« Bad Movies | Main | The Nominee »

June 03, 2008

Comments

I have not seen the speech; but if these reports of the tone are correct, is it reasonable to assume that this thing is not done- only moving to the credentials committee/a courtroom?

no, it is done--Obama picked up 25+ more superD's just in the last ten minutes. more tomorrow.

hillary is trying to grab as much land as he can before she's pushed off the field, like they do in the last few seconds before a war ends.

pathetic.

I guess I'm as glad that I missed Clinton's speech as I am that I caught Obama's.

My take on his intentions toward Clinton is that, assuming she doesn't pull a Lieberman on him, he'll offer her a cabinet position should he win in November.

Listening to Obama's speech reminded me again why I'm voting FOR this man and not against anyone else. Even Hillary Clinton's graceless, tasteless speech can't change that.

behavior, huh?
You bought into the conservative ethos hook, line and sinker. Yep, minimize any disagreement in order to dismiss its significance and infantilize each and every one of your opponents by focusing on their behavior. Jesus Christ

My take on his intentions toward Clinton is that, assuming she doesn't pull a Lieberman on him, he'll offer her a cabinet position should he win in November.

God, I hope so - assuming she's angling for the VP slot with all these antics and not seriously deluded enough to think she can still pull it out somehow. Putting Clinton on the ticket would be about the stupidest thing Obama could possibly do IMO.

She's doing one or both of :
1. Holding the process hostage for a VP or cabinet position.

2. Trying to recoup the debt her campaign has accrued before calling it quits.

By the end of Obama's speech, tears were streaming down my cheeks. What a joy to have a Democratic candidate who can speak with such vision and understanding about how our foreign policy, economic policy, healthcare policy, and environmental policy are all interconnected. This is Obama's substance. It was something that HRC with her technocratic approach could never match. Her speech was not only not gracious. It was a war cry in which she reiterated her specious claims that she was the winner of the popular vote and made petty jabs at her rival, such as she's been thinking about healthcare not only for the past 16 months but past 16 years. It was a disgraceful speech. It hurt to see someone deadset on destroying her party for her own ego.

It's not just your opinion, Xeynon - I am in total agreement with you there.

Good grief. I'm not even a clinton supporter, and I find your second update to be on the silly side of things.

You're falling into the same trap that leads some people to think that Hillary should get the majority leader of the Senate as some sort of consolation prize ... campaigns are -supposed- to be about substance, not the personal feelings of their figureheads.

I thought the speech was fine, mostly I'm just glad the damned thing is finished. Now let us never speak of this primary again.

Obama's speech in MN was a clever idea.

Well instead of speculating on what her intentions are why don't you just listen to what she says.

The press, along with people like Yglesias, has speculated endlessly on what nefarious motives Hillary might have. Yglesias, and Sullivan especially, have become a joke.

Hillary has spoken freqeuntly and openly about what she is fighting for. She did so again tonight. Why not just listen for a moment instead of bloviating?

I too am not offended that she spoke tonight. it's funny, though, in light of the umbrage her folks took when Edwards announced his endorsement right after West Virginia.

her speech was awful, but not because she didn't concede. why should she rush to do that tonight? it's been over a year, a few more days won't kill anyone, and in fact i suppose she could go to the convention contesting, something that i understand has happened many times before, although that would be unhealthy to the party and probably pointless. i think she SHOULD take the next few days and figure out where she wants to go.

it was awful because of its dishonesty (the crap about the popular votes e.g.) and because of its undertones of resentment and entitlement that have become the hallmark of her campaign. yes, it was close, and yes, the process could have been more democratic, for example if it had followed some of the recommendations laid out on this blog earlier. but these were the clearly understood rules everyone agreed upon, and a winner has emerged now. If I was a Democrat, I'd be upset with her for the tone she has taken and continues to take of late. Tonight you argue that you're the better candidate, still? Tonight you focus on insinuating that people who voted for you have been robbed, and don't even mention the OTHER PARTY's candidate, even as you claim you'd be better suited to take him on than the fellow Democrat who has actually won this public process? and contrast that with Obama's approach to this moment tonight. it's clear who the better candidate for the presidency really is.

Hillary did in fact win the popular vote. That is not in contention. Obama may win the nomination only due to the superdelegates and the pledged delegates won in caucuses.

Enough about Hillary already. She ran a tough campaign but came up a little short. She is not the nominee.

Tonight is Obama's night - he and everyone in his campaign and everyone who supported him deserve the spotlight on this night.

This is a historic night. I never thought I would live to see the day that a member of any minority group would be the nominee of a major party and have a realistic and favorable chance of winning the White House. I'm stunned that this is actually happening and isn't just some sort of dream.

oh, and Obama gave a stunning speach which shows clearly why he is an fantastic candidate and will make a great leader of this great nation.

Ken, it's very much in contention. I'm not the man to run through the permutations of the argument, but it is an argument.

I think Sullivan's point about giving him this night isn't an emotional one wholly, it's also about the idea that, if Clinton does want party unity, she ought to give the party's mathematically-certain nominee the night of his victory to kick off the general election campaign without a host of backbiting from his primary opponent.

When people who support Obama say they'd be fine with her taking it to the convention if she could do it in the right way, this is what they mean- it shouldn't be about running down the nominee and fighting a lost battle anymore, it should be about both primary candidates defining why the Democratic vision is better than the McCain vision for the next few years.

ken: actually, it IS in contention: RCP

I admit that i was too quick to give that measure to Obama; however, since the actual nomination isn't decided on that basis but on delegates, and the campaign strategies were based on this fact, i guess it doesn't matter. i feel like sen. clinton is trying to evoke the sense of highway robbery many people felt after the 2000 election, but i dont think this is the same thing. the way FL was decided in that election was truly shady and corrupt.

anyways, i'm glad this is over, i like sen. obama, and i still don't hate sen. clinton, and in fact continue to admire her. the dems should remember how people were saying back in december that they had an embarrassment of riches in terms of the relative and absolute quality of their candidates. the dust will settle for them soon. hopefully it will be possible for the clintons to campaign for obama, eventually, because they're still rightfully powerful powerhouses.

i hope to see some honest, substantive, intelligent debate between obama and mccain in the general election going forward. democrats, convince me i'm right in preferring obama to mccain.

Hi publius,

if possible, would you please link to Obama's speech? the one uploaded on CNN is suspeciously short. And the most recent one on the Obama website is May 20, which actually worries me because, if Obama is going to beat McCain, his supporters are going to need a place to go to get an unmediated obama. I'm afraid his webmaster doesn't get it.

To counter the latest smears, we need the disputed Obama text in one click.


thank you,

TV-less.

I watched the Clinton and Obama speeches, and a decent amount of the coverage. I heard about a bit I missed, in which someone apparently said: She did everything but offer Obama the Vice Presidency.

I thought Clinton's speech was graceless, and Obama's was remarkably generous, not least to her.

Later, on CNN, someone (Gloria Borger?) was reading an email from a Clinton supporter that said: this should have been her night, why did he have to take it away from her? And Jeffrey Toobin burst out laughing.

And as Sullivan points out, she asked people to send her a message, but on her site she has written the first part for you: "I'm with you, Hillary, and I'm proud of everything we're fighting for."

Ack.

"Hillary did in fact win the popular vote. That is not in contention."

a) What the "popular vote" in a race for a party nomination has to do with anything, I have no idea. Find me a past presidential nomination race in America, ever, where anyone ever before claimed that the "popular vote" was ever even mentioned, let alone deemed to be somehow important, and I'll give you this shiny nickel.

b) Yeah, explain to me how you count the "popular vote" in caucus states.

c) Explain to me how to reconcile two apparently irreconcilable views about the relevance of any "vote" in Michigan and Florida.

After you've settled these three questions -- and I'm pretty sure I can guess what your answer will be -- you can claim that these things are "not in contention," meaning, apparently, that you are off in some echo-chamber solipsistic universe, where disagreement with your idiosyncratic views simply doesn't exist.

Which makes your views more than a little uninteresting to anyone who isn't you, or maybe your mother.

"Hi publius,

if possible, would you please link to Obama's speech?"

Are people really that helpless about googling?

Obama speech transcript.

Clinton speech transcript.

All you have to do, for future reference, you know, is go to Google News, and google "clinton" and "speech" and "transcript," and "obama" and "speech" and "transcript," and there they are.

Front page of Obama's website (video and transcript).

Clinton's website verion of her speech.

My guess is that people want the video, not just the transcript. TPM has YouTube lynx to the McCain and Clinton speeches- no Obama yet.

Redwood, if you can view RealPlayer clips, you can view the Obama speech via C-SPAN, using this link.

It looks to be just under 30 minutes long.

I'm sure it will be all over youtube as well, soon if it's not already.

Okay, due to circumstances, I was unable to see Senator Clinton's speech live, or more than a bit of it, despite my best efforts, and my knowledge that I'll remember this night the rest of my life, and now I'll remember it with disappointment and irritation, I've now read the transcript, and in combination with the bits I saw, I have to say that I don't know what people are talking about in seeing anything amiss about it.

I'll have to go read Matt and Sullivan, and whomever else, because my own response is: huh? Wha? What are you talking about?

I'm a little tired of people looking to take offense from fellow Democrats, rather than looking to interpret words charitably, or on their face value.

Can we stop that now, please?

Please?

The Obama speech tonight is right here.

Just put "obama" and "speech" into the Youtube search function, and click on "updated today"?

How hard is this to figure out?

There just isn't any reason to get worked up about Clinton's speech because Obama's so dominated it, that it was irrelevent before the gym had emptied. Obama didn't need Clinton to make this night all about the historic moment that it is. He took care of that all by himself.

The MSNBC version of Clinton's speech is here and here.

Gary, I can't speak for anyone else, but I found Clinton's speech to be deeply disheartening, even depressing.

For one thing, my recollection from listening to the whole thing, confirmed by the transcript I saw, is that - after some pro-forma Nice Words for Obama in the first two sentences, precisely one politician was mentioned in the twenty-minute speech: Hillary Clinton.

No mention of Obama, though at this point in the campaign it would be a good idea to associate him along with her in support of some of the policy goals mentioned. And - this is the critical thing - neither McCain nor even George Bush was named even once. Because, of course, Clinton isn't running against them; she's running against Obama. Her campaign isn't about the country, it's about Clinton. And one constant for the Clintons for the last fifteen years has always been that, while they are sometimes noble of aspiration, they have never shown the ability to see beyond the short term, or beyond their own personal benefit.

Clinton's speech tonight, especially once it hit its stride, was all about pushing the idea that she, and only she, deserves to be the nominee. That she has allegedly won the popular vote. That no-one else pays attention to her voters. That her supporters are still fighting for her and sending money (hint, hint). She is cultivating a core of supporters that will never accept Obama as the nominee, because she has told them not to - unless, perhaps, her price is met.

It wasn't quite as bad as the Zimbabwe speech. But given the situation, it wasn't a whole lot better, either.

Well the chiron on MSNBC had Clinton winning the popular vote total all night long. It was rotating up through all three speeches. So I think that whoever denies that Clinton won the popular vote is going to be a very small minority of malcontents. Facts are facts. And vote totals from the various states are really pretty easy to add up into grand totals.

MSNBC complete version here (just go to the "Video 08" link)

"Hillary has spoken freqeuntly and openly about what she is fighting for. She did so again tonight. Why not just listen for a moment instead of bloviating?"

Well, because the best way she could help all the causes she claims to be fighting for - Universal Health Care, ending the war in Iraq, improving America's image in the world, making the environment a priority - would be to make sure a Democrat is elected in November. At this point, Senator Obama has won the nomination. Even if Clinton WAS the more electable candidate from a clean slate, she is simply ABSOLUTELY NOT anymore. If she somehow convinced enough superdelegates and even (as she has attempted to do) state pledged delegates who are not technically 'obligated' to vote as the elections came out, she might still win the primary. But even if she pulled that off, she would be DESTOYED in the general election. Tons of people who would have voted for her had she emerged the victor legitimately would stay home or even vote for McCain. African American turnout would be low, and would give the Dems their worst performance in that demographic in decades. Young and first time voters who were energized by Obama would actively leave the polls in droves, and probably be almost permanently alienated from the Democrats and politics in general. Do you have any idea how it would look to those two groups if their candidate had essentially won, then Clinton browbeat or blackmailed enough superdelegates to overturn the result?

At this point she can stay in the race if she wishes, but if she actually cared about the goals she articulated, she would focus her fire on McCain, who wasn't mentioned ONCE in her speech. She is still constantly attacking Obama, directly or indirectly, claiming she would be a much better president, and riling up her supporters with claims she was robbed. Even if she doesn't mean this or is just giving herself cover to hold out for VP or shaping the agenda on a few issues, her supporters won't see it that way. As Hilzoy discussed in her post on Clinton's Dangerous Liasons, that genie is hard to put back in the bottle.

So her current course is completely and utterly counterproductive for achieving the goals she articulates when we listen to her. I rather think that's why people guess at more nefarious or selfish motives; the alternative is that she's truly deluded and blind to reality.

If Clinton continues like this, the most likely, clear outcome is a McCain administration, no universal health coverage, at least 8 more years in Iraq, a 'tough' negotiation stance that the U.S. no longer has the military capability or world stature to maintain, and quite possibly a war with Iran. Oh, and more tax cuts predicated on ridiculous supply side claims. How does any of this line up with her stated goals?

"So I think that whoever denies that Clinton won the popular vote is going to be a very small minority of malcontents. Facts are facts. And vote totals from the various states are really pretty easy to add up into grand totals."

apparently they are beyond the Clinton camp, because they leave out the votes from 6 DIFFERENT CONTESTS because they were a caucases.

if the Clintons really want Every Vote to Count, then you can't leave out votes in Maine, Washington, Guam, etc.

when Hillary lies, it ain't small--its a WHOPPER. and for some reason, most pundits seem to go along with it.

if actually wanting the popular vote to represent EVERY VOTE CAST, NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT IT MIGHT BE TO ASCERTAIN THE NUMBER, means i'm a malcontent, then i'm a god-damned malcontent.

Gary: if I were in a mood to be seriously bothered, what would bother me would be: the gracelessness of it, the utter absence of any acknowledgment that Obama just won the nomination, the repetition of plainly tendentious talking points (counting every vote, etc.) that only exist as anti-Obama points, the fact that the entire speech was about her vs. Obama, not Obama or Democrats vs. McCain; and in general the fact that she did not acknowledge, in any way, the fact that reality has changed.

I thought that Ezra's take on it was right:

"In the first episode of the BBC comedy Coupling, Steve decides he's going to break up with his partner Jane. He steels up his courage, strides over to her, and makes his pitch. "I'm going to put this very simply. It's over between us," he says. She looks at him quizzically. "You want us to split up?" she asks. "Yes," replies Steve. "Yes I do." She looks at him sweetly. "I don't accept."

Tonight, the Democratic Party essentially told Clinton that it was over. Obama crossed the magic delegate threshold and captured, for all intents and purposes, the nomination. Clinton had run a remarkable race, and come inches from securing the nomination, but she had lost. And tonight, Clinton took the stage in New York, and said, in effect, "I don't accept."

Clinton's speech was a curious spectacle. It's not merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't even mention that anything had changed. She congratulated Obama on his campaign, but not on his win, or even his likely win. Instead, she continued to talk about her electability, her desire to "count every vote" (every vote, save for a few stragglers in South Dakota, has now been cast and counted), her ability to see Americans whose poverty renders them "invisible" to the other candidates, her faith in the continued efforts of her supporters. It wasn't merely that she didn't concede, but that she didn't stop running, didn't stop attacking."

And vote totals from the various states are really pretty easy to add up into grand totals.

My kid brother did that with fractions. He got an F for his effort.

You know better, son.

ken wrote: "Hillary has spoken freqeuntly and openly about what she is fighting for. She did so again tonight. Why not just listen for a moment instead of bloviating?"

She also said that MI and FL wouldn't count, when she thought she was destined to win and would be done on Super Tuesday, but then reneged when it became clear she was in for a fight and it would be advantageous to have them count.

Her word isn't worth much.

Clinton's speech was a bit bizarre. Last I checked, she was a Democrat, right? And yet she congratulated Obama on the race that he ran. She didn't congratulate him for winning. I *believe*, though I could have misheard, that she asked for donations again. If so, then I remember Hilzoy's great point from long ago: there is something unconscionable about asking people to contribute to a dead race.

ken: As far as the popular vote measure, pointing to the salience of this is really not right for this reason:

Candidates choose their strategy and campaign in a way to win the nomination, as per the rules of the nomination.

If the rules had been different, the strategies would have been different. Clinton is fond of saying that if the Dems had Republican rules, that she would be the nominee. But you can bet that if the Dems had Republican rules, Obama would have campaigned completely differently. It's absurd to think that Obama would have focused on the caucus states, had the big states been winner-take-all.

The delegate count in this case was the measure of importance. If I were a candidate, I would concede districts where I was far behind, even though I might think there were votes to be gained there, in favor of focusing on districts where I thought I could gain more delegates. In short, my strategy would tradeoff votes for delegates.

It's a little like saying of a basketball game that, on a given night, if 3 pointers counted for 3.5 points, then a different team would have won. That might be. Does it call into question who won? No. Does it call into question who the better team was that night, in some more abstract sense? Absolutely not. Why? The winning team would not have chosen the strategy they in fact did, had the rules been different.

And please keep in mind that, by the 'rules' Obma is merely the presumptive nominee. He did not win enough pledged delegates to lay claim to an outright victory.

The superdelegates have not yet voted. They don't get to vote for real till August in Denver. A lot can happen between now and then.

This is not really over. Hillary could concede and surrender her delegates. But then so could Obama. Niether of them should do that however without good reason. Right now there is no really good reason for either of them to give the other their delegates without something in return.

An agreement will be negotiated behind the scenes that each can live with or the fight will be taken to Denver. If Obama is smart he will want to meet with Hillary and start trying to meet her conditions as soon as possible.

ken, you are simply incorrect. Assuming you make a reasonable attempt to count the caucus states, Obama is only trailing Clinton if you count all of her Michigan votes and assume no Obama voters in Michigan - and even then, only by a few tens of thousands.

And besides that, it's not a reasonable number, because you can't mix open primaries, closed primaries, mail-in elections, full caucuses, and drop-box caucuses. They achieve different levels of representation.

Obama's speech

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/06/barack-obamas-v.html

Others have already mentioned Clinton's classlessness in talking about how she was the stronger candidate to beat McCain, better in the swing states, the winner of the popular vote, and all the other arguments about how she, not Obama, should be the nominee.

The final bit of annoyance, which would have been perfectly bearable without the rest, was when she yet again went into how she was staying in because of all the people who clasp her hand and look into her eyes and say "Don't drop out" and "We believe in you." Does she think she's the only candidate who has supporters? Does she think Edwards and Richardson and Biden and Gravel didn't have people saying the same things to them? It's the nature of nomination contests that most candidates eventually lose, and at some point their supporters have to accept that and get on with whatever comes next.

But of course we can't talk about any of this, because by expressing any negative thoughts about Clinton we're not respecting the 18 million people who voted for her.

One irony of this campaign, that I have yet to see any Clinton supporter acknowledge: her strategy was (and this is a matter of public record, not private invention) to wrap up a blitz of major states by Super Tuesday, or shortly thereafter. This remarkable campaign, in which so many more people got to feel their votes actually mattering than usual, is the result of the failure of her strategy. Had her strategy worked, we would have had a relatively short primary season and a lot of meaningless primaries and caucuses.

In happier news, my deepest congratulations to Senator Obama, and high hopes for the general campaign.

Once again, Fafblog was eerily prescient.

"If Obama is smart he will want to meet with Hillary and start trying to meet her conditions as soon as possible."

I find it fascinating that you advance this as a good thing. What happened to taking her at her word about the causes she's fighting for and reasons she's still in this now-concluded race?

And besides that, it's not a reasonable number, because you can't mix open primaries, closed primaries, mail-in elections, full caucuses, and drop-box caucuses.

People have been mixing apples and oranges for ages.

And have been making about the same amount of sense...

I will freely admit it: One of the reasons I like Obama is simply that he is such a good speaker. All my life I've wondered why so many public officials are so profoundly awful about it, and apparently never learning from their practice. It makes me happy to hear something from a man who obviously understands both grammar and rhetoric. He has paragraphs; I swoon.

I do think it's significant, in some ways, in this era when so much sheer incompetent babbling is passed off as meaningful. We live in an age where the chosen ones get to be thoughtless and even anti-thought, and I am gladdened to see that challenged each time this guy makes an address.

i agree with hilzoy's 12:43 comments -- and Klein's post is well worth the read.

i agree with hilzoy's 12:43 comments -- and Klein's post is well worth the read.

Ken, give me a break. Not only is the "popular vote" an insane measure when there are caucuses, but she didn't even win it.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6156

In regards to the popular vote:

Clinton had Obama beating him in the popular vote by 3,000 if you exclude caucuses. As of midnight pacific time, Hillary has gained +11,000 from her win in SD, and Obama 24,000 from MN. Which according to that MSNBC graphic that the previous poster is mentioning, would put him over the popular vote.

Err,

The first line should read "MSNBC had Clinton beating Obama in the popular vote by 3,000...."

My reaction is about the same as what hilzoy wrote at 12:43, with emphasis on:

if I were in a mood to be seriously bothered

which is to say that whatever I was feeling after Hillary's speech, after Obama's speech (and a few glasses of wine) it doesn't matter any more.

This is a historic night. Obama gave a great speech; I particularly liked the way he counterpunched on the "Iraq visits" issue, turning it back on McCain with regard to how often he has visitied American cities that need attention (when was the last time we had a nominee who could riposte like this?). Also, it feels so good to hear a candidate talk about love of country without irony alert detectors going off in my head.

I'm not going to let any other candidates who-are-not-the-nominee harsh my buzz tonight. If Chris Dodd gives a speech, will somebody please post a link to it, otherwise I'm beyond caring what the other candiates who-are-not-the-nominee have to say on this particular occasion.

In regards to the popular vote:

Clinton had Obama beating him in the popular vote by 3,000 if you exclude caucuses. As of midnight pacific time, Hillary has gained +11,000 from her win in SD, and Obama 24,000 from MN. Which according to that MSNBC graphic that the previous poster is mentioning, would put him over the popular vote.

I doubt that will make much of an impression on our resident agitator.

In regards to the popular vote:

Clinton had Obama beating him in the popular vote by 3,000 if you exclude caucuses. As of midnight pacific time, Hillary has gained +11,000 from her win in SD, and Obama 24,000 from MN. Which according to that MSNBC graphic that the previous poster is mentioning, would put him over the popular vote.

I doubt that will make much of an impression on our resident agitator.

The most interesting thing about the CNN coverage was the electoral map. Obama wins in the old south. Obama wins in the central and north central US, with the exception of one state-South Dakota, where he lost by 12 points. Obama loses in mixed-race places like Pennsylvania and Ohio.

South Dakota Democrats have had time to observe Obama. And they voted against him by 12 points.

I listened to Obama’s speech and heard nothing other than the same words.

I heard HRC say tonight the she was glad they "stayed the course". Yuck. She's glad they pursued a failed strategy towards an immoral goal? (It does fit, though, doesn't it?)

What a tacky, classless thing to say -- to give ANY legitimacy to that phrase. I can't be sure she does want a Democratic victory.

On the other hand, Obama has been nothing but nice to her over the past week or so. Far more than she deserves.

the RNC is all about some Hillary Clinton.

"In the first episode of the BBC comedy Coupling, Steve decides he's going to break up with his partner Jane. He steels up his courage, strides over to her, and makes his pitch. "I'm going to put this very simply. It's over between us," he says. She looks at him quizzically. "You want us to split up?" she asks. "Yes," replies Steve. "Yes I do." She looks at him sweetly. "I don't accept."

Heh. That reminds me of a comment I left at Balloon Juice:

Garth: Uh-oh. Don’t look. Hillary.
Democratic Party: Where? Oh, God. I made eye contact. Psycho hose beast.

Hillary: Happy anniversary, Democratic Party.

DP: Hillary, we broke up two months ago.

H: It doesn’t mean we can’t go out.

DP: Well, it does, actually. That’s what breaking up is.

H: You going to make me the nominee tonight?

DP: No!
G: No!

H: Don’t you wanna open your present?

DP: If it’s a severed horse’s head, I’ll be very upset.

H: Open it.

DP: OK. OK. What is it?

H: It’s a Clinton general election candidate!

DP: A Clinton general election candidate?!!? Sh’yeah, great. I already got a general election candidate and had a Clinton general election candidate before. What am I going to do with another a Clinton general election candidate?

H: You don’t like it? Fine. Democratic Party, if you’re not careful, you’re gonna lose me.

DP: I lost you two months ago. Are you mental? We broke up. Get the net!

Jeebus. The Clinton people were saying all day that she wasn't going to concede. And now everyone is shocked, shocked that she lacked the "grace" to concede.

What I find really depressing in all this anti-HRC invective is its an effective adoption of the standard winger epithetery from 15 years ago: The Clintons are "unconscionable," "shameless," "classless," even "sociopathic" ("racist," alas, wouldn't even have been possible back in the salad days of the Republican Revolution) -- assessments all "informed" by (at best) the stingiest possible interpretations of HRC's remarks.

Exhibit A of course would be the niggardly hermeneutics being applied to HRC's Tuesday-night speech. Here's how she started that speech (emphases mine):

Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all so much. Thank you, and thanks so much to South Dakota. You had the last word in this primary season, and it was worth the wait.

I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run.

Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved. And our party and our democracy is stronger and more vibrant as a result. So we are grateful.

And it has been an honor to contest these primaries with him, just as it is an honor to call him my friend. And, tonight, I would like all of us to take a moment to recognize him and his supporters for all they have accomplished."

I mean, what a selfish bitch.

Of course, it's a separate argument whether she ought to have conceded the nomination. But given that she wasn't going to concede the nomination (and said so), I don't know how much more "grace" or "class" you could expect from the speech.

At all events, both she and Obama have shown far more class than a lot of what's on offer from their respective "supporters."

What I find really depressing in all this anti-HRC invective is its an effective adoption of the standard winger epithetery from 15 years ago: The Clintons are "unconscionable," "shameless," "classless," even "sociopathic"

is there any chance a person could have come to any of those conclusions all on his/her own, without consulting the Big Book Of GOP Smears ?

Q,

That actually sounds to me like the beginning of a *victory* speech. Seriously.

How hard would it have been to add, "Senator Obama will be a wonderful nominee"?

That actually sounds to me like the beginning of a *victory* speech. Seriously.

exactly. compare that to the section of Obama's speech where he talks about Clinton. it's the same kind of praise and recognition. i'd excerpt it here, but he said so many nice things about her that it's too long to excerpt here (ahem, Hillary).

Q, I certainly didn't expect her to concede tonight, and that's not what was classless. See my 12:58 comment. It's quite possible to avoid conceding without continuing to claim that you're the better nominee (complete with the bogus popular vote argument to claim that his win is illegitimate) and refusing to mention that Obama achieved something last night.

Cleek: Of course.

jdkbrown: It was a victory speech -- she'd won S.D. Since she'd made it clear she wasn't prepared to concede, I'm not sure I understand your asking why she couldn't just "add" that "Obama will be a great nominee"; by my lights, that'd be a concession.

KCinDC: You say you wanted HRC to acknowledge that "Obama achieved something last night." But what exactly would you have had her say, given that she was not prepared to concede the nomination? To put it another way, what else did Obama "achieve" last night once you take away the fact that he effectively clinched the nomination?

easy link for the speeches: sullivan links them

Fuck Hillary.

BHO would be COMMITTING SUICIDE and INVITING ASSASSINATION if he puts Billary on the ticket.

Clinton is a disease. She needs to be eradicated from politics and retired to a remote location where no one ever has to see her simpering, lying face.

Oh and I began this season on her side but her lack of judgment, wisdom and grace has utterly and irrevocably turned me off.

Hillary as ANYTHING even dogcatcher in BHO's administration would be an unmitigated disaster.

I would send her a curt note..... FUCK you very much, and NO.

If anyone's ever tempted to suggest that Clinton supporters are making it all up about some of what Obama supporters dish out, I give you...getaclue.

"It makes me happy to hear something from a man who obviously understands both grammar and rhetoric. He has paragraphs; I swoon."

Bruce, if you haven't read Dreams From My Father, you must. It's awesomely good. The guy knocks me out anew with each new chapter, which is great and brilliant and insightful in whole new ways. It's just a damn excellent piece of writing, and thinking, and full of insights, no matter if it was written by Joe Smith.

This guy could have a brilliant career as a writer of nonfiction or fiction, if he ever has trouble getting any other work.

Gary-Bob says check it out.

"easy link for the speeches: sullivan links them"

I do get a little cranky wondering why I bothered searching for and putting up all the links, then, if you don't bother to notice them. You're welcome.

As for Clinton's speech, what I have to say is this: it's over. Obama won. It's time now to come together, and unite the party to defeat John McCain and the Republicans in November.

I'd like to see us all focus on that, and avoid any actions or statements that would get in the way of that.

Senator Clinton moved off the stage last night, and that was her last moment to shine for her supporters. I don't begrudge her in the least focusing on them then, and beginning the process of bringing them down and towards supporting Obama for president as gradually as she sees fit. Let her have her last night of sun, and let her supporters take all they can from it, which is little enough: remember, for them, last night was a crushing and horribly depressing moment. It was a loss. It was a recognition that for all those who aren't in completely InsanityLand, it's over.

That's terribly hard to go through. It's like a death in the family when you care that much. I know what it's like to see your hopes and dreams disappear for years, decades, perhaps a lifetime, with a political loss.

And for so many people, and particularly so many women, this was yet another blow to women, and however we may want to debate the reality of the issues, and the statements, and their truth, and all those other things that matter to *us*, to so many women, all that matters is that yet again, victory was, as they see it, snatched from a woman, the patriarchy triumphed, and Wrong Was Done.

Let them down gently. Do your best to welcome them back. Help them through the Kubler Ross process.

We need everyone we can get to defeat McCain, and save lives around the planet, and help us turn America back towards the country we know it can be.

There's time enough for Senator Clinton to formally endorse Obama, and to begin campaigning for him. Give it that time. Give time for the five stages of grief, which only began last night for all those supporters of Senator Clinton.

No matter that, yes, it was over by Texas and Pennslyvania: they didn't see that, and that's not their reality. We're talking emotions, and hopes, and dreams, and the feelings of people who have felt kicked in this huge part of their identity all their life.

Telling them, or expecting them, to be all rational about it just isn't reasonable, because people don't work that way.

People have feelings. Let them have them.

This is the beginning of June. Give them a couple of weeks. Please. Put yourself in their shoes, and have some compassion for their human frailties.

It's the right thing to do.

No matter all the logical arguments in the world. This isn't about logic. And -- irony that this is me saying it -- it isn't always about logic and rationality and what's correct or true or objective.

Sometimes it's about letting hurt people grieve in their own way, and being kind to them while they're doing it.

Let's all try to be our best possible selves about this? Okay?

Okay.

And to the people who will show up to complain about how selfish and wrong the Clinton supporters are, and how righteously we deserve to tell them to grow up, and behave better, and so on and so forth: just try putting a sock in it for a week or two, okay? Be a grownup yourself. Set an example. Make your mom, or loved one, proud of you.

Time to move on.

Gary Farber, hats of to you, sir. I hope you are well.

getaclue: please consult the posting rules. You have been warned.

beginning the process of bringing them down and towards supporting Obama for president

Gary, how does continuing to rile them up with lines about how she's the better candidate and he's an illegitimate nominee do that? I heard nothing in her speech indicating that her goal matches what you're saying, and that worries me.

Q, I'll withdraw the part about acknowledging an accomplishment, even though recognizing that Obama reached the required number of delegate endorsements is simply recognizing reality, even if she holds on to the hope that huge numbers of superdelegates will change their minds. It would have been difficult to talk about. That doesn't excuse the rest of the speech.

Since the consensus seems to be that we should all just shut up about Clinton, since discussion is counterproductive, I suppose I'll do that for now.

Bruce, I don't think anyone's ever suggested that Obama supporters (or any other group) don't include some people who make idiotic blog comments.

This is from Carpetbagger, and I'm off to track down more. Glimmer of light:

Shortly thereafter, Clinton returned the favor, telling the AIPAC audience: “I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here. It has been an honor to contest primaries with him. It is an honor to call him my friend. And let me be very clear: I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”

"I heard nothing in her speech indicating that her goal matches what you're saying, and that worries me."

Let's see what it looks like a month from now, shall we? Or at least two weeks from now? Time enough to begin complaining again in July, if you feel there are grounds. It'll keep.

If anyone's ever tempted to suggest that Clinton supporters are making it all up about some of what Obama supporters dish out, I give you...getaclue.

At the risk of committing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, permit me to doubt that getaclue is really an Obama supporter, particularly as his remarks do not serve the interests of his purported candidate.

"Time enough to begin complaining again in July, if you feel there are grounds. It'll keep."

It kept since Texas, there is a reason people are complaining now.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad