« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Thank You, Senator Clinton
That was an excellent speech Clinton just gave. I was impressed and pleased.
I've been a strong critic of Clinton throughout this campaign, so I feel an obligation to give credit where it's due. So, good job. Thank you for your message, and thank you for all you have done for women in politics.
Keep this up, and hell, even I might get converted to the Hillary as Veep camp.
Advertisement
Comments (76)
Let's not overdo it, okay? :)
June 7, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Well done, Hillary. Thank you.
June 7, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about this speech.
I am sitting here pretty shocked at the respect and appreciation I have for the candidate I have been arguing against for the past few months. That doesn't mean I want her to be president, but my way of seeing her primary performance has shifted. I had seen her determination as stubborness and delusion. Now I am considering that she may have realized a long time ago that she wouldn't win, but wanted to keep going in order to prove just how far a woman can go. Obama winning the election is my number one goal here, but as a secondary goal, proving that a woman can win is pretty important. Even though staying in, especially last tuesday night, did seem delusional at times to those of us paying attention (to her claim of popular votes from Michigan, for example), it did get her to this point and I think this was an important speech. And as tedious as this whole primary process has been, it has been a long process where many people in this country have been pushed to examine their feelings about the success of women and minorities. After hundreds of years of elections between white men, this long process has been a long overdo opportunity for a woman and a black candidate to be in the spotlight. Maybe if she had backed down sooner it would have been better for Obama, maybe not. But this is the first time in awhile that I've been feeling like her staying power may be good for women. And even if it isn't, I see that she believes it is. I'm even considering she may be a good VP candidate. Considering....
June 7, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her speech today shows why Obama can't choose her. As Robert Reich pointed out this week, in Hillary's world she would not be Obama's running mate. Instead, he would be hers.
I think it's great that she's agreed to work hard to put a Democrat in the White House. We need her help in order to do that. I look forward to seeing her on the campaign trail.
June 7, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOu notice I said "considering..." Unfortuntely, you are probably right, that she would not be able to be VP without stepping into his territory as President. This just reminded me today that she has a lot of strengths, and part of me just wants her to have the chance to fight for what she believes in, which for the most part (although not entirely as I have realized the last few months) is what I believe in. She is tough, I'll give her that, and part of me wants someone tough on my side. On the other hand, do I want someone that tough as VP. No, that probably isn't a good idea. There is still a lot for her to do as Senator....
June 7, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think she's WAY overqualified for the job of VP anyway. I'd like to see her in Obama's cabinet where she could be in charge and not have to play second fiddle. I don't see her as the VP type.
June 7, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank god it's not your decision to make!
June 7, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
It might as well be. The bunnycat channels Obama when it comes to VP decisions. Forget Hillary as VP.
June 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really doesn't matter if she's tapped for VP or not. Today's speech proves she'll play a role in Obama's campaign. If he's elected, she'll also play a role in his administration. Get used to it. He can't win without her, and if he does win, she's an asset.
Additionally, although she didn't say so outright, it's clear she's taking her health care proposal to the convention.
Like it or not, she's a phoenix. Heh.
June 7, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today, we are ALL democrats.
June 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the VP should be someone who is fully qualified to be president. The problem is that the job has few Constitutional duties, and it has been hard to get someone qualified to take they job.
The recent trend of Presidents giving the VP more responsibilities (Cheney notwithstanding) is a good thing in my opinion, but it would be better if it were a little more formalized.
In the past, being a Cabinet member was seen as a better stepping stone to the Presidency than VP. Is there any prohibition against the VP being appointed to a Cabinet post? If not, that could be a reasonable way of giving the VP a full-time job with real responsibilities.
June 7, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing to prevent President Obama from giving his vice president duties with real responsibilities. Health care is complex. A committed, experienced leader is needed to coordinate the drive for reform. The need to shift from fossil fuels is equally complex with the Usual Wealthy Suspects still around to do their best to buy public law. There too a smart, energetic vice president could serve the country.
June 8, 2008 6:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bunny your incredible. Is the sky blue in your world?
June 7, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's blue in bunnycat's world. Your anger speaks of a very black sky. Lighten up, slugger.
June 7, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Now I am considering that she may have realized a long time ago that she wouldn't win, but wanted to keep going in order to prove just how far a woman can go."
She could have gone all the way if she had shown better character during the past three months.
June 8, 2008 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, wonderful speech. The lines about the things that will now be "UNremarkable..." - I'm still tearful thinking about it. Just a wonderful speech.
June 7, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked that line too.
June 7, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goddamn! Where has THIS Hillary been all throughout the Primary campaign? If Hillary had maintained a similar tone of graciousness, cooperation and unity I very well could have been a Clinton supporter instead of an Obama supporter.
Her excellent speech just makes me realize what really could have been if only she had changed her message and approach.
That being said, this is really a giant step towards reconciliation, and the ice of this "cold war" is already starting to melt.
Hell, I could even get behind a Unity ticket.
June 7, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree about what could have been. Hillary had a couple of chances during the campaign (see "as far as I know") to simply be a stand-up person, but she fell back into old school politico mode.
It was a fascinating, though often exasperating, campaign she ran. Glad she gave a great speech today. Good for her. I'm hoping she hits the campaign trail in Ohio, PA, TX, WV, KY on Obama's behalf. That will further burnish her standing.
June 7, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has this gracious, articulate, warm side, that was on full display today - but she still has, always has had, the cold, calculating and pandering side to her. Her campaign could never have been different. She calculated at the start of the campaign that she should downplay her gender in the primary race, not try to win as the "women's" candidate, and she probably made the right call. I loved her speech today and think it will be remembered and quoted for decades to come as one of the great American political speeches. But, the Hillary we saw today is only a part of the whole person. She panders, tacks this way and that, and that is just who she is. She almost won, and could have if various things like the timing of primaries had been a little different. But could she have acted like she did today, for the full 17 months of the primary campaign? No way.
June 7, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha ha. Someone I know just contributed to Hillary's campaign (an Obama supporter who just contributed because wanted to help her out after her nice speech).
They got this:
"Thank you for your generous contribution. We are at a critical
stage in the campaign, and our online supporters like you are
making the difference. The more people we reach, the more resources
we will have to help Hillary win. Send an email to your friends and
family asking them to support our campaign by making a contribution
at http://www.hillaryclinton.com/joinme"
Guess her email department is a bit behind in the times...
June 7, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm choking with laughter here. That is priceless.
June 7, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, I just contributed and got the same e-mail.
I am guessing her staff is taking a long (alcoholic) exhale like Terry McAuliffe and probably not sweating the small stuff so much at this point.
June 7, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Terry anyway?
June 7, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was there with Hillary and actually gave comments afterwards on MSNBC.
On a side note: Did anyone else see the wierd striped bright orange polo shirt he was wearing today? Combine that with the Hawaiian shirt/rum incident and it looks like he has just completely let himself go.
June 7, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prolly lost in a bottle of rum by now.
June 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
'email department a bit behind the times..'
Or not. Sorry, couldn't resist.
June 7, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Begone, scary thought!!!
June 7, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Faye:
Your prompt thank you to Hillary was handsome of you and, today, she earned it. Two thoughts:
1) f you had sent her a thank you in advance, the night Obama won, might she have shown that she had manners that were as good and timely as yours, conceding that night?
2) As to your flirting with the idea of Hillary as VP, may we just chalk that up, as Alan Greenspan once said, to: "an irrational burst of enthusiam"?
June 7, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is obviously no conciliation in your soul. Pretty sad.
June 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting to see what effect this will have on Obama's polling numbers in the next several days. I assume he'll see a significant bump.
June 7, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Hillary I like. This is the Hillary who got eroded as the campaign went on. But, I guess that's what campaigns are for. This Hillary could convince me to accept her as VP. But, it's Obama's choice.
She hit all the right notes.
She hit them hard.
Good for her.
I'm curious what her supporters think.
June 7, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We loved it, of course, Cricket4. She's our hero. She's larger-than-life and utterly human at the same time. Yet she has more courage and strength than all of us combined. What she has is what we wanted in a president.
June 7, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, she was there the whole time. It was you that chose to see it differently.
June 7, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
June 7, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed - that was the Hillary I have always known and supported & why I was so passionate about her campaign. I will support Obama as the nominee of course, but Hillary will always be my choice.
I am so proud that my party that someone so brilliant and talented and caring is runner up. The Republicans were choosing to see who was the least bad option and we were struggling to nominate the best of two amazing candidates. Obviously I would have made the other choice, but I am proud to be a democrat today. Onward to November!
June 7, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know if Clinton is releasing her delegates? Does she plan to have her name placed in nomination as a symbolic (if divisive) gesture?
June 7, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
She won't release her delegates until they are fully counted. State conventions are still being held, and the delegates from those are still being finalized.
June 7, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an historic effort and Hill deserves to have her votes counted at the convention much as Jesse Jackson did in 1988. She earned them and it won't be divisive. I'm sure Obama will make sure Hillary has a prominent spot at the convention so she and her supporters can celebrate her campaign and of course support our nominee Obama.
June 7, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there's any doubt that she will be given a very prominent, primetime speaking slot at the convention. I think Sen. Obama will insist on that.
Dijamo, I know you were a fighter for Hillary and I appreciate that. Let me say that it is especially heartening to see you embracing her call for unity behind Sen. Obama.
Thank you for that.
June 7, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded!
June 7, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to guess most of her delegates--at least her supers, and possibly the state party heads--will talk her out of it if she's planning to.
Phoebe, great post. Hillary was wonderful today. I almost didn't watch, but I'm glad I did. She was the most natural and passionate I've seen her in a long time. She knows what she has to do now and she's going to do it, and then with a Democratic Congress and president she is going to be able to fight for her real agenda, her lifelong passions.
June 7, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You almost didn't watch a historic moment in your lifetime? Amazing.
June 7, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I watched Obama's speech and loved it. I loved it not for the words, but for the emotion he showed. But not watch it? That's insane. This exact moment in history will never come again.
I loved Clinton's speech for both her words and for her formidable strength. I was amazed how strong she was today.
June 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I have historic moments with the baby that, oddly enough, has needs beyond my complete and total addiction to this political process. Jeez.
June 7, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The beginning of your comment was really negative, anneeliz. If you watched the speech, you wouldn't even think Hillary's planning to do something that would undermine the party's chances to win in Nov. You implied that she's capable of challenging Barack at the convention. She made it crystal clear today that she's not going to do that.
Also, you made it sound like you've been keeping up with what's going on. I have no idea about your personal life, I can only respond to what you wrote. Why don't you read you own comment again, and imagine that I know pretty much nothing about you. Think how it might read to a Clinton supporter.
June 8, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was unclear. Someone asked about delegates and whether she was going to hold on to them, and I was responding to that, not that she would challenge Obama at the convention. (Though she had certainly indicated before that she might, so its not exactly unreasonable.) She made very clear that she would not and I was relieved, and as the speech went on very impressed. I was not sure about the delegates, but some of her supers have made noise that the situation is a little uncomfortable for them, so I would guess she would get pressure not to hold on to them, as she got pressure to drop out this week. That's all.
I actually didn't think of today's speech as making history more than any other, it is her campaign that is historic, not any one speech, and I've seen plenty of them. Her concession is not the story. But, again, I'm glad I did.
I know it's all historic, but I don't have to watch any more McCain speeches, do I? Because that just hurts.
June 8, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! McCain's speeches are not historic.
Watching McCain is only historic in a sociological/cultural sense: He's the last of a breed of conservative old white men who have disproportionately dominated American politics for decades.
June 8, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree strongly with the Smurf. Continuing in that vein:
It was a great speech, and her far greater relaxedness in delivering it was funny. It's funny how public speaking rests so heavily upon emotional authenticity, and one's seeing it there. Content only goes so far.
Her speech was great, judged by tone and emotional quality. I have always liked her campaign far better when she is for something than against something.
This was the Hillary Clinton who, in 2002 and 2004, I expected to support for President, and wished we had seen more of. There was a real personal connect there for me that was missing in her book and in too much of her stumping.
June 7, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, She was the same today as she has been the whole campaign. I would suggest your ears and heart were different in watching it. Which, to me is a shame..but reality.
June 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're very stingy. Always have been, always will be. They are what Americans have become after 40 years of mostly Republican rule.
June 7, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not stingy. I am really quite generous. You cannot judge the worth of a person by whether or not they saw Hillary in the same way as you.
June 8, 2008 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You aren't stingy, anneeliz, but many of your fellow Obama supporters on this site definitely are.
The reason I say "stingy" is because of something I've been trying to figure out about the difference between Obama and Clinton supporters. I'm thinking about it again today, in light of Hillary's speech and the reluctance by a few Obama fans to acknowledge the brilliance of it.
The reason it was brilliant is because it served many purposes, one of which was an old-school call-to-arms. Hillary was calling out to her older constituency to be good Democrats and support Barack with their vote in November.
Not only that, but she used herself as a symbol of activism and a lifetime of service to causes that have championed the less privileged in our society. Her speech was therefore a symbolic call to activism as a deeper commitment than just voting in November. It was a reminder to all those people who got so thoroughly caught up in her bid for the WH, they might have forgotten it's really our (Democrats') bid for the WH. In that regard, her message was selfless, not self-serving.
I'm too young to have experienced that call-to-arms from other Democratic politicians in my lifetime, yet I recognize the call because of my upbringing and my nature. But people younger than me (I'm Obama's age) would not recognize the call at all, unless they felt affinity for the person saying it. That's because people younger than me lived under a longer span of Republican rule than I have (I at least remember Carter).
My new theory is that the stinginess of a Republican society breeds a stingy people, no matter what their age. I'm actually blaming the Republicans, anneeliz; I'm not judging anyone but them. In fact, I'm letting ungenerous Obama fans off the psychological hook. They can't help it, they've been brainwashed.
That's better than accusing people of being sexist or ageist, isn't it? :-)
June 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is you can't talk about "The difference between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters." I mean, you can, but for every Obama supporter who said something snarky about the speech, I will find you a Hillary supporter who is rejecting her call to arms (love it, by the way) who "loathes" Obama, and whose loathing has lead to some pretty unpleasant comments. We're back to the rorschach test again, but just as some HRC people are wounded by the campaign, so are Obama people. While you have not seen a divisive strategy, many of us do, and after the absurd comments about MI/FL, the ungracious speech on Tuesday, and so many other things they cannot forgive. Give them time, too.. .a bit of Hillary turning her ample skills to campaigning against McCain.
I have no proof of this, but I'm guessing the demographic of Hillary supporters so hardened against Obama that they will not listen to her call are the second wave feminists, who see Hillary's story as a Manichean struggle. But, really, I'm just making stuff up.
One of my favorite things about Obama (and I started as a Edwards supporter) is his call to service, his insistence that we can have a better country if we meet him halfway. A refreshing change after, "The President believes the American way of life is a blessed one and people should be encouraged to buy gas guzzling enviro-eaters!" That might not be a DIRECT quote.
And it is my pet theory that half the division between supporters of the two candidates comes from living through this administration and wanting desperately to win and to make the country right again--it's just different ideas of who can win.
June 8, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket, you are talking about a call to service. Please watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnhmByYxEIo
It's very long--over ten minutes. It's Obama talking to his campaign staff about what they accomplished and the battle ahead. But I think it shows that that's what Obama's been talking about this whole time.
June 8, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to be as specific as I can be, anneeliz: I limit my accusation to Obama supporters on this site.
I'm not talking about the general population, I'm not talking about people I have no direct contact with. I'm talking about people I have interacted with since January. I'm talking about what I know from personal experience. I stand by what I said because I wasn't generalizing, I was being specific.
Do you want me to name names? It won't be hard.
June 8, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you're saying. The trouble with the internet is its easy to think what happens here is somehow representative of the real world, and the louder and more obnoxious voices tend to drown out the normal ones. The obnoxious people on both sides ruin it for everyone else--gotalife posts something trolling and one starts getting a kneejerk reaction to any negative comments and blows up at someone else. And it all goes downhill from there.
I hope you'll work on Michelle and a few others who seem to think McCain won't do any damage because Congress won't let them. Since that's worked so well for us.
And yes, everything is the Republicans' fault...
June 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's just perception, really. I will say I liked Hillary before this started but during the course of the campaign I saw her become someone else. I don't think its fair to say that someone chose to see it in a different way...when this began I thought we had three terrific candidates. Some of us saw a divisive strategy being played out. Others saw great strength. This was a rorshach--I'm not going to look that up for spelling--test and people saw different things. I don't find the Hillary Clinton of "I'm not going to throw my lot in with economists" or "Change you can Xerox," or "He wouldn't have been my pastor," to be the Hillary Clinton I saw today. I had no hate in my heart for her--I adored Bill Clinton and respected Hillary. I wrote MSNBC to complain about Chris Matthews before New Hampshire. It was not a choice. I am trying to understand why people feel differently about the same events, and it has helped me see Hillary through their eyes. I appreciate it. I hope you can understand why others might see things in a way you don't.
But it doesn't matter. It's done. I admire greatly what she has done--yes, the UNremarkable--and look forward to seeing what she does in the future.One of the most recognizable Dems in a completely safe Senate seat unleashed from presidential ambition to be able to fight for the causes she holds dear without fear of political reprisal? Sign me up.
Hillary Clinton has made history, but it's not over. She is going to be a great force. We can go back to Republicans sp[itting nails when they say her name because she is a kickass woman, and because she is doing all the things they fear. Here's some universal health care with your shrinking Congressional delegation! POW!
Wow, that was really long.
June 7, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest that it's a combination. Obama supporters had far less of an underlying fear that Clinton would somehow snatch the nomination from Obama, and thus we were able to listen with open hearts. AND, Clinton was at her absolute best in that speech--this was, I think, her greatest moment (so far) in her political life. Sheer brilliance.
To not see that this was an improvement on the "so far" Hillary, the "Obama has a speech he made" Hillary, etc., is disingenuous. As her supporter, you were able to see MORE of this brilliant Hillary throughout the rest of the campaign. But--as with ALL politicians, heck, all humans--there were other, less positive sides, and others seeing those doesn't necessarily count as a character flaw.
The important thing is that we all have the same goal now--and it's a goal both our candidates believe in fervantly. DEFEAT McCAIN!
June 8, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
rtb. I guess you missed the part of Obama's speech where he specifically mentioned Hillary vis a vis health care.
He obviously already sees her as an integral part of that battle.
Sorry for those who think she should be VP, ain't gonna happen. You might consider what is BEST FOR HILLARY for a change instead of projecting your own needy fantasies on her future.
Many sources have said the virtually the same thing, that Hillary Clinton was happiest and at her best while hard at work in the Senate. Can you imagine anyone better or more effective in working with President Obama to pass universal health care than Hillary Rodham Clinton? Not to mention the near certainty that she will be a supurb choice to take on Harry Reid's job in the future.
I've had a really tough time finding anything positive about Hillary Clinton as this campaign has worn on and on. Uncertain about how she would react to a loss, I wasn't hopeful for a positive outcome and am still not entirely convinced that she will change course.
However, numerous times during the debates, I would watch her delighted reactions to Obama's humorous asides (even when directed her way) and think that there is a good chance for them to work as a team. Hillary's smiles and laughter were absolutely genuine, authentic and one time I actually thought to myself " Gee, I hope Bill isn't watching this....."
;>}
June 7, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she is SO horrible why would you entrust Majority Leader to her? I don't get that reasoning at all from Obama supporters. Oh, she will say and do anything and will shamelessly only do things in her interest but yeah....give her complete control over the Senate.....which is it? Good or bad. And, I submit that if you vote for someone just off of their campaign style....then you ought to just stay home. You are wasting your vote.
June 7, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be Senate Majority Leader having never shown skill in getting her own legislation passed.
I suggest you take a look at MASTER OF THE SENATE by Robert Caro if you want a description of what that job entails.
June 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't suggest it there CT. Your angst is directed at the wrong person.
June 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yours is still directed everywhere. Please stop.
June 7, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I didn't.
No idea who you're referring to. You must be projecting after spending too much time on Hillaryis44.org. I want Hillary to do whatever she wants to do.
I have had a tough time finding anything positive about you and many Obama supporters at TPM. "Supporters" like you are a blight on the party. No, really. You're a snot.
June 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have to disagree, Obamawon -- I was *expecting* to be a Hillary supporter after Biden backed out, but the fact that *this* woman wasn't there (either in speaking or in the procedures *this* proud woman would employ) made me shy away (recoil, actually) very quickly - and very soundly. Things would have been different for many if she had been around the whole time.
But sometimes - on a rare occasion every century or so - things work out as they should, and this may be one of them. I don't believe that Hillary's strength is being a chief executive. Hers is a more focused intensity - equally strong and equally valuable but for something else, not running the "whole show." Plus she could never be President or Vice President without still being in some respects in the shadow of Bill, not something you (or at least we women) wish for in the first woman to hold those offices. Naturally, I have no idea what advice Bill gave her about today's speech, but it certainly came across as genuinely, and seriously, Hillary herself. Even her facial expression, her eyes and her gestures were different -- less glittering but far more real.
Cabinet member - 'task force' leader -- I think those types of things fit her better and they would have the added advantage of being entirely hers. Quick - we all know Lynn Cheyney, but who is the spouse of any of our current Cabinet members? ----- Plus, today *she* got to validate and give gracious recognition to Bill .... and THAT felt good!! Probably to every woman watching. (And I don't think she would risk everything, including all respect, by doing something unsavory and self-indulgent "just because she could")
Occasionally I've had stray thoughts that losing this nomination might, in some way, be the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton, and today I'm really believing it. She has a great deal to offer, and she may show it more impressivly and comfortably when she is doing something that is all hers, not following a pattern that was cut for someone she thought she would become or used to be or was told she was.
June 7, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find your summation incredibly sad. On a couple of accounts. First, do you think the majority of voters in this Nomination process were just silly nillies wandering after Hillary as some kind of reassurance of the past?
Then you automatically assume that since she couldn't get the folks of Utah, Montana, and South Carolina to vote for her that she isn't Presidential material? Would love to know what your qualifications are?
June 7, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamawon, were those comments about "your summation" addressed to me? If so, you really misunderstood what I was saying. So much so that I'm really not certain you were responding to my post.
No, I don't think Clinton's support came from people who wanted a reassurance of the past. Didn't even think it. The only reference to the past that I can see was to her 'being under the shadow' of Bill. I wasn't implying that she would have achieved the presidency because of him (actually, the 2nd half of the campaign it was more in spite of him). But he would simply be THERE if she was President or Vice President - in the picture and sometimes (often?) stealing the headlines. Bill Clinton is not a Dennis Thatcher. That's just facts. I would like to see her have something that is all her own. Today - to my astonishment - it really is something I would *like* to see.
And as far as her not being, in my opinion, presidential/chief executive material, it has nothing to do with any state or any voters. My conclusion is based primarily on the shambles of the campaign for which she was primarily responsible (even if only by giving the reins to people who didn't do it well) and on the number of times she said/did something that was just utterly tone-deaf or worse and that, if directed toward foreign leaders instead of Sen. Obama, could be simply disasterous. ---- That's truly not a putdown. Fortunately people do vary in their strengths and abilities, and I wish for her (or for anyone) that they get to function in the type of position or job that suits them best. Teddy Kennedy wanted very much to be President also, but I believe he's been far, far more effective, and happier, with his amazing career in the Senate. Hillary is free, perhaps for the first time, to figure out what really fits her, the person she is today. I don't find that sad in the least.
And if you weren't responding to me, I apologize for what must be so much gibberish -- I tried to find another post that it might be but couldn't.
June 7, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, was responding to you...And I am just as clueless. I keep hearing folks comparing running campaigns to governance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Lets see. GWB/GWHB/Carter even Reagan ran really good campaigns. What governance did we get? It is a serious problem with Americans that we have the attention spans of 2 year olds and can't keep our eyes on the point for long enough to establish knowledge. If you can tell me that Obama had superior ideas and policies to Hillary I can understand that. But simply going after each others personalities as a preview of how they will govern is kind of nutty.
You seem, as well, to have issues with Bill. Not sure what that is about but you seem to think that their combined ego/peronas would outshine Obama's if they were in the Administration. Is that true?
In all honesty, Obama is as weak a Candidate as we've ever put forth. There is little or no meat on the bones. He really has no Policy Experience of any kind. Tone deaf? "I'll invade Pakistan" ....We will leave Iraq in 16 months or 10 years...I haven't decided" To govern you have to decide for yourself. It seems to me Barack has a hard time doing that. Hope I am wrong..but don't think so.
June 7, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting back. We really do have a different slant on things, apparently (or I'm having a heck of a time communicating)
Campaigns: I wasn't as involved this deeply with the earlier campaigns you mention but I was, very, in 2004 and I have to differ with you about GWB's campaign as compared to his presidency. Yeah, maybe it was successful, if that's your definition of good, but to my mind it was an absolute barometer of what his presidency is like: secretive, staged, underhanded, appealing to the lowest common denominator, dishonest with the public, dishonest about his opponent, take-no-prisoners attitude. And that *is* how he's governed, right? So I have to stand by that criterion: I want a President who will govern the way Obama has run his campaign (communicating with the grass roots, planning ahead, having tight controls but being open, financially efficient, courteous staff, high road, responding to the unexpected in a straightforward way, etc.), not the way Hillary ran hers.
You're right, I do have a problem with Bill - a lot of women do. Actually, I never realized how much of one until today, when I saw a side of Hillary that didn't look or act in the least like Bill/Billary. I don't think he could have or would have given that speech, and I would LOVE to know who within her campaign fought for that tone and who was pushing for something entirely different. I'd like to think/hope that it was more from Hillary's heart and head than a lot of her campaign has been. --- And it isn't concern that Hillary or Bill & Hillary would overshadow Obama. (I wasn't even thinking along those lines I'm confident he would & could handle it, but why should he have to?) I do believe, and was saying, that if Hillary became either President or Vice President, Bill would be standing over HER shoulder signaling "I'm responsible for her being here, you know." (And probably creating other trouble in other ways - spouse of either is a public position and Bill **cannot** stay offstage.) But if she takes a Cabinet or 'czar' position and does a damn fine job with it, then that would be ALL hers. And, as a woman, I want that for her. (I'm feeling very kindly toward Hillary today, as you may be able to tell.)
As to the rest, about Obama, I also hope you're wrong -- and I think you are. In fact, I'm very confident that you are. Look forward to finding out if you change your mind.
June 7, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We just see things differently I think. And thats cool. As I said. I am a Democrat and will support my nominee.
June 7, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautifully said. Today we saw the Hillary who nearly swayed me at several points during the campaign--the one who teared up a little after Iowa when describing the importance of what she's doing, the one who would sometimes grin at things Obama said during debates, the one who took his hand and said how HONORED she was to be running against him, and that this campaign wasn't about them--they'd be fine--it was about the country.
I could easily have voted for that Hillary in a heartbeat. The kitchen-sink strategy Hillary, though... I often wondered (hoped) if she came more from bad campaign advice than just from her heart.
June 8, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
While we are all congratulating ourselves on how Hillary Clinton began healing the party, let's also remind us of the toxic waste dump she left for us to clean up:
http://www.gop.com/clintonvsobama/
There is a lot of work still to be done.
June 7, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not and say we did.
June 7, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay: Now, that was truly gracious of you. You have said before that you would stop bashing HRC when she stopped making you angry. I took that as posturing. Seems I might have been a bit harsh. .
I generally tune out political speeches, but that was outstanding: a cogent, persuasive and emotional defense of the values and agenda of the Democratic Party - or at least the values we hope the Party stands for (the reality is sometimes more complicated, but that's for another day). To anyone who ever derided Hillary as McCain lite, please take a look at that speech and eat your words. (Toss back a shot, while you're at it.)
I agree with Obamawan that the qualities she displayed today were apparent during the campaign.
Finally, I will forgive Hillary for lifting some of her themes from the celebrated Armchair Guerilla concession and endorsement. I know she's reading me every day. Nice job, Hil, but give me some credit next time.
June 7, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, and mostly gratifying, to see how this thread has evolved. I wound up being away from the Internet all the rest of the day yesterday, so didn't get to respond to some things. But it's good to see so many of us in a conciliatory mood. Still some raw feelings here and there, but honestly, I think that all of us who are Democrats in good faith can get past those.
On the Hillary as Veep front, yes, that was a bit of irrational exuberance on my part. Even putting aside even all that has gone before on the campaign front, I think their styles are not really compatible. I would feel the same if the situation were reversed, too. If Hillary were the nominee, I don't think Obama would make a good VP choice for her.
The VP has to be someone who can complement the nominee without stealing any of the limelight. Both Clinton and Obama are very powerful personalities, and I just don't see them fitting together in the ways they would need to for a joint ticket.
June 8, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment