Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Clinton, Inc. Support John McCain over Senator Obama
I've been trying to understand the supportive comments and supportive strategies for John McCain coming from from Clinton, Inc.
At first, I made the mistake of thinking it was something complex or, perhaps, incomprehesible.
But, today, I realized that own experience of growing "old" illuminates the truth: with John McCain in the WH, Hillary might still have some relevance in Democratic politics. With Senator Obama in the WH, Hillary and other such old guard Democrats will no longer have any relevance in the Democratic Party.
It's not an easy thing to realize the "world" no longer revolves around you and that your next role in life is to be a good counselor to the next generation around whom the world revolves.
In this way, neither HRC, nor McCain, realize they are no longer the center of the political universe. Essentially, both HRC and McCain are of the "don't trust anyone over 30" generation; now, they've changed their tune to, "don't trust anyone under 60." It gives a whole new meaning to flip-flopping.
Comments (58)
Also I think BO represents a big challenge to the status quo, so the SQ is fighting back.
It's fun to watch Bush, McCain, Bill, Hillary all essential have the same sneering reaction to Obama.
"You want to change cuba policy????? How naive!"
That sort of thing. All of them are very dismissive and condescending. Race might be a factor too. But generation is probably bigger.
March 23, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observer2: you understand.
March 23, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. It's as though the Left and Right wings of the Status Quo don't know where he fits, therefore he dare not enter the game.
It is notable that while many of Obama's policy position are conventionally Democratic, what is most attractive about him as a candidate (for those who are so attracted) is that he exudes a civic libertarian philosophy of individual freedom in and personal responsibility for society that cuts against the paternalistic sense of governing authority given by Bush and Hillary (of the 'Daddy' and 'Mommy' parties in the United States).
Would I prefer governmental authority run by Hillary over Bush? Of course. But a vote for Obama is a desire to try for a civic libertarian course.
March 24, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's very difficult for me to understand how anyone, in the wake of the implosion of the on the right, cannot see the opportunity for a broad reshuffling of the entire political landscape, with the spoils breaking heavily to the Democratic side.
The way it looks to me, Senator Clinton is the only hope for today's GOP. She's the only thing that can bring it back to life.
But if we can chose to let go of the past we'll bury the GOP as we know it in the fall.
March 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh get over yourself!
So with Obama in the WH, "...Hillary and other such old guard Democrats will no longer have any relevance in the Democratic Party"? Will the democratic party itself have any relevance? This has got to be one of the more ridiculous comments I have seen here.
March 23, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, take a deep breath............... take another deep breath. If Obama wins the WH, you wils have no relevance. Either you are caught in the psychosis of the 1960s or you are not. Inspite of the outcome of the 2008 election, you are of no relevance. It is to the next generation to decide... they have decided and you have lost... I have lost... are you will to take the country into hell because you cannot admit you are history? God help us if we cannot.
March 23, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we must excuse and pray old guard... they had great days... unfortunately, they ended in 1980 when THEY gave us Ronald Reagan... at least Ronald Reagan knew how to play the American political game... McGovern/Ferraro didn't, neither did all the old guard... they never undersood that it had nothing to do with them... now, they are all wanting pensions for being stupid.....
March 23, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The days of top-down management are over.
Obama has built a grass-roots campaign, based on a lifetime of grass-roots activism. His campaign is a model of success that will be studied for generations, just as his remarkable speeches will be.
And if you can't see through the lies, just look at the numbers.
Thanks for the great posts, Merlot! Be well and good health to you!
March 23, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obamas grassroots campaign will be studied for generations"
Just like Deans???
March 24, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Governor Dean's (???) campaign wasn't really noticed by anyone. It effectively ended his political career.
/snark
March 24, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, a lot of this election has focused on the race/gender false dichotomy, but to me the big story is age. It's nice to see someone from the older side of the spectrum that can still see the forest for the trees.
So much of what we're seeing right now amounts to a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party along these lines. Obama is proving that the 50 state strategy works and look who's getting lost in the shuffle: Terry McAuliffe and the DLC Dems. They are quite literally struggling to maintain their power and it looks as if they've lost in every measurable sense.
March 24, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are correct. As a long time fiscal conservative/social liberal/Democrat, I think the Democratic Party has been corrupted by old guard power mongering just like the Republican has been corrupted by militant social conservative power mongering.
I've lived a long time and I think the world was more humane when Democrats had greater influence over government than when Rebpublicans did.
I am working hard to support Obama because I'd actually like to see both the mainstream parties return to their philosophical roots. I think Obama's and Dean's leadership could help make that happen. The 50 State Strategy is right on the money. Political power needs to come from the bottom up, not from top down.
I think the issue has more to do with education and intellectual honesty than it does age.
March 24, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that education is a factor here, but I think age is a big part of the story and it's more important in the sense that not only is it statistically demonstrable, more than race or gender, but also I see it happening in the people around me. My mother, for instance, has been a lifelong Democrat because of the party values and yet this time around she seems content to just accept all of the DLC talking points at face value. Now, she's a highly educated woman so education is not a mitigating factor for her. Indeed, if we look at the demographic breakdowns age is the most stark. There are really very, very few people under age 60 supporting Barack Obama at this juncture.
March 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
would hrc rule out running as McCain's veep, do you think?
March 24, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well they disagree on everything so that's not even on the table.
March 24, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right on this one. In addition to their policy differences it would just be stupid. It would be political suicide for both McCain and Clinton. She would end up losing her next primary if she tried that.
March 24, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good discussion! I think the very essence of the primary fight. Its always been talk about doing things differently in Washington, easy to say. But if a new, not elite, man is exciting the people, all hell breaks loose.
Werent there reports about how close Hillary and McCain are a while back before Obama was ahead?
March 24, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Obama is very light on experience so one might lean toward McCain, the man does have a miltary background. The way the Clintons have been slimed by all things Obama means I see many simple not voting like those in Florida and Michigan if Obama wins. His campagn has been as divisive as possible and his claim of being a uniter is as hollow as GW's. Hillary isby far the best candidate of the three left, she gets huge bonus points for bringing Bill to the dance. He will know how to fix the economy.
March 24, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
all I can say is
March 24, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton will "know how to fix the economy"? See, this is the real short-sighted, kool-aid drinking nonsense of the Clinton camp, this tacit idea that the Clintons just know everything. Here's a clue: No, they don't. What does Clinton know about economics exactly? Do you even know what the executive has the power to do in terms of economics? Basically, appointing the chairman of the Fed. That's it. After that, Fed makes monetary policy. As far as fiscal goes, they can use the bully pulpit and sign off on expenditures, but they don't get to decide them.
So what, in your wisdom, are the current economic crises all about? See, stupid as I am, I kind of thought that it was a combination of Greenspan's excess liquidity and Clinton's deregulation policies which met up with a war of choice. So what is it that Bill Clinton, economic genius, will do to steer us into calmer waters?
Not to mention: Bill Clinton isn't running. Some of us are damned sure that we don't want him as President again and we kind of like the rule of law, terms limits and all that.
March 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
For you to be right, your premise that Hillary would somehow lack influence under an Obama presidency would have to be right.
Under an Obama presidency, Hillary would complete her second term as New York's senator and will probably have that seat for as long as she wants it because she's quite popular here. She could also quite believably replace Harry Reid as the senate majority leader which would mean that she'd have a definite say in setting the national agenda.
So now we can look to your other premise, that Hillary and her surrogates are supporting McCain over Obama. I just don't buy it. Seems like Obama's supporters overreact whenever anyone from the Clinton camp says anything nice about McCain. Seems a little much to me. The stark policy differences between Clinton and McCain mean that there's no way she can be considered a McCain supporter.
March 24, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think of the good they could do the Country when they stop fighting each other. I think that when the taxes come out, the Clinton legacy may take a real hit.I cant imagine that they will really let us see them but its well past time.
March 24, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
As always, Destor, you are a calm voice among the shrieking hordes...but I must say that in this case you are a bit too dismissive. Sen. Clinton quite clearly stated that McCain and she were the only candidates prepared to take office. That is a pretty stark comparison to make, one that could be incredibly damaging to Obama in a general election v. McCain.
So, while you may be right about the differences between Hillary and McCain, the problem lies with her willingness to associate herself with him in order to damage Obama. It's reckless.
March 24, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, she shouldn't have said it. But it's the problem with running on experience in a campaign against Obama but then having to run against McCain who is more experienced.
It turned into a logical conundrum that she really botched. She either had to drop the whole experience meme or say that McCain is qualified and Obama isn't.
