« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Some Further Thought on the A-Word Gaffe
Greg's post following Hillary's inevitable resort to the victim card to try to get herself out of the mess she's put herself into has provoked me into firing off one more blog about this imbroglio than I expected to write.
I said here that this flap is enormously ironic. (Apparently, I'm not the only one who noticed.). Hillary has clung on in this race, long after it ceased to be winnable, or even dignified, waiting for Something Big to happen that would end Obama's upstart campaign. Some deus ex machina that would save her campaign from its own incompetence, from its hubris-induced failure to do any any grassroots organizing or have any kind of contingency planning or flexibility built into it.
It's now clear that they've longed for this Big Thing from the very tippy-top top to the abyssal bottom (i.e. the Feminists for McCain if Our Hillary isn't Nominated Club). They've been feverishly predicting it since Hillary's facile campaign strategy went to crap on Supercalifragilistic Tuesday. A big ugly scandal would have to appear because they all just knew that everyone is up to their necks in the cesspit, and he hasn't been "fully vetted" and, anyway, he's big stinky fraud who can't be as good as he seems because he's running against Hillary. Or failing that, a huge career ending gaffe that he would inevitably make because only Hillary had the Strength and Experience to run a gaffe-free campaign. Or, you know, something. Something big. No, not sayin' what, just, something BIG. Anything Could Happen. Why would She get out when ANYTHING could happen?
Well, let me be clear. I am outraged, and there's nothing faux about it. But my outrage is due to the way what she said ties in with the signals she's been sending to her supporters for the last several days. Although her campaign rhetoric about Obama has been muted of late--a change in behavior that I am convinced is due to overt threats from undeclared superdelegates rather than to any desire on her part not to undermine the likely nominee--she has been overtly fanning the flames of grievance among her diehards. For the first time, she's been explicitly saying to them what they've been saying to each other down in the echo filled bunkers on the Internet.
Those Obama people have been abusing you and calling you terrible, terrible names and I thank you for enduring their unendurable meanness. We will take it to the convention if we don't get the rogue elections in Florida and Michigan 100% validated. It's Jim Crow revisited. Its 2000 all over again. It could end up looking like Zimbabwe if the DNC doesn't give me my way. We can't win without the less-educated white people who will only vote for me. The Boys Club is trying to push me out before its over. This thing is still winnable by the Boys. And then, of course, Gerry Ferraro mysteriously appeared to share her totally spontaneous and entirely personal opinion that Obama personally is a sexist who has run a vilely sexist campaign.
And she's gotten away with it. No one in the MSM has bothered to note that one of the most dangerous things a candidate in a contentious election can do is validate the kookytalk that emerges among hardcore supporters of a losing candidate. Many of them may even be too historically illiterate to recognize the danger.
Here's an Memorial Day appropriate analogy for the historically minded. By the time Robert E. Lee got to Appomattox, the Army of Northern Virginia was down to about 25,000 diehards. These were men who stuck it out because of personal devotion to Lee, to the Noble Cause of continued slavery or just because they didn't want to say they left before it was over. Around the campfires, there was a lot of dark crazy talk being bandied about over their starvation rations, talk of guerrilla warfare that could have set the South, and maybe the whole country, ablaze with murder and bushwhacking and, inevitably, assassination, for generations. That talk had to have pushed a lot of guys who'd been with Lee since the Seven Days into desertion on that last march which only had the effect of removing voices of reason from the circle.
Sound familiar, anybody?
The one signal service of Robert E. Lee to the United States and the world, after succession occurred in April, 1965 when he firmly put all of his almost supernatural prestige with these men on the line to put a stop to that talk. At Appomattox, Lee recoiled from the vision of an endless guerrilla war and told his diehards that it was over, that what they were talking about was futile and repulsive, and that they should go home. And they did.
There was no fairy tale ending to that war, of course. The violence and the anger were turned from the Yankees to the freed slaves, both metaphorically and actually, for another century and more. But it could have been far worse for everyone. Look at the Congo or Afghanistan or Columbia, and then scale up, if you want to see how much worse.
My point here is that if you are a real leader and a person of character and you are losing the fight, you don't fan the flames of grievance among the diehards, you stamp 'em out. If you are leader and a person of character, you face it when the greater good you wanted to accomplish is irretreivably lost and put the best good available over your own personal interests and ego.
Being neither, and being a Clinton, Hillary applied the bellows. The polls showed that the non-diehards were deserting her for Obama and further showed that her constant agitation about being the only person who could carry the Big States that Mattered (as opposed to her recent discovery of Small States that Matter) was baloney. Her leverage to negotiatiate for whatever it was she eventually decided she wanted was melting away like shaved ice in August. All she had left was that threat of igniting a civil war within the party, and with her numbers diminishing, the only way to make that threat credible was to pump some oxygen into a sense of grievance among the diehards that was already approaching the point of spontaneous compustion. So that's what she did..
She made the decision to play with explosives. One would think having done that, she would have been aware that playing with explosives and playing with matches are mutually exclusive activities. But not Hillary. She absent-mindedly dropped the A-word into the magazine.
And that scares me spitless because, among sixteen point something million supporters, the odds are just too good that somewhere, one or ten or a hundred of them could interpret what she said as a 21st Century version of "will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
This fear runs deep among Obama supporters. The second blog I ever posted here--or anywhere--was due to a story indicating that Obama's Secret Service detail had been lax in, of all places, Dallas. Hillary's supporters think its all nonsense, but I tell you that when we listen to this man, read his books and his speeches and consider his plans and his principles, he reminds us, in a very real and profound way, of Lincoln, JFK, RFK, and MLK. The connection is real to us and deeply meaningful. Hence our fear and hence our outrage when Hillary uses the word "assassination" at the conclusion of a week she spent inflaming her partisans.
So, when Hillary, rather than issuing an actual apology or admission of having done anything wrong, once again declares herself the victim and claims people who are tenditiously misconstruing her for purely partisan point scoring purposes, it pisses me off. More, it is just one more instance in which she shows a combination of poor judgment, tactlessness, defensiveness, and political tone-deafness that would make a Hillary Clinton presidency a complete disaster.
But hey, Senator (and her supporters) if you want to assume that we're just playing another round in in the endless Outrageathon the Democratic primary campaign has degenerated into, fine. Let's accept the idea that we are insincere for purposes of argument. We're not really outraged at all, because no right thinking person could ever possibly believe that this awful possibility is one of the things that's kept you running long after anyone else would have quit in the interests of their own dignity, or been forced to quit in the interests of the party.
Perhaps, then, Senator Clinton you, or one of your always-polite and articulate supporters, could explain by what conceivable stretch of the imagination you of all people, are entitled to a "Get out of Tendatious Misconstrual of Words" card at this point in the game?
Maybe my memory is faulty. Was that not you insisting that Obama's statement that he would go after Bin Ladin in Pakistan if ol' General General wouldn't was dangerous and reckless because words have consequences? Have I just imagined that your supporters were insisting that they could see into the very soul of Obama based upon his use of the word "cling" rather than, say, "hold on to," and "bitter" rather than "angry?" Were we not told that Bittergate was a very serious matter, a gaffe one that would surely cost him the election and one that meant you should be given the nomination because you were far too seasoned and savvy a candidate to gaffe so outrageously? Am I imagining that the only thing many of your supporters have managed to take away from what many have called the most important speeches on this issue of race in decades is the assertion that "Obama threw his grandmother under the bus?" Did I just dream that your supporters are constantly asserting that his use of the words "typical white person" was the key by which one could devine his true thoughts on the issue of race?
Everyone misspeaks once in a while and its just plain wrong to go overboard reading volumes into the unfortunate use of a single word when one is harassed or fatigued, is that really what you and your supporters are saying, sweetie?
Sorry, Senator. You made these rules up yourself and you've applied them with manic zeal. I know you think this campaign is one big game of Fizzbin where you get to make up rules as you go along and change them whenever its to your advantage. I realize your belief is rational in that you've gotten away with it over and over again, but, to coin a phrase or two . . .
Not This Time. This time, its time for you to go.
Comments (101)
I agree completely
alison
May 25, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Compleat post!
I would wager the Rev. Wright mess was the result of the Hillfolk suddenly realizing they had lost, that was part of "the kitchen sink" strategy that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to make us all suffer through.
But, alas, for both McCain and Clinton, the media's, (including this one), original darlings), something was brewing on the streets.
I have referenced this book before, but for those of you who missed it, if you really want to see what is going on here, goback to the Grange, or the Non-Partican movement of the early 20th Century, and you will get a glimpse into the movement we see again, in this 21st Century manifestation.
Read "Political Prairie Fire" by Robert Morlan, about the Non-Partisan league 1915-1922.
There is the true historic example of that street movement I reference, and just like a hundred years ago, the establishment candidates in both the Democratic AND Republican parties never saw it coming.
They were so blinded by their insider mentallity and rich contributor emphasis, they just couldn't see outside of their inner circle. and recognize the masses gathered against them.
Remember the 2004 Republican Party Convention? When I saw the mass of protesters peacefully marching around that den of iniquity, I knew then that The People were in the process of taking back our government again, and 2006 proved me right.
Now, even the Democratic party insiders will feel the sting of this populist rage, and Obama has become our figurehead.
He's no idol, or deified poser, Obama is simply the face we have put on our change. It started with Dean in 2003, moved to Edwards for a while, then finally nestled quite comfortably in the Obama movement, where it now grows and thrives and succeeds more and more, every day.
May 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is fond of "historic references." Please email this post to her campaign.
May 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, please let it go. Don't sink to her level. OK, you haven't sunk to her level; you're just taking the bait.
I'm less outraged than mortified, but Obama did the right thing by taking the high road. He's out there looking presidential, while she gets more and more desperate and cynical. Let her alienate more and more party members by calling the party itself sexist and accusing it of disenfranchising MI and FL voters. She's sinking her own boat, so just sit back and enjoy the show.
May 25, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I take no pleasure in this show.
May 25, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can tell. It's no fun. I guess I should have qualified my remark--we have no choice but to sit back and try to relax while the horror show goes on.
I'm just embarrassed by her, and amazed at the way the party has indulged her attacks on its process. On the other hand, Dean and Pelosi et al. have said it's OK to go to June 3rd. It's only another 10 days away, and in reality I don't expect the rules committee to give her all of MI and FL and Obama nothing, so I visit The Field regularly to get the Chicken Little beaten out of me. I'm still mortified, but Al helps me curb my panic.
May 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that after next Saturday, she will appeal the delegate decision to the Rules Committee (meets at the end of June, and at least 50% of its members are declared Clinton supporters).
The superdelegates need to hear from us. You can do more than sit back and wait for the outcome. Email those superdelegates nearest to your electoral area to express your concerns. We need to keep up the pressure on them to close this primary down on June 4.
May 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I repeat: if she gets slammed by the rules committee the party isn't going to keep her in the limelight so the media can repeat her attacks on the DNC. Once they withdraw their current nominal support she'll be in a freefall and will likely become so outrageous she'll make Ron Paul look perfectly reasonable.
May 25, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it wasn't a repeat. I just posted it somewhere else and got confused.
May 25, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can sign up for a "write your superdelegate" event on the Obama site. There is a new one there and it provides you with an up to date list and mailing addresses.
Continuing to make certain that your supers know your opinion of what is transpiring here is the best non-violent way to hold them accountable for what they ultimately do.
Clearly the Obama campaign is doing everything possible to put out a consistent message on the entire matter - Ax has been saying what Obama has been saying and there are no visible fireworks in the campaign, as Obama insists upon. Any sensible pol can see that Senator Obama is still in control of his message and effort, and still generous.
And any sensible pol and can also see that Mrs. Clinton is not.
Write to your supers. I believe they need to hear your reasons, as well as your opinion, for why you think Mrs. Clinton is not the right choice.
May 26, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, that would be "secession" rather than "succession."
Sheesh. My kingdom for an edit function.
May 25, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of typos, did I really say "April, 1965?" Jeebus. Are there like little gremlins who log into posts and mess with them after you hit "Send?"
Succession in 1965. Sounds like a group from the British Invasion.
May 26, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
No editor needed. I skipped right over any typos. Just an awesome composition! Right on the mark!
May 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that Hillary's goal is to sink the democratic party and its chances at the WhiteHouse.
What other goal does she have left?
Oh, and ever notice how Hillary Clinton NEVER attacks republicans?
May 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course she doesn't. It's not the Republicans "stealing" the nomination from her!
May 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't think she's seeking to sink the Party. She's simply seeking to elevate herself and failing miserably. The fact that she's destroying everyone around her is just collateral damage and she doesn't care.
May 26, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree, even Wolfman was saying yesterday that he would expest the entire Hillary machine to get behind Obama when the numbers can no longer be spun.
At least the professionals, all of whom are quite familiar and adept at changing allegiances from a lost cause to a winner. But I fear it won't be Hillary's staff and insiders who will bitterly defect to McCain, it will be some of the rank and file bitterheads, those "Hillfolk" I jokingly refer to, who will abandon trhe party.
Funny, how they all endlessly refer to Hillary's leadership experience as their guiding light, but when she talls them to vote for Obama, they abandon any reference to being loyal to her leadership.
Makes one wonder just what they really believed in the first place.
May 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious about just exactly who will and won't defect, as well. But, we can't know that until the time comes. Right now there's still a lot of sabre rattling, and those who are screaming that they'll take their votes and walk won't. It's dramatic effect. I think that the appropriate response is that which Obama is modelling. Stay focused on the GE and his message and his goals and expect that common sense will prevail.
May 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve, thank you for that well thought out post.
Obama did the right thing to publically give her the benefit of the doubt; his supporters and any neutral observers do the right thing to call on the superdelegates to put an end to this horror immediately.
She should pay a high price in the Democratic party for inflaming her supporters. Any other candidate who did what she is doing would be considered toxic waste for years.
May 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The main difference between Obama and Clinton at this point is that Obama will use clumsy wording once and bone up to it while Clinton will insert a bald-faced lie into three speeches and her wed site and have the gall to claim it was fatigue.
May 25, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself reacting to her reaction as much as to the original comment. Once again, she cannot admit a mistake, she cannot apologize, she cannot reflect on what happened and be sincere. She can't say: I can see how that sounded and I apologize. I think that is because she lies to herself as much as she lies to us. I'd feel sorry for her but I think, as you've expressed in your post, why it's dangerous to ever believe she will do the right thing. I think she is so angry and victimized that she will not stop trying to damage his chances to win.
May 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading your blog, I've finally come to the conclusion that she has a persecution complex. I don't know whether she has always been this way or whether it's a recent development but it's similar to what cult leaders do, they manipulate their followers into thinking that everyone else is out to get them and you're only safe with that leader. It's all very disturbing and irritating at the same time.
May 25, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something in what you wrote struck me. I think you are right, and perhaps this "complex" arises from her always living in the shadow of a man who did not respect her. He wasn't faithful to her in Arkansas or Washington, so this is a long time to be developing a victim persona. Some victims leave or walk away, but some stay, because there is the promise of payback. Payback came when Bill had shot his wad (no pun intended, or, maybe yes) after two terms in the WH--where do you go next? and the only path back to the WH was through Hillary. What complex webs we weave! This would make a great Shakespearian drama. BTW, I think a lot of "older women" can relate to this victimhood because adultery is fairly common, more so by men than women. I think HRC gets a huge "been there, done that" vote from women whose husbands have strayed. I empathize with that, but it's not a good criterion for electing a president.
May 25, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as its not MacBeth.
May 26, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called "turning the tables" and it's something that narcissistic/sociopathic personalities do to avoid blame or having to accept personal responsibility. She and Bill both share this characteristic.
May 26, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary the Victim" is must a ploy. The Clintons are all about manipulating their "subjects" and environment. Its nothing personal with them, its just what sociopaths do.
They are snake oil salesmen. There's always a buyer for that.
May 25, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"it's just what sociopaths do"
HOW COULD SHE GO THERE!? Hillary, Political Psychopath
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/25/123
For what it's worth.
May 25, 2008 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW I've been thinking a lot about this question of her having some form of personality disorder.
What's striking about her throughout this campaign is the way in which she bounces back so quickly from things that would have others changing their behaviour/appraisals.
There definitely is something abnormal about her - the way in which nothing seems to really penetrate her composure for any significant length of time. ie she seemed somewhat shaken in that shop when she tried to clarify her RFK statement. But it doesn't last. It never lasts. The way in which she keeps going on with yet more spin - nothing's reality based. If you evaluate her history - her reactions seem to indicate an extraordinary level of superficiality.
May 25, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
You've reminded me also of George Washington's Farewell Address in 1783 to his troops and how he encouraged their return to civilian life thus paved the way for a peaceful transition to democratic government. Oh, and he was also the guy who set the precedent for limiting himself to two terms sleeping in the White House.
May 25, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Though, of course, the White House did not then exist.
May 26, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the Feminists for McCain if Our Hillary isn't Nominated Club"
I think "McCain" needs to be replaced with "overturning Roe v. Wade"
May 25, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The weird thing is that women over 50 remember back-alley abortions; heck, they were fresh memories when I started college in 1977. Which makes me wonder if these Hillary-or-bust women are feminists at all. No feminist, furious or not, is going to vote for someone who'll guarantee the Court overturning Roe v. Wade. The neocons on the the court are so young we'd be talking 30 years return to coat hangers.
So who are these women? Anyone got any clues?
May 25, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you know? All talk of the Supreme Court is just Obamabot scare tactics. That's their new talking point. Liberal supreme court justices are actually apparently immortal.
May 26, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been trying to figure this out myself...who actually support Hillary?
Here in D.C., my very un-scientific poll located several Korean American women in their 40's that said they and their families all support Hill - why? Because they don't like or trust AA. period. The only other supporter I could find (that would admit it) was a white, 75 year old woman and she could care less about roe v. wade "I'm past worring about that, who cares? I like Bill - I want him back."
These are college educated, upper middle income individuals also - go figure.
I can't locate a single McCain supporter. Even my West-Point-Grad, Retired-Military Boss, won't support him. Everyone says they are voting Obama.
May 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Career fed: I seem to appear around you frequently. I think our dogs like each other. See my post below, but I agree that there is an element of racism among some women. I have college educated white friends who just can't bring themselves to vote for a black man. It has stunned me a bit. And, you are absolutely right that many women are really voting for Bill, because they know Hill doesn't come without him (oohh, that could be a bad double entendre-I didn't mean to offend anyone).
May 26, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a sociologist or psychologist, so this is pure venture, but I am a woman in her 50s, so let me try this. For some of these women, and I include my friends among them, HRC represents a struggle they have encountered personally, trying to break into the boys club. They are blinded to her tactics, and for these women, I sense they will switch over to Obama in the fall. For other women, voting for HRC is the first "radical" thing they have ever done, and they are experiencing a feeling of "in your face." Other women genuinely admire HRC and like her policy positions--and for them they don't care about the war so much. In my own little world, my female friends with no sons are less concerned with her war vote than my friends with sons. Since I have a son who entered West Point the year before the war began, her vote was a personal affront to me. He is now fulfilling his obligation in Afghanistan. So, these older women clinging to Clinton are probably a very diverse group--they all have their reasons, some good and some bad. If they are voting for her ONLY because she's a woman, that's not being a feminist at all, that's being sexist.
May 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine if there were a group of powerful people who went to Hillary and told her they will assure her of the nomination, but only if she stops all talk by herself or any of her supporters about sexism or glass ceilings. Hillary would pivot away from her remaining diehards faster than they could blink.
May 25, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you NCSteve. This is a very cogent and well-analyzed diary. It offers historical precedents that I have never considered.
It helps explain some of the animosity between Hillary suports and Obama supporters, although most Obama supporters I know do not become semi-hysterical when talking about Hillary and threaten to vote McCain if Obama is not the nominee.
In any case, this primary has shown me a side of Hillary I had no idea existed. I personnally have come to the conclusion that Hillary is not psychologically suited to be President (and that this country has dodged a -- well, we have avoided another 4-8 years of "I make my own reality."
May 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are women who no longer need abortions, don't care about those who do and just want to see a woman in the White House.
May 25, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just sad. Sad and selfish.
Here's a demographic thought. If Obama is bigger with single and/or younger women, and Clinton is bigger with married and/or older women, might these over-50 women's experiences with discrimination be too fresh for them to see beyond gender?
I dunno. It just baffles me. Yet another thing I just don't get.
May 25, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it either and I was one of those women who had to have an illegal abortion back in 1961.
Just last night I met two people who live in Manhatten and still think Mrs. Clinton is the better choice. After all the things she's done that are dishonest, all the ways she's shown herself unwilling and unable to run a good campaign, after all the management problems, after everything we've watched for the last 5 months they still think she can bring about change more effectively than Mr. Obama. They still think he's too young, too inexperienced etc. etc.
I just don't get it.
May 26, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly don't think the bulk of the Hillary supportes really pay any attention to this campaign. They aren't political junkies like a large portion of Obama supporters are.
I believe they really haven't a clue about the crap she has pulled becasue they are busy living their lives or just aren't interested in politics.
If you take this all in soundbites or from the nightly news = it's not a big deal, she's wonderful. It's only when you actually stop and pay attention that you see the monster.
May 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And fortunately, those are the ones who will fall in line when Obama is nominated.
May 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone here said, blithely, "Oh, the Dems in the Senate won't let an anti-choicer on the Court." There is a psychological term for that, but I'm too sleepy to remember it. Possibly, "moronic."
May 26, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. In fact no Supreme nominee ever admits to even having thought about abortions. Clarence Thomas never did. Aleto never did; Roberts never did. What does that mean? Just that they all lied to get approved and really should be impeached.
May 26, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
An excellent and well-thought out framework to aid in understanding the of Hillary's use of the A-word. You get extra points for the apt reference to Fizzbin.
May 25, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to go with "Calvinball," but I realized that implied that both sides were making up their own rules.
May 26, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Thank you for mentioning this - I have been writing this with every post - and people think that I am being reactionary.
How can anyone think this attitude is in a vacuum? There are her previous statements, the fact that people are already paranoid, and that Dallas stuff. You all have seen me blog about my 82 year old mother caucusinbg for Obama - I asked her at the time what she thought of that. She said the OBVIOUS "I just wish they would quit comparing him to the Kennedy's, don't they know what they are bringing up?"
Even she, who likes to ignore the news, knew what this meant.
May 25, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am over 50. It's not an age thing, it's an attitude thing.
I've talked to some older women who can't believe I'm not for Hillary, even though I look like her - old white woman.
no imagination whatsoever.
May 25, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU are not old - I know this because I am older!
May 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
May 25, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billiant!
This belongs on the front page.
Comment page to Josh Marshall...come in Josh Marshall.
May 25, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be bRilliant. BRILLIANT!
May 25, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
I really resent being told there is something insincere about my outrage. There is not.
I've lived through all of them - JFK, Martin, Bobby - I take that shit very seriously and I'm already scared.
How dare she? How dare they? 4 times she brought this up.
And blames him for this? This is too outrageous.
May 25, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's also 'tendentious' instead of ... well whatever it was you misspelled, but the usage was correct. Excellent argument... and very good use of Obama's signature phrase from his Philadelphia Address.
I hope to whatever gods that be that we hear the end of Hillbilly on or about the 4th of June.
May 25, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doh!
If I were rich, the second person I would add to my posse, after a maid, would be a copy editor.
May 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who watched "Recount" tonight, and for those who did not but remember the events of November and December, 2000, Al Gore, despite being cheated out of the Presidency (to the regret now of most Americans) bowed out with grace and dignity, hoping to bring unity to the American people (guess he was too sucked in my the campaign of the "Great Uniter). Several times during this campaign, Hillary has had great opportunities to also bow out with grace and dignity, but has not availed herself of the opportunities. Now as she is about to lose, she has shown that she lacks the character to rise to the level of an Al Gore. Too bad that she is harming her legacy, and to a great extent, Bill's also.
May 25, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And wasn't it great to have the point at which it should have been apparent to all that Joe Lieberman was a self-absorbed weasel rectum?
May 26, 2008 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve, your comparisons between the dynamics at the close of the Civil War and Hillary's conduct as this Primary has drawn to its natural conclusion are really insightful and make a powerful point. I think your argument should be made to every undeclared Super Delegate and every member of the DNC. It's past time for the Democratic Party to take some responsibility and shut Hillary down - at this point she is like a nuclear reactor in meltdown.
May 26, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
NC Steve, there's so much you recount in your post that I had already forgotten, in this long and horrible primary electoral season. Sad, but true.
I want to thank you for this specific nugget of truth:
Yes, it runs deep. She had to know it. Hell, she herself has been a target of hate, how could she have used that A-word? She could have just stopped a step before she got there. But no, she used that word and used is 4 times. Perhaps, this is what someone like her, with all her considerable passions directed in one narrow trajectory, does when broken hearted. And please do not read that as my excusing her. Because I'm not and I will not, excuse her, that is. I just don't want to call her evil and hate her. There's no point in that. For me, your sixth paragraph has it all. Thank you for your succinct post. I felt all my emotions mirrored in your words.
May 26, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, NCSteve! Thank you for expressing so well and so passionately exactly how many (most) of us feel.
I agree with CarolBG that you should present this to all the undeclared SDs and the DNC.
And I too remember the 3 assassinations.
Hillary has picked a very painful collective scab on a wound that was not even close to being healed.
May 26, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The convention will be the next battleground; expect more salvos from the Clinton camp. Excellent post!
May 26, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her personality disorder is called Narcissitic Personality Disorder.
And yes, if this were anybody else, the party would have squashed her long ago. THIS IS WHAT IS UNCONSCIONABLE. The only way she can be stamped out is if we all e-mail the superdelegates en masse. Because obviously, they don't have any spine on their own.
May 26, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Something I find totally bizarre about the lunatic fringe of HRC supporters here and other places is this constant refrain, "Oh, I'll vote for McCain because Obama's supporters are so nasty." Huh? You'll vote for McCain because of some commenters on a blog? Really? I mean, there are some raging assholes shilling for Hillary here--in fact I think it's an 80/20 split of raging asshole to not-- and I've never seen anyone say, "I won't vote her Hillary because you guys are such a bunch of raging assholics." But I think it ties in with this persecution complex Hillary is manipulating, it's US against al the big meanies in the world, and they're all against us, but we'll huddle together and overcome!
Or something.
May 26, 2008 1:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am over 50, white and professional. Ethics is a major issue for me. I stopped supporting the Clintons in the 1990s. I am amazed by the number of more liberal leaning people that accept lying because everyone does it.
Many women and men only hear a few news clips. The few second clips of Rev Wright, the false claims of Obama being a Muslim. They visit with there 70-80 yr old parents that still tend to think Obama is a Muslim.
In addition, many women have encountered discrimination throughout their life. Many of our parents discouraged college. As young girls, we did not have sports teams. I attended a college where young women were locked in the dorms at 10:00 pm, while the young men could be out all night. Most women became teachers or nurses.
The 50+ women remember very real discrimination; therefore, they are reacting somewhat from deep emotions rather than logic.
The Myers-Briggs / Keirsey Temperament Sorter statistics find 60% of women fall into the "Feeling" category. There is also a larger percent of women voters in the Democratic Party. I fall into the minority category of women "logical" thinkers. I often find it frustrating when people seem incapable of looking at facts. Facts tend to change depending on a person's perspective.
May 26, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don't blame this on the "F's"!!!! NF's for Obama!
May 26, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
INTJs for abstract principle
. . . and Obama.
May 26, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
INTP's for Obama!
May 26, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
ENTJ's for Obama
May 26, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, does anyone know where I parked my car?
May 26, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two other points:
1) hillary was one of the few Dems, remember, to call on John Kerry to apologize for his "botched joke."
2) This is a really excellent post. Even without Buffy references.
May 26, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
On January 8 before the NH primary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/08/clinton-surrogate-makes-c_n_80449.html
The Hillary campaign has been trying to instill this doubt/fear from the beginning. This one just happened to come from a surrogate introducing her. Considering that it has been reported Hillary's campaign had planted questions, it is hard for me to believe they did not know what she would say (or was given to say). The Hillary campaign backed away from this supporter's comments at the time.
On that same day Hillary, made the infamous MLK/LBJ statement. It gives a little more insight know as I watch it again when she says "it was something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9LhWUsrJnM
Now the revelation that she herself has been saying something along these lines for the past couple of weeks. They have been small blips in magazines and have gone relatively unnoticed.
Could it be that after all of the subtle hints didn't take hold she decided to take a more direct approach to get her message across?
May 26, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, thanks, TCFKANCSteve! Thanks!
What surprises me, every time I hear it, is her supporters and the Senator herself, asserting that they are going to the convention. To fight. To fight hard.
What surprises me even more, is that they think they can take it away from him or bludgeon him and his campaign into giving her the VP. They are so close already, in their platforms, even she says it – that they have more in common than not. So why not accept, believe, trust that Obama will accomplish it all or at the very least try to? I do see a peculiar presence of ego/narcissism here – the belief that only sheshe can bring about a specific change. Frankly, I feel exhausted.
May 26, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
should be:
– the belief that only sheshe can bring about a specific change. Frankly, I feel exhausted.
Edit function!
May 26, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry the "A word" flap didn't turn into the final straw you'd hoped, but in some ways I'm beginning to get the feeling it actually helped Hillary. With the exception of a few radical Obamatons, nobody seriously believes Hillary has any desire to see Obama assassinated. And all the noise they made over it just makes them look crazed.
May 26, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, right.
First of all, the race really doesn't need a "final straw" since the outcome is clearly known.
Secondly, given a look at the Sunday shows, it sure looks like this one has legs.
Plus, it totally puts the stake in the "dream ticket" zombie meme. He's not gonna ask her to be Veep, and now nobody's gonna blame him.
May 26, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean to say that only if Clinton meant this as a call to have Obama killed would there be anything wrong with her statement? That there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with a supposedly experienced public speaker referring to something so painful in our country's history, as a throw-away line, unless they're condoning murder? Not much into shades of gray, are you Ott?
May 26, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. No one seriously believes Hillary wants him assassinated. People just believe that the comment came out horribly, it sounded as if she was saying she was staying in the race in case he got killed. Even if it wasn't, that's was it sounded like. Even Taylor Marsh thinks so. And so she needed to offer a sincere apology, and did not.
May 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. What happened is that she brought up the assassination of a beloved political leader in an out of context manner that shows her lack of political skills for all the world to see.
May 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post is right on the mark. Thank you.
Even if we overlook the part of Senator Clinton’s statement that refers to Bobby Kennedy what she said still amounts to a despicable corrosive lie.
“People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa” says Senator Clinton. “I find it curious. Because it is unprecedented in history. I don’t understand it. Between my opponent and his camp and some in the media there has been this urgency to end this. And historically, that makes no sense. So I find it a bit of a mystery.”
Hillary Clinton does not see any mystery here. And she knows her diehard followers will not perceive a mystery either. Her unprecedented run for the White House is experiencing an 'unprecedented' push to get her to quit. She’s charging sexism and it’s ‘her opponent and his camp’ that are among those being charged.
The fact that the accusation is couched in a protestation of confusion about why this is happening suggests that this is a carefully thought out slander that she is happy to make but not willing to own up to and not prepared to back up with proof.
And this comes at a moment when there is no chance to stop Senator Obama from becoming the nominee. So what can her purpose be? None of the possibilities are one bit short of shocking.
May 26, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post, NCSteve!
What I especially like is how you counter her claim that her comments were taken out of context--in fact it is exactly because of the context that SHE created that there was such a powerful negative reaction to her A-bomb. I would be willing to give her the benefit of the doubt about her original intention, but she just had to take that extra hop over the shark and accuse Obama of fanning the flames after he gave her a pass...
What a loser. And like so many losers, unable to take responsibility for her own actions, always projecting her own bad behavior onto others, always playing the victim.
May 26, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no single statement she has made that advocates for Obama's assassination. But, the body of her words over time is the source of our widespread discomfort with what she said on Friday. And a big part of the problem she is having this weekend is that she has so strongly staked out her claim to the Timothy McVeigh vote. Another problem is that the 'a' word has become a 'legitimate' topic of conversation thanks to Clinton. Liz Trotta of Fox News feels confident enough to openly advocate for it. And the Clintons have been praising Fox for its balanced coverage lately.
Liz Trotta has just made Hillary Clinton's situation much, much worse. Fox didn't even use five second delay to bleep out Trotta's 'joke'. The next time Clinton, or any of her supporters, goes on Fox or praises Fox, they will be supporting the network that allows employees to advocate the assination of the Democratic nominee for President of the United STates. Think about that.
But no matter what she meant by her original comments, Hillary Clinton has just slammed the door of opportunity shut on any reconciliation with African-American voters in her state or anywhere else. And she had better pray that nothing happens to Obama. She will be blamed if it does. We can only hope that she had not planned to run for re-election to the Senate because it isn't going to happen. Stick a fork in her. She's done.
May 26, 2008 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it June 3rd yet?
May 26, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another brilliant post NCSteve...
Sen Clinton just doesn't seem to be able to see that even in losing, she's broken through the glass ceiling - opened the door to another woman to win the presidency in the future. The next woman will have far less of the casual sexism from the media, since the idea that a woman could be president will no longer be a pipe dream, since one came close. To all those who say that we should give it to her, since she's a woman - that's worse sexism than treating her equally to all other prior candidates who have come close, but not quite achieved the goal.
Jesse Jackson - by winning primaries and having a credible campaign in 1988 made it easier for Obama in some ways. However, I read an op-ed today in the Washington Post that has me thinking of the "West Wing"effect. That op-ed pointed out the parallels of this campaign to the fictional one in the last season of the West Wing, when Congressman Santos beat out Harold Vinick for the Presidency, becoming the first man of color to become President. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/25/AR2008052502282.html)
It may be that the popularity of the West Wing opened people's eyes to the possibility of a non-white person becoming president - and thus smoothed the road a little bit. Similarly, the presence of Dennis Haysbert as President in "24", Morgan Freeman as President in "Deep Impact" (I think - one of the asteroid movies). Perhaps it is Sen. Clinton's misfortune that television shows like "Commander in Chief" with Geena Davis as the President weren't more popular. There was also the movie "The Contender" with Joan Allen - I believe Jeff Bridges was nominating her to be VP as a mid-term replacement. Perhaps if these had been more popular, then it would have been easier for Sen. Clinton.
However, I think she would have done far better to have listened less to Wolfson, Penn and the like, and more to herself and "the better angels of her nature." I liked her more when she was advocating for kids... I liked her more when she was being her own woman, and relying on Bill. I liked her more when I thought she would recognize reality.
I know this is a very rambling post, but I will say this... I look back to the first debates of this cycle, and the democratic slate when we started. We had brown, black and white faces; we had male and female; we had younger faces and older ones; we had northeast to southwest, midwest, Alaska and the deep south. The democratic slate looked like America. We started this campaign with such hope, such a desire that this year be different. Let us keep that alive. Let us remember that feeling when looking at the slate of candidates that this year would be different. This year we won't be slaves to fear. This year we won't listen to "swiftboaters" and smears. This year we will look beyond the politics of the soundbite. We can do this - we can bring our country back from the brink of the abyss. Vote "D" in the fall....
May 26, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the dim-witted obtuse comment made by Hillary has had a consequence. Here is Liz Trotta, a former bureau chief and FOX analyst:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15659.html
This is really scary.
May 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
My state went 2 to 1 for Senator O and I have written both my Senators and my Rep asking them to support Obama. (All three are in Hillary's camp.) I wrote them after our primary and then again a couple of weeks ago as the Clinton campaign was playing dirty once again appealing to their sense of decency. None have moved yet. Any suggestions on strategy would be helpful.
May 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from the great analysis, the next best thing about the blog posting is the Star Trek reference. Fizzbin lives!
May 26, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
Now for the bad news. Paul Krugman, http://tinyurl.com/4e95yn , who I used to believe was a fair-minded individual, is still out there doing Hillary's dirty work for her by claiming that outrage against all the smears, deceptions and divisive commentary, including her latest, linking to the RFK assassination, are trumped up nonsense.
" ...what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?
"Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November."
It would be one thing for Krugman to acknowledge that people have a right to be deeply disturbed by the assassination comments but, for the sake of unity, should set aside their feelings. But that's not what he's saying. He paints the very real, painful emotions expressed in NCSteve's post, and shared by so many here and elsewhere, as bogus.
If he really has, as he claims, the "conscience of a liberal," how can he make statements like this, which fan the Hillary-the-victim flames?
May 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have long since completely gotten over giving a rat's ass what Krugman has to say about Obama. His head is stuck in the 90s. He's like a general who was so brilliant during the last war that he's not capable of seeing that his theories are obsolete.
May 26, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bow to your insight and skill in expressing it.
Thanks.
BTW, just caught Civil War historian Gary Gallagher on the tube C-SPAN's book show this weekend, and he was talking about Robert E. Lee's gracious and crucial public position as hostilities ceased, a last order. Basically, he told the troops, "They won, we lost and now we have to do what they tell us." Privately, he seethed for years about the various injustices invariably imposed by the victor on the vanquished, but publicly he behaved impeccably.
Which made we wonder, is Hillary the Nathan Bedford Forrest of the Democratic Party now?
Nah, I don't believe that, either, but the longer she stays in, and the more loopy excuses she and her surrogates make for doing so, the more scorn she invites, and the more damage she does to any long-term ambitions.
May 26, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
All Hillary has left is a long list of IF's.
If we had Repulican rules
If we did not have Caucusus
If her husband would have kept his moth shut
If there had not been a Bosnia video
If the Primaries that she's winning now had been held earlier
If she'd have fired Mark Penn early on
If pigs could fly, etc.
If she wasn't such a sick minded human being
You get the picture
PS: I am white - old (71) Catholic woman - no college - life long liberal Democrat - proud to suppport Obama in this historic year. Too bad the first woman to run was such a failure.
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know who really lost? WOMEN! It's a cliche' to talk about "our children, grandchildren and great - grandchildren", but I actually have all of those and I am so disappointed that the first woman to have a serious chance as president was such a bad choice for women everywhere. She reinforces every cliche' about women in the workplace. If things don't go her way she complains - she wants special rules , she loves to play the victim. This is not the example I want for my family.
Having read books by or about Madeleine Albright, Golda Meir, Benezir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, etc and knowing NONE of these powerful woem would have stooped to such tactics, makes it so obvious Hillary is NOT presidential material.
I feel bad for her loyal supporters - they worked so hard and wanted it so badly. She let them and every woman for several generations down.
Obama in a gentlemanly talks about how she broke barriers for his little girls and all women. In this he is wrong. She set back equality by her selfish actction.
May 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do I choose an avatar?
May 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
found it - let's see if it shows up - I chose this picture because when I saw it I cried with joy that in my lifetime this picture of a white woman and a black man could be shown in a newspaper and there would be not uproar or name calling. We have truly come a long way.
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice photo greatgranny.
May 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard for me to see what it is. Do you have a link to the original size photo?
May 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Hill Camp has arady started to try and take Obama down with them. They have yet again started trying to change the rule sof the game and pretend that Obama, or atleast his campaing is the blame for yet another mistake her and her campaign. I agree it is time for them to go.
May 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is stirring up outrageous sh*t because she is fast fading....and desperate not to become a footnote. What's worse than losing the nomination is losing the political spotlight, and she'll play hellcat because that's what keeps it on her.
The blackout and loss of interest in the Clintons would be like the Kiss of Death for them.
Let's understand what they're after and deny it to them.
May 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, NC Steve, for another great post.
I'm heartbroken over the verbal gaffe by Clinton, by the MSM not examining the entire gaffe, by the comments of Clinton supporters here at TPM talking about the unthinkable, by the sheer venom that appears to have burbled up, by Liz Trotta, and, I guess, just by this whole situation that was created by Clinton's words.
It feels like something quite ugly has just been unleashed, and I worry for the election. And for Obama's safety, to be frank.
I really have nothing more interesting to add. Too sad, I guess.
May 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Steve. Thanks. It really sums up a lot of things very eloquently. I hope it's gotten circulated elsewhere as well as TPM Cafe.
May 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant post, NC Steve. I recall your posts as a mere commenter from the very early days of this campaign, and though they are frequently snarky they are almost always dead on.
May 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment