The Clinton Legacy

Dana Goldstein looks at some important positive aspects of the legacy of Hillary Clinton's campaign:

Over the course of this historic, thrilling, aggressive primary election, we've seen more female pundits than ever before writing and speaking about presidential politics. We've experienced unprecedented interest from male politicos in women's participation in the electoral process. And demands for women's leadership have been given their fairest hearing to date in the United States, with Democrats nationwide expecting Obama to give close consideration to female vice-presidential prospects -- not only because there are a few wildly successful and talented women who would be great at the job, but also as a gesture of good will toward the feminist energy that animated so many Clinton supporters.

This is all true. Beyond the Vice Presidency, I would imagine that an Obama transition team is now really going to want to be able to say that it's appointed the highest number of woman to cabinet positions.

Comments

What a bunch of hot air.

Maybe what Dana Goldstein is really demonstrating is how good some women are at making lemonade out of lemons.

Posted by Jim W | June 4, 2008 2:54 PM

Gotta love all of the people that extoll Hillary's losing campaign and don't give a fuck about Nancy Pelosi. And Hill has already stated that she will go apeshit if another woman gets to be the vp. Like always, she's a faux feminist; really it's all about her.

That said, it is nice that some pundits made the great discovery that the type of people Bill O wants to fuck with his falaffel exist. They also can, like, think and vote and stuff.

Posted by Client #11 | June 4, 2008 3:00 PM

Wow. Lots of vitriol here. I agree with Dana -- I think Hillary's campaign will be remembered *much* more positively once tempers have cooled.

Posted by Devo | June 4, 2008 3:08 PM

Well, ONE positive aspect is that the Big Dog has finally been put on a VERY SHORT choke collar:

1) From http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10844_Page2.html

"She [Hillary] spent the day meeting with top aides – and without her husband, who has been a combative force – in the campaign’s Arlington headquarters.

A close Clinton supporter said Clinton would not drop out of the race Wednesday, but was likely to end her campaign later this week."

2) Also, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/season-finale/

"11 p.m. | Clinton ‘Family Drama’: In a discussion on CNN about Mrs. Clinton’s speech, Carl Bernstein said Bill Clinton was very upset too, and “we’re in the midst of another Clinton family drama.” He said that Mrs. Clinton did not concede because she wants to leave her options open — and doesn’t want to leave her husband’s legacy “where it is right now” (which is not good).
Mr. Bernstein also said she had expected a much bigger turnout in Puerto Rico in Sunday’s primary, and that “she was shocked and hurt that she couldn’t claim a much bigger portion of the popular vote tonight.” She had intended “to be even more combative” in her speech tonight, he said, and did not want to go as far as she did.
Jeffrey Toobin, one of the commentators who had started this conversation on CNN, blamed “the deranged narcissism of the Clintons,” for preventing her from conceding to Mr. Obama or being more magnanimous toward him."

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 3:18 PM

Client #11:
It was always about Hillary. Why do you think her supporters chanted, "Yes, SHE can!!", compared to Obama's, "Yes, WE can!!"? Notice a difference?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 4, 2008 3:24 PM

And in the Roman "omens and portents" category, this just in:
--------
"U.S. Capitol police have urged all staff to remain indoors as violent storms swept across Washington, D.C. Wednesday afternoon.

In other words, if you are reading the Crypt on your blackberry on the National Mall, you should get indoors pronto.

Tornadoes were spotted north of the city in Wheaton, Maryland."
-----------
TORNADOS??

What the fuck? Did Obama cut off Hillary's HEAD????

There can be only One.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 3:37 PM

Hopefully, it won't be Duncan McCain, of the Clan McCain.

Although that Would explain a LOT. Like him living through the Great Depression.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Obama should TOTALLY pick another women not named Hillary to be VP.

Hillary would be livid, but could have no public beef. She'd just have to stew in it.

It's exactly what she deserves.

Posted by Darby Shaw | June 4, 2008 3:51 PM

Great! More female pundits.

Feminists should consider this a step backward.

Posted by Marshall | June 4, 2008 3:54 PM

Wow. Lots of vitriol here. I agree with Dana -- I think Hillary's campaign will be remembered *much* more positively once tempers have cooled.

Say, in 150 years. Bringing race-sniping back into the Democratic Party was really uncool.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 4, 2008 4:25 PM

I think I'll settle for considering you a step backward, Marshall. I consider my TV a better place for having Rachel Maddow on it.

Darby, last night MSNBC was floating that Hillary had said she'd accept Obama picking another vice-presidential candidate-- as long as it wasn't a woman. I'm dearly hoping that was false.

Posted by Persia | June 4, 2008 4:25 PM

If Chris Matthews's Expiring Contract is allowed to expire, that is a good thing.

Posted by Aaron | June 4, 2008 4:30 PM

Chances are good that Bill is calling his insignificant other every name in the book now right to her face. Every sentient being knows she's one deeply fucked-up broad. But, no one is more disgusted by her than her off-white knight. They deserve each other. 109 million in the bank and they're the most miserable couple on earth.

Posted by Trevor | June 4, 2008 4:58 PM

Appears that 22 MORE superdelegates swung to Obama so far today --including 2 previously pledged to Hillary.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for.html

Boy, Nancy and Howard don't fuck around, do they?
Heh heh heh

Only two more days and Hillary turns into a pumpkin.

Hillary's supporters , of course, still holding her out as our next President. People like Terry McAuliffe --who gave her that introduction last night.

Reading the Hillary Sites is like watching one of those Jim Jones cults where they're bring out the Kool Aid: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 5:20 PM

Reading the Hillary Sites is like watching one of those Jim Jones cults where they're bring out the Kool Aid.

Maybe it's just because Obama has been winning, but it is really striking how the Hillary campaign has morphed into a cult of personality.

