Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How Hillary lost this liberal
Hillary Clinton now has no “metrics” left to claim a lead – not popular vote, not number of states, not popular vote, not elected delegates, and not “super”, “automatic”, or “magic fairy dust” delegates. Maybe ignorant white racist rednecks, and feminists who will vote for any woman over any man.
Five months ago I didn’t care who got the Democratic nod. I thought we had two great candidates who would be equally great presidents.
Here’s why this liberal turned against HRC.
First of all, I wanted a President who would not embarrass us when speaking in public. Eight years of Bush sounding like somebody trying to explain things, and not very successfully, to a slightly dim six-year-old was plenty. I want an articulate President, who can explain, persuade, relate a political position. Narrow victory to BO on that one.
Second, I actually preferred HRC’s health care positions: Yes, we can all be covered; a tax-funded baseline health care plan (with the option for employers or private insurers to add to it, for additional premiums) is the best way to go.
On Iraq, neither one said what I really want to hear: We got in for stupid reasons. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld lied to the people and to congress, misleading us into an un-needed war and botching the aftermath. Anybody remember Yugoslavia? So here we are, trying to rebuild the mess we made and keep the country from disintegrating into civil war. The real problem now is how can we get out, bring enough factions together to make a semi-stable country, and keep the Iraqis from killing each other in a bloodbath to rival Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Darfur put together. And without handing the country over to Iranian surrogates. It’s a tough nasty issue.
No, what turned this liberal into an Obama supporter was the sad truth that HRC learned too well from those factions that worked so hard to destroy her (and her husband) a decade ago.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and the “politics of personal destruction” were too deeply seared into the Clinton consciousness. As soon as the “inevitable” aura dissipated, the HRC campaign began to get nasty. Anybody who can experience what had to be the intense pain of being beaten on so unfairly, and who can then turn and inflict the same treatment on someone else, gets no love from this guy.
OK, Pastor Wright said some nutty things. If you had to address them in the primaries, perhaps a saner approach might have been to ask if you agreed with those statements. (Thus allowing equal comparison to the lunacy of Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc.) But instead, the HRC campaign moved directly to guilt-by-association.
Stupid pandering – bowling, beer, pick-up trucks, etcetera – is part of politics. But for one Ivy-educated multi-millionaire to accuse another Ivy-educated millionaire of elitism? Because he can speak articulately? Sheesh. Somebody in this race earned his street cred on the street, when he could have been an elitist and turned his back on the people who shared his ethnic/racial, if not cultural, African-American roots.
Finally, HRC moved from “not my favorite candidate” to outright “I don’t like her” when the ambition for her own career began to blind her to the difficulty of getting the nomination and she turned to outright attacks worthy of Richard Nixon, Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. If she’d started in on McCain with that kind of tactic, back in March, I might have thought “This is a fighter, she’ll whup his butt in November, maybe Obama is too soft.” The Republic party (drop the last syllable, they do it to us) knows better than to pull this stuff on their own kind, at least openly. I always thought that no politician needed to resort to irrelevant character attacks unless s/he thought that there was no chance of winning on the issues. And somebody in the Clinton campaign made that decision.
By the time it came to the Gas Tax Holiday Pander, I was tired of HRC. And contempt for experts? Contempt for economists on an economic issue? Sheesh, again. Desperation. Stupidity. It wasn’t long after that I started writing “The Speech”, and didn’t put in a commitment to a candidate until after the IN/NC primaries. (Read the first few paragraphs carefully, I probably should have titled it “The Speech Hillary Can’t Give”.)
Now? It’s simply time for somebody – anybody, whether it’s Nancy Pelosi, Bill, Chelsea, or for crissake Socks, to say, “Please, stop embarrassing yourself and hurting your party”
Please?
Comments (35)
good post. I think you probably sum up the feelings of a lot of people.
May 10, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've been seeing basically this same
post and variations for months all over the
democratic blogs.
Come up with new ideas, Obamazoids.
This one has lost its effect, and you are fooling
nobody.
May 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with your post except for the following statement:
"On Iraq, neither one said what I really want to hear: We got in for stupid reasons. Bush/Cheney/Rice/Powell/Rumsfeld lied to the people and to congress, misleading us into an un-needed war..."
Obama has been making this point, albeit with more statesman like language, since before the invasion.
May 11, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has been making this point, albeit with more statesman like language, since before the invasion.
What are his votes on war funding since he got to Congress?
May 11, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ending the Iraq war in a responsible manner with long-term success as the metric is much more complex than simple funding issues. Once troops are in the field, funding them is just common sense and the least we could do as a country.
I applaud Barack's decision to fund the troops despite the obvious political consequences of that very sensible position.
Since well before this war began, he has explained the truth to the American people and framed the discussion of what is the most effective way to get out that doesn't cause more harm to the region.
Diplomacy is a good start and a long-term plan to withdraw American troops while replacing them with international peacekeepers under the UN is the most likely end game. That takes new leadership, though, and willingness to step back from American domination of the issue.
Cutting funding without the presidential will to withdraw troops is a simplistic "solution" to a very complex problem and would cause way more problems than it would solve.
May 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's concern was regarding the strategic stupidity of our initial attack on Iraq. Doing so would clearly be a destabilizing action- as has become apparent. Once Bush and the Congress approved the invasion the strategic concern switches to our needing to move very carefully so to limit that destabilization.
To use a metaphor: once Bush thoughtlessly plunged a knife in to the belly of Iraq just yanking it back out (by immediately cutting off war funding) might have resulted in uncontrollable bleeding.
The invasion of Iraq was imprudently taken and is greatly destabilizing. After the mistake was made it becomes prudent to not take any other rash actions that might further destabilize the region. As Obama says, we have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.
May 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, it was the "What do we do next" part that I still want clearly articulated. A tough problem both in terms of coming up with a solution and finding a politically acceptable way to sell it in an election.
Dave
May 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully concur with your comments. I would only add that I lost all respect for her when she accepted the endorsement by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
This is the email I sent to her on April 21:
I realize, Ms. Hillary, that you will never read this. But I write just the same. I have been a most enthusiastic supporter of your husband Presidential campaigns in 1992 & 1996, and stayed faithful to him during his most difficult days. I have also applauded your successful transition from First Lady to Senator from the great state of New York.
I have been torn during this presidential campaign, since there is probably no other individual who wants the hell that the last 7 years under Bush have been to this country to come to an end.
I think you have demonstrated a great deal of braveness to step further into the public arena, given how badly the right treated President Clinton, and you.
I have just read of your endorsement by The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned and published by Richard Mellon Scaife. I wonder if you will require of yourself what you have tried to require from your honorable opponent for the Democratic nomination, Barak Obama. You suggested he should have left the church that had sustained him in the past due to his former pastor's incendiary comments.
So will you openly do the brave thing, and reject the endorsement of the very person who made hell for your husband and for you during the 1990s?
I have refused to place my clients' investments with Dreyfus Funds (I'm a personal financial advisor) just because of their association with Mellon, because I was not going to allow a single dime, if I had any say on it, to go into Richard Mellon Scaife's pocket, however remotely that might be. That's the depth of my loyalty to your husband, and by extension, to you.
Somehow, though, I get the feeling that you will accept this endorsement. I am afraid that you are willing to sleep with the enemy if that might provide you with the slightest advantage to try to garner the nomination. I once thought you would have made a great President. But no more. And you will no longer have my support or admiration.
I realize the loss of my support is of no value to you. Just the same, for my own self respect, I needed to write what I have written.
With much sadness, I remain, sincerely,
Marcus S. Conrad
May 11, 2008 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow!
I take she didn't respond...
May 11, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have felt since she took office that she had no political soul or courage, and her votes for the Iraq War did not surprise me, but did disappoint me. Her calling on John Kerry to apologize after his "botched joke" showed me she was willing to throw over a fellow Democrat and embrace right wing talking points for her own political gain. I didn't realize how true that was.
Still, the main reason I was not supporting her is I did not believe she could win. But over the course of the campaign there have been so many moments that have disheartened me. And I swear, none so bad as the "I don't truck with economists." She had become George W. Bush.
Disgusting.
May 11, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was a brief (five minutes, perhaps) moment when I considered voting for her. It was during one of the debates, and I was charmed by something charming and intelligent that she had said. I turned to my wife and said, "I guess she's not so bad. I could vote for her if she got the nomination." Not so fast, junior. The very next question, she smiled, opened her mouth, and a million cockroaches crawled out. Fun while it lasted, though.
May 11, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have much anger inside you. Rest your weary soul with a good poem. Keats, perhaps?
May 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keats?
That's encouraging ennui!
May 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great summary of how many of us were transformed from Hillary supporters into Obama supporters. Obama is an extremely appealing candidate, but it was Hillary who drove us into his camp. We wanted this election to repudiate the kind of politics that she has now embraced. We'd probably still be backing Hillary if she had campaigned as a tolerant, inclusive Democrat.
Hillary and her campaign seem distressingly serene at the notion of flushing Democratic hopes down the toilet in 2008. Apparently they think threatening to destroy current Democratic prospects, or actually destroying them, is the best way to dominate the party's future. They would be wiser to recede into history before they stain the scraps of their legacy. If Democrats do not win the White House this year, there will be not the slightest doubt about who is responsible for a defeat that should not have happened. It won't matter whether Hillary or Obama is the candidate losing to McCain. Hillary will deserve all the credit for engineering the loss. She will not be able to bamboozle enough Democrats into believing otherwise to seek national office again. She could do us all a favor by turning her future political efforts to running for dogcatcher in Scranton, PA.
May 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond all the policy differences I have with Hillary, it's obvious listening to even the stodgiest Sunday pundits that they're all sick of Hillary too. The country just plain wants to turn the page. The last 8 years have been dismal. The 8 years prior to that were divisive. Hillary may despise it, but the frame for 2008 is Move On.
May 11, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good. Get lost.
May 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
dave: HRC lost your vote because she is no liberal or progressive... the entire DLC crowd are DINOs. Thanks to you and other voters like you, the liberal/progressive and, sane, voices of American voters are reclaiming the Democratic Party as opposed to pandering to conservatives. The silver lining in the Joe Lieberman campaign is that we learned that the DLCers need to be expelled from the party. Finally, the Democratic wing of the party is taking the party back from the Hoover/George Wallace/Reagan/Clinton pretenders.
May 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave, here is something you should read from the Washington Post. While reading it, keep in mind that many voters CHANGED their minds about voting for or possibly voting for Obama after Jeremiah Wright raised doubts in their mind about exactly who Obama is and how he thinks. Many white voters were willing to vote for him before, but are not willing now. You may think them bigots who would never vote for a black man. Think again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/09/AR2008050901417.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
May 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let it go, man. You'll feel a lot better. ....
May 11, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yoga. Breath. Release.
May 11, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Otto's link isn't anything I hadn't known. Hillary has started claiming that some voters are more racist than sexist (I might vote for a woman, but not a black?), maybe she's right. But I don't know how many of those were crossover votes that would, come November, go for McCain anyway. Who would rank white woman over white man, simultaneously white man over black man, without taking positions into account at all?
When it comes down to it, the low road backfired for her. You know what would have turned this around? "I was the victim of this kind of politics. I will not stand for anyone who claims to support me doing the same to anyone in my party".
Read my other post, "The Speech". It's not too late to save yourself and your party, Hillary. If Obama wins come fall, all is forgiven. If he loses, your name will be more reviled than Ralph Nader.
May 11, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that Hillary is the more conservative candidate when her positions were pretty much identical to Obama;s?
May 11, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't believe Hillary on any of her positions. You have to know where she's coming from. She's coming from the DLC and they are pro-war, pro-corporate. Their "positions" usually involve throwing some insignificant bone at the working class like the stupid gas tax holiday while they sell them out to the extortionist credit card industry when they aren't looking.
Hillary's been on this rant about fighting for the little guy. Like when did she ever fight for the little guy?!
May 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm very interested in seeing what Hillary does when her current Senate term nears expiration. Will she run for re-election and continue serving NY and the Democratic Party as a Senator, or will she move on to something else, having used NY in a carpetbagging manner as a lead-in to this presidential election? How committed is she to something other than her own ambitions? Gotta wait awhile to see how this sorts out, but I'll enjoy the Obama presidency to pass the time.
May 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which candidate do you trust to keep their word on getting out of Iraq? Beware of putting too much faith in the promise of one who is willing to always pander. Her Iran vote, and threats to Obliterate them, makes me doubt that Hillary would keep her word, and actually withdraw most combat troops from Iraq. I just do not trust her.
May 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. I am particularly struck by this paragraph:
"Unfortunately, the lessons of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” and the “politics of personal destruction” were too deeply seared into the Clinton consciousness. As soon as the “inevitable” aura dissipated, the HRC campaign began to get nasty. Anybody who can experience what had to be the intense pain of being beaten on so unfairly, and who can then turn and inflict the same treatment on someone else, gets no love from this guy."
I've been pretty saddened by Hillary's choices throughout this campaign. Her latest decision to advance her candidacy through more negative campaigning and the distressing racial implications leaves me speechless.
What you describe above seems to me the definition of someone who is experiencing some version of "Stockholm Syndrome".
She seems to be identifying with her captors--the Carl Roves, the whole right-wing conspiracy.
But I actually include Bill among them.
It's the only sense I can make,psychologically to explain how a woman, so smart and so talented has made choices that have tarnished her reputation for the future.
May 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You speak the truth, woman with the provocative avatar!
May 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like your comments here, and agree that it's sad to see someone with talent do these things. Looked at from some distance, that's the foundation of great tragedies, however. I imagine there will be lots of books, movies and plays written about this period.
But there's something more, and I can't quite get it to come into focus. Maybe someone else can take a shot at it.
It's seemed to me for several years that our political elites have been litigating and relitigating and recycling the same issues for decades, ever since the Vietnam era-- and dragging the country along as surrogates or as cannon fodder. As someone said -- Obama, maybe, some time ago -- that a lot of arguments and hardened positions we're still talking about, and the Right v. Left cliches, are all to reminicent of the same arguments, by some of the same people, all the way back in dorm room arguments in the 60s. It sure feels that way to me, because I am really that old, and the same stuff keeps happening over and over. It's like a Vietnam/Flower power version of "Ground Hog Day."
I'm sick of the whole thing, and am ready to move on.
Hillary and McCain both represent to me a continuation of the patterns of conflict and a the same frozen conflict resolution (meaning, no resolution) models that have been cemeted in place for decades.
But then, I think that it wasn't just one thing, even the war in Vietnam, that is the real cause. Maybe that was just another symptom of a bigger set of causes and effects tied in with the economy and military spending and global power relationships. And that's where I get lost in the tall grass. I'm sure I'm not the first person to wonder about the bigger picture, though. Is there any info out there one could turn to?
But is is my bone-weary disgust with the endless repetition of the same old world-views that leads me to prefer Obama's new approach. It's the movement aspect, the mobilization of millions that really convinces me that he's on the right path. Given the vast power of the forces that have learned how to prosper in the current circumstance, the only force that can match that is the power of an aroused and mobilized public.
May 11, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
PaDem,
I don't feel confident speaking of historical political trends. I leave that to others.
What I do sense is that we are in the middle of some kind of political and social realignment. And Obama has tapped into that political and cutltural tectonic shift. When Obama tapped into this younger generation of voters, he tapped into a vacuum and emptiness that I think has existed since the days of Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement. He also tapped into the psyche of many activists from the left, who have become disillusioned. He's brought people into the political process who have never been involved. Hillary has galvanized women and youth as well. I just think Obama's influence has been greater and more pure.
May 11, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bronx Girl: you got it right.... I could not have said it better. Thanks.
May 11, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Bronx girl. You nailed it when you said, "What you describe above seems to me the definition of someone who is experiencing some version of 'Stockholm Syndrome.'"
During this whole primary season, I keep thinking of what I believe Bill Clinton said about his wife, that SHE is the ONE that would make the better president. Hey, I have consistenly thought the world of Bill Clinton as President (except for his personal moral failings), and as a Master Politician. And if he thinks his wife is better suited, WOW, what a presidency that might have been. We'll never know now.
Maybe someone on the inside, after some time has passed, will give us some perspective on how such a talented individual, who from most accounts had handled herself as a Senator quite well; not throwing her weight around; learning from senators who had been in the Senate a long time, etc. And then somehow she is transformed into this "take no prisoners," scorched earth approach.
Again, you're probably right. "Some version of 'Stockholm Syndrome.'"
Marcus
May 12, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have that black dress, though.
May 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Democrats do not win the White House this year, there will be not the slightest doubt about who is responsible for a defeat that should not have happened. It won't matter whether Hillary or Obama is the candidate losing to McCain. Hillary will deserve all the credit for engineering the loss.
Oh Christ! It's starting already. Obama's loss is Clinton's fault, right?
You guys are priceless.
May 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
She seems to be doing her best to manufacture that outcome.
Besides that, our saying it now means that it is no excuse, but a prediction of possibilities.
May 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember 1988 when Jesse Jackson went all the way to the convention even though Dukakis had the nomination sewn up. I believe that Dukakis led Bush by 17 pts after the convention and went on to lose it on his own. No one accused JJ of costing Dukakis the election. Of course, they were all adults so there is that difference compared to today.
May 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment