This diary is about the irresponsible statements made by Hillary Clinton on this 23rd Day of May, 2008. I’m not going to link to the statements. BooMan has done a sufficient job laying it out. I simply want to comment on the seriousness of what she has said.
As a trial lawyer, one of the cardinal rules I have been taught about a jury presentation is that it is most effective to lead a jury right up to the point of making a decision. But to pause on the door step. To let them take the last stride themselves. People want to make their own decisions. It makes their positions more firm. They become committed to the idea, because it is their own. Given that Mrs. Hillary Clinton and I were both educated in American Law schools in the same quarter century, I am almost certain she has come across, and probably internalized this rule.
A while back I had made a big stink about the primaries dragging on, because of the damage being done to the Democratic Party by having two massive egos battling it out until August. But after doing some reading and looking at the last couple of big wins for Hillary Clinton, the latest apparently being in Kentucky, I’ve come to the conclusion that the former First Lady should stay in this race as long as she thinks she can get the nomination to run for president. A large part of this has to do with the corporate media having participated in the drive to push her out of this campaign, “for the ‘good’ of the party and the nation.”
The pressure being applied to Clinton to get out of the race is both unprecedented and unjustified, a solid case made by Eric Boehlert at Smirking Chimp.
Looking back at history, it’s hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan’s failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan’s reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.
And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy’s doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.
And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season’s primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him.
When Hart took his crusade all the way to the convention, the media did not form a posse and decide it was their job to get Hart to quit for the good of the party. (And the press certainly didn’t form a posse in March to start pushing Hart out of the race.) Nor did the press collectively suggest that Hart had an oversized ego that had turned him into a political monster.
That new media standard has been created exclusively for Hillary Clinton.
It’s very difficult to argue with this line of reasoning. Granted, there is a legitimate case to be made for pressuring Clinton to drop out; her threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran marks her as dangerously unstable, like John McCain. For that reason alone, she should have done the honorable thing and announced the end of her campaign. That she hasn’t is indicative of her inherent selfishness trumping any and all sense of decency.
But leaving that aside, and doing the delegate math, there are few if any legitimate reasons to expect her to leave the race when all indicators are that she may yet pull off a win at the Democratic National Convention in August. The ongoing bloodbath between Clinton and Barack Obama is still likely to result in a battered and financially broken nominee losing to Republican John McCain in November. But that was going to happen anyway, regardless of which Democrat ultimately gets the nod, because of the insistence by both candidates on running to the political right instead of embracing the progressive base.
The only reason left, therefore, is hatred of Clinton that goes beyond all reason. Not that she hasn’t brought a lot of that upon herself, mind you, but still, there’s no justification for it. (As Paul Krugman pointed out in a February New York Times column, Clinton Rules are certainly in full effect.) And there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it all. Whatever the source of this hatred, it is that more than anything else which drives the agenda to push her out before convention time.
Could it be genuine fear that she might actually manage to get the nomination? More than that, could it be absolute terror at the prospect that she could actually win against McCain in November with a large enough margin that the outcome wouldn’t be in doubt (thus preventing the GOP’s electoral fraud machine from claiming a “victory” that can be spun in the media as credible)? I don’t see why, seeing as how even if she becomes president there is no reason to expect she would do any better or worse than Obama — or, for that matter, McCain.
The answer is right in front of me. I’m just not able to see it.
Just moments ago, Obama fired back on Bush’s outrageous comparison to “Appeasement of Hitler” stating:
“I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain, if George Bush and John MCain want to have a debate about protecting America, that is a debate I am willing to have anytime and any place, and that is a debate that I will win, because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.”
Obama Fires Back on Bush & McCain
Obama set the record straight, saying that he has never stated he will negotiate with terrorists and pointed out McCain’s hypocrisy on this issue which McCain readily denied today:
The McCain campaign said Friday that his position had remained consistent: no dialogue with rogue or suspected terrorist nations or parties without pre-conditions.
“There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally — renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two-state solution,” McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
The Arizona senator has criticized Barack Obama for his stated willingness to speak with hostile nations like Iran, and repeatedly raised what he has described as Hamas’ approval of Obama’s candidacy.
In perhaps the first major act of unity of the General Election, Democratic leaders are standing up to Bush’s despicable comparison to “appeasement of Hitler” remarks.
This morning, John Edwards appearing on the Today Show, defended Obama on Bush’s comparison of “apppeasement of Hitler” stating, “It is beneath the President of the United States to make these kind of clearly political accusations when he is addressing the people of Israel on the 60th anniversary of Israel. It shouldn’t have been done, particularly in combination with what has been an absolutely disasterous foreign policy.”
Edwards also said he’s not interested in taking the Vice President position but will work with Obama’s team during the campaign and his administration stating, “right now we’ve got to focus on getting Barack Obama elected as the President of the United States.”
Rubin stated, “The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas.”
Biden weighed in by calling it “bullsh*t:”
Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran, then he needs to fire his secretaries of state and defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.
“This is bulls**t. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement,” he said.
“He’s the guy who’s weakened us. He’s the guy that’s increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has.”
Even Chris Matthews offered a reality check on Bush’s remarks pointing out that appeasement is not talking with leaders but giving up the farm.
As Obama stated today, Bush and McCain have a lot to answer for. The days of lies and fear mongering are quickly coming to an end.
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel’s independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power — including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy – to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President’s extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.”
“The reason I am here tonight,” Edwards declared, “is the voters have made their choice and so have I.”
snip
“When this nomination battle is over, and it will be over soon, brothers and sisters,” Edwards said, “we must come together as Democrats and in the fall stand up for what matters in America and make America what it needs to be.”
John Edwards, throughout this primary season, has first and foremost been a populist. Sometimes that means standing in front of folks, meeting their gaze with a clear-eyed vision of what needs to be done to help people in this country and abroad. Sometimes it means talking and leading.
And sometimes it means listening.
John Edwards has done a lot of listening these past few months, and that led him to where he was tonight, under the glare of white lights in front of news cameras, the subject of countless pundits making countless predictions and counter-predictions.
The bitter and recalcitrant Hillary Rodham-Clinton’s whopping 43 percent win in the West Virginia primary despite the category 5 spin doesn’t mean jack fucking shit. Consider that the mountaineer state’s demographics, the sort of folks that Clinton aide Mickey Kantor so eloquently refers to as “white niggers” make the longtime GOP red state base denizens of peckerwood nation down south of the Mason-Dixon Line look like a fucking master race by comparison. These hard-workin’ (when they are able to even find jobs that haven’t been offshored) white voters are as easily duped with allegations of secret Muslim conspiracies, anti-Americanism by a ‘darky’ who refuses to wear a flag pin or hold his hand over his heart during the ridiculous fucking Stalinist pledge of allegiance and actually gives a rat’s ass about economic conditions in such capitalist desecrated shit holes like West Virginia rather than engage in laying stink bait about guns, gays and God.
Assuming Barack Obama actually gets the nomination (we cannot rule out Clinton somehow nabbing it at the brokered convention), I think there are perhaps three politicians who could possibly add to his ticket going into the general election:
John Edwards – His populist talk and devotion to working class issues, combined with his skills as an attorney, make him an ideal vice presidential candidate. He managed to sell himself as one in 2004, and although he didn’t get enough footing to remain in contention for the nomination this year he still has a base of supporters who could help bridge the divide between Obama’s followers and Clinton’s. But this is unlikely, because Edwards is an economic populist, and corporate Democrat Obama blew it big time when he tried to finagle an endorsement only to end up angering Donna Edwards by attacking her husband’s health care plan.
Christopher Dodd – Dodd has the stones to go toe to toe with adversaries on the campaign trail, and he has shown leadership in the Senate by shaming Obama and Clinton into voting against one of the appropriations bills for the occupation of Iraq. I see no reason why he couldn’t make a strong ally on the campaign trail.
Bill Richardson – Although I don’t think he’ll add much to an Obama ticket going into November, his executive experience is desperately needed in the White House. He could be seen to help the senator make a case that he can bring in people who know the ins and outs of governing (as opposed to legislating).
Assuming Hillary Clinton manages somehow to get the nomination at convention, I see only two potential candidates who could possibly help her win in November:
Ted Strickland – Although he has only been governor of Ohio for roughly a year and a half, he has shown he can get things done. He has also demonstrated an ability to get the GOP in the Buckeye State’s legislature to play ball on things like the budget.
John Edwards – This is a somewhat unlikely pick considering the former senator from North Carolina is an economic populist and Clinton is an economic conservative whose support of NAFTA is likely to continue should she win the White House. But the two of them are closer on important issue such as health care than either of them are to Obama, and while Edwards did go after her on the campaign trail he didn’t make it personal like the Illinois senator has.
Regardless of which Prima Donna ultimately gets the Democratic nomination, the only way to add to the ticket is to pick a populist vice presidential candidate, or one with executive experience.
As so often happens these days, the Saturday evening post-movie (Iron Man) conversation turned to politics. The consensus is Hillary is through in the campaign. The lack whether she should be Obama’s running mate. Some say unity is the thing now. And the need for Obama to appeal to Joe and Jose Six-Pack.
My take? No way it’s Hillary. First, too much animosity between the two and too big a political figure to be a V-P. In fact, I think Obama, as is his wont, while being conciliatory, will also take the position that the Clintons represent the old way of doing things.
Second, is Hillary the one to appeal to Six-Pack? While she does better with this group than Obama, she isn’t exactly loved by them either. Indeed, if you could choose two candidates that are least loved by Six-Pack, I can’t imagine two lesser than these.
So, who will it be? Webb of Virginia? Fairly conservative, but could help get Reagan democrat southerners. Don’t think so. Too conservative and won’t likely pull enough southern man voters to put Obama over the top there.
My bet: Richardson of NM. I think Obama can’t win the south and will instead focus on the west. And the west means hispanic voters. Richardson appeals to western whites, but more importantly gets Obama the hispanic vote.
The construct is not mine; you can thank Charles Dodgson for that.
Not that Hillary’s campaign bothered to thank him – my guess is they adopted the Mock Turtle’s curriculum strategy all by their brilliant selves. I mean, it does seem like it was tailor-made for the campaign they ran, doesn’t it?
`I couldn’t afford to learn it.’ said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. `I only took the regular course.’
`What was that?’ inquired Alice.
`Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,’ the Mock Turtle replied; `and then the different branches of Arithmetic — Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.’
`I never heard of “Uglification,” Alice ventured to say. `What is it?’
The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. `What! Never heard of uglifying!’ it exclaimed. `You know what to beautify is, I suppose?’
`Yes,’ said Alice doubtfully: `it means – to – make – anything – prettier.’
`Well, then,’ the Gryphon went on, `if you don’t know what to uglify is, you ARE a simpleton.’
Onward to West Virginia! After duping fewer of the “white niggers” in the Hoosier state into believing that she is some sort of brawling, beer drinking, elbow wrestling, blue collar ‘one of them’ the bitter and recalcitrant monster that is Hillary Rodham-Clinton moves the goalposts one more time. The non-elitist who just happens to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of at least $ 109 million dug around in the sofa cushions in order to lend her never ending crusade another $ 6 million and change in order to remain solvent while the operatives work their chicanery and try to strong arm, sweet talk, cajole and bribe those superdelegates into getting with the fucking program and throwing in the Clinton restoration – when will those fuckers get it that Tracy Flick 2008 is entitled to the presidency goddammit?
Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain have challenged Senator Barack Obama over his refusal to support their proposal that would suspend the .18 Federal gas tax for three months this summer. ~snip~ The lone ‘expert’ in support of Senators Clinton and McCain in this scenario so far? Spokesman for the Clinton campaign and SHELL OIL LOBBYIST, Steve Elmendorf.
What if Democratic voters and the uncommitted super-delegates come to learn that Rush Limbaugh had a greater impact on Hillary Clinton’s victory in Pennsylvania, and maybe Texas and Ohio, than say, the Reverend Wright, and the so-called ‘bitter’ comments?
The Friends of the Earth Action, the PAC political arm of The Friends of the Earth environmental organization, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President, citing Senator Obama’s stand for “real energy solutions instead of sham Clinton-McCain ‘gas tax holiday'” as the key reason for endorsement.
