Horseshoes and hand-grenades
For awhile it appeared to just about everyone, especially us cynics, that Hillary Clinton was going to continue her improbable quest for the Democratic nomination despite the fact that she had lost the primary race.
That's because it has appeared for a good while that, so far as the Clintons are concerned, lightning could strike, Barack could change his mind – who knows? She’s not a quitter.
But she surprised us on Saturday.
Hillary's speech announcing the suspension of her campaign and endorsing Obama was near perfect.
In the beginning, in her best campaign voice, she drew her audience up to the present moment, reminding them of the many high points of her campaign, victories they had shared, and thanking them.
There followed an acknowledgement of his victory coupled with a vigorous, almost passionate, endorsement of Obama; her remarks incorporated many of the familiar themes from his campaign, a device that served to strengthen her endorsement and very effectively show that she is on board, saying “this is our time,” even ending with “Yes, we can!” I briefly thought he might even have suggested the language when they met on Thursday, but we’ll never know.
Finally, in the last part of her speech she laid out in detail the good reasons for her supporters to follow her, to “make history together as we write the next chapter in America's story.” She exhorted them to work for Obama’s election, and opened the door for them to step through.
So, the Clintons’ up-to-the-end claim that delegates to the convention might find her entitled to the nomination because she had “won the popular vote” -- not a criterion for choosing the nominee, and incidentally not true – would be moot.
On the other hand – you knew this was coming, right? – there’s the matter of some disappointed Hillary folks, most recently Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who have taken up the “she won the popular vote” cudgel to support their hope that Obama will ask Hillary Clinton to be his vice president. Still other wishful thinkers believe that because the race was so close – “almost a tie,” they say – she has earned the right to be on the ticket.
Let me just say this about that.
“Close” only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades, as the old saying goes.
An election, at the end, is a zero-sum game: someone wins (because) someone else loses. Close elections are nothing new (think Florida, 2000), but the idea that coming in second should somehow entitle the loser to part of the prize is not the way it works.
But more important, rather than fume and ferment because one of the last two Democratic candidates did not win, we would do well to understand the blessing that brought this about: It happened because there were two very qualified candidates from whom to choose. As it happened, for almost half of them Clinton was a first choice, while a little more than half preferred Obama.
It is absolutely wrong to suggest, as some of the fiery Clinton people – and, alas, some of the pundits -- that because a voter PREFERRED one candidate over the other in the first cut, that voter doesn’t like the other at all.
Hillary showed in her endorsement speech that she can deliver an inspired argument for electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States. In fact, I believe she can be much MORE effective a surrogate in the general election if she is NOT on the ballot, with an obvious personal stake in the outcome and possibly bringing negatives to the ticket.
So, you folks out there – and you know who you are -- who are disappointed that Hillary didn’t win but when you get right down to it really don’t want more of the Bush policies, it’s time to take a deep breath, let go, and get on board the train with her. It’s going to be an exciting ride!
That's because it has appeared for a good while that, so far as the Clintons are concerned, lightning could strike, Barack could change his mind – who knows? She’s not a quitter.
But she surprised us on Saturday.
Hillary's speech announcing the suspension of her campaign and endorsing Obama was near perfect.
In the beginning, in her best campaign voice, she drew her audience up to the present moment, reminding them of the many high points of her campaign, victories they had shared, and thanking them.
There followed an acknowledgement of his victory coupled with a vigorous, almost passionate, endorsement of Obama; her remarks incorporated many of the familiar themes from his campaign, a device that served to strengthen her endorsement and very effectively show that she is on board, saying “this is our time,” even ending with “Yes, we can!” I briefly thought he might even have suggested the language when they met on Thursday, but we’ll never know.
Finally, in the last part of her speech she laid out in detail the good reasons for her supporters to follow her, to “make history together as we write the next chapter in America's story.” She exhorted them to work for Obama’s election, and opened the door for them to step through.
So, the Clintons’ up-to-the-end claim that delegates to the convention might find her entitled to the nomination because she had “won the popular vote” -- not a criterion for choosing the nominee, and incidentally not true – would be moot.
On the other hand – you knew this was coming, right? – there’s the matter of some disappointed Hillary folks, most recently Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, who have taken up the “she won the popular vote” cudgel to support their hope that Obama will ask Hillary Clinton to be his vice president. Still other wishful thinkers believe that because the race was so close – “almost a tie,” they say – she has earned the right to be on the ticket.
Let me just say this about that.
“Close” only counts in horseshoes and hand-grenades, as the old saying goes.
An election, at the end, is a zero-sum game: someone wins (because) someone else loses. Close elections are nothing new (think Florida, 2000), but the idea that coming in second should somehow entitle the loser to part of the prize is not the way it works.
But more important, rather than fume and ferment because one of the last two Democratic candidates did not win, we would do well to understand the blessing that brought this about: It happened because there were two very qualified candidates from whom to choose. As it happened, for almost half of them Clinton was a first choice, while a little more than half preferred Obama.
It is absolutely wrong to suggest, as some of the fiery Clinton people – and, alas, some of the pundits -- that because a voter PREFERRED one candidate over the other in the first cut, that voter doesn’t like the other at all.
Hillary showed in her endorsement speech that she can deliver an inspired argument for electing Barack Obama the next president of the United States. In fact, I believe she can be much MORE effective a surrogate in the general election if she is NOT on the ballot, with an obvious personal stake in the outcome and possibly bringing negatives to the ticket.
So, you folks out there – and you know who you are -- who are disappointed that Hillary didn’t win but when you get right down to it really don’t want more of the Bush policies, it’s time to take a deep breath, let go, and get on board the train with her. It’s going to be an exciting ride!
