"If only she'd done this weeks ago," Matt writes. I take his point: It would probably been better for the party if Hillary had conceded defeat somewhat earlier (though there would have been the potential embarrassment of having the presumptive-nominee lose primaries to a rival who'd dropped out), or at the very least campaigned less fiercely against Obama once his victory became a near-certainty, and certainly her non-concession speech on Tuesday night was bizarre and faintly pathological. But I think that once a few months have gone by, at least some of outrage that Hillary Clinton has generated among liberal pundits by campaigning to the bitter end in a race that she ended up losing by just over a hundred pledged delegates and roughly half a percent of the popular vote will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical.
« Obama and Abortion | Main | A History of Theodicy » Hillary Bows Out05 Jun 2008 09:26 am Comments (30)
at least some of outrage that Hillary Clinton has generated among liberal pundits by campaigning to the bitter end in a race that she ended up losing by just over a hundred pledged delegates and roughly half a percent of the popular vote will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical. I'd grant your point if I believed your characterization of most of the outrage as about Clinton merely "campaigning to the bitter end" were accurate. Most of the outrage wasn't about her campaigning in itself. It was about the malignity of her campaign -- suggesting McCain was better equipped to be commander of chief, dishonestly ginning up Michigan and Florida resentments, characterizing her supporters as "hard working white people": basically trying to sabotage Obama, the overwhelmingly likely nominee of her party, whenever she could get away with it. The truth remains, however, that she came just about as close to the presidency as any primary loser in history. It was probably expecting too much to expect her to bow out gracefully before it was clearly over. 
I don't think I will ever look at my fury at her as overdone because I truly believe she did some despicable things.
will seem, in hindsight, faintly hysterical Or misogynist.
Be honest with yourselves, liberals. Since this is a season of heightened identity politicking, imagine HRC or Obama going up against a white male showing the slim lead Barack has, with said white male's nomination just as imminent. What would you be saying right now? You'd be channeling Bea Arthur's Maude character and ranting away. So count your blessings, and stop whining.
Yeah, it's not the fact that she stayed in that upset people-- it's all the stuff that Ban Johnson mentions. Working to tarnish the image of the party nominee in the public's mind, and to heighten resentment of him among her supporters, was not so great. When she made her RFK remark that drew such attention a few weeks back, she seemed to me to be arguing that people were calling for her to drop out solely because of sexism. I think that's part of why she hung around so long.
Don't you think it will largely hinge on how she acts from this point out? I mean, say what you will about Mitt Romney, when he bowed out, he gave a powerful speech about conservatism, and went to work for McCain. If Hillary does something similar, she's essentially saying, "I was in it because I believe in these principles, and now Obama is the best person to carry on the fight so I'll get behind him." If, on the other hand, her concession is all about her, or if her support for Obama comes across as tepid, then I think she continues to recieve the animosity of his supporters, and possibly also keeps some of her own supporters from really getting behind him enthusiastically.
A self-confessed conseravtive would think outrage over the deliberate sabotage of the opposition party "faintly hysterical," wouldn't he?
As usual, Ross is totally wrong. Hillary is the queen of toxic sludge politics. She shamelessly demeaned and denigrated Obama by saying McCain was better qualified to be president. She won votes by fear-mongering and rac-baiting. Hillary is an absolute disgrace. I'm ready to write a check for her Republican opponent when she seeks re-election to the Senate.
Yo. People seem to forget that Hillary's unsavory campaign tactics against a fellow Democrat were precisely because it was clear for MONTHS that she couldn't win the nomination short of a miracle. It was clear BEFORE Texas and Ohio that unless she won both those states by improbable margins it was effectively over, Obama's lead effectively insurmountable. That's when all the narcissistic desperation set in. Heck, I called this race when Obama trounced her in Iowa, not that she should have dropped out just then (heh). But it's been clear for ages who the winner was. This wasn't fighting to the bitter end so much as prolonged flirtation with sabotaging the eventual nominee. Anyone who thinks otherwise is frankly kidding himself.
The problem isn't that she campaigned to the bitter end, it's that she waged a destructive campaign against her opponent (and talking up McCain at the same time, bizzarely enough) when she had no path to victory. Her only hope was that the supers would suddenly decide to endorse her, after months of not endorsing anyone. The whole superdelegate idea needs to go. They're intended to show leadership by bucking popular trends, but most of them are elected officials. And it's a rare elected official that will publicly buck popular trends.
As others have said, it isn't the fact that she continued on, it's the way she campaigned that angers other Democrats. It was pure Rove-ian in it's tactics. Yeah, yeah, politics is dirty and there have been nastier things said in earlier campaigns but that was when we basically relied on a 3-network, 30-minute newscast that maybe focused 7 minutes on campaign news. Now we have everything recorded and played endlessly, on-demand, on blogs, YouTube, and cable news. There is a wilderness out there that doesn't pay ANY lip service to the journalistic standards of Grandpa's age and will post and broadcast anything that generates views for advertising revenue. Campaign smears do not go away anymore. They hang around and are used by the opposition in endless and repetitive attacks. To aid and supply new content for that group like Hillary has done is ignorant and destructive. Her selfishness won't be forgotten.
Well, let's count our blessings. The parlous Clinton era has probably ended, and the Democrat Party has saddled itself with a candidate known to be the farthest left in the Senate with no significant accomplishments in Illinois or Washington, to say nothing of the Rezco and Trinity Church imbroglios.
Hillary is due mad respect. They basically tied when it came to the popular vote (let's agree it's w/n the margin of error, at least?), and she lost in delegates by about 1%. She won the 2nd half of the contest and would have won if the Democrats went by the Electoral College or by the other party's system. Despite coming that close, she couldn't have 24 hours to let it sink in and mentally prepare herself for the concession w/o the media and blogosphere having hissy fits? Just goes to show what she was up against........
Well, let's count our blessings. The parlous Clinton era has probably ended, and the Democrat Party has saddled itself with a candidate known to be the farthest left in the Senate with no significant accomplishments in Illinois or Washington, to say nothing of the Rezco and Trinity Church imbroglios. Even if the age-old circus routine about "far left" were true in an objective/substantive as opposed to merely polemical way, you're out of step to think that far left is still a naughty phrase after what the far right has done to the country. As for imbroglios, more than enough of those to go around. And I daresay the absence of significant accomplishments didn't stop anyone on the right from voting for George Bush.
Hillary is due mad respect. They basically tied when it came to the popular vote (let's agree it's w/n the margin of error, at least?), and she lost in delegates by about 1%. She won the 2nd half of the contest and would have won if the Democrats went by the Electoral College or by the other party's system. Despite coming that close, she couldn't have 24 hours to let it sink in and mentally prepare herself for the concession w/o the media and blogosphere having hissy fits? Just goes to show what she was up against........ AGAIN it's not so much that she ran out the clock (though as I said before it was crystal clear she wasn't going to win by no later than March 4); it's HOW she ran out the clock. 24 hours to let it sink in, my ass. That's about as disingenuous or oblivious, or both, as something Hillary would likely say. Shit done been sinkin in for a long time before June 3. Every other candidate on the planet would have offered a graceful concession that evening or at least stayed on the sidelines. Or are you shocked at how shocked even her own congressional supporters were at her behavior.
the Democrat Party has saddled itself That's not what the party is called. with a candidate known to be the farthest left in the Senate False. with no significant accomplishments in Illinois or Washington, False. to say nothing of the Rezco There's nothing there. and Trinity Church imbroglios. Yes, it's true; I saw Sen. Obama consorting with black people. You're going to need to find more convincing lies, Peter. I'm sure you're up to the task!
It's that Douthat go-to move again! Don't actually say anything other than to set yourself apart from hysterical liberals. Real value-added blog you're running here.
What will be remembered is that election-night speech, one of the most atrocious of recent history -- the "Dean Scream" of 2008. I can assure you it will not be forgotten.
Hillary lives in a bubble. I will not be convinced that it has burst until I see her whole heartedly campaign for Obama. Any other person would have seen the end coming months ago and bowed out gracefully Tuesday night. However, after whipping up her supporters in a frenzy over identity politics run amok, I don't know that it would have been possible for her to be a bigger person. Anyway, she has rarely congratulated Obama on his wins. For her to have started now would have been a nice surprise, but it was not expected.
Much of the anger will dissipate, provided we don't see too many clips of Sen Clinton bashing Sen Obama in Sen McCain campaign advertisements. In fact, McCain may well have it in his power now to do what the far right has wanted to do for many years - to permanently consign the Clintons to Democratic political history - by using her words on his own behalf. But resentment will remain for a very, very long time. As others have pointed out, it is not hysterical, and it is not due to the length of her campaign, but to the style that she ended up with when she finally "found her voice".
Elvis, that Time article merely proves that on two of Obama's liberal votes a few moderate Republican senators were on his side. The fact remains that according to the National Journal criteria Obama is pegged as the most liberal senator in 2007. Second, in the Senate the ethics bill that Obama worked on passed 96-2, hardly a controversial piece of legislation. Otherwise, the only significant item is the Lugar-Obama bill on non-proliferation in which Obama merely substituted for Lugar-Nunn. In Illinois after eight years he can only point to an ethics bill. Also, in the Illinois Senate, he accumulated an incredible 131 abstentions in which he basically ducked controversial votes. In the case of Rezco there is a lot there with his close association to Rezco, a man just convicted of 16 counts of criminal fraud,in fund raising and the buying of his house. In the case of Wright and Trinity Church he had a close association for twenty years with a man who followed the racist ideology of James Cone who wrote the following: Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. Obama in my view in both Illinois and Washington has located himself too far to the left on the political spectrum to accomplish anything of serious substance. That as president he would somehow develop the ideas and skill to be effective in the vital center of politics is rather a stretch.
The National Journal year after year games the votes to make sure the person they believe will be the Democratic nominee is pegged as the most liberal. Unless you honestly believe that Kerry was the most liberal Senator in 2004 - more liberal than Teddy Kennedy. As to Obama, do you really think he's more liberal than Teddy or Bernie? Of course not, so please don't cite a discredited rightwing study to give bona fides for Obama. That study was created in order to give the GOP ammunition to defeat him.
Kija, how do you base your assertion that The National Journal is a right wing rag? The fact is that they carefully selected the criteria to judge liberal and conservatives votes before knowing that Kerry and Obama ranked as the #1 liberal in the Senate in 2007.
Pardon me, the above should have been "Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2007."
Just in case anyone is mysteriously inclined to believe anything that Peter Leavitt writes, I'll paste from the link above to explain how haphazard the "OMG TEH DEM IS SO LIBERAL" thing is that NJ does every election year. I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton [ranked as the 16th most liberal member of the Senate in the study-- EE] took the conservative. The first was Joe Lieberman's S.Amdt. 30 to S.Amdt. 3 to S.1 The Amendment was "To establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity." Here's the roll call of the 27-71 vote. Joining Obama on the "liberal" side -- meaning the side in support of Joe Lieberman's amendment -- were Republicans Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe Chuck Grassley, and John McCain.
Hillary is due mad respect. They basically tied when it came to the popular vote (let's agree it's w/n the margin of error, at least?)
Be honest with yourselves, liberals. Since this is a season of heightened identity politicking, imagine HRC or Obama going up against a white male showing the slim lead Barack has, with said white male's nomination just as imminent. What would you be saying right now? You'd be channeling Bea Arthur's Maude character and ranting away. So count your blessings, and stop whining. Arguments from contrafactuals never impress me precisely because it's impossible to refute them. I can just as easily say, "Be honest with yourself: if you had the opportunity to have sex with a pretty fourteen year old girl, you'd take it!" Of course you can deny my claim but I can just ignore your denial and insist that, yes, you really would, whether or not you want to "admit" it to the world or to yourself. You sick pervert. Do you see the pointlessness of this type of argument?
Elvis, what is your own argument, aside from the snarky ad hominem remark labeling me a "liar," for accusing the National Journal of bias in its liberal or conservative ratings? I read the Time article and explained why its view is weak, Your cute response was to simply post a section of the article that proves nothing except your fetching sentiment for Obama's candidacy. You're as the Texans say long on hat and short on cattle.
Calling Peter Leavitt a liar is no more an "ad hominem attack" than calling a halibut a fish is. Now it's true that it would be an ad hominem attack if I said that Petey rapes dead hookers, but that's only because he pays them extra money to pretend they're dead.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
The effect of HRC's campaign on Obama's chances in the general will probably be marginal, as you suggest. The real injury is that tens of millions of Democratic dollars that could have been used for other purposes were spent salving one candidate's ego.
Posted by alkali | June 5, 2008 10:03 AM