My Photo

« Department Of Hmmmm... | Main | If We Don't Kill Them All, They Might Commit Suicide »

May 23, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e200e55278753b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Clinton Campaign Threatens "Open Civil War":

Comments

Great post, Hil. I just posted the same video, and didn't have time to write much to go with it, hope you don't mind if I go back and add an attributed blockquote...

Monty,

I'll take Door No. 3 -- Clinton and Obama should get together in a room, on a plane, on a boat, whatever, and talk.

Just the two of them.

No Bill. No Michele. No advisors. No media, natch.

And talk.

Together.

Soon.

Clinton is a little smarter than you give her credit for, although right now she does seem to have tunnel vision in regard to Florida and Michigan, and has been more than a little tempermental.

But I'll put my money on Obama the Diplomat talking to her, reasoning with her, and ultimately uniting the party. She will come on board -- unless she is the devil you paint her to be.

"Instead, she's throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war."

You have to be on your second wife to fully understand what is going on. It is natural.

Now, now, Bill:)

:)

Clinton is a little smarter than you give her credit for

as evidenced by... ?

She just get woprse and wporse. The problem is that some of her supporters--and one or two percent inthe right states is all it will take--feel so entitled that they very likely will act on her message and sabotage Obama.

I am very disappointed in Deomcratic women of my age group. I had no idea that sef-pity and self0indulgence was so comon in my democgraphic.

Al Giordano reported yesterday that Obama turned down Clinton for the VP slot.

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.

Best comment I read anywhere yesterday, by "whiskeybaby," in a thread on Wonkette:

***

Dear Hillary,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it's really time now for you to stop talking -- mid-sentence if needs be -- and just go away. You are not only embarrassing to yourself, your family, your party, your gender, your country and possibly the entire world, you're embarrassing to ameobic life forms that haven't even been formed yet.

Best of luck with future projects though.

Yours sincerely,

The United States of America

***

This was with regard to the Zimbabwe comparisons. I don't do snark well myself, but appreciate it, and this post cheered me up right into this morning.

Just my opinion, Cleek, if you don't mind, and I'm not going to spend another full day trying to justify it. (Thanks Keir.)

Although I would say, to be where she is -- in the United States Senate -- and having made (still making) a legitimate run for President -- means she has to at least be a little smart indeed.

Just watch, Keir, the rants will come raining down.

Oh, and thank heavens for Al Giordano - right up there with you, Hil, on my "sane people" list.

(Happy you-know-what day!)

Clinton is smart about learning the setail fo policy when she wants to (she failed to tdo this on the Iraq authoriztion). She is smart in the sense of academic lerning. She is not smart in the sense of being a political player. If it wasn't for identity polictics and the willingness of her core supporters to drinking vast amounts of KoolAid she would have self destruted in New Hampshire or shortly after California.

Help!

I need more KoolAid.

Great post hilzoy. Yesterday I wrote on another blog about the tantrum throwing and someone accused me of being sexist.

People of either gender can throw tantrums, just look at Bush and Cheney. There is nothing sexists about it.

Yesterday I heard Paul Begala say that it is the responsibility of the winner to unite the party, totally dismissing how Clinton has actively worked to disunite the party. Not that Clinton has to smooth all the edges herself, but she does need to reiterate something she said last week about how her supporters would have to be crazy to vote for McCain over Obama and she needs to reach out to her supporters to tell them to really listen to Obama.

Regarding feminism and how Clinton has actually hurt the cause rather than helped it.

Like most issues involving some measure of equality, it is about having an opportunity, not having something, specially the Presidency, handed to you just because you are a woman. Yes there has been sexism, almost as much as there has been racism. And it is that sexism that would hurt Clinton as much in the fall as will racism hurt Obama.

Regarding the VP position. I honestly believe that it would not satisfy a lot of Clinton supporters and would really disillusion a lot of Obama supporters and is probably the most possible way for Obama to lose.

Preferably cherry-flavored

Or Berry Burst -- that's how I take my Metamucil every morning. Not as bad as one would think.

I do not believe any of these stories that Clinton is "pushing for some sort of graceful exit strategy." If she had any intention of making a graceful exit, she's had plenty of opportunies to do so.

I think she's planning on using the Michigan and Florida appeals process as a way of taking this fight to the convention floor.

In other words, I agree with Rachel Maddow.

Somewhere, I've read that HRC's unhinged public statements yesterday, came upon information that the 2d spot would NOT be offered to her.

If that is the case, and if she plunges further along this path, tempting the Democrats to incite a credentials issue at the convention on FL and MI....then it may well be her own strongest and closest supporters (Democrats still) who might bring the production to a close.

And if that happens, HRC's constituents at large might be more powerfully motivated to gravitate into Obama's orbit.

(Please God.)

John,

I am a 46-year-old male and feel like throwing a tantrum right now.

A little tantrum every now and then may be good for the soul.

I understand and share the concerns, anger and frustration re: the Clintons (and here I think Bill may be a big part of the problem) and especially the HRC campaign's most recent behavior, as expressed by many Obama supporters on this blog, but IMHO please don't pile on now. Obama has won. Now is the time to be gracious, not to be snarky.

Later, we can celebrate the historic nature of this win (Convention time , and the anniversary of the March on Washington will be especially sweet). It would be nice if Hillary wasn't bigfooting our victory lap, but there are larger and more important things to focus on, like winning in November.

I made a comment on another thread that McCain's prospective loss in the General will not be the stuff of tragedy. McCain is not a tragic figure, because he's really not very sympathetic, no matter how you slice it. Despite the Legend, he's merely a CYA-type, and has always been. Hillary Clinton's situation, however, does qualify as tragic. Yes, she really is smart, and hardworking, and sympathetic, at least from a distance. To see her melt down in public like this, to see what is evidently a serious character flaw blossom so throughly really is tragic. I'm repelled by her behaviour, but also really pity her. McCain is merely grasping and selfish. HRC actually is a kind of monster, which is the proper name for tragic figures.

Does this mean Samantha Power gets a "told ya so" moment?

Porcupine,

Good post.

As a Clinton supporter, I wonder why somebody like Joe Biden (hasn't endorsed Obama or her/very respected, etc.) -- not Pelosi, Gore or Dean, all more polarizing -- hasn't gotten together with the good senator for a heart-to-heart.

Yes, it's time.

I wonder what's keeping him -- or, say, Sen. Bayh; he comes to mind as I wrtie this (or the both of them) -- from having that heart-to-heart with her.

It's time.

It's also time for Obama to start doing the VP dance -- not with Hillary, the two of them on the same ticket would never work; plus she is more influencial as a senator than veep and she knows it -- and have his people float names like Webb or Biden or Bayh.

Names that would make Clinton supporters like me enthusiastically embrace the Obama campaign, maybe even donate a little money.

P.S.

Good to see you back, Left Turn.

Butter,

Wondered how long it would take before someone called Hillary a monster.

Let's try new some new nouns and adjectives, please.

Monster is getting old.

bedtimeforbonzo,

Thanks - I've been maxed out busy with little time left over for blog lurking, much less for posting comments, but that is a good problem to have I guess.

I seem to remember you mentioning on an older thread that you are a tea drinker with a preference for black teas over green. I starting drinking whole leaf teas some years back and have been having a fun time ever since exploring the amazing variety of different types to be sampled and enjoyed.

I'm curious, do you drink oolongs? If you don't, you might enjoy giving them a try, especially the more oxidized varieties which are more like black teas. Wuyi Shuixian for example (but not the Fenghuang Dancong variety), would make a good first choice since it is relatively inexpensive and easy to find, and easier to brew than some of the more expensive oolongs which can be trickier to brew correctly.

I'm with DJA that she's going to the convention no matter what, although I hope that someone in the party can convince her to turn back. Understand that I think she should damn well keep competing in the final primaries, and I'm not asking her to drop out.

If the RBC does anything but sit FL and MI as is — including 0 votes and delegates for Obama — she will appeal, and even if she loses, she will continue to the convention.

If the RBC gives her what she wants re Fl and MI, and if the SDs come out en masse for Obama, giving him the delegate lead, she will still continue to the convention floor because she will argue that she has the lead in the popular vote.

It’s a pretty good chess game. It’s incredibly selfish, narcissistic and self-serving, but looked at purely tactically, it could give her the nomination, even though the combination of the delay, her own negatives as reflected in polling (which will probably worsen during the fight) and the anger of a subset of Obama supporters will mean that she will almost certainly lose the election.

If Obama gets the nomination instead, he is also much more likely to lose the election because of the delay and the loss of a subset of her supporters.

If she had fought for those caucus states in February, she would have acquired a real lead in delegates and would have earned the nomination fair and square. Instead, she’s acting in such a way that either a chunk of her own supporters, or a chunk of Obama supporters, won’t support the other in the fall.

I used 'monster' for a reason, bonzo. A self-serving asshole (like McCain) is merely an asshole. Nothing really special or notable about them. A monster is at once totally recognizable for the species they are (human, in this case) but deformed, outsized. She's a monster. The literary idea of the monster was invented as a metaphor for grotesque character flaws, like hubris. See Frankenstein's Monster, Jeckle and Hyde, etc.

Obama publicly offers the VP slot to her and she declines

They do a kabuki dance that everyone knows is a fake and this, in their mind, is a graceful way out? Even for politics, this is unusually dumb.

She wants a graceful way out? How about, she makes a nice, graceful speech talking about how both campaigns were historic and now we're going to win the White House, and Obama gives her a nice, graceful eulogy, and then she gracefully gets off the stage? If she wants it even more graceful, she can do the speech en pointe.

Sheesh.

ThatLeftTurnInABQ,

Last night, you wrote a very insightful comment at Balloon Juice regarding lessons Clinton learned from the Mondale fight. I think it would be well appreciated here.

Left Turn,

Have done the oolongs, a good afternoon tea. Twinings does a good one.

Best iced tea I ever had was in Berkley, California, a long, long time ago. The street vendor said it was a mix heavy on the oolong.

Funny how that's one of the things I remember most (among others) from a 10-day visit to Berkley, which is a very, very neat place.

How about, she makes a nice, graceful speech talking about how both campaigns were historic and now we're going to win the White House, and Obama gives her a nice, graceful eulogy, and then she gracefully gets off the stage?

all the while hammering the point that the election of any Democrat to the White House this year is a much bigger deal than the election of the person named "Hillary Clinton" (or even "Barack Obama").

Funny how that's one of the things I remember most (among others) from a 10-day visit to Berkley, which is a very, very neat place.

i visited Boston a couple of years ago, and one of the things i remember most was a cup of Golden Monkey tea i had in a little shop on Harvard Square.

i remembered that one cup of tea so vividly (and mentioned it often enough) that my wife bought me a big sack of that tea. and now i drink it almost exclusively.

mm. tea.

Why do you hate women, Hilzoy?

(Seriously, thanks for the post. I've been doing my best to consider Hillary a tough fighter rather than a maniac, but it's not working any more. I'm glad to know it's not just me.)

Butter,

I would never even consider voting for McCain -- then again, I've never voted for a single Republican in a single race for anything (except Register of Wills -- knew the candidate personally) in three decades of voting.

And I shudder to think what a McCain presidency would be like.

Economically, I work 50-plus hours a week (made $74,000 last year) and my wife is a hairdresser who works three days a week, 20-plus hours (made $11,000 -- plus tips -- last year). And we are struggling economically.

Paycheck to paycheck.

I laughed about the Bush economic stimulus plan when I first heard about it (looking at it as some kind of 'hush' money or something). But I'll tell you what -- when I got that check last week, I felt a certain sense of relief, and having already set aside June's $1,400 mortgage, put Mr. Bush's "gift" aside to take care of July.

We aren't taking our annual 4-day weekend vacation to the Jersey Shore this summer and live fairly modestly. Our credit-card debt gives me nightmares.

The Clinton Economy was pretty damn good and I hope things will begin to turn around when Obama takes office, although it will not be an easy task.

Every Democratic survey I get, I cirle "the economy" as my No. 1 issue. If that makes me a plain and simple guy, then so be it.

But my No. 1 concern is my family -- my wife and our 9-year-old son (who I bought an Obama bumper sticker, per his request, for the scooter thing 9-year-olds bop around it these days).

And as a father of a 9-year-old, I shudder at even the prospect of a McCain presidency. He is a smart, loving kid with a big heart and an engineer's mind.

I want an end to war.

A better economy.

A better environment.

If not for my 45-year-old ass, then for Danny.

All that said, and sorry for being verbose, I do not think it serves Democrats well to call McCain an asshole. That kind of language will only fuel the fire for Republicans who seem to rally around each other well enough as it is.

the second is that Obama publicly offers the VP slot to her and she declines

This is a perilous game to play, for everyone involved.

I recall reading that there was a very painful and complex exchange between JFK, RFK and LBJ before the 1960 convention in which LBJ was invited to be JFK's VP nominee with the expectation that he would decline the offer. Instead he accepted the offer, causing consternation and panic in the Kennedy camp. RFK was sent as a political fixer over to Johnson’s hotel suite to tell him that he had to drop out, but LBJ stood his ground and refused to drop out. A phone call with JFK then took place in which JFK denied that they were trying to throw LBJ under the bus (contradicting the instructions RFK had been sent over with), and the net result was that LBJ was kept on the ticket.

Needless to say, this did not result in good personal or political relationships between LBJ and either of the Kennedy brothers (to put it mildly), a fact which was greatly magnified in importance when LBJ succeeded JFK as President.

Much as the conservatives and the GOP need to think long and hard about how they ended up where they are now, with a 40+ year effort at building a Republican "brand" completely in tatters, liberals and Democrats are going to need to think long and hard about how they ended up in their present state - crossing their fingers and hoping that a not terribly charismatic candidate with very high negative poll ratings, few outstanding accomplishments of her own and who is directly responsible for one of the greatest domestic policy debacles in U.S. political history, won't spark a civil war within the party.

Mike

Ahh, yes. The Clinton campaign of 2008, making Democrats everywhere yearn for the honesty, integrity, and decency of... Mitt Romney.

Great post Hilzoy. I want to find her at a rally and yell "Damnit Hillary, stop ruining my chances to be president!!!" (y'know, cause I'm a girl).

But I think I already inhaled too much for there to be much chance at all. Alas.

Still, maybe if all us lady folk ask nicely? We wanted her to win, but now she's just making us look silly.

ThatLeftTurnInABQ,

Last night, you wrote a very insightful comment at Balloon Juice regarding lessons Clinton learned from the Mondale fight. I think it would be well appreciated here.

I can’t pull BJ up right now (WordPress is being balky again), so from memory:

Many of the commentators at BJ were stating that in their opinion Hillary would have no chance at getting the nomination in 2012 if Obama falls short this year and she is perceived as having contributed to that loss. I pointed out that:

- Bill Clinton's political baptism by fire during his formative years as a young adult was as a leader of the 1972 McGovern campaign in Texas, and the 1972 contest was in some way similar to today (i.e. an unpopular war as a major issue) while being even stranger and more memorable than this year’s version, IMHO the memories of that campaign have to be very strong with both Clintons, essentially burned into their political DNA.

- The Democratic nomination in 1972 was clinched as a result of machinations at the convention regarding the rules for seating bitterly disputed delegate slates for CA and IL, in which both sides were incredibly devious and hypocritical in their arguments resulting in power politics at a very raw level.

- The Stop-McGovern movement was lead by among other people, Jimmy Carter (who went on the win the nomination and the general election in 1976).

- The 1972 general election campaign was won by Nixon in a landslide in part based on appeals to white backlash against liberals and cultural elites.

I pointed out that someone who views the 2008 campaign primarily thru the lens of lessons learned from the 1972 and 1976 campaigns might have good reason to conclude that (a) Hillary can still run and win in 2012 even if Obama tanks this year (c.f. Jimmy Carter in 1976), and (b) that Hillary’s recent turn to Appalachian voters may be a winning strategy if pursued with patience and determination (c.f. Richard Nixon’s career), and that (c) the Clintons have the right biographical background to be people who might use this interpretation of events.

perhaps someone with better Google-fu can help out here ... I'm wondering how many superdels are in the "Pelosi gang" who have pledged to support whoever wins more elected delegates. And why haven't they come forward for Obama now that he's passed that threshhold? Are they waiting until the state contests are over? (I recently saw an interview with one of this group, the Majority Leader's daughter, I think. I don't recall if she said anything about timing.)

Farmgirl, I assume they want to have the number of pledged delegates determined first. Obama has the majority of the pledged delegates currently, with Michigan and Florida excluded. But there's a good chance the number will increase on May 31 with some sort of accommodation for those two states. See DemConWatch's page for some discussion and numbers.

I too have been frustrated by the notion that it's Obama's job to help Hillary feel better about losing by offering her the VP slot or SCOTUS or a pony or whatever she demands. She ran a campaign inferior to his, and she lost. That's it. It's not a nefarious conspiracy against her and the hopes and dreams of every woman who has ever existed or will ever exist. McCain didn't get the VP nod in 2000. His supporters didn't abandon ship. (Incidentally, I think what we learned from 2000 is that, if the person you put in charge of your Veep selection committee keeps clearing his throat and pointing to himself, shoot him.)

I seriously don't understand why she thinks she is such a special snowflake that must be handled gingerly lest legions of women everywhere decide to vote against their own interests (i.e., for McCain) or stay home. If she is truly interested in anything other than herself, now is the time to recognize reality and move on while she still has some shred of dignity left. Though after the Zimbabwe comments and the FL/MI shenanigans, designed to delegitimize the presumptive nominee of her own party in a crucial turning-point year by flouting rules that she signed on for, I fear the Dignity Train has left the HRC terminal forever.

It's the dichotomy in Senator Clinton that has puzzled me from the beginning: Is she a tough fighter? Or a hapless vulnerable victim? She puts on a show of toughness for the world, apparently, but when things go wrong, it's never her fault -- other people did it TO her, the passive victim of unfair circumstances. The war vote wasn't her fault, because George Bush fed her bad intelligence on Iraq - she didn't bother reading the full intelligence, of course. It's not her fault she failed to come up with post-Super Tuesday campaign plans -- Penn, Ickes, Wolfson, and her other Men-in-Charge told her that it would be wrapped up on February 5. How was she to know any differently? (She only has 35 years of experience and is Ready From Day One!)

For someone who is supposed to be this great symbol of the strides women have made on their own, I find her disquietingly devoid of a sense of her own agency, and this endgame maneuvering that puts all the responsibility on Obama's camp just heightens that perception. I don't think this campaign has been unduly unfair on her because she's a woman. Dianne Feinstein is tough as nails, and though I disagree with her frequently, I respect her as a grown-up, and I think media coverage of her tends to respect that as well.

I do not think it serves Democrats well to call McCain an asshole.

I was just deliniating types, bonzo. Of course i wouldn't vote for McCain (or any other Republican) under any concievable circumstances. I also never have done (except, like you, for an occasional local race). I was just saying that McCain, as a type, is more run-of-the-mill. He is an asshole, but I agree that it wouldn't serve Democrats well to call him one in any official sense. I'm not official.

For what it's worth, TPM is now reporting that the Clinton and Obama campaigns are both denying the CNN report.

If Obama is such appealable, smart, sunshine, why is he not openly discounting Hillary. I think, he wants to be a president riding on Hillary's horse.
I believe Obama is being led by opportunists looking to find their own niche. No for Obama.

AB --

You make some OK points.

But I don't think you will find any takers on this site.

TG

That is the least coherent comment I've read in a couple of days, AB. The poor English is pardonable if it's not your first language, but I don't even understand what you're trying to say.

"Although I would say, to be where she is -- in the United States Senate -- and having made (still making) a legitimate run for President -- means she has to at least be a little smart indeed."

Non-sequitur: "Clinton is a little smarter than you give her credit for" is a mindreading claim: you can't know how much credit someone gives her; at best, you can guess.

Nobody remotely claimed she wasn't "a little bit smart," though, and I doubt anyone would, so your response has nothing to do with anything.

"A little tantrum every now and then may be good for the soul."

Could be, but it's perhaps best done privately unless you wish to be considered an embarassment by witnesses.

And if Clinton is serious about running again in 2016, she might want to start thinking about expanding her base of support beyond the obvious minority base that it presently is. Grace would be a start; tantrums, not so much of a help.

"Understand that I think she should damn well keep competing in the final primaries, and I'm not asking her to drop out."

Do you also believe John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, etc., shouldn't have dropped out? If so, why not? Why should Clinton operate in a completely unprecedented fashion, making choices never made before by a candidate running for the Democratic nomination, and in a way highly destructive to the Democratic Party, and this would be a good thing?

Why?

"AB --

You make some OK points."

What are those points? There doesn't seem to be any content there; just opinion. Who cares what anyone's unsupported opinion is? I have an opinion: will my just telling it to you, without my giving any, you know, reasoning or facts or supporting evidence be persuasive to you?

Do you understand what a logical argument is, and that pure opinion isn't a substitute for it? If you want to persuade people, make a logical argument, support it with cites, and then you'll stand a chance.

Otherwise it's a waste of everyone's time to post only vaporous non-substance, or to claim that someone else's non-substance is an "OK point."

Just wondering . . .

Was I the only reader/writer here who felt an actual sense of relief upon receipt of my $1500 "stimulus" check?

Am I supposed to feel ashamed for feeling that way?

Am I the only working-class stiff -- who votes Democratic -- who felt that way?

Let's try new some new nouns and adjectives, please.

Monster is getting old.

I'm sorry, but your view is "Just my opinion, Cleek, if you don't mind, and I'm not going to spend another full day trying to justify it," so you can't ask for that.

Pick one view, or the other. You can't have both. Either people need to support their opinion, or pure opinion isn't criticizable: pick one, and try showing some logical consistency, please. It'll work wonders in giving people some reason to think you understand logic.

"Am I supposed to feel ashamed for feeling that way?"

No.

"Am I the only working-class stiff -- who votes Democratic -- who felt that way?"

Statistically impossible, as should be perfectly obvious.

Not to mention that most people like money: not a secret.

As a female professional, I am embarrassed for Hillary Clinton. Lots of powerful people need to have their egos stroked, but this kind of public display of neediness is, to put it mildly, disturbing and repellant. It's like some Hollywood celebrity trying to conduct a reconciliation through highly public intermediaries. It's not a good precedent for women, in general, that when they enter the race it becomes an extended exercise in trying to deal with a fragile ego rather than just moving forward like everyone has been doing now within my living memory.

Was I the only reader/writer here who felt an actual sense of relief upon receipt of my $1500 "stimulus" check?

Am I supposed to feel ashamed for feeling that way?

Am I the only working-class stiff -- who votes Democratic -- who felt that way?

I'm curious, BTFB: why would you think to ask those questions?

Gary,

You're right -- AB listed an opinion, not a "point."

One opinion she listed: "I believe Obama is being led by opportunists looking to find their own niche."

I am OK with his/her opinion -- or anyone else's -- whether I agree with it or not. And every time anyone gvies an opinion/thought/feeling here, I do not need a link or a bucketful of proof.

When this becomes a court of law, let me know.

Until then, you can go ahead and remain King Debater.

That's fine with me, and from what I've read on other posts -- one just today or yesterday that escapes me -- I see that I am not alone.

Great post Hilzoy. As a woman, I am totally embarrassed by her behaviour, even more embarrassed that she is a Democrat. If the superdels that haven't given their endorsement would step up to the plate, this thing would be over. There are some very prominent people who could shut this noise machine down and it would quiet down after a couple of news cycles. If everyone around them sees that the math doesn't add up, she's moving the goalposts, she's bordering on delusional, and is taking the Party with her, why can't they?

Anarch,

This is a web community or some such thing, right?

Haven't heard any mention of the Stimulus Check issue now that people have actually received them/deposited them/cashed them/whatever.

I know mine came at a time when I felt like I needed it -- even though I laughed at Bush's stimulus plan when he made it.

I was wondering how others reacted or felt.

Did anyone else have those kind of mixed emotions?

What's wrong asking those questions, if I might ask?

If Obsidian Wings is too high-minded to ask such gut-level questions, then please let me know. You or Hilzoy or whoever. Thanks.

By the way, Anarch, politics is personal.

And if you can't talk about it on a personal level, well, what the hell. I need some tea.

Or a drink.

Or a nap.

btfb,

Personally, I like free money. I can use it, I'm glad to have it. No ambivalence. Gimme.

Totally different thing from whether I think it's good economic policy.

As a female professional, I am embarrassed for Hillary Clinton. Lots of powerful people need to have their egos stroked, but this kind of public display of neediness is, to put it mildly, disturbing and repellant. It's like some Hollywood celebrity trying to conduct a reconciliation through highly public intermediaries. It's not a good precedent for women, in general, that when they enter the race it becomes an extended exercise in trying to deal with a fragile ego rather than just moving forward like everyone has been doing now within my living memory.

Barbara,

Personally I see no reason to generalize from Hillary's campaign to the larger class of "female presidential candidates". The much smaller class of "boomer age Clintons - either gender" seems more applicable, IMHO.

I've been offended and appalled by Bill as much as Hillary during this contest, and I suspect that he is a driving force behind much of the continuing bile. I'm guessing that Obama's comments prior to the Nevada caucus regarding presidential legacies enraged Bill as an attack on his legacy, and it has been unconditional hostility ever since.

Also, I'll wildly speculate that if Obama wins and becomes the new heavyweight in the Democratic party, that will be a bigger blow to Bill's oversized male ego than to Hillary. How much worse would it be if Obama not only is elected in 2008 but is re-elected in 2012 and succeeds in delivering some of the political transformations which he has campaigned on, and which bear a striking similarity to things Bill campaigned on in 1992. It would make Obama the man who won the battles that Bill couldn't win. I don't think Bill Clinton can stand the idea of that, and I suspect that he wants to damage Obama's legacy out of spite - so recent tactics may be aimed not at denying Obama the nomination, or even causing him to be defeated in November, but rather to prevent him from winning a sweeping victory which could be used to usher in transformational change in our political culture. I think that Bill wants to make sure that if Obama wins he will be remembered less as the Democratic Ronald Reagan, and more like Jimmy Carter.

Wild speculation, and psychoanalysis from a distance - so take it with several large salt mines.

LeftTurn - actually I didn't think about the Bill angle and yet, I should have. It would be a huge smack in the ego for Bill. While I've been saying this is going to wreck their legacy, perhaps this is their way of saving it - i.e., Bill being the "first black president", etc. Just my meanderings.

Look, Clinton's candidacy was always a problematic test case for first female president because WJC came along with the package. Why should it matter whether the signals from the Clinton camp are attributable to her or him? Isn't she the candidate? Unless we are holding women to a different standard, she has to be accountable for what happens even if it's his ego, his idea and his need for redemption of his legacy (my working hypothesis for quite some time now) that is actually driving the strategy. I'm the feminist here -- I'm judging her on her own terms without that little or not so little asterisk to her name that is called Bill Clinton.

I didn't think about the Bill angle

If you follow the link that The Grand Panjandrum posted at 11:32 AM to Al Giordano's story about the VP slot non-offer, at the top of the page is a cartoon that explains in images the psychological dynamics at work here (I suspect) far better than I can with words.

Frankly, I do not care how long she runs -- what is far more important is how she runs, and her current tactics are deplorable (and have been for a while). Since the only remaining source of delegates that can do Hillary any good are uncommitted superdelegates, what is the possible thinking that such tactics will persuade them to vote for Hillary?

Do as I say or the bunny gets it?

What Hillary does after the May 31 hearings and the final primaries on June 3 will indicate whether the Maddow theory is in fact correct. At that point in time, the pressure on the uncommitted superdelegates will also reach a fever pitch.

I think Maddow is only half right -- that Hillary is clearly threatening what Maddow thinks she will do, but I think Hillary is calculating enough to gauge every day whether actually doing it is in her self-interest, and reconsider. She is trying to see what profit she can generate from the uncertainty that she is creating. The strategy seems highly dubious, but it is not irrational (yet).

If Hillary continues to float bogus arguments after the May 31 decision and obstructs any resolution of MI/FL that is not 100% favorable to her and assures her the nomination, then the Maddow theory really kicks in.

I do not know what she will ultimately do, and I do not know to what extent she will delude herself into pursuing every destructive avenue open to her because it keeps alive the illusion of a possibility of winning. I am greatly concerned that she has plunked so much of her own money into this thing, which has a way of making her even more desperate.

Just because we are teetering on the edge does not mean we are going over or that she intends to push us over, but Hilzoy is exactly right -- she no longer merits respect.

Thank you for sharing, Trilobite.

My thoughts exactly.

Anarch?

thatleftturnABQ:

Interesting. And I totally agree that HRC's situation not only should not, but probably will not, reflect so much on other women who run for president, unless they're HRC again or someone like Ferraro. The generational divide, while hardly a clean cut, has been really striking. And HRC appeals more to both older women and men...hmmm

As per Hilzoy's post: the ugly secret (or 'secret') of this campaign is that race is a much bigger factor than is gender. Much bigger. You expect the RNC, et. al. to make it an issue, but HRC has actually been doing their work for them. I don't know how many times I've heard variations on 'I'm not a racist, but...' - they also include, 'I admit that I have a race problem, because of where I was raised, but...'. When HRC said 'hardworking Americans, white Americans', I don't think there's any doubt about who she was talking to: the older, and older 'whte ethnic' vote. (That alone would've made me competely give up on her. Maybe she and Bill really sustained some psychological damage in the 90s. I could certainly understand it. Bill ranting about Obama 'playing the race card' is just weird and flailing.)

Race is the big tribal/identity issue in this campaign, not gender. Everybody is biologically either a man or a woman, so everyone has to aquaint themselves- whether with real honesty or with rationalizations - to their attitudes about sex, just to function in everyday life. But race is something else.

Welcome back Jonny.

I was wondering if you had slipped into nethers unknown.

I was wondering if you had slipped into nethers unknown.

no, s, I'm still around. It just seems that, since the early days of blogging, both bloggers and commenters have gotten so much more numerous and thorough! Someone almost always makes the point I want to make, and often better than I would have, so why bother?! I usually lurk these days. We're lurkers, allmaya!

If Obsidian Wings is too high-minded to ask such gut-level questions, then please let me know.

Your questions were fine. They had nothing whatsoever to do with anything that preceded them. Hence, I presume, Anarch's very simple and straightforward question.

Jeez, Louise.

I'll be so glad when this stupid Obama/Clinton stuff is over. If it ever is.

Somewhere in hell, Richard "Silent Majority" Nixon is laughing his ass off.

Thanks -

Hillary just brought up the assassination of Robert Kennedy as a reason for her to stay in the race. I guess, you know, in case someone decides to shoot Obama. The only thing missing was the hint! hint!

She almost makes me a ashamed to be a woman. I find myself wanting to remind people that Hillary doesn't speak for women. That future female presidential candidates won't be that dishonest and shameless. She is like the Manchurian feminist.

"It just seems that, since the early days of blogging, both bloggers and commenters have gotten so much more numerous and thorough!"

Personally, I think we should have started requiring a test before issuing a required license to everyone who started blogging after January, 2002, to keep the competition down, and make for better rent-seeking.

Sorry, Russell, sometimes in this space, one may take a Left Turn in ABQ or a Left Turn Somewhere -- most definitely Not a Right Turn.

Sometimes, one thought leads to another -- politics is personal; and if we're talking politics, economics may be a personal, and worthwile, turn to take.

I definitely took a turn somewhere in that paragraph -- get out the Mapquest and cross your fingers; they're directions stink.

Why talk Clinton or Obama or McCain or Nixon without mentioning how it affects our actual lives, our jobs, our children, our well-being?

Manchurian feminist........


Manchurian feminist.....

jonnybutter,

It seems to me that age may be as big if not a bigger factor than race in the Obama vs. Clinton contest. The states where Obama "has problems with white voters" have for the most part been states with larger numbers of older voters (OH, PA, WV, KY). Other states with a younger voting population (VA, WI, TX, OR) have shown less dramatic divides along racial lines IIRC. The two variables of age and race may not be strongly independent, because it seems to me that there is something of a generational divide in attitudes towards race highlighted by this contest. The other problem is sorting out the effect of the controversy re: pastor Wright, since most of the primaries and caucuses in “younger” states took place before that story broke, and the “older” states voted after it.

you gotta see this

Gary,

Would your last paragraph there be Snark or not?

Please enlighten me.

Well, I would be throwing a tantrum if everyone and his uncle were accusing me of throwing "tantrums" (plural!) when I wasn't. (Can you imagine how annoying that would be?)

Anywho, some people stay in the game until it's actually over. It happens. We can be adults about it and deal with it. Or we can throw a tantrum.

Left Turn/4:28 pm --

Spot-on.

Have a good cup of tea on me.

Q --

Are you actually saying Clinton has a right "to stay in the game," as you put it?

If so, that's refreshing.

Tea, on me.

bedtimeforbonzo,

Thanks, and brewing ("the agony of the leaves" I believe it is called) as we speak...

Also, I'm glad somebody gets the joke behind my handle - thx

I certainly hope nothing Clinton has done will affect people's perception of future female candidates, and perhaps the office and the candidate herself are so sui generis, there's no reason to worry. But having worked in a mostly male profession, I always dread it when women don't "work out" because there is always a tendency to attribute a negative experience with one women to all women, when exposure has been limited. I especially hate that a lot of the drama has revolved (as someone said above) around Clinton as passive victim of her staff, or events, or the media. I am not blind to the sexism that has occurred, but it does seem like she has been a little too ready to blame others for just about everything, including things that are clearly her own responsibility (like campaign strategy and resource allocation).

Wow! The assassination comment is even more over the line than the white people comment and the Zimbabwe comment. Every time I think she has said the most ridiculous thing ever she goes further.

But for the record, she doesn't have to 'stay in the race' to protect the Democratic Party against an assassination problem. If that (God Forbid and why are we talking about it???) happened the party could evaluate who to pull back in to the race when it was necessary. (And for whatever my two cents are worth I suspect they would be wise to NOT choose Clinton at this point).

politics is personal; and if we're talking politics, economics may be a personal, and worthwile, turn to take.

That's all good. It just wasn't clear from your post what your purpose was in asking. I guess you could have just been taking a survey, but that seemed unlikely.

So the question of why you were asking those questions is a pretty natural one. I wondered the same thing.

People discuss personal, gut-level, how-it-affects-their-lives stuff here all the time. There was nothing special or unusual about that aspect of your questions.

It just wasn't clear, assuming your question wasn't simply looking for some kind of show of hands, what point you were trying to raise.

Thanks -

"Understand that I think she should damn well keep competing in the final primaries, and I'm not asking her to drop out."

Do you also believe John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, etc., shouldn't have dropped out? If so, why not? Why should Clinton operate in a completely unprecedented fashion, making choices never made before by a candidate running for the Democratic nomination, and in a way highly destructive to the Democratic Party, and this would be a good thing?

Gary, what I failed to add (because I've said it here and elsewhere so many times that I simply forgot to add it this time) is that it's a good thing that she keep campaigning as long as she keeps it clean. It engages voters and encourages turnout, and gives her diehard supporters some reassurance that she's being treated with respect and not being forced out.

However the past couple of weeks of crap, especially the past few days, are in no way how I wanted her to run. She is doing herself, Obama and the party absolutely no favours with her OTT behaviour. (God, I wonder how Robert Kennedy Jr. feels about her latest outburst?)

I hope the reports of a California superdelegate rebellion are true.

Cleek,

That's quite the unflattering picture, albeit in this case, so fitting photo of Sen. Clinton on your website.

Thanks for providiong a link to Clinton's assassination remark, although the context seems odd. Would be good to see the video.

Z just through that assasination comment right out there without any reference at all. Bad form, right Gary?

Anarch?

Obama is showing just how "unelectable" he is: he's speaking to a group of Cuban-Americans who are endorsing him of McSame. This is HUGE; the Cuban-American community has almost always supported Republicans. This give Obama a large base in a crucial state that the local Republicans dare not mess with -- too many of them are funded by the "Ricos" -- the wealthy owners of sugar plantations.

Russell,

Have been on this site for about a month, if that. So I hope that accounts for mine/our mixup.

Have a good Memorial Day weekend: We'll be logging off soon to head home and working on my 9-year-old's hitting (his first year in Little League).

bedtimeforbonzo, I'm fairly imaginative, and I'm having trouble even constructing an imaginary context where that quote would be appropriate.

If you find that the actual context makes the quote ok, please share it with us.

I can't watch the video myself right at this moment, but allegedly it can be found < ahref="http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080523/FRONTPAGECAROUSEL/80522033&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL"> here

bedtimeforbonzo, yes, that's what I'm saying.

But disclosure: I'm in the HRC camp. (Thought that might affect your assessment of my suggestion as "refreshing." ;-)

I've always found HRC's campaign to be a giant, and pretty patent, insult to feminism. It's nothing for Women or future women candidates to be particularly ashamed of though, unless they believe that women owe a female candidate their vote no matter what. The latter seems like the opposite of feminism to me. I always thought that HRC was sort of pimping feminism to get elected - not to say that she has never done any good work for women, but because she had no other clear rationale for her candidacy. She could've come up with one! It's unconscionable.

When a man acts like a jerk (which happens about a billion times a day) I don't feel ashamed of my gender. My species, perhaps, but not my gender. There have been only 43 presidents in our whole history. There is no good reason why a woman shouldn't be a future president, in '08 or anytime. But not having one in '08 is not in itself evidence of some horrible shroud of sexism smothering the country. We are backward in our sexual attitudes vis a vis politics, but the evidence for that can be found more in offices which are more numerous - local, congress, etc. And, if you ever get out of the country, you will find that we are not so backward as some. I think there will be a female president sooner rather than later, and it's not going to be that big a deal to most people. A dwindling number of professional ninnies (like Chris Matthews) will ninny about it, but...hey, that's entertainment (??).

I see HRC's failure as a new birth of feminism, and thank god for it.

That was odd. Lets try that link again: here

Clinton has every right to stay in the race until the bitter end.

However, if she acts like a twit, then I feel I have the right to call her a twit.

S4ebastian, the Argus video player is horrible and it takes ages to get to her statement. TPM has posted a clip on YouTube.

Sorry: here.

I give up: it's up at TPM.

TLT...--
Well, I always hear your name in my head as "Dat Left Toin in Albakoiki", for what it's worth.

"Gary, what I failed to add (because I've said it here and elsewhere so many times that I simply forgot to add it this time) is that it's a good thing that she keep campaigning as long as she keeps it clean. It engages voters and encourages turnout, and gives her diehard supporters some reassurance that she's being treated with respect and not being forced out."

Can you explain why this doesn't apply equally to Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, please?

Can you explain why this didn't apply to Bob Graham, Carol Moseley Braun, Dick Gephardt, Joe Lieberman, Wes Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Al Sharpton, and Dennis Kucinich in 2004?

Can you explain why this didn't apply to Bill Bradley in 2000?

We could keep going back and back, but I hope you might at least start by explaining as regards these candidates, and why, in general, Senator Clinton is somehow different from every other candidate seeking the Democratic nomination who has ever lived in the entire history of the Democratic Party.

Thanks muchly in advance for your clarifying this for the rest of us who seek an answer to this puzzle.

"That was odd."

You ran "a" and "href" together, Sebastian. HTML is unforgiving of typos, as you know.

Mary, the YouTube link is this. Just click on "menu" in the YouTube screen you see at TPM, or anywhere, and click "copy to clipboard" under "URL," or copy the URL directly, and paste it in the usual way, and Bob's your uncle.

Q --

I am in her camp, too.

At times, I have thought I was the only person in her camp, on this site.

Welcome.

Clinton has been asked to drop out publicly earlier as well, has'nt she? Before she won Ohio and Texas, and she was right to ignore those calls then, and I think she is right to ignore them now. As one of Josh Marshall's commentators said in an email that is on the TPM website, she probably believes that she has a legitimate shot at the nomination because she believes she is winning in overall number of votes, and these should be the sole deciding factor for the nomination.

Finally, why is she someone who should make *women* everywhere ashamed? Does anyone say something similar when a male politician behaves badly or in an unacceptable fashion? Besides, what is so wrong about what she has done? I can understand that one does not support her as a candidate for the presidency and prefers Obama, but why does she merit this sort of disdain and anger? As political campaigns go, she has run a pretty clean and decent campaign, and she is fighting according to whatever rules there are. If Obama cannot win the nomination outright without her having to concede, why is this her fault? And why should Michigan and Florida be ignored in the fight for the nomination?

I have no problems with Sen. Obama winning the nomination, but equally well I don't see why Sen. Clinton should give in, and I find it hard to understand what she has done to merit such anger.

Gary,

Politics, like life, is a puzzle.

Constantly demanding answers can make it less fun and sometimes even draining -- i.e., I said "constantly."

Better get the hell out of here and onto that Little League field, where the real fun is.

Wish Bonzo could go with me, but he's dead.

kris/5:57 --

Glad I saw your post before I got the hell out of here.

Bravo!

Better get ready to take some fire.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast