It wasn’t Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who did Hillary Clinton in. It wasn’t the Obama campaign who bludgeoned her into submission. It wasn’t the TV talking heads who would have loved nothing better than to pontificate about the Great Divide between the forces of Darkness and Lightness in the Democratic party all Summer. Certainly John McCain of the Green Screen would have been thrilled to see this farce play out until August.
No, the irony of Hillary Clinton’s concession or campaign suspension or endorsement of/capitulation to the inevitability of Obama’s victory is that it was her own people who stuck in the knife and twisted it. Here’s how Keith Olbermann reported it last night on MsNBC’s Countdown:
To recap the breaking news… our own Howard Fineman of Newsweek magazine reporting tonight that Senator Clinton will exit the Democratic race on Friday and endorse Senator Obama… He reports eight Clinton supporters in the Senate, encouraged by Clinton advisers, called her en masse today and said she must go… This following NBC’s Andrea Mitchell’s report that 23 members of Congress, convened by phone to tell Senator Clinton the same thing.
It was her own staff members, and supporters in the House and Senate who finally spoke the word she never wanted to hear, and couldn’t force herself to accept: It’s over. And all the ranting and raving at places like No Quarter about Obama’s alleged criminal connections to Tony Rezko, or Michelle’s “Whitey” tape, or William Ayers, lefty terrorist extraordinaire in the Obama dirty laundry hamper, isn’t going to change that. Obama is going to be the nominee. Clinton is not going to be the Vice president. Obama may help her with her campaign debt, he may offer her some position in his cabinet, but she is not getting on the ticket, in either first or second place.
And it took her own senior staff and staunchest supporters to finally make her realize that. How sad that in the end, it wasn’t some grand conspiracy by the DNC or Obama or the media to deny her her victory, it was simply her closest friends and advisers finally, forcefully telling her the truth that she lost. It had to have come as a shock to her and a bitter pill to swallow.
But at least now we know that it wasn’t the fat lady who sang to bring down the curtain on her presidential aspirations. It was Charley Rangel. And Chuck Schumer. And in all likelihood Howard Wolfson and Harold Ickes, and maybe even that grandest of political buffoons this year, Terry McAuliffe.
In short, it was her own people who kneecapped her. How ironic.
Ironic and sad as well. It sends more than a few shivers down the spine to think she could have been our nominee and then likely the president.
Oh, what a relief. When do we get to see the house of bush fall?
it’ll take another 5 months for Bush to fall.
BUT how despicable that Hillary had to be pushed out the door. Classless Act.
One has also to ask: does Hillary’s demise constitute as well the fall of the DLC? Somehow the notion of a right wing Democrat was always oxymoronic, and few represented this old attempt to bring the Reagan Democrats back into the fold as did the Clintons. Nothing would seem more symbolic of the passage of the DLC than having a Black candidate representing the left wing.
Have a good feeling about that: Democrats may have finally transcended Johnson’s curse for signing the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act into law in 1964/65. Let whatever is left of racist voters in this country vote for McCain. We don’t need them or a DLC to represent them.
Obama has a chance lead on the FISA bill, permanent bases in Iraq, and starting a war in Iran.
Also, Bush’s kangaroo court is starting to heat up and give us a couple of show convictions.
Democrats better get their message out there and stick to it.
“Obama has a chance lead on…permanent bases in Iraq…“
Lead where? Dudes, you need to get over the idea that Obama intends to end the occupation of Iraq. He himself has made it clear that he intends to continue the occupation indefinitely, but at a lower level (in order to keep it under the radar, and therefore more tolerable?). The missions he has described will include combat, and military experts estimate he will need to maintain a force of 50,000-75,000 troops. The permanent bases are there already and currently in use. So, what is he going to do, keep billions of dollars worth of highly fortified, luxuriously appointed bases empty and make 50,000-75,000 troops sleep in tents out in the desert? I don’t think so.
And for the record, Hillary’s plan for Iraq was virtually identical to his, which is a main reason I support neither of them.
“…and starting a war in Iran.“
Obama has gone on and on – and not just to AIPAC – about how “the threat from Iran is grave” when anyone who is in possession of the facts, has a grasp of reality, and who views the situation with a modicum of honesty can see that the threat from Iran is nonexistent. Obama has even suggested that he would nuke Iran for Israel’s sake. Obama has previously on numerous occastions expressed his willingness to use military violence on Iran as well as other countries, including at least one very fragile ally that just happens to have nuclear weapons. AND Obama wants to greatly increase both the size and the budget of the military – if he intends to withdraw from Iraq, or even make a significant reduction there, why does he need a much larger and more expensive military unless he thinks he might want to attack and occupy some other countries?
And you think Obama will not attack Iran?! I would not count on it at all.
Don’t confuse me with your stereotype of the Obama supporter who clings to irrational “hope”. I hold no such hope. I am aware of Obama’s positions. I have always been hesitant to support Obama because he is too conservative for me. That’s why I am not joining in the celebration with the other Obama supporters. I want to put pressure on Obama to move to the left on these issues and to fight Bush and the GOP.
But out of the three main finalists for president Obama probably is the most likely to not attack Iran. I wanted Kucinich because he was the only one that was willing to advance the liberal position without apology.
But now is the time to push Obama in the right direction.
You are the one who suggested that Obama might “lead” on the Iraq occupation, and on Iran. The question is, lead where?
And by the way, it is not only Obama supporters that seem blindly to express the foolish conviction that a Democrat will lead this country out of the mire. They seem to have no idea that Democrats have been as emersed in the mire as have Republicans.
I find Kucinich more in concert with most of my principles as well, and he has never had nor will ever have a chance in hell. My god, even Edwards could not stay in it for any length of time.
What a relief. Your diary breathes with it.
You are setting yourself up for one of two disappointments.
1-A minor disappointment when Obama does name her VP.
Or
2-The biggest Fitzmas of all time if he does not.
I am betting on the latter. I can smell it in the way that the same kinds of people have crowed throughout the last several years as they bet that the Bush regime would topple in the face of massive opposition and massive mistakes. One Fitzmas after another, culminating in the cruelest cut so far…an elected ’06 Dem majority that has underwritten almost all of the BushCo initiatives while providing only lip service opposition.
Yes…THAT kind of lip service, way too often.
Watch.
Obama is SO vulnerable.
Why do I say this?
I refer you to my sig.
I hope that I am wrong.
I really do.
But on the evidence of the last 40+ years of deep politics in America…I fear that I am quite correct.
We shall see.
Soon.
Watch.
AG
If there was a Fitzmas in Obama’s background Hillary and Bill would have found it by now and leaked it to someone in the media. Of that you can be assured.
Really Arthur, give it up. And frankly, if I was Hillary I wouldn’t want to be Obama’s vice president.
The Fitzmas is in his future, Steven.
If the Clintons had the same kind of intel operations available to them that the Neo-Cons have…which they do not, they only have the left wing of the CIA as their allies…perhaps they would have been able to beat Obama. i don’t know. But his race,, his youth, his inexperience, his (inevitable) personal mistakes and bad allies (Inevitable because NO ONE is perfect, especially no one who has lived in the rough-and-tumble world of Rotten America politics and lived to tell the tale.) and his naturally haughty demeanor and Ivy league front combine to make him VERY vulnerable to the right.
Bet on it.
He needs some insurance.
AG
P.S. You write:
I’ve got news fer ya, Steven.
You are NOT Hillary.
From The Wall Street Journal, now the “respectable ” voice of the far right under Murdoch’s ownership. A far right that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WANTS TO SEE MS. CLINTON IN ANY SORT OF POSITION OF POWER. And does not want to see Obama win, either.
Read on.
The hustle is on.
Bet on it.
AG, you’re avoiding me. Where is your banker’s Letter of Guarantee?
You’re so good at seeing the future. Back it up.
I do not know what you mean.
You want to bet me about something?
What is a “banker’s Letter of Guarantee?” Is that what the bourgeoisie use to prove their worth and reliability? In my neighborhoods, your word is your bond and your ass is your collateral.
What are the terms of this bet? Whatchoo offering?
Sportsbook, a bigtime online betting site (Click on “Exotics”. They got THAT one right.), currently offers 1-2 odds that Obama will win the Presidency (That means that if you bet a dollar, you win 50 cents if you are right. He is the faoorite by a goodly amount.), and 3-2 odds that McCain wins.
It also offers even odds that Hillary Clinton will be the VP nominee. Her closest competitors are Jim Webb at 3-1 and John Edwards at 4-1.
My own odds?
Only about 10-9 that Obama will win if he does NOT pick Clinton, and off the table…no sense betting, it’s a done deal and there is no money to be made (like 1-5) …if he does. If he picks Edwards or Webb? He’s in trouble. Creepy li’l bastids, both of ’em. Richardson? He’s a little creepy too, but he does bring some Spanish votes. Clark? He’s even creepier but he brings a LOT of quondam hawks. (Clark at 12-1 and Richardson at 8-1 might be worthwhile bets.) I will not bet on the VP nominee because there is too much unpredictable pressure being exerted from all sides right now, plus Obama is such a deadpan poker player that I have seen no tells.
If I were to bet before the VP candidates were named, only long. LONG odds would entice me to bet either way. Too many variables right now.
AG
The bourgouise don’t bet such a thinly-traded futures market. Think young guns or rich people having fun. It’s more akin to the Vegas crowd than the wealthy investing their money.
Futures markets such as this are not very good predictors. The danger of a false signal is so great that you are probably better off just ignoring the data all together.
AG – I’ve noticed you have taken a lot of flak for your opinion on Clinton. I wanted to let you know I appreciate your observations and analysis of politics and the culture though they are sometimes very blunt.
I agree with you that Clinton is a professional politician. I, too, believe she has been the force behind Bill’s career and her own. Has she contributed and worked in the same way for others? For the party? For the country?
The question about Clinton is how well will she support Obama? Is she a team player or not? It is hard for me to see her sincerely using her skills and talents for the benefit of Obama, particularly after the speech she gave Tues. night.
I have a question for you that I hope is not too personal. In putting together bands, have you worked with musicians who may be good, even gifted, but don’t play well with others? How about those who go so far as to interfere or undercut others? When does the positive get overshadowed by the negatives? When do they need to go?
Of course there are musicians who do not play well w/others but are gifted, and I do not hire them unless they are in some way DEEPLY connected either to me and/or to the music.
But one constant in my business is that those with a long, long record of success in cooperative endeavours…like Hillary Clinton’s record in the Senate, as an adjunct to her husband’s career, in a law firm in Little Rock, as a functionary on the Watergate committee and as a successful academic in what may be the MOST “political” scene in the world, rotted-out bigtime American academia…are not those who cannot cooperate with others.
Were she the witch on wheels that she has been portrayed in the media and the leftiness blogs, she would not have lasted.
She would not have lasted this long nor would she have risen this high.
Bet on it.
I am.
And I hope that Barack Obama will bet on it too.
AG
Arthur, the paragraph police have triangulated your location. Come out with your hands up.
OK.
Only one hand at a time, though.
AG
and btw AG, you’re not reading, listening. Look to who heads the Obama VP Search Team –
Caroline Kennedy, no love for the Clintons, especially after the Hillary – twice uttered RFK on my mind, ..”leaving open my options.” that left the Kennedy clan livid.
Yeah, Obama will disappoint some or many including moi. But Jesus, the prophets of God did too.
Let me know where your perfect world is located. On second thought, don’t…I dislike boredom.
1-What Caroline Kennedy feels for the Clintons?
and
2-How much pull she will have as part of said “search team”? Or will she just another symbolic plant way over there in the corner that will be used to pull the Kennedy mantle even further over the good Senator Obama?
SEARCH team?
C’mon, idredit. Get real. there is no search team necessary. These candidates for the position are not lost way out in the wilderness somewhere, they are knocking on Obama’s door asking for the gig and none of them are in any way unknown quantities. If they DO have something to hide, do you really think that Caroline Kennedy is some kind of highly trained investigator?
Give me a break!!!
The vetting will be done by pros, and the results will be presented to Obama. The so-called search team? Just another in a long line of bullshit DC blue ribbon panels. All front, no mass.
And Ms. Kennedy?
Saaaay…isn’t she the daughter of the guy who picked JBJ as his running mate…the LONG-time political enemy of the liberal wing of the party that JFK supposedly represented (Worse by FAR than the enmity between Obama and Clinton. Bet on it. St least their positions are similar.) so’s he could win the Presidency?
Right?
Get real.
Pragmatism will out.
I hope.
That’s what got him where he is today.
His inside game.
His passing.
Not his spectacular three point shooting.
DEFENSE wins championships.
Every good basketball player knows that.
If political pragmatism does not predominate here then kindly fasten your seat belts, because it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride.
Bet on it.
AG are you on Saturn?
Some weeks ago, you made a bet within these pages that you’d pay any amount of money.
You’ve continue to evade…Where is your banker’s Letter of Guarantee?
AG,
About that VP spot? Ain’t gonna happen. Three’s a crowd. TPTB will nix Obama’s nomination before Clinton gets on that ticket. The most powerful woman in the land has spoken. The Clinton era has ended. Clintonism is dead. Vanquished.
Go read Jeralyn at TalkLeft why the VP spot for Clinton is a NO.
and
this…. not if Obama wants a certain demographics. You can’t curse or insult the AA crowd and expect them to embrace.
.
04:00 – 05:00 – 06:00 – 07:00AM – Hillary at last woke up and realized she had to make a decision!
(The San Francisco Chronicle) – Insiders said Hillary Clinton had been pressured by elected Democratic leaders, including a team of fellow U.S. senators, who expressed displeasure at her election night address and urged her to formally close her contentious campaign against Obama with a more gracious finish in the interest of party unity.
On Wednesday, her campaign did a complete turnabout …
Donor demographics
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, one by one the U.S. butchers of Haditha walk.
Why is that a surprise? The biggest butchers (Cheney, Runmmie, Bush) have walked. Blackwater walked. No one wants them convicted of anything significant because Bush doesn’t want the bad pr. Our military justice system is hopelessly compromised. It’s sad, infuriating, disgusting and appalling but there is nothing you or I can do about it except complain on blogs.
Perhaps, I’ll let my feet do the talking. My grandfather left Germany at a young age (15), I can emigrate from America at an old age (74). The moral rot of this culture is really getting to me.
I understand how you feel, but the only way to fix the rot is to help the construction crew lay a better foundation.
Besides, you’ll find rot everywhere you go. America’s looks so bad right now because we are the last standing superpower (until China gets geared up) and hubris always follows catastrophic success (to borrow a Bushism).
Thanks for not blaming it all on Bush, implying that the same problems were not there before, and somehow electing a Democrat would bring about a 180 degree turn around. The primary difference between Bush and previous administrations is that the Bush regime was so brazen that they let all these things, which have been going on all along, come out into the open for all to see.
Electing a Democrat will mainly mean that the same crap will continue that has always been going on, just in a way that is less in your face, and therefore less unpalatable to the majority of Americans.
One thing I have learned in my time on earth is that karma doesn’t seem to visit the truly evil. And often goodness isn’t rewarded, especially if it intrudes on profits. I guess that’s two things.
I have considered leaving. I really have. But in considering it I’ve come to a couple of conclusions:
YMMV. And I could still change my mind. But for now, I’m staying.
Let me know where you decide to go. I have been looking for a new home for a few years now, especially since Nov, 2004.
In the English-speaking world, New Zealand looks good, or possibly Australia (immigration to Australia is very easy as long as you can meet enough of the criteria – they go on a points system of some kind). Syria is my first choice in the Arab-speaking world, and I know I can be comfortable there. I know I have a home in Pakistan any time I want, but that means learning a new language since I only speak a tiny bit of Urdu, and no Panjabi, which is the dialect where my “you always have a home with us” is. Also, Pakistan is considerably too conservative and religious for me to be comfortable making it my permanent home.
So, I am open to ideas.
Ireland!
I’ve heard good things about Ireland! Maybe I should check it out. The problem is I have not managed to get to Europe, even as a transit stop, since 2005, and that time it was Eastern Europe to visit some friends in Romania.
I need more time off to do the really important things in life!!!!!!!
canada is worth a look…especially BC…not as isolated as NZ, nor as parochial as europe. though l admit, the south of france has a certain draw.
have considered it myself.
Last year one of my colleagues bought an apartment in BC – “just in case”, as she put it.
My first choice is New Zealand. I have met several people from that country at New Age workshops and I have been impressed with all of them. There is no language problem as they are English speaking. The climate is not too different from upstate NY where I live and I am very impressed with their policy of no nuclear-powered ships in any port or harbor of NZ.
This pisses off the Pentagon so pressure is put on citizens from New Zealand when they come to our country, like a lot of strip searches at the only port where they are allowed entrance. I think it is either San Diego or San Francisco.
I dunno, I’ve been to NYC and DC on protest marches to say nothing of those in Syracuse, written letters to the editor expressing my criticism of the Bush cabal, debated with our US Congressman (Walsh) at a public hearing about the inadvisability of going to war with Iran but nothing seems to work. I am appalled by Obama tacking to the right as the election nears and with the failure of the Democrats to impeach Bush and Cheney etc. The more things change the more they stay the same. I vowed in the 1980’s under that pathetic human being R. Reagan, that if the US again walked an evil path, I would leave. I think the time has come to make good on that promise.
But how easy is it to get residency in New Zealand?
When I was exploring the idea of moving my family there a couple of years ago I fou in my research that they place a value on certain job skills of potential immigrants. It’s a small country, obviously, and there are restrictions against those who possess skills that they have no need for or have an abundance of. Fortunately my skills were sought by them. Though now it’s become a financial impossibility to make a move like that. Back when I did my research the exchange rate for currency was much better than it is now.
I hope she goes out graciously and participates vigorously in Obama’s campaign — for her own future political career. She can make a significant contribution as a senator or, possibly, even on SCOTUS. She’s at a critical time of her life and I wish her well. I just wish I could be more optimistic about the pathway she will take.
Sometimes, our greatest gifts involve knowledge of ourselves. Like an increasing fondness for music, art, dance and literature.
Running for the Vice Presidency:
Unfortunately Hillary will be blamed if Obama’s loses, whether she fully supports and works hard for Obama, or she just stays home. In fact many bloggers are already jumping on that bandwagon.
Not sure this is actually an unfortunate thing. I’d prefer Obama wins, but if he loses, I’d rather the Clintons not benefit from it.
She cannot win with the l;eftiness bloggers.
Luckily…they are a miniscule part of the overall picture, although delusions of grandeur do seem to abound in that area of the world.
AG
“… stuck in the knife & twisted …”?
“kneecapped her”?
‘Saved her from herself’ or ‘did her a favor’ is more like it.
I can’t say that I liked or approved of her campaign, but the characterizations made above are simply vicious. Time to get over it.
I’m sure they thought they were doing her (and themselves) a favor. I’m not sure the Clinton family looks at it that way.
It was a fatal blow.
I expect Bill and Hill would perceive any staffer who took such an action to be a traitor. So, in that sense, any such staffer may have been perceived to have stabbed her in the back.
But, in reality, “they shoot horses, don’t they?” It was a mercy stroke by a member or members of her staff who saw that she was delusional about any chance for recovery. They summoned enough of her key backers to give her a dose of reality so that she finally could accept an end to her candidacy. They may have had additional personal motives to end this now, but that doesn’t negate the service they did for the Democratic Party by taking the action they did.
I have to agree. They basically had to convince her that she really doesn’t hold any cards any more. The game is over, but she was having trouble uttering the words.
I suppose in some way it is understandable – she had spent 16 months or so working towards this, and for part of the time she was presumed to be the “inevitable” nominee. It is hard to let go of something that you have worked so hard for even when to continue would be futile and pointless.
Here’s the best thing I’ve seen regarding the eeeeeeevvil kill-my-landlord tape.
Over at No Quarter they just put up a link to a “new group” called Democrats for McCain — that didn’t take long — it’s becoming more and more obvious that they’re a plant. I won’t give a direct link (though boasting of their own popularity will inevitably become part of the disinfo anyway), but if you’ve got Bloglines or something similar, take a look.
From my days back in the sixties in anti-war groups, through my union activism, you start recognizing the plants. You look at their resumes (if one exists), and you work back to see if their explanation is logical. In the case of Larry Johnson it seemed pretty clear to me that he was at least suspicious. But I expect that the troll budget was big this year. He wouldn’t be the only one.
Johnson was never particularly subtle. I joined NQ during the Plame controversy and found myself immediately and massively turned off by a foul mouthed bully who little to offer but still presumed to tell me what to think about domestic politics. And that was before the 2008 election cycle.
I’ve speculated on whether or when ‘they’ were going to try sending in agit prop people. It was almost too easy to uncover one.
Johnson has never shown anything that would indicate he shares any of my concerns. And his rhetorical style is clearly agit prop, since he doesn’t bother with argumentation but simply juxtaposes factoids in a narrative that fails to explain why he reaches his conclusions. Despite his glaring weaknesses, there seems to be an endless stream of gullible readers who will buy into absurd characterizations that fail to meet even a rudimentary logical standard.
“a foul mouthed bully“
There I have to agree with you for sure. I quickly picked up on a kind of purile, immature quality that is reminiscent of someone who never quite relinquished his status as an adolescent male. On the other hand, I often criticized him openly in his comment section, and he seemed to take it OK – he sure did take it better than some of his more adoring fans did. Some of them would jump all over me for daring to criticize Saint Larry.
“it’s becoming more and more obvious that they’re a plant.“
OK, Larry I can see – sort of. But how do you explain Susan? I know her personally. She has a strong history as a Democrat, and as a liberal/progressive, particularly on domestic issues, and her views on health care are passionate, in part as a result of her own situation.
Frankly no explanation for their behaviour really fits.
Not exactly Hurria. Susan began her political life as a Republican. She’s a Democrat on some issues, such as healthcare, as you say. But she’s not as liberal or progressive as you imagine.
NQ was leading up to support for McCain. That’s the only avenue they left themselves after Clinton’s defeat. And I can see Susan wholeheartedly supporting that. Despite the fact that McCain is offering four more years of Bush. While the Obama and Clinton platforms are practically indistinguishable.
Also, regarding your assessment of Obama’s future policies regarding Iraq and the Middle East when he becomes president… Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque echoed your remarks almost verbatim.
I sincerely hope, and I say this regarding the future of the US, Iraq and the Middle East, that both of you are wrong. We’ll see. One good sign is that Obama and the DNC are refusing lobbyist support, such as from the military industrial complex.
OK, Leslie, thanks for the correction. You knew them better and for a longer time than I did, so I am sure you are right about Susan’s politics.
However, I suppose had Hillary won the nomination, and let’s face it, it was a close race (as you said, their platforms were almost indistinguishable) so she could have, they would have been stuck with supporting her. Now they have no choice but to support McCain, and it sure looks like that is starting to happen.
And what about Susan’s passionate devotion to health care reform? I guess now that her own biggest health problem is resolved (or maybe now that she has some kind of insurance?) she isn’t quite so passionate?
Susan’s health problems are ongoing. I could email you the details, but don’t feel comfortable sharing this private info on a public forum.
As to how Susan could rationalize this…I’d have to visit NQ to get a better au courant grasp and am loathe to do that. But my guess is, she’d base her support for McCain largely on national security issues and Larry is an authority on that. She respects Larry. So she may vote against her personal interests if she believes it’s in the nation’s interest.
Yes, I know Susan had more health problems than just the immediate one that was going on last year. Enough said.
No need to sully your eyes by visiting NQ. I took a glance at it last night and this morning, and I felt I needed a shower afterward, even though I only stayed for a few seconds just to see how they were reacting to Hillary’s announcement that she will finally admit she is not going to be the next president. Of course, they have not slowed down a bit, although they HAVE started to tout McCain.
You know, it is all very weird. I remember how Susan excoriated me for helping to elect a Republican whenever I said I could not support either Clinton or Obama and intended to vote for a third party candidate in the general election if either of them were the candidate. And now she is apparently promoting McCain. Inconsistent and irrational are the nicest words I can come up with at the moment.
But the suggestion I have seen here and elsewhere that Larry (and she?) are Republican plants just does not fit. They were so crazed in their support for Hillary – when they were not posting ugly, mostly fabricated stuff about Obama, they were putting up hagiographic material about Hillary. Hillary could very well have won the primary, and they would have had to support her in the general or lose what little credibility they had left. So, it looks to me as if they are either hate Obama so much that they will support whomever is against him, or else they are among those crazed Hillary supporters who cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone who defeated her and will therefore subject the world to another four years of a neocon agenda and a brazenly bullyish foreign and military policy. It seems very childish and petulant to me, especially coming from people who not all that long ago reviled me because I prefer to vote for a third party candidate rather than someone whose positions on critical issues are anathema to me.
And as for national security, it should be obvious to any thinking person that the greatest threat – indeed, the only REAL threat – to U.S. national security is U.S. foreign policy. So, Larry, supposedly an expert on national security, wants more of the worst eight years of foreign policy in a long history of dangerous foreign policy? How does that make sense?
The most charitable conclusion one can come to is that they have both lost their minds.
Has anyone heard anything from Debbie Wasserman Shultz or Stephanie Tubbs Jones in the last day or two? They were some of the most bitter last few in the Clinton bunker. I’m wondering if either has said anything which in any way sounds akin to party loyalty, or if there are any reports of the Party having chats with them about reacquainting them with reality. Wasserman Shultz especially strikes me as a very conservative, DLC-like Dem, who I wouldn’t mind seeing replaced or at least alienated.
Bob,
Wasserman-Shultz was passing around a letter asking people to sign on to Hillary being VP.
She is a conservative and is tight with Lincoln-Diaz Balart and, and ,ugh, Illena Ros-Leithen.
Tubbs may be in hiding. Do they have opponents yet?
I like was posted at Jack and Jill. They are enforcing the Congressional Black Caucus watch. Whoever isn’t preforming is going to a target for replacement.
;P
Some nutjob over at TPM is ranting that it’s all liberal bloggers and Howard Dean’s fault. That Dean supported everything in ’08, that he ran against in ’04. Can you say cuckcoo?
To take it a little further, I’d also say that Clinton’s supporters and advisers did her in back in Dec. & Jan. just by their behavior.
I hope the leaders of the Democratic party pay close attention to the subset of white voters (22%) in the WVa primary that said race was important when casting a vote.
Now that subset may not be as large in CA/MA/NY as it is in NC/SC/TN but it will come into play in battleground states like FL, OH, and MI.
The Dems need this segment of white voters to come out and vote Democrat and not stay at home or vote for someone else.
These voters are Clinton supporters and may be Webb or Richardson supporters, but that fact is unknown.
I’d like to hear the strategy that negates this subset’s affect in battleground states.
The problem with this is that it’s based on identity politics, not issues. What do you want Obama to do to prove he doesn’t hate Whitey? What issues can he reverse course on to show that he doesn’t hate Whitey? Because he has laid his issues out there and I certainly don’t see some sort of black power theme in his issues.
Methinks someone fell prey to the Clinton attack that Obama has a “white person” problem. And he does. Because people like you assume that because he’s black he has to prove that he doesn’t hate Whitey.
Look. There will be white people that simply don’t like black people and will not vote Obama. Then there are others that expect Obama to jump through unending hoops to prove to Fox News that he is as white as Snow White.
That’s stupid politics. His message is perfect as is. All he can try to do is defeat the attacks and to counteract misinformed citizens like you that think he has to prove his racial bona fides–something you would never demand of a white candidate.
mlhm5,
The racists weren’t going to vote for a woman in the general anyway, so why worry about that?
It’s interesting that the two biggest Clinton states in the primaries, New York and California, both have since swung heavily towards Obama. Give a couple of weeks and those margins should grow wider. I doubt that he’ll have “trouble” with Hispanics or women who vote their own interests. Racists? Yeah, but that’s really about the only reason left to vote for McCain.
But thanks for the CONCERN.
I really feel the need to address this. I live in one of those areas that went for Clinton. Actually it is a very Republican area where local elections are resolved in the primary cause there are no Dem challengers.
This past primary more Dems voted at my poll than Reps – it was amazing. Clinton was the definite winner.
In this area above the Mason-Dixon line, the racism is usually subtle. Talking with a local college student about student teaching, she said AA students are told it is not a good idea to choose my local school district for their student teaching.
Just heard an older woman tell a tale about the need to go to a hospital while on vacation. She looked around the group, said no one here, then said 90% of the hospital staff was AA – as if that was conveying information we should all understand.
When someone writes an LTE to the local paper, one’s name must be attached. I have written letters questioning and criticizing Bush and his administration. I then get phone calls, mostly supportive, but sometimes not.
I wrote a letter shortly after Katrina expressing my horror at watching Americans die because of the administration’s utter incompetence and callousness. I then received an anonymous letter that was extremely racist. The focus, beyond threatening me, was all about the AA of New Orleans being responsible for the consequences of and deserving of Katrina – writing of a truly, truly angry and sick person.
Will the outright racist vote for Obama or Clinton? Doubtful. But what about the others whose racism is more subtle – the ones who do not want more Bush via McCain and voted for Clinton.
When I have expressed these concerns here, there have been others who have added their experiences and – or knowledge of the people where they once lived or where they reside now, confirming what I am saying.
I believe Obama has run a brilliant campaign. Do I really want to see Clinton on the ticket – no. But I watched the Bush-Kerry debates and thought, “Who cannot see and hear the difference?” And yet, one of the saddest signs I saw in ’04 was a hand painted sign, “Rabbits 4 Sale” next to a Bush-Cheney sign.
So I am CONCERNED too. Obama’s choice of VP is extremely important. Logic and rationality are not the primary tools used here. Five months is not enough time to try to “educate” and “inform” people about why Obama is the best candidate. Campaigns have become marketing campaigns – how best to “sell” Obama. His VP might make all the difference in all the places that Clinton won – and those were some mighty populated states.
Please don’t dismiss the concerns. I know I will be reading here in the coming months how best to get Obama elected in the area where I live – at least I hope I do.
BTW, I am seeing Obama signs on country roads and around town – not one McCain sign!
You BTCHA!!!
Precisely.
AG
I think we might pick up some Republicans who have learned their lesson to off-set the loss of the Hillary loyalists.
Look at it more charitably. Her own people want to get work in future Democratic campaigns. And that requires the survival of the Democratic Party.
What the event shows is that there is a stubbornness about Hillary Clinton that her supporters had admired but not considered in context. What does her behavior about cutting the losses on this campaign say about the way that she would have handled the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq? If she is stubborn enough to spend her own money chasing a failed cause, how must more of the national treasure would she have spent on Iraq? These are not rhetorical questions. Just questions that the manner in which she is ending her campaign suggests.
To me it says two things:
Give me some evidence for conclusion #2, please.
Besides the media echo chamber.
AG
Arthur,
You’re kidding, right? You think Hillary is fighting for YOU! And all the little women out there that want to be President someday? Um, o.k.
I thought you were a sceptical sort like Bob in Pacific. Your personality certainly doesn’t seem consistent with the typical Hillary bandwagon sitter.
But why is Hillary fighting until the bitter end? Is it because some radical Lefty promises to take the party on some dramatic left turn? Last I checked Hillary and Obama were pretty close on the issues. No. Hillary’s “argument” for staying on is that the politics of personal destruction will destroy Obama and she is more electable. She is not saying his positions are unacceptable. She is saying she’s the better politician and executive. And her “argument” is totally blown out of the water the second she is willing to act as Obama’s VP. If he is an unacceptable leader that isn’t “vetted” from the slime the GOP will throw at him nor is he ready to be President why is she joining his ticket?
You have a unique position, I’ll give you that. You appear to be liberal personally but seem to have adopted the Hillary position that we need a center-right candidate not only on the issues but also a center-right politician in temperment, a la Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. There is no better way to undermine the liberal beliefs I suspect you hold than to support this type of appeasement campaigning. We’ve tried the running scared approach to politics with Al Gore and John Kerry. It doesn’t work and only hurts the liberal cause.
That is because I am NOT a “Hillary bandwagon sitter.”
Typical or otherwise.
Yes.
Precisely, if a little crudely put.
But then you write:
Why does that blow her argument out of the water???
I believe that she is acting in order to defeat the vast right wing conspiracy that she has been fighting…in her own way, and sometimes perhaps not very wisely…for several decades
In order to be a sort of balancing force when the right tries to tip Obama’s position in the minds of the voters right off into radical Never-Neverland.
In order to help him navigate the tricky waters of DC executive-land when he does win.
In order to school him a little in international politics. She WAS right next to the action for 8 years, after all. You think Bill did not seek her input? Please.
How is saying that “the politics of personal destruction” are liable to destroy Obama” equivalent to believing that “he is an unacceptable leader” as you put it? I don’t see the connection, nor has she MADE that connection publicly. That is your connection. Not hers. His race is both a liability and a strength. Her presence on the ticket would lessen that liability without lessening his strength.
You say that I have “adopted the Hillary position that we need a center-right candidate not only on the issues but also a center-right politician in temperment, a la Joe Lieberman or Hillary Clinton!!!???”
Show me where I have said that?
I WANT Obama to be President. On symbolic grounds alone if for no other reason. I think he is a brilliant, subtle, strong man. I also want HRC to be President. On symbolic grounds alone if for no other reason. I think that she is a brilliant, subtle, strong woman. These two people represent the two most oppressed groups in this country. I am first and foremost a proponent of human ecology. Let us use EVERYONE in this country as well as we can and get back on our own two feet.
Obama won. Fine. By less than 1% of the popular vote and not that much larger a percentage of the delegates. Fine. Clinton got over 49% of the popular vote and had SHE been in the lead during the last month or so the weak politician frontrunner superdelegates would have flocked to her and she would have won the delegate count. But that did not happen. Great. She should be on the ticket if only because almost half of the concerned Dems voted for her. And also because her demographic strengths compliment Obama’s. If the positions were reversed I would be arguing to include Obama in the VP slot for many of the same reasons. The only difference would be that in the VP slot he would be putting himself in fine position for 16 years of Dem rule and there would be a slightly a less risky transition of power because Clinton knows the DC ropes better than does he.
So…where is your beef, exactly? Besides between your ears. C’mon, man. You done been mediaswoggled.
Leftiness bloggled.
You make jumps in your reasoning that are nothing less than the results of months of anti-Hillary post-hypnotic suggestion.
In your following comment you suggest that Hillary Clinton’s crime is triangulation, that she is not a fighter for liberal causes.
Well…that is how she and Bill got into power. By winning elections. And I am telling you now that Barack Obama is going to have to make the same hard choices if he means to win. And on past performance, that is exactly what he WILL do, if he is “In it to win it”. America is like that. A vast, obese middle exists here, one that is more flatteringly referred to as the Silent Majority by the Republican right that has…with the sole exception of the Clintons…been the only power to run this country with any amount of success since the day that JFK was murdered.
So go on with your holier than thou act, SFHawkguy. Ignore the realities of power and electoral politics at your own danger. And at mine too. You will most likely get just what you deserve.
8 more years of BushCo for your trouble.
At BEST you will get a Dem President who narrowly won, a divided electorate that is reflected by a divided Congress, and Obama will be the new Jimmy Carter. A good man who doesn’t have a mandate. Bad things DO happen to good people.
Go on wid yo’ bad se’f, SFHawkguy.
You da MAN!!!
Another weak American liberal, always looking in from the outside and complaining about those who have made the necessary adjustments to gain power.
Right, left OR middle.
Have a good life.
Later,…
AG
When is the only time Hillary Clinton cried in public? Has it been on one of the many days Bush’s crimes have been revealed? Has it been in sorrow over her vote for war on Iraq?
No.
It was when she lost a caucus. That’s when the tears flowed. Listen to what she was talking about when she was crying–herself.
What did Hillary do when the going got tough in the 90s on health care? She caved.
I suspect that Hillary had far more influence on Bill’s presidency re the issues and I think it was her counsel Bill took when he decided to triangulate and get tough on crime, get tough on gay marriage, get tough on immigrants, and pass Republican “fair trade” laws and GOP economic laws. Hillary has been anything but a fighter for liberal causes. In fact, she has done more damage by “kneecapping” her allies on the left and triangulating on these issues.
No. Quite clearly Hillary and Bill Clinton do not spend their political capital on issues that are dear to them. They spend their political capital on themselves. Bill spent all his on his impeachment and now Hillary just blew her wad on her race for the presidency. A profile in courage it is not.
“What does her behavior…say about the way that she would have handled the inevitable withdrawal from Iraq?“
No need to ask that question. She made her intentions clear regarding Iraq, and they were about the same as Obama’s – maintain the occupation indefinitely with a reduced force, keeping it hopefully enough under the radar that Americans (and, no doubt, she expected – stupidly – also Iraqis) would stop complaining about it.
Guess the Kentucky Derby was an omen.
Remember Hillary urging her supporters to put their money on Eight Belles.
I really feel sorry for the poor filly – she tried so hard to win.
I hope Obama doesn’t lift a finger to help HRC with her campaign debt. Not because I feel vindictive and spiteful, but because it sends a terrible message. Like the Bear Stearns situation, those who are wealthy and behave in an irresponsible and reckless fashion get bailed out– the rest of us can fend for ourselves.
Billary took in $109 million in the past 5 years. They can pay off their own goddam campaign debt and still have plenty left over to enjoy a sumptuous lifestyle. Why in the world should Obama help them at this point?
Not to mention that with the current campaign finance laws, she can shift her debt from her Presidential campaign over to her Senate campaign coffers. I understand there are time windows and trade-offs; but Billary has other options than bilking Obama.