« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Has Obama been too nice?
For the past month, everybody except Hillary Clinton seems to have known that Barack Obama was the presumptive nominee.
Because of this, Obama has not really been campaigning against her. The last truly contested elections were Indiana and North Carolina. He didn't really contest Kentucky and West Virginia. Sure, he ran a good number of ads, but that was as much about introducing himself for the general as anything else. He knew the odds favored Clinton, and he basically gave her the states. He didn't attack Clinton or do any aggressive campaigning.
I suspect he dialed back any attacks as part of a strategy to not antagonize her supporters and as a way to work toward unity. This would be a perfectly rational strategy if he were dealing with a different kind of opponent. I'm not sure it was wise with Clinton.
The last month of no opposition has given Clinton free reign and gives a false impression of her strength. Instead of using this time to promote unity or work toward a graceful exit, Clinton has used this time to increase her sense of aggrievedness and further rile her hardcore supporters' emotions. She's used this time to further promote the theme that she's been the victim of sexism, that she's behind because "they" wouldn't allow a woman to be president. Ironically, she's also used this time to encourage the racial divide, pushing the notion that whites won't vote for Obama, while simultaneously arguing that Obama is only the nominee because of his race.
If Obama had continued an aggressive campaign against Clinton, she wouldn't have these inflated numbers. She wouldn't be getting away with her bogus popular vote numbers. But he chose to be gracious. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. The result of his backing off is this endless will-she or won't-she game and the increasing of tensions between the most hardcore of the two candidates supporters.
Of course, the superdelegates have the power to stop this, but they're mostly spineless twits. Hopefully, this will all end cleanly tonight, and we can actually start working toward the general election. But I'm not counting on a clean break. I think Clinton will keep this going until the very last breath. The more he gives her, the more she will take.
Personally, I don't think he should trust her one tiny bit, and I don't think she deserves any more leeway. She's been given every opportunity to be gracious and honorable, and every single time, she takes the low road. We can't keep rewarding bad behavior.
If she actually concedes tonight and signs a contract in blood saying she won't try for a floor fight at the convention, I'll take all this back. But if she simply suspends her campaign and then continues to undermine Obama, she gets absolutely no slack at all.
Comments (63)
I hope after tonight, we can end these rants against Senator Clinton.... but somehow I think the right wing talking points are so ingrained here that some will be blaming Senator Clinton for the next hurricane or earthquake.
Get a grip please, lets start fighting the next battle with McCain.
Sheesh....
June 3, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will end these rants against Clinton when she stops doing things that damage the Democratic party.
She is the one who keeps pushing the divide. She is the one who encouraged her supporters to protest at the RBC meeting, with the wholly unsurprising result that women like Harriet Christian are spewing venom across YouTube.
She is the one who keeps pushing ridiculous metrics for winning, like not counting the first 38 contests.
She is the one who said this two weeks ago:
Clinton is actively pushing a false narrative that this election has been unfairly stolen from her, and that narrative undermines the entire process and hurts the Democratic party.
She has been able to push this false narrative because everyone has been backing off, in the hopes that she would be gracious. But she has yet to show any graciousness, and it's foolish to assume she will show any graciousness.
When she shows graciousness and respect for the process, I will respond in kind. And when she continues to lie and sow dissent, I will call her on it.
June 3, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
A resounding Yes, he's been too nice. Not saying he should have been nasty, but this tippy-toeing around her has been way too much.
Can you imagine Obama running against a man and, in the last few weeks of the campaign, everyone starts talking about being gentle with him, giving him space to come to grips with what happened, respecting his feelings, etc.?? Yet this is what’s been happening, and for all the so-called "feminism" that Clinton and her followers yell about, this is so far away from the equality that feminism puts forth. Clinton is setting women back decades by acting like this.
Will we look forward to another female presidential candidate if the impression is that this “ooh you hurt my feelings” stuff is going to happen again? We’re left with the impression that a woman president might need all kinds of concessions for her feelings, her space, etc. Ridiculous. Clinton has absolutely no idea how badly she’s damaged women in national politics.
June 4, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
yes and yes.
she's frankly become the anti-feminist, forcing everyone to worry about her potential hysteria and to consider her "feelings", like that should even matter on the national stage. It's insulting. I can't imagine anything similar being said about any of the other candidates that were in the race, if they were still in.
June 4, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, it's straight out of a Time survey conducted last July and then in March. And tolerance for electing an old person was much lower. So how is this a false narrative?
Your avatar continues to suit you - it's mine, give it to me now, don't give me excuses or logic.
June 4, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's part of the demographic of which only 23 per cent can find Iraq on the map, even if the map is labeled. I say give her the keys to the Porche and let her drive it off the road. We just have to make sure we're not along for the ride.
June 4, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a southern joke - she asks to make some change doing chores, so you send her out to paint the porch and she comes back asking if you want the BMW painted too.
June 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Des, I watched McCain and Obama last night. McCain looks so old. I remember when George HW Bush endorsed him, these two old men, tottering across the tarmac in Houston together.
I think the question is whether or not America will see McCain as a caretaker for one term who will get us out of Iraq successfully, continue to project US power in the ME, while keeping the US on the Reagan conservative course. The electorate may decide to give the old patriot his shot at running this country for four years. His VP choice will be critical.
June 4, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I've been saying. But if he picks a VP candidate Republicans can live with, that could turn into a 12-year White House stretch. It's more dangerous than what people think.
June 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rants. She has not shown any of the courtesy that she and her followers keep demanding. I think this post hits the nail on the head for anyone who has been following this thing closely. I firmly believe a woman can and should be president if qualified, but I personally think that the people lining up behind Sen. Clinton are ill-informed. She carries sooo much baggage and if you do any digging at all, which Joe Average does not, you will be left both speechless and astonished that she got as far as she did. Also remember, she still faces charges in November for violation of election finance laws. would she go to trial between the election and inauguration? All we want is the same respect she demanded last night.
June 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem is, he's a gentleman. Which is part of his allure. Long missing in our society among politicians. Long missing.
June 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allure? OMG. Got to love it.
June 4, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebes, this is supposed to be satire right?
June 3, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only wish it were.
June 3, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville - Please explain your post. Are you saying that Obama hasn't backed off Clinton for the last few weeks or so and given her space?
If so please provide specifics of Obama attacking Clinton in the last three weeks.
June 3, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure last time I checked he was still running strong. Everywhere he could. Still outspending her 4:1. Still letting his minions have their attacks out on her person. I am not sure what you mean at all. You percieve him as having backed off and you percieve him as being a nice person. You come from the viewpoint that if he isn't staying things then it means he isn't attacking. Simply not true. Bush never attacked directly Gore or Kerry. But attack he did. Axelrove, is very good at this strategy. He did it here in Cleveland to perfection with Mike White. You can believe what you want. Doesn't make it true.
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If that's your argument, then give examples of attacks after the NC/IN primaries.
I gave specific examples of things Clinton has done in the last month.
If you want to argue, give examples. Your assertions that he's been a meanie aren't enough.
June 3, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that was my point HE hasn't. Never has. But his minions have. Axelrove et al. Hell even Sen. McCaskill has been anything but nice. Have we not heard from Chris and Keith nightly about the farce of her being in? Hasn't folks around the blogosphere done their fair share? You are going to tell me the attacks on her post NH primary weren't orchestrated? It is no different than what Bush has always done. In his campaigns going back to running against Ann Richards he didn't attack democrats. To his credit Obama and Axelrove took on this strategy. Its not overt but it is just as effective. Go ask John Kerry or Al Gore. And what did we say about both Candidates that is in common with Hillary? We all said they ran terrible races.......Funny that.
June 3, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me an example of his surrogates attacking then. Not the media, not random people here spouting off, but people who are actually involved in his campaign.
Give specific examples. I gave specific examples of Clinton's behavior. So come on, give me examples of the Obama campaign attacking Clinton.
Honestly, every time I've seen Obama or Axelrod or any of those guys on the TV lately, they've been attacking McCain, as they should be.
June 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebes,
http://attacktimeline.com/
June 3, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Followed your link. It only goes up through April 22.
I'm asking for examples post NC/IN primary.
June 3, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebes,
http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=7493
June 3, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, this is from May 4 and relates to the IN/NC primary when she was promoting and he was opposing the gas tax holiday.
You're kind of proving my point here. Obama has not been campaigning against Clinton for the last month.
June 3, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry phoebes, here you go
http://www.huliq.com/60355/obama-attacks-clinton-ahead-puerto-rico-primary
June 3, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. You have now officially proved my point that he didn't attack her during the last month. Because this is not an attack:
"Clinton is stirring up anger in Florida and Michigan on the issue of the Democratic Party decision not to seat their delegates at the convention. It's last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win," he said.
That's a very mild explanation of what she was actively doing.
June 4, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta call my daughter. Holler if you need more Phoebes.
June 3, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow the 2:1 lead in spending nationally is now 4:1. Barack is even better prepared for the general than I originally thought!
June 3, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think it was on the front page in an article by josh on Mon?
June 3, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money is a sign of corruption with the Clintons.
Money is a sign of virtue with the Obamas.
This has been another edition of Goofus and Gallant.
June 4, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on where you get you money. Though, I hardly expect you to pay attention to anything resembling context.
June 4, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe, you and I are on exactly the same page. Obama must have incredible disciple and the patience of Job to stick to his unifying message and general election focus even while the Clinton team has abused his decision to dial down by dialing up their own campaign in the closing days.
We were told a couple of weeks ago that Clinton was was basically just playing out the string so she could say she stayed in until the end. But she hasn't done that at all. She decided to treat that decision as an opening she could use for a final push.
June 3, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah...I see. Another post hi-lighting your emotional disablility.
Title: Has Obama been too nice?
Post: Redundant rant about Hillary.
*ding-dong!*
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to note last time...your avatar is absolutely perfect... A screaming little girl.
Priceless!
June 3, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crazy don't make me wrong.
If you have a point, argue it. If you just want to attack me, that's fine, too. It doesn't bother me, and it makes you look like an idiot.
June 3, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screaminglittlegirl (Hey, cool Indian name!),
Crazy don't make you right or wrong. Just...um, crazy!
June 3, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
No...no...wait... "Little Screamy Girl!" That's even better! You can use that. And yes, you're more than welcome. ;^}
June 3, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Screamy Little Girl it is then.
You do realize, don't you, that all you're accomplishing is proving that you have no point to argue. But keep up the insults. They really show off your intellectual prowess.
June 3, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no! "Little Screamy Girl!" Not "Screamy Little Girl!" Damnit this matters! ;^}
Seriously, you do take yourself too seriously.
June 3, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No no no. Not Little Screamy Girl. My screams are not little! I'm a Little Girl with BIG Screams! Dare to scream big, and always follow your screams.
June 4, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do your remember the horribly politically incorrect joke about the naming of babies in Silkwood? I've often wondered what the echo chamber would look like if we had a tribal chief handing out avatars. I think Phoebe's is perfect for her. Naturally and effortlessly artful. Her avatar perfectly modulates her rants. The only one I can think of that might be better would be Priss' violent death throes in Blade Runner.
June 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might change my avatar, just for you guys. I found a good one.
June 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did my ears deceive me or did Wolfson just imply that they might manipulate the delegate number, again? So that, despite the fact that Obama crossed the 2026 number, and despite the fact that he will likely cross the 2118 number tonight, that might not be good enough for the Clinton camp to acknowledge and concede to him as the nominee?
Really, this has gone too far. In so many ways:
1) As noted in your post, Phoebe Fay, and in DanK's reply, HRC is not just playing out the string of primaries; rather, she is actively using Obama's months of patient, considerate chivalry to sabotage him with a new talking point;
2) The longer Obama treats her with kid gloves, the more likely it is that he will be perceived as a weakened candidate -- proving that no good deed goes unpunished;
3) Worst of all, it angers me, as a white woman, that the HRC tactic, vis a vis Obama, is one, not just out of the Rove playbook, but worse, one that is straight out of the South in the 1950's: no matter how badly she treats him, no matter how often he smiles and says "Yes, ma'am," he is the one being held to a higher standard of behavior. I grew up with this, and it nauseates me to see it being replayed, this way, with a similar cover offered to HRC that she be allowed to "exit gracefully, on her terms, on her timetable."
WHY IS THAT? one asks. WHY is it he, who has won by hard work and great forebearance, who is beholden to her -- rather than she being obligated to acknowledge his achievement?
Now I hear noise on MSNBC that she wants to get the VP nod before she concedes.
Pardon this affront to my southern mother and grandmother, but, F*** NO!!!!
June 3, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how his standard is higher? The bar for him has been set low and kept there. He has not provided anything as far as policy goes in this Primary which what makes it so frustrating. Over the years we've had debates about Policy. He purposely doesn't talk about policy. Another thing he gets from the Bush playbook.
June 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's actually true about policy, but only if you're just too stupid to click thru to his website. however, as fdr once pointed out, a presidential campaign is not an adult education seminar.
June 4, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... having one of your good friends go up on a pulpit on Sunday and call Hillary a racist is really being "too nice."
June 3, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh right. If the Obama campaign had any idea that was coming, they would have cut it off. Father whatshisname hurt Obama with that video far more than he hurt Hillary.
June 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, just want to know where and when the bar has been higher for Obama. Its been artificially low the whole campaign. If Rezko's would have been Hillary.....she would have been crucified. Is it because she is Hillary? Could be. It is reality though and one of the reasons he was able to make headway in the early contests.
June 3, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Rezko's would have been Hillary...
Indeed, surely no one would vote for Hillary Clinton if there were some indication that in the past she had been involved in a shadowy land deal.
June 3, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's some good snark there, but I think his point was that if Hillary had been caught looking like she had her hand in yet another shady land deal, no matter how flimsy the evidence, it would have been the straw that broke the camel's back. She came to the game with a lot of baggage.
June 3, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe, you are right. I like you. Please keep talking.
Hillary's speech tonight just means that she will continue to use the "popular vote" tally, partially conceded to her over the past month, as leverage to get from Obama concessions and a VP offer. The news outlets are claiming that she would like Obama to offer her the VP spot so she can reject it. Obama in effect would not be getting his first pick but his second pick for VP. I don;t know if its true but I think this ego stuff is dumb. I don't know if it's necessary.
More important is the extensive Hillary baggage that Obama would have to defend. I think she is damaged goods and not an asset as VP. So what else would she accept?
June 3, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, I agree with your post. Reasoned but not credulous.
She definitely hasn't earned anyone's trust at this stage. And it looks like even tonight she's trying to upstage him with her VP push.
I think it remains to be seen whether Obama's strategy of disengagement will pay off in the end. It's hard to gauge how much it has or hasn't helped him with the supers, RBC committee, etc. I imagine he realized there would be both advantages and disadvantages associated with mostly concentrating on the general the last few weeks.
On the plus side, he has managed to draw more attention to a few of McCain's weaknesses during the last few weeks, I think.
June 3, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many hours later, in answer to Louisville1975:
If you are from Louisville, you should know exactly what I am talking about in terms of a higher standard of behavior being expected of a black man in his dealings with a white woman. But perhaps the 1975 in your ID denotes your year of birth, in which case the full impact of that automatic double standard would have been diluted by the time you became aware of such issues.
Never mind. Anyone who was a child prior to the Civil Rights legislation of the mid-60's, anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line knows what I mean. As well as many others from the North.
This is a momentous night. There really can be change. My heart is full to think that it may be possible to call Barack Obama Mr. President.
June 3, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many many hours later. Sure, I know of what you speak. However, your analogy with this campaign is not correct at all. Hillary by nature of who she is has always been held to the higher standard. I've heard it time and again from all quarters here that she certainly has the most to offer as President or a Presidential Candidate but that she "lost" based on her running of her campaign. That is the saddest thing I ever heard. That we'd actually nominate someone that we knew wasn't the best Candidate available. Though, being a Democrat this long it really is not that shocking. We've been here before.
June 4, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please spare me the self-righteous BS, and especially this crap about the last month.
Obama's South Carolina Memo
Maybe We Can't
But I'm glad to see that Obama's above doing any of that.
June 3, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Obama's strategy was to not alienate her supporters and, as we see tonight, it was the right one.
Despite Hillary refusal to acknowledge his win, he is nevertheless, as of tonight, the Democratic Party nominee for President of the United States.
June 3, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What drivel, as usual. If you haven't noticed, Obama just limped to the finish line, and could use all the help he can get. You, on the other hand, are beyond help.
June 4, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no hope for Louisville1975 and the usual crew of Hillary apologists who have been in vicious denial for months.
Just as the question was posed on TPM on someone who formerly admired the ex-First Lady to the slow transformation to "hating" Hillary after the RFK assassination comments, this is tough. Despite my high distaste for Hillary and Bill now as a former huge fan, I still can't say I hate them although they've tried their hardest to push me and others over that 'hate' line.
The same would go for whether or not Barack Obama has been too nice. He's a classy man and a superb candidate, and has far more self-control than many of us do. I know that I've been hoping he'd have more STF up moments like he did in her cackling moment during the Iowa debate and put her in her place when she's said and done such horrible, horrible things over the course of this campaign, but he's far too much of a gentleman, not to mention just plain smart.
It's sort of like I wanted John Kerry to smack down Rove, Karen Hughes and the other Swift Boaters during 2004, but Obama is no John Kerry and he's shown that he's no Clinton either and has gracefully rose above them by his refusal to jump in the mud with them. If he had taken the dip into the pig pen with Bill and Hill, I don't think we'd be celebrating the first African-American presidential candidate in U.S. history today.
June 4, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can think of one unfair 'gotcha' campaign of Obama's surrogates against Hillary. This is one to, say, three dozen by HRC, so it's not a blanket criticism of Obama's honor.
Axelrod and others worked way too hard to keep the false outrage about Hillary's RFK comments alive. It was clear to anybody watching the interview (including myself, an ardent Obama supporter then and now) that Hillary Clinton was referring to the RFK assassination as a reference to a campaign continuing in June. The comment was in poor taste, and was irrelevant (that campaign was happening in June because there were still enough delegates in play, which was NOT true at the time Clinton made the remark), but Hillary was definitely not licking her lips at the prospect of an Obama assassination.
June 4, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just want to let everybody know, for historical reference, that June 4 was the day the WWII Battle of the Midway began.
I just automatically think of June 4 as Battle of the Midway Day, in case that ever pops up in conversation and it seems inexplicable or inappropriate to you.
That's just how I remember it's June 4.
So don't freak out or make a big deal out of it if I bring it up
>;-)
June 4, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this had any basis in truth, you'd have a point.
But the truth is that the most explosive comment made by the Obama campaign about her RFK comments was that it was "unfortunate" and that was in response to the initial query from a reporter after she'd said it.
Axelrod actively tried to tamp the story down, saying they accepted her explanation of what she meant. It doesn't serve Obama to have stories referencing assassination bouncing all over the media. He wanted the story ended.
The story stayed alive because it rubbed a raw wound on millions of people who fear just such an occurrence. And it was kept alive by Clinton's ridiculous non-apology apology where she completely missed the point of why it was offensive that she said it.
June 4, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's an ass. No way in hell should there be ANY consideration of her in a VP spot after the way she has conducted her campaign.
She's a scumbag.
Hey, if Bill can use it, so can I.
June 4, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're totally right -- Obama's reluctance to attack a fellow Democrat after the math made the outcome certain has hurt him with both vote totals in the final primaries and with media coverage (e.g., Obama camp hasn't really hit back on tendentious popular vote and electability claims).
BUT, for the last 2 months this race has really been about winning over the superdelegates and party leaders -- and in that respect, Obama's approach has been perfect, which is why he has won the SD endorsements by more than 10:1 over that period. His classy and restrained conduct, and Clinton's desperate, destructive, and selfish tactics, have answered any questions about who's best candidate.
Any his slaps against McCain on the last week, esp last night, show he's fully capable of being tough and aggressive when he wishes to be.
June 4, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebes..peace
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/concession-speech.php
June 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment