Vengeance is Hers

What happens if Hillary Clinton does somehow manage to become president? Eleanor Clift speaks for many when she says it'll be payback time:

Notables who abandoned her for Obama will get the Big Chill. "He's dead to us," a Clinton aide was quoted saying of John Kerry, who along with Ted Kennedy was turned off by the perception of race baiting that led up to the South Carolina primary. A major donor, conflicted between the two candidates and apologetic over his backing of Obama, found Hillary less than sympathetic. "Too bad for you, because I'm going to win," she snapped.

Maybe. On the other hand, current Obama endorsers include, among others, the Senators who chair the committees on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (Kennedy), Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (Dodd), Judiciary (Leahy), and Budget (Conrad). Unless Clinton is uncommonly stupid, she's not really going to try to govern the country while freezing those guys not. Nor would it make any sense to make a big push for health care reform while simultaneously freezing out the Obama-backers in SEIU.

Kerry is someone a President Clinton could plausibly afford to ignore, which is probably why he's used as the example, but it's actually pretty rare for a legislator to be noteworthy enough for his endorsement to matter and also sufficiently unimportant to ignore.

Comments

Given all we know about Hillary's healthcare fiasco, plus all the manifest ways in which she has absorbed the Dubya-style of politics, is it really implausible that she believes that she can govern even while punishing all those who dared to support Obama? Of course, it isn't plausible that she could actually govern that way, but that isn't really the issue, is it?

By the way, Obama is way too smooth to threaten people like this. But he doesn't really need to: politicians will naturally try to curry favor with more powerful politicians, whether or not that more powerful politician threatens them (or indeed promises them anything). Hence why Clinton's threats obviously stopped working once it was no longer the conventional wisdom that she would win in the end.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 9:43 AM

Right. In fact, even senior white house staff can be shown the door for over-dissing single senators. In the double fantasy world where HRC wins the primary and then the general election, these staff would be grovelling to Kennedy and co. to try to influence the healthcare bill Kennedy and co. will write.

Posted by otto | April 26, 2008 9:45 AM

"Kerry is someone a President Clinton could plausibly afford to ignore"

Not just that, but Sister Souljahing Kerry in 2009 would likely be a plus for the Clinton/Obama administration.

Being anti-Brahmin is always the correct place to be in federal politics.

-----

Get used to hearing a lot of the kind of tone Clift employs in that piece. A cynical and grudging respect for Clinton is going to be the currency of the realm for the next couple of months.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 9:49 AM

Why has Senator Clinton surrounded herself with idiots? It's OK for a candidate to say "I'm gonna win." In fact, it's normal. But to start making an enemies list at a time when one needs many, many new friends is simply insane.

Posted by JMG | April 26, 2008 9:53 AM

Yet another reason why a President Clinton will be a disaster for the country. The Dems finally have a chance to correct the horrible shit the Republicans have inflicted on the country and President Clinton is going to freeze out the Democratic leadership in Congress out of personal pique?

An absolute disaster in the making.

The Superdelegates need to step in and end this shit TODAY!

That means you, Jim Webb, my Senator. Obama campaigned for you in 2006.

Posted by calipygian | April 26, 2008 9:58 AM

idle speculation over something which is unlikely to happen.

I am now resigned to a McCain Presidency and a hundred year war thanks to Hillary.

Posted by gregor | April 26, 2008 10:00 AM

What a sociopath.

Posted by Natascha | April 26, 2008 10:07 AM

Very similar to the dismissive attitude she took during the healthcare debacle to anyone who dsagreed with her. She's learned nothing.

Posted by Heler | April 26, 2008 10:07 AM

I can pretty safely predict that if Hillary did become the nominee, she would lose the Presidency by a remarkable margin. She just won't get the kind of black turn-out that would be needed to win.

The black community would know that the SD's chose Clinton over Obama because Obama is black. Thats what the entire electability argument has always been about. I know it's easy for white liberals to ignore that, bit it's a lot harder to ignore when you have just been told that people like you aren't allowed to run for the Presidential nomination and win.

Posted by Soullite | April 26, 2008 10:12 AM

Clinton thinks she can wrest the nomination through sheer determined delusion. No wonder GWB prefers her; that's his personal style. If you don't like reality, make up your own.

Tony Blankley likes Hillary because of the way she drinks whiskey. Deep.

God help us if that base woman becomes president. More lying, more secretiveness, more pettiness, loyalty above all else...these are the last things this country needs right now.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 26, 2008 10:13 AM

If the Clintons' fantasy becomes a reality, they're need for payback will only be trumped by the depth of hatred for them within the Democratic party. Remember, we're citizens, not royalists.

Posted by Judy | April 26, 2008 10:15 AM

If she and Bill try to steal the nomination, the anger and hatred which will arise will halt any move by the superdelegates toward her.

Hillary will not be the nominee. We are citizens, not royalists.

Posted by Judy | April 26, 2008 10:17 AM

I am chuffed by your interest in the speculations of Clift. This is not the first snide piece by her on the Clintons. This is really peurile stuff of maybe. And what makes someone think Obama will never do anything like settling scores?

How much of this speculative stuff is worth reading? Will the anti-Clinton nastiness never end. Is there some mission on the Left to take a daily dig at the Clintons?

Once Obama takes on McCain will Clinton supporters and the Clintons be expected to be gracious? Will the scribblers bring on their censorious tone to scold the Clinton's into supporting Obama?

Once again Democrats and the scribblers on the Left are doing their best to do their own in. McCain is laughing it up with Charlie Black and Co.

Posted by Alan | April 26, 2008 10:20 AM

It seems like the only way Hillary knows how to do anthing is through threats and intimidation, I don't know if this person is a Clinton surrogate but it sure sounds like the Clintons are trying to scare people into supporting them.
As long as Clinton can pretend to be a plausible candidate she has some ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she wins. She also has an ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she loses.
I don't think Hillary can win in the general election as her policies are too close to McCain("we will obliterate Iran") and her mandated health care while perhaps a good idea is a political loser. Coupled with the fact that she completely failed the first time she tried to deal with the health care issue, leaves her without any way to differentiate herself from McCain. Plus, she will enspire millions of wingnuts to the polls just to vote against her. Hillary may single-handedly take the best opportunity Democrats have had to change the country in the last 50 years and turn it into an election day bay of pigs.

Posted by John Rove | April 26, 2008 10:20 AM

Soullite,

Plus she also wouldn't get the support of white moderate Republicans and independents in the suburbs, who already don't trust her and generally don't like her, and getting the nomination without actually winning it would just lower her further in their eyes.

So, I think it is actually hard to overestimate just how badly she would do in the general election if she gets the nomination without actually winning it. I think the only thing that would help her stay out of Mondale territory would be the strong desire so many people have to see the Republicans lose power, and even that might not be enough.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 10:20 AM

I am chuffed by your interest in the speculations of Clift. This is not the first snide piece by her on the Clintons. This is really peurile stuff of maybe. And what makes someone think Obama will never do anything like settling scores?

How much of this speculative stuff is worth reading? Will the anti-Clinton nastiness never end. Is there some mission on the Left to take a daily dig at the Clintons?

Once Obama takes on McCain will Clinton supporters and the Clintons be expected to be gracious? Will the scribblers bring on their censorious tone to scold the Clinton's into supporting Obama?

Once again Democrats and the scribblers on the Left are doing their best to do their own in. McCain is laughing it up with Charlie Black and Co.

Posted by Alan | April 26, 2008 10:22 AM

It seems like the only way Hillary knows how to do anthing is through threats and intimidation, I don't know if this person is a Clinton surrogate but it sure sounds like the Clintons are trying to scare people into supporting them.
As long as Clinton can pretend to be a plausible candidate she has some ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she wins. She also has an ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she loses.
I don't think Hillary can win in the general election as her policies are too close to McCain("we will obliterate Iran") and her mandated health care while perhaps a good idea is a political loser. Coupled with the fact that she completely failed the first time she tried to deal with the health care issue, leaves her without any way to differentiate herself from McCain. Plus, she will enspire millions of wingnuts to the polls just to vote against her. Hillary may single-handedly take the best opportunity Democrats have had to change the country in the last 50 years and turn it into an election day bay of pigs.

Posted by John Rove | April 26, 2008 10:23 AM

It seems like the only way Hillary knows how to do anthing is through threats and intimidation, I don't know if this person is a Clinton surrogate but it sure sounds like the Clintons are trying to scare people into supporting them.
As long as Clinton can pretend to be a plausible candidate she has some ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she wins. She also has an ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she loses.
I don't think Hillary can win in the general election as her policies are too close to McCain("we will obliterate Iran") and her mandated health care while perhaps a good idea is a political loser. Coupled with the fact that she completely failed the first time she tried to deal with the health care issue, leaves her without any way to differentiate herself from McCain. Plus, she will enspire millions of wingnuts to the polls just to vote against her. Hillary may single-handedly take the best opportunity Democrats have had to change the country in the last 50 years and turn it into an election day bay of pigs.

Posted by John Rove | April 26, 2008 10:23 AM

I am chuffed by your interest in the speculations of Clift. This is not the first snide piece by her on the Clintons. This is really peurile stuff of maybe. And what makes someone think Obama will never do anything like settling scores?

How much of this speculative stuff is worth reading? Will the anti-Clinton nastiness never end. Is there some mission on the Left to take a daily dig at the Clintons?

Once Obama takes on McCain will Clinton supporters and the Clintons be expected to be gracious? Will the scribblers bring on their censorious tone to scold the Clinton's into supporting Obama?

Once again Democrats and the scribblers on the Left are doing their best to do their own in. McCain is laughing it up with Charlie Black and Co.

Posted by Alan | April 26, 2008 10:24 AM

It seems like the only way Hillary knows how to do anthing is through threats and intimidation, I don't know if this person is a Clinton surrogate but it sure sounds like the Clintons are trying to scare people into supporting them.
As long as Clinton can pretend to be a plausible candidate she has some ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she wins. She also has an ability to scare people with the prospect of what she will do if she loses.
I don't think Hillary can win in the general election as her policies are too close to McCain("we will obliterate Iran") and her mandated health care while perhaps a good idea is a political loser. Coupled with the fact that she completely failed the first time she tried to deal with the health care issue, leaves her without any way to differentiate herself from McCain. Plus, she will enspire millions of wingnuts to the polls just to vote against her. Hillary may single-handedly take the best opportunity Democrats have had to change the country in the last 50 years and turn it into an election day bay of pigs.

Posted by John Rove | April 26, 2008 10:24 AM

After her first botch of a healthcare plan got shot down - by her own party's leaders, we've been treated to a litany of stories about how she has - as a Senator - carefully cultivated a working relationship with them, joining their prayer groups, serving them coffee, demonstrating how unarrogant she really is.

So now... which is the REAL Hillary? The vengeful anti-Kerry and anti-Richardson and anti-whoever else trashtalker? Or the ultimate wheel-greaser?

Frankly, I don't know. Both extremes seem overmuch to me.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | April 26, 2008 10:25 AM

Why has Senator Clinton surrounded herself with idiots?

Because she's an idiot.

Posted by Christmas | April 26, 2008 10:26 AM

After her first botch of a healthcare plan got shot down - by her own party's leaders, we've been treated to a litany of stories about how she has - as a Senator - carefully cultivated a working relationship with them, joining their prayer groups, serving them coffee, demonstrating how unarrogant she really is.

So now... which is the REAL Hillary? The vengeful anti-Kerry and anti-Richardson and anti-whoever else trashtalker? Or the ultimate wheel-greaser?

Frankly, I don't know. Both extremes seem overmuch to me.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | April 26, 2008 10:26 AM

When talk of Hillary's threats come around, it's always good to be reminded of Webster Hubbell's prison phone calls.

eg.

MRS. HUBBELL No. I want you to. I am the one that bears the brunt of this up here. I am the one that has to explain this to Marsha. She says you are not going to get any public support if you open Hillary up to this. Well, by ''public support'' I know exactly what she means. I'm not stupid.

MR. HUBBELL And I spent Saturday with you saying I would not do that. I will not raise those allegations that might open it up to Hillary. And you know that. I told you that.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E2DA103EF931A35756C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

And there's much more if you are interested. Truly, HRC would make a fine President or Supreme Court Justice, or, ideally, both.

Posted by otto | April 26, 2008 10:26 AM

Intelligence, Rockefeller.

Also the majority whip, Durbin.

Posted by Seth | April 26, 2008 10:27 AM

"It's OK for a candidate to say "I'm gonna win." In fact, it's normal. But to start making an enemies list at a time when one needs many, many new friends is simply insane."

An unwillingness to make any enemies whatsoever is a good chunk of what doomed the Obama bid.

If you're not against anything, you're not for anything either.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Shades of Richard Nixon are already coming out. An enemies list, the feeling that people are too stupid to appreciate her brilliance, a need to surround herself with pathologically loyal people, the perception that the black community is unfairly out to get her, a willingness to bend or break rules in order to preserve her own power. I wonder who will be her Haldeman and Ehrlichman?

Posted by Unreal Veal | April 26, 2008 10:29 AM

Intelligence, Rockefeller.

Also the majority whip, Durbin.

She does very poorly in the Senate power structure. The only bigwig backing her is Schumer. The only neutral is Reid.

It's almost as if the people who have to work with Clinton don't want her to win.

Posted by Seth | April 26, 2008 10:31 AM

The whole basis of Clift's piece is unfounded. What makes us think that the Clinton's would do anything outside of their political interest? Holding grudges is not useful. Here are just some examples:

1. Hired Dick Morris
2. Went on Rush Limbaugh the day of the Texas Primary
3. Gave unprecendented access to Scaife
4. Embrace of Gingrich late last year

Any couple that can embrace enemies like that are not going to freeze anyone out. In fact, you are probably better off being against the Clintons, as they seem to like working with enemies more. Which is why loyal Dems during the Clinton years lost race after race as Billary triangulated.

Posted by Patrick | April 26, 2008 10:35 AM

As Andrew Sullivan says, Hillary is nothing but Nixon in pantsuits. An enemies list says it all.

Posted by calipygian | April 26, 2008 10:36 AM

How much of the article is rank speculation? I find the mafiosi/Corleone reference pretty ugly. Josh over at TPM also posts it - he does not approve it outright but my guess is he is not unhappy.

Is there no limit to the personal attacks on Hillary? Has she actually prepared an Ememies List? Anyone have a direct reference? Or is our Liberal Media doing its usual stuff: praising the Maverick and putting down Democrats?

When will Obama begin to get into phase 11 of this operation? Chris Matthews is making a point of saying he is not a regular ole boy: you know, sitting in diners and chewing the fat.

Posted by bp | April 26, 2008 10:41 AM

Petey, it's just bizarre that you talk like Clinton has won this thing when she really hasn't made any progress at all.

It's really, really hard to win when you've only been able to prevent yourself from being knocked out. In those circumstances, you either knock out your opponent or you end up losing by points. Hillary can't knock out an opponent with Obama's coalition any more than Obama can knock out an opponent with Hillary's coalition. Obama will end up winning this, and Hillary will be forced to bow out gracefully sometime in June.

I know you hate reality, but thats where this is going. You can act as petulant as you want, it's not going to change anything.

Posted by Soullite | April 26, 2008 10:49 AM

"As Andrew Sullivan says..."

...universal healthcare is a bad idea, the Iraq war was a good idea, and the Hillary Clinton is Satan.

Perhaps Andrew Sullivan isn't the best pundit to be listening to.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 10:50 AM

What bp said. Apparently, its not enough to hate
Hillary for things she's actually said and done
(and there are plenty of those).
You can just assume rank speculation as fact
and use it for an endless discussion of why Hillary
is such a b**ch.

Just remember that the same playbook will be
used on Obama sooner or later. The theme there
will be, of course, why does Obama hate America?
Why can't be a regular ole boy instead of such
a hoity-toity "elitist"?

Anyway, props to Matthew for some push-back.
Atrios, of course, always calls bullshit on this
no matter which candidate is in the firing line.
So does Greenwald. I assume Josh will come
around once he gets enough reader feedback.

Posted by DJ | April 26, 2008 11:00 AM

It is really, really, really odd that some of Hillary Clinton's supporters have concluded that now it's time to speak as though their candidate is leading and will win the nomination and has in fact already won and in fact is already President.

I mean, given the fact that she's still losing. But then, the fact that she's the revolutionary leader of the true proletarian uprising, victory is inevitable.

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 11:03 AM

I think Clift is correct that for The Clinton's politics is "business and it is personal."

Look at the way Carville acts. Bill's presidency had several accomplishments (his Supreme Court and some of his other appointments). But The Clinton Boom seemed to evaporate with the collapse of the (so-called) "dot com" expansion. And Clinton continued the war on the poor by taking welfare out of the equation. Bill Clinton was a moderate Republican.

What The Clinton's do better than anyone is enrich their friends, divide the country, and dupe Democrats into thinking that the enemies of The Clinton's justify The Clinton's.

Hillary would have to get a greater percentage of the vote than Bill ever did--Bill won because of Ross Perot and never got anywhere near 50%--but if she does defeat McCain, America will see a bloodbath politically. And when her popularity sinks, she will nuke Iran.

I cannot forgive myself for voting for her as Senator. We should have sent those multimillionaire liars packing 8 years ago.

Posted by tjproudamerican | April 26, 2008 11:06 AM

Getting America back on track beginning on Day One will be Sen. Clinton's focus. In doing so she will be calling on fresh, talented people who are very capable - no time for and no need for the petty nonsense of "vengeance" or an "enemies list."

As President, Sen. Clinton will be just as effective as she is a New York senator, who worked aross party lines to deliver results for New Yorkers. With her vision and strong, specific solutions for America, she will be making real changes in leading our country forward out of the Bush abyss.

The future of America will be in excellent hands with the leadership of Hillary Clinton as President. At this moment in time, America needs Hillary Clinton.

Posted by crat3 | April 26, 2008 11:13 AM

Nixon: Southern Strategy
Hillary: Rustbelt Strategy

Posted by fahey | April 26, 2008 11:13 AM

The simple fact that her aides are on record saying that they are going to get payback just reinforces everything we already know about Hillary. She never learned any of the lessons of her healthcare fiasco.

But MY forgets one key form of payback that the Clintons could help inflict and that is helping to put the Congressional Dems back in the minority in 2010, just like they did in 1994.

Posted by Bubba | April 26, 2008 11:14 AM

What bp said. Apparently, its not enough to hate Hillary for things she's actually said and done (and there are plenty of those). You can just assume rank speculation as fact and use it for an endless discussion of why Hillary is such a b**ch.

Are you serious? I think it is perfectly acceptable to hold her accountable to what her top aides say, particularly when they use the pronoun Us

Maybe you missed that part. He is dead to us. That is what they said. That is what they are on record as saying. That is what her insiders are saying is the general attitude and outlook inside her campaign.

No one is assuming any rank speculation as fact. We are looking at a quote from one of her own people. We are looking at the actions of Carville. If you have a more reasonable explanation for why her campaign has lashed out vocally and openly against Kerry and Richardson, I would be all ears. But you cannot pretend that we are just making up facts. First explain away these actions and comments and then we can have a discussion.

Posted by Bubba | April 26, 2008 11:23 AM

Those people who control committees such as Budget and Ways and Means, Armed Services,etc can be very harmful back at Clinton if she would become President. And the Republicans would take advantage of the discord so another 4 years and nothing is done. Yes, there is a reason people believe Hillary to be divise. That is because it is true.

Posted by sonya | April 26, 2008 11:24 AM

An unwillingness to make any enemies whatsoever is a good chunk of what doomed the Obama bid.

Big surprise: the alternate reality candidate has alternate reality supporters. Clinton supporters: saying it so doesn't make it so.

David Plouffe on Feb. 6 predicted the margin of victory in Clinton's states -- Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas -- pretty much dead-on. His only mistake is he underestimated Obama's strength in Obama's states.

It's about constituencies, folks. Pennsylvania changed nothing. It's an old, poor, undereducated state -- in other words, Clinton country.

If Clinton somehow takes NC, then we can start talking about Obama in trouble -- because that's what it would require. Now, it just sounds like Petey forgot to take his antipsychotics this morning.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 26, 2008 11:26 AM

It's about revenge and loyalty. Hillary, actually the Clintons, feel they need to seek revenge to foster loyalty.
Bill has loyality by some who defected to Obama because it's hard for those Bill loyalists to feel the same about Hillary.
I have heard this is a huge problem for her. She is a revenge type of personality.
She would see them, being supers, as trying to deny her what she feels is her due and owed to her.

Posted by vwcat | April 26, 2008 11:28 AM

Here's why her threat won't work. There are these following possible outcomes:

1) Obama wins the nomination and beats McCain
2) Obama wins the nomination and loses
3) Clinton wins the nomination and beats McCain
4) Clinton wins the nomination and loses

Only under one of these four possibilities, probably the least likely one, does she become president and thus be in a position to take on her opponents within the party from a real dominant position of power. If she wins the presidency and spends her entire term pulling a Carter and fighting with Congress, especially a Democratic Congress, she will likely face a primary challenge much like Carter did. Even if she fails to, her lack of any accomplishments while being unable to do anything about Iraq or the economy will mean she won't win re-election. Congress will blame everything on her when members run for re-election. She will have to rely on either conjecture like a terrorist attack leading to a rally-around-the-flag effect like what happened for Bush or drum up stupidity overseas... like what happened for Bush. If the Republicans can find a charismatic nominee, she will be toast.

While there is no real indication she has understood the scenario that lies before her if she follows this path (her inability to learn from her past mistakes is a bit disturbing psychologically), let's pretend she does. If she wants accomplishments and wants to win re-election and the midterm election in Congress, she will need accomplishments and she will need to work with Congress to do that. As a Democrat, you will need to work with Ted Kennedy for one to accomplish just about anything because of his power and influence both within the party and with key Republicans like Hatch. She will need to work with Nancy Pelosi, who doesn't seem too fond of her and I wouldn't be surprised will vote against her (at least on the first ballot) at the Convention. I don't see Harry Reid staying on as majority leader for much longer. Either way, Clinton once again is just blowing a lot of smoke that is so transparently stupid and un-enforceable that serious people don't take what she's saying seriously.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 11:29 AM

Look at all the people she's taken revenge on in the 16 years that she's been in the public eye at the national level. I mean, there's, um, well, there's uh....

This is just a case of the usual misogyny. Any woman who's in charge or who seeks a higher level must, by definition, be a castrating b*tch. The fact that Hillary has never shown any tendency to exact revenge on anyone except in Joe Klein's fantasy doesn't fit into the normal model so it gets quickly discarded.

Hint: when Obama's the nominee, you'll see the same racism. He won't be exacting revenge though, he'll be exhibiting some sign of some sort of behavioral flaw that will fit neatly into stereotypical racist thinking. I suspect that if he works less than 25 hours a day, he'll be labeled "lazy", I think I've seen some hints of that slur, but they (i.e. the right wing -- the same people who invented Hillary the revenge artist) may come up with something else. We'll see. I don't know what it will be, but I guarantee there will be a slur and it will be repeated over and over, first by the VRWC talkers and eventually by joe Klein, et al.

Posted by J Bean | April 26, 2008 11:32 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:35 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:36 AM

yes, J Bean, when Obama's the nominee, we'll see huge amounts of racism.

If Hillary were the nominee, we'd see substantial sexism.

That doesn't mean that every criticism of Hillary is sexist. The quotes in Clift's article sound pretty vengeful to me. Is there any reason to believe Clift is lying about them?

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 26, 2008 11:36 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:37 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:37 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:37 AM

There's a political spoils system. Supporters of the winning candidate benefit. No duh!

It's a shame Obama couldn't prove his electability by winning his way down the stretch to the nomination instead of wheeling out this fertilizer.

If Obama gets smacked down again in Indiana, his nomination is going to be in trouble.

Posted by Undecided | April 26, 2008 11:38 AM

If she somehow becomes president, it'll be by the skin of the skin of her teeth, and she'll have a mobilized and unified opposition from a not-as-small-as-it-should-be Republican minority in congress. She'll need every last friend she can find, especially among senators.

But the question is, will she realize that?

The answer is no.

Posted by aleks | April 26, 2008 11:40 AM

If Obama gets smacked down again in Indiana, his nomination is going to be in trouble.

And NC means nothing? Why?

If Obama wins NC by, say, 12, and loses Indiana, a smaller state, by, say, 5, I'd say that's a pretty good evening for him.
And, by the way, that's a pretty Hillary-friendly prognostication.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 26, 2008 11:41 AM

I find it amazing that people comparing Hillary to Nixon are being accused of sexism.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 11:46 AM

If Obama wins NC by, say, 12, and loses Indiana, a smaller state, by, say, 5, I'd say that's a pretty good evening for him.

If he loses Indiana by 5 or more, it's a bad bad day for him.

I know you guys hate to hear this but Obama has a huge demographic advantage in NC Dem primary that he will not have anywhere in the fall. He's gotta sell people who aren't simply voting for somebody with the same skin color.

Posted by Undecided | April 26, 2008 11:49 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:58 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:58 AM

Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign..............

Blind loyalty, stubborn resolve, failure to plan for a viable opponent; banishment of those who don't agree with her. Sigh. This sounds painfully familiar.

I am ready for a woman POTUS, just not THAT woman.

Posted by Sally Hemings | April 26, 2008 11:58 AM

I support Obama. Our side have aides who talk to reporters and have caused us problems. The Clinton team has had the same problems. The best I can say about both Samantha and Carville is that they are outspoken and they are not put down by the criticism

Of course aides say lots of things. The point is do we want to win the Presidency? If that is the goal then McCain is our target. In practical terms I say: let Hillary do her best. Once she loses she will have no option but to surrender gracefully. At that point we need her supporters. Without a chunk of those votes we will get nowhere.

So: do we keep kicking her? Go for it if that what gives you your kicks. But get ready for another eight years of Senor Mav. And this time you won't be able to blame Scalia and Co.

Remember: Sullivan, Matt, Josh and Co are not running for anything. They can sit back and pontificate all they want. They will have zero influence in an Obama White House. Most of the top jobs are already spoken for. The task is to get Obama elected. One way is to let Clinton run out of steam. Don't kick someone when they are down.

Posted by pat | April 26, 2008 11:59 AM

Please click on the "Post" button only once. That's it. Then walk away.

If you feel you need to see your comment appear, wait for a few seconds, and then go to the main blog page.

Yes, something is weird and wrong with whatever does the comments. We understand. Please stop posting comments 40 million times in a row.

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 12:05 PM

"I know you guys hate to hear this but Obama has a huge demographic advantage in NC Dem primary that he will not have anywhere in the fall. He's gotta sell people who aren't simply voting for somebody with the same skin color.

Posted by Undecided | April 26, 2008 11:49 AM"

This is a bit odd. What about all of those states where he did win the white vote? (Hell, he won Utah of all places.) In a lot of red states (especially Midwestern and Rocky Mountain red states) he wins the white vote. Where he tends to have problems is the former Confederacy (yet he also won whites in Virginia) and Ohio. Under Clinton, the only former Confederate state we can possibly pick up will be Arkansas while likely losing much of the Midwest and all of the Rocky Mountain region. Clinton doesn't have white support as much as regional white support.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 12:14 PM

Even when her campaign is on life support, there's still plenty of time for vindictiveness. I can't say I'm surprised that healing the country would take a back seat to settling scores in a Clinton II administration. I'm glad the sun is finally setting on the Clinton era. Good riddance.

Posted by BCdem | April 26, 2008 12:26 PM

Clinton and Obama both have a huge demographic advantage in every single primary which they won't have in the fall: the vast majority of people voting are Democrats (registered or consistent Democratic voters).

I really wish people would stop being so dumb about this ... and at this point, being so dumb about this is really a matter of choice.

Posted by DTM | April 26, 2008 12:28 PM

Reality Man is exactly right, and for this reason I wish the media would stop saying that 'Obama can't connect with working-class whites'. He clearly can, only for complicated reasons, not in Ohio or Pennsylvania: look at Virginia or any of the states in the upper midwest or west. His 'blue collar' problem is restricted to a particular kind of blue collar white person in a particular region.

It's as if the media have collectively forgotten the 11 victory streak in which he won basically every demographic group (except white women) in Wisconsin and Virginia and so many other states.

Also, what does it mean to 'win working class whites?' Even in Ohio and Pennsylvania, over a third of that group voted for Obama, maybe even 40% (I don't remember the exact numbers). That is, if you took 10 people, 4 voted for Obama. Doesn't this demonstrate that Obama holds a certain appeal even to them?

Contrast this with Hillary's performance among African-Americans, which clearly show that she has NO appeal among them. Who's weaker?

Posted by CG | April 26, 2008 12:29 PM

I haven't read all the other comments here, but the concept of a President Clinton only working with some Dems and freezing out the others is ludicrous and shows that people don't understan the Presidency and if Clinton believes this BS, she doesn't understand it. In terms of legislation, which is most of what matters (esp if the Constitution comes back into vogue) the President doesn't have that much power without a consensus in Congress. If the Dems have a majority in Congress, it won't work without every vote being counted, and that means making deals. So Kerry and Kennedy are in no matter what. I don't doubt that there are people in the Clinton campaign who might float this idea, but only to inspire fear in superdelegates and keep them from turning over to Obama right now. If this means anything that's all it means.

Posted by Dave Winer | April 26, 2008 12:33 PM

Perhaps Andrew Sullivan isn't the best pundit to be listening to.

Posted by Petey | April 26, 2008 10:50 AM

True on universal health care and the Iraq War, but on the Clintons, I'd say the primaries have vindicated Sullivan. 8 months ago, I was blasting him for "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." Turns out he was right all along. It's always about them, the party and the country be damned.

By the way Petey, your favorite candidate, Hillary, strongly supported the Iraq War until she started running for president. In your own words, she "isn't the best candidate to be listening to."

Posted by BCdem | April 26, 2008 12:34 PM

If Hillary were the nominee, we'd see substantial sexism.

That doesn't mean that every criticism of Hillary is sexist. The quotes in Clift's article sound pretty vengeful to me. Is there any reason to believe Clift is lying about them?

I doubt that Clift is lying about those quotes. However, I'd say they are pretty thin evidence that Hillary is plotting revenge. She has been in the public eye for quite a long time and has shown no evidence of vengefulness so far, so I don't put much weight on the quotes of frustrated staffers (or Matt Drudge!). I merely note that these unfounded claims fit nicely into the Fatal Attraction stereotype of successful women.

When I was an engineer all of my co-workers just knew, knew, knew that I was a lesbian. I was actually just a shy, awkward, old maid who was good at math, but that didn't fit the stereotype. I bet they'd be surprised to learn that I eventually met my prince in nerdly armor. I don't know what goes on in Hillary's head or Barack's head, but I'm pretty skeptical about claims that their innermost thoughts fit neatly into negative stereotypes.

Posted by J Bean | April 26, 2008 12:38 PM

It's gotten to the point where I read the name first, and then decide if I want to read the comment. Some people have just gotten so good at spewing bullshit in every single post.

Posted by 55 | April 26, 2008 12:40 PM

Its disturbing for the Dems at this age and era to think its OK for someone like HRC to continue priding her base of "Less educated, lower income" base. That should be a problem not an advantage. What dont they know? How much is past nolstogic sentimentalities guide their votes? To continue to hum this, as a strength, while dissing the so called "elites" and young voters of all races is a worrying third world power strategy that is wrong for a democracy especially in the 21st century when the world has moved on.

Thats why she passively accepts support from racists, and bigots without a challenge but quickly stirs Wright issue (I would have left that church) rather than give leadership on the matter.
Looks like Americans are wise than that, including Rev Wright

Watch
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Posted by Jezz | April 26, 2008 12:44 PM

I can do the opposite. I know within three lines of type who I'm reading and just skip to the end to see if I was right.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 26, 2008 12:45 PM

Look at all the people she's taken revenge on in the 16 years that she's been in the public eye at the national level. I mean, there's, um, well, there's uh.... This is just a case of the usual misogyny. Any woman who's in charge or who seeks a higher level must, by definition, be a castrating b*tch. The fact that Hillary has never shown any tendency to exact revenge on anyone except in Joe Klein's fantasy doesn't fit into the normal model so it gets quickly discarded. Posted by J Bean | April 26, 2008 11:32 AM

She's never taken revenge my ass. If you want to be ignorant, be my guest, but I am not going to join you. You want some evidence? Let's just look at healthcare shall we? Because there is actually quite a good number of books on that topic. The System is a particularly good one because it is co-written by David Broder, so no one can claim he just foaming at the mouth Clinton-hater.

The choice quotes:

Yet aggressive attacks on centrist Democrats--key swing votes--were coupled by total passivity on the part of a White House that seemed unwilling or unable to make the case for health care reform. They way Jay Rockefeller put it as early as December 1993: "I'm furious right now at the White House for several reasons. There is still no organization on health care. There's nothing out there.... The White House was simply not fighting back. There wasn't any effective political operation to win the battle..."
[snip]
And the sense of betrayal was heightened among centrist Democrats as the Clinton Administration adopted a strategy of attempting to stampede rather than coopt the moderates. The worst example was the triple offensive--by the First Lady, House Committee Chair John Dingell, and the AFL-CIO--against Tennessee congressman Jim Cooper, sponsor with Senator John Breaux of an alternative centrist reform bill.
[snip]
At a union-sponsored rally in Chattanooga, a copy of the "phony" Cooper-Grandy bill was ceremoniously burned. Unless Cooper changed his tune, threatened Jim Neely, the President of the Tennessee AFL-CIO, labor would either 'sit out' the Senate election or possibly endorse Republican candidate Fred Thompson. The most damaging blow fell at a civil rights meeting in Memphis. AFSCME... distributed a flyer that claimed "Cooper's plan would punish African-Americans more than others" and is "an injustice to our community." Cooper, the flyer said, has joined forces with the "health care profiteers" to offer "a fatal dose of phony reform"' Ellen Globocar, AFSCME's political director, justified the tactics: "Cooper probably did more damage to Bill Clinton's program than anybody.... We would get calls from the DNC [asking]... 'Why are we beating up on him?" And we'd say, "Maybe it's because he's trying to kill the President's health care proposal'."

You want more? Okay, let's turn to Carl Bernstein's book, A Woman in Charge (p.304):

At a retreat for Senate Democrats, Hillary was asked by Bill Bradley, “whether the Clinton’s failure to meet their promise of submitting health care legislation to Congress in one hundred days… would make it more difficult to win passage… Perhaps some substantive changes might be required in the interest of realism, Bradley suggested. No, Hillary responded icily, there would be no changes because delay or not, the White House would ‘demonize’ members of Congress and the medical establishment who would use the interim to alter the administration’s plan or otherwise stand in its way.
[snip]
Bradley and Moynihan later said they were flabbergasted at Hillary’s words and attitude that afternoon, but each came to believe that the incident was indicative of something more revealing about her character… ‘That was it for me in terms of Hillary Clinton,’ Bradley said many years later. ‘You don’t tell members of the Senate you are going to demonize them. It was obviously so basic to who she is. The arrogance. The assumption that people with questions are enemies. The disdain. The hypocrisy.’ Lawrence O’Donnell explained the depth of Moynihan’s disappointment with the woman who would eventually replace him in the Senate. The senator ‘didn’t hold grudges, didn’t personalize such matters,’ said O’Donnell. ‘But the “demonizing” colored his perception of Hillary, and how she operated, for the rest of his life.’

Find something new to lie about.

Posted by Bubba | April 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Will the anti-Clinton nastiness never end.

Unfortunately, no. They won't ever quit dishing it out and they won't ever quit taking it. You may have noticed the Republicans have completely laid off Hillary. That won't last.

I know you guys hate to hear this but Obama has a huge demographic advantage in NC Dem primary that he will not have anywhere in the fall. He's gotta sell people who aren't simply voting for somebody with the same skin color.

This kind of stuff is despicable. Maybe the Democrats should just stop letting all those pesky Negroes vote. Even if blacks have been the most loyal of Democrats, and have voted for white candidates in every previous election, it's those white working class voters who are now the Holy Grail and they won't vote for a black candidate.

Well, in case you haven't noticed, they won't vote for a white Democrat either. They didn't vote for Mondale, Dukakis, Gore or Kerry. They are called Reagan Democrats for a reason. They are unreliable and Democrats need to move on and find other voters. If their jobs end up overseas, I guess that's their problem. That's what they vote for. They vote their resentments, toward gays, toward minorities, toward "elitists" and anyone else they don't like. They'll vote on guns and lapel pins even as their jobs are being sent to China. I grew up with these folks and I like them, but they aren't Democrats, mainly for cultural reasons.

As long as Democrats remain obssessed trying to pander to this demographic, they lose. There are other, new voters the Democrats can target: Latinos, young voters and college educated, suburban "elitists" can replace blue collar workers as solid Democrats.

Posted by Pug | April 26, 2008 12:58 PM

not an issue

Hillary Clinton will never be President
and if she continues her current path and somehow wrangles the nomination from Sen Obama - she will lose in November to John McCain

That will be due to (a) increased turn out on the republican side to vote against a CLinton (b) decreased turn out on the democratic side of african americans, new young voters and the latte liberals

This will then finally give way to a true third party - and they will have a viable candidate in 2012: new Unity party nominee: Sen Barack Obama

Posted by alison | April 26, 2008 1:23 PM

El Cid is a douche

Posted by El Cid is a douche | April 26, 2008 1:26 PM

El Cid is a douche

Posted by El Cid is a douche | April 26, 2008 1:31 PM

O noez!

Posted by El Cid | April 26, 2008 1:32 PM

I haven't read all the other comments here, but the concept of a President Clinton only working with some Dems and freezing out the others is ludicrous and shows that people don't understan the Presidency and if Clinton believes this BS, she doesn't understand it. Posted by Dave Winer | April 26, 2008 12:33 PM

You miss one key thing that the President has that Congressmen need, favors. Every Congressman needs tons of favors from any administration to give to their constituents or donors. Those favors could come in the form of appointing one of their buddies to a board, commission or what have you, getting the EPA Administrator to meet with a certain company so they could plead their case on a regulatory matter. It could come as something even more simple, like getting a constituent a picture with the President or even getting a visiting school from their home district passes for a White House tour. A Congressmember who cannot deliver these types of basic goodies to their constituents and financial backers will not stay in Congress very long. And a President holds all of those keys. So it is facetious to pretend that there are not ample opportunities for a President to exact payback through their official discretionary decisisions.

They can also exert payback through their control of the party apparatus. The Clintons have anyways controlled the money people in the Dem party, even after they left the WH. They could exert revenge by drying up donations to reelection funds. Having the DNC not help their reelection campaign. Get donors to fund a primary challenger against them. The list goes on.

Posted by Bubba | April 26, 2008 1:55 PM

Bubba, you've got me there, don't you. David Broder and Carl Bernstein are impeccable sources when it comes to evaluating Democrats, now aren't they? If you go trolling through the Regnery Press output, I bet you can find some even juicier stuff.

I know you guys hate to hear this but Obama has a huge demographic advantage in NC Dem primary

I'm glad that Bill Clinton didn't say that because that would have been "racism" you know?

Like most (non-blog reading) Democrats, I continue to think that they are both good, albeit not perfect, candidates.

Posted by J Bean | April 26, 2008 1:59 PM

Pug. perfectly put....
"As long as Democrats remain obssessed trying to pander to this demographic, they lose. There are other, new voters the Democrats can target: Latinos, young voters and college educated, suburban "elitists" can replace blue collar workers as solid Democrats.

This is the demographics described as "less educated lower income" and as long as Dem party is pandering on their "ignorance" there will be no success. Hilary can take them for granted now, rubbing in the "bitter" yet truthful comment, but come Nov, they will bring it home to McCain as long as the Dems fail to communicate and draw parallels to their situation and policies in Washington. Time to move on with a critical mass of new thinking for America to remain a leader in the 21st century

Posted by Bill | April 26, 2008 2:13 PM

A couple of doozie posts:

Ban Johnson:

"It's about constituencies, folks. Pennsylvania changed nothing. It's an old, poor, undereducated state -- in other words, Clinton country.

If Clinton somehow takes NC, then we can start talking about Obama in trouble -- because that's what it would require. Now, it just sounds like Petey forgot to take his antipsychotics this morning."

PA - poor, undereducated
NC - apparently not.

What world are you living in?

and this by Sally Hemings:

"Queen Hillary's resume': Travelgate, Whitewater, failed healthcare, poorly run campaign.............."

Whitewater? You mean where Starr spent millions of dollars to find nothing? And failed healthcare, when the Republicans shut it down in the Senate? So we are left with Travelgate and poorly run campaign (a campaign which she is almost winning). Which is it, she is a terrible candidate with a good campaign or a great candidate with a poor campaign?

And how exactly does she get the Queen label? Because she is a woman?

Posted by DR | April 26, 2008 2:15 PM

I had to laugh at this article. Since Sen. Clinton won her first race in New York, she's made a point of working with Republicans in the Senate to pass legislation. Even Newt came to admire her. I don't see her letting her personal feelings get in the way of the changes she wants to make.

Will she ask Kerry to be Secretary of State? No. Will she push for his pet projects? No. Will she go out of her way to destroy him? I highly doubt it.

Finally, as much as I admire Eleanor Clift, she's never been particularly fair to either Clinton so I think we need to take that into consideration.

Posted by msomebody | April 26, 2008 2:21 PM

I've always thought Bob Herbert was a pretty boring writer, be really had a good column this morning, pointing to the very worrisome signs of Obama's lack of "political toughness" and potential weakness as a November candidate.

Still, I have to admit that since Herbert is a notorious KKK supporter, his critique of Obama might easily be due to "racism".

In fact, on second thought, I'd suggest that we start a lobbying campaign to get the NYT to dump Herbert in favor of someone whose strong "anti-racism" is proven by his fulsome praise for Obama. Charles Murray would really be the perfect replacement...

BTW, our friend "Sally Hemings" appears to have a very serious speech-impediment. I wonder if it now runs in the Jefferson family...

Posted by RKU | April 26, 2008 2:26 PM

DR, I said "old, poor, and undereducated"
NC isn't old. Clinton seems to need the trifecta.

In fact, Pennsylvania and Ohio are so old because many of their young are moving to states such as NC and Colorado -- places with growing economies, places where Obama, not coincidentally, does well.

Posted by Ban Johnson | April 26, 2008 2:44 PM

"Not just that, but Sister Souljahing Kerry in 2009 would likely be a plus for the Clinton/Obama administration.

Being anti-Brahmin is always the correct place to be in federal politics."

These statements make 0 cents to me:
1) Kerry won the Democratic primary, and he ran a decent campaign -- the fundamentals just made it very hard for a Democrat to win that election. Personally, I'm not aware of anybody who has this intense dislike for Kerry. So, I'm not sure what benefit there would be. Further, what would either one "sister souljah" him on? Doesn't that require identifying a disagreement on fundamental values, and neither one has any fundamental disagreements with Kerry.

2) Every Senator is important. You need every vote you can get. It does not pay to make enemies of them unless you have a truly compelling reason.

3) The Sister Souljah thing needs to exit our lexicon, or at the very least, be used correctly.
"In U.S. politics, a Sister Souljah moment is a politician's public repudiation of an allegedly extremist person or group, statement, or position perceived to have some association with the politician or their party." It's not something we should be EAGER to do -- parties should seek to widen their bases and bring in disparate groups. Sometimes that includes extremists, with the hopes of tempering their views. Obviously, the party will sometimes have to do it, depending on how abhorrent the views are. But, it's just pathetic to run around LOOKING for idiots to denounce. And it's even more pathetic to identify someone like Kerry and suggest that he's an extremist o