Kick her while she's down

May has been a hard month for Hillary Clinton and her supporters. We entered the month with cries of "The Math" from the Obama campaign. The North Carolina and Indiana primaries on the 6th did not do nearly enough to dent Obama's delegate advantage. After she made up significant ground in West Virginia and Kentucky on the 20th the Obama campaign cranked up its sleaze and smear campaign. They soon realized that blaming their losses on Appalachian racism was wrong and self destructive, so they turned to their most despicable tactic and promoted a story so deranged that even the NY Post backed off from it. Exploiting the death of RFK was the lowest point to date for a campaign with a history of character assassination and division. That very weekend an Obama friend of 20 years gave a divisive and misogynist sermon at Trinity UCC, Obama's now former church, putting Obama on the defensive and yielding another misstep. I never thought I would see a Republican reject attacks on Hillary Clinton with more grace than the Democrats, but here was John McCain saying "I respect her and I think that kind of language and that kind of treatment of Senator Clinton is unwarranted, uncalled for and disgraceful," while all Obama could think about was himself "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause" Other Democratic party leaders couldn't even manage that "more in sorrow than in anger" response to hateful rhetoric aimed at a Democrat. But the last blow was to come from the party hacks.

Everyone but the most deluded Obama supporters knew that the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee would reverse itself and give Florida and Michigan meaningful representation at the convention, that was clear from the day of their decision last year. The only question was what compromise they would negotiate. In the end the Obama campaign wrung enough delegates from the committee to put the nomination out of Clinton's reach, but only by taking Clinton's Michigan delegates. In doing so Obama (He had the votes) and the RBC abandoned any notion of rules and gave a final insult to Clinton, her supporters and democracy.

Once again voters rallied to Clinton's side. She finished off the month with a big win in Puerto Rico.

One would think that politically, from Obama's point of view, none of this makes any sense. Obama needs Clinton's supporters to be even competitive in the general election, why would he be kicking Hillary while she was down if he had the nomination in the bag? That drives them to McCain. Obama has two problems, both of which do serious damage to his prospects in the general election. One is that he did not have the nomination in the bag, and he damaged himself by aggressively overcompensating for his real weaknesses. His second problem is that he is disconnected from and tone deaf to the concerns of large segments of the Democratic electorate. He and his supporters have been consistently blind to the offense their attacks have given to women, Hispanics and working class people, while being hypersensitive to any offense to him.

It is hard to imagine, after the RBC meeting, that Hillary Clinton will win the nomination. No doubt she will do what she has always promised to do: work her heart out for the nominee. But she cannot save Obama from himself. So far he shows no sign of even understanding how deeply his actions have offended voters, and no sign of desiring to repair the damage. Maybe in his big speech tomorrow he will skip the soaring but empty rhetoric, finally acknowledge his own role in the divisiveness of this primary and begin to talk to the people he has pushed away.

Updated to link to Donna Brazile's statement that Obama had the votes to nullify Michigan if he so chose.



Display:


Who are we kicking? And I thought there (2.00 / 1)

was no such thing as a pledged delegate, so what's the big deal?


by bobdoleisevil on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:22:08 PM EST

"That just drives them to McCain." (2.00 / 1)

No.  The only thing that drives any Democrat to support John McCain (or even threaten it) is severely misplaced priorities.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST

Re: "That just drives them to McCain." (none / 0)

Yeah, if they had their priorities straight they would support a man and a party that has built their platform on the hatred of women.

Just because they are women or they like women or they believe in fairness and justice, that is no reason not to do what they are told and when they are told to do it!

After all can anyone seriously think that a being as lowly as a woman can be publicly humiliated?  After all just being a woman is humiliation enough, so how can further damage be done?

Get real, we all know women's rights are not real rights.  Hell that is just lip service we give women when we want something, like their votes.  No one takes that crap as the seriously.

I mean how many times have we had to do the same thing with our wives or girlfriends to appease them when they get wacky?  But it's not real.  We know that and they know that.

The good news is that women know what's good for them, so despite their tantrums, they will do what's best, what we tell them to, in the end.

It's just too bad they have to waste all our time with these stupid protests of theirs, when they know and we know, that we know what they really need.

It's like crying rape, when everyone knows they really wanted it.  Right?

We'll never understand the way they carry on; no one can.  So just ignore them, after a while they'll settle down and then it's back to normal.

Hey Sweetie, get me another beer....


by RockRooky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "That just drives them to McCain." (none / 0)

Whoooa.  I mean,

whoooa.  Keanu-style.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "That just drives them to McCain." (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, if they had their priorities straight they would support a man and a party that has built their platform on the hatred of women.

You mean like John McCain and the Republican Party?

I'm seriously not getting what you're driving at here.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

while i agree with some of (2.00 / 3)

you diary - the RBC ruling is not BO's fault.  the blame falls solely on the committee's shoulders.


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:23:42 PM EST

I liked this quote from one woman who was there (2.00 / 1)

"I've been voting for 40 years," said Deborah Foster, a teacher from Long Island, N.Y. "Those idiot bosses in there have given me two winners in 40 years. And now they're going to tell us how people are voting and take votes away? The party elite sucks."


by phoenixdreamz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, she's rather ignorant (none / 0)

of the facts and history.

"Idiot bosses" were largely taken out of the process (at least their roles were extraordinarily minimized) when? 40 years ago with the McGovern-Fraser commission.

I hope she's not a history teacher.


by bobdoleisevil on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speak for yourself (2.00 / 1)

I believe the McGovern-Fraser commission is her reason for mentioning 40 years specifically, and you're missing her larger point: that reform has netted us 2 winners in all that time.


by phoenixdreamz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um, no. McGovern-Fraser largely removed (2.00 / 1)

the "idiot bosses" from the process of choosing the Democratic nominee.

By her logic of 2 winners in 40 years, she should embrace the "idiot bosses" choosing the nominee this year. Makes victory more likely since they had a very good record of winning the presidency.


by bobdoleisevil on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yet..... (none / 0)

She was expecting the party elites to overturn the regular delegates.....

Things that make you go hhhmmmm.....


by IowaMike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:38:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: while i agree with some of (2.00 / 1)

No, it is not Obama's fault, as I said the blow came from the party hacks. But Obama played his role in it, Donna Brazile was proudly touting how Obama had the votes to completely nullify Michigan. There is no question that he controlled that outcome.


by souvarine on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:31:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: while i agree with some of (2.00 / 1)

If there is no question that he controlled the outcome, will you discuss you feelings about why he went for the more centrist 69-59 instead of the 50/50.  It seems to me like he decided to not create additional hurt, but I don't get that impression from you.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: while i agree with some of (none / 0)

50/50 was never a real proposal and would have perpetuated the damage he did to his general election chances by removing himself from the Michigan ballot. He went for 69-59 either because he needed Clinton's votes or because he wanted to humiliate her by showing that he could take them. I'm guessing the former.


by souvarine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:21:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: while i agree with some of (2.00 / 1)

Hillary's suggestion that she should get 73 Michigan delegates and Obama get none was beneath contempt. You are completely blind to the odious tactics from the Clinton camp all along.

The right response to the Michigan fiasco was to treat it like the farce it was and give the delegates 50/50 and then split them to half votes.


by elrod on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As he should have. (none / 0)

There is no question that he controlled that outcome.

Michigan held an invalid primary election. The DNC was totally within its rights to sanction the election 100%. Instead, Obama graciously allowed a lesser penalty. Michigan voters are thanking Obama for agreeing to this lesser penalty. It's like when you get pulled over by a cop for speeding and he lets you off with a warning. Whew!


by edg1 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Man, FL/MI are gone. Over. Kaput. Finished! (none / 0)

Is there a site on the internets where people are still complaining about the Y2k bug?


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:06 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

this one's for you
souv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5WbyUZFE MM


"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"
by nogo postal on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:21 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

The North Carolina and Indiana primaries on the 6th did not do nearly enough to dent Obama's delegate advantage.

Of course it didn't. This race was done after the Potomac primaries.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:36 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Uh huh. I imagine Senator Obama cackling "MWAH HAHAHAHAHA!" and steepling his fingers as you present your entirely unbiased and well-thought out and reasoned story.

Here, you need this!


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:24:47 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

Too little, too late. If Obama had any intention of being a uniter, he would have run a dramatically different campaign. The bridges are burned, permanently, between him and many vital segments of the electorate. he may even have driven a stake into the very heart of the Democratic party, if the tenor of Clinton supporters all over this country is any measure.

Should he "wheeze" his way to victory as the illegitimate nominee, it will be a costly Pyrrhic victory at most.

It's not over yet, folks, we are going to Denver!


by 07rescue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:26:13 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

If Hillary concedes, she'll want you to support the nominee.

(The Democratic nominee)


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

...The fact that you had to clarify the word "nominee" does not bode well.


by TCQuad on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

But we won't, as we are not cult members and continue to think for ourselves.


by RockRooky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:05:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Well. As I said in another comment--for some folks it's never been about supporting Senator Clinton, it's always been about opposing Senator Obama.
Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

I don't think you're comment was melodramatic enough. Can you expand on it?
by neonplaque on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:38:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

This is bizarre... SHE throws the kitchen sink, and HE's not the uniter?  

I just don't understand the doublethink from Clinton supporters...


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:32:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters say (2.00 / 1)

he doesn't need Clinton supporters.

Let's find out.


by Coldblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:31:04 PM EST

Re: Obama supporters say (2.00 / 1)

Which ones? Where?


by TCQuad on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you see (2.00 / 1)

this diary?


by Coldblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you see (2.00 / 2)

You mean this part?

Update: To be perfectly clear this is not a criticism of Hillary supporters in general, far from it, but is a response to the few who promote ongoing, and counter-productive, angst here over voting metrics when the RBC has already ruled, continue attacks on Senator Obama when it is increasingly clear he is the presumptive nominee and declare tacit or overt support for McCain on a progressive Democratic blog during an election year.

Let's be honest here.  The vast majority of Clinton supporters will come to be enthusiastic Obama supporters, just as the vast majority of Obama supporters would have done if the tables were turned.

There will be a small fraction who will never, ever vote for Barack Obama, come hell or high water, even if Hillary Clinton endorses him and works whole-heartedly on his behalf.  For them, he can do no right; for them, he could win the Olympics, cure cancer, and solve world hunger in a single day, and they'd criticize him for showing off.  For them, it was never about supporting Clinton, it was about opposing Obama.

We will never get the support of that second group, no matter how much we try.  But thankfully, they are small enough that it won't make a difference, when compared with the vast majority of their reasonable and rational progressive peers who will coalesce behind Obama.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:47:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They (none / 0)

(your second group)are larger than you are imagining.

Just my opinion of course, but you do need to understand that this nomination contest is more unique than anything in my lifetime.


by Coldblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They (2.00 / 1)

If I spent a lot of time here, I'd peg it at about 20-25% of the electorate.  If I spent more time at someplace like NoQuarter or H44, I'd guess it to be more like 99%.  If I spent all my time at Kos or Digg or Reddit, I'd be surprised to learn that anybody still supports Clinton.  And if I spent all my time at Slashdot, I'd think the electorate was evenly split between Obama and Ron Paul.  That's the problem of the vocal minority and self-selected peer groups.

The exit polling shows the number of Clinton supporters who might defect to be significant but not overwhelming.  And once the heat of the primary season cools off a bit and we've had time to heal, those numbers will naturally go down.

Obviously, the future predictions are just my opinion. :P


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you see (none / 0)

Hey I want some of what this guy is on.


by RockRooky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:06:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you see (none / 0)

Who me? It's 100% pure grade-A , my friend. I'll put you in touch with my dealer. :)
Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you see (none / 0)

Recent polls show 29% of the Democratic Party wants Hillary to start a 3rd party.  I'm all on board for that.


by RockRooky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:50:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you see (none / 0)

Recent polls pulled straight out of your ass, or what?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:28:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

America needs Clinton supporters to (none / 0)

vote straight Democratic.  And the rest of the planet, for that matter.


by bobdoleisevil on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters say (2.00 / 1)

If a Clinton supporter says that there is no way they will support Obama as the nominee (or worse, vote McCain), then no, we don't need them. Why would we even try if there minds are made up?
by neonplaque on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm just saying (2.00 / 1)

that the discourse has consequences.

15% of the democratic primary voters, tops.


by Coldblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:44:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm just saying (2.00 / 1)

If they are DEAD SET on not supporting the "inadequate black male" nominee, then what do we need them for?

You think we're going to throw Obama in the ditch now and hand the nomination to Hillary?  

He's our presumptive nominee 24 hours from now.


by neonplaque on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It isn't about (none / 0)

'inadequate black male'. Never was.

Please stop bringing race into the contest.


by Coldblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Obama personally apologized to Clinton over the phone re: Pfleger.  And please, I would never want to meet some of the slimeballs here in real life.  After Rezko, Wright, comments attributed to Michelle Obama, Ayers, using Obama's grandmother against him, fingergate, etc. it's a little late in the day to be petitioning for sainthood.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:36:53 PM EST

trust me (2.00 / 2)

...the feeling is mutual.


by Coldblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: trust me (2.00 / 3)

Good.  Let's break out the foam bats and finish it, then get ready to beat McCain.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I like that response n/t (2.00 / 2)


by Coldblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 3)

I saw that, and I respect him a little more for that personal apology.

Hillary Clinton is no saint, she is a politician. But a lot of voters have invested in her candidacy and her message, she is a symbol of those voters. Those voters take Obama's attacks on her as personally as Obama's supporters take attacks on him.


by souvarine on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Well...I was not expecting that response.  I misjudged you, and so I owe some mojo.


by rfahey22 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:50:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Fair enough. Both sides need to come together.

If this diary was a venting diary then I'm fine with it. I'd be pissed off too if the roles were reversed.

I fully expect a lot of venting diaries in the next few days.


by elrod on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thank you for saying that. (none / 0)

I was at the RBC meeting, and I talked to an Obama staffer that the campaign had to do more in addressing the needs of the female supporters supporting Hillary. He said the campaign would be doing that within the days to come.


by slinkerwink on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: thank you for saying that. (none / 0)

The crimes committed have been too horrendous to remedy in a decade of effort.


by RockRooky on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

Everyone but the most deluded Obama supporters knew that the DNC's Rules and Bylaws committee would reverse itself and give Florida and Michigan meaningful representation at the convention, that was clear from the day of their decision last year. The only question was what compromise they would negotiate. In the end the Obama campaign wrung enough delegates from the committee to put the nomination out of Clinton's reach, but only by taking Clinton's Michigan delegates. In doing so Obama and the RBC abandoned any notion of rules and gave a final insult to Clinton, her supporters and democracy.

First off...

The DNC exactly adopted the proposals of both states, with the exception of adding a 50% penalty to the Michigan delegates.  So don't try to pin their decision on Obama.  Obama didn't even have anything to do with the process.  In fact, they could have cut the number of delegates in half rather than giving them half-votes, which would have benefited Obama more, but they went with the solution that favored Clinton.

Second...

"wrung enough delegates ... to put the nomination out of Clinton's reach, but only by taking Clinton's Michigan delegates"?  What??

You do realize that it was a net difference of eight delegates, right?  Each of which has a half-vote, so it's in fact a net difference of four delegates?  And you do realize that Senator Clinton is about two hundred delegates behind, right?


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:41:39 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

I'm just repeating what Donna Brazile said, Obama had the votes to get whatever he wanted. This is what he wanted.


by souvarine on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:48:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

He had the votes to get a 50/50 Michigan split, but in the interests of party unity he chose to have his supporters back the Michigan Democratic Party's plan.  And in the end, that's what happened--the DNC backed the states' proposed solution in both cases except for adding a 50% penalty to MI.

Incidentally, the story today is that both Clinton and Obama have indicated to Michigan and Florida that they'll be seated with full votes.  That will make the MI situation exactly what the MDP asked for, and the FL situation even better than their proposal.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

Souvarine.  Do all of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune have to be someone's fault?  I don't see how the Florida and Michigan debacles are part of some vast left-wing conspiracy with Obama as the puppeteer.  Doesn't that seem a bit far-fetched to you?  Or does there need to be an external reason to explain Hillary's failure in any case?

How 'bout her AUMF vote creating an opening for Obama to come at her from the left and build a base of donors and activists among progressives?  How 'bout her running a top-down quasi-incumbent campaign in a year of change?  How 'bout miscalculating the significance of caucuses and proportional representation?  She fought a good campaign, better lately since she actually took the reins herself, it seems.  But she has caused a fair degree of collateral damage as well.  How is Senator Obama the culprit again?


by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:54:11 PM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

If we are playing the blame game, I would put 95% of Hillary's failure at the feet of Mark Penn.  That guy is an ass.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 11:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 1)

No argument there.  Not only is he an assclown, he's incompetent and overpriced to boot.  Hopefully the failure of the campaign he himself was running will put the final nail in his political coffin, and the entire "50% + 1 vote" philosophy that he embodies.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:01:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Well, that's been suggested.  I wouldn't know, frankly, but there were some pretty solid aspects to her campaign as well.  I'm not trying to blame Hillary or her campaign, either.  It was a historic and unprecedented primary which has raised the bar for any which follow, but there is only one winner.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Hillary is responsible for her own campaign, ultimately she is responsible for her likely loss. Obama is responsible for his campaign, including how he choses to win.

Obama has to repair the damage to the party that he has caused or is perceived to have caused if he wants to win the election. Whether the 'culprit' is Obama, the media, or some low-level staffer doesn't matter, Obama is responsible for repairing it and winning the election.


by souvarine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Well, I can agree with that.  When do we start?


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:09:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (2.00 / 2)

I'll start. I apologize for personally attacking you the other day. I was out of line.


by souvarine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:16:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Mojo for class. Lord knows I'm abrasive in my comments sometimes.
Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

No worries, Souvarine, apology unnecessary.  You have quite a large reserve of good-will with me from the excellent discussions on policy and the practical aspects of the campaign over the many months we have been blogging away here.  I'm glad to be in a party with such well informed and intelligent members.  I'm hoping that nine-tenths of your policy objectives will be achieved by an Obama presidency just as I would have been confident had positions been reversed.  I regret some of the inflammatory things I've gotten wound up over myself over time but I guess passion is part of the process.

We have a historic election to win and if we can we just might establish a long period of Democratic strength in national politics, not just an Obama presidency for a term or two.  Our voter turn-out and fund-raising are exceptional and due to both candidates competent campaigns, not to mention John Edwards, whom I would like to see more of in the near future.

I can easily see Hillary as the point-person for a total overhaul of our health care, forever erasing any lingering controversy over how things went in 1993 and taking advantage of a strong majority in Congress, assuming we can achieve that.  The Lioness of the Senate.  We could sure use her in coming years.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sadly, it really was over in February (none / 0)

What's sad for Hillary supporters is that if she had run the race she did from March onward from the beginning she may have won the nomination. Mark Penn must go down in history as the worst political adviser in recent history. Add him to Bob Shrum, Chris Lehane, Dick Morris and every other loser adviser to the Democratic Party in recent years.

Hillary lost this nomination for two major reasons, both of which doomed her by Super Tuesday.

1) She didn't organize for the "little states," including - but not limited to - the caucus states. Obama blew open his advantage in those contests.

2) She didn't campaign like she had a real competitor until it was too late.  Much of this is because Mark Penn prevented Hillary from being Hillary. NH was the first time she was allowed to show her personality.

Even with everything that has happened in the intervening months - Hillary finding her groove in OH, PA, WV and KY, Obama getting hit with Wright, 3AM, Bittergate - the fundamentals at the heart of the race never changed. May 6 proved that none of the Wright crap really hurt Obama that much among voters previously neutral or supportive of him. It gave cover to anti-Obama voters, but it didn't convert many votes.

And yet Hillary fought on and on. I admire her tenacity. But she lost it early on.


by elrod on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:06:08 AM EST

Re: Sadly, it really was over in February (none / 0)

I agree with your two points here. Obama changed the game with his caucus strategy and Clinton was too complacent early on.

Some of your other points I'm not sold on.


by souvarine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

In the end the Obama campaign wrung enough delegates from the committee to put the nomination out of Clinton's reach, but only by taking Clinton's Michigan delegates.

Only by taking Clinton's delegates?

I respect your passion for your candidate, but this statement bothers me.

Obama's path to victory doesn't require taking Clinton's delegates away from her.

They both started with zero delegates in Michigan. The committee gave them each delegates based on a variety of factors. You can take issue with the 4 delegates that were awarded to Obama-- which I agree was strange -- but if those 4 delegates had gone the other way, she'd still be way, way, behind.

It's simply not accurate to say that Obama's nomination hinges on taking delegates away from Clinton.


by jdusek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:07:11 AM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

I don't agree with the majority of the points made in the diary, but we've had a lot of good discussion in the comments so I'm gonna give this diary a rec.
Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:05 AM EST

I am baffled as to why (2.00 / 1)

The Clinton camp didn't offer 73 to Clinton and 55 to Obama. I'd agree with you more if he turned down a 73/55 split.

But 73/0, with 55 to Uncommitted? That's not really a compromise offer. I mean, they could have offered him some.

Look, I'm no blind follower, and I too wanted him to compromise in Clinton's favor. But there were only three proposals on the table. He took the least aggressive offer that wasn't total capitulation. I can't fault him for that.


by Neef on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:43:01 AM EST

Re: Kick her while she's down (none / 0)

Freaking out about the RBC is ridiculous.  Clinton had more supporters on the committee.  In the end, one of her top supporters, Don Fowler, voted for each of the solutions, solutions that the state parties of Michigan and Florida both accepted.

The primaries were flawed, the committee realized that and did the best they could to fix the situation.

In the end, the State parties got their proposed solutions (at half strength) and will have all of their delegates seated in Denver.  Maybe next time around, they'll abide by the rules from the beginning.


by WellstoneDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:39 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.