When forced into a corner, with most of her major supporters threatening to disavow her, and political immolation staring her in the face, she did, in fact, stand down and endorse her opponent. I guess she deserves some sort of kudos for displaying such rudimentary tactical good sense; certainly at moments in the campaign it seemed possible that she wouldn't.

So, yeah; now that she's been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that getting behind Obama is good for her career, she's getting behind Obama. If you want to see that as a sign of redemption/vindication that's fine, but don't be surprised if others are a bit more skeptical.

Posted at June 10, 2008 11:43 PM in response to Hillary Privately Urging Her Pledged Delegates To Vote For Obama At Convention

Hollywood, you say:

"Do you have any idea how laughable that sounds to someone who doesn't see the world through your racial baggage?"

White people often feel that they don't have racial baggage; it's blacks who are always going on about race, right? White folks like you and me just see things objectively, without any of those antiquated subjective filters that these other people have.

I'm sure you mean well, but I find your particular line of reasoning here really noxious. Your obsessive posting on this subject, and your borderline sneers at black voters, suggest strongly that you, like almost all Americans, myself certainly included, have a giant, teetering pile of racial baggage which you are carting around. It might be a good idea to examine it before you go calling other people out.

Posted at June 8, 2008 11:39 PM in response to How Do African Americans Feel About The Clintons Now?

Greg, her unfavorability didn't jump by more than a third. It more than tripled. Big difference.

Posted at June 6, 2008 11:26 AM in response to Poll: Hillary's Favorability Rating Among Blacks Dropped 26 Points

There was just an interesting comment by Al Giordano at the Field. He said that the move in both Florida and Michigan to move up the primary originated with Clinton supporter/apparatchiks in those states. The hope was that by moving big states up, name recognition would be much more important, thus giving Clinton an advantage. If it had been successful, Clinton would probably be the nominee. As it happened, though the DNC under Dean reacted more aggressively than expected to the rule-breaking.

This sort of thing is why the Clinton's didn't want Dean heading the DNC in the first place.

Posted at May 28, 2008 11:04 PM in response to Clinton Planned the Florida and Michigan Debacle

Obama's perfectly capable of duplicity and pandering, just like any other politician. (Ethanol subsidies...bleah.) However, in this case, his campaign has actually tried to defuse the situation.

The fact that all politicians lie doesn't mean that everything any politician says is a lie. Though I can see where a Clinton supporter might eventually end up confused on this point.

Posted at May 25, 2008 10:56 PM in response to Hillary Hits Critics For Taking Her RFK Assassination Remarks "Out Of Context"

I can't imagine anyone's going to read down this far, but what the heck.

Greg, I think your post is fundamentally confused. You seem to be saying that Obama is playing this down, knowing full well that it will still be a big deal and damage Clinton. In other words, he can score points off her without getting his hands dirty.

The thing is, I bet that if the Obama campaign could get everybody to shut up about this, they would. If they could turn back the clock and warn Hillary not to say what she said, they'd probably do that too.

At this point, it just isn't in their interest to have Hillary running around saying ridiculous things, especially this ridiculous thing. They don't want to defeat her; they've already done that. They want to unify the party, and outrageous statements like this just create more bitterness which makes it more difficult to do that.

Also, talking about RFK's fate in reference to Obama is just not, not, not something the Obama campaign wants anyone to have anything to do with, ever. Obama's got a wife and kids. Having this stuff out there like it's been the last week or so is simply scary and toxic. I'm sure he'd just as soon have it go away.

In this case, and as far as not wanting a media firestorm goes, the Obama and Clinton campaign are essentially on the same page -- which is why the Clinton spin that the outrage is all Obama's fault is deranged. But desperation and derangement aren't that far apart, I guess....

Posted at May 25, 2008 8:47 PM in response to Hillary Hits Critics For Taking Her RFK Assassination Remarks "Out Of Context"

Why are you assuming she'll win by 20 points in Puerto Rico? Are there any even remotely current polls suggesting she's that far ahead?

I guess the point is, don't count the chickens, they have not hatched.

Also, I think you're incorrect to argue that Clinton has won the right to be on the ticket. You get on the ticket because the person at the top of it thinks you are the most likely to help him (or her) win the nomination.

Posted at May 23, 2008 11:27 PM in response to Stunning Math: HIllary will likely finish with the popular vote lead by virtually any measure

Beckyleeprice; read the Field. It is very comforting on this issue.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248

Posted at May 22, 2008 9:33 PM in response to Top Hillary Supporter Says She's Showing "Desperation"

I think the superdelegates aren't endorsing for two main reasons. First, some of them want to see all the states vote. (That's the case for Deb over at the Field, for example.) Second, many of them would probably prefer not to have to take sides; in other words, they're hoping Clinton will bow out on her own after the last primary.

I think there's a good chance that they're right, and she will actually quit, thus sparing a lot of people an uncomfortable political decision.

Posted at May 21, 2008 8:47 PM in response to Why the Superdelegates WILL Weigh In June 4th

The Hillary/sexism question is a really thorny one, in part because she herself has never really dealt with it in any direct or useful way. Obama gave a big speech about race, in which he talked about his sympathy for the anger of black nationalists, but his distance from their solution, and his disdain for racism despite his admiration and even love for some racists. It was a complicated and thoughtful message, which made him a stronger candidate by showing, I think, some of the ways in which his Presidency could be a step forward in getting out of the deadlock on racial discussion in which we have been stuck for a long time.

Clinton, on the other hand, has never publically attempted to come to terms with sexism or how it impacts her campaign. She has not, for example, ever tried to explain how being a woman has impacted her Presidential run -- a very contradictory question, since, on the one hand, obviously some people won't vote for you as a woman, but, on the other, an awful lot of people will vote for you because you were First Lady. She hasn't tried to explain or deal with the pros and cons of victimization -- which hurts her in some ways and helps her in others. She hasn't tried to reconcile the strong links between feminism and the peace movement with her own hawkish stance. She hasn't explained why her candidacy is a boon to woman; what about a woman president would actually be helpful or feminist? All she's done, really, is complain that her gender makes her a victim -- which is certainly true to some extent, but saying it over and over without offering solutions or insight doesn't help; indeed, one could argue that it tends to make things worse, just as black nationalist anger, while justified, tends to make things worse.

In other words, it doesn't seem to me that Clinton has shown much, if any, leadership on the issue of sexism (beyond running for President, which is not, I'm afraid, quite the same thing.) The way she has run her campaign, around this issue and others, makes me extremely nervous about her competence and leadership ability in office. Billy mentioned that "the Clintons" know how to run government. But the fact is, if feminism means anything, it certainly means that Bill and Hillary are two different people.

Posted at May 21, 2008 12:01 AM in response to An Invitation to Clinton Supporters Who Wouldn't Vote for Obama in the General Election Under Any Circumstances and Who May or May Not Be Angry