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
Oh, I thought your original point was why does Obama need to play a role in healing the rift with the Clintons. If Obama was John Edwards, he'd be seeking the Clinton support as well. That's not race - it's politics.
It's not helpful to conflate every obstacle Obama faces with race. If he loses, race may be a factor but not the only one. Party unity in being able to unite the Clinton-wing of the party may be another factor. He has no control over the racists. He does have control on whether his campaign is actively trying to unify the party or continuing the divisions.
August 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree.
August 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How should have Obama reached out to Clinton supporters? I'm asking seriously. Hold a rally just for Clinton supporters? Apologize because the superdelegates flooded to his side in the closing days of the primary season? What?
And given that it was the Obama campaign's idea to have the roll call for Clinton, to have Hillary Clinton speak, to have Bill Clinton speak, what more should have been done?
I think that Hillary Clinton has done a good job of making it clear she supports Obama. Bill Clinton? Not so much, and since he attracts microphones from miles around every time he opens his mouth about Obama, his somewhat underwhelming support has been magnified out of context, thereby fueling the notion of a "rift".
This was a bitter and long campaign, and I think it's unreasonable to expect an overnight turnaround and genuine enthusiasm on the part of the supporters of the candidate who lost.
That being said, I don't know what else the Obama campaign was supposed to have done.
August 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget the number of Clinton staffers who are now part of the Obama campaign--that counts as reaching out, doesn't it?
August 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good point.
He could have started by making her his VP pick, or at least acknowledging that she was a worthy choice. He could have not promised to help retire her campaign dept, and then kind of forgot to mention it. He could have let her supporters know that he considered her a vital part of the Democratic party, and her voice would be heard in policy and platform decisions. He could say that he looks forward to her continuing leadership in the Senate and that he considers her a key ally in accomplishing the change he promotes.
But your point is solid. He might notbe able to fix the hurt feelings and disappointments that followed the primary. But he could have tried.
August 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did acknowledge that she was a worthy choice by repeatedly stating that she would be on anyone's short list for veep.
Like talking about how her fight for universal health care was now going to be one of the central pieces of his administration?
Could he have done more? Yes. Would that have been enough? I don't think so. For some (and I think it's a distinct minority), no matter what Obama did, it wasn't going to be enough to take away the pain of Senator Clinton not getting the nomination.
August 25, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
CT Voter says:
CT, I agree with you, not matter what he did it would never have been enough for some people.
Its like the right wing attacks and the MSM signing on about whether or not Clinton "did enough" to fight terrorism.
Wolf Blitzer; 'Could Bill Clinton have done more to fight terrorism, stay tuned, we'll be right back.'
August 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rally for Clinton supporters? Excellent idea where he can talk at length about his economic policies, bread and butter issues that most HRC supporters want to hear more about. Isn't that what Kerry did with the Deaniacs? Speaking as a HRC gal, I have very little interest in how many homes John McCain has. I'd like to hear more about his foreclosure plan, healthcare in the type of excruciating detail that made some of Hillary's speeches a snooze fest. Hillary supporters LIKE detail.
Bill Clinton is still pissed he was tarnished as a racist. Hard feelings remain obviously, but he has given more clear support than Carter gave for Bill Clinton is 1992. They gave Bill time at the convention but insisted he talk about forieign policy rather than the economy. He's already volatile. I say suck it up and have him speak on the topic he can give the wholehearted endorsement on. Why fan the flames? Accept the support that is given and move forward rather than making additional demands.
It takes two sides to start and continue a feud. Neither side is innocent, but the Obama campaign has more at stake in making sure it ends ASAP. Sometimes that means making concessions.
August 25, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't realistically see a rally would ever have worked: too much of a chance that it would be filled with booing audience members, and that's all that the press would focus on, not on anything else.
As for Bill? He had an opportunity, in an interview, well after the primary was over, to demonstrate what a statesman he could be. Instead, he appeared to give in to his personal pique, and made some unfortunately comments. I'm not surprised he was asked to speak about something other than economic policy. There are consequences for everything, and yes, this cuts both ways.
August 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry spoke to the Deaniacs and took the boos and tepid applause. But he tried nonetheless. Is Obama going to walk around in a GWB bubble running from any dissent? He can't expect Hillary to earn every vote for him. He has to get out and earn them himself. The more Obama ignores HRC voters or just expects Hillary to deliver them to him, the more angry HRC supporters get that they are not welcome in the party - especially when other folks are telling them to leave or continuing to disrespect the Clintons. I am an unapologetic partisan. I'll pull the ticket for (D) any day of the week. Not all Hillary supporters are the same and this election is too important to not fight for every vote.
And again with Bill Clinton, you can have him happy or irate. I'd rather have the happy Bill Clinton speaking on the subject of his choice. I can't see any advantage in giving him a topic that he does not allow him to be as full-throated as possible with his support. Does that punish Bill or Obama? I guess we'll see after his speech.
August 25, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we'll have to disagree on this point:
I don't see that Obama has been ignoring HRC voters, nor do I see him simply expecting her to deliver them to him.
But the rally thing? Kerry could afford to do that, because the entire time frame was different, it seems to me. Here, the spotlight and the attention has been focused, nonstop, on Obama and Clinton since Iowa. If he had appeared before a booing or tepid audience, it just would have fueled an immediate, and disastrous flogging of the "Dems in disarrary!!@@#$@$$@!%^!@^%!!" theme, and that, I think more than anything, would have made any "reconciliation" much more challenging than it has been.
August 25, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo says:
I think race is the 'major' factor for many in both parties.
There may be a number of republicans who might have voted for a Democrat this time, but not a black Democrat. And lets not discount those in the Democratic party who won't vote for a black guy, people like the Reagan Democrats.
I'm not accusing those who won't vote for Obama
because he's black of being racists, what I'm seeing is the vestiges of a negative attitude toward black people that is slowly changing, but perhaps not yet changed in enough people to elect a black man.
By the way, the people I'm referring to have almost the same outlook for Jews. I wonder what the line would be if Russ Feingold was the candidate.
August 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
In MJ's defense, he didn't even mention racism.
I suspect he was referencing bitter primary battles as the American history he knows that brings little surprises this year unless one is ignorant of it, the historic nature of the campaigns themselves being put aside.
Every primary since the two parties started throwing them around the turn of the last century has been a raucous and contentious affair only partly mitigated by the actual voting results.
August 26, 2008 8:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check today's post. It wasn't hard to read between the lines on this one though.
August 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
continuing to divide the party with behind the scenes insults
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it does it make a sound?
So what you are saying is that even while Obama has been very gracious in public to Hillary because he allegedly made some insulting remarks in private he is dividing the party? For the life of me I don't understand what else Hillary's supporters are looking for from the Obama campaign. More public statements of praise for Hillary and her supporters? And even if more public adulation is given to her I am not sure at all it will make a difference to her and her supporters. I think the only thing that will satisfy some (many?) Hillary supporters is if Obama comes out and says he will turn down the nomination and it should be given it to her because she is the better and more deserving candidate.
I'm telling everyone right now if the D's blow this election, which should have been an absolute slam dunk, because of intercine fighting I will finally register Green and never support a democratic politician ever again in my life...they D's will have proved themselves to be totally incompetent as a party.
August 25, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like he grovelled for the Edwards endorsement and agreed to a poverty tour? Grovelling is part of politics period. You go to the people you need something from and you ask for their support, not demand it and continue to insult them. Face it. Obama needs the Clintons & the Clintons don't need him. It sucks, but that's the way the world works.
Hillary put her smile on and gives an impassioned concession and unity speech. She'll do the same thing at the convention. Can you name one overture Obama himself has made to Hillary supporters since June? Can you think of worse timing for his VP pick than two days before the unity convention? Can you explain why he personally called all other VP candidates and had a Clinton associate inform Hillary of his VP decision?
The nominee has a responsibility too and Kerry worked much harder for Deaniacs personally than I have seen Obama work for Hillary folks. Someone has to let the Obama campaign know that the notion taht Hillary alone is responsible for uniting the party is harmful to the campaign.
August 25, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grovelling is part of politics? Damn I can't recall the R's having to do that with their also rans. In fact in 2000 Bush absolutely humiliated McCain and their was no hand wringing inside the party, they moved on and took care of business. While Gore and the outgoing president Bill Clinton couldn't get on the same page and Gore lost a close election.
So the unity show in Unity wasn't enough? The glass ceiling having all those millions of cracks isn't good enough? Hillary being so good a candidate and therefore making Obama a better candidate isn't enough? A pound of flesh is still needed? And if I remember right I think Hillary was 'grovelling' just as much for Edwards support as you claim Obama is guilty of doing. I respect and admire the republicans for their discipline in doing what they have to do to get their substandard candidates elected while I get nauseous thinking about the unwitting assists they get from the democrats.
The D's have a long and storied history of electoral disarray and this year is setting up to be a 'text book' example of it...too many cooks ruin the dinner and right now Obama should be the only one who matters. I don't see Huckabee or Romney demanding that McCain grovel for their support.
August 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, McCain was chosen by more than 51% of the party. Obama is outsourcing the unity job to Hillary. She'll bring home some, but not all. How much does Obama fight for the remainder? Where does personal responsibility come into play? Where's the uniter I always hear about?
Hillary's already reached the ones who'll vote for Obama because she endorsed him in full. Hillary supporters are not looking for anything from Hillary anymore. They want to see something from Obama that reflects a respect of their concerns. He has a chance at the convention but needs to do more, not sit back and hope they come running to him.
August 25, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're rationalizing dijamo.
Do you think McCain could possibly win in November if he didn't have the Romney and Huckabee supporters onboard? Sure it was closer on the democratic side but that doesn't warrant the threat of disunity if the 'proper' amount of grovelling isn't done. Bill and Hillary Clinton want to be 'King Makers'. It is like them saying if we don't get what we want we will take our ball like spoiled little kids, stomping thier feet all the way home...at least that is the appearances that are being given.
And hopefully the Clintons realize they need to be team players or they will become pariahs and Hillary won't be able to be elected dog catcher as a democratic politician.
August 25, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Romey won 49% of the vote, he'd be taking it to the convention. Period. That's how much he and McCain hated each other in the primary (and probably still do). Any candidate that earns 49% of the vote is going to have tremendous power at the convention and deserves to be treated with respect.
Bill Clinton is not the kingmaker - that was the Rules and Bylaws Commitee (insert rimshot). Obama is already king of the party. But Bill is an elder statesman whose support Obama is seeking. Obama wants Bill to be a forceful advocate for his campaign. There is nothing that absolutely makes Obama entitled to his support. Bill Clinton wants respect. Sounds like an even trade to me.
And like I said previously, Bill and Hillary don't need the democratic party. They can walk away from politics and focus on philanthropy. Threats of political retribution mean much less when you don't have any leverage.
August 25, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
If that is their attitude that is Bush-like hubris and completely selfish. Seriously...the people have gone to the polls and chose Obama but until Obama kisses the ring Clinton won't give his full support? That is not being a 'King Maker'?
If Bill Clinton is actually only an 'elder statesman' of the party I think it is his responsibility to make sure the party does well. It should not be about him (and Hillary). And if it is not solely about the party then he has no business being in that position within the party. Do you think McCain is still trying to seek the approval of the elder statesmen of his party? Hell no, they are already fighting on his behalf. If Bill and Hillary view themselves as party elders they better start behaving like that soon or their party will suffer.
August 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
EGADS men are so difficult. Showing respect does not equal grovelling. What is so hard to understand about that? One wants to be respected and the other looks at showing respect as debasement. This is a war of egos between Obama and Bill Clinton, that benefits noone least of all the Democratic party. Both share culpability. I want to shake both of them and tell them to grow up.
But in practical matters I have found in standoffs like this, eventually the person gives who wants it more or has more to gain unless pride is more important than what it is you want from that person. This is basic human nature, not "king-making."
Hillary has done everything asked of her and more than any runner-up has ever done. She does not belong lumped into the Obama-Bill Clinton standoff.
August 25, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
And McCain's elder statesmen did not spend the campaign being called racist. So I think Bill Clinton's need to be respected is greater than any of the GOP statesman (p.s. I don't think the GOP have any elder statesmen left. McCain is running from GWB and even Poppy Bush is not a big draw).
August 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Philanthropy!
August 25, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Face it. Obama needs the Clintons & the Clintons don't need him. It sucks, but that's the way the world works.
That's the most compact way to put it in a nutshell. Bravo!
These people rather wallow in Clinton demonization than wining an election. MJ--who the fuck knows what he is up to. I can't believe that he understand that Obama needs Hillary and not the other way around--an obvious truth--and still engage in deepening the divide between the two camps. Only explanation I have –other than that he is incredibly naive--is that he is secretly working for a McCain presidency.
August 25, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what are the Clinton's looking for Andrew? What is it gonna take for them to jump enthusiastically on board? A guarantee that Hillary will be AG? Hillary on the SCOTUS? What? We got to move on and figure out how to get a D in the White House and stop playing these 'what's in it for me?' games. If they push for too much and damage the party they and Obama will lose. They wouldn't want to see Obama lose, would they?
August 25, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Libertine. They want him to grovel. They believe in the divine right of kings.
I was for Bobby in '68. But in retrospect I see that the whole idea of dynasties, of jobs by heredity, is utterly un-American.
And this is what it results in.
The "how dare he" thing.
It's perverse.
August 25, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lest we forget, it also resulted in the disaster on legs we have in the White House right now.
August 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, what is wrong with you? Where do you come up with this shit? What does Josh see in you?
August 25, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel you. My kid felt the same way when the Patriots lost to the Giants in the Superbowl. He was so sure the Pats and Tom Brady had it. Who the hell was this twerp Manning to simply outplay them?
Happily, he got over it in 24 hours.
August 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah accoreding to your logic you might as well argue
"what the hell are the Palestinians complaining about? They lost. Get over it!!"
August 25, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grovel? That's great. Hillary supporters want Obama to grovel? It's the other way around, MJ, and you know it. You want -- hell, you demand -- they kiss his ring, never say a sentence that doesn't begin "Barack Obama is the greatest human to walk the earth. He is a much better person, politician and will be a much better president that I could ever hope to be." And they better say it with passion and emphasis, like they are saying "Thank you" to a dying parent, or else it will be dismissed as insincere.
Obama has done virtually nothing to include Clinton or her supporters (or his, for that matter) in this election. The things he has done, like giving her a speaking spot at the convention, are pretty standard operating procudure for conventions. For you to pretend otherwise is beneath you.
You seem to be forgetting a big number. 27 percent of Hillary voters say they are backing McCain. That number is up from June, BTW. 27 percent of 18 million of 4.8 million votes. Kerry lost by 3 million. There's the difference in a contested election.
Obama cannot afford to have that many people -- that many people who voted in a Democratic primary, for God sakes -- that pissed off. I don't care if he has to grovel, I don't care if he has to placate. He needs their help. He needs to show them he respects them, their disappointment, their passion and their candidate. Even if she lost. He needs to make them beleive he gives a shit about them. He's not doing that now. You're not doing that now. The echo chamber here is not doing that now. And doing that, as distatsteful as you might find it, is a small price to pay for the presidency.
August 25, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJR. I swear man, if you want to play SOME kind of useful role, you have to pull yourself out of some of the emotional aftermath of this thing. It is, to me, just staggering how badly MY guys - the Obama backers - are behaving in this. And I do mean POLITICALLY. Look, I'll stop this rant here, but if you want to check out a couple of possibly useful experiences & frames on this, I've tried here.
August 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, I am not a political operative. I express opinions. My opinions. So I can call ii as I see it.
I thought criticizing Israel was considered beyond the pale. But, hey, maybe 3 people at TPM give me a hard time on that. But criticize the Clinton diehards!!!!
I'm not criticizing the Clintons. I'm criticizing their furious supporters who drank the Koolaid and have lost their bearings. Hopefully, Hillary's speech will bring them around. I expect she will give it her all. But I also expect the "we wuz robbed" crowd to keep demanding R-E-S-P-E-C-T, whatever the heck that means in this context.
August 25, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree MJ. I see the problem being more about her supporters than her. But still it is her responsibility to get her supporters onboard. And I don't see her being able to do that as certain. She needs to do whatever it takes to get them onboard. But what happens if they refuse?
August 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys. It ISN'T her responsibility anymore. OUR guy is the candidate. HE has to do the heavy lifting. WE do. There are 30% of her backers out there who still aren't on-board. That's roughly 5% of the voters. Here's the NYT this aft, "Obama conceded that some political patchwork was needed – and the burden was on him. He said, “There are going to be some of Senator Clinton’s supporters who we’re going to have to work hard to persuade to come on board – that’s not surprising."
This is politics, guys - hardball. We all like to repeat that. Well... THIS is the hard part of the ball game. It's NOT about winning over millions of bloody Republicans. The poll data shows a hard - but GOOD NEWS - piece of data. Namely, that if we can get 85%-90% of DEMOCRATS onside, we can forget about Rove & McCain & the Evangelicals. Our easiest, straightest path through - in bare-knuckle, pragmatic, political terms - is to get as much of that 30% onside as we can. If we get just HALF of them, we're gonna win.
August 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Barack took about 20% of the republican vote in the primary, roughly equal to the disgruntled Hillary supporters and a number that is sure to grow. I don't think we need to go out of our way to antagonize them, but many Obama supporters have clearly had enough apologizing ad naseum for minor slights.
August 26, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are criticizing her "furious" supporters? Why? They are nothing. Cyphers. You are worked up over this? You are just proving you're no better than they.
Unhinged.
August 25, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard Bill Press tell a story this morning, about how when he was legislative aide to Jerry Brown, Brown refused to concede to Jimmy Carter. So the Carter people would not provide them with a hotel. The ended up staying in a condemned, rat infested hotel that they were able to convince the owner to keep open for 1 more week before destruction. My point is, we need to get smarter and stop focusing on this petty crap that always seems to divide us, just as the brass ring is within reach. I’m particularly disturbed by the sniping over race. Let’s face it, we all need each other if we are ever going to change this country and make it what it should be. In the words of a brilliant boulevard philosopher, “Can we all just get along”?
August 25, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how much of this alleged tension between the Clinton and Obama camps is real and how much is media driven by those that thrive on conflict as a way to feed the air time of their 24/7 cable news shows.
Slothful journalists who wallow in gossip seem better suited to the National Enquirer.
August 25, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN just loves this story. Today that had Carville pouring gasoline on the flames. But, hey, he and Matalin have to make a living.
August 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carville is not the only one. I heard Begala and Rendell do the same thing. It is obviously a concerted effort to support the candidate, but don't stop think about yesterday!
August 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whiners from camp Hillary should get in-line with the program or switch party affiliation. I'm sick of the tears and cries of unfair play. Shape-up or ship-out. It was HRC that endorsed McCain during the primary. It was Bubba that opened his fat mouth and shoved his own ass in it over the SC primary (race). It was the media that perpetuated the race card after the Wright issue was addressed by Obama, twice. It was HRC who cried about losing Iowa. It was HRC's monumental mistake of presumptuousness that lost her the primary. It was Bubba that claimed "the guys" are ganging-up on the "girl"... I don't recall a single instance of Obama playing gender war with HRC.
STFU already! Hillary is capable of standing-up for herself and is probably sick of hearing all the whining, too!
August 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please point out past examples of delgates supporting losing candidates making campaign ads for the opposition party candidate.
Please point out past examples of big buck bundler supporters of losing candidates organizing to encourage a demographic segment of voters to support the candidate from the opposition party candidate.
Please point out past examples of supporters of the losing candidate organizing to bring down the winning candidate by supporting the opposition candidate.
Please point out past examples of supporters of the losing candidate organizing to destroy the party apparatus and it's current officials.
Please point out past examples of high profile supporters and the brother of the losing candidate meeting with high profile surrogates of the opposition party candidate.
Please point out past examples of the above behaviors by supporters of the losing candidate promoting the opposition party candidate whose public statements and policies exemplify the polar opposite of the cultural and legal issues they purport to care most deeply about.
Please point out past examples of hordes of disappointed scab-picking divas supporting the losing candidate pouting that they be courted and coddled. And all the while moving the bar higher and higher while ignoring the winning campaign's efforts to appease them.
Terry McCauliffe gets it. He's all over MSNBC trying to tamp down all the rumors of unresolved pique from Hillary and Bill Clinton. This ultimate insider knows that unless Hillary and Bill Clinton can turn the page on the national stage, their influence within the Democratic party will suffer a supporating gut wound.
The onus is on them.
August 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Kennedy, Ronald Reagan.
August 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J., you're honest enough to have acknowledged lately that you're a pessimist.
This sort of post, though, goes beyond pessimism and only fans the flames of an awful self-fulfilling prophecy we really need to avoid. I know I was ready to get riled up until I checked around, read Hillary's statement that the people saying this stuff don't know what they're talking about, etc.
As to what Wolfson said, yes, the part where he talks about there being a need for more work with Bill Clinton was unhelpful. But he also puts the onus on Bill to make a strong, consistent case for Obama from here until election day. And what he asks Obama to do is something Obama might choose to do anyway, which is contrast the Clinton with the Bush economies. Obama might choose not to do that. It's not a ridiculous suggestion, though--just a dumb one made publicly and in the context it was.
As to your post, why stir up a hornet's nest over possible bad-case scenarios built on what appears to be more fear and speculation than hard fact? I can't believe you actually want to contribute to exactly the sort of dynamic you and most of us trying to move forward with focus and determination deplore.
Hillary can't control her husband now any more than she's ever been able to. And no one else can, either. But she appears to be doing all the right things to build unity and purpose. If Bill needs some more time to work things out, so be it. Right now, it's not about him or his legacy. It's about Obama and whether he's going to have a chance to create his own legacy.
August 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good piece.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/08/25/2008-08-25_rambunctious_clinton_loyalists_make_anti.html
Of course, the difference between PUMA and Code Pink is that Code Pink is concerned with issues.
August 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't like negotiation when you're sitting in the driver's seat, do you Rosenberg? No sir, negotiation is only for whiners and losers when you hold power.
August 25, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You back? I thought you had gone to enlist. You are not still attending your elite school are you? Uncle Sam still wants YOU!
August 25, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
I'm still waiting for you to tell us how you dodged military service and how diverse your neighborhood is, your temple is, the diversity of the schools attended by your kids and grandkids, the public service you've performed. Couldn't be that you're completely ashamed of your record, could it?
August 25, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Rosenberg
That's quite a compliment...because I'm sure he doesn't want you.
August 25, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
cute
August 25, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really pissed being called a whiner, etc.
This primary race should have gone to the convention floor and have the delegates vote HRC up or down. Instead, the race was aborted to avoid a "fight"
and decided by the super-delegates including the likes of the jerk Donna Brazile. You remember her. She was Al Gore's brilliant strategist and campaign manager who led him to victory, er, well almost, against a certified nincompoop!
She's back again with the likes of Rosenberg this time. I'm not whining. I just wanted to have the Democrats win an election, not make a feel-good statement! Barack's nomination was not a back-room deal by power brokers - it was front room in full view.
August 25, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop whining.
August 25, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
see how they goad the Hillary supporters into going ahead and voting for McCain? See how they do it?
Thay are REPUBLICAN operatives.
MJ the most obvious one. Sure I can see why MJ would want to see McCain elected with all his AIPAC pals firmly in control.
I NEVER trusted MJ on any of his so called "liberal" pretentions.
But then again he might just be an incredibly stupid person.
August 25, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ strat
He attends a synagogue which "serves as the unofficial hub of Jewish neo-conservatives. It’s a natural home for Douglas Feith, Stuart Eizenstat and Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer", he lives in a community where the average income is $167,000/yr (according to the Chamber of Commerce), which is home to virtually no poor people, where diversity is a theoretical concept. Yet he makes his living as an egalitarian liberal.
Stupid isn't a word I would use to characterize him.
August 25, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going with he's just an asshat. The mustache is a dead giveaway. And a forgettable asshat at that:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/27/hillary_knocks_it_out_of_the_p/
August 25, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: forgetful asshat. As asshats go, he's quite memorable.
August 25, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ dijamo
I like your stuff, dijamo, but I'd like to recommend two articles to you. Coming from me they might seem surprising...and they are. They surprised me.
The first is "The Front-Runner's Fall" by Joshua Green (Atlantic Monthly, Sept 2008) which portrays Hillary as a bad manager and totally profligate with funds. In other words, she deserved to lose.
The second, How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy
shows Obama to be quite a brilliant, thoughtful, and pragmatic guy who offers America a far better chance at successfully navigating through the coming storms than does the inflexible, traditional McCain.
I'm seriously thinking of voting for him...if I can get past the stench of his partisan supporters, and the angry racists (of all colors) who populate his background.
August 25, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks much, and thanks for the articles particularly the one on Obamanomics. I like Obama's thoughts on reconciling the Bob Reich/Bob Rubin divide and giving more attention to the Reich investment camp. It really gives some insight into his ability to take the best ideas from different approaches and merge them for a common sense solution. Much more complex than McCain: Tax Cut good; Earmarks bad. This article really impressed me. It's exactly what we need more talk of at the convention and in Obama's speeches.
I am firmly in the Obama camp despite the efforts of some of his most partisan and divisive supporters, not because of them. Hopefully they'll get the message that the way to reach out to independents and former Hillary supporters is to give them substantive reasons why they should support Obama, rather than "GET IN LINE" or "QUIT WHINING" or "GO JOIN MCCAIN." (I'm talking to you here MJ)
Obama is not responsible for his divisive supporters any more than Hillary is responsible for hers. Come on board. We need more like you.
August 26, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo said:
offensivetoyou said:
I'm not surprised.
August 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no rift.
It's all smoke and mirrors by the bobble heads to create a controversy that does not exist.
everything is settled and you will see that in the next couple of days!
August 26, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I'd say it was the 50/50 split between Clinton/Obama supporters that makes it a sensitive issue even to this day, plus the historic proportion of it -- a woman, a black man.
The "so what" attitude is a little shallow given these circumstances.
It also doesn't help that Kennedy is claiming health care as his legacy, given all HRC did to get that started.
It's a mistake to try and erase the Clintons. It won't work.
August 26, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please. Ted Kennedy was the champion of healthcare looong before HRC became First Lady. Kennedy pushed through Medicare. HRC did nothing to get healthcare started. Point of fact, her massive failure resulted in pushing the healthcare issue off the political agenda for 10 friggin years, because she so alienated everyone on the political spectrum.
Teddy claimed his rightful legacy that Hillary has tried to usurp.
If only folks would wake up and realize that she had no individual accomplishments, legislatively nor politically this nation would be far better off. Hillary rides coat tails, either her husbands, or Marion Wright Edelman or Ted Kennedy but she has NO individual achievements that rise to the level of deeming her experienced or accomplished.
If her supporters truly liked details they would have read Obama's blue book which has been available on his site since the outstart of his campaign and has more details than anyone could want on his economic, energy, education and healtcare policies.
HRc supporters are just being disingenuous and they whine endlessly.
August 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink