I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I've found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different. I think if I were to try to express how I really feel about the people who've been enabling her behavior, I'd say something deeply unwise. Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll.
« Harold Ford | Main | Obama's Speech »
Clinton's Speech
03 Jun 2008 09:43 pm
Comments (283)
good lord, where is this going?
Amen. This is awful. What a hollow person.
A bridesmaid scorned.
Holy crap! She is asking for donations!
She wants to hear from us? Like, from the Democratic voters that gave Obama the nomination?
Well thank you for saying what you did then, even if you can't say everything you want to.
Deeply unwise?
Like Hillary for VP? What could be more unwise than that.
Jesus, this speech is so wrong it could have been written by Tim K and that ranting lady who tried to disrupt the DNC rules committee over the weekend.
Sigh.
McCain/Clinton?
Hillary 9/11 Hillary Hillary!
Holy shit she isn't conceding tonight. I cannot believe how right the GOP right-wing was about her. She is true evil. I am an atheist, but I'm reconsidering that now that I've seen Satan up close.
Unbelievable!
I believe in this party, and now I am going to lead you to Denver and tear it in half.
Just Unbelievable.
And then the reminder that Liberty herself is a white lady.
All of you just hate the 18 million rural, hard working, white, hard, white working people that represent more people than ever before and who unlike everyone else are tough enough to keep going, except that they won't be deciding anything tonight.
I personally like when she credited the Obama supporters for all that they have accomplished, yet omitted what they had indeed accomplished, the Democratic nomination.
I'm genuinely flabbergasted she didnt concede. I just don't get it
classless, ego, classless, pathetic!!!
Obama's speech apparently got leaked, it's on DailyKos.
As Matt would say, Suffice it to say, it's a good one. Very praising of the Clintons.
Nick said: "She is true evil. I am an atheist, but I'm reconsidering that now that I've seen Satan up close."
"You know, sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace." -- Bob Dylan
Or a woman of peace, for that matter.
That woman is a monster.
I almost vomited listening to that self-serving, ego-driven drivel.
Normally I would be more tactful in expressing my views, but I can't help it any longer. That woman is a sociopath. Andrew Sullivan is correct.
She has LOST and now she wants to "consider her options"?
Translation, she wants to see how much she can extort out of Senator Obama rather than uniting behind the person who now is the standard bearer for all the issues she professes to believe in and care for. She talks blithely of uniting the party while the crowd listening to her chants "Denver! Denver! Denver!" over and over again.
I think I will be physically ill after all. I can't write anymore.
Obama should announce his VP pick right now, so Hillary can just go away.
I recall when the lunatic fringe would dismiss the Right's manifold excoriations of HRC as rhetoric. She was, then, their gal, the iron lady-champion of the cause.
How's the attitude these days, gang?
I love her half-assed message control: keep her audience totally closed off from the news, but don't discipline them at all, so they come off as even more clueless than they would ordinarily be.
Right there with you, Matt.
Totally pisses me off.
Sounds like we're going to get a "make me the VP or I'm going to Denver" scenario.
I am having a hard time reconciling the positive feeling I have had for this woman over the years with her behavior tonight. It is shameful, but she is unashamed. And most of her supporters seem ecstatic.
I cannot believe the people chanting "Denver". We need these people to help move this country forward and they seem to hold the country hostage unless we can show some level of fealty to their bruised egos.
Unfuckingbelievable.
It may be that nobody in America has more invested in Obama winning now that Hillary Clinton does. If he loses, the bulk of the Democratic Party will point to what she said (and didn't say) tonight, and we will not forget.
More liveblogging here.
Ouch! Tom Brokaw compared Hillary to Bill Bellichek. That's low.
I have been occasionally in favor of a "unity ticket", but her speech just ended that. I am pretty damn pissed at her behavior.
If she concedes tomorrow, maybe all that goes away, but I am not pleased.
Just like school in the summertime.
Since NC/IN, this has all been about the Clinton's emotional self-indulgence. They want to cultivate the outrage of her loyal supporters. They want Obama to have to suffer as much pain as possible in order to get her to play ball. I don't even think she wants to be VP. I think she wants Obama to pay politically for not offering it to her so that she can deepen her martyrdom.
"The 18 million people who voted for me need to be respected." Seriously, Bill and Hilary stay up late at night and read Taylor Marsh and TalkLeft, and convince themselves that they owe it hilary_48_forever to keep on fighting. I hate, hate, hate them.
I'm trying to be objective and empathetic, but I think that Hillary Clinton is a poison that ruins anything she comes in contact with at this point. I didn't think that she could spoil this amazing, historic evening for me, but she's doing her best. She's been given a lot of chances now to do the honorable thing gracefully, but every time she just crosses the line a little further. At some point you have to stop extending the olive branch. There is no way in hell she should or will be Obama's VP pick.
There's no need to be mad at Clinton, she's only doing what all successful politicians do, seizing every chance to build herself up and tear down her opponent. Obama would be a fool to pick her as VP though.
Haha, she held the event in a place without phone, cable or internet access. Fitting, the only two places that don't realize this thing is over are the basement of a small college in New York, and in the mind of some dillusional Clintonistas.
Haha, she held the event in a place without phone, cable or internet access. Fitting, the only two places that don't realize this thing is over are the basement of a small college in New York, and in the mind of some dillusional Clintonistas.
Haha, she held the event in a place without phone, cable or internet access. Fitting, the only two places that don't realize this thing is over are the basement of a small college in New York, and in the mind of her and her staffers.
So instead of her legacy being the first viable female candidate, she's a sore loser. Great message to send to/about women. When we don't win we're sore losers who blame sexism. Thanks for nothing.
The sad thing is that all the charges we've been defending the Clintons from the last 16 years by the right wing have proven true: narcissistic, unscrupulous, and malevolent.
As a constituent of hers I don't think I can vote for her for anything again.
"Hillary, you ignorant..."
She said her supporters need to be respected?!?!?! Today Barack Obama became the first non white male to be a major party's nominee for the PRESIDENCY. To insinuate that he's just not good enough for Hillary Clinton and not acknowledge his VICTORY is the SINGLE greatest act of political disrespect I have ever seen. Certainly people don't always endorse their primary opponents. But the significance of this nomination is such that, I'm ashamed to have voted for her for Senate in 2006.
She'll decide what to do? Certainly not the nomination. THAT, thank GOD, is not up to her.
I love that Hillary is saying "I'm not making any decisions tonight."
I got news for you, Hill. You don't get to decide. All us democrats get to decide. And we decided already. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Everyone should go to her website and vote for "Drop Out Now". Is that an option?
I posted nice things about her all day and told people not to be too critical of her . . .
"This woman and her staff"
Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"? No? Well, then, don't say "this woman" unless you intend to oink while you're doing it.
maybe she's waiting for larry's tape to finally come out
Disgusting, self-serving speech. Obama would be insane to offer her the VP spot after that.
What a little echo chamber you people are! Obama's good friend Ted Kennedy went all the way to the convention in 1980 and tried to get the rules changed on the floor in Madison Square Garden so that pledged Carter delegates could vote for him! And he was far behind. Gary Hart, another Obama ally, was far behind and went to the convention. Jesse Jackson, another Obama ally,went all the way to the convention both times he ran.
Are all of these Obama-backers "monsters?" Or just Hillary, who has much more support than any of them did? And it's not at all clear to me that she is even going to the convention. This is June 3rd. I think this will still be resolved far sooner than that and in a matter of days she will be campaigning for Obama. But she has ample precedent from Obama's allies if she wanted to go all the way to Denver.
There's no option to tell her to drop out on her website. How undemocratic.
Chacter is destiny. Had it been possible for Hillary Clinton to act differntly, she would have. She would have run a different campaign; she probably would not be the nominee. (She also would have married a different man.) But she cannot help being what she is. After months of seeing her character on display, how can anyone be surprised at the consistency? Face it, folks: this is what she is.
I hope she goes all the way to Denver. And then keeps going, all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and keeps going, swimming out to sea. And then I hope she is eaten by sharks.
Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"? No?Of course one might very well use that phrase, eg. about McCain (eg. "that man and his staff have no clue how to organize a campaign event. That man has no idea how to give a speech.").
Moron.
Obama's good friend Ted Kennedy went all the way to the convention in 1980 and tried to get the rules changed on the floor in Madison Square Garden so that pledged Carter delegates could vote for him! And he was far behind. Gary Hart, another Obama ally, was far behind and went to the convention. Jesse Jackson, another Obama ally,went all the way to the convention both times he ran.
And those times worked out so well for the party, too. Aren't we supposed to be learning from history, not repeating it?
The convention battles Vito refers to occured in 1980, 1984, and 1988.
How did those battles work out for Kennedy, Hart, or Jackson? More importantly, how did they work out for Carter, Mondale, or Dukakis?
This has been an enlightening experience. While searching for a transcript of the Clinton speech this eve, found this blog. It seems like a group of postal workers on crank, or maybe just cranky. I wouldn't wish either of these dems on the country;both too bought in to make the needed difference. But the AMOUNT of difference noted by the commentators seems to have nada to do with any ideas, but just gender or race or amount of time they have stood in the republican firing line.
Vito, there is a difference in going to the convention, and holding a Nominee hostage simply because you don't recognize reality. If I thought she could go to the convention without being petulant, without playing the victim and claiming that the election process was somehow unfair, then I, and probably the rest of us wouldn't have a problem with her taking it to the convention.
Vito, there is a difference in going to the convention, and holding a Nominee hostage simply because you don't recognize reality. If I thought she could go to the convention without being petulant, without playing the victim and claiming that the election process was somehow unfair, then I, and probably the rest of us wouldn't have a problem with her taking it to the convention.
Vito, there is a difference in going to the convention, and holding a Nominee hostage simply because you don't recognize reality. If I thought she could go to the convention without being petulant, without playing the victim and claiming that the election process was somehow unfair, then I, and probably the rest of us wouldn't have a problem with her taking it to the convention.
Can't spell Clinton without a C, a U, an N, and a T.
Then again, I never was a good speller.
The other party has been telling you this for years and years. Good morning people, did you have a nice sleep.
What a little echo chamber you people are! Obama's good friend Ted Kennedy went all the way to the convention in 1980 and tried to get the rules changed on the floor in Madison Square Garden so that pledged Carter delegates could vote for him! And he was far behind. Gary Hart, another Obama ally, was far behind and went to the convention. Jesse Jackson, another Obama ally,went all the way to the convention both times he ran.
I was about to make the same point as 55 and Persia. never mind.
Is there a way to delete my own comments? My mouse is messed up, so unless I use the most delicate of touch, you have to read my drivel two or three times instead of once.
Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"? No? Well, then, don't say "this woman" unless you intend to oink while you're doing it.
Of course I would. See past uses of "this man" at the link.
If Barack Obama loses the election, it will be because of his own flaws as a candidate - not because anything Hillary Clinton or his advisors have said or done. What you see as evidence that the Hillary Clinton campaign is hurting Obama is the same evidence that Hillary's supporters see as evidence that she would make a much stronger general election candidate.
I would have like to have heard a true concession from Hillary tonight, and I did think that the hypocrisy displayed by Harold Ickes over the weekend was over the top.
Still, Obama has limped across the finish line because of Rev. Wright, because of his comments in San Francisco, and because of his inability, so far, to convince working class whites and Latinos that he is the best candidate for them.
The election is still his to win or lose in November. Hillary will have very little to do with the result. The people who will influence whether he wins or loses will likely be Barack Obama, John McCain, George W. Bush, and Michelle Obama - not Hillary.
So I agree, Matt. You probably shouldn't write any more about Hillary or her campaign advisors.
That was the most odious, narcissistic performance I think I've ever seen in all the many years I've been following politics. Good grief--she's set the cause of feminism and women's rights back about 50 years with her whiny refusal to face the obvious and show some grace in defeat.
It's a good thing I didn't have anything in my hands when she repeated her ridiculous meme about winning the popular vote or my TV would have been toast. I think she's told herself this lie so often, she's come to believe it.
Classless to the very end. Obama would be a fool to choose her for VP. I hope she's exiled to an ambassadorial post in Siberia. Or perhaps Hell. That's where she belongs.
Anon, that is so hugely out of line and offensive I'm speechless, and hoping you're a Republican troll Try taking a cue from Obama and showing a little class; if you're upset at Clinton for her lack of grace, don't try to outdo her.
The other party has been telling you this for years and years.
Yes, we know, and those who considered supporting her were hoping she would let this attitude loose on Republicans if she became president.
Hillary Clinton never fails to disappoint.
"Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"? No? Well, then, don't say "this woman" unless you intend to oink while you're doing it."
Hey Bloix, I'm really really really really really sick of women who are sore losers and thus are tossing around accusations of sexism like there is no tomorrow. STOP.
And if you think you're going to vote for McCain...well, I hope you enjoyed Roe V Wade for the last few decades.
Gergen, after much restraint over the past 5 months, finally lowered the boom on her, for her speech tonight. That says something. Bascially Gergen is implying that she is not in the professional class, of politics. She's an amateur.
Of course, many of us knew that long ago. I think Hillary's problem is that she has no talent. That's gotta suck.
Can people tone down the misogyny? I understand people are pissed at Hillary, but stop it with the stupid cunt and bitch remarks.
And no, clinton supporters. Just because some anonymous loser posted something dumb in a blog comment does not mean that Obama and his supporters are sexist idiots. A few are, but by far those are the exception.
Anon, that is so hugely out of line and offensive I'm speechless, and hoping you're a Republican troll Try taking a cue from Obama and showing a little class; if you're upset at Clinton for her lack of grace, don't try to outdo her.
My wife and I are Clinton supporters, but we decided months ago that we'd vote for anybody the Democrats nominated. We still feel that way, but comments like Matt's and the majority of posters in this thread are shaking our resolve. I'm not sure if it's occurred to you people that the Democrats have to come together if we're going to beat McCain. Obama knows this, but apparently his supporters don't.
at this point forget waiting to see what will happen. the scorched earth policy is in place. I certainly hope Obama makes NO concessions to the Clintons.
What's so awful is that her speech will -- rightly -- be condemned as one of the most vile acts of emotional infantalism and self-indulgence in American polical history, and that reaction will be proof, once again, to her supporters that everyone is out to get Hilary. She is going to take her angry white women and go home. Seriously, can't we just make her President of West Virgina, Kentucky and Ohio and let Obama be President of the rest?
Bloix, exactly how else would one refer to Hillary? "This human"? I commend you for putting yourself out there in what is obviously hostile territory, but you exemplify the sheer paranoia that Hillary's supporters have demonstrated regarding perceived sexism in this race, which, in addition to being obnoxious and unhelpful, obscures the real displays of sexism that have occurred during this race.
Well, imagine that, an anonymous poster makes me no longer want to pay attention to a comment section.
Thanks, BP. And fuck off, anon.
Bloix got pwn3d. Very badly. Major pwn3d-age.
Nice try though.
"We still feel that way, but comments like Matt's and the majority of posters in this thread are shaking our resolve."
I just don't understand this. You'd let people you don't know, on a blog, affect your vote for President of the United States?
Has anyone from the Obama campaign ever echoed the disdain reflected by some here?
Not to mention I find it perfectly easy to spell Clinton without an "U".
Bloix got pwn3d. Very badly. Major pwn3d-age.
Nice try though.
I'm not sure if it's occurred to you people that the Democrats have to come together if we're going to beat McCain.
I'm not one to hear aspersions of Clinton, since I rally, really really want to go back to liking her. But Stan, people here are complaining that she's not coming together to get behind the Democratic nominee.
I actually read all of these comments and Atlantic linked blogs before I had a chance to see her speech. Having just seen it, I can only conclude that all of you are high on crack. Her speech was neither negative or divisive and perfectly appropriate for the venue and the moment. Jesus, I hope Obama has more sense than to listen to the fools shouting from his side. Both from bloggers I respect and like (Yglasias, Fallows) and someone I always thought was an idiot (Andrew Sullivan) I'm hearing how this speech was vile, evil treachery. Are we looking at the same speech? Hillary Clinton WON the South Dakota primary - how is that the best time to concede? It's not a sign of Obama's strength or his supporters confidence in him that they have to resort to this kind of nastiness to describe a fairly pedestrian "victory" speech. Had Obama actually won South Dakota, it would be different and I could maybe see your point. For now, all I can say is that Obama's supporters are like a five hundred pound weight tied to his leg. This shit WILL NOT fly in the general election. You try to tar John McCain from the same tool-box you went after Clinton and Barak Obama will be "the first African American nominee for president" to lose in a fucking landslide.
I think Hillary's problem is that she has no talent.
You know, I don't necessarily think it's a fatal flaw. There are many people, myself included, who don't have a lot of natural talent and aren't off-the-charts brilliant but make up for it with brute force hard work. Hillary Clinton leveraged what she had, despite her lack of inborn, natural talent, to get really far. It just so happens she ran into someone who had all that inborn talent and charisma that she doesn't have, and he was stunning enough and came around at just the right time such that her brute force hard work couldn't overcome it. Quite honestly, I think she realizes what she's up against, but she's not ready to admit that she's up against a wall that indefatiguability and persistence can't overcome.
I used to discuss the Clintons with pride having voted for them in the 90's over 2 chump Republican candidates.....and now I view them both with the contempt that they've earned - it's hard to believe that these are the same folks. At least the wench is out of the race, although judging by the despicable campaign she ran, she'll probably spend the next few months chiseling away at Obama so he'll lose and so that she can run again in '12...
Hillary would make a great ambassador to Bosnia because she's such a hard working white person, as far as I know.
The bitter 2nd runner ups can keep debating over what Hillary & her most fervent devotees demand, and how Obama can't possibly win, and blah blah blah, while Obama shows the sort of class that might be nice to see in leadership once in a while.
"Has anyone from the Obama campaign ever echoed the disdain reflected by some here?"
Absolutely! Remember the time when they said Hillary wasn't fit to lay a wreath on the tomb of the unknown soldier? And that was only one insult of many.
I would like to point out that half the democratic voters voted for Hillary. And, 80-90% of Oboma supporters would be perfectly fine with Hillary being the nominee. Demonising Hillary really isn't the smartest move.
The Hillary haters should save their nastiness for the republicans.
How you would refer to Clinton? How about this senator? How about this candidate?
Look, I've been an Obama supporter since February, when I had to choose between him and Edwards. I voted for him in my primary and I've contributed the limit to his campaign. I don't like Clinton. I think she's dishonest and divisive andI think her campaign hurts the party. That doesn't mean that there aren't oinkers who support Obama. "This woman" is oink speak and people who use it are pigs.
Nathan,
There are NO MORE STATES in which to campaign. She has lost. Unless she is going to cajole the supers with the same imbecilic arguments she has been using, without success, to change their minds.
Or maybe we should invade Iran, quickly make it an American territory, and have her campaign there.
Please, any ideas that will make the rest of the party think that this speech was in any way appropriate.
BTW, I went on to hillaryclinton.com. They asked for a supporting message: "It's over. Go home. Take a bath."
Utterly graceless. Words fail me.
Nathan, it may be a complex idea, but when you have lost the race, you admit you lost and quit. You can quit gracefully, or poorly. The one thing you cannot do is pretend that you won. That's why her speech was crass, self-serving and foolish. Now, why don't you cash in your troll points for McDodo? Surely you've earned a hand-signed dildo for immediate rear insertion.
Yo Vito at 10:15, note that the Dems lost badly in all of the instances that you cite. Cheers!
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
If she so's about 'respect' then why don't we start with self-repsect? Seriously. She has seen the nomination - and the Oval Office - as vindication for the compromises and humiliations she's had to endure while staying with Bill. For her to come this far after this long only to lose it is incomprehensible to her. Her non-concession and hints about willing to be v.p. seem to be all about her trying to salvage something from this campaign. That, or she's decided she's just gonna pull a Sampson and pull the whole thing down around her after a grand failure.
Seriously, Bloix, if you want to tell us that the phrase "this woman" is sexist, you'll have to make an argument as to WHY that's the case. There's nothing inherently sexist about it, and I don't see how it's any different than calling someone "that man."
Nathan, it may be a complex idea, but when you have lost the race, you admit you lost and quit. You can quit gracefully, or poorly. The one thing you cannot do is pretend that you won. That's why her speech was crass, self-serving and foolish. Now, why don't you cash in your troll points for McDodo? Surely you've earned a hand-signed dildo for immediate rear insertion.
Stan:
Have you been over to Hillary's blog on her website? http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/04/012917#view_comments
Take a look and then tell me who is not coming together as a party.
The Hillary haters should save their nastiness for the republicans.
On the contrary, Hillary Clinton should save HER nastiness for the Republicans. I'm still waiting.
Yo, Vito at 10:15, note that the Dems lost badly in all of the instances that you cite. Cheers!
Matthew Yglesias is a merchant of mud.
Hillary Clinton is going to endorse Barack Obama for president, she's going to say plenty of nice things about him and she's going to work her heart out to get him elected in November. But her last speech, after a solid victory in South Dakota, wasn't about Barack Obama, it was about her campaign and her supporters. Do you think her supporters wanted to hear a concession speech and a lecture about party unity? No.
I know most people here, some in the Democratic party, and many in the media, will come out an continue to trash Hillary Clinton just as they have unrelentingly for 5 months now. Nonetheless I know that Hillary will do what is best for the party and endorse Barack Obama for president and campaign for him relentlessly over the summer, at the convention, and into the fall.
Yes we should all go to her web page and write "Drop out for the good of the country".
Nathan and Stan:
How is pointing out that Hillary Clinton LOST the primary, refused to acknowledge the historic moment by congratulating Obama on his victory, and didn't even stop to correct her supporters who were chanting "Denver" repeatedly, wrong on behalf of Obama supporters?
This woman would rather take the moment to hold Obama hostage, to try and extort the VP slot, than rally behind a man who has been MORE than patient with her.
This race has been over for months, and yet not once did he suggest she get out. Even tonight, he had nothing but complimentary things to say about her.
But she couldn't be spared the time to acknowledge one of the greatest moments in U.S. history. Instead, she is going to consider her options. This is a slap in the face.
It is not misogyny to recognize that this woman, if she truly wants what's best for the party, should have taken the moment to direct her supporters to vote for Obama and drop out. Hillary did not do what was best for the party tonight. She did not do the best thing for America tonight. She did the best thing for HER and HER ALONE tonight.
"See my 18 million supporters? Better give me the VP slot or I'm taking this to Denver."
The Hillary haters should save their nastiness for the republicans.
On the contrary, Hillary Clinton should save HER nastiness for the Republicans. I'm still waiting.
To be fair, I do recall ONE clearly sexist use of the phrase. "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."
Oh, and Tim K.: get bent.
Utterly graceless. Words fail me.
Posted by danimal
Actually, I think those two words describe her and her speech perfectly.
I'm with Bloix, the "this woman" rubbed me the wrong way too. That said I'm also with the substance of the post and most of the comments in the thread as well.
Do you think her supporters wanted to hear a concession speech and a lecture about party unity? No.
And if Obama were in the same position as Hillary, and if I were in the audience at his speech, I would not want to hear a concession speech, either, but such a speech would be necessary.
This has really been an object lesson for me about the mindset of certain political supporters: they have no idea that sometimes the candidate you fight hard for loses. One of the roles of a political candidate is to help his or her supporters understand that losing happens and guide them into a good role after the battle is lost.
Could someone please count the number of times Hillary said "I" and "Me" in her speech? It was truly pathetic.
See, Jim Crozier says "this woman" not once, but twice. And what's the implication? That a woman had the temerity to act so brazenly. A woman has the obligation to be modest and self-effacing. You would never say "this man."
Of course, it's common for pigs of all shapes and sizes to deny that they're pigs. They oink out, "I'm not an oinker." They squeal, "misogynist? Not me! How can I be a misogynist for pointing out how unwomanly that woman is?"
Just because Clinton sucks doesn't mean that Jim Crozier isn't a pig.
Her transformation into Tracy Flick is completed.
And then count the number of times Obama said "I" or "Me" in his speech. He did say "my Grandmother," but only because he couldn't say "America's Grandmother." Barrack is a class act. Hillary showed no class. She missed a great opportunity.
If Hillary is such a force in the party, how come she gave her speech (in New York City!) at a subterranean basketball court? I mean, on a Tuesday night, were Madison Square Garden and Lincoln Center unavailable? What about Central Park? Carnegie Hall? Seems like the leader of 18 million might have wanted to book a little more space.
Just sayin.
1. A classy, smart, tactful candidate doesn't fail to congratulate the winner of the Democratic primary election.
2. A classy, smart, tactful candidate doesn't imply that what happens from here on out––after she's lost––is up to her or up to the Hillary fans who go to hillaryclinton.com to offer their suggestions.
3. A classy, smart, tactful candidate eschews the word "me", especially on the eve when this party is supposed to start coming together.
4. A classy, smart, tactful candidate doesn't make the night of her opponent's indisputable victory about her.
5. A classy, smart, tactful candidate does not cater to the needs of the hundreds of people who showed up for her final rally; she instead caters to the needs of the millions of people who are watching her speech on TV and waiting for her to wake up and smell the coffee and consider the potential pleasures of something other than narcissism and family dynasty.
Seriously. Someone please explain to me how this woman (hardy-har-har! oink oink!) is such a brilliant politician. Tonight's speech was stupid on so many levels.
But yeah, maybe the supporters at her rally liked it. Yay.
Bloix:
I wasn't aware there was another woman left in the Democratic primary who had just lost the election and refused to drop out and had her supporters chanting "Denver! Denver! Denver!" without correcting them.
Sorry, I don't feel guilty at all about my statement. As soon as you point out exactly where I was factually wrong I'll be happy to apologize. But I'm not going to apologize for using "this woman" terminology.
She was wrong. If she was a man who had just lost the Democratic primary after dragging it out months longer than it needed to be, refused to drop out and endorse his opponent and then held the presumptive nominee of his party hostage with the threat of torpedoing his candidacy I'd be calling HIM out too.
It is her BEHAVIOR that I find reprehensible. The fact that she happens to be a woman behaving as she did tonight is irrelevant. It is the responsibility of ANY loser in the primary to support the winner. Otherwise, they become Joe Lieberman.
I didn't point how unwomanly she was. I pointed out how SELFISH she was tonight. But if it makes you feel better, validates you somehow, to try and paint me and EVERYONE ELSE who is aware of the reality that Hillary has LOST and was graceless in not recognizing that tonight as a sexist pig then be my guest. Won't hurt me at all.
The only pol who comes close to Hillary for sheer vileness was Humphrey. But, he never stooped to the racist, jealous, delusional sore loser sewer politics of this monster. She needs to be excised from the body politic like a canker sore. When is her next Senate campaign because she's too disgusting to be allowed to legislate ever again. Would Mitch McConnell stoop as low as her? Would anyone? Forget Jason, Freddie, the BTK killer - she is the lowest form of human sludge on the planet. She really would have mass-murdered 70,000,000 Iranians. She really would have cut out Social Security and Medicare. She really would have appointed Lieberman her SecDef and Wolfowitz her UN Ambassador. She has overstayed her welcome in the public arena. She really is Himmler in a pants suit.
Wanting the party to unify is a legitimate concern. Being dismissive of 48% of the party and whole regions of the country is not the way to get there. If HRC doesn't come around in due course people will have a legitimate beef, but really you all need to take a deep breath.
I plan to be for Obama, but I have to say that his supporters don't make it at all easy. They need to recognize, as South Dakotans have just reminded them, that not every Democrat gets goosebumps when he gives an oration and not think it's because 48% of their party is morally deficient.
Why should it matter what bloggers and pseudonymous commenters say? Why should it matter when this or that supporter of a candidate pops off? B/C people make inferences about others by observing their friends' behavior. Their friends are often less strategic in their utterances, so there is a tendency to think this is what the candidate REALLY thinks. It's not the best heuristic, and I overcome it, but it's a natural reaction.
In response to previous comments: it's not b/c Jackson and Hart went to the Convention that Mondale lost 49 states, or Dukakis did badly in November. There were conventions that ended in disunity, but that wasn't the problem for Mondale or Dukakis in 1984 and 1988. Everyone left the convention on the same team. To their credit, Jackson and Hart both campaigned for Mondale and Dukakis vigorously. There was a HUGE economic boom in 1984 that would have killed any Democrat's chances. Dukakis is a decent man, but excepting his VP choice, he ran the worst general election campaign I've ever seen. He admits as much. The one that arguably did damage was Ted Kennedy in 1980 (didn't shake Carter's hand at the Convention etc.) and Hillary will behave MUCH better than he did. This is NOT going to Denver.
Well, well. Now we know she learned nothing from her Health Care fiasco, which has been accurately described by most thoughtful persons as a self-destructive failure almost solely caused by her insistence on driving a bulldozer over anyone who wanted to collaborate with her.
Hillary is a person with almost no capacity for self-reflection. She is a dull, untalented robot.
Whenever someone says "just sayin," it usually means that the comment probably won't stand up to critical thinking. southpaw's 11:11 was no exception. It takes forever to get the permits for Central Park, Lincoln Center is smaller than the Baruch College space, and the Clinton campaign doesn't have enough cash for the Garden.
I don't see the use of the phrase "this woman" as sexist. Yes it uses a noun that indicates gender, but that is not inherently an attack based on gender. People who detect a negative connotation to Matt's use of the phrase don't have tin ears however, it is just that the attack is based not on gender but on [i]distancing[i]. The fact that Matt used a generic noun in place of Hillary's name is meant to demonstrate estrangement. That's why it is common to see the phrase "this man" often used in the same way. Context is everything, of course, and it doesn't automatically carry a negative connotation, but certainly Matt is expressing his disapproval here. People are understandably on a knife's edge when it comes to gender/race right now but I think it's important not to jump at shadows.
Gergen update: Gergen is now looking like a man who has known two people for 20 years, and now, is realizing he didn't know them at all.
I think many of us can relate to that feeling. It's a very heavy, reflective moment and I think a number of people who have known the Clintons are probably experiencing it tonight--if not over the past few months.
Listen to Gergen's voice, look at his face. He is realizing that he was wrong, about the Clintons.
Whenever someone says "just sayin," it usually means that the comment probably won't stand up to critical thinking. southpaw's 11:11 was no exception. It takes forever to get the permits for Central Park, Lincoln Center is smaller than the Baruch College space, and the Clinton campaign doesn't have enough cash for the Garden.
Er, wrong.
Here's the Washington Post:
NEW YORK -- Whatever Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says on Tuesday night, let there be no mistake about the venue: It is one of her most humble.
Several flights down inside Baruch College on Lexington Avenue in Manhattan, in the windowless, cement-block-walled athletic center home to the "mighty, mighty bearcats," hundreds of reporters began to set up for the event hours ahead of time. The gym (also known as "bearcat den") can hold perhaps a few hundred additional people -- making it extremely small for a Democratic presidential event, more on the scale of a college band venue.
Complicating the situation further is the lack of cell phone service. But at least there are basketball hoops. And lots and lots of mighty, mighty bearcat signs.
For the record, Lincoln Center's largest venue (the Metropolitan Opera House) holds 3,905 people (cf. Baruch's "few hundred"). A powerful Democrat, not to mention the state's Junior Senator, would have no trouble getting permits for anything in NYC on a couple days notice. I can't speak to the money issue, but fiscal prudence hasn't exactly been a hallmark of the Clinton campaign.
Are you seriously contending this tiny underground gym was the biggest facility she could have booked in the City?
As for Hillary's speech, who cares? It's not classy, but she's not the candidate for classy people and never was. I don't even think she wants the VP job; being a Senator suits her better. She just wants to be seen as turning it down, which would satisfy both her and her supporters.
But Vito.... dude, relax. People who read comments at places like this aren't likely to be turned off by Obama's supporters even at their most intemperate and obnoxious, and the rest of the country won't care. As long as his actual campaign and his more prominent supporters don't say stupid things, it'll be OK.
why, i hope, women will vote for obama:
Stevens - age 88
Ginsberg - age 75
Breye - age 70
Souter - age 69
kennedy - age 72
Scalia - age 72
Thomas - age 60
Alito - age 58
Roberts - age 53
i just can't believe that women who supported Hillary are willing to sacrifice their daughters and granddaughters out of spite. But then again I'm all full of hope right now.
Y'know, I was once excited by the thought of an HRC Presidency, and I think she had a shot at overcoming the various fair and unfair negatives.
But, in the back of my mind, there was that Obama article in the New Yorker back in '04 which really made an impression on me. So, when he decided to give the Presidential run a shot, and especially when he won in Iowa, I had someone I was more excited by, and who even now - Rezko, Wright, mis-parsing Michelle's quotes, and all - isn't loaded with the baggage HRC carries.
And, for a lot of people, it's just that simple. Fresher, comes across better on TV, and a good all-American story to start making up for the BS of the last two terms.
It's probably for the best. HRC gets back to building a long career in the Senate, she and Bill don't get their marriage and finances put under a microscope for years to come, and if BO isn't sworn in, I'll soon have the grim satisfaction wearing a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For ..." Just like my mom, a few decades back.
I'm pretty sure the Opera House was full of opera tonight, southpaw. I was thinking of the smaller venues
But yeah, I suppose she could have gotten something bigger. Not quite sure what the point of it would have been, though.
Not only does she fail to acknowledge Obama's victory, but he fails to acknowledge the historic moment - the first viable black nominee in our country's history.
Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"?
Isn't that what Pharaoh said about Moses?
I like cmholm's post. The rest of the comments in this thread, inclusive of Yglesias' passive-aggressive post, are largely resentful drek.
Speaking of decades ago, in a larger sense this Democratic primary season is very similar to '72 and '76, in that the presumptive front runners, the guys who had the Party machine all lined up behind them a year ahead of time, got their okoles handed to them by someone most had never heard of.
"I like cmholm's post. The rest of the comments in this thread, inclusive of Yglesias' passive-aggressive post, are largely resentful drek."
The captain of the internet has spoken.
"Sorry, I don't feel guilty at all about my statement."
God, I hate it when people say "sorry" to mean "Not sorry." It's juvenile sarcasm. Grow up, Crozier. You're not sorry, so why say you're sorry? And caps to mean "I'M SHOUTING AT YOU NOW!"? What's that about? You talk like a middle schooler.
And of course you don't feel guilty. You're a pig. Pigs never feel guilty about acting swinish.
Hey Bloix, I'm a woman, a hard-working white woman in my mid-forties who thankfully never changed my name when I got married, who was a homemaker with three children, the youngest of whom was eight months old when their father left, went back to school, is still paying off a twenty thousand dollar school loan, and who struggles to pay the bills, who's ability to pay them has been diminished further by the rising cost of gas, utilities, and groceries, and who worries how I am going to help my son pay for college in the fall. I perfectly fit Clinton's demographic.
But I'm on the same page as Jim Crozier and Andrew Sullivan: she is one sociopathic scary woman.
I don't call her a feminist. She enabled a man who was accused of rape at least once, sexual harrassment at least three times, who took advantage of his power to seduce a 22 year old intern (an offense for which many men in other professional positions would have been categorically fired),who had sex in the very home where she and her daughter were living (what kind of message does that send to her daughter?). women. She's not a feminist. So I don't consider it sexist to call her "this woman."
She is going to do everything she can to destroy Obama. So many of the politicians who support her said they were sure she would come out and give a very gracious speech. I knew better. I knew she wouldn't.
To my great disappointment and apprehension, I was right.
Zoiks! IT'S BLOIX!
Bloix, if you are dumb enough to think Clinton isn't a woman, you deserve the verbal thrashings you receive. Quit playing cheap little verbal games, and talk like an adult. Jim Crozier has every right to call HRC a woman. What did you want us to call her? Failed candidate Clinton?
I am also dumb-founded & feel like Gergen. I cannot say more than what I already posted to Hillary's site (albeit, classy & unlike Hill...)
-Signed,
Deeply saddened 51 year-old working class white WOMAN (for real!)
I am also dumb-founded & feel like Gergen. I cannot say more than what I already posted to Hillary's site (albeit, classy & unlike Hill...)
-Signed,
Deeply saddened 51 year-old working class white WOMAN (for real!)
I am also dumb-founded & feel like Gergen. I cannot say more than what I already posted to Hillary's site (albeit, classy & unlike Hill...)
-Signed,
Deeply saddened 51 year-old working class white WOMAN (for real!)
It's really strange for me. I liked Clinton a lot before the race and chose Obama over her primarily because I viewed him as less polarizing and more electable in the general. I though both candidates did some things that I disagreed with but I think on the whole up until ohio and texas the candidates both kept it more or less above the belt.
I don't think Hillary is monster. But I am really shocked that her supporters feel as though they have been robbed. I remember supporting Dean in 2004 and when he lost I thought that I simply didn't get my way, I didn't feel anything was taken away from me and I didn't resent Kerry at all even though I thought that there were much better choices.
I do resent Hillary now. I resent her and her supporters who think that this was taken from them. That she should have one. I resent the fact that she is trying to force her way onto the ticket. She has a lot of support almost exactly as many people as prefer Obama prefer Clinton. Let that speak for it self. Don't feed the hurt feelings and resentment of your supporters by treating Obama's victory like it was a mistake or an error. Treat it as legitimate and congratulate him.
I'm disappointed. I tried to find some pro-Clinton blogs and I was really unnerved by how much our views differ. Just a few months I would assume that we would have a pretty similar world view but right now we are seeing the world so differently. I really don't get it. You think Obama's victory is somehow illegitimate? Like I read know some Clinton supporters and I can't even talk to them, they seem actually insane. And they of course think I'm insane. What a mess.
"This woman" is deprecating, but not sexist. You refer to someone, this man or this woman, without using a name: that conveys disgust -- that you don't want their name on your lips.
You might as well complain about calling her "she" or "her."
Bloix:
I'm not talking like a middle schooler. I'm actually engaging you on the issues. I asked you to point out where I was wrong on the facts. Your response was to resort to more name calling.
My apparent sin in your mind was that I said "this woman" when referring to Hillary Clinton and you feel that is sexist. Oh, and you took me occasionally using caps on individual words to mean I was yelling at you. (Which isn't true. I was using caps on certain words for EMPHASIS to drive CERTAIN POINTS home.)
In response to the phrase "this woman", you've called me a pig (repeatedly), said "oink, oink", juvenile and a swine. Oh, and you told me to grow up. In my opinion, your language and responses to me are far less mature than mine are.
Tell me, do you actually think you're making Hillary Clinton look good right now? I've been nothing but polite to you and explained where I think what Hillary did was wrong. I even showed a male comparison: Joe Lieberman.
The only thing you've come back with is name calling. So let's try this one more time...
...where am I wrong on the facts? Are there special rules that I am not aware of for Hillary Clinton that exempts her for congratulating Senator Obama for being the first black man in the history of the United States to be nominated for president of one of the two major political parties? Why does she not have to bow out gracefully and support the winner of her party?
Is there some special reason why Senator Obama owes Senator Clinton ANYTHING AT ALL now that he has won? He doesn't owe her the VP slot and, I think, the harder Hillary pushes for it publicly the less chance she has of actually getting it.
What happens now if he gives in? He looks weak. Like she bullied him into it.
What Hillary did was tonight was an act of political grandstanding. She deserves to be called out for it.
To the Hillary supporter above (I forget your name) who expressed confidence that she'll get behind him and support him graciously yadayadyada . . . it's lovely that you think so highly of her, but if I were you I wouldn't hold your breath. Tonight was the night to do it, and she didn't.
I have no objection to her touting all the great stuff she has accomplished in this campaign, for recognizing her supporters, etc. But she should have had the grace to stomach her distaste and congratulate Obama and to tell her supporters she knows they'll do the right thing and support him in the fall. But she didn't. Instead she insinuated she might not get out, and solicited comments on her website to help her make her decision. What exactly do you think those comments will say? "Get out now Hillary?" And when people were booing Obama, she didn't discourage them (Obama would have), and she didn't tell them to stop chanting "Denver" either. Bottom line: she was ungracious. And I don't see how any but her most subjective supporters can see it any other way.
I'm again with Jim Crozier: Obama doesn't owe her anything. It would be DISASTEROUS for him to have her as VP. Unfortunately, she is stoking the flames of her supporters' wrath, and she'll used that as a bludgeon.
You know what I think? I think she absolutely hates it that Obama is so gracious to her. So every time he gives her her space, and tries to make good, she digs in her heels.
And God forbid she give in to public perceptions.
It's childish. She shows me more and more everyday that she is not appropriate for the presidency. She'd be more stubborn than Bush. Not a good quality, as we've all come to learn.
Ok, I'll say it again for those of you who are slow. I don't like Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton. I'm an Obama voter, contributor, and volunteer. I think Clinton ran a divisive and dishonest campaign and I think she's continuing to behave badly. None of this has to with the fact that she's a woman. Remember Imus and "you people"? Like that. I don't like Al Sharpton much either, but when Imus said "you people" to him he was being a racist. "This woman" is offensive. Drop it from your vocabulary, because if you don't, the people you're trying to talk to won't hear what you're saying, all they'll hear is "oink."
Bloix,
I love how Matt showed you that he actually has used the term "this man" repeatedly in similar situations and you totally ignored it because LA LA LA YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. Get over it. No sexist overtones whatsoever.
Bloix:
Ah.
So your response is to call me (and those like izzie who agree with my point of view) "slow" which is code for "dumb", compare those of us who disagree with you to Don Imus and then try to...give us a lecture on people skills
That's pretty audacious.
So, based on your previous post..."I think Clinton ran a divisive and dishonest campaign and I think she's continuing to behave badly." Then why did it take you until the 150th post of this thread to acknowledge that?
But you've spent maybe 1/100th of your time so far in this thread acknowledging that what Hillary did tonight was wrong, and the rest of it ripping into and calling various people sexist for referring to Hillary Clinton as...wait for it...a woman instead of some neutral gendered cyborg.
Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you are nitpicking a bit and failing to see the forest from the trees? You are losing sight of the big issue here.
Matt Yglesias and friends sure are whiny little brats. I blame your indulgent parents.
Obama won. The only people who care about what Clinton said are her supporters and professional haters. You should be celebrating Obama's historic victory, having a drink, and thinking about how you can be involved in the fall campaign.
Obama has some weaknesses as a candidate. Typically, a candidate establishes that he is the winner, and voters at the end will jump on the winning team. Obama couldn't get that at all. He lost a primary June 3rd!
He's a uniter!?! Well, I'd believe it more if he could unite the Democratic Party. The fact is that his philosophy that he's a different kind of politician has just one problem and that is the world's still the same. He is the insurgent candidate that has won. How he treats Clinton will indicate how he will treat the rest of the "establishment". Its pretty clear they don't want to be treated, how was it said earlier in this thread, oh yes, like "bitches."
But if he is dead set against chosing Hillary, choose now. If he didn't want to horse trade, he should have put here away.
Correction:
Bloix did say she thought Clinton had run a divisive and dishonest campaign earlier in the thread. I apologize for missing it.
Bloix,
So you fired off some careless hyperbole. Okay. Fine. It's the internet. We all do it. But your original charge of sexism against Yglesias remains unfounded and, particularly after his google link, ridiculous.
Chill.
I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman
Replace "woman" with "man" in your sentence, and note that it sounds a bit awkward. I don't think you're a misogynist, but I would say you are being derogatory here, in way subtle even to our modern PC-sensitized ears. Be careful.
And yeah, I agree that her behavior was unconscionable.
None of this has to with the fact that she's a woman. Remember Imus and "you people"? Like that. I don't like Al Sharpton much either, but when Imus said "you people" to him he was being a racist.
Imus was racist because a white person saying "you people" to a black person is, in fact, saying "you black people" and emphasizing a perceived difference between racial groups. "You people" is the language of a stereotype. "This woman," by contrast, is the language of specificity.
"This woman" appears on feminist websites in the following numbers:
Pandagon 572
Feministe 576
Feministing 539
HillaryClinton.com 60
Notably:
“Joe Ward”
TV :30
>>
WARD: Let me tell you a little story. My son Joel had a terrible illness. He needed a bone marrow transplant that our insurance wouldn’t cover and we couldn’t afford.
WARD: We called Senator Clinton and asked for help. Her office called the next day letting us know the hospital was going to absorb the cost of the transplant.
WARD: Now, her opponents are saying that Hillary can’t be trusted. I trusted this woman to save my son’s life. And she did.
CLINTON: I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approved this message.
I probably shouldn't write any more about this womanThe colloquial phrasing if it were a man would be "I probably shouldn't write any more about this guy." The female analogue to this phrasing would be using "gal" or "girl," instead of "guy," neither of which are considered appropriate, so he went for "woman."Replace "woman" with "man" in your sentence, and note that it sounds a bit awkward.
Sorry, I missed that you just addressed this. I'll take your word for it. But out of context it does sound a bit off.
The only pol who comes close to Hillary for sheer vileness was Humphrey.
Really? Hubert Humphrey is your all time vilest politician (or second vilest, I guess)? In 1972, Humphrey certainly stuck a shiv in McGovern, and his behavior in that year, generally, was unpleasant in the extreme.
That being said, I don't see that it was any worse than McCarthy in 1968, or Kennedy in 1980, both of whom also did considerable damage to the party's nominee. Gene McCarthy, in general, was one of the most narcissistic, self-destructive politicians we've seen in some time. He was witty, though.
And, since you seem to be suggesting Humphrey as vilest politician of any sort, not just of Democratic nominees, the thing becomes more ridiculous. Even limiting ourselves just to presidential candidates in Humphrey's own era, Richard Nixon and George Wallace both rather immediately present themselves as much much worse than Humphrey.
Would you ever in a million years say "this man and his staff"?Compare the numbers for yourself, folks.
(This has been Rhetorical Questions That Google Can Answer Ten Times In The Span Of One Second, Part 22,114.)
Obama supporters are out of control. Your candidate has clinched the nomination and gave a wonderful speech tonight that was gracious in victory and generous to the candidate he has defeated. Yet they still insist on bashing Hillary Clinton for now conceding the race immediately. She congratulated Obama and his supporters for his campaign and called him a friend. Does it matter if she waits until Friday to formally endorse? I think some people need to regain some perspective here. Hillary Clinton will endorse Barack Obama soon and will work hard to help elect him president. She has earned the right to decide when and where she is going to concede and endorse. Barack Obama said that himself: "At a time and place of her choosing" were his words. Why can't Obama's supporters be as gracious in victory as he has been tonight?
Tim K:
"Hillary Clinton will endorse Barack Obama soon and will work hard to help elect him president. She has earned the right to decide when and where she is going to concede and endorse."
No she hasn't. Hillary Clinton's speech tonight was a speech, in her own words, soliciting opinions, considering her options, etc. etc. Her own supporters were chanting for her to take her candidacy to the Denver convention and she didn't stop them. If she had given any indications whatsoever that she was ready to get behind Senator Obama with no strings attached nobody would be angry at her.
Instead though she is demanding the VP slot as the price of her 18 million voters. In other words, she won't concede until he gives her what she wants.
She LOST. The loser does not get set preconditions on the winner as a price for acknowledging their loss.
I'm not bashing Hillary out of some perverse desire to hear myself speak. I'm doing it because I'm terrified that she actually will take this battle to the convention. I'm bashing her because instead of acknowledging that Obama won, she refused to admit it. She gave the speech of someone who had just won the nomination. She was even introduced to the crowd as "the next president of the United States".
This presidential election is no longer about her, but she is making it about her. Rather than talking about what a great moment it is in American history that Senator Obama has now a better than even odds chance of being our next president, we're still talking about when OR IF she will drop out!
HE won the right to hear her concede the nomination tonight.
To me, Hillary Clinton is now attempting a public blackmailing of Senator Obama as a price for her conceding and asking her supporters to work on his behalf.
I told you so, and I'm gonna keep telling you so.
This bitch will not stop until McCain is President or she has the VP slot. One or the other.
Like this guy said:
CAMPAIGN OUTSIDER
Who'll stop the reign?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JF03Aa01.html
Money Quotes:
As others see the nomination race coming to a close, Hillary Clinton see plenty of running ahead. She's in a marathon and it's only mile 18. The finish line won't come until August, then the dash for the White House begins.
The New York senator's quest for the presidency won't end with the final two primary contests on Tuesday in South Dakota and Montana. In her victory speech after trouncing Barack Obama in the Puerto Rico primary on Sunday despite a disappointing 20% turnout, Clinton correctly asserted that neither candidate would have won the currently required 2,118 delegates to claim the nomination when the voting is over.
Obama's campaign brain trust hopes it will gain enough support from the remaining 200 uncommitted superdelegates to claim the nomination this week. "One thing about superdelegates is that they change their minds," Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane, before leaving Puerto Rico to campaign in South Dakota. But whatever Obama claims, Clinton is unlikely to go quietly into the night.
On Saturday, the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee voted to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan, but penalize them half of their votes. Clinton's side disputed awarding Obama four delegates from Michigan and has reserved the right to challenge the party ruling.
Ignore the noise about the precise number to claim the nomination. Instead remember that there are nearly three full months to go before the Democrats will officially select their nominee at the convention. Clinton will likely keep pressing her case for the nomination, no matter what the unofficial scorecards might say.
The Democrats have built a legacy of losing. Can anyone name a major policy initiative the Democrats have enacted in this century, or even a major policy initiative the party has undertaken? Their only moderate successes have been beating back Republican excesses, such as privatizing social security, while being complicit in President George W Bush's monstrous tax cuts and the disastrous war in Iraq. Only a party of losers could even worry about not trouncing John McCain or anyone else the Republicans might have run in 2008 carrying the burden of Bush's sub-30% approval rating.
The pressure is not on Clinton to get out of the race, it's on the Democrats to get her out. She has nothing to lose at this point. Unliked and far down on the senatorial pecking pole, she stakes little by pursuing the nomination all the way to the convention. She's already been dissed by the people who never liked the Clintons, and by many she and Bill counted as friends. Yes, she's carrying millions in campaign debt, but the big expenses of the primaries are nearly behind her, and she's rich. Once the campaign is over, she and Bill can go back to raising money full-time from big donors, and they've proven very good at it.
The longer Clinton stays in the race, the bigger the prize package the Democrats must offer for her surrender. She's hoping, not foolishly, that the prize will eventually be the presidential nomination. Her ace in the hole is that it's been 32 years since any Democrat has won the presidency, except for a candidate named Clinton. In a party of losers, desperate for a winner, that could prove decisive.
Jim:
To be perfectly blunt nobody MUST to do anything and nobody is owed anything. The loser doesn't have to do anything. Hillary isn't owed the vice-president, and Obama, you, or any of his supporters are not owed a concession on your terms or anything else from Hillary or any of her supporters.
If you really want to divide the party and help ensure an almost certain defeat I would continue with this attitude of entitlement.
Hillary Clinton will proceed as she sees fit.
All of you Sarkozy supporters are being mean to Segolene! Meanies!
I'm obsessed with a losing candidate from another country because she promised to start sending American mail-order brides up to the Yukon! I'm gonna lose me me virginity!
Bloix and all the men and women in argument with her: "Woman" is pretty much as safe a term as anyone can use to describe a woman. I guess he could have said "this person" but honestly, that sounds silly. Would you have liked "this female" or "this lady" better? Let's try to get over PC talk and accept that the Matt was using a rhetorical flourish that worked. On the other hand - if you haven't walked in a woman's shoes, don't be too quick to accuse one of us of being oversensitive. Because, fellows, some of you are being undersensitive. And it gets a little uncomfortable being on the receiving end of it, in a female-solidarity way.
My letter to Hillary, posted to her web site:
Dear Hillary,
You spent much of your campaign championing the little people -- people who were hurting, who could not afford the soaring prices of food, gas, and health care. And yet there you are, on television, asking these same hurting people for money. How unseemly that a multimillionaire like you would ask for money from the very people who need it most. I used to admire you and your husband, but no longer. This is the last straw. Your selfish behavior, your unseemly grubbing for money, your ongoing divisiveness is the last thing we need in a President. You do not deserve any American's vote. Please leave the stage and do whatever you can to restore some semblance of your dignity.
Sincerely,
Jim Crozier: following politics since 2007
The loser always asks for something.
2004: Edwards VP
1992: Tsongas deficit reduction/fiscal policy
Brown speech at the convention
1988: Jackson VP
1984: Hart VP
1980: Kennedy nomination
1976: unclear but Mondale was VP to unite party
1972: stop McGovern coalition at the convention
1968: McCarthy sat out fall campaign his supporters demanded changes in the nomination process
Tim K:
Um...actually, that's kind of how elections work. The winner goes onwards. The loser drops out and can try again in the next election.
It was obvious at the end of February that Hillary no longer had any mathematical chance of winning. And yet, this Democratic primary got dragged out for three extra months because Hillary had somehow "earned" the right to stay in. In the meantime, McCain ran unopposed for the last couple of months.
I suppose you're right that you or any other Hillary supporter doesn't HAVE to see reason and get geared up for the general election. If Hillary wants to "proceed as she sees fit" and continue to be selfish and drag this out, then sure she can do that.
If she actually cares about what's best for the party, or for the country for that matter, then she'll drop out and do so quickly.
Hillary Clinton and her supporters are, or at least claim to be, adults. They aren't bombs that need to be defused or bought off by offers of a VP slot or a Supreme Court appointment or whatever. They can either nurse their hurt feelings and demand that this go to the convention...
...or they can recognize that if they actually care about the ISSUES that Hillary claims to care about and not just about Hillary herself, then they'll switch to the candidate that is almost identical to her on the issues and start supporting Senator Obama.
It is comments like yours that will ensure almost certain defeat. My attitude isn't the issue. I'm just a complete jerk with a keyboard and a broadband connection. This isn't about waiting for you or Hillary to get over your hurt feelings about losing. It happened. I wanted Howard Dean to win in 2004. It didn't happen.
I got over it. Quickly.
My overall point is this:
No...Hillary doesn't HAVE to concede at a time and place that would be best for Obama. Neither do her supporters. But if they want to WIN, then they should not be dragging this out and making Obama beg and ask nicely or anything that makes him look weak for that matter. They should be doing their best to enhance HIM and not Senator Clinton by implying that she'll acknowledge his win when she's damn well good and ready.
Jim:
You, and people like you, are not being at all helpful by any stretch of the imagination.
Senator Clinton will endorse Obama at a time of her choosing and will work to unify the Democratic party so as to elect Barack Obama President.
insightful:
The Democrats have such a great track record of WINNING those elections that you cite don't they?
Bill Clinton won in 1992 in large part because Ross Perot split the Republican vote with Bob Dole. Jimmy Carter won in 1977, in large part because people were angry with Ford pardoning Nixon.
Other than that, Democrats don't exactly have a great track record in presidential elections. Could it be because the loser always "demands" something from the winner?
Nice try on the "following politics since 2007" insinuation.
Obama could publicly adopted the Edwards/Clinton healthcare plan tomorrow and this would all be over.
Richard Steven Hack:
Contra Bloix, I don't believe "this woman" is sexist. "This bitch," on the other hand...
Tim K:
Yep. And that's why she is being selfish. She's insisting on doing it at a time, a place, and under conditions that she chooses. And we don't even have any assurances that she'll do that! She may yet take it to the Denver convention.
That's not what's good for the party. That's good for Senator Clinton. If you feel I'm being insensitive or a jerk for pointing that out, well, I guess that's up to you. I can't control how you react. Anyone other than Senator Clinton who lost eleven contests in a row in February would have been declared dead and chased out. She's been treated more than respectfully. So no, I don't think I owe her the right to concede at a time and a place of her choosing. That's my personal opinion and obviously the Obama campaign, as evidenced by his speech tonight, disagrees with me on that. He's a better person than I am in a lot of ways...or maybe he's just more pragmatic.
In my opinion, you, and people like you, who are enabling her destructive behavior rather than simply calling her on it are the ones who are not being helpful in my opinion.
Obama clinched it tonight. She didn't even acknowledge that fact. This isn't all about Hillary supporters. Unifying goes both ways, and tonight's speech by Hillary was a slap in the face to Obama supporters. This night was supposed to be all about him...and she made it about her.
I'm amazed that you can't even see why that makes people like me upset.
I thought her speech was brilliant, actually, if you consider it for what it was, an attempt at getting her supporters to effectively draft/whine her way onto the ticket. She's basically holding a gun to Obama's head and saying that if he doesn't pick her, her voters will see it as a snub and stay home/vote for McCain/write her name in on the ballot. If as little as 10% of them do so, it's a real problem for him. And if she conceded and given him a ringing endorsement, her supporters might've all moved on and gone to Obama. By not conceding and making this b.s. argument that she won the popular vote, she holds on to the diehards and has some leverage. Now she can say, "pick me and I can get you Arkansas, West Virginia, Ohio, maybe Florida, put PA way out of McCain's reach, etc."
TimK, for a Canadian troll, with no Democratic affiliation, you have a mouth that is excessively large in comparison to your brain. Kindly shut the fuck up and let Democrats discuss Democratic issues. You may also fuck yourself, if you are capable of such exertion.
BINGO Asher!
I agree 100%. That's the problem I had with the speech. It was blackmail. Pure and simple. "Add me to the VP ticket or I'll take my 18 million people and leave."
That's what I think Tim K is missing. Doing that, holding the entire Democratic party hostage, is selfish. Period. There is no other word for it.
If she really wanted to do what was best for the party then she wouldn't be trying to pull that crap. She'd wouldn't have fired her supporters up by implying that Obama didn't really win, that if she wasn't on the ticket all her voters were "invisible" and about to be disenfranchised.
If she really wanted to do what was best for the party, she wouldn't be holding a gun to Obama's head.
Kindly shut the fuck up
That really demonstrates your large brain. Classy.
I'm really confused. To indicate that someone is a woman is an insult? Is being a woman something I should be ashamed of?
The only way it's insulting to me is if it's said with a sneer, and considering that in this case it was written, not spoken, then then only way to "hear" it as an insult is to WANT to hear it as an insult.
When people insist on being insulted, it's impossible not to accomodate them, no matter how hard you walk on eggshells. No matter what your intention was, they'll convince themselves that you've been as crude, rude, or lewd as they need you to be. It's impossible to convince them otherwise. Best to ignore them.
This is actually kind of a microcosm of the whole Clinton campaign at this point. The only thing they have left, besides an increasingly unseemly sense of entitlement, is the claim of a moral victory. The only reason they lost is because the other side was [mean, rude, sexist, tricksy, insert your favorite here]. And there will be nothing the Obama campaign can do to change that, so it's best to ignore all the posturing and and positioning.
Oh, and to insist on a VP slot? Very, VERY bad in so many ways. It makes Obama look weak whether she accepts or not. (And you DO NOT decline that kind of offer. Ever.) She has incredibly high negatives with people who would otherwise stay home but would come out just to vote against her. It might not change the outcome of the Presidential race but it will screw over down-ticket Democrats.
She'd be stupid to accept, because she'd be giving up true power as a Senator to work for a President who would have both the good reason and the ability to send her overseas on a four-year good will tour of East Nowherestan. If she declines the offer, it makes him look weak and gives her nothing but the massage of a bruised ego.
It's a temper tantrum that hurts the Democrats and strengthens the Republicans. She needs to cut it out.
Well Jim since you are obviously aware of past nomination contests why did you write this nonsense: The loser does not get set preconditions on the winner as a price for acknowledging their loss. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by insinuating you were uninformed instead of disingenuous.
I agree with you that Democrats do not have a great track record winning any presidential contest since 1968 irregardless of early concessions (2000 & 2004) or convention fights (1968 & 1980).
Could it be because the loser always "demands" something from the winner? At least now you are admitting the comments I originally replied to contained an enormous fallacy. The answer is no.
With the exception of 1968, the demands and actions of the losing candidates and more importantly their supporters has had minimal impact on the general election results. Ted Kennedy didn't sink Carter, Khomeini did.
Bodes well for Obama not giving in to Clinton if he wants to take that chance. If he wants to play it safe, Obama should find out what it will take to either get Clinton on board or out of the way.
I've never seen such a bunch of sore winners in all my life.
All of this is just plain incindiary, including MY's statement, "Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll."
Did it ever occur to any of you that this type of excessive hype might actually drive some of the millions of Democratic voters who voted for Hillary Clinton, away from Obama and into the McCain camp?
In terms of "John McCain's most effective allies", some people around here need to take a good long look in the mirror. You just might hear that mirror muttering, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I've never seen such a bunch of sore winners in all my life.
All of this is just plain incindiary, including MY's statement, "Suffice it to say, that for quite a while now all of John McCain's most effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll."
Did it ever occur to any of you that this type of excessive hype might actually drive some of the millions of Democratic voters who voted for Hillary Clinton, away from Obama and into the McCain camp?
In terms of "John McCain's most effective allies", some people around here need to take a good long look in the mirror. You just might hear that mirror muttering, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Well, Jim, I'm a Republican so I don't see what's so terrible about holding the Democratic Party hostage, but that's definitely what she's doing. It reminded me, actually, very much of Nixon's Checkers speech. As you may know or recall, Nixon was the vice-presidential nominee at the time and got caught in some kind of minor financial scandal; most of the Party establishment was calling for him to get off the ticket. So he went on prime-time TV and said some maudlin crap about his dog and his wife's respectable Republican cloth coat, and at the end told everyone to write in to the RNC and say whether they wanted him to stay on the ticket or get off, promising that he would "abide by" whatever decision the people made. Millions telegraphed in and said they wanted him to stay, and Ike was forced to keep him. Similarly, Hillary with the "go on my website and tell me what to do" nonsense. I think if Obama did pick her, she'd totally undermine his administration, so is it selfish, yes, but it's very smart politics. She's now put him in a position where tabbing anyone other than her will look like a snub.
insightful:
I'm not conceding the point entirely. I admit that you have a point that it is customary that the winner offer a bone to the loser, but I don't think you are completely correct that the losers consistently demanded it...and certainly not always publicly. And definitely not on the very night he clinched the nomination.
I believe in the examples you cited...the losers had actually dropped out and conceded the election rather than setting public preconditions and threats out.
Let's take your most recent example: 2004.
Remind me, at what point, John Edwards had his surrogates publicly go on television and demand that Senator Kerry make him his VP? He campaigned for it, but by working on Senator Kerry's behalf behind the scenes, not by holding a gun to his head on the night Senator Kerry clinched the nomination.
In most of the examples you cite, the winner was allowed to actually be the winner and look gracious and set things out on their terms and on their conditions. Senator Clinton has done the complete opposite. She hasn't even conceded defeat yet. She has yet to actually officially agree that he is the Democratic nominee.
Maybe there was a quid pro quo in previous elections, but it was impossible to prove. You can speculate, as you did in your earlier post, but you can't really prove it. Kennedy supporters tried it with Johnson and their reward was a public slapdown: Johnson publicly declared a list of people he WOULDN'T consider for the VP slot...including Kennedy.
If you want to talk appeasement, that is what Obama would be doing if he caved and gave Clinton the spot now. At this point adding Clinton onto the ticket would diminish Obama.
Did it ever occur to any of you that this type of excessive hype might actually drive some of the millions of Democratic voters who voted for Hillary Clinton, away from Obama and into the McCain camp?I/i>
Did it ever occur to any of the Clinton supporters that the continued disparragement of the Obama victories as "states that don't really count" and the undercounting of voters in caucus states (the only way that "popular vote" thing works - people in some states count more than others), and the disingenuous constant changing of the metrics for winning, and, most of all, the PRAISE FOR MCCAIN AT OBAMA'S EXPENSE - - did it ever occur to them that this is what's pushing the excessive vitriol on the part of the Obama supporters?
I'd say that the official leadership of the Obama campaign has been more than gracious in winning, and the fact that the behavior of Obama's supporters is getting less and less gracious has a lot to do with the leadership of Senator Clinton.
I wanted Dean to win in 2004. I worked for Dean, in Meetups and community meetings, crashed in sleeping bags in local supporters' basements, exhausted myself in bitterly cold conditions in Iowa, manned phone banks, and ... you know what? When the Kerry people celebrated, it was bitterly disappointing but I sucked it up and acted like an adult. Because - and this is key - BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HOWARD DEAN DID. With a lot of class and dignity, and with cheerful support of the winner, I might add. I was able to deal with the disappointment because I had a leader who showed me how.
Howard Dean got a raw deal from the press (I was there for the "scream" and yes, dammit, it was distorted by the TV mikes), but Dean turned around and energetically campaigned for Kerry. He was a grown-up about it because he put his country above his own personal ambitions and ego.
I think maybe the problem is that Senator Clinton has never lost an election. Bill Clinton lost at least one, as governor, but she herself had never been personally rejected by the voters. And people had been telling her (and she had been telling herself) for so long that she was a shoo-in for the nomination, that maybe she really doesn't know how to stop.
But then, that's all this country needs - another four years of someone who can't distinguish their personal ambitions from what's good for the country, who is so sunken into entitlement delusions that they refuse to admit reality.
About the Kennedy exclusion:
Fact check me on that one. It's late and I'm tired and I'm not sure that's correct. My apologies if it is wrong.
"About the Kennedy exclusion:
Fact check me on that one. It's late and I'm tired and I'm not sure that's correct. My apologies if it is wrong."
I think I AM wrong about that part of the post. Strike it please. Sorry about that. The rest of the point I think still stands though.
Suffice it to say (in MY's words), that bashing the Clintons will accomplish nothing other than alienating Democratic voters. If one's goal is Obama becoming President of the United States, then one should refrain from alienating Democratic voters. If on the other hand, one considers Clinton-bashing more important than whether Obama wins or loses, then one shouldn't whine about the very thing that they, themselves are doing; namely, operating as "effective allies" of McCain.
It's quite simple. Long winded arguments won't change it.
Chiming in here:
I, for one, would love to start the reconciliation process with Clinton supporters.
But we can't do that until she concedes.
Also, we just saw what happened at the RBC, and we're scared that's gonna happen in Denver.
Speaking, if I may, for Obama supporters, I think that's why we're all so upset tonight.
justme:
I see you're taking your cues from your candidate: "Be very, VERY nice to us or we'll go vote for McCain."
Sorry, I'm not buying it. If you actually care about the issues that Clinton professes to care about, then you're not going to vote for John McCain.
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton and inches apart on the actual substantive issues. Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are miles and miles apart. So if you want to complain that some folks on an online blog somewhere who are in no way at all affiliated with the Obama campaign are saying mean things about Senator Clinton, and use that as your excuse to go vote for Senator McCain who believes the polar opposite of what Senator Clinton believes, then that's your right.
You'll be cutting off your nose to spite your face though. Pretty silly way to choose which candidate you're going to support.
Long winded arguments won't change that.
Very restrained. We can fill in the blanks.
[i]I, for one, would love to start the reconciliation process with Clinton supporters.
But we can't do that until she concedes.[/i]
Of course you can do that [start the reconciliation process] right now, or whenever you want. There's nothing stopping you but yourself. At some point, truly great people find a way to rise above their own hurt feelings, insults, or whatever. In the final analysis, that's what makes them truly great.
Ugh.
Alright all. Bedtime for me. My last post directed at justme wasn't the most nicely worded thing I ever typed up. I believe every word of it, but I could have phrased it a bit more tactfully and nicely, which is an indication that it's time for me to retire.
To all Hillary supporters everywhere:
I hope that you do YOUR part to help unify the party. That involves doing more than just saying "appease us by making Hillary the VP choice or we walk".
This bridge goes both ways. Senator Obama cannot, and should not, be blackmailed like that and still be a strong, effective candidate to represent the issues that you care about. If you really want liberal, progressive issues to win out in November then you need to recognize that he is now your candidate and anything that you do that weakens him (like holding a metaphorical gun to his head) weakens your chances of getting a progressive president in the White House in 2009.
We hope you come and join us.
"Of course you can do that [start the reconciliation process] right now, or whenever you want. There's nothing stopping you but yourself. At some point, truly great people find a way to rise above their own hurt feelings, insults, or whatever. In the final analysis, that's what makes them truly great.
Posted by justme | June 4, 2008 3:51 AM"
Obama is doing that. Expecting to find great men of history in comment threads, however, is silly.
Believe me, you've got absolutely no idea just how sick and fed up I am with what George Bush has done to my country.
But winning's going to take a lot of coalition building. I think the people here have the capabilities of accomplishing a lot along those lines.
My words also could have been kinder, and I'm sorry they weren't. I just don't want to see things fall apart.
scythia
you and other Obama supporters are upset because you are emotionally fragile and support a campaign that purposefully endeavors to keep you in an agitated state.
welcome to the left's version of the perpetual outrage machine now with a donation button.
Tim K –
There is a difference between conceding a race and endorsing your former opponent. I’m actually ok with HRC taking some time, (a few days, not a few weeks mind you), to cope with her loss before she endorses Obama.
But to not concede the race tonight showed a legendary lack of class. When it is clear that you have lost a democratic election, you concede. End of story. There is no excuse for doing anything different. You don’t “decide what to do”. I don’t care if she won South Dakota by 80 points, if it wouldn’t have changed the overall primary race, she had to concede.
I still don’t mean to be rude but it’s actually getting to the point where I can not tell the difference between you and the various posters who parody you.
When the primaries started, I a "Hispanic" voter, supported Obama but was open about Hillary winning the contest. Today, after such a dirty and eye-opening Clinton campaign that has been marked by repeated incidents of outright lying, cheating and strong arming their way into the nomination, I can't in good conscience support her. In my opinion, when someone acts like that it is not just because they got carried away by the heat of the moment or because they were "tired", it is because that is a way of life for them. I would not think Obama to be perfect, but at least he has conducted himself in an honorable way as a true leader should. That is a big part of the reason why I support Obama.
What really strikes me, is that even as Obama declares victory, it seems like Hillary and her supporters are willing to do anything and come up with all sorts or false arguments to have their way, in spite of the fact that OBAMA WON! Tonight, reality has caught up with the Clinton campaign. I agree that for some time now, willingly or not, Hillary Clinton has been McCain's and the Republicans best ally!
A great victory for Obama and the U.S. no doubt, but the very tricky part is still ahead. The election can't be won without those who voted for Clinton.
"you and other Obama supporters are upset because you are emotionally fragile and support a campaign that purposefully endeavors to keep you in an agitated state.
welcome to the left's version of the perpetual outrage machine now with a donation button."
Well, I am not upset - but I will admit I will be happier once she has suspended her campaign. I'm all for a joint ticket, personally (have called for it a couple of times on my site, and again today prior to her mentioning she was up for it).
But it will be an impossible sell if it is perceived to be forced. Core Obama supporters will dig in and fight it, and it won't unite a thing.
Once Clinton has suspended her campaign I think a lot more Obama supporters will be open to ideas. The Clinton campaign has not told its people to put down their guns, and the Obama folks have learned from experience that until that happens theirs are loaded and ready to go.
The part that the Clinton supporters will have to get used to is that Hillary will have to be granted a VP slot by Obama's decision on his own terms. The very largest reason why Obama supporters, and indeed neutral party members would oppose a Clinton VP slot would be if it diminished him - she will have to be a Vice-President, not a Co-President.
That will be tough on some Clinton supporters, and maybe too much for Clinton herself to manage.
But thats what will be needed, as the war is over - its not time for diplomacy. That means Hillary calling a ceasefire to the troops in the form of ending her campaign so that can take place.
Er, *is* time for diplomacy. Too early.
Main point is this isn't a situation where two generals ride out into the center of the field to negotiate the terms of the surrender.
That works in warfare, but not in a potential partnership.
For that you have to concede the fight - then forge the relationship.
you and other Obama supporters are upset because you are emotionally fragile and support a campaign that purposefully endeavors to keep you in an agitated state. welcome to the left's version of the perpetual outrage machine now with a donation button.
Hilarious. Did my post go through? I was trying so hard to keep from commenting on this thread. I thought I hit cancel in time.
FWIW, I agree with suomynona's assessment 100%.
Of course you can do that [start the reconciliation process] right now, or whenever you want. There's nothing stopping you but yourself.
I agree with that statement as well. Actually, the same thought occurred to me right after I wrote my comment. I headed over to one of the pro-Hillary sites. There's not a lot of hatred over there, mostly just disappointment and grief.
I introduced myself, said some nice things (earned, mostly), and showed some empathy--which wasn't hard to do; who among us hasn't lost a campaign before?
I hope it made them feel better. It made me feel better. I didn't get flamed.
It's funny how we turn politicians into vehicles for our hopes and desires for this country so cautiously, but get so invested that in the end we confuse the symbol for the substantive change we wanted to see.
A lot of people (and by that I mean me) are enjoying watching the Republicans fall apart, noting how the only thing propping up support for right-wing policies is the Republican brand. But it could happen to us. I think it happened to HRC supporters in this campaign, and had the tables been turned, who knows how we would have reacted?
Charity, empathy, patience. No more hate for today. Too much work yet to be done.
If Obama wanted a graceful exit from his rival, then he should not have instructed his allies to hijack the Michigan delegation--taking all the "undecided vote" for himself, plus four delegates that she won. That was pretty tawdry, and completely unnecessary since he was going to win anyhow.
.
If Obama wanted a graceful exit from his rival, then he should not have instructed his allies to hijack the Michigan delegation--taking all the "undecided vote" for himself, plus four delegates that she won. That was pretty tawdry, and completely unnecessary since he was going to win anyhow.
.
Never seen such un-graciousness. Absolutely refused to let Obama have his moment. After supposedly spending her whole life dedicated to the Black cause, this woman did not even make an historical reference...Unbelievable, truly.
Just goes to show how shelfish and self-obsessed this person is. I've always thought so. But I didn't realize how calculated until the DNC fiasco.
I hope all you "followers" realize that she has carefully, and intentionally whipped you into a feverish bunch of pawns to her cause (At the cost of untity, mind you..). Realizing she had no other leverage left, you were all her only option, and so she intends to use you for what power-play she sees fit. That's disgusting to me
I cringe when she says "I am here for you." Believe me...You are there for HER, and her agenda Can't you see that? What a calculating person!
What is wrong with you people? We should be reaching out to Clinton supporters, not kicking them while they're down.
"Never seen such un-graciousness. Absolutely refused to let Obama have his moment. After supposedly spending her whole life dedicated to the Black cause, this woman did not even make an historical reference...Unbelievable, truly."
That's another reason so many people are pissed off. This is a huge day in American history no matter what happens in November. We have actually reached the point a minority, an African-American in particular, is heading a major party ticket. The fact that she wants to make such a historic day all about her is just sad. The fact that she is begging her "white working class" base, people who need to save their money for necessities to survive, to send her multimillion-dollar self a bunch of money to continue a campaign in which no further votes will be cast just adds to the tawdriness of it. At least we know that Obama's win will be how American history textbooks will remember today and Clinton's total lack of class will be just a footnote.
Good Lord! Can NO ONE rid us of this awful woman?
"What is wrong with you people? We should be reaching out to Clinton supporters, not kicking them while they're down.
Posted by Peter H | June 4, 2008 8:15 AM"
But we also have to distinguish between Clinton supporters and Clinton herself. Clinton supporters, both elite superdelegates and ordinary voters, have been willing to debate, be engaged and vote for the party's eventual nominee who we now know is Obama. However, Clinton and her campaign is intentionally stoking her supporters' emotions to make them feel robbed and disenfranchised based on arguments they likely don't believe themselves. That trickles down and must be combated. This publius post at Obsidian Wings captures this well:
"The problem, though, is that this public theater has concrete, harmful effects. Clinton supporters at large (roughly 50% of the Democratic electorate) are not privy to internal deliberations. All they see is Ickes claiming that delegates were stolen — all they see is angry Clinton supporters protesting. And when they see these things, they quite understandably get mad. I would be mad too if I felt my preferred candidate had been cheated out of the nomination.
What we have here is a Dangerous Liaisons problem. There, the Glenn Close and John Malkovich characters attempted to play chess with human emotions. They said and did things that weren’t sincere as part of their larger “game.” But, they underestimated their ability to control these powerful emotions, once unleashed. And those uncontrollable emotions came back and bit them both."
Ironically, if she did somehow get the nomination now, that would be a poisoned chalice because she would have no real chance of winning because Obama supporters, especially African-American voters, would be justified in feeling the nomination was stolen. This would likely depress Democratic turnout in November.
Re purplehawk's comment "Good Lord! Can NO ONE rid us of this awful woman? "
--------------
As Nancy Pelosi has noted, Obama can't campaign with a VP who has stated in the past the McCain is qualified to be Commander in Chief -- and Obama is not. The Republicans would replay that statement over and over.
Nancy also noted that Democrats can't expect the voters to believe we can run the country if we can't even run our own primary process.
So Cinder blocks are being tied around Hillary's ankles even as we speak. Her blackmail attempt WILL fail.
From http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/dean-pelosi-rei.html
---------
"With the final primary concluded barely hours before, top Democratic Party leaders in Washington early this morning ratcheted up the pressure to force all remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make their choice of candidate known by Friday -- and thus end the now hopeless, one-time frontrunning campaign of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.
The joint statement was obviously pre-planned and timed for issue shortly after Clinton refused to concede the presidential nomination's victory to Barack Obama, who's gained sufficient delegates to clinch the party's nomination.
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, chairman of the Democratic Governors Assn., issued the brief statement for unity just minutes ago:
"The voters have spoken," they said, adding later, "Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election. To that end, we are urging all remaining uncommitted super delegates to make their decisions known by Friday of this week, so that our party can stand united."
The carefully-worded statement, which does not urge the superdelegates to go one way or the other, is a clear step to force an end to the effort by Clinton, who said Tuesday she would take a few days to consider her options and protect the voices of the nearly 18 million voters who cast ballots for her in recent months. Her hand is now being forced by the Friday deadline.
The move is also a sly one politically, since it leaves Obama free of any appearance of forcing Clinton to quit and, thus, alienating her millions of supporters that the Illinois senator will badly need in the general election come Nov. 4. "
What are you all crying about. You libs fed this beast and her master for the last 16 years and now you complain they are running around the house chewing up the furniture.
Right wingers are laughing at you idiots.
She's got a lot more votes than previous candidates when the horse trading began. She also has more committed support having been whipped, but still winning all the way to the end.
But Obama's a new kind of candidate, which apparently means he doesn't negogiate. What it really means is he views her as what is wrong with Washington and wants none of her. Its very unclear to me what he thinks is wrong with her. But he does. I guess lobbyists and Iraq. Because they agree on everything else. Clearly, Obama treated Edwards shabbily and he had a hard time endorsing even though he was disposed to. He's treating her the same way. The person that needs the attitude adjustment is Obama and if going to Denver gets it done, I support Hillary. Beaten, but not defeated. Those Appalachians (otherwise known as anyone between Pennsylania and Texas) are tough!
LA Times front page is now reporting how Democratic leaders will shut down the Hillary campaign by Friday:
New York Times and Washington Post seem to be sleeping in late. Along with our slacker Matthew.
Matt's instinct is dead on. Radio silence on Clinton. Just give her the silent treatment.
Hillary's supporters are very loyal and actually don't care what you think. Why would we expect any positive comments from you now. All the shilling, whining and propoganda from the press didn't suppress her support. He barely limped over the finish line. Unity is more than just words.
Re rureddy's comment " Unity is more than just words"
------
You obviously didn't the memo --see my post above at 8:44 am. The Democratic leaders are closing down the Hillary farce.
Obama already has 230+ more delegates than Hillary. The declarations by the remaining uncommitted should raise that to around 300 by Friday -- at which point Hillary will start looking more delusional than Ralph Nader.
Gotta admit, am a HRC supporter, but I didn't really like the speech and thought it should have been toned down.
That said, last night's was not the place to literally concede, that crowd was simply not ready for that--this 'coming together' is going to have to be a bit less jarring for her die-hards than doing it last night would have been.
Also, as the saying goes, sometimes the answer to a question is the most obvious; "what does Hillary want?"
Money, desperately, and this was a final pitch to get her supporters to go online and give one last time. It may be a bit crass, but there is some major debt there.
I am having a hard time reconciling the positive feeling I have had for this woman over the years with her behavior tonight. It is shameful, but she is unashamed. And most of her supporters seem ecstatic.
I cannot believe the people chanting "Denver". We need these people to help move this country forward and they seem to hold the country hostage unless we can show some level of fealty to their bruised egos.
Unfuckingbelievable.
Talk about your severe cases of cognitive dissonance. Hello! This is exactly the same woman we've been watching with horror and dread for 15 years now. Bubba and she were made for each other - it's always been all about them. Damn the party, damn the country.
Totallyfuckingbelievable.
"This woman" is oink speak and people who use it are pigs.
Posted by Bloix | June 3, 2008 10:46 PM
Grow up.
It's just hard to believe all the Democrats turning on Hillary after all she's done for you and the nation. And what a negative view of Hillary you hold when you should be praising her for her tenacity, her will to power, her determination to propagate the Clinton brand. For years, you Democrats said these were good things. Are they not now? How did things go so wrong?
I, for one, hope Hillary never gives up. I hope she takes her struggle to be your candidate right to the convention, fighting it out on the floor of the hall with arguments against Obama directed to the delegates, with fists if need be, small arms if necessary, or maybe nukes. Hillary is entitled to the Democratic nomination! Can't you see that? Don't you see how true this has always been?
If the convention persists in its error of nominating Obama, Hillary should forge on undaunted, breaking off a chunk of the Democrats to wage her own parallel campaign for president, fighting the good fight, the She Dems against the He Dems. Let the fight continue all the way to the election!
If by some miracle, Obama is elected, Hillary's struggle need not end then. She should set up a rebel Oval Office in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, maybe next to the crazy anti-nuclear protestors who have been camped there for a decade. Hillary and Co-President Bill can have press conferences every morning criticizing the Obama administration, providing the nation with that needed change and hope only They can provide, and incidently supplying them with the media oxygen they need to live.
And when Obama's term of office ends, Hillary should write her memoirs of being the shadow president, telling of all her wonderful achievements, the ones that never happenned but could have, had only the Democrats not doomed America with their rush to elect Obama, instead of her, their Rightful Choice.
But then, that's just my opinion as an Evil Republican who's loving this mad struggle, yet who still feels your pain.
You guys just don't get it do you? Half of the people who voted, voted for Hillary. She killed Obama in many recent primaries, even though the press had already declared the nomination for Obama. The people who were actually voting didn't care - they still voted for her. Are all those people closet republicans, as I've seen written on many pro-O blogs? If so, then I guess you will all be happy to have us vote for McCain, since you don't want any Hillary riffraff sullying your hero's campaign.
Tantor | June 4, 2008 10:00 AM,
I'm 26 and my oldest (and oddest) friendship is with a Republican I met in Jr High. We spent the mid and late 90s arguing about the Clintons, and yes, a few weeks ago I did call to admit he'd been right all along.
You guys just don't get it do you? Half of the people who voted, voted for Hillary. She killed Obama in many recent primaries, even though the press had already declared the nomination for Obama. The people who were actually voting didn't care - they still voted for her. Are all those people closet republicans, as I've seen written on many pro-O blogs? If so, then I guess you will all be happy to have us vote for McCain, since you don't want any Hillary riffraff sullying your hero's campaign.
You guys just don't get it do you? Half of the people who voted, voted for Hillary. She killed Obama in many recent primaries, even though the press had already declared the nomination for Obama. The people who were actually voting didn't care - they still voted for her. Are all those people closet republicans, as I've seen written on many pro-O blogs? If so, then I guess you will all be happy to have us vote for McCain, since you don't want any Hillary riffraff sullying your hero's campaign.
Posted by varda | June 4, 2008 10:09 AM
Absolutely. Vote for McCain, the candidate whose policies are diametrically opposed to Hillary's, because he's with her on the only thing that counts, loathing Obama. And then he can return the favor by elevating his discourse on Chelsea, by which I mean he'll talk about her looks and parentage in the State of The Union.
She ran a horrible campaign but she would be ready on Day 1? Lost to a lightweight first term nobody. She just ain't that smart. And people just don't like her. Maybe we are finally rid of the grifters.
"You guys just don't get it do you? Half of the people who voted, voted for Hillary. She killed Obama in many recent primaries, even though the press had already declared the nomination for Obama. The people who were actually voting didn't care - they still voted for her. Are all those people closet republicans, as I've seen written on many pro-O blogs? If so, then I guess you will all be happy to have us vote for McCain, since you don't want any Hillary riffraff sullying your hero's campaign.
Posted by varda | June 4, 2008 10:09 AM"
Do you have an actual argument or are you just venting? I don't have problems with people who voted for Clinton once it became impossible for her to catch up. I have a problem with Clinton. And how she is behaving without class, especially on a huge day in American history. If someone is killing you before halftime and you reduce their lead by the fourth quarter doesn't mean you get to win or go into overtime if the other team still has more points. I was sad when my Patriots lost the Super Bowl this year, but I would have been annoyed if Brady had started demanding that the game go into overtime because it was close. I would never vote for Bush yet have pro-Bush friends. What's your point?
Absolutely. Vote for McCain, the candidate whose policies are diametrically opposed to Hillary's, because he's with her on the only thing that counts, loathing Obama. And then he can return the favor by elevating his discourse on Chelsea, by which I mean he'll talk about her looks and parentage in the State of The Union.
See, that's what I'm talking about. Yelling at people who consider themselves aggrieved is not exactly a smart way to bring them back in the fold.
Does anyone who reads the Atlantic also read the columns and books of Dr. Thomas Sowell?
I think Dr. Sowell captured the negative essence of the 2008 presidential election when he wrote: "John McCain cannot say anything to make me vote for John McCain. Only Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton can make me vote for John McCain."
I make no argument here for McCain. But has anyone taken any Obama speech and analyzed the content as opposed to the rhetoric? Just on tax policy, it is Basic Economics (one of Sowell's towering books) that if you increasingly tax anything, you get less of it. If you subsidize it, you get more of it.
The bottom line about Obama is what Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, California, "There's no there, there." Or, as Winston Churchill said of a political rival, "He can pack less ideas into more words than anyone else I know."
There is one real issue in this race, and it is national security. Despite all the media focus on things they hope will get a Democrat elected, and away from all the things they think would favor a Republican, the American people are going to vote, as they should, for the candidate who has his eyes on the number 1 issue - the continued safety and security of the USA.
An Iranian Bomb means a Hezbola Bomb - and Hezbola bomb means we lose one US city (or more) before we actually get serious about defending ourselves again.
Hold your nose and vote for McCain. That's what I am doing.
There is one real issue in this race, and it is national security. Despite all the media focus on things they hope will get a Democrat elected, and away from all the things they think would favor a Republican, the American people are going to vote, as they should, for the candidate who has his eyes on the number 1 issue - the continued safety and security of the USA.
An Iranian Bomb means a Hezbola Bomb - and Hezbola bomb means we lose one US city (or more) before we actually get serious about defending ourselves again.
Hold your nose and vote for McCain. That's what I am doing.
Peter H:
The road to unification needs to be a two-way street.
Hillary supporters don't get to hold Obama supporters hostage with a very unlikely threat to vote for McCain, and then have us come over and beg them nicely for their votes. What rubs me raw is the sense of entitlement that you and other Hillary supporters seem to have that mandates that we kiss your hind parts in exchange for you voting for the only candidate remaining who shares your views on the issues.
Or, as Hillary supporter Varda put it:
"If so, then I guess you will all be happy to have us vote for McCain, since you don't want any Hillary riffraff sullying your hero's campaign."
The problem with this threat is that it doesn't strike me at all....ADULT. It comes across as a child throwing a temper tantrum. It's been said time and time again, and McCain's speech last night showed it beautifully, that McCain's views on the issues and Clinton's views on the issues are POLAR OPPOSITES!
It is not "yelling" at Hillary supporters to tell them that their candidate lost and they need to do THEIR part to unite the party, which begins with stopping their attempts to trash our "hero" Obama and threatening to take their votes and either go home or over to John McCain.
You want us to be nice to you, then meet us halfway. You can start by congratulating Obama on a historic accomplishment of WINNING THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION! Heck, YOUR hero Hillary Clinton can start by acknowledging that teensy, tiny little fact.
I'm not going to get on my hands and knees and beg you people to vote for the only candidate left in the race that has the same views and supports the same issues as your first choice candidate did. You can either decide to be adults and go with the only remaining option who believes what Hillary Clinton believes...or you can spend the next five months demanding that Obama supporters show you "the respect Hillary Clinton has earned" and beg you for your votes.
(And again I stress, my views are my own. My "hero" is obviously taken a different tact. He's apparently more than willing to beg for your votes and treat Hillary with kid gloves and let her concede where and when and IF she wants. He's being magnaminous in victory and I dearly wish that I had the same restraint. His patience is truly impressive.)
I am a republican. My great fear since the Pa and Ohio primaries was that Hillary would pull it out. You have nonimated the person that gives us the best chance to keep the White House. Hillary can perform one last service to us--and the country--by continuing to wound Obama.
If Obama wanted a graceful exit from his rival, then he should not have instructed his allies to hijack the Michigan delegation--taking all the "undecided vote" for himself, plus four delegates that she won. That was pretty tawdry, and completely unnecessary since he was going to win anyhow.
Please, she would not have exited gracefully if he conceded four more delegates in the Michigan compromise. On the contrary, she would have claimed that since delegates were split based on the vote the Michigan popular vote should also be included. The split was not based on the illegitimate January primary, it was a compromise which gave Clinton a slight edge because Obama was already way ahead, and cleaning up the mess was more important than a few delegates. If he needed the delegates he would not have agreed to a compromise that gave him fewer delegates because there wasn't a legitimate vote in Michigan and therefore he didn't "lose" Michigan. Contratry to your assertion, Obama didn't steal delegates, he gave some to her because he had the votes for the 50-50 split. The fact that the compromise from the split happened to be similar to the Clinton-Uncommitted split is irrelevant because the former was not premised on the latter. What I found tawdry was Ickes claiming Obama was stealing delegates she won in the primary when the fact is that the delegates were not determined by the primary (not to mention that the unsanctioned one-candidate primary results only became sacrosanct to him when it benefited Clinton). And that was done with the full knowledge that Obama was going to win anyhow.
Ha ha ha. Hillary's walk off the plank is already starting this morning. Play us a dirge, ol' one eye!
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_rdp
--------------
"Obama spoke as two fellow senators swung behind him after remaining neutral throughout his long nominating battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"We have a nominee of our party," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. "The nominee of our party is obviously Barack Obama." Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado also announced his endorsement.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who had been a Clinton supporter, announced he was backing Obama."
Ha ha ha. Hillary's walk off the plank is already starting this morning. Play us a dirge, ol' one eye!
From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_rdp
--------------
"Obama spoke as two fellow senators swung behind him after remaining neutral throughout his long nominating battle with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"We have a nominee of our party," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa. "The nominee of our party is obviously Barack Obama." Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado also announced his endorsement.
Former Vice President Walter Mondale, who had been a Clinton supporter, announced he was backing Obama."
"Does anyone who reads the Atlantic also read the columns and books of Dr. Thomas Sowell?"
Why should we? Speaking as a cracker, I've come to be very suspicious of black intellectuals who seemingly exist to mouth and pen reassuring plattitudes to whitey's like me.
Mike
"There is one real issue in this race, and it is national security. Despite all the media focus on things they hope will get a Democrat elected, and away from all the things they think would favor a Republican, the American people are going to vote, as they should, for the candidate who has his eyes on the number 1 issue - the continued safety and security of the USA.
An Iranian Bomb means a Hezbola Bomb - and Hezbola bomb means we lose one US city (or more) before we actually get serious about defending ourselves again.
Hold your nose and vote for McCain. That's what I am doing.
Posted by Brad | June 4, 2008 11:14 AM"
Not a single idea in your post connects to any other idea. Not only is Iran not pursuing nuclear weapons at this point, McCain has no real plan that has the sufficient logistical basis to stop an Iranian bomb from coming to fruition if there was such an active program. In fact, his rhetoric just makes it more likely Iranians will see a nuclear deterrent as necessary for their security. In addition, the name of the terrorist group in question is "Hezbollah" or "Hizbullah."
Sorry folks, but remember Al Gore was a sore loser, John Kerry was a sore loser, Hillary is now a sore loser. I believe Obama will be a sore loser.
Notice a pattern here!
Remember that Gary himself is a loser, so you might want to take his previous scintillating burst of genius with a grain of salt.
It's simply a shame that Clinton could have taken the occasion of her loss to instigate a momentous shift from the angst that many of her supporters currently feel towards Obama to the support that Clinton supporters should invariably offer Obama given their particularly similar policy positions. That Clinton did not start this process in earnest (and in fact seems to want to play on this Party division to force Obama's hand regarding the VP spot) is a indictment of Clinton's brazen choice of power over Party, every time. I'm ashamed that I once spoke well of her to so many of my friends and acquaintances....
"the people who've been enabling her behavior"? We are called VOTERS, you piece of crap. And we have every right to be heard,especially when more of us support Hillary than support Obama. You're just pissed that the Clintons won't bow to the bloggers and pundits.
As a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter I am delighted she did not concede. She is all the things Obama is not: experienced, intellectually astute, has foreign policy and problem-solving experience and is a tough campaigner who could easily defeat Sen. McCain come November.
The media has handled Sen. Obama with kid gloves while Sen. Obama's campaign trashed Sen. Clinton along with the media. The misogyny that exists is the U.S. is chilling. Bashing women is seen as ok but asking tough questions of Sen. Obama such as: have you ever run anything? even a Mom and Pop grocery store? is off limits.
Sen. Obama has such a thin resume it is scary to think of this man, should he win, sitting in the White House on Day One with, what, a how-to-be-Commander-In-Chief book?
Those who believe in the hollow rhetoric of Sen. Obama will eventually have "buyers remorse" and wish Sen. Clinton had won the White House. It is bound to happen. I can't believe anyone would vote for this lightweight. Come November I won't. As a lifelong Democrat, it will be the first time ever I haven't voted in a national election.
berger wrote
The sad thing is that all the charges we've been defending the Clintons from the last 16 years by the right wing have proven true: narcissistic, unscrupulous, and malevolent. As a constituent of hers I don't think I can vote for her for anything again.
Makes you wonder what else they're right about and you're wrong about, doesn't it?
Wow.
I used to be an occasional member of this community, but it has gotten to the point where visiting this comment section is like going to the zoo. Interesting to look at, but I'm glad for the sturdy bars.
Dan:
"We are called VOTERS, you piece of crap."
Thanks for a picture perfect example of how Hillary supporters need to do their part to unify the party. Calling an Obama supporter who wants a Democratic presidency but fundamentally disagrees with you on which Democrat and how the best way to get a Democrat in the Oval Office a "piece of crap" is a great way of highlighting my overall point.
Tell me...in the last three months what has changed?
Three months ago, Obama was roughly 130 pledged delegates ahead of Clinton. Everyone who could do math looked at the remaining states and knew that margin was going to be, more or less, what his final margin of victory was going to be. Now, three months of grueling, divisive campaigning later, you have Hillary supporters calling Obama supporters "pieces of crap", "sexist", "juvenile", etc. with absolutely no self-reflection that maybe the previous three months might, just might, have been better spent eliminating these negative feelings and uniting behind the candidate that had gathered up a lead that was too large to be overcome.
Heck, even last night would not have been too late for Hillary Clinton to bow out gracefully. Most Obama supporters would have applauded and cheered her for running a good race and doing an amazing amount to advance the cause of feminism in this country if she had used last night to thank her supporters, and then ask them to back the person who has now OFFICIALLY WON WITH ALL VOTES COUNTED.
I'm not pissed that Hillary won't bow to the bloggers and pundits. I'm pissed she won't bow to the reality of the fact that she has lost and it is time that she ask her supporters, like you, to stop calling fellow Democrats pieces of crap and to get you to start voting for, in her mind, the next best alternative: Senator Obama.
You can demonize Senator Obama, the media, the bloggers, the pundits, sexism in American society...whatever and whomever you want. That's absolutely your right. You can call me a piece of crap if it makes you feel better.
But it won't change the fact that she lost, and the graceless manner in which she lost tonight - not even acknowledging the historic moment where a black man became the Democratic nominee for president and instead using the moment to publicly threaten and blackmail him, made it LESS likely that Hillary will be offered the VP slot as a consolation prize.
If believing that makes me a piece of crap in your mind...then I guess you'll always consider me a piece of crap because by continuing to support her, now that all the votes are counted and everything, rather than getting behind the party nominee who now has the best chance of achieving the results you want on the issues is childish.
Just like calling me a piece of crap is childish.
Sue
Unless you want Obama to win, you must vote for McCain in November. BO has gamed the system, and sitting it out helps his cause.
Re Dan's comment "We are called VOTERS, you piece of crap"
-------------
Call yourself anything you wish. Just don't call yourself a Democrat.
Don't underestimate Hillary. She knows that Barack Hussein Obama is going to screw up, probably many times before the Aug. convention. The Right Reverend Wright will have more to say. And Michelle loves to spout off too, doesn't she?
He will look terrible in the debates. Barack has this annoying way of answering questions, saying a few words, halting, saying a few words, halting. He sounds like the messiah when he is giving a speech but he is awful one on one.
Plus this guy isn't very smart. The Democrats messed up big on this one.
RW
Don't underestimate Hillary. She knows that Barack Hussein Obama is going to screw up, probably many times before the Aug. convention. The Right Reverend Wright will have more to say. And Michelle loves to spout off too, doesn't she?
He will look terrible in the debates. Barack has this annoying way of answering questions, saying a few words, halting, saying a few words, halting. He sounds like the messiah when he is giving a speech but he is awful one on one.
Plus this guy isn't very smart. The Democrats messed up big on this one.
RW
As a Hillary supporter, you can call me (or her) anything you want. You can call me stupid, racist, part of the past, divisive, anything you want to call me. Just don't call me for my vote after you've done it.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if we agree on the issues if you've just plain made me dislike you. I don't have a problem with Obama on the issues but I can't stand his supporters. I admit he won the nomination and respect his accomplishment, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him. Obama is the one with the most to lose now. If his supporters keep trashing half of the voting base, they'll get their fondest wish, a chance to continue to trash Hillary.
As a Hillary supporter, you can call me (or her) anything you want. You can call me stupid, racist, part of the past, divisive, anything you want to call me. Just don't call me for my vote after you've done it.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if we agree on the issues if you've just plain made me dislike you. I don't have a problem with Obama on the issues but I can't stand his supporters. I admit he won the nomination and respect his accomplishment, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him. Obama is the one with the most to lose now. If his supporters keep trashing half of the voting base, they'll get their fondest wish, a chance to continue to trash Hillary.
As a Hillary supporter, you can call me (or her) anything you want. You can call me stupid, racist, part of the past, divisive, anything you want to call me. Just don't call me for my vote after you've done it.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if we agree on the issues if you've just plain made me dislike you. I don't have a problem with Obama on the issues but I can't stand his supporters. I admit he won the nomination and respect his accomplishment, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him. Obama is the one with the most to lose now. If his supporters keep trashing half of the voting base, they'll get their fondest wish, a chance to continue to trash Hillary.
As a Hillary supporter, you can call me (or her) anything you want. You can call me stupid, racist, part of the past, divisive, anything you want to call me. Just don't call me for my vote after you've done it.
Sometimes it doesn't matter if we agree on the issues if you've just plain made me dislike you. I don't have a problem with Obama on the issues but I can't stand his supporters. I admit he won the nomination and respect his accomplishment, but that doesn't mean I have to vote for him. Obama is the one with the most to lose now. If his supporters keep trashing half of the voting base, they'll get their fondest wish, a chance to continue to trash Hillary.
Rich Jones:
So what you're saying is that you're willing to possibly have four more years (or eight) of a Republican president in John McCain, who in many ways is to the right of Bush on a lot of issues - including foreign policy - because some people you met on an online message board hurt your feelings and made you not want to support the same candidate they were supporting even though you liked and agreed with the candidate on all the issues?
Take a minute to take a deep breath and consider the logic and reasonableness of that statement. Seriously. You're willing to trade four - or maybe eight - years of more Republican policies because you don't like Obama supporters like, for example, me?
You're willing to see Roe vs. Wade overturned when McCain gets to appoint more Scalia's to the Supreme Court, willing to see a preemptive war with Iran, or more tax cuts for the rich at the expense of universal healthcare...because your feelings are hurt?
Really?
Are Obama supporters really THAT bad that you're willing to delay by eight years the needed policy changes in the White House?
Just think about it.
Wow, you guys should be much more respectful to Sen. Clinton if you want to help Obama win over her voters. She got more votes than your candidate- or any other candidate running in a primary- after all and you have to repect that.
Like I've said all along it's MADNESS! www.madnessletters.com
3 points
1) To Hillary supporters. Imagine a world in which John Edwards won 18 million votes but lost the nomination, then threatened that his supporters would not support the ticket unless hillary abandoned all corprorate contributions that he deemd innapropropriate. how would that make you feel, angry that the loser felt entitled to make such demands on the nominee?
2) Hilary AClinton received the vast majority of votes based on people believing that hse could recreate the better parts of Bil's presidency. She can't, mostly because of a terribly expensive war that she voted for.
3) where has all her fight been for the working class for the past 20 years as our income has continued ot fall? Where was her outrage over NAFTA REALLY as her husband promoted it?
4) When has Hillary ever actually beaten a republican campaign? Not in healthcare, while he rhusband was president, not while in the senate, and although she did win election to the semnate, in fairness, it was in one of themost reliable democratic sates in America, and she was not given very strong opponents.
5) Finally, Hillary supporters have it at least in part backwards. Women's rights activists NEED obama supporters, otherwise McCain gets to nominate 2-4 supremem court judges, and also, should Hillary ever run for any office again, Hillary will need Obama supporters to have ANY chance of success.
The party no longer belongs to the Clinton's or our generaton, it is time for the new generation to try their best to get done what we could not. Obama, is clearly the best "fighter" as she has beaten all the other ones. Acknowledge it, and give your support to its nominee (who deserves the respect, and the other candidates who lost, of which clinton is just one of 7, deserve the respect given to people who don't win, that is respect for a losing effort), or leave the only party that supports the same policies as you do.
I'll put it this way. I see a lot of people commenting in this thread who I would characterize as "asshats." It's very important to me that the only major party I have been able to co-exist with throughout my entire adult life--and Tuesday will be my 53rd birthday--not be taken over by asshats.
That's so important that it actually gets weighed in the balance against all the horribleness of electing a Republican this time. As of right now, I'm leaning toward re-registering as an independent and voting Obama, but none of that is carved in stone.
I can't imagine turning over the keys of the government to a group that shows the kind of vindictiveness, pettiness and hostility, not to mention total lack of ability to historically contextualize, that this thread--and others I've seen on this site, and elsewhere among the online Obama nation--demonstrates. And yeah, that's important to me and my decisional process. I'm not an Obama insider, so I take the overall tone of what I see from his supporters as a good indication of what I could expect from an Obama government. After all, what is a politician in a democracy other than the sum of his/her constituents?
I'm still a fair piece away from actually voting Republican. It's probably 90% that I'll vote Obama (which is about 10% lower chance of support for the Democrat than I would've conceived a year ago), 9% that I'll sit it out, and maybe 1% that I'll cast the first Republican ballot of my life. But there's a very good chance that I'll vote for Obama but campaign against him without being overly concerned about the electoral consequences.
I'm not giving up on the Party; I want it back. The long-run state of the Democratic Party is even more important to me than the 2008 election.
first forgive the typos above,
second, tammy, she did not win more votes, she is not leading in national polls of democrats o r the nation as a whole, that is just more of the false reality that she is telling her supporters. Look at national polls, Obama is preferred by more than a few percentage points over Hillary, and she didn't win the last primary, he did, it was montana, but when he won small states they didn't matter, but when she won pueerto rico and south dakota, it wa smomentum.
Can Tammy and the rest of the Hillary-ites STOP with the completely ridiculous "she got more votes than your candidate" argument? Some facts: 1) It isn't true unless you COUNT all of the votes from Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't even on the ballot since he actually KNOWS HOW TO PLAY BY THE RULES) and 2) Do NOT count the Caucus votes (which is absurd, since caucuses are a big part of the Democratic primary system.)
regardless - The NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball - they don't tally up the total points at the end of the year, choose the team with the most points (i.e. - votes,) and determine the winner. The teams who win the most GAMES (i.e. - States and delegates) go the playoffs. Hillary LOST too many states, lost too many delegates.
GET OVER IT.
And for those who supported Clinton but refuse to support Obama - you are all insane. Obama's positions and Clinton's positions are almost the same across the board, while McCain's positions are radically different. If you wanted a warmongering, imperialist deficit-growing socially conservative and environmentally disastrous president, you shouldn't have been supporting Clinton. If you want the opposite of that, you need to support Obama. Any argument to the contrary is simply ridiculous.
Let me also say that if you are xenophobic and racist enough to include Barack Obama's middle name when referencing him, Ruth Werre-style, you are worthy of absolute derision. It is straight-up moronic to think that a Harvard-educated Senator with a message as inclusive and uplifting as Obama's is actually some insurrectionist terrorist-supporter simply because his middle name is vaguely Arabic.
How's this for some middle names:
Ruth Racist Werre. Or how about Ruth Ignorance Werre....
The liberal pundits weren't happy about her non-concession speech. Especially Bob Beckel:
Obama is a sham. He is about as qualified to be President as Trickster. Ruth wasn't talking about his terrorist ties. He associates himself with people that hate America.
The Democratic party doesn't deserve the White House when they can support a wimp like Obama. Get over it yourself, McCain will be the next President.
That's some real bang-up logic you've got there, nobama. "He associates himself with people that hate America." Like, say, 50% of the American populace? Or, perhaps the Democratic Senators and Congressman who will be supporting him? How about the countless independents who'll be supporting him? Numerous Republicans? Dumb arguments for dumb people.
And calling someone a "wimp" who'd rather not get us into debacles like Iraq says two things about you: 1) You're a neocon who has learned nothing from the past 6 years of disastrous war, and 2) you're probably about as tough as Paris Hilton. I love how supporting warmongers makes armchair wimps like nobama feel tough, like banging on your keyboard is going to give you muscles or something. Keep at it tough guy. Republicans are going to get destroyed in the upcoming State, Congressional, and Senatorial elections, and most polls show Obama ahead as well. Get ready for the reckoning...
The liberal pundits weren't happy about her non-concession speech. Especially Bob Beckel:
The Democrats destroyed their chance for unity by the dog and pony show on Saturday. What a farce! The Republicans can just sit back and let the DP self-destruct on its own.
What you fail to understand, the enemy is Obama and the DP. In the 2006 elections, the country turned against the GOP because of all the scandals and the war. The situation has reversed because of the corrupt practices of BO and the DP.
Ah, nobama - that makes much more sense. "The Enemy is Obama and the DP." I thought I might engage in a conversation with a sane person, not someone goose-stepping around his flat freaking out over the majority of his fellow citizens being "enemies."
There are blogs where folks will take your absurd posts seriously. This, unfortunately for you, is not one of them.
To Mr.Bowlingshoe
Like it or not.
His name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama
Blame his mama for that one, or maybe his daddy.
RW
Ruth Werre is a prescription drug thief.
At least, Ruth Kapanke is (http://tinyurl.com/6dvltx). And because a person's name- something they have no control over- tells you about their character, I can only assume that the above poster is also a criminal.
To the many Clinton supporters who say and think that the media was too hard on her, please read http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6565086.html.
An independent study showed that the opposite is true. At the outset both had about equal rates of positive/negative stories. When Clinton started complaining about her media coverage, the media complied and started covering her more positively, and Obama more negatively. All in all it was Obama who suffered most from media bias.
The reason people still believe that Clinton had the most negative media coverage, is apparently the fact that she continued to complain about it until the very end, while Obama bore his more negative coverage in silence.
The normal and regular readers here might find it interesting to know that this blog and specifically this thread has been placed as a "Must Read" by the conservative site http://www.lucianne.com
I would thank Mr. Obama for killing driving a stake through the heart of Satan's Prom Queen. I just hope she stay's dead.
The normal and regular readers here might find it interesting to know that this blog and specifically this thread has been placed as a "Must Read" by the conservative site http://www.lucianne.com
I would thank Mr. Obama for killing driving a stake through the heart of Satan's Prom Queen. I just hope she stay's dead.
My post may sound like a "flat freaking out", but I know that an Obama nomination is a loser in November. In their rush to hand the prize to BO, the DP lost more than votes. Many long time Democrats have looked to the party for guidance on social and moral issues. Instead, the Saturday meeting in DC became a rubber stamp for BO's coronation. Awarding him delegates that belonged to Hillary and cutting her votes in half are not good ways to promote unity. I did not see any Republicans in that meeting only clueless Democrats.
They got a little Mulder and Scully thing going, it seems like, especially here:
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2008/06/04/537172.html
But he shouldn't choose her.
1) Let's cut the crap, people.
2) The top leaders of the Democratic Party -- Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Joe Manchin -- are shutting Hillary's campaign down for the good of the Party. They sent out a memo last night saying they want the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to make a decision by Friday.
3) The reports I've seen indicate that people have only held off for a few days to avoid hurting Hillary's feelings. But those delegate yesterday -- and 26 MORE TODAY -- who endorsed Obama are a pretty clear message.
As have been public comments from her major supporters: Rendel in NYC and PA Governor Rendell.
By Friday, it will be PUBLICLY clear she no longer has the power to decide anything.
4) She WILL NOT blackmail Obama into accepting her as VP. That decision will be made later -- and I suspect her behavior to date will put her out of the running. Why would anyone want to put up with this for 4 years? Or with Bill CLinton?
The top leaders of the Democratic Party -- Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Joe Manchin -- are shutting Hillary's campaign down for the good of the Party.
Listen to yourself, OK? Just listen to yourself. Getting chills yet?
What a difference between the language of users of the Obama blog and the Clinton blog. Perhaps,
people would become more civil if Hillary was in the oval office, either as President or as Vice-President. Not only is she intelligent, she has class - something the Obama fans could use. If Hillary is not on the ticket, her voters will go for McCain.
What a difference between the language of users of the Obama blog and the Clinton blog. Perhaps,
people would become more civil if Hillary was in the oval office, either as President or as Vice-President. Not only is she intelligent, she has class - something the Obama fans could use. If Hillary is not on the ticket, her voters will go for McCain.
"If Hillary is not on the ticket, her voters will go for McCain."
Well - the stupid ones will - I hope that doesn't include you, Shirley.
McCain is in many respects worse than Bush, and he is the antithesis of both Clinton and Obama on countless important issues. Anyone who supported Clinton's policies (because Clinton's policies meshed with their own) who then votes for McCain is a flat-out moron who by definition is ignorant enough to vote against their own self-interests.
Clinton spent the last 3 months haranguing Obama for being inexperienced, unfit for the presidency, etc etc etc - when statistically she had almost NO chance of winning the nomination. There's a reason Obama's supporters are a bit ticked off.
Stop whining, get a thicker skin, grow up, and choose your candidate based on whether the character and policy positions of the candidate mesh with your's - NOT on whether a few bloggers hurt your brittle little feelings....
Mr. Shoe
You are all class with the name calling. Many presidential candidates have run long campaigns with zero chance of winning, and the opponent's supporters weren't ticked off.
McCain is worse than Bush? Maybe, you're right. However, McCain and his party did not shred the reputation of Hillary and Bill by calling them racists. Obama's campaign played the race game and DP stood by. McCain and the Reps did not sit in DC while Obama's DP gave half votes to FL voters and handed Hillary's MI votes to BO.
Important Issues? Having confidence in any candidate or party does not happen in a vacuum. Mutual trust and certain expectations have to be established beforehand. That did not happen with Hillary and the DP. Since they handpicked Obama from the start, we have lost faith in the DP to govern.
Goyoga82 - Give me a break with this "Since they handpicked Obama from the start" tripe and this "Obama's campaign played the race game" garbage. Sounds like your feelings are all nicked up as well. If they're sufficiently nicked up that all of a sudden you now support imperialist warmongering policies, you've become pro-torture, pro-life, pro regressive versus progressive taxation, don't mind voting for someone with a ZERO rating from the League of Conservation Voters, and are comfortable supporting someone who's in hock to some of the more ludicrous evangelical leaders out there, then by all means - vote for McCain. But let me ask you - if those are your views - why on earth were you supporting Hillary, since they're not remotely close to her views? And if they're not your views - why on earth would you support someone whose policies go against the very things you believe in?
I stand by my name calling - people vote against their interests all the time because they don't get that nice warm fuzzy feeling that they want to get from the blogging community, from the candidate, from the media, or from wherever they're looking to find it - and it's pathetic, and it's stupid. What else would you call it? You're giving us a terrific example yourself - you didn't say a word about Obama's policies; instead, all you offer are general broadsides about how Obama has ruined the Democratic Party, whatever the heck that means. If you're voting for McCain because you're sold on his bang-up personality and what a wonderfully ethical and egalitarian group the Republican party has been these last few years, you need a lesson in reality.
"For quite a while now all of John McCain's most
effective allies have been on Hillary Clinton's payroll."
-- --Matthew Yglesias, pretending this was America;s first primary,
Hey Matthew, were you around in 1980?
George Herbert Herbert Bush said, "America can't afford Reagan's voodoo economics,"
so in Matthew Yglesias's world, that made Poppy Bush the biggest ally on Jimmy Carter's payroll?
No, that what's called "a primary", Matthew.
Tell me, Matthew, are you new to politics?
And after the primary, they got together, and Reagan told Bush he could be his VP
if he would agree to screw women on their reproductive rights. (Bush was pro-choice.)
So Matthew, why would you say something that stupid?
Are you just incapable of writing anything that doesn't slam Hillary?
Why can't you face the fact that you won and the war's over?
Mr. Shoe
Do everyone a favor and suck on a lemon!
Race card is garbage? Jim Clyburn did it again on Charlie Rose. He had no doubt that some in the Democratic party wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race. Mr. Shoe & Jim C., they refuse to vote for him because he is unfit to be the President.
I might have my political differences with McCain, but he didn't steal delegate votes away from Hillary as Obama did.
Lesson in Reality - This is the first time that I've been involved in the political process as a life-long Democrat now I'm an Independent. Months ago, I had read that the DP and media had picked Obama. This is old news. I thought that Hillary had a chance because of her victories. My dose of reality came on May 31, when they "hijacked" Hillary's votes. It was obvious that it is Obama's party.
My vote is sacred. I will choose a candidate that best represents the interests of this country. It isn't Barack Obama.
Good luck in carving out a victory with half the party gone.
Hillary's true colors came through loud and clear during her speech--she's a pathetic sore loser. How could anyone support such a vile, immature, unstable person for president? She has only herself to blame for her failure to capture the nomination. But there is justice in the world.
Can you imagine Hillary running around the country stomping for Obama, giving speeches, visiting factories, knocking down beers? She said she would work her heart out for the nominee. And she'll probably choke on every word that comes out of her hypocritical mouth. Obama 08.
Hillary's true colors came through loud and clear during her speech--she's a pathetic sore loser. How could anyone support such a vile, immature, unstable person for president? She has only herself to blame for her failure to capture the nomination. But there is justice in the world.
Can you imagine Hillary running around the country stomping for Obama, giving speeches, visiting factories, knocking down beers? She said she would work her heart out for the nominee. And she'll probably choke on every word that comes out of her hypocritical mouth. Obama 08.
Go ahead and continue to denigrate her. May I remind you that HALF of the democratic party voted for her. You think you can win it all by yourselves, go ahead. GOOD LUCK. You may not like to hear this BUT YOU NEED HER MORE THAN SHE NEEDS YOU!!! SO CONTINUE TO INSULT.
Goyoga - as I said - if Clinton represents your interests, then McCain doesn't - their policies are fundamentally different across countless subjects, while Clinton and Obama's policies are virtually the same. If you want to vote for McCain out of spite, more power to you - I can't make poorly informed voters vote in their self-interests. However, it's idiotic to vote AGAINST ones self-interests - If you're a big enough dummy to do it, by all means, please do. Just don't ask me not to call you out on it when you're sitting here announcing it to whole world.
Comments closed June 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It is fitting that her speech began with a pointless, but still self-serving, lie: that South Dakota was the last state to vote. Seriously, at this point, I don't think she could find the states that voted for Obama on a map.
Posted by pjs | June 3, 2008 9:47 PM