Speech Redux

I'm hearing that some people feel Clinton spoke too much about herself and her campaign in her speech. I think that's totally wrong. It's the very fact that the speech dwelled at length on the Clinton movement, its meaning, and its accomplishments that it becomes an effective endorsement of Obama. Absent that stuff, it's just another speech about why you should vote for Barack Obama. With the Clinton-specific stuff, it becomes specifically a speech about how, given the outcome of the primary, the logic next step for Clinton supporters is to join Clinton herself in supporting Obama.

Far from an egocentric outburst, the talking about herself and her supporters made the speech the great speech that it was and helped a lot, I think, to break down the mutual barriers of bitterness that had built up. Something nominally more focused on Obama might well have come off as half-hearted. What she delivered was perfectly sincere and utterly in keeping with the main themes of her campaign, but also led to the desired conclusion. I think it was very skillfully put together.

Comments

Maybe those people are insane.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 7, 2008 3:58 PM

Clinton did well today. As an early Obama supporter, I am glad that she made the effort to thoughtfully, skillfully, weave together an account of how HER campaign could ultimately and authentically lead to today's endorsement of Barack Obama. It was real, not phony or half-hearted. For that, I am grateful.

Posted by Jeff | June 7, 2008 4:01 PM

The people who will criticize Hillary's speech today would never be satisfied so there's no point listening to them.

The important thing is that Hillary Clinton will be working hard to elect Barack Obama president, and the party WILL be united by the time it meets in Denver.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 4:03 PM

I completely agree. I too am a long-time Obama story, and I thought she got it just right--she was talking to her base, and needed to establish that her themes and her experience tie into a vote for Obama, and indeed to actively working for an Obama victory. I thought she got it just right--enough about her to please her supporters, enough full-throated support for Obama to help unify the party.

Posted by DRW | June 7, 2008 4:05 PM

I completely agree. I too am a long-time Obama supporter, and I thought she got it just right--she was talking to her base, and needed to establish that her themes and her experience tie into a vote for Obama, and indeed to actively working for an Obama victory. I thought she got it just right--enough about her to please her supporters, enough full-throated support for Obama to help unify the party.

Posted by DRW | June 7, 2008 4:05 PM

I agree completely.

Probably the best speech shes ever given, btw.

My feeling about 1/3 of the way in was that her support for Obama is sky-high and that she will do everything she can to get him elected.

Posted by mickslam | June 7, 2008 4:14 PM

I thought the speech was fine. Maybe just a tad too long, but that's being picky.

And Matt's right. If part of the idea is to get all of those supporters who are invested in her campaign to make some sort of emotional and intellectual transference to Obama's camapign, it is necessary to first dwell at length on their collective journey, and arouse their sentiments and progressive ideals. Then the endorsement is much more effective.

And while I thought the Clinton people were wrong to say Tuesday had to be "her day", certainly it was entirely appropriate for today to be her day, and her supporters' day. They needed an extended talk to gather their emotions, reflect on what might have been, and bring closure to their campaign as they are being pointed toward the future.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 7, 2008 4:25 PM

She gave a fine speech. The balance between her own experience and the future of the party was exactly right.

In poll after poll, Americans identify (a) ending the US military occupation of Iraq, (b) the economy and (c) health care as their top priorities. Both Hillary and Barack were miles ahead of McCain on all three of these issues. Either would have better addressed these issues than McCain.

Hillary is right. We must pull America back from the abyss that the Bush Administration has us sliding into.

Posted by Joel | June 7, 2008 4:27 PM

Agreed here too. It fit together perfectly with what she did Tuesday and segued into the campaign. She has improved dramatically as a speaker. Her weaving in of Obama's themes was exactly the right note. Maybe, despite the negatives, she should be given serious consideration for the Vice Presidency.

Posted by Sherry | June 7, 2008 4:27 PM

Having covered her ass, now she can go back to figuring out how to undermine Obama so he loses in November.

Not to mention that she's still angling for the VP slot, so being "gracious" at this point is good strategy.

If she doesn't get the VP slot, then look out.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 4:31 PM

Matt's clueless, dimwitted post solidifies his position as the Grand Marshal of morons within the blogosphere

Hillary should have given a concession speech on Tuesday night. Her hubris and insufferable narcissism prevented her from doing so.
Good riddance Hillary and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Hillary's campaign was a dud because she slung too much mud.
Hillary is leaving the stage because voters rejected her toxic rage.

Hillary should be named ambassador to Bosnia because she's such a hard working white person, as far as I know.

Posted by phil | June 7, 2008 4:37 PM

I'm hearing that some people feel Clinton spoke too much about herself and her campaign in her speech.

Some people, thy name is Andrew Sullivan.

I wonder if the Unhinged One would have been satisfied even with Hillary's committing jigai. Nope, I'm thinking only self-immolation would have done the trick for Andy.

Posted by Jasper | June 7, 2008 4:37 PM

And notice that Obama's reply consists of one short sentence about himself followed by five longer sentences about her. Entirely appropriate to the occasion, and politically on the mark.

Posted by Exegete | June 7, 2008 4:44 PM

For the nitpickers and naysayers: you will always find something negative to say about Clinton. As an Obama supporter I welcome her support and leave it to Obama to use Clinton's support so that it gets him the votes he needs to win. I don't see her angling for the VP. But then, on our side, we will have the same deadenders that Clinton has - her's will never vote for Obama, ours will prefer that Obama be defeated than that he take Clinton's offer of support.

As for Andrew Sullivan: what can one say about a Republican who has been disowned by hos own.

Posted by Alan | June 7, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree the speech was very well done. Much too well put together for the Clintons speechwriters. I'm betting one of the topics during that secret meeting was the speech she was going to deliver today written by the Obama camp.

Posted by Mike | June 7, 2008 4:54 PM

Of course, her speech did little to sway her supporters, who are still threatening to vote for McCain. Here's a recent post:

When the phone rings at 3am I prefer Hillary to answer the phone. If she's not available I would hope McCain answers that phone.

Yes, well. I hope that all of you bitters pat yourselves on the back if McCain is elected, because you will have turned Hillary into the Ralph Nader of 2008. Guess what? Once McCain makes the Supreme Court pick, and once that Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and every important social program there is, noone—not even Hillary Clinton in 2012—will be able to get them back. Because that's how the Supreme Court works!

Get a hold of yourselves. Please!

Posted by Ben | June 7, 2008 4:55 PM

The speech was at least plenty good enough bring Clinton voters over the Obama.

The Sullivan's of the world may be wont to say Clinton is storing up sandbags to lay down over the next five months. I bet not. Even if you don't believe she really cares about policy outcomes, the damage she could do to Obama's chances of winning is less than the damage she would do her own in case he does lose.

Posted by Exegete | June 7, 2008 4:56 PM

As someone wanted to see her run but was deeply disappointed by her campaign, I thought it was spot on, close to perfect. And she and all her supporters deserve and should get plenty of positive reinforcement.

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 7, 2008 5:02 PM

I have been as critical of Hillary as anyone, but she gave a great speech. She was letting her supporters down as easy as possible. Even when she first endorsed Obama, the reception was luke warm. But as she reminded them more and more how close each of them were on the issues, they gradually warmed. They aren't Obamabots yet, but they put away their pitchforks. That is all Obama needs. He needs Hillary to step aside and let her supporters start making a decision between McCain and OBAMA, instead of Hillary and Obama.

Posted by Brian | June 7, 2008 5:05 PM

It was as good as we could reasonably have expected. It also confirms she won't be VP.

No reason she couldn't have given that exact same speech on Tuesday, but we're in the right place now. Obama-Kaine '08!

Posted by David B> | June 7, 2008 5:07 PM

It was an excellent speech, and I didn't at all feel she spent too much time on herself or the accomplishments of her campaign. This is necessary stuff in making the case that her supporters should now move to the nominee.

The only criticism I could offer (and it isn't a major one) is that I would've liked a few more direct jabs (and throat slashes) directed at McCain. She did a very nice job building up Obama and stressing that anyone who supports her ideals should be backing the party, but it would've been nice to see some implicit criticism of the man who is so opposed to everything she says she stands for.

Posted by jbryan | June 7, 2008 5:32 PM

I hope Richard Steven Hack and phil get cancer and die.

On point, it was a great speech and in one of my somewhat infrequent comments here told you all it would happen soon. It really wasn't that hard to predict. The Clinton's sincerely care about the Democratic Party (here comes the snark from people who have probably never done a single lit drop for a Dem candidate).

Oh, for sure, the care even more for their own future and ambition--just like everyone else who has ever run for office.

Posted by Andruw | June 7, 2008 5:33 PM

Exactly. Even out of pure self-interest, Hillary has to do her flat-out best for Obama, or she's got no future in the party. And I thought that was pretty damn good today.

Funny; a lot of candidates seem to get better after they're no longer candidates.

Posted by AlanC9 | June 7, 2008 6:07 PM

"As an Obama supporter I welcome her support"

Her declared support. We have yet to see it become REAL support. When she goes out and campaigns every day, trying to convince her supporters to vote for Obama, and continues to do so AFTER THE CONVENTION and IF she does NOT get the VP slot, then I'll believe it.

"and leave it to Obama to use Clinton's support so that it gets him the votes he needs to win. I don't see her angling for the VP."

Based on what?

"But then, on our side, we will have the same deadenders that Clinton has - her's will never vote for Obama, ours will prefer that Obama be defeated than that he take Clinton's offer of support."

I didn't say he shouldn't accept it. I said it ain't real.

"the damage she could do to Obama's chances of winning is less than the damage she would do her own in case he does lose."

Does SHE believe this? How do you know? And can you even prove it? Personally I agree that she will be treated like Ralph Nader IF and only if she does her undermining so blatantly that it is remembered in four years by most Dem voters.

"It also confirms she won't be VP."

Based on what?

Andruw: "The Clinton's sincerely care about the Democratic Party (here comes the snark from people who have probably never done a single lit drop for a Dem candidate)."

You're an idiot. The word "sincerity" should never appear in the same sentence as the name "Clinton".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 6:07 PM

Richard Steven Hack: "Her declared support. We have yet to see it become REAL support. When she goes out and campaigns every day, trying to convince her supporters to vote for Obama, and continues to do so AFTER THE CONVENTION and IF she does NOT get the VP slot, then I'll believe it."

Dude, get a grip on those busted computers enveloping you--even if (to use a language you can understand) SHE hated OBAMA, and wanted him to LOSE, she would still campaign hard after the convention. She's not going on vacation from September to November. She'll be out there, in whatever role, building support, especially among women, for Obama.

BTW, watched the speech on CSPAN repeat, and its better the 2nd time, when you're not on the edge of your seat and can listen somewhat dispassionately.

BELIEVE it.

Posted by Andruw | June 7, 2008 6:31 PM

Andruw,

Right back at ya on the cancer wish. I didn't mean to burst your bubble regarding your precious Queen Hillary. Hillary will always be a fake, a fraud, and a phony. One speech doesn't wash away a career built on mendacity, deception, corruption, triangulation, and obfuscation. Hillary is the queen of toxic sludge politics. If you're too blind to see that, that's your problem not mine.

Posted by phil | June 7, 2008 7:02 PM

One thing about being in the age of instant commentary is that a lot of commentators probably felt they had to decide what they were going to say about the speech before Clinton finished delivering it. Matt explains why she talked about her campaign at length, but that was hard to see until near the end of the speech.

I heard a few boos the first time Clinton mentioned Obama, but by the end of the speech she seemed to have won over the live audience. Clinton may not have healed all of the rifts in the Democratic party with that one speech, but she said what she needed to say. It's time to concentrate on defeating McCain and winning the White House.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | June 7, 2008 7:07 PM

The Clinton today could have gotten nominated by the Democratic Party. Pity she veered off the path.

Posted by mcd | June 7, 2008 7:16 PM

I would have liked an apology for her racist campaigning but that's most certainly too much to expect.

Posted by Black Man | June 7, 2008 7:27 PM

Andruw: "She'll be out there, in whatever role, building support, especially among women, for Obama."

Yeah, right - when I see it - AFTER the convention - I'll believe it. Any support she'll be building will be for her run in 2012.

"can listen somewhat dispassionately.

BELIEVE it."

Yeah, that sounds "dispassionate" to me.

Sorry, not a "believer".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 7:30 PM

my impression was that through the campaign most of the blogsphere sounded more and more like Andrew Sullivan.

Maybe it's time to cut him out of the jerk circle - or leave him in the jerk circle or whatever.

Clinton was is centre-left politician, she deserves a lot better.

Posted by Neil | June 7, 2008 7:30 PM

Man, what naivete, with a couple of exceptions. Clinton "sincerity," etc. Have any of you ever talked to Democrats who lived through their regime in Arkansas during the 70s and 80s? They'll all tell you the same thing: there "no there there." Political sociopaths. That was clear to anyone who was paying attention nationally, from 1988. Nothing that they did in the campaign is any surprise whatsoever. It's their MO. Look at the people around her. Look at how she ran the campaign to begin with, how she reacted when challenged. Look at the (current) campaign for VP. This is what they do. They don't care about the party. They don't care about the country.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, I argued with friends that the guy would betray everyone, that at least Bush (as cynical as they come) cared about his wife and children and his dog. Notice how Bill behaved in office (and then killed the dog after he got out of office). Hillary: same thing. I'm glad she endorsed. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. As for her as VP or anything else -- which is what all of this is about -- well, I belong to Food Tasters for Obama.

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2008 7:51 PM

Man, what naivete, with a couple of exceptions. Clinton "sincerity," etc. Have any of you ever talked to Democrats who lived through their regime in Arkansas during the 70s and 80s? They'll all tell you the same thing: there "no there there." Political sociopaths. That was clear to anyone who was paying attention nationally, from 1988. Nothing that they did in the campaign is any surprise whatsoever. It's their MO. Look at the people around her. Look at how she ran the campaign to begin with, how she reacted when challenged. Look at the (current) campaign for VP. This is what they do. They don't care about the party. They don't care about the country.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992, I argued with friends that the guy would betray everyone, that at least Bush (as cynical as they come) cared about his wife and children and his dog. Notice how Bill behaved in office (and then killed the dog after he got out of office). Hillary: same thing. I'm glad she endorsed. I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. As for her as VP or anything else -- which is what all of this is about -- well, I belong to Food Tasters for Obama.

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2008 7:52 PM

I thought it was a powerful and moving speech, and given her identity and particular context, it was as close to as good a speech on gender and sexism and equality in U.S. politics as Obama's Philadelphia speech was on race in America.

At the moment I see no need for me to have to contextualize it any more than that, nor to beg anyone else's forgiveness for seeing it that way.

Posted by El Cid | June 7, 2008 7:57 PM

As a Clinton fan (all the fucking way!) I'm starting to hear the right tone on this page for a change. I think we might just have a unified party after all. I've always liked Obama, just not as much as HRC. Its really that simple and I think a lot of Clinton fans have that same opinion. Now that Obama's the nominee, I'm happy and proud of the party. Maybe not my first choice, but still a solid one. As for that idiot Andrew Sullivan, him and the Naderites and the Bush guilt-complex guys are going to jump Obama's ship and I'd be surprised if they don't turn on him by November. As for the Clinton conspiracy theorists, I don't hold it against Obama that a bunch of people living in their mom's basements are writing obnoxious, idiotic posts. Fuck those guys. I'm a proud Democrat now, eight years ago, four years ago, today and into the future. Good luck Obama, and give 'em hell.

Posted by Nathan | June 7, 2008 8:07 PM

I thought it was the best speech Clinton gave during the whole campaign. If she had followed this tone (talking about why the Democrats were better for America) throughout the last few months of the primaries, I think she would have finished even closer to Obama, and maybe the "dream" ticket would be closer to reality. She is a much more likable person (speaking as a long-time Obama supporter) when she focuses on the positives instead of negatively attacking fellow Democrats.

Posted by kidkostar | June 7, 2008 8:24 PM

of course it was sincere, because her self-absorption is sincere.

also provided proof that a woman is never on time.

Posted by vchagz | June 7, 2008 8:37 PM

Been on the other side, but..what El Cid said. Well written sir.

Posted by Andruw | June 7, 2008 8:44 PM

But then, on our side, we will have the same deadenders that Clinton has - her's will never vote for Obama, ours will prefer that Obama be defeated than that he take Clinton's offer of support.

Amen. I think it's a little too optimistic to assume everyone can just snap out of primary battle mentality, but it has to happen soon. As of today I'm holding to a little resolution not to gripe about the Clintons anymore, even if some of her nuttier supporters still get under my skin. I'd much rather follow the Democrats into battle against a Republican party trying to sell yet another "compassionate" version of their worn-out ideology.

Posted by sweaty guy | June 7, 2008 9:09 PM

I'm listening right now, and I say--look at this thread: Only some real idiots don't get it. There are no significant ideological divisions at play here. We are going to sweep to victory. This is historic. Hillary gave an A+ speech today--just start listening at 6 minutes in. All you haters are lost, but it doesn't matter....

Posted by elle loco | June 7, 2008 9:10 PM

And yes, El Cid should perhaps start a...blog.

Posted by elle loco | June 7, 2008 9:13 PM

Senator Clinton's speech was excellent. More on Acropolis Review, including the full transcript. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/06/video-hillary-clintons-concession.html

Posted by Jean | June 7, 2008 9:20 PM

And when you go to Acropolis Review, make sure you make a generous contribution so that the campaign "can meet its final commitments" (i.e., pay off Mark Penn et al., and the multi-millionaire Clintons). Give. Me. A. Break.

Posted by Mr. X | June 7, 2008 9:40 PM

While the speech was fine, I found all the booing to be a bit worrying. I think Clinton has an affirmative duty to calm down some of her more over-zelous supporters (that she played a role in stiring up). I've also heard that she allowed people into the event that had blatant anti-obama signs (not confirmed). If this type of behavior continues for more than a few weeks, Clinton is going to have to address it in a much more direct manner.

Posted by JK | June 7, 2008 9:41 PM

Hillary's speech gets a solid A from me. She had to talk about her supports because there were hundreds of them there to hear from her about how proud she was of them. She hasn't been my favorite person of late but its time for everyone to take a breathe and play in the sandbox together again. We can't rewrite the past but there is still alot of work that needs to be done to write our future. Its going to take all of us. Decide if you want to die on your knees or win standing on your feet.

Posted by Magnolia | June 7, 2008 11:06 PM

good speech, well delivered. Raises the bar on her convention speech. I suggest she re-work some of Kennedy's 1980 speech.

Posted by revenge of the trailing edge boomers | June 7, 2008 11:16 PM

I've been an Obama guy from the get-go, and had a lot of problems and exasperation with the Clintons during the campaign, but this was an excellent speech and I admire and applaud its spirit and substance.

Posted by live | June 7, 2008 11:45 PM

I agree.

I’m no expert on this, but it seems to me that the political objectives for this speech were about as challenging as it gets - and, in so many ways, her political future rested on it. She needed to "make things right" with several different audiences, each with their own set of issues - some who love her, some who despise her, and a hell of a lot in between that she just utterly pissed off.

1) Her overall group of supporters - to convince them to transition to Obama for the sake of party unity
2) Obama supporters - to convince them that she’s not a bad person (and to basically apologize for running a dirty campaign) and to prove her worthiness as a possible VP candidate
3) Senate Colleagues - see number 2
4) The DNC - see number 2
5) Barack Obama - to have a shot at getting on the ticket
6) The Media – to erase the image of her as a spoiler
7) New Yorkers who didn’t voter for her – to convince them that the “old” Hillary is back and still worthy of representing them
8) Her fringe supporters – to get them to calm down (and shut up)

Granted, she created this difficult situation. But I think she pulled it off. And I give her a lot credit for that.

Maybe if she had campaigned more consistently with the tone of her concession speech today, which I believe was her authentic self, instead of resorting to divisive, dirty campaigning (that's how she lost me) things would have turned out differently. Maybe Bill Clinton needed this stuff. But I don't think she did. It's a shame that she didn't have enough faith in her ability to win by just being herself. It's a shame that she was surrounded by people who didn't push for that.

Posted by eric | June 8, 2008 1:01 AM

Eric:

Do we really have to be so quaint about politics? "Dirty campaigning"? Don't be naive. In order to play and be successful it requires being very political. It requires being able to practice attack politics, distort your opponents' positions, and not always being totally forth-right and authentic. If you think Barack Obama doesn't know how to do all those things you haven't been examining this election very critically. If Obama were that naive and innocent about politics then I would be extremely worried and doubtful of him having any chance of success. But I know he can be as ruthless and disingenuous as any typical politician at that level.

The Clintons haven't survived over 30 years in elected politics by being idealistic, and neither has anyone who has been that successful in electoral politics.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 2:03 AM

Call it what you want. But she trashed, marginalized and just generally pissed off a hell of a lot of people - not just her opponent, but voters. It was divisive and it was dirty.

Posted by eric | June 8, 2008 2:52 AM

eric:

Yeah she pissed off so many people that she got 18 million votes. Sounds like a deeply unpopular figure to me. She pissed off a bunch of Obama partisans, liberal activists and political journalists. That's not the same thing as pissing off a "hell of a lot of people." Through her determination and perseverance against the anointed one, she has endeared himself to at least as many people as she has irritated. Want proof? Just watch her political star continue to shine more brightly than ever before in the coming years.

Posted by Tim K | June 8, 2008 3:01 AM

"of course it was sincere, because her self-absorption is sincere.

also provided proof that a woman is never on time.

Posted by vchagz | June 7, 2008 8:37 PM
"

Nope, no sexism here... never saw it during the campaign. Don't know what you're talking about.

Some people won't be happy until Hillary grovels and scrapes, does Obama's laundry, irons his shirts and becomes his slave wench.

But by far the greatest majority of democrats are happy we have a fantastic nominee who has a great chance of winning the upcoming election

Obama '08!

Posted by Damocles | June 8, 2008 3:12 AM

Suckers.

And that's the REAL reason why the Dems are going to lose in November.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 6:15 AM

Phil --

The problem many people have in supporting Obama has nothing to do with support for Clinton. It is the element you and others who speak like you represent in the Obama "movement."

Obama is, more than any candidate in my voting lifetime (other than, perhaps, George Wallace), selling himself as the leader of a "movement" bringing all kinds of "new" people into the Democratic party while promising "change" that weakens some parts of its traditional coalition.

But there appears to be evidence, from their own mouths, that many people attacted to this message and movement are voting on hatred, resentment and exclusion (as the Wallace people were), and, often forthrightly and unapologetically, on gender and class prejudice, rather than on a new, positive, more expansive and eqalitarian view of politics and the party.

I'm deeply uncomfortable associating myself with such a movement. It goes against every principle I've stood for over a lifetime.

I know other Obama supporters will point out that not all Obama supporters can be judged by the haters. But when will they, and Obama, stand up to and condemn the haters?

Will Obama's campaign continue to ignore this dangerous and ugly element in their movement, or even encourage it, because they believe they can continue to exploit these people, and their prejudices and resentments, for their candidate's benefit?

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 10:19 AM

esmense, were you put off by the much more flagrant ugliness of the Clinton supporters? The ones who shouted Rezko and Hussein after every sentence? The ones who called him a disgusting "corrupt chicago pol" all the time? The ones who thought "Obambi" was a clever nickname? The ones who called anyone who disagreed with them a cultist? The ones who continue to push false, racist smears against Obama and his family?

If not, ask yourself why.

Posted by mad6798j | June 8, 2008 10:38 AM

mad6798 is right, esmense. Your last post was eloquent in a way I haven't heard before, but the mud runs in both directions. Even if you don't think you heard as much bile directed towards Obama as you did towards Hillary, believe me, you will.

Posted by sweaty guy | June 8, 2008 11:24 AM

Hillary's speech was not about pleasing Obama fans. She cannot ever please them and anyway they won! The don't need a pep talk.

Her speech was about helping her own devoted supporters let go. It was about starting to walk back from some of her campaign tactics that have alientated her followers from Obama. To do this she had to talk about herself and her followers and her campaign. She had to deliver a eulogy, and she did. HRC made a big step in saving her reputation, which is at risk.

Obama fans carping about her speech are sore winners.

Posted by tomtom | June 8, 2008 11:55 AM

mad6798j --

No, I haven't seen the kind of venom you are talking about on the few pro-Hillary blogs. (No Quarter being an exception but we're talking about a blogger who is coming from the RIGHT, not anyone who has ever claimed to be a progressive.)

But, great way to promote “unity.” Suggest, as Obama supporters repeatedly do, that the majority of Clinton supporters, most of them long time Democrats and liberal activists who have been committed to racial and gender equality -- and have put themselves actively on the line for those principles -- perhaps since before you were born, failed to support Obama because he is black.

I cast my very first presidential vote for an African American (Shirley Chisholm*), and have, over the last 4 decades, been an active supporter of the campaigns, most of them successful some not, of many other African American politicians on the local, state and national level. I marched on Washington with Dr. King as a young teenager. As a working class woman I broke gender barriers, and overcame the disadvantages of class, in the business world and used the authority I gained to hire African Americans and other racial minorities into a field where they were barely represented, if at all. As a business owner and employer for the last 20 years, I’ve made diversity the cornerstone of my hiring policy -- and have had the satisfaction of providing an important first step into rewarding careers (including paying for skills training and college level classes) for young people from backgrounds in which such opportunities are not easily available; not only African Americans but also immigrants and the children of immigrants from some of the world’s poorest regions, as well as young people from some of this country's poorest rural areas.

But, Barack Obama was not my choice for the presidential nomination.

Obama's race was not a barrier to my vote. But, alone, it could never be a sufficient reason for my vote. I would not vote for Condi Rice or Colin Powell or Alan Keyes or any of several other prominent African Americans simply on the basis of race. Would you? Nor, of course, would I vote against them on that basis alone.

You owe me and other Clinton supporters an apology. And you owe yourself a minute or two to contemplate the prejudice and bias (both gender and class?) YOU are bringing to the table -- prejudice that allowed mame such an offensive, and, frankly, bigoted implication about my motives.

*By the way, despite the broken barriers that this primary season represents, Ms. Chisholm’s chances of being elected president today would be no greater than they were in 1972. Not simply because she was a woman and an African American, but because she was a woman and an African American who was also a genuine progressive.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 12:42 PM

If you read blogs long enough, you'll see everything. So, now Obama's campaign is like Wallace's (and from a Clinton supporter whose candidate's demographics were, in Massachusetts this year for example, almost identical to Wallace's when he last ran there). That's rich.

Posted by Mr. X | June 8, 2008 2:41 PM

I'm still waiting for the evidence that any Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents outside of campaign staffers, volunteers, and bloggers are 'reluctant' to support Obama.

The primaries no longer count. They don't. They really, really don't.

Obama is no longer one of rivals, he is the actual Democratic candidate, and initial polling indicates that, like always, those people who tend to back Democratic candidates are doing exactly that right now.

Before repeatedly alleging this 'but but but Obama's supporters aren't doing enough to get Hillary voters to support him' line, it might be necessary to re-calibrate that with current evidence, and not feelings retained from primaries and caucuses before there was an actual nominee.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2008 2:48 PM

Mr. X --

Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence, based in their own writings, that the paranoid style is alive and well in the Obama "movement" -- just as it was among the followers of Wallace, Perot and Buchanan.

They may not share Wallace's views on race, but they do share his followers sense of entitlement and resentment and self-pitying view of themselves as being put upon and victimized by others. (In their case; women, especially older women, the working class, Appalachia, older voters, "DLCers," feminist, Hispanics, etc., etc., etc. -- the list changes but the attitude of hatred, resentment and paranoia remains the same.)

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 4:00 PM

I've never seen a presidential nominee campaign in which the candidate's most fervent admirers fail to somehow ascribe pretty magical capabilities and predictions for Chosen Candidate X. That's true of Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Nader, Bush Jr., McCain, Huckabee, Romney, whoever.

There is simply a rational disconnect in demanding that a candidate's most fervent admirers also demonstrate the most objective and dispassionate analysis. It's not going to happen, ever.

Posted by El Cid | June 8, 2008 4:10 PM

esmense, aren't you doing exactly what you're accusing Obama supporters of? Anyway I think you're talking the writings of a handful of fringe people and ascribing them to a large group of basically reasonable people.

Posted by JK | June 8, 2008 4:43 PM

JK

In my very first post I said only that there was a percentage of Obama supporters, who, based on their own words, were haters. I never suggested all or even a majority of Obama supporters fell into this category. Look over this thread, and any others dealing with Clinton, these primaries, Obama, and you will see clear examples of what I am talking about.

I also said this; "I know other Obama supporters will point out that not all Obama supporters can be judged by the haters. But when will they, and Obama, stand up to and condemn the haters?"

Why are you, as many "reasonable" Obama supporters most often do, defending the haters? And attacking me?

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 5:48 PM

esmense, I didn't say you made those remarks, I said the majority of online clinton supporters, including on sites like mydd, talk left, and taylor marsh do.

I've never made insensitive remarks about you, so why would I owe you an apology? What bigoted claims did I make about your motives? I was merely pointing out that you're perfectly willing to ignore lots of ugly smearing as long as it's coming from people you agree with. That is still true, so I ask again, why are you so comfortable with it?

Posted by mad6798j | June 8, 2008 6:23 PM

mad6798j-

Most of the things you listed as examples come not from the Clinton camp but from the Right. You can certainly find equally obnoxious things aimed at Clinton from that quarter.

And come on, you were imputing those views to me on the basis of my criticism of some Obama supporters.

Why can't we, as Democrats and progressives, look honestly at the negativity of this very vocal part of the "movement?" Negativity that has, in fact, hurt Obama with a substantial number of his fellow Democrats.

I have NEVER seen the examples you cite pushed by pro-Clinton bloggers. While, on the other hand, many pro-Obama bloggers -- not simply commentors -- have been extremely outspoken in their hatred for Clinton. Are you really suggesting that BTD and Jeralyn of Talk Left push these accusations? That they are racists? That they tolerate racists on their sites? MyDD? Taylor Marsh? Not only is that not true, but these blogs, in my experience, have been much more rigorous in policing offensive comments than The Atlantic, The New Republic, Talking Points Memo, etc. where blatant sexism, ageism, and ugly class prejudice are never censured (one blogger, not commentator, on TPM, when I early on commented that there were gender and class issues that were beginning to become apparent in the campaign that should be examined -- and that might cause problems for party unity down the line -- at the same time identifying myself as both a woman and working class, responded to me in pig latin, as an "amusing" way of telegraphing his disdain and disrespect for both my gender and class. I've never seen behavior like that exhibited toward reasonable Obama supporters on any pro-Hillary blog.) As for Kos, Huffington Report, Avorosis and others, these became too virulent for me months ago. In fact, the virulence of the Obama supporters on the internet almost kept me home from my caucus. I didn't, as an older woman who wasn't prepared to vote for Obama, know what to expect. Fortunately, the mostly middle aged men who showed up to rant angrily about Hillary and "billary" (rather that argue for Obama) were more to be pitied than feared.

Still, I sadly did not conclude that they were in any way, or wanted to be, MY political allies.

Posted by esmense | June 8, 2008 7:27 PM

Esmense, like EWard, is an almost classic case of psychological projection.

No, no Clinton supporter ever insulted Obama supporters. Nobody except the "Right" ever used the word "Obamabots".

Right.

Truly pathetic.

Actually, she's right - since a huge number of Clinton supporters were actually right wing Republican "fake Democrats", nobody but the "Right" ever did insult Obama supporters.

Certainly REAL Democrats probably didn't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 9:40 PM

Hack --

In political campaigns insults get thrown around freely by ordinary partisans. But there was and is a difference between publications and blogs that indulged in open Clinton hatred, often expressed through gender and class insult, by blog writers, not just commentators, and the Clinton supporting blogs. If you can find one example of a racist statement or appeal to racial resentment by Jeralyn or BTD at Talk Left, by Taylor Marsh, by MyDD, then quote it.

And there is a difference between campaign created rhetoric intentionally aimed at appealing to prejudice and resentment -- campaign spokeman Jesse Jackson's spiel about Hillary Clinton after her NH win ("she didn't cry for Katrina") and ordinary and expectable campaign criticisms (pointing out Obama's light resume and experience).

The first example, from the Obama campaign has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with feeding the resentments and prejudices of certain voters.

The second example is criticism based in truth -- that won can accept or reject as a valid reason for denying a politician your support -- and would be equally true, and equally a fair, and in the context of a political campaign, mundane criticism, if Obama was white, purple or green.

When Obama supporters cry that questioning Obama's resume is "racist" they are in fact intentionally race baiting. And in fact, much of the extremely questionable charges of racism from the Obama camp (supporters in the blogospher and media) during the primary were just that; race baiting attempts to appeal to resentment and distrust of white politicians by African Americans, and to the class prejudices of white, liberal elites.

Posted by esmense | June 9, 2008 10:54 AM