The most rabid supporters have thrown aside the rules and decorum, latched onto right-wing media and taken (even defended and championed) racism. Now, they feel it is their right and duty to hold the party hostage so get their candidate on the ticket.

Last night's speech was held in an underground bunker, insulated from TV and radio and (cell) phones. The speech refused to admit the reality Obama's victory in any fashion and was full of cries of "I" and "me" rather than "us" and "we". The most remarkable thing was that Hillary offered doubt that she would lead her "18 million supporters" (as if they were automatons unwilling to put support for party or country over their personal preference) to support the Democratic nominee.

In time, I'm sure all but a bitter few of her supporters will come to support the "inadequate black man". For some of those that don't it will be a problem of race, but for many others I believe it will be the problem that they invested so much (of their hopes and dreams, grievances and hardship) into one person to be able to support anyone else.

Posted by ben | June 4, 2008 5:58 PM

That's all well and good. But what else is there?

What about Hillary's campaign can we say shaped the policy formulations of her competitors like Edwards did?

She supposedly helped toughen up Obama. And this. But what did she do to further the discourse in the progressive arena? I'd argue not much.

Posted by bubba | June 4, 2008 6:02 PM

Re ben's comment "but for many others I believe it will be the problem that they invested so much (of their hopes and dreams, grievances and hardship) into one person to be able to support anyone else."
------------
That's very true.

A large chunk of the US population consists of adults who mentally are immature six year olds looking for a Surrogate Daddy. That's the appeal of TV evangelists like Hagee, of "national security" chickenhawks, and of "tough on crime" Republicans.

I had hoped Democrats were better.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 6:08 PM

To clarify: The most ardent Clinton supporters are willing to dispense with "Clinton policies" i Clinton is not on the ticket and are wiling to forgo (if not rail against) having the first female VP if that woman is not Clinton. That is the part that strikes me as cultish.

Posted by ben | June 4, 2008 6:11 PM

Hmm. Looks like current count is that Obama got 26 full superdelegate votes today and Hillary got 2 --for net gain of 24 for Obama.

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/06/superdelegate-endorsements-for.html

That brings his lead up to somewhere around 255? votes.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 6:28 PM

I would imagine that an Obama transition team is now really going to want to be able to say that it's appointed the highest number of woman to cabinet positions.

Shrub appoint minority candidates to someof the highest positions in his cabinet (Sec. State, HHS, AG, etc), but his policies were anything but friendly to minorities.

I'm not advocating against female appointments in an Obama administration, but I think tallying them up like some sort of videogame score is less helpful and courageous than pushing for policies that support women.

Posted by ben | June 4, 2008 6:34 PM

If Hillary were, against all the odds, be named as VP I'd love to hear from her diehard fans as to how they're able to stomach watching her play second fiddle to Barackred the Unready. And do check out the new McCain ad montage of everything Hillary said about Obama's unfitness to be CIC.

Posted by Bill | June 4, 2008 6:36 PM

1) Looks like that memo from Pelosi/Dean/Reid/Manchin and today's 26 superdelegate endorsements for Obama -- plus many more lined up for tomorrow -- convinced Hillary to throw in the towel before it was made PUBLICLY clear that she no longer has the power to decide anything.

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080604/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_abc_dc

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Sen. Hillary Clinton will drop out of the presidential race on Friday and cede the Democratic nomination to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, ABC News reported on Wednesday, without citing sources. "
----------
I wonder if the source was Nancy Pelosi. heh heh heh

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 7:23 PM

My fantasy moment:

Obama: "I have decided to pick Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas as the next Vice President of the United States."

Reporter: "Why Sebelius, Senator? Shouldn't you have asked Hillary Clinton to be your running mate?"

Obama: "Well, I just felt I needed more experience on the ticket. You know, commander-in-chief threshold and all that."

Reporter:. . .

Posted by Abe | June 5, 2008 1:22 AM

ben, I doubt that the next Democratic president is going to be rather anti-women in its policies. Add in the fact that Obama is going to have to make sure he maintains good will with any women who might be a little bitter about Clinton losing and I doubt he's suddenly going to turn pro-life or something soon.

If she loses her cool over Obama choosing a female VP, then I will be even more disappointed in her. Sebelius is my top choice because she brings a lot of positives to the table and reinforces Obama's appeal - Midwestern, reaching out to Republicans and converting them, etc. - while also being a rising star in the party on a national scale. The fact that she is a woman is just the icing on the cake.

I also fail to see how Clinton can take credit for Rachel Maddow being awesome.

"Wow. Lots of vitriol here. I agree with Dana -- I think Hillary's campaign will be remembered *much* more positively once tempers have cooled.

Posted by Devo | June 4, 2008 3:08 PM"

Maybe. At some point (it doesn't even have to be this year), she is going to have to apologize for her race-baiting. She is also going to have to mend fences in Harlem and elsewhere in New York. If she continues to deny that she race-baited, she will have problems.

Posted by Reality Man | June 5, 2008 1:38 AM

ben, I doubt that the next Democratic president is going to be rather anti-women in its policies.

I don't disagree. I do, however, think (as an unabashed Obama supporter) that token appointments are blatant pander.

Obama has made it a point, during his campaign, to tell people what needs to be said rather than what the want to hear. During the run up to the Iraq war, he said it was bullshit. He's argued that diplomacy is an act of strength rather than weakness. He's tried to argue for the inclusion of people who have been pushed away from the Democratic party. He's gone into a black church on MLK day to chastise the black community for its homophobia.

Barack Obama does not (usually) pander. He will not appoint X number of women to his cabinet to trumpet some golden calf number. Instead, he's going to act like a (wo)man and do what needs to be done to get this country on the right path.

Posted by ben | June 5, 2008 6:15 AM