I have to admit, Obama's supporters anticipated this problem and I didn't see it until it happened.
March 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn really is the problem here I think. If her campaign had just tweaked the message toward an insider, executive perspective she would have been golden. I think they assumed people hate insiders, but really, people hate the other side's insiders, we love our insiders.
She should've known the experience meme would die against most Republicans who were favored to get the nomination and also realized that if she did in fact get the nomination, experience wouldn't have been the major reason. After all, we would've been deciding between Dodd, Biden or Richardson right now if that was the case.
I know it's just a small difference, but I think that would've made a heluva impact and innoculated her from the criticism she has endured over it and having to admit McCain has more Senatorial experience.
Tell me again why this Penn guy is paid so much?
March 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a great point. I'm thinking that after the primary is over that I'm just not going to support any candidate who uses Mark Penn for any reason.
I really like your more thoughtful take on the experience idea. She should have emphasized what she's seen a bit more than what she's done. She should have emphasized perspective.
March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's the ticket. Bill can fix the economy. Probably, he'll engineer another tech bubble, or something.
If he really does know how to fix the economy, though, why doesn't he just tell us now?
March 24, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, steambadger. If Bill is such a statesman, he would be speaking up right now to help fix the economy. If Bill is such a statesman, he will, of course, work with President Obama. But, if Bill is mostly a politician, he will withhold his 'expertise' from the country, only using it to promote a Clinton.
March 24, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Statesman does not equal economist.
If it did, we would be in a different position now. And the most telling part is that Hillary wants to appoint the Fox named Greenspan to an oversight position on the housing conundrum he helped create.
Brilliant.
Maybe next she will propose to close the barn door since the cows have all left the building.
March 24, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton and Obama are from the same generation - the baby boomer generation.
Secondly, Hillary Clinton isn't supporting McCain over Obama anymore than Obama is supporting republicans with his remarks about Reagan or repubs or calling dems "tax and spend liberals".
March 24, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spin Alert!
Again, I think you are too dismissive of the "CiC Threshold" comments. Hillary said that she and John McCain had passed the threshold, and as for Sen. Obama.....well, she just wasn't sure.
That is a pretty clear validation of McCain's candidacy, and rejection of Obama's. How else are we supposed to take it?
And while Obama and Clinton are technically "baby boomers", they come from 2 different cultural generations, which is really the difference that Merlot is talking about...As he says...."Either you are caught in the psychosis of the 1960s or you are not." Which is an inartful away of talking about those that came of age during the 60's, the Vietnam Era, Watergate, etc....and those that were just too young, i.e., Obama, who was only 16 in 1980. I would argue that places them in two very different generations.
March 24, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Little Kid Alert!
Whether you like it or not, they're from the SAME generation. Whether you like it or not, Obama made comments to position himself with Reagan democrats and Clinton made comments just like his to position herself with the same constituency. That's how it works with politicians - they are expedient. They will say what they need to say to position themselves with a part of the constituency that they feel they need to pick up to win. Now we may not like it, but guess what? We're not the only people voting in this election. Candidates have to offer a little something to everyone.
March 24, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, BevD, Obama and HRC are not of the same generation. In fact, HRC is old enough to be Obama's mother. Talk about a generational divide!
You have repeatedly asserted this lie. HRC's generation, my generation, the Baby Boomer generation, are all traumatized by the battles of the past. Fortunately, Obama is not... he's just young enough to have an objective, rational view of the world unlike HRC's or GWB's (another Baby Boomer).
April 6, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of her principal advisers, one Lanny Davis by name, has been floating the idea of a "bipartisan" ticket and explicitly mentions Clinton/McCain (far more likely, McCain/Clinton, as she will not gain the Democratic nomination) since this WaPo op-ed from January 2007:
http://tinyurl.com/2wz3ss
March 24, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
He also "explicitly mentions" several other combinations, so I wouldn't take that so seriously.
March 24, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They why did he, representing himself as a senior adviser, mention it at all? If it's not to be taken seriously, why bother to float the idea? Especially when he's connected visibly to the campaign?
In this contest, Judas in fact has two X chromosomes.
March 24, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have to say, a lot of this election has focused on the race/gender false dichotomy, but to me the big story is age."
And expect the age thing to get bigger with Obama v McCain. I already hear some in the press trumpet "Ageism". I guess everyone needs some victimhood, even rich white GOP senators. LOL
But seriously, the boomer + generation refuses to graciously hand off the torch to the next generation. The problem for America is that, as JFK said in his day, it is a new world and new leasdership with a new vision is needed. And that, my friends, is the number one issue at stake here. Not gender, race or anything else. Will America have the courage to choose the future and rise to the challenges of this century, or will we wallow in the past and duck our heads in the sand while America's power and status continue their long slide. Will America flinch in the face of a scary new world filled with new challenges. Anyone who cares about the country should hope not.
March 24, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, I mean, it's the only thing McCain could do to make right wingers hate him any more. He is getting these grudging endorsements from them, but if he did that they would destroy him. Don't forget that Hillary Clinton drives these people mad.McCain has been working hard to shore up his conservative credentials.
March 24, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. If Obama gets the nomination and goes on to the presidency (my hope), Hillary can enjoy being a powerful Senator for the rest of her life if she wants to. She can probably take role of Majority leader fairly easy. She would be a critical ally of president Obama and a force to be reckoned with beyond his presidency. I don't think she'll ever become irrelevant.
March 24, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts on what Hillary is doing ...posted a couple of weeks back.
"Hillary DOES in fact know what she is doing...
Knowing that she cannot win mathematically, she is positioning herself for 2012 since McCain at 71 or whatever his age is, will be a one term president. Coupled with Michelle Obama's statement that this is the only time that Barack will run, Hillary does not want to wait for 8 years of an Obama presidency which will make her too old and politically damaged from working against his administration.
With her win at all cost strategy fails to see is that as a one term president, McCain will pretty much do what he wants and extend GW Bush policies only more hawkish than Bush himself, putting the country in three times as bad a position as it is today and maybe start WWIII by militarily engaging Iran as Bush wants to do.
This means that we could be looking at another 12 years of a Republican in the Oval Office."
...She cannot win so she wants Barack too damaged to win this time or to run again should he change his mind.
March 24, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thrillhouse: I think you and Merlot are talking at different levels. You are talking about political clout, and I think in that you are right. You don'have to do more than look at our present senate and see that a politically skilled person as Hillary can be important in the Senate as long as she wants. But I think he is talking about something deeper, like the priorities for the country, and the way of looking at issues. For example, I do not think that any of the older generation would think that you could aknowledge and analyze the reasons for black and white resentment in a campaign speech and survive. For the new generation, they are asking for somebody that honestly explain that issue to them (just an example).
March 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Merlot,
Don't be so thin skinned. You can have your opinion. Its ok. YOU ARE RELEVANT.
March 24, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville: And you, too :) Sorry I've been absent the past 24 hrs... had to take a little visit to the ER... catch you later
March 24, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with the "old guy" because I'm an "old gal".
I don't get the Hillary thing AT ALL. Never have. Thought she had less than the good of America at heart, with her negatives and baggage to have the audacity to run for president on Bill's coattails, after being in the White House for 8 years. It was hubris at its finest. It was obvious to me that she had nothing independent of the Clinton name, and what would be feminist about that?
Guess I was wrong -- the feminists have now officially become as nutty as the Bush-loving wingnuts who have conveniently forgotten how she threw feminists and many other women under the bus to protect herself and Bill. That her accomplishments such as they were, came from the Clinton name.
By her logic, we should elect her because she's been in the White House. So does that mean anyone who hasn't already been "president" can't be president?
I've seen her center-right triangulation and now find her populist rhetoric such a sham.
All of this was before she ran the ugliest campaign of one democrat against another democrat that I've ever seen. And I've seen a lot of politics in my day. Hey, I live in Chicago. Enough said.
So I find this post spot on. Thanks. Some of us old guys like the idea of people learning from history, old and recent. I'm heartened to see people engaged in the democratic process when they have been so disillusioned for so long. I'm glad to see a bold leader, whose ideas and policies are backed by detailed policy papers (you Clinton supporters might want to read them. I've read Hillary's. I like being fact-based). Obama's love of the Constitution, when Hillary has been disturbingly silent about Bush's Constitution bashing.
She's the Manchurian Neocon. Looking less Manchurian and more all-out neocon with every passing day (look at her proposals for the subprime crisis in her speech today. Tort reform is the centerpiece, as is Greenspan in an important role. God).
March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES!
Why don't people remember this? Clinton was an economic Republican! Greenspan and deregulation!
March 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
hear hear
March 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're very correct. Obama represents a real challenge to the Democratic Party's business as usual, and the Clintons just don't get it. The Clintons are the candidates of big business and big money donors. That's how Hillary operates. She cannot comprehend this broadbased, grassroots movement.
Clinton cannot understand all these "little people" making a difference, but here we are, more than a million strong, and funding a campaign that has blown her strategy to bits.
Obama is serious about actually bringing people into the political process and making citizens' voices count for something. That's why he dares to speak to us like adults.
His 50-state strategy and ability to build a broad, grassroots movements is also what gives him coattails to die for. Obama is great for those of us in the red-trending-purple states. We've got a good Senate race shaping up in Colorado, and Obama is popular here. He could make a difference. He also has a real chance to take Colorado in the GE. Hillary cannot do that.
March 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burson-Marsteller, Inc. Mark Penn is CEO, and McCain senior advisor Charlie Black is the president of Burson-Marsteller's WDC lobbying arm BKSH (a fully owned subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller). Penn has Bill and Hillary's ear...he knows they want to get to the general election, where anything can happen. McCain knows that he stands a better chance of beating Hillary in November. Black and Penn confer, trade talking points and attack Obama...that way Burson-Marsteller keeps one foot in the White House to better serve their clients: like Blackwater, Dubai Ports, Microsoft, etc.
March 24, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone realize which candidate played the first race card.
"our time has come"
And speaking of Obama, Geo Bush notwithstanding, he has less experience than anyone ever running for Prez.
Other than his speech on the Iraq fiasco, he hasn't shown good judgement(and that 1 instance is only in his own mind).
Credibility - since he now admits he did hear those offensive remarks, he is stretched pretty thin on this. Three strikes people.
March 24, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vice President Cheney has more government experience than any American.
Would you say that his experience has been a good thing for this country?
Would you vote for him for President?
March 24, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cadmas, I've heard the Black / Penn connection only once before. Seems to me it ought to be trumpted!!
March 24, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you didn't mention, judgement or credibility.
Experience was gone before he started, the other attributes since.
But, he is the one
March 24, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you didn't answer my questions.
March 24, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little slow, so lets take one thing at a time.
Experience:
Your post seems to say that experienced people are more qualified to be president.
Vice President Cheney has more government experience than any American.
Would you say that his experience has been a good thing for this country?
Would you vote for him for President?
March 24, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he didn't. He said he'd heard controversial statements from the preacher, but was proven not to be at that particular sermon.
Three strikes is the new credibility test? Lying on NAFTA, lying on SCHIP, lying on FMLA, lying on Bosnia, judgment on Norman HSU... oh, wait, that's 5.
March 24, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush One had one of the greatest politicial, and experience resumes in the entire history of the country. How did that work out for you experience junkies!!!!
Why Hillary can not be believed when she now claims that she has turned against the Iraq War that she voted for, and that she wants to end it:
John McCain does not want to end it, and yet Hillary has endorsed him for Commander in Chief. If Hillary is opposed to where McCain stands on the Iraq War, how can she truly endorse him for Commander in Chief over Peace Candidate Obama. What this reveals is that she is just pretending to be against the Iraq War now because of what the polls reflect, but she really is not an honest anti Iraq War candidate. You can not trust her. Senator Obama is the only anti Iraq War candidate left in the race.
Hillary has admitted that she really would prefer to see a President McCain continuing Bush's Iraq War, instead of a President Obama ending the Iraq War.
March 24, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all posters: Sorry, I've been absent from the ongoing discussion the past 24 hrs... took a little fall and had to make a visit to the ER... The posters have been great... you've created a great discussion... better than I'd even dreamed when starting things.... thanks! Pax tecum.
March 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer your ? I would not vote for Dick Chenney
under any circumstance, even if he does have the experience you claim.
Hillary said experience, Obama said no judgement counts (his one and only claim-a speech on the Iraq fiasco). And recently he lost credability.
I'm now hearing association thrown into the pot, he fails badly on that one as well.
At this point none of the three, McBush, Clinton, nor Obama are doing all that great.
Where does that leave us, Ralph Nader??
March 25, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment