« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
To Hillary: You Broke It
The behavior we all witnessed at the recent RBC meeting from the Clinton supporters was way over the top, and Hillary, if you are listening, you must take some of the responsibility. Certainly these are adults – at least chronologically – but they have been encouraged by you and your campaign, and as they say in the retail trade, if you break it, you own it.
You chose to attack Obama and now we see the effect - that some of your faithful followers have come to hate him so much that they welcomed with open arms a severe nut case who distributed pamphlets making the most absurd and grossly disgusting accusations against one of our United States Senators. They never questioned this man. They lined up for pictures and autographed copies of his revolting literature. I won’t even dignify this atrocity with more description. And that was only a part of the sideshow they put on.
And the latest is the four delegates. Four delegates that really don’t matter at all. They make no material difference, but your campaign will fight to the death over them because it allows you to be unhappy, and by extension, to keep whipping your demented followers into a similar frenzy, presumably because then they won’t do the math and realize that your whole popular vote argument doesn’t hold water. And they say Obama’s followers drank some Kool-Aid. This is behavior I would expect of five-year-olds.
Hillary, don’t you think it’s time to start telling the truth to these people? Don’t you think it’s time to stop manipulating rules and facts? Maybe you could have been a great president. Maybe you could even beat McCain. But you haven’t proved it. You have only proved, to my mind, that you:
-Don’t care about rules, because rules only apply to other people.
-Don’t care about your party, because only you are important.
-Don’t care about facts, because facts can be manipulated, just like people.
-And speaking of people, you clearly don’t care about those who follow you, because you have fanned the flames of their discontent in order to gain… what? In the words of your own creature, Lanny Davis, “Beats me.”
Where the hell is your integrity?
So, Mrs. Clinton, what you break, you own. And what you own becomes your responsibility.
So what are you going to do to fix it? It’s in your power. It has always been in your power to do the right thing.
-You could have run a campaign based on integrity and issues.
-You could have taken the high road when people were unfairly victimizing your opponent, scoring big points for how honorable and magnanimous you were.
-You could have followed the rules you agreed to, and let the DNC handle Michigan and Florida.
-You could have toned down your rhetoric to avoid comparisons with things like Zimbabwe, for heaven’s sake.
-You could have told your followers to stay home and not protest the RBC meeting. You could have spared them the embarrassment of acting like spoiled children in front of the whole world.
And you still can do something. You can be graceful in defeat. You can work to rid us of the neocon scourge, protect our courts and stand behind a candidate who has been honorable throughout this overly long primary season. You can help us all bring sanity to the world. Or you can keep fighting because apparently your ego is more important than the rest of the world.
You broke it. Please, for all our sakes, now fix it.Hillary, are you listening?
Comments (102)
Dude...get a grip. You look like a moron posting shit like this.
June 2, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got to agree with indiex. After the incompetent campaign Hillary ran, and after she endorsed McCain and argued that FL voters should vote for McCain if the DNC didn't seat the FL delegates in full, you think she's the one who should try to fix the problems she's caused?
Dude. Please.
June 2, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
She broke it. She can fix it. It's the Kool-Aid she mixed up that her most rabid "I'm going to vote for McCain" followers drank. She needs to reach them and bring them back to reality. I think she can do it reasonably easily. But thanks, Indiex, for calling me a moron. That says it all, doesn't it?
June 2, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great post.
It's very true and it's still going.
June 2, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be understanding, this whole thing has a lot of people 'whipped up!' Your message started out principled, but went haywire. It sounds as though you're an Obama supporter, so today is a great day. Enjoy it.
I live in Mpls, was raised an East Sider (St. Paul) and will be at the Exel center this evening for the announcement. It is so exciting.
June 3, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
She ran an incompetent campaign and got more votes than Obama? OK. He won slightly less than half of the voters. Are you aware that there aren't any caucus states in November?
June 3, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
In what bullshit parallel universe did she get more votes than Obama? In Michigan, where Kim Jong Il would be jealous of how she engineered her overwhelming 55% victory over "uncomitted", when 25% of the number of voters who voted for Kerry in 2004's general election voted in the primary? How about the 30,000 MI write-in ballots for Obama that have never been counted? Or the 6 caucuses whose votes have not been counted in the Clinton "popular vote" tally? Is it the Limbaugh Operation Chaos votes that put her over the top?
This is just such craven bullshit. In proportional voting, where two candidates stay in it until the bitter end, a 150-200 delegate lead is decisive. Her little streak of decisive Appalachian victories barely made a dent in his delagate lead. Why is that? Why not just admit that Obama ran a better campaign, strategically and tactically, and upset the biggest name in Democratic politics. The N.E. Patriots of the Democratic Party just got beaten by Barack Obama. Now its time to get behind the party and get rid of the real problem in America today.
Get over it. She lost. Time to move on.
June 3, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The State of Michigan requires all write-in candidates to approve their write-in status. None have done so. Net result: IF YOU CAST A WRITE-IN BALLOT, IT WILL NOT COUNT!
How does that saying go? "The rules are the rules" or something like that.
Obama threatened to sue the state if they put his name back on the ballot. He made a political decision to take his name off of the ballot in order to pander to IA/NH. He benefitted politically from withdrawing from MI but got awarded delegates anyway...the ultimate in Affirmative Action.
June 3, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you may be a sensible Democrat that leans Hillary, and thought raider was flogging a dead horse. But, with your bullshit about her winning the popular vote, you have shown you are just a troll trying to piss people off.
It's morons and assholes like yourself, who, by continuing to spout lies even though their candidate has all but conceded the nomination, are fomenting disunity in the party and who offer McCain his only hope of victory in November.
In the name of people across this country who need a government that takes their interest in mind at some level, I say eat shit and die, loser.
June 3, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuzzy Math!
June 3, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific post.
I can't wrap my mind around how she's going to approach these next few months leading up to the general.
I wish I could remember where I read this - but there was compelling article written within the last few days about what's animated her so far. The argument was that she genuinely doesn't, and never has believed, that Obama could win the general. (Combination of his inexperience, actual racism, his links with people such as Wright, Pfleger, Ayres, Rezko - swiftboating on his other history in Chicago - vulerability to being painted as far too leftwing and horribly weak on foreign affairs and defense.) Thus the reason she's attacked him as much as she has, and has felt it not only justified but moral, is because she's believed it so vital that he doesn't win the nomination.
So I can well see that, if he does end up with the convention nominating him, she will absolutely do everything she can to help him win it.
What it doesn't given me any confidence about is how she'll operate over the next few months.
She'll suspend her campaign; say enough of the right things to prevent all the powers-that-be turning on her. But what will be going on behind the scenes if McCain/right wing attack machines manage at various points over the next few months to make Obama temporarily at least seem vulnerable/not a strong enough candidate?
Where she's won out in whichever ways she has since Obama's 11 streak win, is that Obama's been under attack from two fronts, and she really hasn't been under attack at all. It's given her a horribly unfair advantage. She and her surrogates will covertly maximise that in any and every way they can over the next two months, I suspect, because one thing won't have changed: she doesn't believe he can win the general. Thus to her mind anything she does to prevent the convention nominating him is a democratic party social welfare good.
None of this is to argue that other things - personal ambition/feelings etc - haven't animated her.
But this is the overriding one that should have everyone nervous about what she's going to do.
June 2, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, well-thought out analysis. I agree with it.
But what I no longer agree with, nor fear, is that she'll fight to the convention, or stay suspended in hopes some dirt on Obama gets dug up and sticks. I think she's a smart woman who realizes she's going to be backing down by the end of the week (if not sooner), and I think she understands that she can remain an important, vital, respected and loved person in politics if she handles this right.
I don't agree with the way she's handled things so far, but I do have to give her my long over-due and begrudging respect. Same with her supporters.
I'm no longer going to jump on Lalo and Otto, et.al., like a mad-woman, like I did all of Saturday night after watching the RBC hearing.
I want to get along with my new-found fellow Dems. All of them. We need to unite this week. We really do.
I apologize for my past behavior, and I want to get along.
Of course, I still might respond to a sudden flaming comment that I don't like -- hey, I can't be perfect, as you all know, but for the most part I want to try to make this upcoming transition period as smooth as possible for every Dem. Me included, LOL.
Peace,
Lis
June 2, 2008 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lis, I am sorry to feel that your kindness is undeserved.
A candidate who - having not paid her small business vendors - spends funds on ads in South Dakota in order to garner one more win over Obama, where said ads rely on [but conceal from So Dakota viewers] the technicality of counting her votes in Michigan and zero Michigan votes for Obama - this is a woman who believes at best that the loss of the Presidency is merely collateral damage to her place in history as a vote "winner."
I have an image in my mind of Barack Obama as Rosa Parks finally "allowed" to the front of the bus --but forced to do so by crawling on his hands and knees while he is bloodied by blows from behind by Hillary, by blows from the side by racists and by Bill [even yesterday, denigrating his anguished decision on leaving the church], and by right-wing media amplified by 'major' 24/7 media - all while the complacent Senators and House Members and other Super delegates sit primly to the side watching with their hand folded.
He's trying to ignore them because he needs all of his strngth [dollars, energy] to drive that bus. But no one castigates those causing problems through lying ads - even though the entire party and we need this Senator to drive that bus.
Those who refuse to endorsed after the majority of delegates was won are complicit - as much as were Americans who stood silent while McCarthy ruined lives.
By the way, I am in my 50s and was a Hillary /Edwards supporter. I turned on January 21, 2008 when I heard Nita Lowey make the claim - in response to a Q on Edwards and Obama - that Hillary had "won" Michigan. As a feminist I cannot sanction the use of lies to win.
June 3, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran, I think keeping the camera on the kind of Hillary supporters who made a spectacle of themselves on Saturday will do almost as much to sway her more reasonable supporters as anything Hillary herself might do. They provide the proverbial mirror held up to reality, and it's not an image I imagine many sane people would want to see.
June 2, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent
Recomended
June 2, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another swipe and smear.
Yesterday, you were smearing Clinton by pretending to get inside her supporters' head to figure out how they feel. Your predictable conclusion was they are infantile, fragile and emotionally unstable.
And now you are finishing your worthless series with another insinuation - that because they are so fragile, it must be Clinton's fault they do not embrace Obama. She must have tricked or hypnotized them.
I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand, it is Obama's job to build connection with voters. It's not the voters' job to look for things to like about him.
Perhaps you refuse to admit it because you're scared of what that could mean.
Party unity is the responsibility of the newly appointed "winner". Even McCain didn't whine about it like you do.
June 2, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Lalo, I agree with you, it's not the voter's job to find something they like about him. If you don't like him by now, you may not like him enough in November to bring yourself to vote for him.
And that's your choice.
But it is a Democratic supporter's job to try to accept the Democratic nominee.
Unless you aren't a Democratic supporter. And if that's the case, than you're job is done, I guess.
(I still reserve the right to admire that Lincoln hat of yours, btw).
June 2, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I changed my registration this morning, just like I said I would. Having spent more years in its ranks than I care to admit, I realized recently that this party and I hardly knew each other.
But regardless, it's not my job to try to accept Obama. Sorry. It is his job to win over voters like me. And no amount of guilt-trip attempts will change that, becaue we don't live in North Korea. Or USSR.
June 2, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You finished the avatar of Hillary Clinton in the likeness of Jefferson Davis then?
June 3, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realized recently that this party and I hardly knew each other.
Shades of Lieberman. Best of luck with McCain or Nader or Barr or whatever you end up finding that suits you better than Obama.
But regardless, it's not my job to try to accept Obama. Sorry. It is his job to win over voters like me.
No, it's not. Get over yourself. If you don't want to vote for him, don't vote for him.
June 3, 2008 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Changed my registration this morning"....That's rich. Really.
Hillary and Barack are twins on policy, for goodness sakes, so apparently you and the party lost touch a long time ago. And to make it all about you, you, you. You must be very important to demand the candidate reach out to YOU, and win YOU over. Get over YOURself.
June 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
""Changed my registration this morning"....That's rich. Really."
And a lie. This troll's dishonesty, logical incoherence, and love of the ad hominem has the stench of George Bush/Karl Rove Republicanism all over it.
Some people seem to have fun with losers like this weirdo and gotalife. I've always felt like dealing with them is like dealing with some nudge back in sixth grade ("I know you are, but what am I?"), and thus a total waste of time.
June 3, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more think I want to say to you, Lalo, and this is something I never thought I'd say -- I will vote for Hillary if she becomes our Democratic nominee this year.
Ending our occupation of Iraq, even though she helped vote it in, is that important to me. Women's rights are that important to me. Affordable healthcare is that important to me.
I can play nice, Lalo. And I will.
Can you? Will you?
June 2, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, yet one more think, LOL...
Lalo, as angry as you are, do you truly think it's fair to call someone else's very well-written post "worthless"?
How many posts have you taken the time to research and write? All I ever see, lately, is your comments. Your drive-by comments.
Give us a well-written, researched and heart-felt post, and I myself might even recommend it.
June 2, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote my share of well-researched posts, they are on my profile page if you are interested. Perhaps they weren't heart-felt tear-jerkers you can find on the "recommended" list but I still stand by them.
As to fairness, it never mattered with this crowd before, why start now?
June 2, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I just wander in to the last act of Carmen? Surely SOMEONE is a victim here. Oh, it's just Lalo.
June 2, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
June 2, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've got months to change your mind, Lalo.
Peace,
Lis
June 2, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, dude -- you have my absolutely favorite avatar. If you're out, can I use it?
June 3, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this an attempt to channel Harold Ickes?
June 3, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, Lalo, I'M not the one who's leaving. That would be YOU.
June 3, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
I am just expressing my opinion, as are you. I think Hillary was responsible for her actions and her statements, many of which were designed to incite her followers. She chose to lead, and she succeeded in gaining their trust. With that trust, she whipped up a lot of controversy through a long series of events that I tire of repeating.
You and I may see it differently. You may not think she did anything to turn people against Obama or to fan the flames of controversy and division, but I do think so. It is precisely because I believe she did that knowingly, using her skills as a politician, that I also hold her partly responsible for the result.
Which is to say that adults are presumably responsible for their own actions, so she is not 100% responsible. Still, it is within her power, as a leader, to steer them back from the path toward which she guided them. True, it's up to Obama to reach out the them, to convince them that he's worthy of their vote, but given the influence Hillary has had, she also bears some responsibility - at least that's what I think. You are obviously disagreeing, and I understand that.
Your name calling does nothing to further the discussion. But it's ok with me. I don't really take any of it personally, and we're all (I think) working to express our own personal truths and beliefs, which is all I claim to be doing. I'm not a pundit, a political expert or anything like that. I'm a thinking person, and I've seen enough atrocity in our political system to want to speak out, from the perspective, not of an insider, but of someone who cares and who is tired of bullshit. I can be accused of adding to the bullshit, and I'll accept that, though it is not my intention. I only expect people to take what I say in their own way. If it resonates, great. If it doesn't, and it seems like empty rhetoric, so be it.
So, if you don't mind, tell me. Do you want to protect Roe vs. Wade and women's reproductive rights? Do you want to do all you can to prevent war and human suffering? Do you want to see all people have equal opportunity both legally and economically in this country, and ideally, in the world? Do you want to see the Constitution upheld, the Supreme Court impartial and fair, our government accountable to the people?
I'm curious if you believe and stand for the same things that I do, because if so, we have common cause and perhaps can find ways to support each other in achieving our common goals - even if we may disagree on some points along the way.
What do you say?
June 2, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a typical response.
Throw a bucket of dirt on Clinton, then strike a pose of a thoughtful democrat, wrapped in the banner of the fight for "reproductive rights" and all the other great slogans.
That's nothing but a "shame them" tactic and it's a little bit too obvious to be effective.
The only thing that separates your posts from the Hitler Jugend crowd working for "recommended" hits is that you are trying to be more subtle and nuanced. The rest is the same.
June 3, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing. You managed not to answer my questions, attack me again for expressing my opinion, and somehow link me with Hitler - all in just a few words. Well done. Absurd, but certainly a nice tactic to attempt to shift the focus. I still would like to hear your answers to my questions, however. Can you answer them honestly?
June 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was obvious but it turns out I need to spell it out in another way.
Yes, to things you listed. And yes to things you didn't list. That's how I made the choice of voting for and supporting Clinton. I've done enough voting for an unconvincing "maybe" in my lifetime, I need a "sure" this time.
So I won't agonize for a minute between the false choice you present of either backing Obama or putting these causes at risk. He's not the Savior.
June 3, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So then once Obama is officially the nominee, who is the "sure" candidate to protect these issues that are important to you? Surely not McCain?
June 3, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Democratic" congress
June 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then you won't be voting for a president this year?
June 3, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for answering. Then I appreciate that you believe in Hillary and not in Obama. From the subtext of what you said, I wonder if you have been burned before when you believed in someone and they lost. At any rate, if you answer yes to those questions, then there's really little need for us to be at odds. You can use emotionally loaded slurs like Hitler, but they really have no effect on me, because I see them only as a tactic. The core of this is that you blame me for "slurring" the candidate you support. You don't agree that she bears responsibility for the effect her rhetoric has had. You make a presumably rational decision not to support Obama, though I can't see why you would not support him, even if he isn't your first choice. For all the harsh words I've had for Hillary Clinton, I would vote for her because I know she will be mostly aligned with what I seek, where McCain will be diametrically opposite most of what I seek and representative of much that I fear.
So I won't argue your decisions. You attack me, but I don't think we need to be adversaries if our ultimate goal is the same. I also don't think it's too great a stretch to ask Hillary to take responsibility for the results of her actions. And if Obama did something similar, I would expect him to take responsibility, too. The difference is, I truly believe that if Obama makes a great mistake or does something that results in an unfortunate outcome, he will own up. I think he has the cojones (to use Carville's colorful imagery) to take that responsibility on his shoulders. I think Hillary Clinton has absorbed the worst of the Washington culture. I like to believe that she was once far more honest and forthright, but that years of fighting with the Republicans has taught her to adopt some of their tactics and traits.
Anyway, I think it's possible we agree on more than we disagree on, but I expect nothing more than continued attacks and demeaning rhetoric from you. It's a pity, but that seems to be how you have chosen to present yourself in the cyber world.
I sincerely wish you good luck and good fortune.
June 3, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it amazing (but not entirely surprising) that you are unable to see the double-standard in your post and in your comments.
I think it's a little hypocritical of you to accuse me of making "emotional slurs" to a post entitled "To Hillary:You Broke It". I realized it starting with your recent post and I called you on it.
It's also natural to want to assign blame, so I understand why you think Clinton is responble - since there is nobody else running against Obama.
But to pretend that you can denigrade someone with subtlety and not get called on it, is not really honest.
The truth is that the only difference between the substance of what you are saying and what others are screaming is only in tone.
I am attacking openly while you prefer twisting the knife ever so slightly, but once you strip away the semantics you might realize that this is just an exchange of, as you put it, "opinion".
June 3, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, there's no doubt that my post here was meant to be confrontational. I don't see it as a slur. I recount what many see and how many experienced Hillary's campaign, and the impact it has had on some - note emphasis on some - followers. But that impact has affected me deeply. The actions of some of her followers at the RBC meeting truly got my attention, and this is a response to it. How I see it and experience it doesn't make me right, but, again, I only claim this to be my opinion. It's not fact. And how I frame it, which you call "subtlety" I think is simply asking for responsibility. I could have gone through a much longer list of statements and actions, with all kinds of well-crafted inflammatory language, detailing what I attribute to Hillary's campaign as attacking or outright dishonest. I did not. I simply made the retail analogy that when you break something, you have responsibility for your actions. Does that sound like a slur, or simply on opinion about what I saw and how I interpreted it?
I think it's a little hypocritical of you to accuse me of making "emotional slurs"
Dude, you compared me with a Hitler group. I don't think there's anything hypocritical about it. The content or tone of my post has nothing to do with the specifics of your responses. The two are not inseparably linked, because presumably you are capable of moderating your language and considering the examples you use with care. Hitler is a hot-button word. And, for your information, I had family who died in concentration camps in Nazi Germany. I could take offense to your comment, but instead I simply point out that it was an emotionally laden attack. But that's something you're very good at - attacks. I say that in all sincerity and without any intention of irony. You do it well. It's not my favorite kind of dialog, but at least there's always something to consider in what you say.
So you accuse me of twisting a knife and of subtle attacks and double standards. I don't quite agree with you, but I will agree that I wrote this post to get a point across, and I chose a confrontational approach, knowing that a milder, less direct approach would not be read - and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
What I hope for is that Hillary will stand behind Obama, who appears to be on the verge of garnering the support necessary to make him the presumptive nominee, and help bring those of her supporters who have been so moved by her campaign to hate Obama and threaten to leave the party or vote McCain back to the message of the Democratic Party and to a vote that will stop the continuation of the neocon ku.
So, if the way I've framed my argument upsets you, I apologize. If you disagree with the salient point - that a candidate should take responsibility for the impact they have and the actions they encourage - then we simply disagree. The impact is clear. We may disagree on the cause, so I've stated my opinion and apparently you aren't willing to hold Clinton responsible at all. I've never said she was 100% responsible, but your inflexibility at defending her against all calls for responsibility strikes me as posturing rather than discussing. When a discussion breaks down to posturing, then there is no longer any chance for movement or progress, unless we find the real root cause of the posture.
So what are you afraid of, Lalo? That you could believe in Obama and once again be disappointed if he loses? I would say it's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. I, too, have backed candidates with all my hopes and dreams attached, and seen them lose. I've felt the bitterness of that loss, and often the disillusionment I feel with the political process. If we do, indeed, share the same values, I can imagine that you and I shared the same sense of horror at two successive contests that ended with W in the Oval Office. I thought that I could never believe again, but I do. I will back Obama fully, and not hold back. I will take the risk because I believe in the person I see before me, once again, and I will do all I can to help him win.
I would do the same for Hillary, but not with such investment. One is the better candidate, when compared with the alternative, but the other is the one who inspires me.
At any rate, Lalo, I'm glad we are having this discussion. I appreciate what you are teaching me.
June 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: When I wrote "one is the better candidate" I should have written "one is a better candidate." I do not believe, nor do I intend to imply, that I think Clinton is the better candidate compared to Obama, but only that she is better than McCain. To me Obama is the better candidate for a variety of reasons, and one of them is that he inspires me.
June 3, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean you personally when talking about Hilter Jugend, "Youth for Hilter". I mean the spirit of what Hilter Jugend was. Half of my family was connected to that (the other half to the camp Obama liberated).
Hitler Jugend means a blind unquestioning following based on inspirational rhetoric and faith. It also means intolerance of opposition. It means a world so black and white that for one to be always right another has to be always wrong, a saint and a whore. Once Clinton is gassed out of the race, McCain will be next, etc. It's a world completely devoid of nuance, subtlety, reason and skepticism.
And that's what I see in "the better candidate" and that's what I see in your posts, except as stated earlier you chose to do the same thing in a different tone, but with the same message.
So it doesn't matter to me if you adopt the fatherly tone of a therapist or agitate like Huffington Post. I can deal with either.
June 3, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept your clarification, though I think perhaps another comparison might have been, on the one hand less controversial, but on the other hand less powerful. So I accept the intention.
Now having said that, I do not see myself at all as part of a blindly "...unquestioning following based on inspirational rhetoric and faith." I have plenty of nuance, subtlety, reason... and skepticism, to be sure. Plenty of that. I can even see the differences between McCain and Bush, but that doesn't make me want to see him elected. I could go into my reasons for that, but I'm sure there will be time to address McCain over the next months.
As for "intolerance for opposition," "seeing the world in black and white," and the "whore and the saint," these are very unfortunate views that I do not share. I welcome opposition, for how else will I learn what others think and feel? And I hardly see the world in black and white. For instance, I still see Hillary Clinton as someone who can do great things for our country. I have not written her off. I have not stooped to hatred and invective. I have no such feelings toward her personally. I just disagree with how she handled parts of her campaign, as I stated above, and feel horrified by the behavior of some of her followers, who are, based on their actions and rhetoric, responding directly to her message and leadership.
So I ask that she be responsible. I ask her to shed the political machinery and become an accountable person again. People criticized her when she teared up, and I don't know whether that was premeditated or spontaneous, but I don't mind when people, even candidates, are authentic. It's far better than being talking point robots or attack dogs. When Clinton's behavior reminded me of Karl Rove, there was clearly something wrong, at least from my perspective. That's when I began to worry, and I hope I'm soon to be able to put those worries aside.
Now let's be honest. Hillary Clinton is not going to read this blog. She's not going to be influenced by anything I say. I wrote this to communicate my feelings and thoughts and to connect with others. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm glad they didn't. People who just came on to insult me didn't really add anything to the dialog, but people like you did. And in that, I have succeeded. I didn't set out to change anyone's minds, but simply to put forth a premise and see what happened.
I suppose some people would be offended by the passion, the invective and the occasional incivility that has transpired on this and other blogs, but I mostly find it fascinating, sometimes entertaining, and often revealing of our passions, our ideas and our methods of communicating both.
So, Lalo, you haven't answered all the questions I've asked, but that's all right. Perhaps we'll continue to meet somewhere in this world of blogs and opinions. I look forward to it. And I hope you'll give Obama a chance to change your mind. If you haven't done so, please consider reading The Audacity of Hope. I found it helped me understand the man better than any stump speech or website.
Thanks again.
June 3, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with your lead post raider99, perhaps lalo will elucidate us on the'sure things' noted in (her?) crystal ball for November, her experiences with the Hitler Youth movement, and on politicians as 'saviors' of ...?
June 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
-Don’t care about rules, because rules only apply to other people.
----------------------------------------------------
Please cite the rules that Hillary broke. To help you out here is a link to the DNC delegate selection rules for the 2008 democratic national convention.
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/pdfs/2008delegateselectionrules.pdf
Its only 23 pages, I've read it several times over the last year. So it shouldn't take you long to find the relevant sections to reference exactly what rules Hillary broke.
June 2, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you settle for agreements? She did agree to the sanctions.
June 3, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold up. Over the top? You give delegates to a Candidate even though he didn't recieve a vote in the contest? The Candidate that didn't want this situation taken care of before it got to this spot? Do we all remember the calls for re-votes in those states? Please, the real blame for this belongs with Dean and Obama....
June 2, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville, I'll remind you again -- everybody agreed back in the winter of 2007 that Michigan's votes would not count. Hillary, and others, kept their names on the ballot anyway, but agreed that the votes wouldn't count.
June 2, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, and I agree with you. If those were the rules then the rules should have been kept. But, Dean , et al needed a face saving measure and we are left with this hodgepodge that only makes this party seem out of touch with reality. If there wasn't going to be a re-vote then Michigan and Florida should have been penalized and not seated.
June 2, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That hodge podge in MI was a plan adopted and recommended by the MI democratic party to the committee, not something the committee hatched, and Clinton supporters in the MI democratic party supported it. It is far less flawed than the original election (see,. e.g., 538 analysis of MI exit polls, etc.). How does allowing a North Korean style primary to count not disengranchise over 1.5 Million MI democrats who stayed home, or voted in the GOP Primary (for Romney, to keep that contest going), because all the candidates pledged in writing not to participate and saif repeatedly it wouldn't count.
Counting all the votes in a deeply flawed and unfair election process is not an end in itself, or an end worth pursuing. The point of a democratic process is fairness and equal participation. I for one would be appalled if our nomination were decided by the travesties that were the MI and F: primaries. That Hillary is advocating just that is truthfully the LEAST appealing thing she has done in a campaign full of unappealing actions by her.
Thank god its over. I hope Hillary supporters support the party and its nominee, as I would have supported her had she been the nominee. But I hope he does not pander for their votes, because petulent behavior is part of the problem, and should not be rewarded.
June 3, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think my point was Dean should have had the Balls to stand his ground or re-do. Instead he dropped in the middle and made the party look.......ummmmm Stupid. Its fine if those two states were not deemed to be countable. Yet, we all know that there would have been outrage in Denver. The process on Saturday hurt.....and made me sick.
June 3, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Obama's campaign certainly DID keep on top of Michigan and try to reconcile the vote long before this month. But Obama's campaign (along with many other people) discovered just how difficult it would be, however, to determine how many voters stayed home, how many voters voted for a Republican who WAS on the ticket, and how many uncommitted votes ended up being for Edwards, who also urged his supporters to vote "uncommitted", and who has given his support to Obama between then and now.
June 2, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't know that Obama did that. There were plenty of calls for a re-vote. If David Axelrod and Barack Obama wanted that re-vote it would have happened.
Anyway, its history. My only point is that the events on Saturday was such a travesty. I couldn't believe I was watching the party I am registered in. It was a fitting end to this ugly season. Glad its over.
June 2, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your Louis. It was a travesty: the MI and FL should not have been counted like everyone agreed to.
So why do you think it a tragedy? Because Hillary didn't get everything she wanted?
June 2, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because Dean didn't have the chicklets to stand behind his decision. Added to that giving Obama delegates out of Michigan is just nutty. There are no real rules in party politics..but damn. Its like Dean bought the whole thing and used it a while then decided to try and get his money back later. Even if she gets all she wanted it wouldn't have changed the result. Felt a lot like Florida circa 2000
June 2, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine that it did feel a lot like Florida 2000.
But I also believe that Obama would've waited until August to address the Michigan/Florida kerflaffle, had he been allowed to do that after winning the nomination this week without the RBC meeting being forced into the picture by his Dem opponent.
By then, the non-votes in both states would not have mattered one bit, would they have?
June 2, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Address it after it is all over Lis? How insulting would that be to anyone? Obama never showed the slightest concern for either predicament. He could have helped it end nicely but instead played politics with it. Dean, obviously helped a whole lot.
June 3, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't go so far as to compare it with the 2000 tragedy. That's a bit hyperbolic. Let's just say it was dumb and awkward, and the 4 delegates they took from Clinton to give to Obama were symbolic at best, but doing it was stupid. It gave them something to be mad about, though admittedly, it was something so trivial and unimportant, since it didn't change the outcome of the primaries (unlike 2000, which condemned us to at least 4 years of hell) that it seemed totally unnecessary. The only possible justification I can come up with is that they figured having them complain about 4 delegates was better than having them complain about ALL the delegates Obama received from Michigan, which presumably they would have done if the 4 delegates hadn't distracted them. Maybe. Who knows?
In the end, who cares? It was a travesty on the part of the DNC, poorly handled and yet in no way were FL or MI fair votes representative of the democracy we are all purporting to defend. They were tainted the minute the DNC invalidated them and all - repeat all - the candidates agreed to abide by that ruling.
So I figure we need to examine the process and try to find something that works better and that lets us count all the votes in as close to a real, fair and equal election process as we can manage.
June 2, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, but your not making much sense. If they were flawed from the start why the rush by Dean and Obama to have them put in with this measure? Don't tell me it was Clinton that forced the RBC meeting cause it patently wasn't. Dean knew he screwed this from day one and was helped along by the Obama camp in not wanting new Primaries there months ago.
Hyperbole? Giving delegates no matter how trivial to a Candidate that didn't recieve votes? Again, 2000 has turned into 2008.
At the end. Dean needs to go!
June 3, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you will go back in time and remember various factions were offering to have a re-vote in MI. The govenor, a Clinton supporter, and other monied people, again all Clinton supporters wanted to make it happen. However, the state legislators did not take action to make the re-vote legal. They adjourned before they took up the legislation. That made it impossible for a re-vote. Obama had nothing to do with preventing a re-vote. PERIOD.
Now if Obama had taken his name off while all the others did not, I might say that his removal was some kind of a political ploy, however, since three other candidates removed their names, I feel it was intended to honor the DNC rules.
I heard Obama also tried to remove his name from the FL ballot but Florida would not allow the removal of any of the candidates names. In FL it was also an issue with existing law which prevented a re-vote. The likely and least expensive method was a mail-in ballot. Setting aside the logistics and issues related to having this untried method in FL ever before, it was not acted upon because it was illegal for the voting registrations to be handed over to the party for them to have a re-vote. So it didn't happen. Again, not Omama's fault.
The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is not allowed to allocate delegates. That allocation was made by the MI Democratic Party. The rules committee only accepted the state party's recommendation. It was the middle ground between what each of the candidates wanted and was the best solution for a flawed election.
The only loss to Clinton that her surrogate objected to and reserved the right to take forward if they desired was a loss of FOUR delegates. Obama could probably give her back those four delgates in 48 hours and nothing will have changed. Regarding the 1/2 vote at the convention that both states were restored to, was required by the rules. This was not Obama's fault either.
Regarding the popular vote argument by Clinton supporters, if this were a race for votes as oppose to delegates, both candidates would not have sought out votes from caucus states and Obama would have zoned in on primary states exclusively. But this was a race for delegates and he won the most delegates fair and square. Ironically because he never dissed any state and had a 50 state plus strategy.
June 3, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Best clear cut argument I've heard so far. It is so easy to get caught up in the minutae with this argument with Clinton supporters. Thanks for boiling down to the bare bones.
June 3, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
My compliments on a very cogent and sensible post.
June 3, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am truely not arguing that the votes would matter one way or another. But, if we are going to change "politics as usual" this isn't a very good start.
June 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really reluctant to get into this again since the question is now moot, but your information is simply false. There was general agreement among all the particulars from both sides that Obama stymied the Mi revote. It was posted on the home page here at tpm. The Obama camp put out a press release listing the reasons they opposed the MI revote plan. There were extensive discussions on the readers blogs here and most of the rational obama supporters agreed that Obama stopped the revote. Now there was credible discussion that his reasons for stopping the revote had merit. But no one paying attention at the time would deny that he put up the road block
As for removing his name from the ballot,his reasons are certainly a matter of opinion. But any explanation would need to answer these questions to be credible.
The pledge was signed by most candidates on or near Sept 1. Why did the 4 who removed their names
wait until Oct 9 to do so, the last day it was possible to remove their names? If the pledge required they remove their names why did
they wait 5 weeks to do it? Why did Biden, Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Kucinich wait until the last day they could submit paperwork to
remove their names to announce they were removing their names? Just a coincidence? If these were independent decisions why didn't one of
them remove their name a week before the deadline and another 3 days before or 3 weeks before the deadline? Are they all terrible
procrastinators? Why didn't kucinich get his paperwork in on time? Was he just the worst procrastinator of all? Was he just to stupid to know the deadline? Why didn't Dodd remove his name if it was required by the pledge? He was the first one to sign the pledge to not campaign or spend money in the state yet he refused to remove his name. Why didn't any of them remove their name from the Fl primary if the pledge required it? There was only one pledge for both states. Please explain how this one pledge required the candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot but didn't require them to remove their names from the Fl ballot.
No candidate made any attempt to remove their name from the Florida ballot. Your information is wrong there as well.
June 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville, do you remember that it was the party regulars in Hillary CLinton's pocket who pushed the hardest to have Michigan move its primary up -- based on the understanding that she would profit most from name recognition the earlier the primary was held? Do you think they pushed for this simply because they felt like it?
There are all sorts of possible blame fixing and name calling in this primary debacle for the Democratic party, but if you want to begin at the source in Michigan, begin with Hillary Clinton.
June 3, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then have the balls not to count anyone in Mi or Fl and not seat them at the convention.
June 3, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are so principled.
June 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the source of the problem was NH and the DNC's lack of courage in dealing with them. NH was scheduled to be third this year. Iowa first. Mi has long been fighting to force the DNC to deal with NH and agreed to the primary calendar this year because NH was scheduled third and Neveda, a state not traditionally holding a primary this early, was given the second slot. MI was promised that they would be in the top 4 in the next election cycle. When NH violated the rules and was not sanctioned the other states moved up their primaries. If NH had been sanctioned its unlikely that Iowa, SC and MI would have moved their dates forward.
June 3, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recount what? Florida and Michigan were unsanctioned elections. The candidates did not campaign there. Campaigning matters, right? Otherwise, why all the fuss? Simply go with name recognition. Hillary had that in January in Florida and Michigan. And guess what? She "won." Won what? Unsanctioned elections -- one with only her name on the ballot! Elections without campaigns, elections with only one candidate on the ballot -- that isn't democracy. The Carter Center wouldn't touch something like that! But Hillary and her supporters will storm the gates for it.
June 3, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's MIchigan is North Korea, Lalo.
You do what you want. I have a Supreme court to tend to. I for one would like to have a liberal majority on the court when I die in the next 30-40 years or so (hopefully). If you reject Obama, you can kiss that goodbye. But hey, take your "principles" and your bitterness about the party and find somethng about John McCain that you like, since your decision will only contribute to his election. How is that good for anything you really care about?
June 3, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comparing MI to FL 2000 is not a "bit hyperbolic" -- it is grotesquely hyperbolic. In FL 2000, the GOP stole an election through a series of cheats -- from depriving 6,000 voters who were not former felons from voting when they showed up to vote on election day because their names had been purged from voter roles by GOP dirty tricks (50% of whom were black), to unlawfully refusing to perform legally mandated machine recounts in GOP counties, to stonewalling and running out the clock in the hand recounts, to the 5-4 political decision at SCOTUS that ended it. It was one of the great travesties in American political and jurisprudential history.
MI 2008 is about the polar opposite of FL 2000. After the state parties deliberately sdcrewed the pooch, and all but 1 member of the rules committee (an Obama delegate, no less) voted for the sanctions, and after the candidates all signed on and agreed to the "penalty" for jumping ahead in line, Hillary somehow left her name on the ballot, and then claimed victory in an election where there was no meaningful opposition, one that she herself said publicly would not count. When the logic of "I was in favor of the sanctions before it became politically necessary to be against them" took over her campaign, they lost me and millions of others. To assert as she has that this has any equivalency to FL 2000, or Zimbabwe, or other bad elections, is as craven a political act as I have witnessed in my lifetie. Too important not to count it? No, too important to let people who participate in an unlawful primary. in violation of a written pledge, get away with it. If she had won the damn thing on this basis, THAT would have been like FL 2000. Over 1.7 Million MI democrats who voted for Kerry in 2004 stayed home, or voted for Romney in the GOP primary, that day because they were told their votes would not count. What about them? Is it fair to them to count only the Clinton supporters who showed up because their candidate decided not to remocve her name from the ballot as the others who signed the same pledge had done. And now they say the solution recommended to the Committee by the MI Democratic Party, including Clinton supporters, is terrible? I think people need to take a deep breath and focus on what's really important.
June 3, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply |