« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
“I'll never quit” - Why Hillary's Refusal to Face Reality Disqualifies Her
Americans seems to admire relentlessness. That is what we see in Hillary Clinton's refusal to give up against impossibly long odds. There seems to be a certain nobility in the determination to fight on, regardless of the cost. The problem is that usually those who claim that they will fight on, regardless of the cost, are not the ones paying the price.
In Hillary's defiant desire to fight on regardless I hear echoes of George Bush's claim that “this country only has one option, and that is victory in Iraq.” He will fight on long after we have already lost the war. He will fight on, regardless of how many other's peoples' sons and daughters have to die for his vanity and unwilling to face the reality on the ground.
Likewise, Hillary will “never give up” regardless of how much damage she does to her own party and her party's nominee for president. In a larger sense, she will fight on regardless of the damage that it does to the nation. She seems to suggest, “Après moi, le déluge”.
There are many qualities needed to be a good president. Toughness is only one and probably doesn't rank too near the top of a list of desirable traits. Judgment and perspective are probably close to one and two, and these are traits that Hillary has demonstrated that she lacks. Related to judgment and perspective is the ability to learn from one's mistakes. This again is a trait that Hillary appears not to have acquired.
Her latest reference to RFK's assassination is just another reminder of the self-involved perspective-free bubble which seems to typify her campaign. Her inability or unwillingness to face reality and her absolute relentlessness to push on to victory, consequences be damned, disqualifies her as a worthy candidate for the presidency. Hillary Clinton simply lacks the judgment and perspective to be a good president. Toughness and relentlessness is not enough. We have eight years of tough and relentless. What we need now is vision and a willingess to change.
Comments (42)
"Toughness" would be telling the American public that a "gas tax holiday" wouldn't work and that, in any event, oil prices will continue to rise.
It's not "toughness" when you are fighting for something you personally want. That's called ambition.
May 27, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
May 27, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker:
That's the quote of the day-- hell, maybe even the year!
May 27, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wisdom is to hold the views of your opponents and quit when they want you to quit. If you do this, you will surely succeed.
May 28, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What? Hillary should hold the views of McCain and quit when he wants her to?
May 28, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that to. The path to pleasing everybody is long and difficult, but well worth it. They will admire you and appreciate you.
May 28, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stating the obvious for the oblivious never hurts. No one claimed that a gas tax holiday would decrease the price of oil. The gas tax holiday would decrease the price of a gallon of gasoline by 18 cents at the pump.
May 28, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frequently, when Obama's lack of experience is mentioned, his supporters often point out Abraham Lincoln's experience, or lack thereof.
However, one of Lincoln's experiences they typically overlook is Lincoln's 1854 bid for the U.S. Senate.
There were three candidates: Lincoln, James Shields & Lyman Trumball. Lincoln was running primarily against Shields due to their differences on the Kansas-Nebraska act (Lincoln and Trumball were against it, Shields was for it). Defeating Shields, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was more important to Lincoln than getting elected. So for the greater good, and even though Lincoln started with 9x as many supporters as Trumball, Lincoln told his supporters to vote for Trumball. They did, and that's how Lyman Trumball was elected Senator from Illinois.
May 27, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most Democrats want her to stay. Are they not facing reality?
May 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, They are unaware of it because they believe the BS she has been feeding them. It is not the lied to who are to blame for the consequences of a lie. It is the liar. She knows the BS she is spewing is a fabric of lies. She just does not care if the votes she gets are from the duped.
May 27, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's supporters want her to stay because they don't understand reality. Obama's supporters want her to stay because they're afraid the reality-challenged Hillary supporters will throw a mass tantrum and vote for McCain if she doesn't get special treatment not ordinarily given to presidential candidates.
May 28, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Hillary is showing the same kind of stubborness and refusal to acknowledge reality that I absolutely detest in our current administration. That kind of monomania is not what we need in the next 4-8 years.
It's sad. I used to admire and respect this woman a whole lot more. Now I see her in much the way that the right apparently does. No wonder I'm depressed!
May 27, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, Hillary Clinton, your future president, thank you for your endorsement.
Leading the quitters vote,
Leading the denial vote,
Leading you all!
Much Love,
Hillary - the candidate who's not dead yet!
May 27, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post.
Great fighters would rather lose by the rules than win by breaking them.
May 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just a flesh wound!
May 27, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir, YOU ARE REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE REALITY THAT SHOWS THE RACE IS FAR FROM OVER. TALK ABOUT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA, AND MENTION THAT IT IS UNLIKELY NO CANDIDATE WILL REACH THE DELEGATE MAJORITY. THIS ARTICLE IS NONSENSE
May 27, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, it is unlikely that no candidate will reach the majority since Obama only needs 48 more delegates.
And stop yelling, you're acting like a child.
May 27, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch it, she might bleed on Obama!
May 27, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'M NOT YELLING! I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT WITHOUT USING ANY ACTUAL FACTS OR LOGIC!!!! ALSO MY CAPS LOCK BROKE OFF AND MY PERIOD KEY TRANSPOSES EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!"
-drddrd
May 27, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense?
Well read this one - it most certainly isn't nonsense and is written by someone who knows Hillary and the Democratic infrastructure a helluva lot better than most people do:
Should Hillary Be Plotting Convention Battle Plans?
By Susan Estrich
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/should_hillary_be_plotting_con.html
She's a Clinton supporter and anyone in the Obama camp will find it highly encouraging and `soothing`.
May 27, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. There are some crazy-ass trolls at that site. I hope they don't show up here. Probably won't because they are easier to root out in the TPM format.
Great analysis though. It does make me feel a little better that my read of the majority of Hillary's supporters are reasonable and rational and want to do what's right once the primaries are over on June 3.
May 28, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought at first read the first line said recklessness. She was more reckless than relentless, I belive. The Clintons have lost, and if there are any worse losers in the history of this country, I certainly cannot think of any.
I agree that she is not qualified to be President. Luckily, this nomination process has shown her personality defecits in a major way. Do we really want a president that is utterly incapable of saying the words "I AM SORRY"? Do we want a President that cannot be held to her word? (She is the one who DEMANDED that Michigan and Florida get FULL PENALTIES, and signed off on the DNC statements about them.) Do we really want a president that is married to Bill Clinton, now the most unreliable and embarrassing spouse since, well, Bill Clinton? Do we really want a President who talks about "working white people"? Do we want a president who when she doesn't get her way, screams that everyone else is being sexist? Do we really want a president, who in the face of public opinion and fact cannot bow to the will of the people and do something for the common good (concede!)? Lastly, do we want a president, even if it was not in her mind who would even say that she was hanging around just in case the other guy got killed?
She lost this race in March and has made a spectacle of herself since then. Luckily, this terrible mess she has made of this campaign allows Obama an easy reason to move to someone else for his VP slot. After all, you really wouldn't want a VP who was waiting for "something to happen to you", so they could take your job..
May 27, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Kennedy comes to mind. Jerry Brown. Obama fans a close 3rd.
May 28, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. It wasn't until she started making a spectacle of herself that I started to get angry with her and with Bill. But they kept upping the ante, and I'm furious with both of them.
I can't wait for this to be over. I started out thinking it wouldn't matter so much if Obama didn't make it - it would be somewhat of a win-win, because it would be a woman and a Democrat, though not my choice. But she has gone out of her way to disabuse me of the notion that it would be any kind of "win" for the Democrats or the country if she got the nomination.
And she did that - that's not where I started out.
May 27, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rick:
Nice post. Well said.
May 27, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
For months we've been hearing about Obama's inevitablity, but fewer and fewer voters have been willing to hop on the bandwagon. It's not supposed to work that way.
It's no excuse to simply say they're all dumb-ass rednecks. It's Barack's job to win some tough states.
When will the training wheels come off his campaign bike?
May 27, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the voters in the last states don't feel they need to vote when they've won, maybe you're forgetting Oregon, and maybe you're ignoring the exit polls showing racism.
May 27, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sick and tired about people commenting that "those polls that show racism" are any more meaningful than the "those polls that show sexism". In every primary/caucus exit polls show that 2 out of 10 voters cite race as a factor and 4 out of 10 cite gender as a factor. Those statistics are meaningless, there are many factors as to why a voter chooses a particular candidate. These factors have been present since the first primary and are not even considerd a major factor in choosing a candidate.
May 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Kentucky, with family in WV. There's a higher incidence of racism or race-based decision making than in other states. I was talking to a KY lawyer/ex politician who said that the last time there were black people in some counties, they were running the ex-slaves out of town. We can call it cultural ignorance if you want to put a better face on it, but I don't think that if I was calling people in Colorado or Oregon I would get as many "obama? you mean that colored candidate." or "you can get barack O and send him back to egypt."etc etc.
I think as someone wrote somewhere around here, WV quit VA in part because they didn't want to fight over rich white men's slaves. Now WV is poor and primarily white, and still not getting attention. I haven't had a rational discussion with a single WV family member of mine (step-family, thank goodness), because they all watch Fox news and swallow any self-reinforcing "fact" with no salt whatsoever.
May 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh bull. The exit polls show the same 2 out of 10 factor in almost every race. Gender as a factor has stayed at 4 out of 10. You cite a few anecdotes as though they're indicative of the thinking of an entire state and they are not.
May 28, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least he's still got wheels on his. Hillary's been rolling on rims since March.
May 27, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all about her ambitious (thanks, clearthinker) attempt to create one last campaign narrative:
The primary is a "tie" so it's up to the superdelagates to "decide" who the nominee should be. That way she doesn't have to concede because the SDs FORCED her out even though she "won" the popular vote.
You can't lose what has been stolen from you.
She and Bill will play the victim card to the hilt just to avoid taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for a poorly run, poorly managed campaign.
May 27, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that "iron my shirt" plant in her audience ages ago? Does anybody think, as I do, that it was a phony staged photo op, not unlike the "rescue" of Jessica Lynch, or the toppling of Saddam's statue. What modern American man says "iron my shirt", and for that matter, what American woman irons anything anymore? it sounds like "change you can xerox," probably thought up by the same moron in her campaign.
I will be thrilled to see the last of the Clintons. But I dare not hope that it will end on June 3rd. she's not going to be happy until she's destroyed Obama's chances to win the presidency. She'll take it all the way to the convention unless the spineless superdelegates shut it down on June 3rd.
May 28, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he was a plant. Also, the woman in NH who asked Hillary, "how do you manage" (or something like that), which in turn allowed her to respond in a softer, more vulnerable, tearful way.
The Clintons and Karl Rove - separated at birth.
May 28, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the NH woman said she'd vote Obama because the crying was unconvincing.
May 28, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
People are not jumping on the bandwagon, because there is still a "fight" for the nomination, nevermind the "math." Count every vote so 70% of the elitists can decide in Hillary's favor.
Also, ignore the swiftboat ad that never was,
--> Queue ominous music
William Jefferson Clinton's funded Hillary Clinton's campaign through an influence peddling Uranium deal with a former Soviet Republic dictator.
/snark
The press has allowed the "vetted" meme to continue, just like the "ready from day one," and "35 years of experience" to exist without fact checking.
Instead, the MSM talks about the RFK silliness.
May 28, 2008 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
To re-iterate, Obama should follow Lincoln's example from 1854 and withdraw.
Better Lyman Trumball than James Shields.
May 28, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
In it to win it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 28, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should it bother you if Clinton stays in the race? Any democrat can throw his/her hat in the ring at the convention, that is what a party convention is for - democrats choosing the candidate that they think can win in November. It doesn't matter how many primaries a candidate has won, the party determines the nominee.
May 28, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The horrifying thing is that the Hillbillary campaign is becoming more and more like the Bush/Rove administration: willing to do anything - including lie, cheat, and distort the truth - to win. They are obsessed with the prize and don't care who gets hurt in order to get there. Judgment, morality, and integrity go out the window. And just like with Bush/Rove, her dishonest talking points have become the talking points of her followers despite the fact that much of what is being said is simply not true, such as that she lost because of mysogeny or that Michigan and Florida are about democracy (and that is just this week's version).
Furthermore, her endless psychodrama sucks all the oxygen out of the campaign. The news is about her constantly, even though she has pretty much lost, and hardly covers anything else including the winning candidate Obama. If he were to have her as VP, it would still be all about her to his and our detriment.
May 28, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Faulty and insulting comparison to Bush in Iraq! He says he will stay the course until victory, but he sends young men and women to have their lives destroyed while he blithely "gives up golf "and does whatever he does.He costs you and me money and destroys our country.
Hillary? She schleps around the country, Chelsea too in Puerto Rico, fights for her cause, doesn't involve you other than to stimulate you to be a smug critic. It's no skin off your xxx. She's getting exhausted in pursuit of her cause, and I find that admirable and courageous.
May 28, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This column sums up very nicely the Hillary Clinton giant sized ego problem. She just cannot and will not accept the fact that the skinny black guy from Chicago has cleaned her clock, big time. She just wants to be Commander In Chief so badly that reality is not part of her mind set! She is now a pathetic cartoon character and will continue to act out her fantasies until they lock her up in a small room somewhere.
May 28, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment