against the One True Leader.
Brachiator
Obama doesn’t have to placate all of the Hillary maenads. He only has to peel off enough of them to neutralize the hard core Hillary loyalists. There are women who want to see a woman president who are not wedded to the idea that this woman must inevitably be Hillary Clinton.