« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why didn't Hillary concede
I find it laughable that so many here are upset that Clinton didn't concede last night. Your political naivety and lack of historical perspective is astonishing. Though perhaps I'm being a bit harsh since for many this is the first or one of a few presidential primaries you've ever pay attention to. Not that most of you have paid much attention. But I guess I shouldn't expect much intellectual rigor or study since I haven't really studied past primaries all that much either. I have the advantage of having lived through 10 presidential primaries so I can just remember.
I never expected Hillary to concede last night. I can't think of any hard fought primary where the losing candidate rolled over and supplicated themselves before the winning candidate. With this being the closest primary in my lifetime I knew there would be some negotiations before Hillary got on board.
I remember the negotiations between Mondale and Hart after the primaries were over. Hart also was threatening to take the fight to the convention floor. There were disagreements about the primary rules and superdelegates. Before Hart was willing to suspend his campaign and support the nominee he had certain issues he wanted addressed.
Hart wanted reforms in the campaign rules that hurt his candidacy. He called them pro democracy reforms and maybe they were. But they were also the rules that stymied his candidacy that year. He wanted changes in the number of supers and changes in the caucus rules. There was extensive behind the scenes negotiations and when an agreement was reached there was a meeting between the two candidates with a public announcement afterwards. Even then Hart did not end his candidacy, he simply suspended it and agreed to not bring any fights to the convention floor.
The 84 primary was much less close then this one yet still Hart had earned enough political clout to bring up issues, make demands and expect discussion with some acceptable compromise to be reached before he gave his support.
This primary has been the closest one in my life time. Hillary has earned considerable political capital from this fight and I fully expect her to spend it. I don't know what she'll ask for but what ever it is she will get most of it. There are likely behind the scenes negotiations going on at this very moment and quite possibly some party elder acting as mediator. A truly neutral party like Gore is the most likely mediator.
When some compromise is worked out there will be some public meeting between Obama and Hillary. There'll be smiles and hugs all around and all sorts of cliches about party unity and how lovin' and friendly they all are. The show must go on, you know.
For the few of you who aren't partisan hacks spinning superficial MSM talking points for your candidate I took a little time to find a link to a article written at the time to back up my memory of the situation.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950074,00.html?promoid=googlep







Comments (11)
Con - de - scend - ing.
June 4, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need a mediator, we need a medicator!
Calling Nurse Ratched: "It's medication time, Hills."
June 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mondale, yes. How'd that work out for him? Enlighten my foolish mind, please.
June 4, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you bother to read my post or the link? Are you suggesting that Mondale shouldn't have entered into negotiations with Hart to win his support? If he hadn't what do you think would have happened? Are you suggesting that he lost the election because he made concessions to Hart for his support? Just what exactly is your point?
The bigger question is how it worked out for Hart. He was the front runner 4 years later and if he hadn't been fooling around with Donna *something* he most likely would have won the nomination.
June 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering when someone would bring this up. ;-)
So, oceankat, I have a few things for you:
a) Why didn't Hillary mention Mondale/Hart when talking about late finishes? Instead she invoked RFK and assassination.
Interesting, isn't it?
b) Hart wanted a future in the Dem Party... and Hart finished much stronger than Hillary. In fact, Hart took CA at the end (though he lost New Jersey). That tempered Hart to a large extent. This is Hillary's one and only shot at the POTUS, hence the scorched earth policy.
c) Also, Hart started as the unknown. Not the known. This is a huge difference. In 2007, this primary was Hillary's to lose. So, battling back from a huge deficit to net zero, is not nearly as impressive.
d) And I have a little reading for you:
http://www.observer.com/2008/gary-hart-s-advice-hillary-clinton
And let's listen to what Mr. Hart says this year of Hillary:
I believe he is referring to people like you.
June 4, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I keep wondering why conspiracy theory flourishes...
June 4, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh
June 5, 2008 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
a) Why didn't Hillary mention Mondale/Hart when talking about late finishes? Instead she invoked RFK and assassination.
---------------------------------------------------
Of all the stupid things Obama supporters have spun to portray Hillary as evil this has to be the stupidest. Those who have lived through it know exactly what she meant and why she said it. It may have been maladroit but your spin is asinine.
Perhaps you've heard people say everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when they heard JFK and Bobby were killed? I clearly remember where I was. There is no other event except 9/11 that people my age remember as clearly. It was the only event she could chose that would cause people to remember that there were contests that went on into june. That's why she chose that date to refer to and not the date Hart meet with Mondale. But keep spinning it your way and you'll just piss off more Clinton supporters. (shrug)
True, Hart had a strong finish but his overall showing was significantly less than Hillary's. But what's your point? That Hillary hasn't ganared any political capital from this fight to expect some concessions from Obama? Hillary has emerged from this contest stronger then she entered it. The luke warm support she began with has turned into a core group of enthusiastic supporters who will support whatever decision she makes. Not all 18 million but a significant minority of them. That's political clout.
How she will use it is anyone's guess. But she's not going to disappear. She most likely wants a future in the party and if she does she will have it. I think its likely she will run again in 4 years if Obama loses and perhaps in 8 depending on what happens the next 8 years.
As for the rest of your post I'm not sure what you're talking about. Referring to people like me? I posted that the nomination was Obama's the day after Indiana. I never suggested Hillary should take the battle to Denver. I haven't even advocated for Hillary to be vp. So take your orange ade fantasy arguments and accusations to someone who posted something they respond to. Try instead to read and respond to my post if you're capable of thinking clearly enough to do so.
In case it is unclear in your thinking I'm simply saying that supposing that Hillary would come off of an 11 point win in SD and make a speech conceding to Obama was foolish. It was never going to happen, it has never happened like that in the past. Not in elections nearly as close as this one. If you knew any of the history of tight primary contests and your objectivity wasn't clouded by your partisan allegiance it would have been obvious how unlikely a concession was last night.
June 4, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
And there you have it: somehow she went from the inevitable candidate, who was going to win by SuperTuesday, to the second place candidate.
Doesn't look stronger to me.
She lost. Your analogy doesn't hold up. And even Gary Hart told people like you that you aren't doing any favors by still promoting her as you do.
June 5, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we just start the makeup sex already?
Sheesh.
June 4, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps she didn't mention Mondale/Hart because a large portion of the electorate wouldn't know who they are. More will know RFK. RFK Jr's comment?
“It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.”
But maybe "the pain" that statement caused was greater for the Obama drama queens than for his son. What are the chances?
June 4, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment