Why Is This Nominee Different Than Every Other Nominee?
Greg Sargent reports on Howard Wolfson's acknowledgment that there is a Clinton-Obama rift and that Barack had better reach out and heal it.
This is crazy. Did John Kerry have to deal with Gephardt and Dean's hurt feelings in '04. Did Gore have to demonstratively feel Bill Bradley's pain? Did Clinton have to reach out and touch Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas?
It's bizarre. It reminds me of what LBJ had to do to appease the Kennedys after the assassination. It didn't do any good either. Bobby did everything he could to sink LBJ anyway. But that was more understandable. Kennedy was killed and his people were grieving.
But the Clintons merely lost a nomination fight. Big deal. There are winners and there are losers and until now no nominee has had to suck up to the other side. As we say on Passover, "why is this nominee different than any other nominee?"
Why indeed?
I guess what's different is that the vote totals were so darned close this time.
August 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And...?
August 25, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, Tankard. Horseshoes and hand grenades.
But... Obama beat her by a hair and then she's cut out entirely? I guess them's the breaks but you can see why people get annoyed.
August 25, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been annoyed by my candidate being beaten many times. I understand annoyance. What I can't understand is the threat to vote Republican. I would call it insane, except that the insanity plea might be used as a defense against the charge of treason.
August 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally agree.
August 25, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor,
Me too
August 25, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy has acted like a petulant child during and after Hills campaign. He's not the man he was, if he ever was the man he was.
August 25, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J. you are just plain wrong, or simply blind.
Hillary felt that the primary process was a coronation. A mere formality. When you are convinced it is your time, it must be crushingly disappointing to see it all crumble to dust in front of you.
Senator Clinton didn't merely lose a nomination contest. She was supposed to make history by being the first woman to run for and win the Presidency. You can't trivialize the significance of that to Bill, Hillary and her supporters.
It's insensitive, flippant attitudes like yours that are turning some Hillary supporters away. Take a good hard look at your attitude, pal, and figure out if you are helping or hurting the cause.
August 25, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"WAAAAAH!" In your face--with spray, too.
big baby
August 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very mature response. You need to spend less time hiding in broom closets talking to soggy mops and more time actually engaging people in civil discourse.
And by the way, I'm an Obama supporter.
August 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
RobbyLove -- I thought the whole point of having a woman compete for or become a president was to establish, once and for all, that we are the equals of men. (Which, by the way, we are.)
Sure the Clintons were crushed and dismayed .. but I suspect all the men who've lost the nomination over the years felt that way also. Why is it a "problem" or "hurting the cause" to suggest that perhaps they should deal with it just as those other losing candidates did? Actually, I think having that expectation - not your attitude - is what compliments Hillary and women in general.
As with her campaign, if you can separate the actions of Hillary from the men surrounding her (Bill, Wolfson, Carville, Begala), SHE had been behaving perfectly appropriately since the primaries ended.
August 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the historic significance of Hillary's run, and the fact that 50%+ of Americans believed she would be President as late as last year, that built up the expectations. That makes this situation VERY different from other candidates who have lost.
That none of you seem to comprehend these very simple facts is breathtaking to me.
August 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, this is not how elections work. The early expectations are based on name recognition and a general preference for one or another party. They mean nothing.
Clinton herself raised the emotional temperature with her kitchen sink, never surrender campaign that may have thrilled supporters, but was, I believe, detrimental to the greater good of electing a Democratic president.
August 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect, my whole point was that this is not like other election cycles so of course it wouldn't work the same way. To say that Hillary's early lead in this case meant nothing shows a willful ignorance of the historic nature of her run.
August 25, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were being ironic at first when you spoke of Hillary's belief that the primary would be a "coronation," a "mere formality." I mean, how could anyone possibly think that this attitude is justifiable? But your subsequent comments show you're not being ironic at all. Apparently you think the sheer arrogance of expecting a coronation is not only justifiable, but self-evident.
I think I see the issue now: some people love democracy and some have contempt for it. Some people are willing to accept the decision that the democratic process produced, and others think their candidate is entitled to victory no matter what.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to have contempt for democracy. But let's call it what it is and not resort to irrelevant platitudes about the historic nature of the candidacy (as if Obama's isn't equally historic). You think you love democracy but in reality you have no respect for it whatsoever.
Ah, the Clintons and their people: entitlement, entitlement, entitlement...
August 25, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you not understand anything? My point is that the reason the Hillary camp is upset is because of the huge expectations they had. It was built up over a significant period of time that this was a historic moment in American history. It still is, but not for them.
I'm not saying it's justified, I'm just saying that's why this cycle is different. Get over yourself and cut out the self-righteous bombastic attitude.
August 25, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"WAAAAAAH!"
...if her supporters only had half the balls she does...
August 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the furthest thing from being a Hillary supporter. I am an Obama supporter and contribute to his campaign. (Yes, during the primaries too!)
My initial response was to MJ, because he said that Hillary "merely lost a nomination fight".
My point was that this was not merely a simple nomination fight given the historic aspects of Hillary's candidacy and the expectations that came along with it.
If you can't understand that and comprehend the context, then the problem is on your end. Perhaps you should work on your comprehension skills instead of posting knee-jerk canned phrases that make you look sub-moronic.
August 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
RobbyLove says:
Robby, while I was reading this I was thinking about "the historic aspects" of a black man's candidacy, in the Primary and now in the General.
One historic aspect, Hillary's, seems to have been replaced by another historic aspect, Obama's.
August 26, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's my suspicion that the Clinton diehards (dead-enders?) are convinced that Clinton lost because she is a woman, and those who have moved on understand that she lost because Obama was every bit as good a candidate and a demonstrably better campaigner.
Women are becoming a much stronger (and to me, very welcome) presence in public life every year. We will see a woman in the Oval Office in my lifetime, of that I am sure. I just don't think it will be Hillary Clinton. And those who claim that she lost because she is a woman will then have to understand that it was because of who she is, not what she is.
August 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was KNIFED by the media. That is an established DOCUMENTED FACT.
Google it. Pew Research Center et al.
That's the difference.
Hillary was KNIFED by MJ on these pages and other so-called liberal "blogs".
Some of us who saw it go down are not confused about what happened.
It is Obama who needs to repent. Hillary is out of the picture. She is not the issue anymore. The issue is are we going to let the MSM and its blogging lapdogs determine the political discourse in this country or are we going to take back the voice of the people.
Not a trivial thing at all.
Very serious business.
You might be able to toy with the minds of the foolish, but remember we are watching you.
August 25, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, is this your first election? Bill Bradley treated Gore with disdain. Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter ring a bell? John Kerry actively reached out to the Deaniacs and moveon crowd himself rather than just sending Dean out to deliver his voters, and still lost a portion of them to Nader (or stayed home). Obama seems to be expecting support to be transferred to him. I have not seen anything like this sense of entitlement in an election ever and Hillary has more voters than those runner-ups did.
Reality check: The Clintons don't NEED the democratic party or Obama. They can travel around the world doing good in philanthropy rather than in Washington. Hillary has done her part in the concession speech and unity speech and continues to travel the country campaigning and asking her supporters to raise money for Obama. Bill Clinton has endorsed Obama in a more wholehearted way than Carter endorsed Bill Clinton when he was running.
What has the Obama done in return to ease the Clinton Hate within the party they worked so hard to stir up? Where's that empathy and dedication to compromise that was so evident in the FISA vote? Obama seems to think that the Clintons owe him something and hasn't realized yet that if you continue a war with someone with nothing to lose, you will find it very hard to succeed against them.
And this is from a Hillary supporter dedicated to electing Obama in November despite my disappointment in him as a candidate. Imagine how undecided Clinton supporters view this? If we lose this election that has been handed to us on a silver platter, both Hillary and Obama will be maimed by it for failing to unify the party. Hillary supporters will blame him & Obama supporters will blame her. 2012 will be a whole new ballgame for someone like a Mark Warner. Or the Obama campaign can come to their senses and realize unity is a two way street. You can't continue to insult the very people whose support you need to win.
And if he wants the support of the Hillary voters, perhaps he can lower himself to ask for it directly and speak to their concerns rather than just expecting them turned over with a pretty little bow on top.
August 25, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for saying that. Now I don't have to.
August 25, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and the Clintons certainly are saying the right things--note Hillary's response of "I didn't approve this message" to McCain's ad.
As you say, the race was close. But think about Bill winning in 1992 with 10.5 million primary votes. In this primary, Hillary and Obama were very close with over 36 million between the two of them. A heck of a lot more folks were heard from.
And I also notice that it isn't supporters who are creating all of the fireworks. Media pundits want to drive up their ratings with controversy. Folks used to power or influence in the party and who achieved that through the Clintons will remain shaken until Obama wins--and that will continue to show up as anguish similar to what one goes through if one's job is threatened by corporate downsizing. No matter how much soothing is done, these folks will fret and worry and occasionally it will feed into the media pundits wanting controversy to improve their ratings.
Understand it and then shrug it off and work on the campaign.
My two cents of totally unsolicited advice. :)
August 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo,
I'm not so sure you should be so convinced of your opinion. You put some questions out there, and you thorw in a 'Obama seems to think..."line.
You're doing what the bobble heads on cable news shows do; 4 people sit around and gossip about "what if" and giving bobble head opinion on what Obama or Hillary "seems to think."
I have no doubt that Hillary and Obama had a number of conversations beyond the sight of the "political experts" working for Network
and Cable news shows.
Speculating is fun, but I'll wait to see what, if anything, Hillary and Obama came to agree on in those private conversations.
Maybe President Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court?
August 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those are not my words - they are Obama's:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/obamas-get-over-it-moment-with-women/
Yes, McCain will push some voters away and Hillary can win some voters on her own. It's not just the get over it comments that come off as rather dismissive or entitled to those votes. I have yet to see a direct outreach from Obama to date like Kerry did with the Deaniacs that were much smaller in number. At some point, the onus is on the candidate himself to appeal to those undecided voters. That point was months ago, but it's a good idea to get this outreach in motion now if we want to win in November.
August 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you get it. I never wanted Hillary for VP as a reward. It would have been a step down for her. I wanted her for VP because I thought it would make this election easier to win period with a comfortable lead, not a nailbiter.
I don't expect any "rewards" from Obama for Hillary like Supreme Court or anything else, and I'm sure neither does Hillary.
August 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo said;
After Obama won the nomination, I wanted Hillary as VP too, seeing it as you do.
August 26, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer: Because he is black, because he dethroned the Clintoni, and because he is black.
Hillary is different because she is a woman, she was supposed to win, and she is a woman.
Politics is supposed to be a lot about winning elections. So far, the Democratic Party has failed to focus on that fact.
And I have to say, political and economic power is increasing moving into the hands of women. Some scholar talked about the circulation of elites in the U.S.; when one leading group gets tired, another comes along.
Women are "rising," as we used to say. Local government is increasingly female. There are now female governors, one who looks like she might be presidential timber. Doctors, lawyers, business people (a female CEO).
Is there sexism? Yes. Along with racism, homophobia, jew-hatred, xenophobia. We shouldn't "get over it;" we should acknowledge gains and continue to fight these poisons. But we should be able to put personal ambition and emotions aside to pursue a greater good, a superordinate goal.
It is really in our hands, as Mr. O keeps insisting. If we and our nation can focus on what we want for our country and for just a moment, put aside our precious egos, we might find our nation moving in positive directions.
August 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gephardt, Tsongas, Bradley, Dean and Brown were not former, wildly successful (by most accounts), Presidents; former Presidents who happened to be very popular during and well after their presidency. They were not the head or leader of the Party, the elder statesman, deserving of a certain amount of respect and honor.
One can argue forever about who drew first blood or who was more instrumental in causing the "rift." But saying there is no difference this time around suggests you may not have a complete grasp on what has transpired over the last 15 or so years. But then so many of your posts do just that, why should anyone be surprised this time?
August 25, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And another thing. The so-called rift is reportedly between Bill and Barack. Not Hillary and Barack. The fact that you speak of the Clintons as one--making no distinctions--just confirms for us all your place among the Unhinged.
August 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Elder Statesman" who behaves like a willful and arrogant child on the campaign trail? Good luck with that meme.
The Clintons lost because they ran like neocons - snide innuendo, taking all things Obama out of context and then expecting the rest of us to be idiots and play along. A little more humility and Hillary would have won this thing in a landslide. Obama would be VP. McCain might be ten points down by now.
They (and their supports) have no one to blame for this loss but themselves, their enormous egos and an inability to trust in the basic goodness of the American people to do the right thing without being scared into it by prejudice and lies.
August 26, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons showed no respect for Carter nor deference either.
August 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will the rift be healed? I am not sure because I am not sure the party who feels they were hurt wants healing to occur. The rift should have been closed by now and trying to do it while trying to ramp up all the troops for the general election battle is a recipe for disaster. This is going to be an unseemly spectacle as the hardest core of the Clinton supporters take out their anger about their injuries, a few real but most just perceived, on Obama. To them Hillary's interests trump the party's fortunes...especially when they want to grab the spotlight at a time when Obama should be the only one at center stage getting ready for what lies ahead.
Sad to say as usual the D's end up being their own worst enemies. And the R's will sitting back with big smiles on their faces as the Hillary backers show their support for their preferred candidate by holding up their 'Nobama' signs. And what will be taken from this exercise if all this comes to pass, which I unfortunately think it will, is the doubt put in the minds of the American people whether Obama is the right leader for this country if he can't even manage to effectively lead his own party.
August 25, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Libertine,
this is to all those attacking the Clintons;
I witnessed what happened to the CLintons when he was President, 8 years of vicious attacks by the wingnuts and the Republicans, no charge was off the table; incessant babbling about murder, rape, treason, hearings du jour under the Republican congress for 6 years, etc, which brings me to today.
As a liberal I'm not that much of a Clinton fan, he disappointed me too often, but I'll pass on all the insults thrown at them, all the imagined, made up and real charges I'm reading here, which actually sounds like this place is full of rightwingers. Maybe I mistakenly clicked myself into FreeRepublic.com.
It will be interesting to see the comments here after the Clinton speeches.
August 26, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you have me pegged wrong.
Knowing American history, none of this is surprising to me. Not one bit.
My question was rhetorical; I know the answer.
August 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course. It can only be explained by race! Man, I bet Kerry really regrets not being black. You can blame every failure on it even when your campaign makes stupid mistakes like continuing to divide the party with divisiveness, rather than bringing it together. Not by questions of experience or his failure to reach out to key constituencies or continuing to divide the party with behind the scenes insults, only to be embarassed when they are made public. Here's a clue - if you don't want the insults made public, then stop doing insulting things to the very people whose support you actively need. Wow, what a concept! Please share with the Obama campaign! Racism will indeed cost us some votes in this race. Why is he actively ceding other votes by a failure to respect the people who voted for Hillary and are not yet sold on his candidacy? NOT MCCAIN is not enough for everyone. The sooner the Obama campaign realizes it, the better if we want to win in November.
August 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for proving my point.
August 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink