« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
By Placing Her Name Into Nomination, How Selfish Was Hillary Clinton?
The answer: not selfish at all.
Armed with the historical context not provided by the media (deliberately?), Media Matters' Eric Boehlert masterfully debunks the press corps narrative disseminarted by Maureen Dowd, the Boston Globe, the Wall Sreet Journal, Washington Post, etc., that by placing her name in the nomination at this year's convention, Hillary Clinton was selfish and sought to undermine Barack Obama, who in turn was a sissy (according to this one account by New York Magazine) by accepting Clinton's decision.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton just became the first competitive candidate to ever endorse her opponent
months before the party convention. Neither Gary Hart nor Jesse Jackson were that charitable. As Boehlert notes, CNN's Keating Holland was one of the exceptions to the rule by accurately noting the following fact regarding Hart and Jackson in 1984 (my emphasis):
Neither man formally endorsed Mondale before the Democrats met in San Francisco, California, that year. But while there is no historical precedent for endorsing a candidate and then formally seeking the nomination at the convention, there is no party rule against it.
On 1992, Bill Clinton's rival Jerry Brown was even more confrontational, and on 1988 the bitter feud between Walter Mondale and Jesse Jackson prompted Mondale to state: ""I
don't care what Jesse
Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win."
Moreover, bloger Marc Ambinder, with high sources within the Obama camp, noted that, ""reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony."
Go read the article, and see for yourself how the media tried to manufacture dissent in the ranks of the Democratic Party.
Comments (6)
Not at all. She had the vote and delegates to do it. It's part of the rules. And as an Obama supporter I think it was a good thing to do.
August 28, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an immeasurable difference between putting her name into nomination to try to stage a coup, and putting her name into nomination to facilitate reconciliation and unity. There's no question whatsoever that it was about the latter, not the former. There are things I think Hillary and Bill should have done very very differently during the primary, but there is absolutely zero reason to second guess their intentions at the convention.
It's a done deal, nothing from the primaries needs to be brought up again, and Obama is going to be the sort of President we need to begin undoing the damaage of the past eight years.
August 28, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - It was Obama who insisted her name be put into nomination. And it was the right choice - I can see that now even more clearly!
The next time anyone wants to second guess, nitpick or think they know better, remember this convention.
He knows what he is doing.
His speech! Our change to make!
HRC and Bill did good! I greatly appreciate and acknowledge this, as well as look forward to them campaigning with Obama. That will be a show! Wow!
August 28, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since her concession speech, I have had few complaints about Hillary. I have had a few about Bill, and I have a lot about some of her crazy reporters. Hillary, however, has reminded me why I would have been happy if she won in the first place.
August 29, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bill and Hillary went a long way in redeeming themselves in my eyes...They did MORE than they were required to do. I have to admit I was one of those holding my breath hoping that they were not going to attempt a coup given the tightening poll numbers. After Bill's speech, I started breathing again, and unless they do something dumb in the future, I may be through feeling badly about them.
August 29, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
BIG CAPS TIME. WHAT BOEHLERT AND ANDREW ARE POINTING OUT IS THE DISHONESTY OF THE ARGUMENT - THAT HILLARY WAS DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, NOT PLAYING FAIR.
AND THE PRESS PLAYED STUPID INSTEAD OF LOOKING UP HISTORY. INSTEAD OF REPORTING. THEY STIRRED THE POT INSTEAD.
THE ARGUMENT WAS "HILLARY IS SCHEMING TO GET HER NAME IN THE CONVENTION". "HILLARY DIDN'T CONCEDE EARLY AND PROPERLY LIKE PREVIOUS CANDIDATES." AND SO ON.
HILLARY PLAYED IT NICER THAN MOST CANDIDATES. IT'S HISTORICAL FACT. YOU CAN LOOK IT UP. ERIC DID.
I AM ASHAMED OF THE DEMOCRATS FOR THIS VERY OBVIOUS FACT. AND IT WORRIES ME ABOUT WHAT OTHER REALITY-DENYING TWADDLE THEY WILL ACCEPT.
August 29, 2008 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment