« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
It All Ends Tomorrow, or, Wishing Hillary Well
This is a post about why and how the Democratic primary campaign will end tomorrow night when Hillary Clinton takes the dais.
Hillary Clinton is a smart woman. A very smart woman. She knows that she has lost this primary fight, and has known it since early May, when she ceased her periodically barbed attacks on Obama. She was entitled to continue until this campaign's end, and tomorrow night the last vote will have been cast.
All signs today point to her withdrawing tomorrow and endorsing Barack Obama. Her chronically uncoordinated husband, who at times appears to have communicated with her by shortwave radio, semaphor with a flag missing, or not at all, blurted out that today could be his last on the trail forever. Obama and Clinton spoke privately Friday. There are rumors of Obama being asked to help black congresspeople challenged by pro-Obama primary opponents, and of Obama helping raise money for Hillary's debts. There is the call for important supporters to attend Hillary's speech tomorrow night. There is the call for requests for reimbursement to be submitted immediately to her campaign. Etcetera.
But the biggest sign that points to the end tomorrow is the confluence of fortune -- the Rules and Bylaws Committee did not deliver a torrent of delegates -- and intelligence, namely, that of a very bright Yale Law School graduate named Hillary Rodham Clinton.
She knows that she is beaten, and while she is remarkably, extremely averse to self-criticism or criticism of her campaign, she is aware of the need for party unity. She speaks of it. Many of us did not and do not understand parts of her campaign in light of that object. But she is going to do unity her way, and it is hard to see how any intelligent person thinks that means persisting past Obama's accumulation of the 2,118 delegates needed for nomination. Her supporters' recent statements track in general with the realization that this exercise ends at the moment Barack hits that threshold. With supporters like Iowa's Vilsack saying publicly that Hillary needs to concede, her immediate reports are surely hearing that now from all quarters.
Another obvious point: Hillary Clinton is a politician who wants to be President. If not via the Vice Presidency, which tea leaves say she would take but will not be offered, then perhaps in 2012.
From these basics, all signs point to an epic speech tomorrow. Hillary Clinton has thrilled and inspired millions of her supporters. She has also angered millions of Democrats at times, a fact to which she is emotionally inured but of which she is either dimly or sharply aware. For her to hope to fight another day at the head of a united Democratic Party, for her to not be accused by those relatively neutral Democrats remaining of playing spoiler should Obama lose to McCain, there is no effective moment of intended reconciliation within the open gash that this nomination fight has become past tomorrow night.
I have neither liked nor enjoyed the Clinton campaign in any respect since shortly before the South Carolina primary, when a friend of mine in it put me on notice of consequences for heretics from it, and I have liked it less since then.
But I expect a great speech from Hillary Clinton tomorrow night. I expect it from her self-interest, from her intelligence, from her accomplishment, from her aspiration to lead the entire Democratic Party, and from her actual leadership through these primaries of half of it. I wish her the best in wrapping her passion into a speech, and helping us as Democrats make peace by showing how she and Senator Obama seek the same good, and by explaining with emotion how important it is that our team win the November contest. I hope for her and for the party and for Barack that she deconstructs the us and them that has festered in the party since February, and construct a we. Leaders do things like that. It can be her best moment -- as lawyers know, statements against one's interest are entitled to greater weight than others. By doing good, she would do well.
So I wish her the best speech of her career, wonderful coverage of what in many quarters will be surprising grace that I hope and expect she will earn, and a summer of reconciliation and encomia for her unique and historic campaign.
Comments (57)
(I) Hillary Clinton, your future president, gratefully accept this offer to concede an end to my historic nomination, and would like to hereby announce that Senator Barack Obama, junior Senator from Illinois, who is not a Muslim now - I'm sure of it, will be the Democratic nominee for president, to run against me in my Independent bid for 2008.
Much Love!
Hillary MMV(I)(I)(I)!
June 2, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary wants to concede or suspend her campaign before Obama win it outright. That way she can claim certain high ground AND possibly later claim the SD's only went to Obama because she gave her blessing to do so, and thus they're still in play.
June 2, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still trying to discover the disconnect between Hillary and Obama supporters.
I would love to hear more perspective from Hillary supporters.
If you're interested, please share your opinions.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/an-honest-question-for-clinton.php
June 2, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you writing a school paper or something? (This spam is getting kind of annoying.)
June 3, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It can be her best moment," you write.
Indeed, I hope it is.
But it could also be her worst.
Hillary's campaign is still sending out some troubling signals that she won't concede.
Maybe she's keeping her powder dry in the event she scores a blowout win in South Dakota.
In itself, that would do little to improve her delegate math, but she may hope for one last kick at the superdelegates.
That would only delay the inevitable.
Regardless of tomorrow's primary results, she should reaffirm her future within the party by making the great concession speech you anticipate.
June 2, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that she should, I hope that she will, and I won't be surprised she does, but since I don't understand why Clinton hasn't conceded already, I'm hesitant to predict that she'll do it tomorrow.
But I give you credit for offering a confident prognosis. More credit if you're right.
June 2, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stooges like Nemazee can't afford to steal her thunder, so I ignore denials from them.
If my post is correct, it could lead to a loud din of VP speculation that many of us will not enjoy.
June 2, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about what the stooges say. It's just that Clinton has proved to be unpredictable. Based on the signs, I think that you're probably correct that she'll concede tomorrow, but I don't share your confidence.
June 2, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a backwards sort of way, the fact that I don't actually believe she'll concede tomorrow makes me think that she will. Articleman's post reminds me of your "How I Learned to Love the Math" post: entirely logical and sensible, but somehow almost impossible to accept.
June 2, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said in two other posts already tonight, I think tomorrow will be left undeclared, meaning that Obama will not claim victory, and Hillary will not concede, tomorrow night.
I think the majority of the undeclared SD's will allow Hillary another day or two but will trickle at perhaps 8 per day to Obama between now and the weekend, and that Hillary will make a gracious concession speech on or by Friday evening.
June 2, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but, that's not to take anything away from articleman's very eloquent (as always) post.
Rec'd, of course.
June 2, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, as so often happens. I think tonight will be a party for Hillary with the same trop she's been putting out for the past several days. I think the Obama event will be very restrained, with the big applause lines being direct hits at McCain. I think on Wednesday we'll see some high-profile SD endorsements for Obama, then the timid ones will finally go where they have already decided to go (and some will go to Clinton, if only out of fear that their constituents will tar and feather them).
June 2, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
A thought occurs: this morning she was still defiantly in it to win it, boasting of popular vote (distortions), claiming greater electability, urging pledged delegates to defect.... and then, this afternoon, she was returning to NY, notifying her staff to submit their travel vouchers, Bill was starting to become misty-eyed by saying "this might be my last day, blah, blah.
What is the element that could account for such a massive shift?
It occurs to me that, just as Edwards appeared at a big rally to endorse Obama in a timely fashion when he needed it, maybe tomorrow night, in St. Paul, is intended to be the Gore endorsement. And that, if Hill & Co. got wind of that, they decided to suspend: a) because Gore creates an unstoppable momentum; and b) if she concedes or suspends first, she diminishes the meaning of Gore's endorsement, making of it only a rubber stamp, rather than a strong declaration of choice.
Too cynical? Probably, but I will be interested to see if Gore shows up in St. Paul.
Your thoughts?
June 2, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who really cares who Gore or anyone else endorses? Do you actually think that voters vote for this person or that person because some other person who they don't know thinks that they should?
June 2, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But this could also be interpreted as closing up shop for the primaries, which will be over tomorrow, and conserving resources for an all-out attack to win the hearts and minds of superdelegates. You don't need field operatives on the ground in Iowa to convince supers--you need Bill Clintons, Harold Ickes's, and other high-profile Dems on the telephone.
June 3, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that when she does decide to suspend her campaign, she will give an emotive, unifying speech as you suggest, and it will empower her even more. It will make her supporters love her even more (if that's possible) and soften her negative image.
Result? Her negatives could actually go down slightly - Obama's will probably stay exactly the same. (Today they're 52 for her, 50 for Obama)
(From a response I wrote to another post)
I can't wrap my mind around how she's going to approach these next few months leading up to the general.
I wish I could remember where I read this - but there was a compelling article written within the last few days about what's animated her so far. The argument goes that she genuinely doesn't, and never has believed, that Obama could win the general. (Combination of his inexperience, actual racism, his links with people such as Wright, Pfleger, Ayres, Rezko - swiftboating on his other history in Chicago - vulerability to being painted as far too leftwing and horribly weak on foreign affairs and defense.) Thus the reason she's attacked him as much as she has, and has felt it not only justified but moral, is because she's believed it so vital that he doesn't win the nomination.
So I can well see that, if he does end up with the convention nominating him, she will absolutely do everything she can to help him win it.
What it doesn't given me any confidence about is how she'll operate over the next few months.
She'll suspend her campaign; say enough of the right things to prevent all the powers-that-be turning on her. But what will be going on behind the scenes if McCain/right wing attack machines manage at various points over the next few months to make Obama temporarily at least seem vulnerable/not a strong enough candidate?
Where she's won out in whichever ways she has since Obama's 11 streak win, is that Obama's been under attack from two fronts, and she really hasn't been under attack at all. It's given her a horribly unfair advantage. She and her surrogates will covertly maximise that in any and every way they can over the next two months, I suspect, because one thing won't have changed: she doesn't believe he can win the general. Thus to her mind anything she does to prevent the convention nominating him is a democratic party social welfare good.
None of this is to argue that other things - personal ambition/feelings etc - haven't animated her.
But this is the overriding one that should have everyone nervous about what she's going to do.
And if she gives a rousing, unifying speech over the next few days, it's going to strengthen her position as the alternative nominee.
June 2, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, even though TODAY she said that she should still win and was NOT quitting and was looking for superdelegates to DEFECT to her, she has been PRO OBAMA for the last month?
Au Contraire...she has been on the warpath for three months. She has been mean, cruel and WRONG. She has boasted of this imaginary "popular vote" myth for months now, and as of today NPR gave it a big raspberry and said that legitimately, Obama is about 150,000 votes ahead BEFORE tomorrow's primaries. SHE asked to be given the chance to finish and SHE called out the dogs to the Rules committee. SHE and her cohorts refused any compromise and were screaming about disenfranchisement of 4 DELEGATES (I thought we were counting popular votes, Hillary).
Where in this is the conciliatory tone? Where in this is the pro-Obama, I know I've lost. Hillary's people seem to want us not to talk, but they are supporting someone who has a wheel missing off her motorcycle.
I hope she concedes tomorrow, but dont' bet on it. If we were just going by all she has done and said in the past, I can see her taking this to the convention, to hell with the Democratic party.
June 2, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely not true. In fact, she is too clever by half.
Her campaign is the largest swan dive in modern US politics. There are many outrageously stupid mistakes, particularly since she had 8 years to think about her strategy. The primary mistake is one of hubris.
Hillary didn't execute a good plan poorly. She had no plan.
She is smart in the mass-media sense; essentially preying on how people react to news and to take advantage of their better natures. Hence we see pandering to women, "gas tax holidays", to the working class, and a variety of other victimization mentalities so that people vote for her out of identity politics rather than policies.
Incredible statement. Do you really believe the Clintons aren't coordinated? This is the best rehearsed good cop/bad cop routine ever. Bill becomes the lightening rod to protect Hillary.
Let's remember that without Bill, Hillary would not have been able to be elected to the Senate in 2000 -- at least not with the zero previous elected experience she had at that time.
Another incredible point. Hillary seems irrational to everyone so she must be a genius?
Unity means unifying the masses. Hillary has been labeled one of the most polarizing forces in present American politics. And this was before her campaign lost its wheels!
And you think that now, now she is going to be able to show the type of grace she wasn't able to in the past? (Remember her challenge to us at the beginning of the campaign that there were plenty of other candidates to vote for?)
Enough of giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
I am tired of her working out her private demons as part of the national dialog. There is a war going on where we are spending the remains of our national treasure. We are at peak oil conditions and we need to prepare for an age of expensive energy.
I believe she lives in mortal fear of being truly irrelevant and not front page news.
I am tired of the "fighter" moniker. She isn't. It's called "ambition" where I come from. Fighting is something Nelson Mandela did. Resilience is something that Ghandi did.
Hillary is merely running for office out of a sense of ambition. There is nothing wrong with that, but let's not paint her in euphemistic terms.
Else she will write the (false) lessons of this election and drive the country in a worse place.
June 2, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but, with all due respect clearthinker, Hillary wanted this race to get to tomorrow. That's really all she asked.
We Obama supporters begrudged that move.
Give Hillary her day in the sun, tomorrow. I think she truly knows that she can't win over enough Super Dels this week, and I think she clearly knows that Obama will hit his mark by Friday, if not sooner.
Let's give her, and her supporters, this week. Just this week. If, after that, she wants to go to the convention, then we can get outraged. But I truly believe this will be over by Friday.
We're gonna have to unite the party sooner or later. Why not start sooner?
June 2, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first act of winning a war is for the loser to recognize it.
Hillary had her day in the sun... it was the last 3 months. She is owed nothing. She went for a scorched earth policy and essentially insisted she would never surrender until a nuclear bomb be dropped.
The tone of the dialog is not hers to decide. She lost.
There is a reason that the best generals go for unconditional surrender. Hillary created her current situation -- let her deal with the consequences. The statements that can't come off the record, the debt, all of it. She ran her campaign into a blind alley. It is not for the rest of us to fix that situation.
Didn't you give money to Obama? He wouldn't have needed to spend it on her, if she acknowledged the situation with her finances. Instead, she tried for a war of attrition. It wasn't ballsy, it was stupid. And it cost us time and money to recapture the White House.
She is counting on the rest of us to enable her atrocious behavior. I'm not playing.
Let her concede in crystal clear terms and with no caveats.
And then we can take off the gloves.
June 2, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, but I personally am letting her have until Friday to do it. If she surprises everybody tomorrow night, then good for her.
After this week, though, we have to start reconciling the party. Why not start by letting go of the righteous anger we Obama supporters feel?
And like I've said in other comments today, I'll be the first to get downright ballistic if she vows to take it to the convention.
I just don't think she will.
June 2, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just the point. I don't know about you, but I don't have any "righteous anger". And that is simply an enabling attitude: taking the problems of the other person and saying that it's really your own fault for their behavior.
Here's the deal:
Hillary wants to fight tough? Fine.
Hillary wants the gloves off? Fine.
Hillary says the campaign isn't over? Fine.
Then she should expect the all out brawl and be pummeled politically until there is nothing left. This isn't anger, this is fighting it to the end. If she is too stupid to recognize that she is getting far too bloodied in the fight, that's not our fault. In fact, when she recognizes her injuries, that will be the way to concession.
Example:
a) She is only "suspending" her campaign. Excuse me? That's not a concession. I won't play party to that.
b) A headline from Reuters today says:
Obama nears win amid signs Clinton may admit loss
Admit loss? Excuse me? This is a fact that isn't hers to spin.
c) "Count all the votes" Like in the 10 states where she all but conceded to Obama because they weren't important? And on and on.
None of this has to do with anger. It has to do with taking the fight to the opposition and letting the preponderance of facts politically crush her to a breaking point.
Otherwise, and mark my words, she will be something that the Dems will constantly have to deal with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Like Arthur, we must continually slice off her limbs (metaphorically of course!) until she is nothing left.
June 2, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Every argument her campaign makes should be met with counter-arguments. Every time her campaign puts out a statement, strong statements from the Obama campaign should counter it. Obama's people should be on every news outlet possible talking up his advantages. Ickes makes an argument, Axelrod needs to mutilate it and do it with cold precision. Anyone puts up an argument on here, it needs to be countered at every turn. We don't have to win every argument, but it's past time to let these arguments they're pushing go unopposed.
No need to go personal, the arguments are truly strong enough on their merits to counter anything they bring.
When they concede, the pressure will be lifted. Not before. They tried to get us to back off a month ago. We did. They came out with both barrells blazing; we shouldn't be fooled again. We need to put pressure all over every aspect of her campaign. We burn our way to the sea until they cry "Uncle."
June 2, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, it's simply not about her anymore. It's not that she's running the show; it's that the show is set up and she, Obama and the rest of the party has to figure out how to re-stage it for the GE. That means giving her space, letting her vent, and then working intensely with her to secure her supporters for Obama.
We've all admired Obama's strategic skill, right? We're going to see some real finesse this next several weeks. He's schooling Democrats in how to carry off the most difficult challenges. So it's not about what Hillary says this next few days; it's about what the SD's do and how, what Dean and Pelosi et al. do and how, and etc., etc., all down the line.
So never mind about her. Trust Obama's ability to navigate these minefields. He wouldn't look so serene these days if he didn't have a bombproof plan.
June 2, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andanotherthing: Despite the incredible and countless blunders Hillary has made throughout the primaries, she's also no slouch. Apparently, she used poor advisors & poor advice, but I think that in the right context she will prove to be a very effective weapon. She's got quite a bit of charisma of her own, and she's not afraid to use it. I think the DNC will be glad to have her this fall.
Now Bill, that's another question. One wonders how they're going to shut him up. He's just out of control. Can they get him on some meds?
June 2, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker, I have a good friend who actually knows Bill Clinton reasonably well, worked with him a great deal in the 90s, and has played cards with him into the wee ones alone. And I've read a lot he's written, and an awful lot about him. Visited his childhood home in Hope. And I've been inhaling the news cycles every minute since the first week of January.
I also have a deep and abiding dislike for Bill Clinton, and have formed an even more unfavorable judgment of him than I have formed of his wife.
And it's very likely I'm wrong, I don't know him any better directly than I suspect you do, which is not. But it is my considered opinion that Bill just does things, and that she generally but does not always follow or agree. I think she lets herself be led more than she is "coordinated." And I think her silence at his most stupid excesses are part of some weird pact not to criticize him because her power up to now is derivative of his. That's my view. You may disagree. Why you think it's self-evident that you're right and I'm wrong is your business, but your comment doesn't say anything persuasive on this point, except your generalized view that the Clintons simply must be coordinated because they're malevolent. While they obviously communicate with some frequency, anyone who thinks they really know to a certainty how the Clintons' relationship works is either foolish or lying. I just have my not uninformed guess.
As to the prospect that Hillary might yet exhibit grace, I am unsurprised that you think my post is self-evidently wrong. You may be right; I hope you're not. My post is hopeful, and, to paraphrase a film, I don't want my fellow travelers to want to kill our partymates and piss in their dead skulls. Obama would not be impressed with a great many of the posts here this week, nor with your urgings to slice off her limbs. She's already dead, that's not a fact she or you need to spin.
June 3, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Articleman:
Actually I voted for Bill Clinton twice.
And some of my best friends are women.
Now that we have that out of the way, why you are you putting words in my mouth?
Did I say the Clintons were coordinated because they were malevolent? I commented that the Clintons are (or rather were) exceptionally skilled politicians -- and it's clear by Bill's success at attaining POTUS and Hillary being able to subsequently maneuver to be the junior Senator of NY that they are not random in their actions. I don't for a second believe that their actions aren't coordinated.
I prefer Occam's razor. Go with the simplest assumptions. I haven't described a motive. You have. That's the difference.
Oh... speaking of assumptions: I actually do know Bill second-hand. For what it's worth (choose to believe me or not), my friend's parents went to school with the Clinton's at Yale. And I've heard some interesting stories. Like Bill hitting on the woman in the couple when she was the fiancee (ring and all) of the male. And, yes, he was seeing Hillary at the time.
Of course, this is just an anonymous board and you can believe it or not. But me? Myself? I tend to judge people by their writings here.
You offered nothing, for example, on the topic of your own words that I questioned. And I would assume, at least, that you are the expert on you.
Frankly, I had no problem with your response to me, except that I prefer a "trust, but verify." You keep it to "trust"...
But when you wrote:
I was very disappointed in you. Because that is not what I wrote. In fact, I went out of my way to say "not literally". Had you bothered to view the video you would have gotten the meaning immediately.
You score an "A" for rhetorical skills. I would grade you about a "D" for logic, however.
June 3, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clearthinker: Your world seems to me a cold, joyless and unforgiving place. Enjoy it.
June 3, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the contrary: my world is quite vibrant. And I take great care in enjoying every moment in it, because I realize how fragile and precious it is.
Might I suggest, given your military garb, you watch A FEW GOOD MEN and take heed from Jack Nicholson's speech in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDlOiHEHY18&feature=related
because while it's clear that Nicholson's character has taken something to the extreme, the conflict arises because deep down, he is correct.
You sleep comfortable at night because in a very, very, very small way some of what I do provides real security for the United States. That is where "trust, but verify" comes from. You can afford to dismiss the attitude precisely because I don't.
Something to think about.
June 3, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I find disquieting, not comforting, is the absolute certitude in your views, confirmed by your choice of moniker. Even in your otherwise interesting posts on peak oil, you evince a near-religious certainty that your theories do not deserve. I didn't view the clip of A Few Good Men, but I saw the movie some time ago (as well as the play) and the portion you refer to is familiar. My recollection is that while there is some truth to the Nicholson character's assertions, his absolute belief in the correctness of his position allows him to excuse immoral behavior. I am no more comfortable with zealotry because it is in pursuit of an agenda I agree with. Ironically, your take no prisoners approach is not one that's shared with your candidate - unless he is being dishonest. Do you, Clearthinker, actually buy Obama's post partisan rhetoric? Or is it merely a ruse? Does post- partisan really mean getting together only after the opposition has been utterly and totally vanquished? And if this is your approach to the primaries, against a candidate who shares more or less the same agenda, how do you expect to make common cause with Republicans? (By the way, I believe Obama's "post-partisan" rhetoric is either dishonest or misguided; Republican incompetence and ideology, not partisanship, is what ails us). Of course, if Obama shared your approach to the election, he would certainly lose. Fortunately, your candidate seems possessed of a humility and ability to tolerate and respect differences of opinion that you seem to lack.
June 3, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your clarification that you mean to slice off her limbs metaphorically is not a clarification, wise one. We all understood you were not contemplating murder. We do understand metaphors out here in our own halting, intellectually limited way.
But your metaphorical bloodlust is very much the opposite of Obama's approach to her campaign at this point. He wants outreach, not pissing in dead skulls.
Which of course, is what Nicholson says he'll do to Cruise when they drag his lame, crazy ass off at the end of A Few Good Men. Maybe he gave Cruise a D for logic too. I forget.
I believe that most of the people who rec'd this thread are Obama people, based on the thread. Maybe you should hunt them down like the Tusken raiders in Star Wars and do the Anakin on them for their stupidity and callowness. It's all for the good, man.
As Hillary would say in one of her cloyingly fake nonapology apologies, I'm sorry if my post made you feel that way. Oh, and what Armchair Guerrilla said. Seconds to that.
June 3, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your rhetoric really disappoints me, Articleman. You aren't even internally consistent.
First you claim that no one can know what is in other people's heads as a means to undermine a comment of mine -- and then immediately proceed to say how Obama will probably view these comments.
You then want to confuse (either deliberately or from naiveté) my wanting to finish the campaign with a clear resolution to my wanting to "take down" Obama supporters.
And I note that you never actually commented on my response to your post. Again, nice rhetorical bait-and-switch.
Reaching out happens after the battle has been won. That hasn't happened yet. Apparently you aren't sophisticated enough to understand that until the battle has been won, you go for the clear decisive victory and then afterwards you immediately do not make the other party feel bad -- because you deflate their ability to feel resentment that way.
And if you've beaten them and they don't resent you, you truly have won. The common metaphor is the winner of a barroom brawl buying the loser a drink.
You want a historical example of this? Go look at
http://books.google.com/books?id=ijgamEHhNycC&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=lincoln+victory+peace+dixie&source=web&ots=nBLcf8NQSM&sig=zibET77z58Ngw0xVofrGrJN4WIA&hl=en
So many here miss the fundamental point:
To defeat Hillary Clinton is an intellectual, not an emotional exercise.
That is yet another reason why Obama is winning and Hillary is close to losing. This whole campaign was an emotional journey for Hillary. (And please, don't say that this means Obama doesn't get emotional.)
You confuse decisiveness with bloodlust. I'm not sure why; perhaps you have never played sports or ran a business. The general concept is fairly universal.
Let me leave you with this thought: suppose Hillary is able to muddy the waters enough that by a miracle she gains the nomination. Wouldn't you feel enraged for not fighting it out until the resolution is clear to both participants?
June 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has urged his supporters not to say certain types of things you say about Hillary (no matter how true or heartfelt), so we do know that; it's not speculative.
I don't claim, however, to know the unexpressed mental states of public figures.
If you think I haven't responded to your paean to the joys of grinding Hillary Clinton into splinters (check the wires, AP called the race this morning), you aren't listening.
Your personalism merits no response.
June 3, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quick reminder: The biggest mistake Hillary made was underestimating her opponent.
June 3, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to stay optimistic, don't read Politico today.
sigh
June 2, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if she concedes tomorrow or not can you seriously expect her to be that much of an advocate of Obama? That doesn't make sense and I wouldn't expect Obama to seek the help. There is really no history of the second place Candidate helping the Nominee win. I certainly hope the Obama Supporters don't try to make an issue of her actual stumping for Obama. It will be his to win or lose. There isn't much either Bill or Hillary are going to be able to do to help out all that much.
June 2, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you can. And I would expect Obama to be an advocate for her if the situations were reversed. Everyone campaigned for Kerry in '04. McCain campaigned for Bush, well, for the past eight years. Huckabee and Romney have all offered effusive praise of McCain.
Bill Clinton is a Dem president and would be expected to. I think he would, actually--I'm sure the break-up between him and the African american community bothers him and he would want to take steps to address that.
Nice to see you again, a'man. You've been missed.
June 2, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the old saying? Trust is hard to earn and easy to break?
I don't think there is enough time between now and November to rehabilitate the Clintons. Everything they say will sound disingenuous. At best they can hit their own campaign trail to raise money for Obama with those high rollers -- but most of them will already be smart enough to jump on the Obama train.
June 2, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not saying that they won't stump some for him. But, they aren't going to be front and center and you shouldn't expect them to be. McCain did very little..actually nothing in 2000 and similarly in 2004. Al Gore didn't even stump for Kerry that much in 2004........
June 2, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could only get through a couple paragraphs of your drivel. Why play at being intellectual? Just condense all the spite and venom into a single paragraph. You're too hateful to be gracious in victory, and too immature to see where you are going. But you write well. It's just that there's no point.
June 2, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
God, Obama supporters are SO nasty.
June 2, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that Otto's such a hardcore Obama guy. Get him off me! I'm just shouting out mad props to Hillary! Get Otto F off me! Let me sing praises to her! Help help, I'm being repressed!
And it's great to be back, Smurfette.
June 2, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh oh...have you guys seen this?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/02/clinton_unlike_to_drop_out_tue.htmlFrom the Swamp at WaPO
June 3, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM_A4Skusro
June 3, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yay, articleman! That's the way!
June 3, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
glances at pony
Um, articleman....?
The unity pony looks kinda small. Are you sure we can all ride it?
June 3, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a magic #@$@#$#@ unity pony.
June 3, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Girl From the Bronx wanted a Unity Stallion to ride, which seemed a bit risque. You never know when kids are going to drop in here.
So in that spirit, tiny pastel pony, you look perfect.
June 3, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I beg your pardon, Pony.
PS
is my favorite quote of the day.
June 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
FEH! Who needs a phony pony. I'm the Unity Zebra!
June 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
#@$@# off, Stripey!
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stipey?! Stripey?! That from a two-cent, beribboned toe-ring wannabe!
Puke colored too!
I'm taking my stripes and leaving.
☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠
June 3, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand, Hillary hasn't acted on her own, long-term best interests in months. Could be those crisis-oriented, negative-attention-seeking, them-against-us themes she seems to wrestle with.
Yes, she's smart, but intelligence has nothing to do with compassion or wisdom.
On the other hand, several of the more savvy pundits are convinced Hillary knows if Obama loses, blame will be placed on her and her campaign, which will endanger her future in politics. Where would she go if she got kicked out or worse, ignored?
As for her more entrenched followers - in my 20s, I campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment. Most of the women I knew moved beyond a victimized, gender-focused world view to a more complex outlook. However, some didn't, and I heard their anger in the women at the Marriott on Saturday.
I feel for them: when I was in that place, the world was at once full of fear and certainty. There was comfort in the one right way, but it was always threatened by dangerous, powerful non-believers.
My fervent wish is that Hillary will look to her future, take off a couple of weeks, and then hit it hard for party unity and Obama, bringing along those women with her.
June 3, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
She may not concede tomorrow but Obama will have the delegates to win by eod Wednesday most likely. Andrea Mitchell reported today on MSNBC that 35 representatives will come out for Obama on Tues or Wed. All want to give Hillary the benefit of ending on her terms and seeing it through to the end. But the preponderance of power brokers want this to end this week, whether they be uncommitted, Obama supporters, and many Clinton supporters. We can't win divided. It will take some time but Hillary has both a future and a legacy to protect and she will do what is necessary to preserve those. That will include rallying her troops over the next few months. Bill however may be taking a holiday (I won't miss him).
June 3, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WENCH HILLARY'S DEATH IS PREMATURE
HER LOYALISTS KNOW ESPRIT DE CORPS
HER PANT SUITS HAVE PLEATS AND MORE
SHE'S MY WENCH:
HILLARY CLINTON!
HER HUBBY BILL, HE BRINGS BAD LUCK
DOWN LITTLE ALLEYS HE SNEAKS AND DUCKS
WITH YOUNG GIRLS HE'S COMPELLED TO
SHE'S MY WENCH:
HILLARY CLINTON!
DON'T COUNT HER OUT, SHE IS STILL HERE
WHEN POLLINGS DOWN SHE HAS NO FEAR
ME WANNA GET HER DRUNK ON BEER
SHE'S MY WENCH:
HILLARY CLINTON!
SHE'LL NEVER QUIT, SHE HAD THE SPUNK
TO TAKE ON THAT OBAMA PUNK
ME WANNA GET HER IN MY BUNK
SHE'S MY WENCH:
HILLARY CLINTON!
AVAST! MY WENCH HILLARY WILL BRING BACK CORPORATE RAIDING JUST LIKE IN THE 1990S!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
June 3, 2008 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stipey?! Stripey?! That from a two-cent, beribboned toe-ring wannabe!
I'm taking my stripes and leaving.
☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠
June 3, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Topped out at 3.
June 10, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment