« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Understandable Anger at the RBC Meeting
Disclaimer: What I’ve written here may seem, to some, as a presumptuous attempt to present someone else’s case. Some may feel angry that I’ve tried to put myself in someone else’s shoes, when clearly I am not one of them. All I can say is, this is my attempt to find a different, more reasonable and healing perspective on something that had a profound effect on me. If what I’ve written here offends someone – and it probably will – I apologize in advance.
When I first saw the clips and blogs coming out of the RBC meeting, the outrageous anger and vile sounding assertions against Obama by Hillary’s demonstrators, I was appalled, disconcerted and, frankly, sad. The sadness grew stronger than the other emotions, however, and I began to think, “Why are these demonstrators so angry?” I mean, these people weren’t just pissed. They were rabid, incensed, fundamentally and deeply enraged.
I thought about what Hillary had represented to many of these people. She was the first woman to run for president, and presumably had a really good chance to become the first woman president. She had earned it. She had worked for decades for good causes. She had stuck by Bill even in the worst of times. She was a fighter and a role model. And she was clearly the frontrunner in a motley field of candidates.
So what happened? Well, she first won Michigan and Florida elections. No matter that they had been invalidated and didn’t count. She was on her way. There seemed to be nothing that could stop her, and for those with strong hopes riding on her, many of them identifying with her so strongly, it was a joyous occasion and the whole primary was expected to be one triumph after another. This was in no way unreasonable. There was nothing to stand in her way.
Then came Obama. He was green. Untested. A speechmaker, nothing more. He was unknown and couldn’t possibly threaten the Clintons. He was young, and this was not his turn. He could run again. He had time. He was black, and that was unfair, because it was Hillary’s time to make history. Couldn’t he just wait?
But Obama didn’t wait, and he ran a very good campaign. He started winning. For someone whose hopes were pinned on Hillary, I can only imagine what a shocking turnabout this represented – a betrayal, in fact, of their moment of vindication and triumph. Under the circumstances, I would have been pissed, too. And Obama didn’t just win, he racked up a string of eleven primaries in a row, and people were calling for Hillary’s demise. Insulting. She should have a chance without this kind of defeatist and demeaning talk.
And Hillary fought on. She didn’t give in to despair or respond to the naysayers. She showed courage and determination, and she started winning. She, and presumably those who so strongly stood by her, took every win as vindication and further evidence that she was still the candidate whose destiny was to return to the White House as President and Commander-in-Chief. Why not?
Meanwhile, as Obama was winning, the depiction of him as “all talk, no action,” an “empty suit,” and “too inexperienced” took hold in some minds. He was anti-American, secretly Muslim, hated the flag, elitist and disdained hard working whites in economically ravaged counties. Lots of baggage began to attach to him. He was vulnerable and the truth was coming out. And while Obama deflected many of these charges in the minds of many Americans, for some these labels and impressions would stick, and stick hard. Slowly, he became the enemy.
As Hillary and Obama traded wins and sparred in debates, Hillary’s campaign became harsher, more attacking, taking those vulnerabilities and reinforcing their power through 3 a.m. ads, subtle and not-so subtle comments in support of some of these notions and associations that were making people question Obama. By the time of the Philadelphia debate, Obama seemed defensive, and Hillary seemed confident. For her supporters, those who so wanted her to win for both political and personal reasons, this was a time of hope—again.
The race continued. Momentum shifted and shifted again, and with those shifts, hope was kindled or suppressed. It was, for many people on both sides, an emotional rollercoaster. And Hillary could see that she was losing, so she turned to the Michigan and Florida votes. With these states, she could make a stronger case that she was, indeed, the stronger and more electable candidate. So every vote needed to count. To some, it seemed like a complete about face from her former agreement that these votes would not count, but for her faithful, it was further vindication of her fighting spirit and true commitment to democracy and to the voters of these two states. She used strong analogies, such as the civil rights struggles, the 2000 vote and Zimbabwe, and she stirred up emotions on both sides. Her followers were with her all the way, seeing this as an important struggle for voters’ rights.
And then, for really the first time in the general discussion, the idea of sexism became a real topic – an open sore that had to be acknowledged. Was Hillary a victim of a sexist media? Was Obama being sexist? Was gender the primary reason that Hillary was losing?
Just the mention of these possibilities had to be both galling and reinforcing for women who have lived their lives in a male-dominated world, who have first-hand experienced prejudice and disenfranchisement because of their gender. They have been the butts of sexist jokes, the victims of harassment that’s swept under the table, the warriors of the feminist cause who made such progress, but still see the same problems in an unrepentant society. In this atmosphere, the righteous anger and blame was stoked and Hillary became once again the symbol of all women’s lost opportunities because of discrimination. No wonder they were angry.
And, as if the divisions couldn’t get any clearer or more insidious, yet another straw was added to this poor, staggering camel’s back. Clearly, Hillary was victimized by the reaction to her statements about primaries lasting until June. People misinterpreted the reference to Bobby Kennedy and with vitriolic language, unfairly accused her of the most heinous intentions. To her supporters, I imagine this was supremely angering. How could anyone think Hillary would have such vile thoughts? It was unconscionable, outrageous, and patently unfair. Given all that had come before, there was no question that, while hope endured, anger had reached the boiling point, and just needed a place to be well and truly expressed.
The Rules and Bylaws Committee hearing became the symbolic focal point for Hillary’s campaign. Here it was sink or swim, and fairness, democracy, women’s hopes and dreams and to some extent the future of our country—our world—were all at stake, focused on this small event at a Washington hotel. And what happened, happened for better or for worse, but it was understandable, if you just stop and consider what led up to it.
. . .
This is my simplistic attempt to understand how someone else feels. Sure, I could be dead wrong. But I don’t think I’m wrong to suggest that this emotional rollercoaster, full of deep personal issues, wild associations, feelings of betrayal and loss and shifting fortunes, contributed to the anger that manifested itself on May 31, 2008 at the RBC hearings. It’s totally understandable, and I, an Obama supporter, feel sadness and empathy for Hillary’s supporters. They have been through a lot. And even if I don’t see it their way, perception is reality, and nobody has a right to invalidate their feelings, and even the best of us will act out when truly hurt, afraid or angry.
So, all I can do is say I’m sad. I’m sorry. I
want what you want – a better world and an end to the Bush oppression. I
actually did want a woman to be president, and still hope it will happen.
Hillary Clinton has shown that it can happen. In a campaign without an Obama—whatever
you may think of him—Hillary Clinton would have won, and while that’s a
double-edged statement, it holds both disappointment and hope at the same time.
And I, for one, would welcome Hillary and her supporters to find common cause
with Obama’s supporters in retaking the White House and stopping the neocon
tragedy that has damaged not just this country, but the whole wo
Comments (58)
I think you've summarized very well what happened. And you did so without denigrating Hillary's most extreme supporters, simply putting out there why they believe so passionately that they've been deeply, horribly wronged. I'd recommend a dozen times if I could.
Notice I said "extreme supporters." I really don't believe that most of her voters in the primaries feel like they've been betrayed by the parties. Most women who supported her are more intent on getting the Republicans out of the white house than staying home or casting a spite vote for McCain. The angry are the ones we hear from. And, like Clinton, they'll soon fade in importance to the GE campaign.
June 1, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I'm going to link to this post when I run into rants today. That's how much I agree.
June 1, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the 3am comments piss me off. Sometimes things happen at 3am and someone has to deal with them rather than read about pet goats. The Iranians took our embassy and derailed the Carter presidency. The Chinese downed one of our planes in 2001 and turned Bush into their pet hamster. Libya dropped one of our planes over Lockerbie. The bottom fell out of the Asian market under Clinton with Soros making attacks on currencies.
It takes Obama a year to break up with his pastor. His comments about Pakistan and politics are naive. Why should I trust him at 3am?
June 1, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Curious, would you trust anyone at 3AM? You sound defeated.
June 1, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I sound pissed, not defeated. Yes, I'd trust Hillary at 3am. I don't think Obama knows how to make decisions quickly or think on his feet.
June 2, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I've seen, Obama would be the only person running who I would trust at 3am. He doesn't let his emotions run away with him, he does his homework, and he would wake up and deal with it. I can't honestly say I have that much faith in Clinton or McCain. But that's me.
June 2, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. You are a thoughtful person, thank you.
June 2, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What was his homework? He slipstreams behind Hillary for every debate and it took him a year to figure out he should get out of that church. Anyone can design a nice Website and I can fill in all the cute policy position boxes for you with a little help from my friends.
June 2, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, do you think Clinton "filled out" her policy positions all by herself? Second, have you read The Audacity of Hope? Maybe you like Hillary better than Obama. That's fine. But if you read Obama's book, you'll find that this is no empty suit. His understanding of the political situation is very deep, and I doubt he needed as much help as you think. On the other hand, any president who thinks they know it all and doesn't seek help from others is a fool, and we all know what I mean.
June 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
To "obliterate" Iran?
June 2, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Iran nukes Israel, what do you propose doing? Inviting Ahmadinejad over for barbecue?
June 2, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there are only two options -- obliterating over 70 million human beings or inviting Ahmadinejad over for a barbecue -- then I would hope that even Hillary would have the courage to fire up the Kingston.
I certainly hope you share my hope.
June 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kingsford, not Kingston, Tankard.
June 2, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I find funny about the "3 a.m." argument? Each person who as tried it has lost! Mondale -- lost. Bush I -- lost. Now Clinton -- lost.
Why in the world would a person with decent judgment recycle an ad campaign that had TWICE BEFORE lost? There are four ways of looking at that.
1) The theme itself is flawed. Going for the "experience" card may just be a sign that you are asking people to take something old and tired over somehting new and less tested. But if that was the case, no one would ever buy a new productm, would they?
2) The candidate making the decision is arrogant. She thought she could magically make work what had failed two times before, trued by two different candidates, one of each party.
3) The candidate making the decision is ignorant. She may have simply trusted her advisors without knowing the history of the theme. This means she was ignorant. Or
4) The candidate making the decision is surrounded by incompetent advisors. She may have know the history of the theme and decided to trust her advisors. Or her advisors may have known the history but did not tell her.
At any rate, I think it is now safe to say that ANYONE who runs a 3 a.m. ad as proof they are more qualified to make 3 a.m. decisions proves, therefore, that they are NOT qualified to make the 3 a.m. decisions!
June 2, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this your new sock puppet, Desidero?
June 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not enought of Obama supporters like you. Too many Kool Aid drinkers.
As intense as our dislike of the Obamabots is,
I think most Clinton supporters are even more upset at the MSM who, like they've done in countless democratic nominations in the past, scuttled the front runner because it wouldn't be any fun for them if the contest was over too soon. They did it to Dean, Tsongas, Hart, Muskie, McCarthy and tried to do it to Clinton after he became the frontrunner. Gore and Kerry won quickly because of the huge conglomeration on Super Tuesday and the prevalence of at-large delegates awarded directly to the primary winner as well as key winner-take-all states like California. If we'd used the rules of the last 40 years this time, Clinton would have clinched a long time ago.
June 1, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
redstateleroy-----I really appreciate you coming back with a serious answer and telling us at least a little of what you feel. I know that we Obama people sometimes come across badly. We have felt angry too. As has your side. At this point it becomes harder to say who's reacting to who. Too many of us are always getting even. Ironic isn't it that this has taken on that characteristic of war where we keep attacking each other to get even with the last attack. Somebody has to take a chance and just stop. And then somebody else. And then somebody else. I think our best shot would be if we could call an attack halt for a little while and just talk about how we've been feeling about all that has happened. Maybe take turns and try to empathize and understand. I think the reason we're all so passionate is that we all really want what's best for America and each side is so sure that they're right. Honest conversation without attacks might be a place to start.
For me, I've been so afraid that our world could erupt into a war that went too far and I have felt strongly that what we needed was not more fighting but more diplomatic efforts to win hearts and minds by trying to understand and help people grow stronger without trying to control their country. Feeling that way, the diplomat seemed a better archetype to go with than the fighter archetype.
Who's next?
June 2, 2008 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you both for this subthread. I can tell you that at the beginning of this primary I didn't know much about Obama, other than a great speech in 2004. That was hardly enough to go on. I actually liked John Edwards because, even out of political life, he worked hard for a cause he really believed in, and that struck me as genuine.
But I also saw Hillary as a great option. I have said for many years that a woman president would be really good for this country and the world. Men so often get it wrong, and I hoped a woman could approach things differently.
Soon I began to believe in Obama more, however, and started to pay close attention not only to what he said, but how he behaved. His approach to the campaign was refreshing, and his speech on race was one of the most honest speeches I've ever heard from a politician.
Now Hillary was a great candidate - until she began to lose. The Clintons seem to see themselves not only as winners, but as the heirs apparent. And in losing, another side of Hillary came out, and it was not one I respected. Everyone on these blogs knows the progression of attacks and assertions that she leveled at Obama, and even the passive aggressive not a Muslim "as far as I know." But it got worse and worse. Sorry, folks, but Hillary's behavior in defeat revealed a side I don't think we would have seen during the election cycle without Obama, and it was one that convinced me that she was not a good choice for the presidency. I won't go on. You all know what you witnessed and how you responded to it. I know how it affected me, and without rancor toward Hillary, I still can say that I would have a very hard time supporting her as Commander-in-Chief.
June 2, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes the MSM is to blame for a wild ride in this campaign season. But if you will notice they did not let either candidate run without their distain. The sexism, racism, and anti-Clinton reporting must be understood for what it was: Right Wing ownership and control of the MSM. They attacked both candidates and gave and continue to give McCain a pass.
They intended to split the Democratic party during this cycle. The Right Wing know this year was gearing up to be a strong Democratic year. They used the MSM to use "divide and conquer" politics as usual. The Republicans are laughing at how they have been able to shape the minds of the electorate. Wright and Obama's church, and Hillary's "white voters" to name a couple of overblown narratives. Democrats will continue to be hammered by insignificant attacks until they say ENOUGH to the media and demand that the issues that really matter be addressed in the daily narratives on the MSM.
This moring is a good example, on MSNBC, Mika and others continued to highlight any Clinton disappointment as well as her supporters while reminding everyone how much of a problem Obama's affiliation with a racist church and how leaving the church will not end this discussion in the GE.
Just remember how substantial the debates were early in the primary on the Democratic side. Real and important issues were discussed. The MSM made sure by the end of the debates they were all about associations and gotcha questions. This was not a mistake but planned. We have to never forget who owns the media and therefore the message to viewers. Think about it McCain the Maverick, ha.
June 2, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"key winner-take-all states like California"
The last time California was a winner-take-all state in a Democratic presidential primary was 1972.
June 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want so badly to achieve the state of grace exemplified in this post by raider99. So much so that, as a late 50-something, early round feminist, I give myself an earnest empathy talk, on a daily basis, trying to feel the pain of the disappointed Hillary supporters who are, in a sense, my peers.
And yet. Eventually, each of us must reckon with a fundamental choice -- we can continue to be the child or adolescent we once were, or, we can become the adult person we want to be. By which I mean that a sense of entitlement stops somewhere short of the decision to be an adult in a person who chooses to be fundamentally responsible for his, or her, actions. The great divide among us occurs at that pivotal point -- whether we are young or old, black or white, male or female.
There is only one universal question: are we responsible for our own actions? Or, is it always, invariably, the external fault of someone else?
For me, welcoming the ranters back into the fold will be an exercise in pragmatism, because we need to get the greater good underway. But, at least for now, don't ask me to condone, or enable those who have not made the hard personal choice.
June 1, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that is my favorite comment so far: you disagree with the more furious Clinton supporters and can't quite have compassion in your heart, but can still keep from getting nasty or patronizing, and recognize that we need them.
Fantastic.
June 2, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did that seem snarky? I didn't mean to be snarky. I'm trying to watch my snark.
June 2, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
recommended
June 1, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to have thoughtful discourse without the insults and mug slinging. Thanks Raider99.
June 1, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not everyone supports Clinton purely for emotional reasons.
Your post suggest that they do because its premise is based on the emotional investment in a candidate. The subtle but obvious implication is an emotional fragility and infantility of her supporters you imply to explain what they may be going through.
I must say that your attempt to imagine their inner turmoil says more about the way you would probably react, if the roles were reversed, then anything else.
But there are plenty of Clinton supporters who stand with her for other reasons.
We believe she is a superior candidate.
We believe she has superior policy proposals.
We believe she has more experience and preparation to be a more effective and productive president for everyone.
We believe she will be stronger choice for GE.
We believe she would be a great president. We are proud of her and we are not ashamed.
June 1, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The subtle but obvious implication is an emotional fragility and infantility of her supporters you imply to explain what they may be going through."
No, no one would ever accuse you of infantility. Not with that avatar.
June 1, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but having a rational (if mistaken) policy belief does not explain the raw emotional outpouring we saw yesterday.
This post doesn't say it speaks for ALL Clinton supporters. It seeks to understand the motivations of a specific group of humans who are exhibiting emotional distress well beyond what can be explained by a simple policy-based disagreement or disagreement over experience.
What drove these women apparently over the brink of sanity? (personally, I blame Taylor Marsh ... but that's just me).
June 1, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What drove these women to the brink of insanity? Comments like yours, bunky.
June 2, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely understand your support of Senator Clinton. Personally it was a difficult decision for me but I chose to support Senator Obama.
You should understand that Obama supporters have their reasons for supporting Senator Obama as well.
We think he is a very intelligent man who sees some of the real problems we are facing today. He has many excellent plans for solving those problems like Senator Clinton does. We see Senator Obama as being honest and has the integrity to stick to his principles. As a constitutional scholar I feel he is someone who can restore the founding intent of the American experiment, like restoring individual freedoms and privacy.
One particular thing I like about Senator Obama is that he has a strategic vision for this country. I remember in an interview when he discussed the real reason Iraq is such a problem. While we waste lives and treasure in Iraq and become economically unstable a country like China is building it's economic power and when they build economic power stronger and stronger their international influence will be stronger and they will build their military and space program as their economic influence grows. These are the real challenges of the 21st century. Not the few thousand Muslim extremest trapped in Afghanistan and Pakistan that Senator McCain thinks is our biggest challenge.
I also really thing that Obama recognizes that we need to ask more from our citizens as well. I think his college grant program in return for civic service is an excellent idea to not just put the onus on solving America's problems with just it's government but with it's citizens.
It's not going to be easy. This country has been polarized for quite some time now. Senator Obama will not only need the support of Democrats but many Americans to be successful.
As an Obama supporter I ask just one thing from Clinton supporters. If Obama secures the nomination evaluate him versus McCain not what could have been.
June 1, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good beginning lalo. Now, how do you feel about the fact that it isn't going so well for the candidate you believe in so strongly? If you have the feeling of anger about that, we'd be interested in a non-attacking conversation about what went wrong and what we might do to make it easier to come together as democrats again. You do sometimes sound angry and anger is an emotion. If there were no emotion about any of this, nobody would care one way or another. We'd all just say, oh my, my candidate is losing/winning and the world is likely to blow up/be more peaceful. Now, what's for dinner? Every reaction to a fact is based on emotional response to the intellectual fact. But you are intellectual, so frame it that way if you prefer. Let's just keep the conversation going in ways that are open and non attacking.
June 2, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've thought about what you said, Lalo, and wasn't sure if a response was necessary. But I decided to offer this: I have no problem if you support Hillary for the reasons you cite. I don't agree, and the reason is her behavior once she started losing, which I think has shown a narcissism and, to my mind, a sense of entitlement that is unhealthy in someone I would support for the highest office in the land. Having said that, I also agree that she's smart and determined and capable.
What I would ask, if you have the courage to do this, is that you read The Audacity of Hope. This is Obama, not a bunch of platitudes and sound bites. Give it a try and then let me know if you can read it with an open mind.
By the way, your choice of avatar is ironic. You seek to demean Obama I think, but to me there are parallels between Lincoln and Obama that I see, and so perhaps your irony can be seen more ways that one, eh? It's a silly statement, but it says something different to me that, perhaps you intended.
June 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I think because Obama supporters support him for emotional reasons and know very little about his policy positions or Clinton's, they project their emotional connection to Obama onto those of us who support Clinton.
I don't have that sort of emotional attachment to Clinton. I think she's an adequate public speaker. Personally, I dislike her voice and find it somewhat nasal and unmelodic. She will never inspire me with oratory as Obama can and yes, his speech on racism made me cry. But then I dried my eyes and looked at their policies.
As to the argument that some of us support Clinton because we project our racism onto all America and think Obama cannot win. That is the biggest tub of hogwash in the entire electoral swamp of argument.
Black men go the vote 52 years before women. To this day, some columnists say women should not be allowed to vote. Women who support Obama are trotted out as proof that women have permission (wow!). The polls show a full 10% more Americans are unwilling to vote for a woman than for a black man. Good god, black men got guaranteed equal rights under the law in 1868. It is 140 years later and women, white and black, have no such protection. The ERA scared America more than every civil rights act and voting rights act ever passed.
Yet what do I read here? Folks marginalizing and trivializing sexism. Women who think it's persuasive that as women they support Obama. One of the central feminist arguments is that one women does not represent all women. IT's so retrograde to trot out the I am woman, I vote for Obama argument. IT's not a feminist argument at all.
Why do I think so much of this support for Obama is rooted in sexism - including internalized sexism practiced by women? The lack of outrage about the Citizens United Not Timid for one. Exhibit #1. Nothing anyone said or did in the campaigns comes within miles of this outrage and Obama's people seem to not mind at all. Exhibit #2. Alec Baldwin gets a LI daily paper. One week it runs a sexist rant against Clinton. NExt week, it does the same to Obama. America gets its panties in a twist with the second one -(no mention of the first except in the editor and publisher's apology)
I have to stop, I am getting too angry with the hypocrisy and the bullshit from the OBama camp that has deliberately and strategically played the race card as often as they could while ignoring and co-opting and collaborating in sexist piling on. Everyone blames Clinton for every word said by her supporters and surrogates and absolves Obama of everything - even his own statements. I am in Bizarro world.
June 3, 2008 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. One small thing...Clinton isn't the first woman to run for president nor the first woman candidate to gain delegates.
http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez.htm
Yes, she is the first one to have a very serious go at it (and honestly, I wish she handn't mishandled the campaign - for I was rooting for her), but, technically.... :-)
June 1, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. I stand corrected. Actually, I'm sitting, but you know what I mean.
June 2, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Mishandled the campaign" - it depends what "is" is. Do you mean Iowa, where some of her advisers advised not competing at all? New Hampshire where she won? Nevada where she won the popular vote? South Carolina where she got labeled the racist candidate? Florida where she won? Michigan where she would have won if her competitors hadn't run away? California where Kennedy campaigned against her and she won?
The worst one for me was Wisconsin, where she put someone ineffective in at the last minute to try to make things more effective. Finally after that she shuffled the deck. But my big issue is that many of the people talk about how she mishandled the campaign don't acknowledge that she even knew she had competition early on and did her best to solidify her lead - oh yeah, that got labeled "inevitable" by Ben Smith at Politico. She admitted a so-so performance in one debate where most questions were about her, and that got labeled the "gender card". Her husband campaigning for her became unfair in South Carolina - "bringing down the party", one of those trite comments that's gained immortality this year. Ever heard Bill Cosby's famous coin tosses of history? "Colonel Custer, you got it - tails? Heads. Sitting Bull, you get all the Indians in the world set up on the hills, Colonel Custer, you get 27 men to sit down in the middle of the valley and wait for them to ride down on top of you".
June 2, 2008 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some of those and more. Iowa, where she couldn't decide whether to compete or not, and ended up with a half-hearted effort that left her running third.
Nevada, and all the other caucus states where she didn't have enough organization and commitment to compete effectively. Not even understanding how the Texas primary/caucus worked two weeks before the event.
Running the campaign with people picked for loyalty rather than effectiveness. Assuming that she would blow everyone out on Super Tuesday and didn't need to plan past then. Mark Penn may not have actually thought that the primaries were winner take all, but they acted as though they were.
Spending money profligately on her Senate run and in the early primaries. Taking on the mantle of the "inevitable" choice, and assuming that everyone would fall into line.
Having the bad luck to run the same year as a genuine political phenomenon.
June 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She won Michigan and Florida"? Oh please. Is that democracy? I've said more than once that, in my opinion at least, a democracy demands two things to begin with:
1. an informed electorate.
2. a fair contest where each candidate has equal opportunity to be known.
MI and FL were tainted by the DNC ruling from the start and can hardly be called wins.
But to me, her failure was in tone and strategy once she realized she had miscalculated and was losing. She turned first mean and attacking, then, to my mind at least, desparate and manipulative. She agreed to rules when she thought the wouldn't hurt her, then ignored them to seek advantage, even being as disingenuous as to create a great flap over civil rights and Zimbabwe, of all things, to justify how she had made an about face on the rules she had previously agreed to. This is not integrity, and I have had enough lies and megalomania for the past eight years not to look for more of the same. Hillary is a great candidate when she's winning. When she's losing, she shows her worst side. You may still think she's the candidate for you, but not for me. Not anymore.
June 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more thing I might add. From what I've read - and I can only base this on reports, so don't sue me if there's a misinterpretation here - but from what I've read, California, one of Clinton's "wins" is now solidly for Obama over her, and there's even a report that her home state of New York now favors Obama. As I've said before, I don't believe polls are solid indications of the future, though they may accurately predict the very near future, but for the general election, I believe strongly that Obama will do more to unite the electorate against McCain than Clinton. Nobody knows for sure, and once you've argued the policies and the histories into the ground, I think we all end up going with our gut. My gut tells me Obama.
June 2, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore and Kerry won quickly because of the huge conglomeration on Super Tuesday and the prevalence of at-large delegates awarded directly to the primary winner as well as key winner-take-all states like California. If we'd used the rules of the last 40 years this time, Clinton would have clinched a long time ago.
Pure fantasy. First, California's primary was proportional. Second, Super Tuesday was early this year than last year (Feb 5 vs March 2), and with more states (23 vs 10) than in 2004.
More importantly, Kerry won the nomination because unlike Clinton, he won nearly every state primary and caucus. He took Iowa by six points and New Hampshire by 12, making him the frontrunner heading into February, with Super Tuesday still a month away (March 2). And in February, Kerry won 7 of 9 primaries and 9 of 9 caucuses. Yet despite that, his delegate lead over Edwards was only 518-440 DUE TO THE PROPORTIONALITY OF THE RULES. Then on Super Tuesday he did something Clinton didn't do: completely dominated, winning 9 of 10 contests.
When "a long time ago" would Clinton have clinched under your fantasy? After Obama beat her in Iowa? After Super Tuesday, when Obama won 847 delegates to Clinton's 834? After he shut her out for the rest of February, with overwhelming victories in Virginia and Wisconsin?
Clinton supporters talk about Obama supporters having drunk the Kool-Aid, but I swear the complete nonsense I see from so many of her backers is just staggering.
June 1, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth unto this continent a new nation. Conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. We are now engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure......
You are helping to prolong the 2008 Democratic civil war.
Wear your hat proudly and STOP.
June 1, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was a good attempt to explain away the actions of a few rabid supporters without placing the blame for their actions squarely where it belonged. That would be at the feet of Hillary Clinton. Hillary with help from her surrogates like Geraldine Ferraro incited a riot.
I understand why you wrote this post, but let's not discount the value of being honest for the sake of party unity. Gender bias is a fabrication and a member of the MSM, CNN, has served in the role of Clinton press secretary.
June 1, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You read my mind, Bussta. That's the subject of my next blog.
June 2, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not underestimate the value of a really close general election. Clinton buries McCain in projected electoral votes. Obama squeaks by. Why should we want to nominate a sure winner? There's nothing at stake in the Fall.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
June 2, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Polls at this stage mean nothing. They will change, and not necessarily in Hillary's favor. Someone said a refrigerator should be able to beat McCain this election, but of course we know not to take anything for granted. Still, I don't buy Hillary's lead in some polls.
June 2, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Clinton buries McCain in projected electoral votes."
That will end Wednesday, when she's no longer a factor in this race. Then McCain will pull way, way ahead and Obama will lose in a landslide. Oh, woe is us!
June 2, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Pollmaster's numbers are based on polls held anywhere from yesterday to three months ago, because most states haven't been polled since their primaries or caucuses. It's only fairly recently that Michigan and Florida were re-polled, and that was only as the RBC meeting approached.
So as disappointed as I am to say it, I'm taking electoralvotes.com's projections with what my doctor would probably say is too much salt.
June 2, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy (or anyone else who's interested), I recommend RealClearPolitics to you:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
On the 2008 elections pages, the left margin has polls in "battleground" states. No map that I can find, but still more helpful than the mis-colored map the Pollmaster posts.
June 2, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good effort, raider99, at trying to understand us H supporters.
June 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me associate myself with the thougtful comments and clam reasoning of "reader 99". It has done a great deal to reduce my growing anger and frustration. As a senior observer (65-male-JFK campaign worker), I have observed one or two elections and the waves of emotion that permeate the really important and significant campaigns. Some pundits for last 50 years ahve described the Democratic party as an alliance of special interests groups distrusting each other but allied in seeking a candidate who will advocate for their cause. PAssion for the cadnidate and passion for the concepts or positions of the party were secondary. People were passionate about FDR ( I was raised in lower middle calss house with two pictures on wall, Jesus and FDR and FDR's was larger). Peoplewere passionate about JFK. I doubt we can find many voters who developed passion for Truman, Stevenson, , Careter. McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, Gore , Dukakis and Kerry.
Bush 2 and Bill Clinton were masterly about combining gtroups with special interests and leading them. Of course Clinton was intelligent and charismatic and cared about good governing. Clinton was a flawed person who was a good President, His conduct in this campaign saddens me but a year from now I suspect he will be back changed but back.
The key thing is to turn the passion for one ofthe current Demo candidates into a massive crusade to elect the Demo Presdient and taek back and return our country to its principles and greatness. Don't wate the passion convert it from passion for an individual candidate to passion to end the BUSH era and the insanity of the last 7 years. McCain is the next four years of bad economic concepts and use of military to solve any world problem.
June 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now a personal word about the campaign. I was an early Obama supporter who orignially supported Edwards,as Obama spoke of change and leadership, I felt the samethings I felt as a teenage JFK supporter and it reawakened idealism I thought had long ago died in my soul.I spent a few years asa professional political operative and thought my cynicism had taken over forever.
Please understand, I had reservations about Hillary after the original Health care debacle in the 90's. TO be honest I alwys thought of Hillary as Bill's Karl Rove.
As to sexism in the campaign, I neither though of Hillary as the woman candidate or Obama as the Black candidate, I lived through the feminist revolution and the civil rights struggle, I will not tolerate those designations in 2008/2009.
What began to offend me was the interjection of both these factors into the CLinton campaign.
If anything, I began to see a reverse sexism, I found it difficult to beleive any male cqandidate fro President could lie about being under fire in Bosnia and explain it as Hillary did and get away with it-I find it impossible to beleive a male cadnidate could talk about "white hard working Americans". I found it totally impssible to thinkthat mythical maoecandidate could talk about RFK assassination in June as a reason for stay8ing in and then explain it the way she did and that few pundits would not point out how often she had correctly talked about 68 as history without mentioningthe assassination. Yet all passed.
Look this commentary was not meant as a diatribve merely a last relection of a turbulent passion filled campaign. I am tired of invective and just want to win in 2009. I hope Hillary wants to dothe saem and takea rightful place in the party in a positive leadership role. As to women in politics, the Speaker of the House, numerous Senators, representaives and governors form a talented and ready to be tapped furture pool of Presidents.
June 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wanted to see a woman as president in my lifetime. I agonized over my vote. The following were the reasons I voted in my primary for Obama instead of Clinton:
I read the material in each of the candidates websites. I liked that Clinton actually mentioned labor unions where Obama did not. I have some serious concerns regarding Clinton's universal healthcare mandate. I feel if you are going to provide true universal healthcare you take Insurance Companies out of the loop and eliminate for-profit hospitals. Neither candidate endorses my ideas. On the other issues there were not many or significant differences.
I then watched every debate and every speech I could find given by the candidates. Strangely, during the debates, Clinton seemed more presidential and during the speeches Obama seemed more presidential. Clinton, having a wealth of facts to draw from made her performance in the debates outstanding. Obama, having superior oratory ability shined while on stage.
But unlike many Clinton supporters I did not see Obama as an empty suit. A constitutional law professor and rising to editor of an ivy league law review is no small feat. I was impressed that he cared more about community than big dollar law office jobs. I also saw his legislative experience as not just his Senate years but I added his 8 years in Illinois.
But it really came down to this, I am tired of hearing about Clinton and Bush. I love the unity message and forward looking message of hope and "Yes we can".
I believed when I voted and even more now that we have seen how he has managed his campaign that he will be a very effective manager of the executive branch of our government. I am positive he will stand up for our constitution and the rule of law. He promises an open and honest government, I pray he can live up to that promise.
I voted before Clinton had started her attacks on Obama when she realized she could lose the nomination. So as of February I thought an Obama/Clinton or vice versa ticket would be great and unstoppable. But her tactics are those aborant to a great many Democrats including me. It was a continuation of the ugly politics of old, beating down your opponent rather than arguing why you would be a better president. I was very disappointed and angry with her. I no longer want to see an Obama/Clinton ticket, NO WAY.
Then there is her war vote, with no later apology. I thought at the time she voted for the war because she would be running for president and if she did not vote for the war the Republicans would come back and scream what an "anti-war liberal" she is and is unfit to lead the men as commander-in-chief. But as this election has gone on I have changed my mind and think she really firmly believed in her vote to go to war with Iraq and still supports a military solution in the Middle East.
I read Obama's speech he gave in 2002 regarding the war in Iraq. Everything he said in that speech has come to pass. All the so called experts in the administration and the media were wrong. I trust Obama with the 3 A.M. phone call because I trust his superior judgement regarding war and peace and the value of intelligent diplomacy.
I am very proud and pleased with my vote for Obama. Yes I am very saddened that I may not see a woman in the White House during my lifetime. But Hillary Clinton is not the woman I could endorse as she does not share my values. She does not present the face to the world I desire in a woman president.
June 2, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton. As unfair as that article may be it was a striking reminder to me that I do not want Bill Clinton in the White House again, either as First Gentleman or Second Gentleman. So whatever qualities Hillary may have been able to bring to the presidency, to some extent they were canceled by having Bill around as a distraction and an albatross around her neck. It would have been 4 to 8 more years of Clinton scandal. The national psyche can only stand so much of Clinton Fatigue, just as it is now suffering from Bush Fatigue
And of course there are those millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Library, and what they might have included in the way of quid pro quos in a Hillary administration.
OK, one can feel sympathy for Hillary's followers, but to a real degree they were misled by Hillary, and to that degree, Hillary herself is culpable.
My hope is that her followers weigh the alternatives of a McCain presidency, which goes against Hillary's ideals, or an Obama presidency, which they may hate, but falls more in line with Hillary's ideals and their own. It is up to them.
June 2, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tooo have felt sad for Hillary Clinton and her supporters because I know how I would have felt if the shoe was on the other foot.
I'm going to link to this post everytime I read a rant against her supporters. This was well done of you, Raider99. Well done, indeed. Thank you.
June 2, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Disidero:
Here are responses to two of your points.
The first concerns Obama's naivete re foreign policy/international relations. You wrote,
I'm truly spellbound by your vast knowledge of the issues, but your superior knowledge is misleading. It makes the rest of us seem naive. And perhaps we are in some repects. But my claim to equality with you is rooted in our underlying theoretical positions, not the vastness of our knowledge of the issues and events involved.
Likewise with Obama, he's coming in with a point of view that I think is superior to yours, a point of view that is not at all well known except in academia.
You're a Realist, a geopolitics guy. You see people moralistically, as your punishing anger at naive bloggers suggests. I'd have to write much to make that point, but perhaps you can temporarily grant it to me. You believe in threatening and punishing adversaries into compliance. You have other views as well, but you rely much on verbal punishment in these posts and on punishment in the international relation world.
In previous comments and posts, I've argued that Obama's point of view is roughly analogous to the Realistic Empathy view that is relied on throughout the most progressive think tanks and high class academic realms, like the Watson Institute at Brown. Prof. James Blight has vast experience talking directly with world leaders and conducting what he calls criticial oral history conferences. One of those is underway now in Iran, and Bill Clinton is one of the participants. They're trying, with the aid of extensive documents and Blight's uncanny ability to enable leaders to be honest, to understand the problem we have with Iran and vice versa. Whereas the Realist School argues that relations are relatively simple matters of geopolitical manipulation, the Realistic Empathy School argues that a careful, detailed grasp of each other's position leads to a solution based on enlightened and even compassionate self-interest. That's what Obama's upbringing and training inclines him to do. He's a bit like Bill Clinton in that regard but with less reliance on cajoling and more on depth of understanding.
Billy Glad trivialized this point of view as "new
age," and you've called me "harmless," although you were angry at me for using Billy's name in the title of a post. That kind of reaction to the Realistic Empathy position is typical of Realists, who think that empathy is a reed in the wind of self-interest. A case for the power of realistic empathy in the international relations field requires more space and time than I can justify without more interest from you or some other Realist. I'd have to do more research. I can only suggest that the involvement of Clinton in the Iran summit that Blight is leading is at least an indication that there's much power involved in this method.
You also said,
In my experience of 35 years as a minister to minsiters and congregations in conflict, there never is a decisive breakup when people are intimately involved with each other and have deep investments in each other. Obama explains that Wright was his spiritual mentor, which included the very personal involvement in Obama's wedding and the baptism of his children. I can tell you, having done approx. 50 weddings, that the bond that grows out of all the counseling and wedding service preparation, the service itself, and the reception is intense. I still relate to people whose weddings I've done more than 25 years ago. They care about me. Wright was like an uncle. Moreover, Wright is a complicated guy. He can be very sweet, loving, intellectually viable in high places, and much more. You don't dump an uncle, not unless he violates your relationship, your trust.
Furthermore, Obama was not at all considering breaking up from his pastor for a year, not even after the initial barrage of hate speech broadcasts. There was not the kind of year long handwringing and indecisiveness you suggest. Rather, Obama only considered a separation from Wright when Wright in essence called Obama a liar, a duplicitous politician who really is a closet black radical. When that kind of violation happens, no relationship can survive it. It's grounds for divorce, especially when you consider that the hopes of Obama's supporters were put in jeopardy, much less, the future of the causes we believe in. Only then did Obama even consider separating from Wright.
June 2, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your comments. I've never heard of Realistic Empathy, but among other things I'm a mediator and have worked with couples and small claims court cases. And conflict is rarely what it appears to be on the surface. Sure, the geopolitical sphere is a lot more intense and complicated than anything in my experience, and the stakes are a lot higher, but there's wisdom in understanding the "other." It leads to better results, better policies, better planning and sometimes to real accords.
For instance, if the current regime had "understood" Iraq, they never would have opened this can of worms without far different preparation. (In this I'm assuming that they actually didn't understand Iraq, something once confirmed to me by an ex-CIA guy, but it's possible they really wanted the chaos and civil war that resulted. Nothing could be too cynical for Bush and his power mongers.)
June 2, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now, why does it not surprise me that you're a mediator? Thanks not only for your original post but for 'moderating' the comments all along. I think it'll take a while for this stuff to die down, and it will often seem like it's never going to happen, but I predict that we will fairly soon be laughing at the MSM when they harp on the divisions we've seen the past 6 months.
June 2, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
someone was asking, above, about what Obama being more about substance and not just speeches might entail. I'd submit this AP article about campaign strategy as evidence of a detailed analysis of the step-by-step bootstrap operation of running a successful national campaign:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080530/ap_on_el_pr/obama_strategy
June 2, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment