Clinton prepared to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get a Democratic president

June 3, 2008

It’s hard to say with any certainty just how many Clinton supporters are prepared to vote against the candidate who agrees with her on almost everything, and for the candidate who disagrees with her on almost everything. But when it comes to the candidate herself, Hillary Clinton is willing to say what a handful of her backers are not: we need to elect a Democratic president and she’s prepared to do “whatever it takes” to make that happen.

The context, in this case, was in relation to her interest in the VP slot.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she was willing to do “whatever it takes” to elect a Democrat in the fall in response to a question from Rep. Nydia Velasquez about the vice presidency during a recently completed conference call with the New York congressional delegation. […]

Clinton did not directly address the idea of serving as Obama’s second in command but did make clear that she would do whatever was required of her to help elect a Democrat to the White House in November.

This has renewed speculation about Clinton joining an Obama ticket as the VP candidate. Bu that seems to read something into the remarks that may not be there — as Chris Cillizza noted, “[I]t’s important to remember that refusing to rule out the possibility of serving as vice president is not at all the same as saying you are actively interested in the job.” True. Clinton doesn’t want to close any doors right now, which makes sense.

That said, I found the substance of Clinton’s comments, taken at face value, more important. For all the isolated pockets of disgust, and talk of Dems voting for the conservative Republican candidate (or passively helping elect the conservative Republican candidate by staying home), Hillary Clinton knows full well what the party and the nation needs right now, and that’s a Democratic victory in November and a Democratic president in January.

Hillary Clinton is prepared to do “whatever it takes” to deliver a win this year. I can only hope Dems and everyone else who shares progressive values feels the same way.

The problem here is the assumption that Hillary supporters support her because of her positions. I believe that many independent Hill supporters are like me – they are supporting the candidate who is standing up for what is fair. That’s why these folks won’t return to the flock. They are going to vote for the underdog; they aren’t going to vote for the guy who got a free ride from the press or who played the race card unfairly.

Isn’t it possible, also, that some Hillary supporters support her as an alternative to someone they believe is too liberal and quite possibly shares some of the beliefs of his longtime associates?

  • “Hillary Clinton is prepared to do “whatever it takes” to deliver a win this year. I can only hope Dems and everyone else who shares progressive values feels the same way.

    Going forward, I can only hope that Hillary Clinton’s actions match these words. Based on recent experience, some of us have our doubts.

  • Queen Hillary has done her best to destroy Obama and the Democratic Party’s chances in the November Election by her relentless slimes, smears and lies about Obama. She has traitorously praised McCain’s “experience” claiming that he would be qualified to be our new Commander in Chief; at the same time she said that Senator Obama had not reached that same threshold of experience. She is treachery personified.

  • I truly look forward to an end of the cognitive dissonance that posts like sbj’s give me. It’s like a view into an alternative universe.

  • “they aren’t going to vote for the guy who got a free ride from the press…”

    Obama got a free ride from the press? That’s a good one.

    I wonder what sbj considers “fair”. Giving the nomination to the candidate who came in second in pledged delegates, states won and the popular vote (no fuzzy math needed)?

  • Hillary Clinton is prepared to do “whatever it takes” to deliver a win this year. I can only hope Dems and everyone else who shares progressive values feels the same way.

    Here’ the problem I have with all this kumbayah crap at this point. Hillary has been sending out mixed messaages for the last few months. She has long known she had no chance with out the help of the Vast Right Conspiracy crowd, and the only way to get it was to attack Obama and the party. She has made absolutely insincere arguments, including the suggestion that Obama doesn’t care about women, white people or democracy itself. Then there are these brief “I was just kidding” moments. She owes America a promise, and then she needs to crawl back under the rock from whence she came.

  • You are right SBJ! Vote for the candidate who stands up for what is fair-what ever that means to you. And evidently it isn’t Obama. So vote for McCain (or throw your vote away on a third party candidate) who is on the opposite side of Hillary on virtually every important issue facing this country. Give us another conservative anti-woman’s rights supreme court justice. McCain will keep the war going and continue the death and suffering and waste of national treasure.

    “and quite possibly shares some of the beliefs of his longtime associates?” Why don’t you just say it out loud SBJ? Obam ais a wild eyed black man who is out to get us white folks.

  • “They are going to vote for the underdog”

    I’m sorry, but this is about ending the disaster of the past seven years, not extending it further. Voting for a President is not like voting for the fan favorite on Survivor. Anyone who walks into the voting booth and makes their choice because they want to vote for “the underdog” needs to have their voting card shredded. If you think John McCain’s views and positions are closer to your own, by all means, vote for him…and live with the consequences.

    As far as the vp spot for Clinton. If it makes for the strongest ticket to defeat the Republicans in the fall, then put her on the ticket as vp even though I’d personally rather see someone else. Kennedey hated Johnson, Reagan hated Bush. They were both winning tickets. She’s not MY choice, but if she’s deemed the strategically strongest choice, I won’t complain.

  • …everyone else who shares progressive values…
    Since when has Obama shown progressive values ?

    , Mrs. Rayburn said:…. Giving the nomination to the candidate who came in second in….. the popular vote….?
    It’s clear that you feel that only votes for your candidate should count. I presume that is what Obama means by ‘compromising with Republicans.’ It’s such a pity that Clinton keeps winning, kind of takes the glory from the man who came in second in the popular vote. As for getting a free ride, try watching MSNBC or reading a few op-ed columns. Countdown, as just one example, usually has the first half-hour trashing Clinton and presenting various media figures who could be on the Obama Campaign payroll.

  • sbj-

    Your post is generally correct: people support different candidates for different reasons, and actual policy positions may have more or less weighting in that decision.

    But enough with the “free ride from the press” BS. I agree that he got an easy ride for about a month and a half (an important time, too, mostly during February with a little bit in January and March). Before that period, it was ALL HILLARY, ALL THE TIME. After that period, it was ALL WRIGHT, ALL THE TIME.

    Look, I’m an independent with only a slight preference of Obama over Hillary. People who are blindly for one candidate (or one sports team, or whatever) often exaggerate biases. You are one of those people.

    -Franklin

  • . . . .many independent Hill supporters. . . .are supporting the candidate who is standing up for what is fair – sjb

    I’m not sure I understand what you mean by fair, or how such a desire to support fairness would encourage voting for McCain or prevent voting for Obama.

    . . . .They are going to vote for the underdog. . . . – sjb

    First, I’m not sure what makes McCain or Clinton more of an underdog than Obama, but beyond that struggle to understand the concept of casting a vote for someone just because they are an underdog. I’m more of an underdog than any of them. I mean what are my chances of winning the election right now? Would you vote for me? There will be much bigger underdogs in the general election than Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Why wouldn’t an “underdog vote” be cast for one of them?

    . . . .they aren’t going to vote for the guy who got a free ride from the press. . . . – sjb
    That would be McCain, right?

    . . . .or who played the race card unfairly. . . . – sjb
    I’m not sure where you saw this occur, or what you mean by this, but I assume you mean that Obama played the race card unfairly.

    So if the general is McCain (the guy who got a free ride from the press) vs. Obama (the guy you seem to feel played the race card unfairly), then why vote for McCain over Obama?

    Isn’t it possible, also, that some Hillary supporters support her as an alternative to someone they believe is too liberal – sjb
    Sure it is possible that some Hillary supporters believe that. If that is true, then they probably would have voted for McCain over Clinton as well (since he is less liberal than her). Anyone who would prefer Clinton over McCain based on their political positions needs to take a close look at the positions of all three. I’m pretty confident that they will find that they will prefer Obama over McCain

  • Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) said she was willing to do “whatever it takes” to elect a Democrat in the fall in response to a question from Rep. Nydia Velasquez about the vice presidency during a recently completed conference call with the New York congressional delegation.

    I’ve grown to distrust HRC so much that I can imagine she really meant she was willing to do ‘whatever it takes for HER to be elected, not referring to Obama OR serving as his Veep. When you spend your life valuing integrity in people, it’s nearly impossible to believe people who openly and even unnecessarily lie and play ugly politics.

  • Let’s hope “whatever it takes” means healing wounds she salted and not pressing for VP. I cited this little jewel a couple threads back but it think it’s worth repeating — Does this sound like someone you’d want as your VP? (Note the crowd reaction)

    “Now, I could stand up here and say, ‘Let’s just get everybody together. Let’s get unified,’” Clinton said to laughter of the crowd.

    “The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect,” she said dryly as the crowd erupted.

  • Oh, by the way, I do actually think the Democratic nomination system needs to be improved. In fact that would be a great job for Hillary: replace that sorry-ass Dean with Hillary and something might get accomplished.

  • Franklin – You want someone who doesn’t believe in rules to be in charge of the DNC? Get real.

  • I doubt Obama would want to risk opening the door too widely to Bill Clinton at this point, regardless of any other consideration of having Hillary as his VP. The guy, for all his good points, has become such a loose cannon emotionally these days nobody in their right mind would give him that much access to the halls of power again.

    And Bill and Hillary are a package, no way around it. If you take the one, you’ve got to take the other whether you want to or not. It’s too bad, he really was great once.

  • Hillary’s done so little to help unify the Democrats so far, why should we expect her to do the right thing now? And her VP attempt should be seen for what it is. Extortion.

    The only party I see the Clintons unifying is the Republican party.

  • If you supported Hillary, then turn your back on your party for some sort of revenge when she doesn’t get the nomination, you do not honor her hard-fought candidacy.

    If there’s one important lesson to be learned from Hillary’s candidacy it is that women are as smart as men and that they deserve to be equal players in a democracy’s politics. Maybe one day we won’t even talk about a candidate’s gender, religion or color. But by casting a vindictive revenge vote, these rabid Hillary supporters will endanger the very important effort to fumigate the neo-cons from the White House. And help ensure that race and gender and creed and height and looks and the sound of one’s laugh are “the stuff of leadership.”

  • In fact that would be a great job for Hillary: replace that sorry-ass Dean with Hillary and something might get accomplished. -Franklin

    Yeah, why stick with the guy who leveraged Bush’s unpopularity to help build infrastructure in states and districts the DLC considered losers. Let’s bring someone in who shares the ‘important’ states ideals and will only focus on ‘safe’ states while what little influence the Democrats had is whittled away slowly by the RNC.

    Let’s also all tie plastic bags around our heads.

    What, this is the ‘bad ideas’ thread, right?

  • Such polite rejoinders!

    Members of the press themselves have said that Obama has gotten a fairly free ride. If I see another Time or Newsweek cover with Obama sportin’ a halo I think I’m gonna gag. Industry studies have shown that the press coverage finally got even only AFTER the infamous SNL skit. This isn’t even arguable.

    You take exception with my assertion that the Obama campaign has unfairly played the race card? Good for you! But my point is that many independent Hillary supporters feel this way and they won’t be returning to the flock to vote for Obama because it wouldn’t be fair. It would be pointless for me to argue this obvious truth – look for TNR’s definitive article if you are actually open-minded and interested in the truth: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304.

    “Mrs. Rayburn, you are trying to insult me?” You show your true colors by claiming that Obama has won the popular vote – even before the final votes are in! There is no way to compute the pop vote total fairly, Mrs. – your definitive statement proves you’re full of it.

    Someone else says, “So vote for McCain (or throw your vote away on a third party candidate) who is on the opposite side of Hillary on virtually every important issue facing this country.”

    You don’t seem to understand that voting for the guy who cheated would be endorsing that sort of behavior going forward. We should not have our first (half-)black candidate elected because his campaign and affiliates unfairly called the Clintons racists with the willing support of our biased media. That’s not the way to win and, IMO, would actually be counter-productive to the cause of electing a minority candidate in the long term.

    This same person wrote “Obama is a wild eyed black man who is out to get us white folks.” I think this sort of talk has no place here and I urge Steve to ban this user forever.

    BTW, Steve. Quite the echo chamber you’ve got going here. Do any of your readers ever disagree with you?

  • See the story of “The Scorpion And The Frog.”

    Clinton & Clinton, Penn, McAuliffe, Lanny Davis and the rest of those assholes shouldn’t be let anywhere NEAR Obama’s war room.

    They have used racial dog-whistling, feminazi toadying, right-wing suckups (including the Mellon Scaife embarrassment) and on and on too many times. Their reputation among real Dems is now mud.

    Clinton should make some hearty public endorsements, tell her cult members to move on and support Obama, and leave it at that. No one will care much what she’s saying or doing in a month or more as long as it’s not undermining him. And the less we see and hear of her junta during the general, the better.

  • sbj (21):Members of the press themselves have said that Obama has gotten a fairly free ride.

    They also said they asked the tough questions in the leadup to the Iraq war. Occasionally they lie. But they almost always say what is most self-serving.

  • Obama needs to quash Hillary VP hopes within a couple of weeks if he is going to and HE SHOULD. Enough of her supporters will come around given time. Those that wont, probably wont even vote for Obama with her as VP, IF she even wants them to!

  • sbj —

    After 28 years in which Washington was dominated by Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Ken Starr, and Bush Junior, with the briefest of Clinton hiatuses, a Democrat finally gets good press, possibly better press than he deserves, and your reaction is that it’s unfair? My reaction is: Let’s leverage this, dammit! If we — finally — have the guy the press wants to have a beer with and we agree with him on the vast majority of issue and he’s drawing new voters and beating the GOP in the polls and winning his own party’s delegate count, this is a problem?

  • Funny how Obama is always personally gracious, direct, respectful, focused, etc.

    but for many of his supporters, particularly some of the recent posters on this board, none of those descriptions come to mind. Some of the pro-Obama posts recently seem almost deliberately calculated to be so obnoxious and repellant that one suspects a disinformation campaign by McCain supporters at work, trying to peel away a few votes.

  • for DanP: You can either enter the URL straight into your Yahoo or whatever, or search for “The New Republic Race Man” Not sure why this link doesn’t work here.

    Excerpt: “The Obama campaign’s most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign’s strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters–a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a “post-racial” figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

    More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the “race card” were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the “race-baiter card” before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada–and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama’s supposedly uplifting campaign.”

  • I know a whole bunch of Clinton supporters, and not one of them would ever THINK of voting for McCain. The news will find the crazies and show them, but I suspect most Dems want a Dem president regardless of who they voted for in the primaries.

    I have been incredibly disappointed with Clinton, and I think she’s done damage to herself and the party, but I’m not going to waste time bashing her or her supporters. I’m going to spend my energy on supporting and promoting the Dem presidential nominee, thanks.

  • Clinton prepared to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get a Democratic president


    I believe her.

    12 more years of Republicans is guaranteed to make people *really mad*
    which should boost, if slightly, the chances of a Dem in 2020.

    12:
    – McCain won’t outlast one term,
    – whoever he picks for Veep will be THE ONE SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS IN IRAN

    By 2020 we should have all the oil, and can declare victory and go home.

  • Some of the pro-Obama posts recently seem almost deliberately calculated to be so obnoxious and repellant that one suspects a disinformation campaign by McCain supporters at work, trying to peel away a few votes. -pfgr

    Could those commenters be named ‘strawman?’ Funny, I was just thinking earlier about how obnoxious the Clinton supporters are, like Mary, Greg, and newbies like Everett and sbj.

    Well, fortunately for your delicate sensibilities, none of the offending Obama supporters among commenters here are actually Barack Obama, and, to my knowledge, other than Doctor Biobrain, none of the commenters are running for President, so you don’t have to worry yourself with how they behave.

    I’ve seen this meme developing over the last several days. Obama supporters are just so mean, how, oh how will we ever bridge the divide with all of us nice, sweet Clintonistas?

    Fuck that. When she drops out and you all return to reality, we’ll make nicey nice. Until then, and I speak only for myself, not for Obama or any other commenters, I’m absolutely sick of the bullshit I’ve been forced to endure about popular vote this, only because he’s black that, and you’re damn right I’m angry.

    Now I have to listen to desperate dead enders rehash every disingenuous argument about race cards and experience because they know it’s over, they feel it, and they need one last thing to grasp on to all while playing the victim (oh the media, oh the bloggers, woe is me) while whine to me for not extending the olive branch.

  • SBJ Writes:
    You don’t seem to understand that voting for the guy who cheated would be endorsing that sort of behavior going forward. We should not have our first (half-)black candidate elected because his campaign and affiliates unfairly called the Clintons racists with the willing support of our biased media. That’s not the way to win and, IMO, would actually be counter-productive to the cause of electing a minority candidate in the long term.

    Sheeeez-where to start with such nonsense? 1) How did Obama cheat Hillary out of the nomination? He has played by the rules. 2) Obama is half-white in addition to being half-black.3) Hillary is to blame for the loss of this nomination! She lost it back when she helped Bush go to war so she could prove that women are just as tough as men.

    Here’s a link to the best piece I’ve seen about Hillary’s support of the Iraq war resolution;

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DC1430F930A35755C0A9619C8B63&scp=1&sq=hillary%27s+war+gerth&st=nyt

  • From over at Hullabaloo:

    Luckie Duckie Black People

    by dday

    It takes a special dementia and a deep-seated sense of aggrievement to come up with this statement:

    On the June 2 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, while discussing Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy, Rush Limbaugh asserted that the Democratic Party was “go[ing] with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he’s black.”

    I think we can take a look at the 230-year record of African-Americans in the electoral arena and make a decent judgment on this one. But this is standard-issue Nixonland backlash stuff. “The blacks” get the jobs, the government handouts, the special treatment, and now they’re being handed the Presidency. That’s the particular view of the world that Limbaugh is endorsing here. The Republican Party, demoralized and frustrated, is hoping to rile up the country with an identity politics-based campaign intended to speak to white people as a captive, persecuted minority against the big, bad un-American black majority waiting to install themselves in the White House and send every Caucasian to a re-education camp. As Jesse Taylor (welcome back!) at Pandagon writes, by the end of this campaign…

    Obama is going to become Blackazoid, the Nubian Avenger, here to right all the perceived wrongs black people illegitimately feel were heaped on them since we solved racism in 1963. Reparations? He wants them. Islam? Prepare to pay a prayer mat fee for your kids’ next school year. I can’t wait to hear the shit we didn’t even know was racist – did you know Obama wants to put elastic bands on all our pants? And ban straws?

    Blackness is about to become the best privilege imaginable, and stories of disadvantaged white people the new currency of the Republican realm.

    This is inevitable, and as the election grows closer it’s only going to get more overtly offensive.

  • That’s why these folks won’t return to the flock.

    Here’s news for ya sbj: the flock doesn’t want you. It’s a waste of pixels to argue with these goons. Just flip over to Hillary’s blog and read the vile words and all the woe-is-me weepers. And the idiots are still donating! Which leads me to believe that all this wishywashy crapola Hillary’s sending out today is just a mere ploy to vacuum any remaining lint out of her die-hard hysterical supporter’s pockets AND to rob us of the glory we justly deserve. Fine by me. But don’t expect these assholes to contribute or even phone bank for Obama. They’re tapped out and bitter. Who needs ’em?

    I say off with the kid gloves. They don’t do jack until election years, and then they come out of their slimy dank dark holes to make the rest of us look like jerks.

    12 delegates remaining…

    Looking for a great celebratory drink for tonight? Go here

  • If it’s VP Hillbill will anyone even know Obama is president? Will he ever capture a news cycle?

  • “…She is treachery personified….”

    “…she needs to crawl back under the rock from whence she came…”

    “…The only party I see the Clintons unifying is the Republican party…”

    “…Clinton should make some hearty public endorsements, tell her cult members to move on and support Obama, and leave it at that. No one will care much what she’s saying or doing in a month or more as long as it’s not undermining him. And the less we see and hear of her junta during the general, the better….”

    “…For Barack Obama, having BILLARY Clinton as Vice President would be like having a Live SNAKE under the bed covers!..”

    If Clinton were winning we’d here the same crap coming from “some” Obama supporters claiming they would vote McCain etc. I find it amazing that the fact that over 17 Million people voted for Clinton yet some here call them cult members.

    Also some suggest that nearly half the democratic party is trying to destroy the democratic party lost in the idea that unless those in the party think like they do then they are not the party…which doesn’t hold up when you consider over 17 million voted for Clinton. Then they suggest the slimiest motivations behind her behavior as if she wasn’t trying to to do what she considered best for the party just like Obama did what he considered best. If she truly believes that McCain could beat Obama but not her then if she cared for the party she would do all she could think of to prevent that from happening but nooo…she is “treachery personified” and “needs to crawl back under her rock”.

    I’ve concluded there are Obama supporters and then there are Hillary haters who spew forth venom on Clinton that Obama would certainly reject, whose bitterness and resentment poisons their judgment. Obama/Clinton in ’08 would be a strong ticket and a big step in bringing back party unity that was inadvertently divided as a consequence of having two strong candidates running for the same seat. These are not dictators but representatives of us and if over 17 million voted for one and (I’m guessing but just to be fair) over 17 million voted for the other then that is strong representation. It’s not about personalities or 2 individuals…it’s about the country. I’m voting for my country, what is best for it.

  • I’ll say this as someone who liked Edwards (remember him?), come November, every sane person in this country, meaning those who recognize how the Rethugs have flung our country into the ditch, will be voting for the Dem nominee. Let’s get over ourselves and our disappointment and do what’s best for what’s left of our country.

  • If Clinton is willing to do “whatever it takes,” then she can begin with these:

    1.) Take Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, and Ferraro out behind the barn—AND SHOOT THEM! Leave their nasty corpses out for the crows and coyotes to feast on.

    2.) Throw that ridiculous excuse for a husband into the Harlem River.

    3.) Go back onto FOX and tell Bill O’Rielly—the shrill little man-cub—that he squeals like a girl—and then kick him in the cojones—on live, national TV—to prove the point.

    4.) Do the same thing to Richard Mellon Scaife—on the pitcher’s mound of a Pirates’ home game—during the singing of the National Anthem—again, on live, national TV.

    5.) Remind John McMaybe that he’d be about as good a president as a used, diseased tampon.

  • “You don’t seem to understand that voting for the guy who cheated [evidently referring to Obama] would be endorsing that sort of behavior going forward. We should not have our first (half-)black candidate elected because his campaign and affiliates unfairly called the Clintons racists…”

    This hard-working American, white American is living in his own private Idaho.

  • “I find it amazing that the fact that over 17 Million people voted for Clinton yet some here call them cult members.”

    17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton…17 million voted for Clinton.

    Anybody who parrots mindless talking points shouldn’t be surprised when they’re accused of cult-like behavior.

    I have news for joey. In addition to be fudged, those numbers are irrelevant since campaigning for delegates requires a different strategy (i.e. campaigning in small states and rural areas) than campaigning for popular votes.

    Hillary knew the rules in advance. Now that she’s lost the delegate race, she’s trying to frame the campaign as a popular vote race. Such spin is for suckers.

  • Okay, Joanie, perhaps cheat is too harsh a word. How about, “Voting for the guy who deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters” would be endorsing that behavior and those tactics.

    Do yourself a favor and read Race Man by Sean Wilenz at The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304).

    For all those who see the Obama campaign as pure and clean and deny unequivocally that they have played the race card please read this article. I call playing the race card cheating.

    Excerpt: “The notoriously right-wing, scandal-mongering Drudge Report website ran a photograph of Obama dressed in the traditional clothing of a Somali elder during a tour of Africa, attached to an assertion, without evidence, that the Clinton campaign was “circulating” the picture. The story was silly on its face–there are plenty of photographs of Hillary Clinton and virtually every other major American elected official dressed in the traditional garb of other countries, and Obama’s was no different. The alleged “circulation” amounted, on close reading, to what Drudge’s dispatch said was an e-mail from one unnamed Clinton “staffer” to another idly wondering what the coverage might have been if the picture had been of Clinton. Possible e-mail chatter about an inoffensive picture as spun by the Drudge Report would not normally be deemed newsworthy, even in these degraded times.

    Except by Obama and his campaign, who jumped on the insinuating circumstances as a kind of vindication. The Drudge posting included reaction from the pinnacle of Obama’s campaign team. “It’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world,” said Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe, who also described the non-story as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election” and “part of a disturbing pattern.” Although he never explicitly spelled out the contours of this pattern, he was clearly alluding to race baiting. Later in the day, Obama himself jumped in, repeating the nasty, slippery charge that the Clinton campaign “was trying to circulate this [picture] as a negative” and calling it a political trick of the sort “you start seeing at the end of campaigns.”

    Although finally skewered, for the first time, on “Saturday Night Live” over the past weekend for its pro-Obama tilt, the press corps once again fell for this latest throw of the race-baiter card, turning the Drudge rumor into its number one story, obscuring Clinton’s major national security address. In doing so, the media has confirmed what has been the true pattern in the race for the Democratic nomination–the most outrageous deployment of racial politics since the Willie Horton ad campaign in 1988 and the most insidious since Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, praising states’ rights.”

  • Two words explain why Obama can’t pick Hillary Clinton: Bill Clinton. I thought he was a great president but he must ALWAYS be the center of attention, and I think the volatility he’s demonstrated on the campaign trail over the past several months indicates that he’s developed some emotional issues since he left the presidency. As much residual fondness as I have for him, I don’t think the Democratic party can afford to have him in a high profile position where his every indiscretion will be viewed under a microscope. And you can’t fire your vice-president’s husband.

    And there are two more words: Clinton herself. She’d always be working away at her own agenda, which, I believe has nothing to do with helping Obama govern as we try to recover from 8 years of the catastrophic Bush & Cheney administration. Her agenda, instead would have everything to do with accumulating power and obtaining the ultimate office for herself, by any means available. And I mean any. I don’t think she can be trusted and I don’t think you can fire your vice-president, either.

    Those are hard words to say about a pair of people I used to admire.

  • sbj: “Voting for the guy who deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters…”

    From one hard-working American, white American to another (as far as I know)…if the shoe fits.

  • Here’s a handy link for you, sbj.

    I don’t mean to tell folks whom they should bother responding to, but the minority of Clinton dead-enders who prefer the myth of Clinton’s victimization to the reality of her piss-poor campaign are not exactly the best target of our time.

    Most Clinton supporters are reasonable and will vote in their, the country’s and the world’s interests this fall, just as those of us who came to Obama as a second choice after preferring other candidates are doing. Life’s too short to try to convince the totally irrational that Clinton lost it fair and square through her own numerous missteps. They’ve chosen the white-woman-beaten-up-by-the-mean-black-guy explanation because it fits comfortably into their world view, and they’ll take it to their graves.

  • Maria,

    You’ve persuaded me. I’ve been stressed out since Texas. Now that it’s over, I’m takin’ a break until after the conventions are over.

    You’ve had a calming influence on this blog for us angry liberals. Well done sister.

    See you in September.

  • sbj, the “race baiting” incident you describe was one in which both campaigns expressed regret. In fact, it was one of the occasions that would inevitably make both Obama & Clinton take a step back and realize that, when info comes in that maligns either one of them, they should consider the source. Yeah, it was a low point in OBAMA’S campaign, but if you think it puts his campaign on a par with Clinton’s in terms of negativity and mudslinging, you’re fooling only yourself…and probably Mary.

    Sweet grapes are tastier than sour – I suggest you traipse on over to the winning side to try some. Maybe in a few weeks you’ll come to realize how divisive Hillary’s campaign, and by extension her defenders became. Maybe not. Don’t care. I’ve no idea if Obama will be able to transform politics the way he wants to, but I’m quite sure McCain will suck exactly as he’s positioning himself to suck. If that degree of suckitude is worth it for you to save your face, then I pity youan and all of us forced to live this lie with you.

  • Chris, don’t leave us, babe! You know you can’t do it. You knooooooooooow you looooooooooove us.

    Lord knows no one’s ever called me a “calming influence” before, but thanks, and seriously, come back as soon as you find it fun again.

  • I’ve no idea if Obama will be able to transform politics the way he wants to, but I’m quite sure McCain will suck exactly as he’s positioning himself to suck.

    A totally classic line. May I steal this, slappy?

  • I find it amazing that the fact that over 17 Million people voted for Clinton yet some here call them cult members. — Joey, @37

    Of those 17 million, how many, would you estimate, will *refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee*, just because it’s Obama? Among my family/acquaintance, I know of about 9 people who voted for Clinton in their primaries (including my own husband). Of those 9, 8 will vote *for a Democrat* in November. Only one is saying “Clinton or nothing; I don’t care about anything else”. From my point of view, those 8 are Democrats; the last one is a Clinton cult member.

    Nobody is calling *all* of those 17million (if that’s the number) people “cultists”; they simply exercised their right to chose and were outvoted. But those who are emulating Louis XIV (after me, the deluge), cannot be considered sane; “cultist” is as polite a term as one could possibly apply to them.

  • maria, feel free. Every time someone quotes me, an angel gets its wings AND Obama gets another Clinton superdelegate to jump ship!

  • It would be pointless for me to argue this obvious truth – look for TNR’s definitive article if you are actually open-minded and interested in the truth

    Yes, Sean Wilentz — a personal friend of the Clintons from since he and Bill went to Oxford together, a man who went to the mat for Bill during the impeachment hearings, and a historian who was desperately hoping for a position in Hilary’s administration — is so definitely the embodiment of an open-minded assessment of her rival for the nomination.

    You might as well have pointed us to an article by Harold Ickes.

  • Perhaps the greatest comedy/tragedy of the evening is over at Clinton’s campaign blog—it’s just chock-full of people who whine about “how sad it is that McCain will win in November”—and then declare that “they will vote for McCain, no matter what.”

    The comedy/tragedy part comes into play when you start reading through the mini-whine-rant posts—and discover that it’s only about 70 or 80 people making all the threats within the almost 1,100 comments. Most of the posters are declaring allegiance to the Party, regardless of who the nominee is.

    Also, the “HillaryHub” seems to have gone offline now. My server isn’t recognizing the name any more. A sign of things to come in the next few hours, perhaps?

  • sbj, @42,

    Sean Wilentz is not, precisely, an objective source on this particular subject, any more than Paul Krugman is. They are both excellent on some other issues but, when it comes to the Clinton/Obama race… Oy…

  • Steve (#53) and Maria (#45) are right on. A few ranting posts is not the same thing as all “17 million” Clinton voters. None of the Clinton supporters I know is going to vote for McCain.

    In the heat of the Rev. Wright saga, the Gallup Poll still showed that only 28% of Clinton’s voters would vote for McCain. Over time that number will go down as tempers cool and these folks get a chance to truly look at John McCain.

    Here’s the link.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

  • It looks like the primaries are finally over, but Hillary Clinton hasn’t withdrawn from the race yet, while Obama says he’s the winner! Whom would you like to see as his running mate? Should it be Hillary herself? People Power Granny asks you to read my my post about this tonight and vote in my poll regarding if Hillary should be his running mate.

  • Put the Clintons on an airplane, fly out over the Atlantic, and throw them out without parachutes. We need the Clintons working for this campaign like we need a good case of the clap (which is what they are, politically).

  • Libra@54 and TR@51, instead of attacking the messenger, why not try reading the article? It should be critiqued based on what it says, not critiqued – without reading – based on the messenger. This is about as closed-minded and intellectually dishonest as one could get.

    Have not yet seen any person here make any credible counter-argument that Obama’s campaign has not unfairly portrayed the Clintons as race baiters. – would like to hear some defense of the Somali garb incident, which at least one person acknowledges to be a low point in the Obama campaign. But that’s not the only one (excerpt below). For those who ostensibly are looking for a new sort of politics, it seems mighty strange to endorse this despicable behavior.

    Excerpt: “At the last minute …there was a sudden movement among the voters, this time toward Clinton. Many ascribed it to an appearance by Clinton in a Portsmouth coffee shop on the eve of the vote, where, with emotion, she spoke from the heart about why she is running for president.

    That evening, the Democratic campaign became truly tangled up in racial politics–directly and forcefully introduced by the pro-Obama forces. In order to explain away the shocking loss, Obama backers vigorously spread the claim that the so-called Bradley Effect had kicked in. … Senior Clinton campaign officials later told me that reporters contacted them saying that the Obama camp was pushing them very hard to spin Clinton’s victory as the latest Bradley Effect result. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, a cheerleading advocate for Obama, went on television to suggest the Bradley Effect explained the New Hampshire outcome, then backed off–only then to write a column, “Echoes of Tom Bradley,” in which he claimed he could not be sure but that, nevertheless, “embarrassed pollsters and pundits had better be vigilant for signs that the Bradley effect, unseen in recent years, has crept back.”

    In fact, the Bradley Effect claims were utterly bogus, as anyone with an elementary command of voting results could tell. If the “effect” has actually occurred, Obama’s final voting figures would have been substantially lower than his figures in the pre-election polls, as racially motivated voters turned away. Later, Bill Schneider, the respected analyst on CNN, several times went through the data on air to demonstrate conclusively that there was no such Bradley Effect..

    The very next morning, Obama’s national co-chair, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., …played the race card more directly by appearing on MSNBC to claim in a well-prepared statement that Clinton’s emotional moment on the campaign trail was actually a measure of her deeply ingrained racism and callousness about the suffering poor. “But those tears also have to be analyzed,” Jackson said, “they have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest … we saw tears in response to her appearance, so that her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina, not other issues.” And so the Obama campaign headed south with race and racism very much on its mind–and on its lips.”

    • Comments are closed.